The Electric Universe Goes Dark

a reply to: GaryN

discussing the identification of the Higgs "Particle"

That 'discovery' has already been called into question.

Not really. What has been questioned is whether or not the data supports one hypothesis or another. The 'discovery' is rock solid.

The discovery has eliminated several competing hypotheses; two (at least) hypotheses remain:

1) the 'favorite': the data supports the prediction of the "Higgs Boson" hypothese.
2) the 'darkhorse': the same data supports the prediction of the "techni-Higgs" being something other than a boson.

In other words, one hypothesis predicts a particle called the "Higgs Boson" - and the new data supports that prediction. However, a competing hypothesis can explain exactly the same results as something other than a boson. The 'favorite' has a lot of other confirming predictions and results, I don't know enough to know what the 'darkhorse' has.

I'm sure others here can explain the different hypothesis much better than I.

More research is required to split the difference: is it the boson or the techni-Higgs? Keep watching.

Ain't science wonderful?

a reply to: rnaa

Note to self: remember to study before opening mouth.

Not really. What has been questioned is whether or not the data supports one hypothesis or another. The 'discovery' is rock solid.

I got that wrong. There is no alternative hypothesis left standing. The techni-higgs hypothesis is a will-o-the-wisp.

The Reference Frame: The recent techni-higgs fad

In recent days, at least 34 news outlets were selling the "story" that the particle discovered by the LHC is perhaps not the Higgs boson, scientists finally realized. It's the techni-higgs, and so on. So the Higgs boson remains undiscovered, and all this amazing stuff.

If you look what these deluded texts are building upon, you find out that it is a September 2013 (!) preprint

The Technicolor Higgs in the Light of LHC Data

by Belyaev, Brown, Foadi, and Frandsen (UK-Belgium-Denmark). And of course that the paper doesn't really claim that it's likely that the particle discovered in 2012 is not the Higgs boson. Moreover, after more than a year, the paper has 2 self-citations plus 7 other citations which surely makes it a below-average preprint among thousands of preprints posted on the arXiv every year.

So why this insane hysteria now? The closest thing to an answer that I can find is that the preprint was "just" published in Physical Review D. However, if you look at that PRD page, you will see that the word "just" is an extreme exaggeration because even in that journal, the paper was published in August 2014.

So there is one 2 year old paper, that no one has followed up on except the authors themselves, casting doubt on the Higgs Boson prediction confirmation.

So why this insane hysteria now? The closest thing to an answer that I can find is that the preprint was "just" published in Physical Review D. However, if you look at that PRD page, you will see that the word "just" is an extreme exaggeration because even in that journal, the paper was published in August 2014.

So a much more accurate explanation of the explosion of these reports is that the people calling themselves "science journalists" are a bunch of lazy, lousy, batšit crazy scumbags who spend 90+ percent of their lives by copying and "improving" the šit from their fellow lazy, lousy, batšit crazy scumbags so that they can serve these feces as a yummy dinner for their retarded readers.

Hoookay fella, why don't you tell us what you really think about science journalists?

In the recent month and even in 2014 or in recent 5 years, there has been absolutely no advance that would increase the probability that a technicolor explanation of the electroweak symmetry breaking is right. All the experimental results would increasingly strongly disfavor, and de facto eliminate, the whole technicolor research program.

The observed Higgs boson looks as close to the 125 GeV Standard Model Higgs boson as you can get. Pretty much every single property of the particle that has been measured individually strengthens the case for a Standard Model-like Higgs boson and disfavors technicolor-like alternatives. It's so close that even if there were "some" technicolor underneath, the particle would still deserve to be called the Higgs boson.

Higgs Boson it is then.

Recall that technicolor theories are contrived proposed man-made (therefore "techni-") theories with Lagrangians similar to that of Quantum Chromodynamics (dynamics of colors: therefore "-color") that governs the behavior of quarks. So technicolor theories predict lots of "technihadrons", analogous to pions and protons, but at a different scale, and the condensates of some of these composite particles is supposed to break the electroweak symmetry – which is normally achieved by the Higgs field.


