The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by Arbitrageur


OK, if they do then why are they knocking down plasma cosmology? Why is it not being given more serious consideration by the mainstream community?

Sure, I hear thing's like no electric influx and whatnot...

OK, so where is all this dark matter and dark energy? Where are a lot of thing's mainstream community says exists but can't provide evidence for? Where are these mythological gravity waves we've spent billions looking for and have to spend more and more on more elaborate instruments to find?

Whatever happened to Occam' Razor? Plasma Cosmology can and does predict/explain everything we observe with just the addition of electricity in space born plasmas, something Einstein decided to do away with. We don't need faulty gravitational calculations to describe how a star is born, a planet, a galaxy or the structure of the universe, Einsteins math fails at describing these things. His physics states there is not enough matter in our universe, plasma cosmology has no issue with the distribution of matter. So again, we're met with the problem of simplest answer is usually the right answer.

With Einstein, we *HAVE* to invent many unobserved things that observations don't even hint to being real. With plasma cosmology and allowing the common sense role of electricity that is latent in ionized space born plasmas, nothing needs to be invented, we can observe it and recreate all observations in the lab.

Nor do I feel the mirage explanation is adequate enough. Regardless of image distortion, you can't change brightness. Like I said, even if one looks like a bunny rabbit and the other looks like a lollipop, they would still retain the same brightness if they represent the same object. Einsteins cross is supposedly one quasar distorted into four according to mainstream science and yet according to observation and common sense, they are patently distinct individual quasars that just happened to be aligned like that all exhibiting individual characteristics. None of them are distorted in any way shape or form. They are normal point-like sources of light behaving individually from one another. This does not scream of distortion by gravity or mirage like effect at all.

The OP has collected various evidence from various researchers, and yet all that can be done is to bash the evidence down as if it means nothing. If science truly was not static, then this evidence would not be readily dismissed. If people really were forward thinking, allowing evidences to dictate beliefs and opinions, then these things would not be readily dismissed. We're talking about a nearly hundred year old archaic model of the universe that is observationally proven to be wrong compared to a newer model of the universe that is observationally proven correct. The old model can not be tested adequately in the lab as it requires unfalsifiable inventions, the newer model can be tested as it's standard plasma physics of which the universe is filled with plasma. Occam' Razor doesn't say kiss Einstein ass even if observationally disproved.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

OK, if they do then why are they knocking down plasma cosmology? Why is it not being given more serious consideration by the mainstream community?

Sure, I hear thing's like no electric influx and whatnot...
.......

The OP has collected various evidence from various researchers, and yet all that can be done is to bash the evidence down as if it means nothing.

Pot, meet kettle, except in the case of electric influx it's the LACK of evidence that's the issue. There's not even any evidence to bash.

You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse others of, dismissing the lack of evidence for inflows and yet still going on a rant about how the electric universe theory is better than the standard model. And this isn't a case of which evidence is better, there is NO evidence of inflows. NONE.

And mainstream isn't bashing plasma cosmology when the evidence supports it, only when the evidence doesn't support it. There are more articles on plasma in space that shows that mainstream scientists do measure and analyze plasma and electrical/electromagnetic effects.

Scientists can be kind of slow to adopt new theories in favor of old existing theories, we can't deny that. If the evidence is ambiguous, it can take even longer. But when there's no evidence at all, like no electrical inflows observed into the sun, they will never adopt a new theory with no evidence like that.

I do agree with the Tesla quote in your signature in some aspects of science today, most notably the endeavors of string and membrane theories. It's long on math, and short on evidence or observations to validate it. So don't get me wrong, I'm not defending all scientists here. Those guys have had decades to show some results and I think it's time they deliver.

But in contrast to that, cosmologists actually do make observations, lots of them. There were 256 billion observations made in just one paper alone! That's a lot!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


We have already addressed the inflow problem.

There are multiple causes as to why it has not been detected (yet).

Claiming a lack of inflows as a reason to ignore the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of findings that demonstrate plasma cosmology is correct is criminal behavior on the part of standard cosmologists defrauding the tax payer.

This thread isn't about the electric sun either.

