The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by -PLB-


OK, let me ask you... Do you believe invisible explanations that go unobserved have a place in science or are in the slightest scientific at all?

That is exactly what Einstein has given us! A theory that actually *REQUIRES* us to invent things to make it work, things that to this day have never been observed, not even once. So, I fail to see the reaction and problems towards the OP.

Why do the protoplanetary disks have to be accretion disks? Why can't they be expulsion disks of matter being ejected by the star? I don't see why that is any less valid. If they are accretion disks, then where did the initial mass come from to create the star in the first place? Why does accretion stop at certain points? Why do stars form at all and not just a bunch of dead rocky/gassy worlds?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by -PLB-

 

OK, let me ask you... Do you believe invisible explanations that go unobserved have a place in science or are in the slightest scientific at all?

That is exactly what Einstein has given us! A theory that actually *REQUIRES* us to invent things to make it work, things that to this day have never been observed, not even once. So, I fail to see the reaction and problems towards the OP.

That only means we don't (completely) know how it works. But to claim that everything we know it wrong and that it works like this and that is a whole different thing. And that is what the OP is doing. While also his own hypothesis requires us to accept something that we should observe but have never observed, at a fundamental level.

Why do the protoplanetary disks have to be accretion disks? Why can't they be expulsion disks of matter being ejected by the star? I don't see why that is any less valid. If they are accretion disks, then where did the initial mass come from to create the star in the first place? Why does accretion stop at certain points? Why do stars form at all and not just a bunch of dead rocky/gassy worlds?

Well, I am open to any hypothesis. And I will just say out loud that I don't know how it works. But whenever someone proposes a theory while claiming all we know is wrong, he will have to come with some very good foundation to support his theory. Even I, pretty much a laymen on the subject, can almost directly point out the major flaws in his hypothesis. I think most people will be happy to discuss alternative hypotheses. But not with someone for whom an unfounded hypothesis is considered the whole and absolute truth.

reply to post by -PLB-

That only means we don't (completely) know how it works. But to claim that everything we know it wrong and that it works like this and that is a whole different thing. And that is what the OP is doing. While also his own hypothesis requires us to accept something that we should observe but have never observed, at a fundamental level.

So, your saying it's perfectly acceptable to hang onto a theory that actually requires one to invent unobservable and unfalsifiable constructs to make it work with new observations that defy that theory?

Your right though, currently we haven't observed the actual birth of new stars and planets, so technically both hypothesis are just as valid until just such an observation is made. Currently, nothing Einstein has predicted has to my knowledge actually been observed and cases of possible observation can be more simply explained, like so called gravitational lensing.

The OP is going out of his way to provide well written posts detailing the many failings of current Einsteinina physics, with more than an adequate number of links to jump start anyone's continued research in the area. It makes no sense to state without warrant that plasma physics would hold no importance in space born plasmas. Our sun is a plasma, so we need to work with what we know about plasma's, and plasma are capable of discharging. I see no logical reason that such discharges can't be scaled up in larger plasma's such as stars.

Well, I am open to any hypothesis. And I will just say out loud that I don't know how it works. But whenever someone proposes a theory while claiming all we know is wrong, he will have to come with some very good foundation to support his theory. Even I, pretty much a laymen on the subject, can almost directly point out the major flaws in his hypothesis. I think most people will be happy to discuss alternative hypotheses. But not with someone for whom an unfounded hypothesis is considered the whole and absolute truth.

Unfounded? Have you not noticed the start of every thread he has made? He begins each thread with current research and observations that show various aspects of Einsteinian physics being proved wrong. After which, he then provides a viable alternative theory to explain the observations and research newly discovered. What flaw is there in plasma physics? Why can't it be scaled up? What causes stars to form in the first place if plasma physics can't possibly have a role in star formation?

Science is not stagnant nor is it science when one needs, no, is required to invent unobserved and unfalsifiable constructs for the sole intent of dismissing observations that defy the theory.

Plasma physics provide a well proven viable alternative to current Einsteinian physics. We can scale down observations and see the same effects in a lab setting, something we can't do with the many required unobserved inventions of Einsteinian physics.

Originally posted by sirnex

So, your saying it's perfectly acceptable to hang onto a theory that actually requires one to invent unobservable and unfalsifiable constructs to make it work with new observations that defy that theory?

