Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You can't tell mainstream from non-mainstream?
You can't tell if he's arguing for or against creationism?

i didnt even bother to read past the remark that "most atronomers arent aware of..." wich clearly states that most of astronomy doesent consider theese effects.
the sites name didnt help the case either...

And now, you can't type a couple of author names into Google to find the papers he's talking about? Seriously?

see above, didnt bother =/ unable.
you may scroll up a couple posts to eventually find a rather similar remark by me, considering simple search terms on google and the first result.
grant the same liberty and stuff...

OK I'll take the first one on his list, Pannekoek-Rosseland Field, and type that into Google for you. This nice presentation with a list of mainstream papers about electrical effects of large astrophysical objects was literally the very first result on the search:

only that all those milestones are about plasma- and not astrophysics, and therefore dont even regard celestial movements.

Then a more specific reference to the papers is given with a summary of the Pannekoek-Rosseland Field:

wich in summary is again plasma physics, that is not considered in astrophysics. A quote from the .pdf you refer to:
"Macroscopic plasma polarization, which is created in massive astrophysical bodies by gravitation and other inertial
forces, is under discussion. New source of such polarization is introduced into consideration."

I think it's safe to say that 1922-1924 pre-dates any of these electric universe guys like Wal Thornhill and Don Scott. I think it's also safe to say that the claim mainstream astronomers don't consider the effects of electric charge on astrophysical objects is a myth, or you could say a lie promoted by the EU proponents such as Don Scott in his book "Electric Sky", p53.

i never stated the idea would be any new, only that its not part of standard astrophysics, wich is exactly what your reference says too... -.-

so actually, yeah: Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question. lol

/edit: couldnt resist...
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. [s]Then you win.[/s] Then they treat your claims as if theyve allways been self explanatory."
are we there yet?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

No, but if you raise for example a green laser, say around 490nm, or 570 THz, then what level of frequency shift to you expect to see by raising the laser by 1m

I do not have the numbers yet. Time compression reduces as you go up and the reduction may not be linear. Need empirical data to formulate some sort of equations, as I am talking about purely universe's own time which has not been addressed by anyone to date.

originally posted by: Dolour
only that all those milestones are about plasma- and not astrophysics, and therefore dont even regard celestial movements.

You said:

originally posted by: Dolour
we account 100% of what we see to gravity,

Those papers are about physics of celestial objects so I think you're being dishonest by saying they're "not astrophysics". Plasma and electric charge distribution around stars are topics in astrophysics, aren't they? They discuss electric fields and electric charge distribution, so they prove your "we account 100% of what we see to gravity" statement false.

Do you expect the literature to say electricity causes the planets to orbit the sun?

a reply to: Nochzwei

Just appears to me that time dilation effects that are already known would be in effect and you can calculate it as is already known.

The universes clock as measured in terms of frequency shift, I am not sure what would be different to the older GR determination of the experiment.

I suspect lifting by 1 meter would not give any kind of frequency shift that is measurable beyond the systematics of the experiment. The other thing here is that there are lasers around the world that are tuned to hyperfine splittings, allowing them to be used to selectively ionize an isotope of interest, where it can then be collected.

These are some of the most accurately frequency tuned lasers that exist, or at least a very good benchmark... I don't think that height differences between the different sites that perform this, is really a factor in the tuning... as i suspect any effect is extremely small, if there is an effect at all.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Do you expect the literature to say electricity causes the planets to orbit the sun?

That would be a nice start.

I find it interesting that GR, which ignores anything remotely having to do with plasma (which composes 99% of the visible universe), and is predicated entirely on gravity, has no plausible explanation for the existence of gravity. There are no observed "particles" of gravity. How gravity propagates itself is unknown.

As I mentioned earlier, I find it VERY interesting that gravity obeys an inverse square law. Electrostatics happen to obey the same rules. Is it just fluke of the universe that gravity and electrostatic forces happen to follow the same inverse square rule? Just random coincidence? Me thinks not.

Gravity is obviously created by some kind of electrical property of matter. Gravity acts as a field, just like a magnetic field. Thornhill suggest radially aligned dipoles, which seems to fit the bill. If it's not that, it's something along those lines.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
As I mentioned earlier, I find it VERY interesting that gravity obeys an inverse square law. Electrostatics happen to obey the same rules. Is it just fluke of the universe that gravity and electrostatic forces happen to follow the same inverse square rule? Just random coincidence? Me thinks not.