I will create a new thread that demonstrates the unending amount of evidence in favor of the electric solar model at some point in the future, as well as a video presentation.

Then we can have a real discussion about this supposed "lack of inflows"




[edit on 27-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

- an extraordinary claim:

space bends itself into a hole creating so much gravity that not even light can escape

- an extraordinary claim:

magnetic fields can freeze into a plasma even though the laws of physics say this is impossible

- an extraordinary claim:

neutron stars can spin on their axis at over 60,000 times per minute

- an extraordinary claim:

dynamos of moving liquid metal create planetary magnetic fields

- an extraordinary claim:

gigantic holes in space not only suck matter in, but blow matter out in jets at speeds faster than the speed of light.

- an extraordinary claim:

comets are balls of ice covered by pitch black solid rock that naturally clumped together with all the ice on the inside during the formation of the solar system

- an extraordinary claim:

magnetic field lines can merge and reconnect violating the known laws of physics

- an extraordinary claim:

95% of the universe is made out of matter and energy we can't see or detect

- an extraordinary claim:

etc....etc.....etc.......

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Scientists continuing to ignore the facts is criminal behavior. They know full well what the laws of physics say about plasma, these people aren't dumb. They are criminal. There are no more excuses for the behavior of these scientists.

Anything that a reasonable person might want to answer to this gibberish (if they bother at all) will be construed as a "personal attack".

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Scientists continuing to ignore the facts is criminal behavior. They know full well what the laws of physics say about plasma, these people aren't dumb. They are criminal. There are no more excuses for the behavior of these scientists.

Anything that a reasonable person might want to answer to this gibberish (if they bother at all) will be construed as a "personal attack".

Hey, you're a smart girl.

Jump in my magnetic reconnection thread and explain why plasma in space should violate the known laws of physics for me.

Originally posted by sirnex
Nor do I feel the mirage explanation is adequate enough. Regardless of image distortion, you can't change brightness. Like I said, even if one looks like a bunny rabbit and the other looks like a lollipop, they would still retain the same brightness if they represent the same object.

You don't seem to have experience with optics. The brightness of the object ultimately depends on the amount of light that reaches point B when emitted from point A. That amount is not subject to conservation laws, because light is indeed scattered on a system of evolving and complex shape. If you have a bottle filled with glass shards, and look at a distant source, the brightness will be different each time you shake the bottle.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse others of, dismissing the lack of evidence for inflows and yet still going on a rant about how the electric universe theory is better than the standard model. And this isn't a case of which evidence is better, there is NO evidence of inflows. NONE.

OK, let's compare the list of currently unobserved things in both models. Through this comparison, let's invoke Occam' Razor and determine which model best fits by further determining which model by default requires the most inventing to fit current known observations of the universe.

Agreed?

And mainstream isn't bashing plasma cosmology when the evidence supports it, only when the evidence doesn't support it. There are more articles on plasma in space that shows that mainstream scientists do measure and analyze plasma and electrical/electromagnetic effects.

I don't understand it though. Electric phenomena in plasmas is not contested except in such case as in space born plasmas, or more specifically, electric inflow powering the sun despite such phenomena existing in lab based plasmas.

Yet, mainstream science can just blatantly invent a multitude of entities and call it a job well done when none of these entities have been observed or implied by current observation of the known universe.

And we call such nonsense science? I call it paying my living costs by deceit. Nothing better than inventing unfalsifiable entities, just ask the Vatican.

Scientists can be kind of slow to adopt new theories in favor of old existing theories, we can't deny that. If the evidence is ambiguous, it can take even longer. But when there's no evidence at all, like no electrical inflows observed into the sun, they will never adopt a new theory with no evidence like that

What about that link I posted awhile back ago? I forget if you answered anything about it.

I do agree with the Tesla quote in your signature in some aspects of science today, most notably the endeavors of string and membrane theories. It's long on math, and short on evidence or observations to validate it. So don't get me wrong, I'm not defending all scientists here. Those guys have had decades to show some results and I think it's time they deliver.

That's the point though, they can't deliver. It's like asking Christians to prove their unfalsifiable deity of invention. It's the same thing with mainstream science today. They invent all these invisible unfalsifiable entities and spend billions pretending they'll find them. It's like having the government hand out grant money to Intelligent Design research, pointless and a waste of resources.

But in contrast to that, cosmologists actually do make observations, lots of them. There were 256 billion observations made in just one paper alone! That's a lot!

Aye, and I love reading about their observations. Oh, we think we found this, we think we found that. There is no such thing as "I think", they either have evidence or they don't. You don't just "think" you have evidence. I'm still waiting to see a definitive observation of a black hole rather than a "We think we found one".

@buddhasystem

You don't seem to have experience with optics. The brightness of the object ultimately depends on the amount of light that reaches point B when emitted from point A. That amount is not subject to conservation laws, because light is indeed scattered on a system of evolving and complex shape. If you have a bottle filled with glass shards, and look at a distant source, the brightness will be different each time you shake the bottle.

So, all these unobserved mini black holes causing the Einstein Cross is like a bottle of glass shards? I get the analogy of glass shards refracting light in such a way as to cause dimming, but I've never heard gravitational lensing also causing refraction, only bending of light, which shouldn't affect brightness.

[edit to add]

I forgot to also ask, why do these quasars not distort at all? why are they not being stretched into oblong distorted shapes or why no "ring distortion" since it's supposedly point sourced black holes?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
So, all these unobserved mini black holes causing the Einstein Cross is like a bottle of glass shards? I get the analogy of glass shards refracting light in such a way as to cause dimming, but I've never heard gravitational lensing also causing refraction, only bending of light, which shouldn't affect brightness.

Depending on how the rays bend, the amount of light reaching you will be affected. See the example with mirage cited in this thread.

I forgot to also ask, why do these quasars not distort at all? why are they not being stretched into oblong distorted shapes or why no "ring distortion" since it's supposedly point sourced black holes?

I don't think they are completely undistorted to begin with. Look at the pix.
However, they don't exhibit extreme distortion seen elsewhere because their dimensions are tiny compared to a typical galaxy. The name "quasar" stands for "quasi-stellar", i.e. star-like. It's almost a point source.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Depending on how the rays bend, the amount of light reaching you will be affected. See the example with mirage cited in this thread.

OK, I'm confused... If we're going to say some mirage like effect is at play here, then as each quasar goes about on it's individual dim/brightness thing, then equally we should be seeing distortions going on. I've seen the animated gif of them brightening and dimming and none ever get distorted.

I don't think they are completely undistorted to begin with. Look at the pix.
However, they don't exhibit extreme distortion seen elsewhere because their dimensions are tiny compared to a typical galaxy. The name "quasar" stands for "quasi-stellar", i.e. star-like. It's almost a point source.

I don't get it... This supposed one quasar can get distorted by a crap load of "micro-black holes" into four different quasars that don't exhibit any further distortion caused by the "micro-black holes" movement through their host galaxy? That makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't they get further distorted as the "micro-black holes" rotate about their host galaxy, but have sufficient gravitational influence to make it appear as four separate quasars?

If you look at the pictures, they are pixelated, not distorted. If you watch the animated gif, it's pixelated, but they never exhibit any other form of distortion to the image.

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, let's compare the list of currently unobserved things in both models. Through this comparison, let's invoke Occam' Razor and determine which model best fits by further determining which model by default requires the most inventing to fit current known observations of the universe.

I would argue this has already been done. However much of what I have seen on this has been in forums like bad astronomy where mnemeth1 has debated his theories with scientists which are more abundant there than in a forum like ATS. And they gave him a lot of rope, one of the threads I recall reading went on for 17 pages. On the other hand physicsforums won't even debate it in new threads because they end up being just a re-hashing of the same stuff that's in the old threads.

That's the point though, they can't deliver.

Well at least after all this discussion we found something we can agree on. If you claim the string theorists are spinning works of mathematical fiction in 11 dimensions, I don't really have any real world evidence to dispute that claim.