As long as the theory helps us understand a lot of phenomena and as long there is no alternative that does this better, yes, its perfectly acceptable. The only other alternative we have is to have no theory at all.

Your right though, currently we haven't observed the actual birth of new stars and planets, so technically both hypothesis are just as valid until just such an observation is made. Currently, nothing Einstein has predicted has to my knowledge actually been observed and cases of possible observation can be more simply explained, like so called gravitational lensing.

The OP is going out of his way to provide well written posts detailing the many failings of current Einsteinina physics, with more than an adequate number of links to jump start anyone's continued research in the area. It makes no sense to state without warrant that plasma physics would hold no importance in space born plasmas. Our sun is a plasma, so we need to work with what we know about plasma's, and plasma are capable of discharging. I see no logical reason that such discharges can't be scaled up in larger plasma's such as stars.


Unfounded? Have you not noticed the start of every thread he has made? He begins each thread with current research and observations that show various aspects of Einsteinian physics being proved wrong. After which, he then provides a viable alternative theory to explain the observations and research newly discovered. What flaw is there in plasma physics? Why can't it be scaled up? What causes stars to form in the first place if plasma physics can't possibly have a role in star formation?

Science is not stagnant nor is it science when one needs, no, is required to invent unobserved and unfalsifiable constructs for the sole intent of dismissing observations that defy the theory.

Plasma physics provide a well proven viable alternative to current Einsteinian physics. We can scale down observations and see the same effects in a lab setting, something we can't do with the many required unobserved inventions of Einsteinian physics.

Part of the hypothesis is that the sun is powered externally. So we should be able to observe a huge influx of electrons to the sun. We don't observe anything like that whatsoever. Let alone huge spikes in the influx of electrons that intensify the plasma to such an extend that fission takes place. The hypothesis provides absolutely no mechanism for these issues. It is totally contradictory to what we observe.

Here I believe Einstein was actually right if you believe in the Nibiru theory. The moon is pretty large for a planet's satellite. So it ain't far-fetched.

reply to post by -PLB-

As long as the theory helps us understand a lot of phenomena and as long there is no alternative that does this better, yes, its perfectly acceptable. The only other alternative we have is to have no theory at all.

That sounds counter-intuitive to me and makes little to no sense at all. I've never heard the concept of theory gets destroyed by observations so invent unobserved and unfalsifiable constructs to hold onto observationally disproved theory, as being called science.

Christ, we might as well call religion science and start teaching it as 'fact' in our schools! That's basically the gist of what your telling me.

Part of the hypothesis is that the sun is powered externally. So we should be able to observe a huge influx of electrons to the sun. We don't observe anything like that whatsoever. Let alone huge spikes in the influx of electrons that intensify the plasma to such an extend that fission takes place. The hypothesis provides absolutely no mechanism for these issues. It is totally contradictory to what we observe.

IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun’s galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field.

link

There are other links, I found this with a quick search. I didn't have to ask the OP to hold my hand to research the topic further. If your curious, research it rather than bashing the OP for not holding hands and merrily skipping every step of the way. That's all.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by -PLB-

 

As long as the theory helps us understand a lot of phenomena and as long there is no alternative that does this better, yes, its perfectly acceptable. The only other alternative we have is to have no theory at all.

That sounds counter-intuitive to me and makes little to no sense at all. I've never heard the concept of theory gets destroyed by observations so invent unobserved and unfalsifiable constructs to hold onto observationally disproved theory, as being called science.

Why does it sound counter-intuitive? It makes perfect sense to me.

Everyone can see the problems with the model of the universe. Many scientists are trying to come up with theories which can be proven to explain observations better than the current model.

When someone comes up with a theory proven to explain observations better than the current model, then we can adopt the newer, better explanation. And when a better theory than that one is found we'll go on to that one as the consensus of the scientific community.

So in comparing alternate theories to the current model, we must ask which model explains the most, and which leaves the least unexplained, that can be confirmed? That will be the criteria for adopting the new model. It's been that way for centuries and will continue to be so.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Why does it sound counter-intuitive? It makes perfect sense to me.

What? So...

Come up with theory
Make predictions
Observations defy predictions
Invent unobserved and unfalsifiable explanations
Spend billions wishing really hard that the invented constructs are true

That is science?

Everyone can see the problems with the model of the universe. Many scientists are trying to come up with theories which can be proven to explain observations better than the current model.

OK, but observations already disprove his model. Where are these other models that are being seriously considered by the scientific community? I know the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology models exist, but they aren't taken seriously by the community at large.

Instead I see the community at large scrambling to continuously invent unobserved things to hang onto one model disproved years ago by observation.

When someone comes up with a theory proven to explain observations better than the current model, then we can adopt the newer, better explanation. And when a better theory than that one is found we'll go on to that one as the consensus of the scientific community.

What exactly is wrong with plasma cosmology when space is filled with plasmas? Why do we discredit plasma physics having any effect in space born plasmas?

So in comparing alternate theories to the current model, we must ask which model explains the most, and which leaves the least unexplained, that can be confirmed? That will be the criteria for adopting the new model. It's been that way for centuries and will continue to be so.

Isn't this why we should give plasma cosmology more serious consideration? We can test these things in the lab, but we can't test unobserved invented things no matter how much we spend "praying" to Einstein.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Why does it sound counter-intuitive? It makes perfect sense to me.

What? So...

Come up with theory
Make predictions
Observations defy predictions
Invent unobserved and unfalsifiable explanations
Spend billions wishing really hard that the invented constructs are true

That is science?

Let's take the example of dark matter. Some people say this proves the current model is wrong and we should throw it out. There may be some problems with our assumptions in the way we predict dark matter. But if they are reasonably close, it may be good science to keep looking for the dark matter.

The example that comes to mind is Alexis Bouvard.

Alexis Bouvard (June 27, 1767 – June 7, 1843) was a French astronomer. He is particularly noted for his careful observations of the irregularities in the motion of Uranus and his hypothesis of the existence of an eighth planet in the solar system.

Note that he died in 1843. The predictions he made for an unseen, undiscovered and unobserved planet Neptune were never realized during his lifetime. Should we have thrown his predictions out because nobody had ever seen Neptune? He thought there should be something there because of the observations he made.

In 1846 about 3 years after his death, Neptune was finally found.

So the way I see dark matter is the way Neptune (the unknown planet) was seen during the life of Alexis Bouvard, nobody has any proof of it, but the observations we make give us a pretty good indication it's there.

So shouldn't we look for the dark matter the same way we looked for Neptune? And wasn't the prediction and subsequent discovery of Neptune science at it's finest? Even though we didn't find it within the lifetime of the man who made the observations saying something was there?

Or should we throw out the predictions of Neptune and dark matter just because we haven't found them yet?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


While that is a decent example, I still don't see how it can possibly be applicable in this case. The example you had given had shown observational evidences indicating the possibility of another planet.

The case for dark matter is one of pure invention. The predictions did not fit the observation and thus dark matter was born. Dark matter wasn't 'accidentally' stumbled upon, it was fully fabricated and to this day goes unobserved and unproven.

Where are the observational evidence for dark matter? Why the sudden appearance of dark matter after observation defied prediction? Why are we not giving serious considerations to modified gravity theories that explain this observation without requiring the invention of unfalsifiable dark things? We know gravity is variable, so that needs to be taken into account more than we need to make stuff up. Same thing with plasma cosmology. Space is filled with plasma, plasma behaves certain ways, so that needs to be taken into account, not dismissed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Comparing an observation of irregularities in planetary orbits to dark matter is comparing apples to oranges.

One is proposing an entirely NEW form of matter that is undetectable.

The other is still within the realm of existing laws of physics.

Also, you said:

"When someone comes up with a theory proven to explain observations better than the current model, then we can adopt the newer, better explanation."

I think this has been demonstrably proven by Peratt, Alfven, Scott, Thornhill, Falthammar, etc.. etc..

Falthammar and Scott in particular have demonstrated the physics behind MHD models explaining magnetic reconnection and frozen-in fields to be a total fallacy.

It is made up.

So lets reveiew here:

1. Nearly all of the physics currently used to explain the Sun, comets, planetary magnetic fields, and galactic magentic fields HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. Unless someone can demonstrate exactly how Maxwell was wrong in a lab, any theory that uses magnetic reconnection or frozen-in fields in any way other than an abstraction is FALSE.

2. The standard model has A NEARLY INFINITE amount of postulates that VIOLATE THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS. Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, WIMPS, MACHOS, the freaking list is endless.

3. As I've repeatedly demonstrated here:
knol.google.com...#
The standard model is a complete joke. There is so much falsifying evidence against it I'm having a hard time keeping up with it all. Quantized red shifts, no time dilation in quasars, lack of finding gravitational waves, lack of finding frame dragging, etc.. etc.. etc..



Now we come to plasma cosmology:

No hypothetical forms of matter.

No hypothetical forms of energy.

No violations of conservation laws.

It's able to readily explain observations in a consistent way and has PREDICTIVE POWER that has been proven to be accurate a dozen times over.


According to Occam's Razor, plasma cosmology trumps the standard model a thousand times over.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

you said:
"When someone comes up with a theory proven to explain observations better than the current model, then we can adopt the newer, better explanation."

I think this has been demonstrably proven by Peratt, Alfven, Scott, Thornhill, Falthammar, etc.. etc..

Yes you do. And when the rest of the scientific community agrees that observational evidence supports the alternate theories, they will eventually adopt them. Perhaps not those specific alternate theories, but eventually the current theories will likely be replaced by alternate theories of some sort that do a better job of explaining the observations. And it might take some time.

One of the things I like about this thread on the formation of solar systems, is that mainstream science is unsure of itself regarding the widely known problems with models of planetary formation. So I suspect mainstream scientists are particularly open to good alternate theories in this field. And I think we all agree that none of them are proven until they are proven. Neptune wasn't proven until we really found it, dark matter won't be proven until (and if) we ever find it.

I think it's just a matter of time before we find it, in fact we may have already found half of it in our galaxy:

MACHO Researchers Weigh-Up Dark Matter

Observations at Mount Stromlo Observatory near Canberra, Australia, have shed some light on 'dark matter' - the unseen material astronomers have spent decades searching for. An international conference at the Academy of Science in Canberra was told yesterday that Australian and US researchers have found objects, lying in a 'halo' around our galaxy, that could account for about 50 per cent of our galaxy's unseen mass.

The hypothetical star-sized lumps were christened MACHOs - MAssive Compact Halo Objects.

So I suspect we will find more MACHOs, and I fail to see why this is different than the Neptune example. Gravity models predict something is there, you look for it, you find it, looks like we've already found some of it at least for our galaxy. There's more to find in the universe, and we've found some of that too:

Universe has Billions More Stars then Thought

Astronomers may have underestimated the tally of galaxies in some parts of the universe by as much as 90 percent, according to a study reported on Wednesday in Nature, the weekly British science journal.

Well if we've underestimated the tally of galaxies by as much as 90 percent, wouldn't that account for some of the missing dark matter? And that matter isn't even really dark, but just blocked from our view so we couldn't see it. Don't be surprised if we make more discoveries like this of MACHOs and previously unseen light matter.

One thing that is helping to advance cosmology is the development of better, more sensitive instruments. And I expect those to be particularly helpful in this field, of how solar systems develop. So let's come up with some creative theories, and see which of them are proven with the newer observations using the better, more sensitive equipment.

Given the variety of types of solar systems we are seeing, more than one of those theories may prove to be correct. But it may not be necessary to throw out Einstein to come up with these new theories.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That MACHO article is another example of an epic work of fiction.

"The MACHO team hunted down its prey through 'gravitational lensing'. When a MACHO passes in front of a background star the MACHO's gravitational field acts like a lens, magnifying the star's light. The MACHO team has recorded about 15 such events."

So a star becomes more intense, hence it must be a "dark matter" cloud passing in front of it magnifying its light.

You believe this?

Seriously, you honestly believe this is what's causing the variance?

If one considers an electric model of stars, the variability is easily explained without any need to invoke dark matter.

Even our own Sun is variable in the x-ray spectrum.

This is religious nonsense being spewed out by the mainstream.

It is RELIGION!

It is not science.

As I point out here, gravitational lensing is a joke. Easily falsified by simple observation.
knol.google.com...#

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes you do. And when the rest of the scientific community agrees that observational evidence supports the alternate theories, they will eventually adopt them. Perhaps not those specific alternate theories, but eventually the current theories will likely be replaced by alternate theories of some sort that do a better job of explaining the observations. And it might take some time.