Such models are highly problematic if you realize that only one Higgs-like particle has been measured and the other should be significantly less observable, for one reason or another. On the other hand, the "compositeness" technicolor-like theories inevitably predict many Higgs-like species just like there is a whole zoo of hadrons predicted by QCD. That's a rather universal, lethal problem, especially now when we clearly observe one animal and no zoo.

Also, the QCD-like scale of the technicolor has to be much higher than the QCD scale (and even higher than the electroweak scale or a TeV) because the new forces would have already produced some deviations in the Standard Model – the hypothetical new forces and particles must be very weak and therefore "generated" by a rather high energy scale. But if that's so, there is really no explanation for the lightness of the "techni-higgs" that is claimed to replace the Higgs boson. Its mass should be comparable to at least many TeVs, too.

(Note that string theory offers a loophole to avoid this conclusion that the "characteristic energy scale of the theory" has to agree with the "masses of the predicted particles".)

Yeah, yeah, Teaching grandma how to suck eggs. We all know that. 6th Grade Physics wasn't it?

But the media reports make it sound as if if the discovery of the Higgs boson has been reverted or at least seriously questioned, and that's also how the stupid yet loud aggressive laymen commenting on these stories interpret all the news. So these stories may do nothing else than to energize the subhuman trash that hates science and feels proud about it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
I've heard some breathtaking bollocks from EU supporters over the years, but I have to say this is the first time I've heard one of you actually deny the existence of gravity. Go to the top of the class!

One of the major EU players, Wal Thornhill, says gravity is actually electricity, but wait there's more. Despite all known measurements of electricity and electromagnetism showing it's limited to the speed of light, he claims that is false and it's not limited to the speed of light, and that the entire scientific community suffers from self-delusion if they accept the experiments which show absence of the aether, because, you know, everyone knows that waves can't travel through nothing. Seriously, the claims are so far in the deep end of the woo pool that the electric comet claims seem tame in comparison.

www.plasmacosmology.net...

Wal Thornhill on Gravity. From Holoscience.com

"...The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.

Notice the 1882 reference which of course wasn't a widely held view at the time, Thornhill also seems to ignore everything we've learned since then. GaryN is right about one thing, yes the boffins have tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism, but what he doesn't mention is the more important point that they've failed to do so in many experiments and observations since 1882.

"This simple electrical model of matter has the great virtue of reducing all known forces to a single one – the electric force. However, it has a price. We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. ...

"We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal electric force. ...

The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing. So Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium, the æther.

How do you like that? "If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing." The irony of the self delusion statement is rich since experiments show that we can't rely on what we call "common sense" to predict the outcome of an experiment, as much as we would like to do so. Relying on so called "common sense", rather than experimental evidence, can lead to self-delusion.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you, Arbitrageur. Nothing like a little light relief to relieve the darkness presently shrouding the Electric Universe.

a reply to: GaryN

The probe had an autonomous star tracker

Interesting piece of equipment there. Any chance you could briefly explain how it tracks stars in a manner consistent with the belief that basically, stars can't be seen in space?

I would have thought the methods used to get Rosetta to the comet would have been enough to silence the EU guys.

What with 4 different planetary assisted gravity boosts to enable it's comet matching velocity and all!

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

how it tracks stars in a manner consistent with the belief that basically, stars can't be seen in space?

Stars can be seen in space with the correct instruments, I have never claimed they can not. What I have said and still say is that your eyes or a device with simple optics can not see them. The star trackers still use classified technology, military stuff, and can see stars well, and the software in the autonomous versions, along with its star catalog, means it always knows where it is and can correct as required. Rosetta has other autonomous features too, as the time to transmit a control signal to it is too long for any kind of quick control from Earth, so they tell it what orbit they want it in, and it does the rest, quite the clever little beastie, but that is putting some of the old-school scientists noses out of joint, they are becoming obsolete.

a reply to: GaryN

The star trackers still use classified technology, military stuff,

What makes you say that? What's missing from this pdf? www.dlr.de...