However I can't put cosmologists and other scientists who do use real-world experiments and observations in the same boat as you seem to be doing. I would also like to point out I can't agree that mainstream scientists are married to the standard model. Anyone trying to advance a scientific career will find they can advance further and faster by disproving some existing theory in favor of a new theory. But they must have lots of evidence.

I don't understand it though. Electric phenomena in plasmas is not contested except in such case as in space born plasmas, or more specifically, electric inflow powering the sun despite such phenomena existing in lab based plasmas.

Exactly. And if there was evidence on inflows into the sun like in the lab experiments, they wouldn't be bashing that theory either. We aren't limited to visible wavelengths anymore. Just look at all the frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum we now use to observe the sun and space.

Yet, mainstream science can just blatantly invent a multitude of entities and call it a job well done when none of these entities have been observed or implied by current observation of the known universe.

You disagreed with my analogy of dark matter and Neptune and you have that right but I don't understand why. Gravitational models predicted Neptune would be there, and we found it. Gravitational models predict dark matter is there, and we've found some of it but there's still a lot more to find. However it seems like I see a couple articles a year where they are finding more of it. Since dark matter is dark, and very far away, it's hard to see, so it should be no surprise it's hard to find. I suppose there could be some flawed assumptions in the model, but let me tell you why I discount that possibility myself. Look at our local solar system. The gravitational model works quite well in explaining our local observations. Why does it work here and not on distant observations like galaxies? My personal thought is, that our own solar system is close enough to us that we can see what's going on with major gravitational bodies. And we don't have to invent things besides gravity to explain how the bodies in our solar system move, right?

So perhaps the second biggest mystery in the universe to me, is why someone like you or mnemeth1 would want to discard gravitational theory when it works so perfectly on our local solar system. I don't see any alternate theory being offered by you guys which even comes close. And there's no missing dark matter in our solar system gravitational models, right? And no missing dark energy either. That dark stuff is only missing on larger scales where things are farther away and harder to see.

I get the analogy of glass shards refracting light in such a way as to cause dimming, but I've never heard gravitational lensing also causing refraction, only bending of light, which shouldn't affect brightness.

refraction and bending of light are somewhat synonymous.

www.merriam-webster.com...
refraction: 1 : deflection from a straight path undergone by a light ray or energy wave

sounds a little like bending?
2 : the change in the apparent position of a celestial body due to bending of the light rays emanating from it

sounds more like bending, or even better:
3 : the action of distorting an image by viewing through a medium

Yes the image can be distorted and change in size shape and intensity.

A high quality camera lens is precision made to produce as little distortion as possible. As Buddhasystem has told you about 4 times already, the lenses in space are not optical quality like a camera lens. So when the light is bent or refracted by an imperfect lens, it is distorted, and yes, it's a point source which probably explains why we see more of a point compared to other refractions of say galaxies which are not point sources, and can more easily stretched out into arcs, good answer Buddhasystem.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
95% of the universe is made out of matter and energy we can't see or detect

- an extraordinary claim

I agree. Bet you didn't see that coming. It is indeed an extraordinary claim. And scientists admit they are guessing and searching for a better explanations.

And this takes me back to an earlier point we discussed. You said you didn't need to provide a new better theory, you only needed to show the existing theory was false. In the case of 95% of the universe missing there are multiple theories and none of them have been proven. So in this example, virtually all competing theories are unproven, so it shouldn't be hard for someone to come up with a better theory, Scientists aren't married to dark matter and dark energy and they want to find the real answers as much as anyone. But somebody does need to either come up with a better theory, or better observations to explain what is going on.

I actually agree with you that WIMPs seem like a stretch of my imagination. But I'm still trying to figure out how a single photon can pass through both slits in a double slit experiment so the fact that I can't imagine that either only demonstrates that my imagination is limited. But my position on WIMPs is, show me the evidence. They've been looking for decades without finding them, I don't understand what they expect to happen tomorrow.

