Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby kiwi » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:00 pm

BeAChooser

Didn't say or suggest it was.


Sure, which is why I said

its not your statement of course


The point was there is nothing regarding the Gravitational equations, nor any EM functions, that are needed to be known to determine an orbit.
kiwi
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:33 pm

I have chosen to move this ridiculous topic from the EU board to the NIAMI board, for several reasons.

*1. The Thunderbolts Forum is NOT in any way representative of published theory.

*2. The topic is irrelevant both to EU theory and to, well, anything really.

*3. It is obvious that Bob and friends wish to use the topic and replies in a weak attempt to denigrate EU theory. Little do they realise that the The Thunderbolts Project has, for many years, enjoyed liaison with many highly qualified scientists from many disciplines (yes, including physicists and astrophysicists). To try to use the forum as some sort of debunking ground is disingenuous at best, see *1 above. Bob and friends remind me very much of such pseudoskeptics as ScienceApologist (Josh Schroeder), Nereid, and many others.

I'd also like to mention just ONE aspect of current astrophysics which highlights the non-physics of same. Black holes. The event horizon of the black hole is a place where the "known laws of physics break down". In other words, they are non-science and yet such 'celebrities' as Steven Hawking and Brian Cox claim to explain them in the best way we the unwashed can understand, so resort to spaghettifying, etc. Classic lipstick on a pig. Or my favourite, cleaned up a bit for the forum, you can always insert a flower into an anus, but that won't make it a vase.

Dave Smith.
Thunderbolts Forum Administrator.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:43 pm

Don't listen to anything anyone says unless they have a degree [and agrees with what you already believe (the unspoken part)], is not a new insight, but it is a mad idea.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:12 pm

comingfrom wrote:Don't listen to anything anyone says unless they have a degree..


Does anyone have a degree in numerology?

I have some questions on general relativity.. ;-)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:15 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:I’m not stating the observer is in the same plane. You don’t need to be in the same plane for blueshift/redshift expansion effects.

You don't need to be in the same plane for redshift/blueshift rotation effects either. I was showing you the simplest possible case because it was easier to illustrate.
So are you retracting your lols? Your comment tried to infer I had made a ridiculous claim.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:This is what we see;
The attachment Galaxy Angle.jpg is no longer available

According to what you're suggesting, the data should always be aligned with our line of sight such that the front edge of any spiral galaxy (with top pointing upward and bottom pointing downward) will always be blueshifted, the back edge will always be redshifted, and there will always be a horizontal line of zero relative velocity through the middle.
To a certain extent yes but data is not perfect so no doubt there will be oddities (just as there are for your theory). However, the comment about top and bottom is meaningless. Galaxies could be at any angle. Left and right would result in the same data just offset 90 degrees.

Bob_Ham wrote: Any data showing the left (or right) edge redshifted and the right (or left) edge blueshifted with a vertical line of zero relative velocity through the middle would not be possible in your model (but is predicted by a rotation model).
What exactly do you mean by up/down left/right in space? If we viewed the same object from different hemispheres the data would be flipped. Does that somehow invalidate any given theory? Fundamentally I don’t understand what you are talking about. Of course a left/right galaxy is possible for expansion. If I lie down on my side when photographing galaxies is my data invalidated? What an absurd declaration to make.

Bob_Ham wrote: Here is some more data for you:

The attachment rotation_data.jpg is no longer available

Look at the third image from the left. This is a spiral galaxy. The velocity data (second row) matches a rotation model, not an expansion model.
No. It matches this;
Attachments
Galaxy Angle 2.jpg
Galaxy Angle 2.jpg (15.57 KiB) Viewed 327 times
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:31 am

Bob_Ham wrote:I only responded to Aardwolf's original claim because it was so ridiculous. Now I'm just curious what Aardwolf has to say, since his claims are completely out of touch with the evidence of reality.
Let me correct that for you.
What Bob_Ham is actually saying while trying to elevate the status of his theory wrote:I only responded to Aardwolf's original claim because it was so ridiculous. Now I'm just curious what Aardwolf has to say, since his claims are completely out of touch with the flimsy theory utilising my favourite interpretation of redshift/blueshift galaxy observations.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:41 am

Bob_Ham wrote:It's interesting how Aardwolf is just completely absent after his idea about galaxies not rotating was shown to be utter nonsense. Are we not going to hear anything else from you, Aardwolf, or are you just waiting until everyone has forgotten about your ridiculous and demonstrably incorrect claim so that you can participate again without shame?
What is demonstrably incorrect is the current prevailing theory of rotational galaxies. How many amendments and anomalies are required to even give it a semblance of authenticity?

Now, as my hypothesis has no need for any dark magic fixes, and you haven't been able to point out any errors in the redshift/blueshift observations, what other specific objections do you have apart from the fact it clearly upsets you emotionally?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:02 pm

I took physics for business majors in college. I got an "A" in it.

I'm not an EU follower though. I am just here because it is one of the few places actual dissent is allowed and not a part of the religious crowd, regardless if the dissenters do not have formalized advanced science educations on the whole.

Looking back at it, the fact that I did not receive a degree in physics has been my greatest strength. Avoiding institutionalization into a standard way of thinking would have obliterated my creativity and willingness to dissent.

Edit: TL;DR 4 years of physics is not an education, it is indoctrination
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:08 pm

I've come late to this thread. I'm glad to see the discussion by Aardwolf about the galaxies growing like Catherine Wheels. I remember he mentioned it years ago, and I wanted more.

- The concept has captured me.

Basically, I feel that the model needs to describe how galaxies start as quasars ejected by a parent galaxy, then grow to their final form. The latest Space News discussing the "Fermi Bubbles" is what had me post a comment.

Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric #4: Light Bulbs in Space | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW6ss_sQNvE

wiki - Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope

On the wiki page there is a brief comment with the nice picture and a video. I found the video on YouTube as well.
Fermi Bubbles.jpg

NASA | Fermi discovers giant gamma-ray bubbles in the Milky Way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXmPxSP225Y

For me, I need to have the model incorporate Growing Earth Theory(GET) as well. The ejected quasar grows, not just spreading out over time. The amount of matter(?) that exists once the galaxy comes to rest must be greater than when it started as a quasar.

But then of course, that's just me. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests