Questions To The Astronomical Community

I posted this in the dino thread, but I think its more appropriate it be given its own post to be discussed.




In this video I highlight 20 questions that can't be explained by cosmologists today using the "mainstream" theory of Einsteinian relativity.

I think the whole thing is a bunch of hogwash and have hundreds of scientific papers to back my claims located on my cosmology site under the peer reviewed papers section.

I'll be happy to debate any one of the twenty questions I ask in my video.

Black hole and big bang debates are located in the threads listed in my signature.





[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

i dont even understand some of these questions! why? lol jk i really dont get it though..maybe put in laymen terms? good thread though.

Originally posted by soldier8828
i dont even understand some of these questions! why? lol jk i really dont get it though..maybe put in laymen terms? good thread though.

Yeah the questions aren't aimed at laymen.

I'm talking about theories that form the foundation modern science predicates its papers on.

I think they are all a bunch of nonsense, which means I think most of what modern cosmology says is a bunch of nonsense.

I'm looking for professional cosmologists and astronomers to respond. There might be some educated amateur astronomers out there that could give me a run for my money as well.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


If you have so many answers why are you asking "why"? Personally I think the Electric Universe Theory is not true, some of its postulates may be true, but I believe that mainstream cosmological views and theories adequately describe the Universe. Of course we can't explain everything yet, we just scratched the surface. If one truly understands the facts behind "mainsteam" science then it is easy to adequately describe many of your "anomalies". Most of the theories currently being tested (or trying to be tested) are extremely difficult for our limited technology to reproduce or observe. Electric Universe theorist claim their theories can be easily tested, but has any one of them ever been tested and proven? I have not seen the same amount of math and proven observations in the Electric Model, as I have the Current Model. Right now I think there is no reason what-so-ever to discount the current models. Others and myself could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

If you have so many answers why are you asking "why"? Personally I think the Electric Universe Theory is not true, some of its postulates may be true, but I believe that mainstream cosmological views and theories adequately describe the Universe. Of course we can't explain everything yet, we just scratched the surface. If one truly understands the facts behind "mainsteam" science then it is easy to adequately describe many of your "anomalies". Most of the theories currently being tested (or trying to be tested) are extremely difficult for our limited technology to reproduce or observe. Electric Universe theorist claim their theories can be easily tested, but has any one of them ever been tested and proven? I have not seen the same amount of math and proven observations in the Electric Model, as I have the Current Model. Right now I think there is no reason what-so-ever to discount the current models. Others and myself could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Yeah, there have been numerous tests of their theories.

The nice thing about plasma cosmology is that their theories are falsifiable, unlike standard cosmology.

Tests have been done by satellites of the magnetosphere that back their claims of the auroras.

Tests have been done in the lab replicating M87's jets that back their claims.

Supercomputer simulations of galaxy formation have been done in the lab that back their claims, as well as discharge tests in vacuum tubes. Plasma formations can be scaled infinitely.

Dozens of accurate predictions have been made about comets.

If you pick one of the topics I talk about in my video, I'll be happy to debate it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sure, first off I think you could go about pressing your theory another way then bashing scientist and calling them names, while I understand you must have passion (I've been to your site and it is WELL put together) for your theory, we must keep in mind professionalism at ALL times. You see, I among many others are in the a similar boat to you. I am referring to ufology of course, as it is constantly battling mainstream criticisms. But the best way to go about changing anything is to remain calm, nice, and professional.

Now, there are several questions you posed that (like a lot of the Electric's theories IMHO) are based upon fallacies and misconceptions. But I am willing to single out two (As I am still rather in early stages of official schooling for Cosmology, although I do have a decent understanding of the field, as well Astronomy, Quantum Physics, etc). Firstly your black hole theory is just wrong, but I'd rather go into your Deep Field question, as it also as to do with the Inflationary Universe.

So what is your argument?

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Sure, first off I think you could go about pressing your theory another way then bashing scientist and calling them names, while I understand you must have passion (I've been to your site and it is WELL put together) for your theory, we must keep in mind professionalism at ALL times. You see, I among many others are in the a similar boat to you. I am referring to ufology of course, as it is constantly battling mainstream criticisms. But the best way to go about changing anything is to remain calm, nice, and professional.

Now, there are several questions you posed that (like a lot of the Electric's theories IMHO) are based upon fallacies and misconceptions. But I am willing to single out two (As I am still rather in early stages of official schooling for Cosmology, although I do have a decent understanding of the field, as well Astronomy, Quantum Physics, etc). Firstly your black hole theory is just wrong, but I'd rather go into your Deep Field question, as it also as to do with the Inflationary Universe.

So what is your argument?

Well calling me "wrong" without stating what exactly I'm wrong about doesn't really allow me to debate anything now does it?

You need to be more specific than that.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

They say that black hole Sagittarius A, in the center of our galaxy, which has 6 ly in diameter, has not the same density everywhere.

So, density is a special distinguishing quality of a supposed "singularity"?

My, my, so is it a singularity or what? A "gravitational well"? Because of the difference of density it is possible to fall into the "hole", as if this hole is stretching infinitely and thus constituting a certain kind of singularity - a fractal singularity....

Besides, their understanding of space/time "fabric" is totally wrong. Bending principles isn't going to help understanding anything when they don't understand what a principle is. Space and time are by no means "objective", they are not objects.

Yes, and theory of relativity neglects the fact that all speeds are "relative", so talking about the absolute speed (like supposedly that of light) is actually saying that this thing doesn't move at all, that it truly is a singularity where there is no differentiation (therefore no relations). But physics seems to be totally unable to handle the idea of the metaphysical so they keep "bending" and "twisting" in a truly amazing way and utter denial.

I could also pose 20 questions...

reply to post by mnemeth1


I thought I was, I was asking your argument on the "Deep Field" question you posed. Especially in regards to the Inflationary principle and the Observable Universe. I do not really want to debate the Black Hole issue because it would be a lot of non-layman crap (thus most will have no idea what is being said,lol).

One other thing, I think that a lot of misconceptions of the current model are due to misunderstandings, or lack there of, about quantum mechanics, especially M-Theory, or one of the variations.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I thought I was, I was asking your argument on the "Deep Field" question you posed. Especially in regards to the Inflationary principle and the Observable Universe. I do not really want to debate the Black Hole issue because it would be a lot of non-layman crap (thus most will have no idea what is being said,lol).

One other thing, I think that a lot of misconceptions of the current model are due to misunderstandings, or lack there of, about quantum mechanics, especially M-Theory, or one of the variations.

Well that's the going arguement, "if you don't understand what we are saying, its simply because you don't understand M-theory" or quantum mechanics or some other arcane field of theoretical physics.

That is equivalent to the "Emperor's new clothes" claim. If you can't see the new clothes, its simply because you aren't enlightened enough to see them.

I need more specifics, you're saying that the Deep Field images of fully formed galaxies at the supposed edge of the universe have a rational explanation within big bang theory?

I thought we were supposed to be looking further back in time the further we look out into space?

An article by the Gemini observatory team:

www.gemini.edu...

Until now, astronomers have been nearly blind when looking back in time to survey an era when most stars in the Universe were expected to have formed. This critical cosmological blind-spot has been removed by a team using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope, showing that many galaxies in the young Universe are not behaving as expected some 8-11 billion years ago.

The surprise: these galaxies appear to be more fully formed and mature than expected at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe. This finding is similar to a teacher walking into a classroom expecting to greet a room full of unruly teenagers and finding well-groomed young adults.

"Theory tells us that this epoch should be dominated by little galaxies crashing together," said Dr. Roberto Abraham (University of Toronto) who is a Co-Principal Investigator of the team conducting the observations at Gemini. "We are seeing that a large fraction of the stars in the Universe are already in place when the Universe was quite young, which should not be the case. This glimpse back in time shows pretty clearly that we need to re-think what happened during this early epoch in galactic evolution. The theoreticians will definitely have something to gnaw on!"

The results were announced today at the 203rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Atlanta, Georgia. The data will soon be released to the entire astronomical community for further analysis, and three papers have been submitted for publication in Nature, The Astrophysical Journal, and The Astronomical Journal.

Big Bang theory is the stupidest theory of all.

Again they are trying to translate the metaphysical into the empirical.

The metaphysical is "God", ya know

So the Singularity "explodes" and every single atom is created in one moment - that is a sensible, rational, logical theory? And all those atoms have a tremendous momentum of force given by the force that disintegrated itself into the very them?

But, this theory fits very well into the idea of "central perspective" launched during the Renaissance times, the idea which claims that God is everywhere, only not evenly distributed. So, where there is more light, there is also more of God (angels are white and demons are black).

This, my friends, is not science, this is just another ideology of the enemies of humankind.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm looking for professional cosmologists and astronomers to respond.

Good luck with that.

Really, I mean it. :UP:

reply to post by mnemeth1


The Deep Field image of fully formed galaxies is easily attributed to the FTL expansion of the Universe, this also accounts for the observation limit, as well the Hubble Volume. The light has not reached us yet, as space itself is expanding. Redshifting of galaxies pretty much as confirmed this. Also there is still poor understandings of spacetime, but a leading theory still is a "spacetime foam" or quantum foam. Also the inflationary nature of the Universe and many other of yours and other Electric supporters theories can really be explained by the extra dimensional nature of M-theory or one of its derivatives. Worldvolume membranes and string frequencies actually make sense (but currently are impossible to prove due to lack of technology able to measure branes, which exist in other dimensions, or the vanishingly small strings). Extradiemsnional membranes and hyperspace actually can account for our lack to be able to find gravitons thus far, as they likely slip into the extradimensional space--our current techniques aren't quite there, but getting there. Hopefully CERN will soon be able to detect the loss of gravity in a particle collision.

Originally posted by jkrog08

the inflationary nature of the Universe and many other of yours and other Electric supporters theories can really be explained by the extra dimensional nature of M-theory or one of its derivatives.

Yeah.

Little problem with that.

There is no proof that extra dimensions exist and there is no way to falsify their existence based on standing theories.

Just like black holes, "extra dimensions" are supported by inference.

You can't test for a black hole, you can't create one in a lab, you can't observe one in space since its black and sucks everything in making it invisible, you can't disprove it.

The same can be said of EVERY OTHER HYPOTHETICAL ENTITY put forth by theoretical physicists.

This lack of falsification brings us to Occam's razor.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

M-Theory and multiple dimensions are anything but simple. They are arcane and lack a method of falsification. They can not be falsified and are therefore not scientific.

If I was to claim that inter-dimensional creatures control the formation of stars and that all of the observations prove this, but we can't test for these creatures, we can't create one in a lab, we can't communicate with them, we can't see them, would you call that scientific?

The essence of M-theory and other such theories are exactly that.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Hi mnemeth1.

Fun and good questions.

Here **could** be the answer to your #2 :
Enterprisemission Von_Braun SECRET.
www.enterprisemission.com...

Antigravity Berkeley UNIVERSITY.
www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

Blue skies.

reply to post by mnemeth1

You can't test for a black hole, you can't create one in a lab, you can't observe one in space since its black and sucks everything in making it invisible, you can't disprove it.

Well there is a lack of understanding the more complex physics. Have you heard of Hawking Radiation? I am sure you have, also black holes can be inferred by x-ray imagery and the affects on nearby stars.

we can't create one in a lab,

Not so fast, CERN anticipates to create quantum black holes very soon. Also they should immediately evaporate--thus proving Hawking Radiation--thus proving black holes and hopefully a way to directly detect them from the emitted Hawking Radiation.

There is no proof that extra dimensions exist and there is no way to falsify their existence based on standing theories.

Another assumption, in fact if a loss of gravity is detected in the future particle collisions that will prove to within 99.9% that extra dimensions must exist, that will add to the already solid mathematics (which Electric Theory lacks), and finally it will add to already proven quantum principles such as superposition, probability distribution, and observed wave functions that not only do extra dimensions exist--they MUST.

Also the Big Bang makes perfect sense, and is heavily favored by observations such as redshift, WMAP images, and mathematical formulas---in addition to some newer experiments that show may things that is postulated to have occurred and be possible because of a singular formation, rather than a Steady State Universe, which by the way violates thermodynamics w/o acceptable alternate explanations.

In addition to that two main creation theories are showing great promise to explain how the "Big Bang" happened, with future tests hopefully to prove it. The two main theories, as I am sure you are aware are either clashing membranes or bubble nucleation of hyperspace. I personally think the later is true, but we will see. The point is they BOTH contain a multidimensional hyperspace, which would put an end to the electric theories.

I am not saying that all of your theories are wrong, some might be true, and likely the final unification will be a combo of currently non understood electric principle--but principles that take place due to the quantum/relativistic nature of reality. That is the thing that many seem not to understand, the electric model does not take into account the fact that its very foundation is still dependent on the micro--which is the very thing you all dispute in actuality. And so far the observations of the micro realm, as well as current expected proofs show that in reality the Universe and the rest of existence does in deed work how the modern models show, at least on the foundation levels.

This is why it is important to FULLY understand the quantum realm before trying to postulate on the micro--As they are BOTH symbiotic in nature, and when one looks from that perspective the current theories, especially M-theory are looking REAL good based on the available evidence or observations. Since M-Theory postulates gravitons, the field quanta for gravity, if or when it is proved it will unify relativity and quantum theory. I say this because this is very likely to happen soon, and it all falls back on what I said about the very flaw of you guys theories.

You fail to take into account the quantum realm when postulating such things as an Electric Model. Quantum Theory is SOLID and all of its main principles proven by any logical stretch (again some of these new theories and postulates are extremely difficult if not impossible currently to prove, due to lack of available technology). Classical physics only apply to the MACRO world, not the quantum. You can not try to apply the Macro to the MICRO. But you can apply the MICRO to the MACRO.

The main point is the whole plasma cosmology idea is dependent on the very thing you all seem to bash without realizing this extreme fallacy. This is the reason this theory is not given attention, until you can come with proofs of unification on quantum level to your plasma Universe you will not be taken seriously because quite frankly you have failed to realize the very foundation of your theory is not there by your own accounts.

Plasma cosmology is predicated on known behavior of electrons and classical physics. Just like any engineer that sets about utilizing electrodynamic laws when creating a circuit board or electrical diagram. No assumptions are made about mythical multiple dimensions, black holes, or strange matter. Such hypothesis are rejected and only known behavior of charged plasma is assumed in the theories.

M-theory is not predicated on classical physics and makes extraordinary assumptions to arrive at its conclusions.

Hawking radiation is a farce, just like black holes are a farce. The CERN will not create black holes. In fact I doubt the CERN will find anything of significance. They certainly will not find any "god" particle that is for sure.

Hawking radiation was created to get out of a corner the theoretical physicists had painted themselves into about the nature of information loss. Just like all the rest of their theories which have predicted nothing of value and are made after the fact.

The WMAP data has actually falsified the LCDM model and can not be explained. This was highlighted in a recent paper on Dark Flows. A recent paper also discredited all of the WMAP data as being in error due to bad processing techniques.

Paper falsifying the LCDM model
www.nasa.gov...

Another paper falsifying LCDM model based on the WMAP cold spot
arxiv.org...

Article on the bad data produced by the WMAP satellite
www.cosmology.info...

The actual paper proving WMAP data to be invalid
www.springerlink.com...

All theories that were predicated on WMAP data are now in question.

I find it humorous to note that the theoretical physicists managed to craft theories around such horribly invalid data.

Also, the Big Bang is the theory that violates known laws in thermodynamics, not steady state. You got your theories reversed. In fact there are numerous things that violate known laws of physics in regards to big bang theory. Most notably being magnetic reconnection.

Goes to show you how much "science" is involved in theoretical physics.


Oh, btw, Maxwell's equations are based on an infinite universe with a universal speed - ie. steady state.

It is only after the application of "theoretical" physics models can they be brought into agreement with Einsteinian relativistic theory.







[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well considering the last link you gave was from a "alternate cosmology" site I think it is safe to say that all three points in there were extremely weak as one would expect. I mean they are arguing pixels to temperature ratio? When it is obvious that the totality of the OU is homogeneous and isotropic. Not to mention modern models account for any of these small discrepancies by super symmetry and spacetime "drift" caused by quantum fluctuations on the worldsheet.

And I guess because you claim Hawking Radiation is "farce" "as is everything else" we need no evidence to back this claim then? I mean there is no point in debating that further because we will all see soon enough. And to claim black holes don't exist is just ridiculous, it also shows a lack of understanding in Relativity and Lorentzian Geometry. Keep in mind that Euclidean Geometry is none sufficient to account for the 3 dimensional (plus imaginary time) nature of spacetime. Not to mention the now postulated hyper-dimensional nature of reality.

www.math.umd.edu...

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well considering the last link you gave was from a "alternate cosmology" site I think it is safe to say that all three points in there were extremely weak as one would expect. I mean they are arguing pixels to temperature ratio? When it is obvious that the totality of the OU is homogeneous and isotropic. Not to mention modern models account for any of these small discrepancies by super symmetry and spacetime "drift" caused by quantum fluctuations on the worldsheet.

And I guess because you claim Hawking Radiation is "farce" "as is everything else" we need no evidence to back this claim then? I mean there is no point in debating that further because we will all see soon enough. And to claim black holes don't exist is just ridiculous, it also shows a lack of understanding in Relativity and Lorentzian Geometry. Keep in mind that Euclidean Geometry is none sufficient to account for the 3 dimensional (plus imaginary time) nature of spacetime. Not to mention the now postulated hyper-dimensional nature of reality.

www.math.umd.edu...

I posted a NASA paper from the ApJ, a MNRAS paper, and an ApJ paper.

Care to comment?



The Emperor's New Clothes





[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]