Where does Gravity Come From?

To be honest, we're not entirely sure.

But, we do know for sure that it is distinct from electromagnetism!

originally posted by: DexterRiley

Now once the probe got close to, and actually contacted the surface of the comet, electromagnetic forces became more of a factor. At that point, it is possible that the EM forces overcame gravitational forces and may have been instrumental in causing some of the anomalous behavior experienced by Philae at touchdown.

EM forces, as in normal intermolecular forces accepted by science which make it difficult for solid objects to go through one another? (usually called mechanical impact)

You betcha! There's a whole bunch of anomalous behavior when one's cranium impacts Mike Tyson's fist and it's all electromagnetic.

EM forces as in macroscopic charge differences as proposed by the crackpots of Electric Universe theory? Surely not. Force law for electromagnetism is (ignoring GR) the same as gravitation so scaling with distance is the same.

originally posted by: GaryN
What I have said and still say is that your eyes or a device with simple optics can not see them.

actually your naked eyes can see stars in space.. what needs to happen though is to be on the dark side or "night side" of a large body and give your eyes 10-20mins to adjust, you will then see stars with the naked eye.

More pathos to be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: choos

I believe that's because, without atmospheric distortion, the stars are just intense pinpoints of light due to their distance. IE the brightest stars would not necessarily appear to be larger when viewed through the vacuum of space.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What makes you say that? What's missing from this pdf?

What's missing is the details of the critical optics, as they are the same as used with the ICBMs. As close as I can determine, they use a combination prism, spiral grating, and phase plate, and some very expensive material for the lenses. I am told that over 90% of this very expensive 'glass' is rejected.
Then there is the software that reconstructs the actual data from the instrument to actually make any sense of it, which is certainly classified.

@choos

actually your naked eyes can see stars in space..

That's not what Chris Hadfield says, or Niel Armstrong:

Hadfield:

..you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions. It's like a huge yawning endlessness on your left side and you're in between those two things and trying to rationalize it to yourself and trying to get some work done.

Neil Armstrong: “The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might ...er ...be visible."

And you are going to tell Hadfield he needs to wait for his eyes to adapt? Well, they are in total dark for 90 minutes at a time when on an EVA, but of the 200+ who have been EVA, how many talk about the view of the stars or planets? Gave lectures, wrote a book describing the Milky Way? Oh yeah, I forgot, they were all too busy to take a look. Right....

originally posted by: GaryN

And you are going to tell Hadfield he needs to wait for his eyes to adapt? Well, they are in total dark for 90 minutes at a time when on an EVA, but of the 200+ who have been EVA, how many talk about the view of the stars or planets? Gave lectures, wrote a book describing the Milky Way? Oh yeah, I forgot, they were all too busy to take a look. Right....

first they are not in total darkness for 90mins at a time.. it takes 90mins to do a full revolution of the Earth, a full revolution means they will be on the sunlit side of the globe for part of that 90mins..

but to answer your question, ill let an astronaut describing his experience aboard the ISS to answer that for you:

I like to go down into the docking compartment and turn out all the lights and watch the nighttime sky through the two portholes there. Just like at home, if you are indoors looking out through the window when all the lights are on inside, it is very hard to see the stars. Your eyes are adjusted to the bright interior, and besides all you can usually see is glare off the window. After turning off the lights, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark, and slowly the stars get more and more distinct. These past couple of weeks the moon has been close to a new moon, so without the light from the moon, the stars seem even brighter.
- Science Officer and Flight Engineer Ed Lu

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: choos

I believe that's because, without atmospheric distortion, the stars are just intense pinpoints of light due to their distance. IE the brightest stars would not necessarily appear to be larger when viewed through the vacuum of space.

its mostly to do with your surroundings and the general brightness of it. the atmosphere just makes the sky appear blue, but even without an atmosphere we would struggle to see any stars at all on earth during the day due to the brightness of your surroundings.
stars are dim and it doesnt take much nearby lightsources to drown them out.

a reply to: Astyanax

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been involved in other projects for the last few days.

