What I find extremely interesting is the following... Mary Rose, you are making wild statements in regard what mainstream science is and is not doing,
even making a statement that college textbooks are out of date... well let me ask a question here. (And before you jump on me for an apparent 'show me
your credentials' attack, that really isnt the point.)
Have you studied this so called 'mainstream' physics at a college/university? How many of these said textbooks have you poured over? how many hours
have you donated into reading of textbook material such that you are an authority on its content?
I scratch my head because I did a masters in Physics and Astronomy and a PhD in Experimental Particle physics and i find it quite confusing because
most of the time text books are used as quick dirty reference for problems and some general information. Usually lecturers (at least my lecturers)
taught from their own research. We go taught or told about the latest understandings and theories. Problems were posed to us and we were asked to
figure them out, we were not 'poisoned' so to speak and told how to explain everything.
I find it a common theme in your posts to stand accusing everyone and back it up with very little.
Gravity is very weak as you say and as everyone admits, no one is hiding anything there. The difference in the understanding comes with that as has
already been pointed out, Gravity as observed is a purely additive force. In that, the more mass you have, the more gravity, the only way to reduce it
appears to be to remove the mass.
Electrostatic forces on the other hand require you to have a imbalance in protons and electrons. To drive a current it is absolutely required to have
that imbalance. large scale imbalances like this are rare and hard to sustain. It is a higher ordered system than one with no imbalance or charge, so
the system is inherently unstable. On Earth, large fields form in clouds which are then released as lightening, they are of incredible power, but only
form in specific conditions and quickly equalize once the chain has started.
This is my issue with many of the whole electric driven theories is that, they never really explain anything or any of the effects, and the kinds of
imbalances required have to be so enormous that its hard to really believe that a universe can be created in that configuration.
One observable which i hope you can appreciate is that the universe and everything in it tries to reduce to a low energy configuration or state.
Nuclear driven stars are extremely easily explainable and very well modelled and fit many observables.
High mass stars burn hotter, they live shorter lives and they glow blue, when they explode they produce a mass dependant style of explosion, and
their remnants can be explained by fairly simple quantum mechanics that an undergrad can understand. Stars appear to fit the models extremely well.
Plus there are other types of stars that behave in different ways, and those too can be explained in terms of gravity driven nuclear reactors.
One wonderful example I can place of people not accepting data is that of people who come out criticizing the SNO experiment who proved that the sun
is a nuclear driven system. But oh no no no that can be ignored right? because it doesn't fit with the whole EM driven sun idea, because the EM driven
universe proponents cannot give you any credible theory to the production of neutrinos from the sun. I read online (about 5 minutes ago) someone
saying that the SNO experiment didn't understand the data, The truth is however the commentator was too ignorant to even understand the SNO detector
The sun is a gravity-nuclear driven object... the evidence is enormous. Before people make massive claims, they need to start off by explaining what
we see in small chunks and provide convincing proof of how something like the sun works and gives rise to ALL the effects we see. So far, all i see is
some interesting interpretation of plasma effects... and zero all else.
edit on 16-9-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)