The Dark Universe - Where's The Light?

Scientist it would seem ,can get stuck in their own dogmatic laws .Much like the old west , they have to sit down and discuss with others who are wanting to improve on a better understanding without having guns drawn .With new discoveries of the peer review process being hijacked and corrupted by academics one can only assume it's not a first .

We see the debates being controlled and anything new that could challenge the status quo ,ridiculed or ignored . The EU theory has legitimate points and should be considered ,without the status quo having to invent black holes ,big bangs , or parallel universes . The EU has some basic hypothesis that could answer or lead to answers to some of the questions that the standard models are stumped about .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Scientist it would seem ,can get stuck in their own dogmatic laws .Much like the old west , they have to sit down and discuss with others who are wanting to improve on a better understanding without having guns drawn .With new discoveries of the peer review process being hijacked and corrupted by academics one can only assume it's not a first .

We see the debates being controlled and anything new that could challenge the status quo ,ridiculed or ignored . The EU theory has legitimate points and should be considered ,without the status quo having to invent black holes ,big bangs , or parallel universes . The EU has some basic hypothesis that could answer or lead to answers to some of the questions that the standard models are stumped about .

As said by someone who i am probably right in saying has never been to a single scientific conference or actually spoken to a real scientist

a reply to: ErosA433

could you please define real scientist

You are correct that I have never been to a conference and never had a discussion with anyone that has,other then a small amount of interaction on the web . I do how ever ,listen to some of the discussions by those people .Like I said in my post "it would seem" ....Other then finding a link to news pieces and papers created by people that study their fields ,I really have nothing to offer other them my own opinion .Now the guy speaking in the vid ,I would assume he has credentials or has a good idea of what he was talking about . That is why I thought I would share .Could be he is right but he may be wrong .others can decide if they wish to ....peace a reply to: ErosA433

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Could be that he is right, but what you need to understand is that the apparent 'ridicule and shouting down' is more of a like for like response. What you see typically is people just saying "They are wrong, this is what happens" which rubs people the wrong way because if you look at observational data, what they say is wrong, is so vast in observational evidence and already discounts their theories as credible.

When then questioned about various points, they then go on to say "Oh you dont know" or "Oh you don't understand" or then go on to quote similarly as you did being saying "You are closed minded and obsessed with your own theories" when the truth is, the opponents to the mainstream are far more 'religiously zealous' about their own theories than then mainstream.

I am a scientist, it is my profession. My field though is as a detector technologist and i am working with a direct dark matter search. My expertise is not theory, but being in this field I have the background in a wide range of possible theories and reasons, as well as the evidence and documentation of it. It is not as unknown and without evidence as people wish you to believe.

a reply to: KrzYma

I was being facetious,

though the definition of a real scientist was really to reflect what is being accused. So when the2ofusr1 says about what is the attitude of the mainstream, it struck me as not being honest, as that much of what was being said was an assumption of someone who had not actually spoken to anyone of the mainstream.

Turns out I was correct.

But in the2ofusr1's defence he/she said that they had listened to or read general responses to opposition theories and that was the impression left with.

This said I still say that the impression was mostly given to him/her by those people who are the opposition to the mainstream, kind of like a call of an underdog... 'support me, everyone is against me, and i have some secret knowledge they want me to be quiet about... join me and be smart to' sort of mantra.

The said gentleman in the video probably has some credentials, however it would appear that the theories presented just do not work with what is compared to observation. Yes there are holes in mainstream theories and observation, but mainstream scientists are not ignorant of those, and to suggest that we do ignore swathes of physics to prop up our theories is to be ignorant of the reality.

It is like when someone here said 'The problem with dark matter and the way scientists look at galaxies, is that they assume all motion of stars is circular around the centre, but i know that it is not, the sun's orbit isn't a circle...this is where the dark matter is" To say that is to be completely ignorant of the fact that scientists know the orbits are elliptical and include it in their models already. but to the unknowing, someone reading the above statement would say "HA yes! dumb mainstream"

Somewhat similar is other things, such as free energy projects that have people as 'lead engineer' or 'lead scientist' when in general their experience is not at all in engineering or science beyond maybe... opening a radio once when they where 12 to see inside. It is fine to give themselves those labels, but it doesn't make them right or give them any credit.... for example.