Thank you for your respectful reply to my previous post. The questions you posed allowed me to discover the flaws in my own theory. On the other hand, the later mocking of my attempt to inject some basic science into the EU discussion was disheartening.

First let me say that I was wrong about Philae not being affected by the gravitation force inverse square law with respect to Rosetta. My original hypothesis was based on a faulty assumption.

But, I was only off by 5 orders of magnitude. [/joke]

So, for now, I will withdraw the Bouncy Castle theory until I have had a chance to rethink it.

However, I have attempted to answer the other questions you posed with respect to my other statements.

Has it been reliably established that the 'singing' is of magnetic origin, or is that just a hypothesis?

To my knowledge, it's not currently known with any certainty the origin of the changes in the magnetic field. However Rosetta has an experiment called the Rosetta’s Plasma Consortium (RPC).
The RPC experiment on Rosetta is described as follows by the ESA Press Release:

(RPC consists of five instruments on the Rosetta orbiter that provide a wide variety of complementary information about the plasma environment surrounding Comet 67P/C-G

The RPC-Mag experiment detected changes in the comet environment’s magnetic field of an oscillatory nature in the 40-50 millihertz range. They frequency shifted the oscillations to make them audible. Thus the “Singing Comet” meme for the masses.
The fact that a magnetometer sensed the phenomena is indicative of a magnetic field associated with 67P/CG, or at least some type of cometary activity that is responsible for a varying magnetic field.

The press release goes on to say:

The instruments are designed to study a number of phenomena, including: the interaction of 67P/C-G with the solar wind, a continuous stream of plasma emitted by the Sun; changes of activity on the comet; the structure and dynamics of the comet’s tenuous plasma ‘atmosphere’, known as the coma; and the physical properties of the cometary nucleus and surface

This demonstrates to me that the ESA *is* interested in acquiring new information about the comet's interactions with the solar wind, or the active plasma environment in our solar system. I look forward to the results of those experiments. It's clear that they are already making discoveries of unexpected phenomena. Whether these oscillations are the product of solar wind interaction or of a giant space alien walking around in the comet's interior kicking the walls remains to be seen.

"It's highly likely that Philae had either an excess of electrons or protons"
Why is that?

Satellites become charged due to a variety of space conditions. There are a number of sources for these electron and ion currents. The following excerpt is from a paper posted on the Electrical Engineering website of Arizona State Universary:

These currents are from solar photon-induced photoelectrons leaving the surface, plasma electrons and ions impinging on the surface, and charged particles emitted from the vehicle (e.g., from active ion emission). A balance equation for current density can be written as:
Jelec + Jion + Jpe + Jsec + Jback + Jart = 0
where the currents Jelec and Jion are from external plasma electrons and ions, respectively, Jpe is the net photoelectron current, Jsec is the net current due to secondary electrons (few eV) generated by energetic primaries (electrons and ions) at the satellite surface, Jback is the backscattered electron current from electrons reflected back from the surface with some energy loss, and Jart is a possible artificial current.

Rosetta, and Philae by default, has been immersed in a soup of plasma, varying magnetic fields, and photons of all wavelengths. Once the orbiter arrived at 67P/C-G its environment changed again. Its proximity to the comet and the periodic eclipsing of the orbiter by the comet itself are two new conditions that significantly alter the terms of the surface charging equation.

"When I drop a ball on the floor and it bounces, of what kind is the 'repulsion force'? Is the force that makes the lander bounce different from the agency that makes the ball bounce ?"