I suspect dark matter, if it really exists, is probably mostly MACHOs. We live on dark matter, and so are the other planets and yet we had a hard time finding Neptune which is only the tiniest fraction of a light year away. Compare that to Andromeda, a very near galaxy and yet it's 2,500,000 light years away. Neptune is about 0.000458563 light years away, and we had a hard time finding that. How can we expect to see "Neptunes" in Andromeda that are 5,451,813,600 times further away? HELLO??? The thing I find shocking is that anyone would assume that all matter should be luminous when the very planet we live on is non-luminous. Or why does anyone think we should be able to see other "Neptunes" or other non-luminous bodies which are billions and billions of times further away than our own local Neptune?

It's at great distances in galaxies like Andromeda and further that the dark matter issue was discovered. So personally I'm not the least bit surprised there may be stuff there we can't see. And I don't understand why anyone else is surprised by that.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have provided a better theory.

One that agrees with the known laws of physics for a change.

I noticed none of you have commented in my magnetic reconnection thread.

Is that because I am right in my assertions?

I assume so.

It is true that I debated this endlessly on BAUT, and from that experience I learned a lot.

Keep in mind I have self-taught myself everything so it was certainly an educational experience going up against the BAUT people, but in the end I was able to express exactly what was wrong with the standard theory and exactly how it violates the known laws of physics.

You know good and well that my points are entirely valid.

The standard theory violates the known laws of physics.

It is impossible.

To continue accepting it in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of the plasma model is FRAUD.

It is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR on the part of the mainstream State funded cosmologists.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by buddhasystem

I'm familiar with works of "that guy".

Yeah, so was Einstein.

Maxwell's work was the key to Einstein's solutions describing gravity being the result of spacetime curvature. Einstein was inspired by Maxwell's work, embodied it in his own work, and credits Maxwell fully and completely. Einsteins solutions are even known as the Einstein-Maxwell Field Equations when they specifically involve an electromagnetic field in free space.

I really enjoy the way mnemeth1 insists that science has to stick with the work of one genius and negate the work of others that build on that work. Every scientific endeavor builds on the work of others. I don't get what the blind jealousy is about or where the invective comes from.

Plasma theory is interesting, and can potentially provide some useful solutions to some difficult problems. But it just is not robust or far reaching enough to be an all encompassing alternative to 'standard' cosmology.



[edit on 27/5/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 27/5/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I would argue this has already been done. However much of what I have seen on this has been in forums like bad astronomy where mnemeth1 has debated his theories with scientists which are more abundant there than in a forum like ATS. And they gave him a lot of rope, one of the threads I recall reading went on for 17 pages. On the other hand physicsforums won't even debate it in new threads because they end up being just a re-hashing of the same stuff that's in the old threads.

So the invention of unobserved, non implied, unfalsifiable entities is more accurate science than the scaling up of well known phenomena?

Anyone trying to advance a scientific career will find they can advance further and faster by disproving some existing theory in favor of a new theory. But they must have lots of evidence.

I would argue the opposite is true. I'm instantly reminded of Galileo who was put under house arrest for nothing more than providing evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Most, if not everyone in plasma cosmology are ridiculed when space IS filled with plasma and we CAN replicate every observation in space with lab based plasma analogues. We can't replicate physically any gravitational model of the universe, but we can replicate a plasma cosmology. That sounds like pretty strong evidence to me and gives a more simpler reproducible solution to observations.

Exactly. And if there was evidence on inflows into the sun like in the lab experiments, they wouldn't be bashing that theory either. We aren't limited to visible wavelengths anymore. Just look at all the frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum we now use to observe the sun and space.

I've read things from NASA stating that the solar wind can induce huge voltages in craters on the moon. There was also that post showing Jupiter/Io producing huge voltages.

IBEX has discovered that the heliosheath is dominated not by the Sun but by the Galaxy’s magnetic field. Since the galaxy's magnetic field traces the direction of interstellar electric current flow in space near the Sun, it is a result that conforms to the EU model of galaxies and stars.

link

So why can't this be the cause of electric inflow into the sun? If such huge voltages being produced in space are accepted and known and observed, then why can't this very same phenomena being shown of the sun be evidence of it's electric inflow? Everything BUT the sun can have induced charges from external sources despite similar effect being observed with the sun?

