Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How about they just call them psoitrons, and drop the antimatter label. Or maybe someone could explain how, just being like an electron, but having a positive charge is antimatter. I could see these positrons stripping electrons away from atoms creating ions, but that wouldn't make then antimatter.

Considering the jr high attitude of the blogger in your link, I doubt if that person understands the math.

reply to post by poet1b

How about they just call them psoitrons, and drop the antimatter label.

Maybe because they don't play nice together like little toy magnets.

Or maybe someone could explain how, just being like an electron, but having a positive charge is antimatter. I could see these positrons stripping electrons away from atoms creating ions, but that wouldn't make then antimatter.

OK, how's this?

Electrons and positrons (antielectrons) produce gamma rays when they collide, and heavier particles such as protons and antiprotons also produce secondary particles that decay into neutrinos. So antimatter and matter don't really destroy each other, but merely transition into another form: energy.

Source to clue

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I'm not convinced that a photon is anything but a slightly changed electron moving at or near the speed of light.

This happens when the gamma-ray energy transforms into a pair of particles: an electron and a positron. It's these particles that reach Fermi's orbit.

The detection of positrons shows many high-energy particles are being ejected from the atmosphere. In fact, scientists now think that all TGFs emit electron/positron beams. A paper on the findings has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters.

If they mean electron positron pair, then does the pair reach Fermi's orbit, or are they separated at that time. and if they are separated, wouldn't they be traveling in fairly opposite directions?

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How about they just call them psoitrons, and drop the antimatter label. Or maybe someone could explain how, just being like an electron, but having a positive charge is antimatter.

Positron is a specific particle. Antimatter is more broad and applies to not just positrons but other anti-particles like antiprotons, and complete atoms like anti-hydrogen, anti-helium etc.

It's just antimatter by definition. It could have been called "glog" or some other made up name but "antimatter" was the name that was chosen, which is not totally inappropriate since it does have opposite charges of normal matter, but it's not opposite in every way. As discussed earlier in the thread, it's been shown that antimatter still causes things to fall down, not up so you can say it's not the opposite of matter in that respect and therefore it shouldn't be called antimatter. Fine, you don't like the name, but that's what it's called. Science is full of misnomers where in retrospect we could pick better names today for things that were named a long time ago before we understood them, but the name stuck. This is just something we recognize and have to deal with. For example we still refer to "electron orbitals" even though we now know that the motion of an electron around a nucleus isn't really like an orbit, but the name stuck.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That makes sense to me.

I think it is important to question many of the beliefs in current science, and come up with alternative theories. This is how science advances, and many theories that so many like to believe, as if it has been proven are supported by very little evidence.

reply to post by poet1b

I think it is important to question many of the beliefs in current science, and come up with alternative theories.

A hypothesis is not a theory. There is a matter of evidence involved in the difference.

But he wasn't talking about theory or hypothesis, he was talking about definitions. You can complain about definitions all you want but it's sort of pointless.

Mary Rose

Blue Shift
Why is it so important to some people that the sketchy "electric universe" notion be proven correct?

Why are you questioning the motives of people posting alternative theories?

I don't believe the theory is sketchy at all.

And I think mainstream science should be considering the theory instead of continuing to put band aids on the gravitational model for the universe.

Theres no bandaids in science either a model continues to show results and verifiable or its gone. The moment we can show something wrong with any theory it ends. Ive told you multiple times science took a look at the proposals and when they started going through it it led to conclusions that were not observed in this universe anyway. Relativity has stood up to everything thrown at it so far it hasnt failed once. If it does then Einstein's wrong we start over what we are trying to do now is figure out why relativity works in large scale but when we look at subatomic we see particle interactions. Ultimately the real theory will be a merger of these two things. And then i wonder what scientists will do will know everything.

Now as far as electric universe something about it makes you have to believe not sure what but we have shown you why its not possible that electricity is the major force in the universe. That how science works someone comes up with an idea and then we see if its possible.Eu just isnt we could tell in the 80s it was plausible though still on the fringe. Problem is certain scientists and others were making money off this and its kind of hard for them to let go as long as people buy their books.At this point its defrauding people really because even they know they have to stitch this theory together with alot of pseudoscience.And they have to be careful about what they dont tell you. Like when certain people were called a liar its not attacking them its acknowledging the fact that there is no way on earth they dont know the theory is wrong. Even me i try to avoid calling someone a liar because we dont know their intentions but as i said there is no way they couldnt know. If you like discussing the outer fringes of science its out there we discussed one in another thread if you recall.

reply to post by Phage


When science starts using evidence of a positron to claim that there is anti-matter galaxies, and gravitational repulsion, then yes, definitions become important.

Come to think of it, definitions are always important, and not pointless at all. In fact, good definitions are highly critical.

You even start your post arguing about the definition of the word theory.

When it comes to the validity of theories, that the big bang theory is given such status, undermines the whole system.

reply to post by poet1b

When it comes to the validity of theories, that the big bang theory is given such status, undermines the whole system.

Why? There is plenty of supporting evidence.

reply to post by dragonridr


In this case, electric universe theories have simply evolved to plasma universe theories, and are very much alive, and looking to become the dominate theory.

The constant of the speed of light in a vacuum has actually encountered many problems, and the idea of a gravity dominated universe is approaching a dead end.

At some point in time, we need to learn to understand the nature of force, and not content ourselves to merely measure it.

reply to post by Phage


We went through this a few pages back, and no, there isn't any strong evidence supporting the big bang theory.

But if you would like, please present this evidence.

reply to post by poet1b


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by poet1b


iv presented it, it got ignored

reply to post by GetHyped


One example, "dark matter", blow the whole concept.

and of course "exotic".

No real evidence of any kind in your link. Lots of maybes.

reply to post by poet1b


"Show me the evidence!"

Evidence is presented

"The evidence is wrong!"

Your hubris is staggering.

reply to post by poet1b

One example, "dark matter", blow the whole concept.

How does dark matter falsify the big bang theory?

Phage
reply to post by poet1b

 

One example, "dark matter", blow the whole concept.

How does dark matter falsify the big bang theory?

Because electricity is plasma, which is the visible light caused by lightning.

And gravity is caused by momentum, somehow.

ETA: / frustration driven sarcastic outburst

reply to post by Phage


Maybe you can quote the source, and point out the parts that support these exotic theories,

because I don't see it.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


At least we know, will a great deal of evidence, that lighting, plasma, and momentum exists.

Dark matter on the other hand?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Wow that doesn't even work as a logical argument

So your 'evidence' or 'proof' that Dark matter falsifies the big bang theory is because electricity is plasma? Yeah, now thats what I call out of the box thinking.

Deny ignorance and all that right?