Though I have withdrawn my “Bouncy Castle” hypothesis, my thought was that the rebound effect was the result of the deformation or compression of the electromagnetic and/or electric fields of the comet and Philae.
It is interesting that the hops that Philae took on Rosetta’s surface are somewhat reminiscent of a bouncing ball. According to the ESA briefing a few days ago, based on my recollection, Philae descended at a rate of approximately 1 meter per second. It rebounded at 37 cm per second, and remained “airborne” for an hour, reaching an altitude of 1 km. It then rebounded for a short time at a velocity of a few cm per second before finally coming to rest.

"You mean there would have been arc discharges between the lander and the comet? Wouldn't they have fried Philae's sensitive instruments? If so, how come there was telemetry and activity on the lander, everything except the anchoring bolts working fine, until the battery died?"

The charge exchange that I discussed in my previous post was time dependent. Because Philae descended at a slow rate, there was sufficient time for it to come to a relatively consistent potential charge with Rosetta. The plasma environment provided the charge carriers necessary for the charge exchange. If there was any electrostatic discharge that occurred at touchdown, it was likely small and well within the tolerances of Philae’s electronics.

A similar terrestrial effect is the static electricity one experiences during the winter. Because the winter air is dry, there is a dearth of charge carriers. These charge carriers would ordinarily be provided by the water molecules in humid air, such as one experiences in the summer. The buildup of disassociated electrons, and ions, on different surfaces does not occur when these charge carriers are available.

It is interesting to note that I recall reading that EU theorists were not expecting a large discharge between Philae and Rosetta specifically because of the slow descent of the lander. However, in the case of the Deep Impact mission to Temple 1, there was insufficient time for the impactor to come to charge parity with the comet. So, there appeared to be an electrostatic discharge event when the impactor contacted the comet.

In Summary:
There it is. Tear it up if you want to. If you find some of my answers incomplete or incorrect, please feel free to correct them. However, I have invested all the thought into this project that I can for now. I have withdrawn my "Bouncy Castle" hypothesis. So, I won't be defending that position anymore.


dex

a reply to: mbkennel

I understand. I have withdrawn my "Bouncy Castle" hypothesis for now because of a serious miscalculation of the gravitational influences of Rosetta. Now if Philae were landing on Earth from 17km, then the gravitational difference between release altitude and touchdown would be quite small. See where I made my mistake?

You betcha! There's a whole bunch of anomalous behavior when one's cranium impacts Mike Tyson's fist and it's all electromagnetic.

Isn't an Inelastic collision of the cranium with a solid object a prerequisite to understanding quantum physics?



dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

On the other hand, the later mocking of my attempt to inject some basic science into the EU discussion was disheartening.

What later mocking would that be? I addressed just one post to you and there was no mockery in it at all. Certainly none was intended. If you like, quote the part you regard as mocking and I'll explain to you just what I meant.

The RPC-Mag experiment detected changes in the comet environment’s magnetic field of an oscillatory nature in the 40-50 millihertz range.

Right. The signal, then, is an electromagnetic oscillation. The audio signal released by ESA is a transduced acoustic version.

Now that we've established that the oscillation is magnetic, let's consider what a 40-50mHz signal means.

You are probably aware that the energy of a wave is given by the Planck-Einstein equation, E = hn, where E is the energy, n is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. So energy is directly dependent on frequency; the higher the frequency, the greater the energy. Visible light, which is also electromagnetic oscillation, has a frequency of 430–790 THz (a hertz, Hz, is a cycle per second. A terahertz, THz, is a million million hertz). Despite this very high frequency, the energy of light is quite low.

Radio waves, which are elecromagnetic waves with much less energy than light waves, have much lower frequencies. Longwave AM radio, the lowest commercially used frequency, comes down to about 30kHz (30 kilohertz, or thirty thousand cycles per second). The ultra-low-frequency waves used in submarine communication, the lowest frequency used by humans, can drop down to 3Hz.

The oscillations from 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko are being emitted at 0.004 to 0.005 cycles per second. Their energy is so low that Rosetta had to get within 100km of the comet even to detect them.