You disagreed with my analogy of dark matter and Neptune and you have that right but I don't understand why. Gravitational models predicted Neptune would be there, and we found it. Gravitational models predict dark matter is there, and we've found some of it but there's still a lot more to find.

Gravitational models don't predict dark matter at all. Dark matter was literally invented because observation didn't fit gravitational models. We ended up not having enough mass according to those models, so mainstream scientists just willy nilly assumed and arbitrarily invented the notion of 95% of the universe being this unfalsifiable dark stuff.

So perhaps the second biggest mystery in the universe to me, is why someone like you or mnemeth1 would want to discard gravitational theory when it works so perfectly on our local solar system. I don't see any alternate theory being offered by you guys which even comes close. And there's no missing dark matter in our solar system gravitational models, right? And no missing dark energy either. That dark stuff is only missing on larger scales where things are farther away and harder to see.

Think about your statement. Why would *you* accept dark matter when you just said all that? Dark matter is not just unseen normal matter, they're claiming it's this weird form of invisible matter that interacts gravitationally only. Think about it for a second though...

We don't need to invoke it in small scale systems, but larger scale systems don't behave gravitationally similar to small scale systems.

What's that tell you? That suggests to me that gravity doesn't behave the same on a large scale as it does on a small scale. That is also a more simpler answer than invoking 95% invisible dark stuff that we can never see. There are theories that modify our understanding of gravity on the large scale and they do work, so why are they not being accepted? Why are we still funding research on dark matter when a viable alternative does exist that follows Occam' Razor?

refraction and bending of light are somewhat synonymous.

I would disagree to a point though. Refracting light in a medium, I can understand some dimming going on with the distorted image. Bending light without a medium by gravitational influence, I can't see dimming light.

Yes the image can be distorted and change in size shape and intensity.

Yet, none of those quasars are distorted at all. They retain their point like structure throughout the entire brightening/dimming process. With the claim of a bunch of black holes being the cause of Einsteins cross, it stands to reason that we should see a lot more distortion than one quasar being imaged as four perfect quasars behaving independently to one another.

Originally posted by sirnex
Think about your statement. Why would *you* accept dark matter when you just said all that? Dark matter is not just unseen normal matter, they're claiming it's this weird form of invisible matter that interacts gravitationally only.

We both live on dark matter.

astro.berkeley.edu...

The nature of the dark matter predicted by inflation is a profound and unresolved puzzle. We have two choices. Either the dark matter consists of ordinary, baryonic matter, or else it consists of some more exotic form of matter.

where do we look for the baryonic dark matter? One's first expectation might be that baryonic dark matter consists of burnt-out stars in the galactic halo, yet other forms, such as planets and black holes, are also possible. Baryonic dark matter does exist: it is far more uncertain whether there exists enough to solve any of the dark matter problems, that is to say, dark matter in galaxy halos, dark matter in galaxy clusters and superclusters, or dark matter in an amount suficient to close the universe. It is most unlikely that baryonic dark matter can account for the closure density, as we will now see: for this, one must appeal to WIMPs, or some other weakly interacting particle. However, baryonic dark matter is a serious candidate for dark matter at least in galaxy halos, if not on larger scales. In acknowledgment of the rivalry between these two forms of dark matter, the favored baryonic dark matter candidates have been dubbed MACHOs, for massive compact halo objects.

The exotic matter claim is one of two options and I'm not convinced by the arguments that it must be exotic. Or perhaps some is exotic and most of it is ordinary matter, but as I said earlier, I'll believe in exotic matter like WIMPs when I see evidence of them. So far, I haven't, so I don't. Maybe we share a common skepticism of unseen WIMPs.

We don't need to invoke it in small scale systems, but larger scale systems don't behave gravitationally similar to small scale systems.

What's that tell you? That suggests to me that gravity doesn't behave the same on a large scale as it does on a small scale.

You haven't explained to me how you expect to see Neptunes in Andromeda over 5 billion times further away than our own Neptune which was hard enough to see. One possibility is that gravity behaves differently on larger scales but we don't have any evidence for that. How can you deny dark matter when you're standing on it? We just haven't found enough of it to account for observations as you said but apparently the difference in our opinion is, I expect Neptunes in Andromeda to be hard to see. Apparently you don't. We can agree to disagree on that point.