It's not a coincidence, but I always thought it was a very simple geometric relationship which is illustrated in the wiki on inverse-square law here:
The surface area of the sphere increases as the square of the radius as shown. Anything which projects isotropically from a point source could obey this, so I don't think it points to any special relationship between electricity and gravity. For example if I followed your logic I could say it painting a sphere with a given thickness of paint follows the inverse square law, therefore paint and electricity and gravity are all related. Wrong. The only relationship that I can affirm is one of geometry.

It would be great if gravity could be unified with the other forces but all attempts to do so have failed.

Gravity is obviously created by some kind of electrical property of matter.

How is it obvious? Because of the inverse square thing? That only tells me something about geometry of an isotropic field. I've seen no evidence gravity is created by electrical properties of matter. Maybe it is somehow, but nobody has shown that yet in anything that can be repeated.

Thornhill suggest radially aligned dipoles, which seems to fit the bill. If it's not that, it's something along those lines.

I've seen no evidence for this, so I don't see how it fits any bill.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I disagree with your assessment of the inverse square law. The square law has to do with the nature of the source and distance from that source.

Gravity could obey the same isotropic radial source properties as it does right now, but NOT follow an inverse square law. Geometry has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the properties of the source field, not the geometry of the source. There is no reason why gravity should obey an inverse square law in the exact same way electrostatics do.

The fact that gravity obeys an inverse square law is what police would call "reasonable suspicion" that gravity and electrical forces are interrelated. Throw in the fact that we observe no particle carriers for gravity, and that leaves atomic electrical properties as the only remaining possibility without invoking hypothetical entities.

We are obviously missing a big piece of the puzzle when it comes to gravity, as the OP demonstrates. This whole article is about observation not lining up with theory.

originally posted by: ErosA433
I suspect lifting by 1 meter would not give any kind of frequency shift that is measurable beyond the systematics of the experiment. The other thing here is that there are lasers around the world that are tuned to hyperfine splittings, allowing them to be used to selectively ionize an isotope of interest, where it can then be collected.

These are some of the most accurately frequency tuned lasers that exist, or at least a very good benchmark... I don't think that height differences between the different sites that perform this, is really a factor in the tuning... as i suspect any effect is extremely small, if there is an effect at all.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comments. If you're saying the frequency of the light source wouldn't be stable enough without ionizing the isotope of interest then yes I agree. But with ionizing aluminum they claim to measure the 1.121 PHz frequency shift at a height difference of 33cm, though the systematics are pretty noisy. At 1 meter it should be more clearly above the systematics though.

Optical Clocks and Relativity

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I disagree with your assessment of the inverse square law. The square law has to do with the nature of the source and distance from that source.

Do you agree with my paint example, that to apply a given thickness of paint to a sphere, for a sphere with double the radius it takes 4 times as much paint?

If so can we declare paint and gravity and electricity to all be related?

Those papers are about physics of celestial objects so I think you're being dishonest by saying they're "not astrophysics". Plasma and electric charge distribution around stars are topics in astrophysics, aren't they?

being nitpicky bout the wording?
your right! solar activity is part of astrophysics! (would "astronomy" be more of your gusto?)
unfortunatly this topic is about the weired behaviour of dwarf glaxies, since the model takes gravity into account ONLY, its the ONE factor of relevance for the discussion. -.-

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Do you agree with my paint example, that to apply a given thickness of paint to a sphere, for a sphere with double the radius it takes 4 times as much paint?

If so can we declare paint and gravity and electricity to all be related?

I disagree with your using paint as an analogy. Gravity isn't a physical medium, it is a force field. There is no reason that it need obey an inverse square law. The paint analogy ignores the reasons behind the force, just like relativity ignores the reasons.

If we say gravity is electrical property of matter, then we have a reason as to why gravity obeys an inverse square law.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I disagree with your using paint as an analogy. Gravity isn't a physical medium, it is a force field. There is no reason that it need obey an inverse square law.

OK how about sound? Clap your hands and the sound pretty much follows the inverse square law. Does this mean sound, electricity and gravity are all related?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I disagree with your using paint as an analogy. Gravity isn't a physical medium, it is a force field. There is no reason that it need obey an inverse square law.

OK how about sound? Clap your hands and the sound pretty much follows the inverse square law. Does this mean sound, electricity and gravity are all related?

Yes.

And paint too.

They are all predicated on the existence of matter.

Without matter, there is no sound, no paint, no electricity, and no gravity.

The fact that light, sound, electrostatics, gravity, etc... all obey inverse square rules points to a connection between all of them - and that connection is matter itself.