That's probably one of the biggest downfalls of science today. Our modern science appears to be more about raking in grants and the need to hang onto this one theory long disproved.

I understand it takes time to make discoveries and do research studies, but at this rate of denying such research and discoveries as being "garbage" because they go against mainstream science is just pitiful. It isn't science at all anymore, it's nothing more than a bunch of greedy wannabes trying to make a quick buck inventing bogus unfalsifiable things.

You have to remember, just because they call themselves scientists doesn't automatically mean we *have* to take their word for everything they invent out of thin air. Appealing to authority is one of the biggest disservices one can do for themselves.

One of the things I like about this thread on the formation of solar systems, is that mainstream science is unsure of itself regarding the widely known problems with models of planetary formation. So I suspect mainstream scientists are particularly open to good alternate theories in this field. And I think we all agree that none of them are proven until they are proven. Neptune wasn't proven until we really found it, dark matter won't be proven until (and if) we ever find it.

The case for Neptune is entirely different compared to dark matter. We had observational evidences for it's possibility, we didn't just invent the planet out of thin air like we had with dark matter. You can't find something that there was originally no evidence for to begin with.

So I suspect we will find more MACHOs, and I fail to see why this is different than the Neptune example. Gravity models predict something is there, you look for it, you find it, looks like we've already found some of it at least for our galaxy. There's more to find in the universe, and we've found some of that too:

I'm going to agree with the OP on the MACHO thing for the same reasons he has listed.

Well if we've underestimated the tally of galaxies by as much as 90 percent, wouldn't that account for some of the missing dark matter? And that matter isn't even really dark, but just blocked from our view so we couldn't see it. Don't be surprised if we make more discoveries like this of MACHOs and previously unseen light matter.

I'm personally wondering when science will realize the universe is infinite in size and the big bang never happened.

One thing that is helping to advance cosmology is the development of better, more sensitive instruments. And I expect those to be particularly helpful in this field, of how solar systems develop. So let's come up with some creative theories, and see which of them are proven with the newer observations using the better, more sensitive equipment.

I still don't understand why mainstream science dismisses plasma physics having a role in space born plasmas or variable gravity having a direct role in our calculations. I think once we throw common sense in with our new instruments we'll discover a lot more a lot faster I mean, we really need to stop inventing things and start observing instead.

Given the variety of types of solar systems we are seeing, more than one of those theories may prove to be correct. But it may not be necessary to throw out Einstein to come up with these new theories.

I just thought of this... I'll try and check up on the age of the stars with gas giants, but suppose these gas giants are ejected, it would stand to reason that the closer the gas giant, the younger the parent star, the further away, the older as it would have had more time to migrate to an outer orbit.

I don't personally know much about all of this, but it just popped into my head just now. I'll look into it later when I get the chance, possibly start a new thread if I find any interesting results from that idea!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Seriously, you honestly believe this is what's causing the variance?

If one considers an electric model of stars, the variability is easily explained without any need to invoke dark matter.

I'm not sure if you've read any of these papers. Here's one:

The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations
arxiv.org...

They use selection criteria to distinguish which changes are caused by variable stars, and which have the signatures of microlensing events. So I believe as the researchers do, that they are seeing some variable stars, some microlensing, and some other exotic events, which they also discuss in the paper.

We have developed selection criteria (“cuts”) that use
the level-2 statistics to distinguish microlensing from
backgrounds such as variable stars and noise.

And I am impressed they were able to analyze 256 billion measurements. I figure it takes about 31 years just to count to 1 billion:

The data set used here consists of about 256 billion
individual photometric measurements. Discriminating
genuine microlensing from stellar variability, background,
and systematic photometry errors is hard,
and the significance of the results depends upon the
event selection criteria.

The selection criteria should accept ‘true’ microlensing
events, and reject events due to intrinsic stellar
variability and instrumental effects.

So they are well aware of star variability. Now if you want to critique their selection criteria of how they distinguished variable stars from microlensing events, I think they should be asked to defend their selection criteria statistical methods so that question would be fair game. But they did give considerable thought to the variable stars you mention so I don't think you can dismiss their results so easily by mentioning those.

This is probably already addressed in the crackpot "EU theory" somewhere, but a post by the OP got me thinking of another logical fallacy of his....