If this is a manifestation of the electric universe, then the electric universe must be a dim bulb indeed. Certainly, it could not muster enough energy to make any difference — any difference at all — to the orbital dynamics of either the comet or the lander. It couldn't muster enough energy to make any difference to the orbital dynamics of a dandruff flake.

This demonstrates to me that the ESA *is* interested in acquiring new information about the comet's interactions with the solar wind, or the active plasma environment in our solar system.

Never said it wasn't, but the effects being examined are many orders of magnitude below those predicted by EU pundits. They are, in fact, well in line with what standard science would lead us to expect.

Rosetta, and Philae by default, has been immersed in a soup of plasma, varying magnetic fields, and photons of all wavelengths.

That would be the solar wind (which grows increasingly tenuous the farther you travel from the Sun) and the nearly-as-tenuous atmosphere created round 67P/C-G by outgassing. This 'soup' of which you speak is very thin gruel. Indeed, it is barely there at all. The sources you yourself have quoted make this quite clear.

It is interesting that the hops that Philae took on Rosetta’s surface are somewhat reminiscent of a bouncing ball.

No, it is profoundly uninteresting, because at that point, a bouncing ball — or at any rate a bouncing box with legs — is just what Philae was.

I'm sorry, but I have to stop now. Taking this kind of thing seriously is a bit of an effort for me.

a reply to: Astyanax

What later mocking would that be? I addressed just one post to you and there was no mockery in it at all.

I agree that you addressed just the one post. My comment was related to the tone set by later posts by yourself and others concerning basic high school physics. Since, to the best of my knowledge, I was the only one who attempted to bring any real science into the discussion on the pro-EU side, I assumed those comments were addressed "at" me.

Never said it wasn't, but the effects being examined are many orders of magnitude below those predicted by EU pundits. They are, in fact, well in line with what standard science would lead us to expect.

My statement was not directed at you. It was a general statement directed at a few people who believe there is a conspiracy by the science community to go out of its way to deny any proof of EU. I don't share their conspiratorial view, and I wanted to make that clear to anyone who took the time to read my post.

No, it is profoundly uninteresting, because at that point, a bouncing ball — or at any rate a bouncing box with legs — is just what Philae was.

Ok. It was interesting to me. Maybe it's because I have an open and curious mind that views any unexpected behavior as worthy of research.

That would be the solar wind (which grows increasingly tenuous the farther you travel from the Sun) and the nearly-as-tenuous atmosphere created round 67P/C-G by outgassing. This 'soup' of which you speak is very thin gruel. Indeed, it is barely there at all. The sources you yourself have quoted make this quite clear.

Well, despite the rarefaction of the plasma, Rosetta spent 10 years flying through it. The total charging it would experience is time dependent. Much like a microwave oven, I can heat up a cup of coffee in 30 seconds. But if I leave the cup in the microwave for 10 minutes, the coffee boils away.

Furthermore, Rosetta as part of its journey flew much closer to the sun than its final destination. Therefore it had the opportunity to be exposed to a much higher intensity of solar wind.

You are probably aware that the energy of a wave is given by the Planck-Einstein equation, E = hn, where E is the energy, n is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. So energy is directly dependent on frequency; the higher the frequency, the greater the energy.

The equation that you quote is for a quantum particle. In the real world, the energy transported by a wave is directly related to the amplitude of the wave, independent of frequency.

Building on your example of the 30kHz frequency used by AM radio stations, these radio transmitters are rated at different power levels. For instance, there is a broadcast station located near my house. It has a 1kW transmitter. But there is a much more powerful transmitter located in a nearby metropolitan area rated at 50kW. The 50kW transmitter has a much greater range than the local station because of its transmitter power, not its frequency.



dex

a reply to: Astyanax

How can one comet be the end of a theory there are many. 1 just recommends patience and maybe a asteroid/comet will come flying through the Universe with magenta like sparks coming out of it to verify plasma discharge for EA*RTH observants...