If we presume that gravitational and electrical forces are interrelated, that provides the REASON why the inverse square rules apply.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The fact that light, sound, electrostatics, light, gravity, etc... all obey inverse square rules points to a connection between all of them - and that connection is matter itself.

Except that light isn't typically considered matter, it's considered energy.

It's pretty easy to show that the propagation of sound is quite different from that of electromagnetic radiation even though they both obey the inverse square law, so again this fact affirms that the geometry is the relationship, and not any underlying similarity of the nature of sound waves versus light waves.
-Light can travel in the absence of matter, while sound can't
-When you clap your hands the sound in air is compression waves, while light is known to be transverse waves.

And so on; light and sound are quite different in spite of both following the inverse square law.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The fact that light, sound, electrostatics, light, gravity, etc... all obey inverse square rules points to a connection between all of them - and that connection is matter itself.

Except that light isn't typically considered matter, it's considered energy.

It's pretty easy to show that the propagation of sound is quite different from that of electromagnetic radiation even though they both obey the inverse square law, so again this fact affirms that the geometry is the relationship, and not any underlying similarity of the nature of sound waves versus light waves.
-Light can travel in the absence of matter, while sound can't
-When you clap your hands the sound in air is compression waves, while light is known to be transverse waves.

And so on; light and sound are quite different in spite of both following the inverse square law.

Again, your ignoring the fact that matter is necessary in all cases. Nothing can't emit light. Light may be energy, but you can't have a light source without matter.

Your going off on these tangents to avoid having to deal with the reasons behind gravity's existence in the first place.

There is no reason why gravity should obey an inverse square law. There is no reason why anything should obey an inverse square law. The fact that all of these things do points to a common connection, which is matter.

Further, assuming gravity is an electrical property of matter has the consequence of providing a unified theory. No more disconnected SR and GR. SR and GR have not been unified and never will be. That much should be obvious by now.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh, here's another interesting factoid about gravity:

"...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.

Another coincidence?

What about “non-gravitational” accelerations that occur in comets and space probes?

Again, your ignoring the fact that matter is necessary in all cases. Nothing can't emit light. Light may be energy, but you can't have a light source without matter.

id like to point out that the vacuum can create photons...
a pretty strong indicator that space could be what connects everything.

space is allso pretty much a prerequisite for matter. :p
the ammount of energy hypothetically contained in empty space, compared to ordinary matter, is just staggering to say the least.
assuming matter would not be a byproduct of this tremendous energy, kind of sounds illogical to me.

a reply to: Dolour

id like to point out that the vacuum can create photons... a pretty strong indicator that space could be what connects everything.

who said that ? mathematical equations ?
this spontaneous emissions are caused by EM field interaction I think and not like creationist say they come from nothing.

and what is empty space anyway ? without anything it is nothing, there must be at least two things in it to determine something like size or distance... then nothing is infinite, infinite big and infinite small simultaneously

originally posted by: KrzYma

who said that ? mathematical equations ?
this spontaneous emissions are caused by EM field interaction I think and not like creationist say they come from nothing.

first of all, its experimentally proven(yes those particles get anihilated soon after theyr created, nevertheless they originate from "epmty" space).
second, "empty space" is alot of things, anything but surely not empty.
wich is even stated in the same post...

originally posted by: Dolour
the ammount of energy hypothetically contained in empty space, compared to ordinary matter, is just staggering to say the least.

originally posted by: KrzYma
and what is empty space anyway ? without anything it is nothing, there must be at least two things in it to determine something like size or distance... then nothing is infinite, infinite big and infinite small simultaneously

if you can answerthe former one, im sure youd get the nobel prize ;o
and for infinity go check out fractals. information can be potentially infinite...
but dont get me started on when information is nessesary, and how the universe acts way to darn similar to a computer game to not raise suspicion. :p

a reply to: Dolour

first of all, its experimentally proven(yes those particles get anihilated soon after theyr created, nevertheless they originate from "epmty" space). second, "empty space" is alot of things, anything but surely not empty. wich is even stated in the same post...

NO, all the test and experiments are not done on empty space. they are done on contained region of space manipulated to appear empty, but is it ?

Nobel prize has no value or meaning any more, Obama get it for piece... this says everything

originally posted by: KrzYma
NO, all the test and experiments are not done on empty space. they are done on contained region of space manipulated to appear empty, but is it ?

even if you could remove all matter from it, space would still be full of all kinds of frequencies we refer to as quantum fluctuations.
and you cant get rid of THAT by any means.

originally posted by: KrzYma
Nobel prize has no value or meaning any more, Obama get it for piece... this says everything

its donated with 1million bucks, wich can be put to good effort. :p