That is mostly what my comment was about... the opinions of a real scientist/mainstream scientist once you get past the gesturing, is far more open than you expect... nearly all good scientists will start or finish a statement with "we dont know" because we don't

a reply to: ErosA433

All good then,
I was just thinking you mean, real scientist is someone who talks on conferences otherwise he/she is not

I can appreciate your work and contributions to the search for understanding within science .I guess even in your field you may have to work within a flawed theory ,and collect data to support that theory .Well at least be able to defend the data you collect with the tools you are working with . In the vid I posted he makes some statements claiming that the standard model of the sun does not support the observations that can be measured . The EU has long looked at the present models as not explaining all of the observations we see . Considering dark matter which I know nothing about ,I might think that like big bang's and black holes there may be more then one type to consider while never having proven one to be true . So when someone says the big bang , we have to consider which one are we talking about . Theory is only that ,a theory that might explain what we observe . I like the simple theory of the EU and think it has a better chance of explaining our cosmos . a reply to: ErosA433

Well if all scientist could be as genuine as you then we might not be seeing what we have been in the field .Consider peer review as one aspect of science and then consider some of what has been discovered recently . I know it's not good to use a broad brush to describe the way science should be conducted but there is a mixing of truth and false .

When you hear claims of settled science within the Climate debate coming from the tops of the tower and finding basic omissions and mis use of data to make what becomes more political then scientific statement's ,a person has to wonder .Is it the trough they are feeding from through grants that is causing them to work the magic of science to make it say what they have to in order to put food on the table ? I don't know . One conference I am following at the present or going through the different speaker is www.ustream.tv... These are competent scientist that don't agree with what is coming out of mainstream and they back it up with data and observations .

So what are we common folk to believe ? Should we stand behind main stream that just wants to look at it from one perspective while having to deal with controversy and pay no attention to alternative views by others who are not allowed to have some of that feed at the trough and who are either marginalized or ridiculed or just ignored ?

Oh that link is on the Climate debate and I would suggest that at the 30 min. mark one Dr. Roy Spencer is giving his presentation . Well worth the watch ..
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Not what I meant. Where are the laboratory experiments proving the electric comet theory?

So far every time you try to interpret experimental data you fail miserably, like here. Then when I prove you are wrong you refuse to admit it. So I will no longer waste my time doing so.

Here's an hour and a half long summary of all the evidence we have on the electric nature of comets. There's so much evidence that I couldn't possibly cram it all into a forum post to respond to you on this.



-Problems with standard model photodissociation rates
-Electrical production of OH radicals from silica
-Problems with standard model overabundance of H compared to OH
-Observations of high energy xray discharge
-Lack of observable water in the impact test of Tempel1
-Lack of observable water ice on numerous comets.
-Double flash prior to impact from an electrical discharge to the probe.
-Surface excavation in areas where there are no observed "vents."
-Changing discharge profile after impact test.
-Disconnection of comet tails from their nucleus.
-Creation of CMEs on the Sun when a comet gets to close.

Should I keep going?

How much evidence do you need?

The electrical effects, such as OH production from silica, have been verified in lab tests.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Not what I meant. Where are the laboratory experiments proving the electric comet theory?

So far every time you try to interpret experimental data you fail miserably, like here. Then when I prove you are wrong you refuse to admit it. So I will no longer waste my time doing so.

Here's an hour and a half long summary of all the evidence we have on the electric nature of comets. There's so much evidence that I couldn't possibly cram it all into a forum post to respond to you on this.

No, you demanded LABORATORY experiments yielding evidence. Hilarious you only expect that from one side. Not surprising though. All the "evidence" you claim has been picked apart so thoroughly there's nothing left.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This thread is about the CIV effect. A laboratory proven effect that can account for the ionized hydrogen we observe in space.

You come in here trying to derail this thread by diverting attention away from this, waving your hands around screaming about electric comets.

But because I'm a nice guy, I'll humor you:

www.thunderbolts.info...

Deep Impact saw absolutely no evidence for any ice on the surface of comet Tempel 1. At 56 °C (133 °F) on the sunlit side it was too hot for ices. However, it was reported that there's plenty of ice visible in Tempel 1's coma.

On viewing comet comas spectroscopically and observing the hydroxyl radical (OH), astronomers simply assume it to be a residue of water ice (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption requires a reaction rate due to solar UV radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally.

A report in Nature more than 25 years ago cast doubt on this mechanism. As Comet Tago-Sato-Kosaka moved away from the Sun, OH production fell twice as fast as that of H, and the ratio of OH:H production was lower than expected if H2O was dominant. The report concludes, “cometary scientists need to consider more carefully whether H2O-ice really does constitute a major fraction of comet nuclei.”