Originally posted by sirnex

You disagreed with my analogy of dark matter and Neptune and you have that right but I don't understand why. Gravitational models predicted Neptune would be there, and we found it. Gravitational models predict dark matter is there, and we've found some of it but there's still a lot more to find.

Gravitational models don't predict dark matter at all. Dark matter was literally invented because observation didn't fit gravitational models.

Exactly. Observations also didn't fit gravitational models if there wasn't something like Neptune there before it was discovered. So we make observations. The observations tell us something else is there based on gravitational models, and we look for it.

So you would like to tell Alexis Bouvard in 1843 he's crazy to believe in unseen objects and he needs to change his models of gravity because nobody has ever seen this unseen planet? I can't say I agree with that, he was proven right and you've failed to explain adequately how predicting dark matter from observations applied to gravity models is different from predicting Neptune from observations applied to gravity models.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I noticed none of you have commented in my magnetic reconnection thread.

Is that because I am right in my assertions?

I assume so./quote]

As is typical, you are wrong in your assumptions (and assertions). Personally, reading your crap and repeated mantra about "Einstein wrong all the way" can be quite nauseating. I understand that you are disappointed that not all of visitors here support your trolling habit, but you'll have to deal with it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The exotic matter claim is one of two options and I'm not convinced by the arguments that it must be exotic. Or perhaps some is exotic and most of it is ordinary matter, but as I said earlier, I'll believe in exotic matter like WIMPs when I see evidence of them. So far, I haven't, so I don't. Maybe we share a common skepticism of unseen WIMPs.

I definitely doubt it's some form of exotic matter. Granted we haven't nor at this time can observe all normal matter, I wouldn't go around calling this dark matter in and of itself. The dark matter I'm referring to is that unfalsifiable unobserved exotic matter that is required by Einsteins model in order to explain the universe.

You haven't explained to me how you expect to see Neptunes in Andromeda over 5 billion times further away than our own Neptune which was hard enough to see. One possibility is that gravity behaves differently on larger scales but we don't have any evidence for that. How can you deny dark matter when you're standing on it? We just haven't found enough of it to account for observations as you said but apparently the difference in our opinion is, I expect Neptunes in Andromeda to be hard to see. Apparently you don't. We can agree to disagree on that point.

If we modify how we think about gravity with such theories as MOND, then observational differences between small and large end up working for the most part. It may not work perfectly for the very fact that the actual mass of the known universe has not and can not be calculated right now. Yet, these modifications allow for a simpler explanation rather than the blatant invention of something that's not even implied by observation. This fits more adequately with your earlier analogy of Neptune as well.

Exactly. Observations also didn't fit gravitational models if there wasn't something like Neptune there before it was discovered. So we make observations. The observations tell us something else is there based on gravitational models, and we look for it.

See, that's the thing though, the model predicted that another planet should be there, but the model doesn't predict some form of exotic matter. This dark matter was just arbitrarily invented for lack of better explanations as to why the model didn't work on large scale interactions.

So you would like to tell Alexis Bouvard in 1843 he's crazy to believe in unseen objects and he needs to change his models of gravity because nobody has ever seen this unseen planet? I can't say I agree with that, he was proven right and you've failed to explain adequately how predicting dark matter from observations applied to gravity models is different from predicting Neptune from observations applied to gravity models.

Dark matter is NOT predicted by any current model. It's an invented concept, there is no observational evidence that implies the universe is filled with any form of exotic matter that can never ever ever be directly observed making it utterly unfalsifiable. Your Neptune analogy more fits with modifications in gravitational models than it does with arbitrarily inventing new matter that can't be proven.

reply to post by buddhasystem

As is typical, you are wrong in your assumptions (and assertions). Personally, reading your crap and repeated mantra about "Einstein wrong all the way" can be quite nauseating. I understand that you are disappointed that not all of visitors here support your trolling habit, but you'll have to deal with it.

Don't be a moron. A person can't troll their own thread, but someone coming in flinging insults that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread can be and are trolls.