The mention of planets being in "electrically stable" orbits --- such a ridiculous notion to begin with, and here's where it fails miserably:

It completely ignores the fact of orbital mechanics, and the mathematics that govern it. The FACT of gravitational orbits is plainly evident. Man-made satellites, NASA space program (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) the Shuttle....and interplanetary robotic craft...

According to OP's wrongly-held and 'championed EU theory' all stars are somehow responsible for "ejecting" (spitting out) their planets, and those planets subsequently are "held" in orbit electrically??

What a tremendous leap backwards, that sort of thinking is!!

It harkens back to a pre-Copernicus way of thinking about astronomy, in ancient Europe (early Rennaisance). Trying desperately to explain the observed motions of the Sun, stars and planets from a geo-centric point of view! Who was it that conceived of the "crystal spheres" that were concentric? Or the guy who posited the "perfect solids"?

Balderdash, all of it!

Originally posted by sirnex
I just thought of this... I'll try and check up on the age of the stars with gas giants, but suppose these gas giants are ejected, it would stand to reason that the closer the gas giant, the younger the parent star, the further away, the older as it would have had more time to migrate to an outer orbit.

I don't personally know much about all of this, but it just popped into my head just now. I'll look into it later when I get the chance, possibly start a new thread if I find any interesting results from that idea!

That's a good thought and I've read theories about the possibilities of orbits spiraling inward or outward, we could probably find examples of each is my guess, in addition to more stable orbits.

Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, the moon is definitely spiraling away from the Earth in its orbit, there's no question about that.

So this motion, traced backwards in time, points to an origin closer to the Earth. So along with the composition of the moon showing evidence it came from Earth, we have pretty good evidence the moon came from Earth and not:

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Our moon most likely either came from Saturn or Jupiter as Saturn swung into our solar system.

as the OP suggests.

Again, thanks OP, you kept me busy.

I can't edit my other post. I mentioned you may prefer to 'transcend'.

Hearing the music that isn't being played deserves props. To say the least, you are doing this. This is upsetting to them.

Re ad hominems: They are quite integral to your theme, and they are as interesting to read as your work, so congrats. The ad hominem's point out the rabid forces of 'convention', and highlight many of it's inadequecies, to say the least. I piece the avatar images to the crude dismissals, and keep an avid note.

Just last week I said 'gravity' and I'm a little shy about it today, though I did couple it with 'magnetic gravitation'.

Carry on. This stuff is fascinating.

Regarding those who say that 'other scientists' and bloggers (you were mentioned specifically, in one hack) who espouse this theory, are wholly discredited from the scientific community etc....

Well, this speaks volumes about that community. Again, good work. Nothing is less facile with truth, than those tripping over themselves for recognition, and necessarily, those entangled in compromise. They want to mesh the lies with the truth, gradually, while making sure all the usual suspects profit illicitly. Thus, I like your succinctness with dismissal of theory, rather than trying to hold hands with mean people. I like that you aren't engaging in calculus shootouts with thugs with ugly avatars, playing their game.

Thanks again.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


THE WHOLE THING IS A JOKE!

I can't believe you believe this crap.

Do you believe Noah sailed above the mountain tops in an arc of animals as well?

"The first selection criteria (hereafter referred
to as criteria A) was designed to be rather tight, only
accepting events with a single highly significant bump
in either passband, while requiring the baseline to remain
very flat, as expected in simple microlensing.
These cuts resemble those in A97 and for the most
part statistics similar to those described in A97 were
employed. The second selection criteria (criteria B)
was designed to be rather loose, in an attempt to
search for exotic or low signal-to-noise microlensing
candidates. This second set of cuts also looked for
a single significant bump in either passband with a
flat baseline, but made use of some new statistics not
available in A97."


"REAL" MICROLENSING EVENTS!

WTF!

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE # THEY KNOW MICROLENSING IS REAL TO BEGIN WITH.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

If our planet is electrically charged, how come this charge does not affect us in any way? How is it possible for electronics to not be affected? How is it possible for stars to eject plasma, and then this plasma is cooled down and solidified? Why this does not happen with stars? How come Earth's oceans come from Saturn, but Saturn can't have water for obvious reasons? There is nothing in standard cosmology that prohibits retrograde orbits; a body can orbit in any direction around another orbit. One simulation is not enough evidence against the standard model.