The mystery of ‘missing water’ is resolved electrically in the transaction between a negatively charged comet and the Sun. In this model, electrical discharges strip negative oxygen ions from rocky minerals on the nucleus and accelerate the particles away from the comet in energetic jets. The negative ions then combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical, neutral H2O and H2O+.

Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius note, “The assumption of ices as important bonding materials in cometary nuclei rests in almost all cases on indirect evidence, specifically the observation of atomic hydrogen and hydroxyl radical in a vast cloud surrounding the comet, in some cases accompanied by observation of H20+ or neutral water molecules.” *

The abundance of silicates on comet nuclei, confirmed by infrared spectrometry, led the authors to cite experiments by Arrhenius and Andersen. By irradiating the common mineral, calcium aluminosilicate (anorthite), with protons in the 10 kilovolt range, the experiments “resulted in a substantial (~10 percent) yield of hydroxyl ion and also hydroxyl ion complexes [such as CaOH.]”

A good reason for the experiments was already in hand. Observations on the lunar surface reported by Hapke et al., and independently by Epstein and Taylor had “already demonstrated that such proton-assisted abstraction of oxygen (preferentially 016) from silicates is an active process in space, resulting in a flux of OH and related species.”

The authors note in addition that this removal of oxygen from particles of dust in the cometary coma could be much more efficient than on a solid surface with limited exposure to available protons: “The production of hydroxyl radicals and ions would in this case not be rate-limited by surface saturation to the same extent as on the Moon.”

The authors conclude: “These observations, although not negating the possible occurrence of water ice in cometary nuclei, point also to refractory sources of the actually observed hydrogen and hydroxyl.” Additionally, they note, solar protons as well as the products of their reaction with silicate oxygen would interact with any solid carbon and nitrogen compounds characteristic of carbonaceous chondrites to yield the volatile carbon and nitrogen radicals observed in comet comas.

*H Alfvén and Gustav Arrhenius, Evolution of the Solar System, NASA SP-345, 1976, p. 235.

Here's an archived version of the full text of "Evolution of the Solar System" where the lab data is cited:

archive.org...

And don't forget, the guy who wrote that paper won the Nobel prize for physics.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Deep impact found Ice. You are doing a marvelous job at twisting the findings to support your beliefs. All of the predictions about deep impact that would truly prove the EU comet theory did not happen. As I said, you will trudge along. EU theorists have done zero experiments to confirm their beliefs and disprove the accepted theories. Let me know when they send up a probe that detects the intense electrical discharge they predicted, and did not occur.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ok, how about some NASA scientists:

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

"It's pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher," said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven't materialized, at least not yet."

Astronomer Charlie Qi (CfA) expressed surprise at these results. He explained that short-period comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much deeper.

"Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised," Qi said.

www.newscientist.com...

Water ice is present on the surface of Comet Tempel 1, suggest observations from NASA's Deep Impact mission. This is the first direct detection of exposed water ice on a comet.

But the mission's science team says the water ice is present in surprisingly small amounts, covering less than 1% of Comet Tempel 1's surface. The finding suggests the comet's surrounding cloud of gas and dust may largely be fed by underlying ices, rather than by gas streaming off its surface.

I wouldn't call that "finding ice."

Note the first report contradicts the assumption in the second article that the coma is fed by underlying ices.

Now it's your turn.

I just showed you lab evidence of solid rock (anorthite) being capable of producing OH when bombarded with protons. Now you show me lab evidence of photolysis occurring in the lab at the rates assumed by comet models.

Sweet.

My article on this just made the front page of Infowars.

www.infowars.com...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

That is way cool!

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Could the extra light be coming from the fact that the equipment that is detecting it is moving very fast, thus registering a higher amount of energy as it collides into the light it is detecting, or is this factored in?

Also because everything is rotating, including the galaxy itself, therefore its 3d gravity well is rotating, which is how the galaxy stays intact, this could help trap more light locally then maybe expected if this is not considered.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

Too dark?...

The universe is a pretty dark place – but according to astrophysicists it is much too dark.
Scientists have been left scratching their heads after noticing there is a huge deficit of light.

And too light?...

“It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly-lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt light bulbs,” noted Carnegie’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of the study. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.”

The external quotes from the OP seem contradictory to me. Can you explain?