Astronomers Need Electric Theory Training

a reply to: Phage

It's worth noting that Stephen Hawking recently said that there is no such thing as Event Horizons.
Instead he postulates an "Apparent Horizon" which does permit energetic exchanges however they are scrambled in a classical sense.
www.nature.com...

I dont for one moment think that the Electric Universe theory is correct (why is it not called the Energy Universe theory...electricity is just one mechanism of action at play) however statements about black holes should be reserved to none factual points of view given the ridiculous gap in knowledge we have about everything except their effects.

As a Super fluid Vacuum Theory proponent I personally view black holes as regions of space that have undergone a phase change caused by energetic interactions (i.e the collapse of an energetically charged stellar object).
This area becomes "denser" than average space (i.e the Space Quanta are packed tightly) therefore all Quanta that come into contact with the locality (and its space quanta density gradient) are influenced accordingly (more density=less room to resonate=less time).

Is Space can be quantised and those quanta can clump (due to energetic influence) together, we suddenly have an all encompassing explanation of all effects observed in a Black Hole with Space (Space Quanta) giving us the appearance of this instantaneous force (Gravity) due to its (already in place) density gradient.

This Thunderbolts Project Space News video points out the need for astrophysicists to talk to plasma cosmologists. The theoretical "neutron star" is an imaginary construct created because a better explanation isn't possible when the electric force is ignored:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If the sun had a positive voltage of billions of volts as electric sun proponents claim, wouldn't it attract electrons?

if there would be any meaningful ammount of matter nearby it sure would.
in fact, matter density there is so low, that if you were in an orbit around the sun just "slightly" outside the corona, while being shielded from direct radiation, temperature wouldnt even be withing 3digit kelvin range.
and thats not bc the surrounding particles werent any fast...
theres just nothing there really to attract electrons from.

/edit:

why is it not called the Energy Universe theory...electricity is just one mechanism of action at play

/sign

originally posted by: Dolour
why is it not called the Energy Universe theory...electricity is just one mechanism of action at play

I believe the rationale is that magnetism is dependent upon the electric force to exist.

Additionally, Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project talks about gravity as a sub-set of the electric force on his website:

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. [18]

www.holoscience.com...

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I believe the rationale is that magnetism is dependent upon the electric force to exist.

magnetism requires matter, wich essentially is energy as far as we know.
so i find the "energetic universe" alot more fitting, if you want to put up a TOE, since magnetism is a mere byproduct of the underlying mechanism.

a reply to: Dolour

Since the atom is mostly space, and the space both inside and between atoms is filled with energy, I have no quarrel with the term "energetic universe."

originally posted by: Mary Rose

Since the atom is mostly space, and the space both inside and between atoms is filled with energy, I have no quarrel with the term "energetic universe."

agreed. i might add that "energetic universe" was just quoted by me, i find the term quite fitting tho. :p
what boggles me is a way to measure, or even manipulate this space/akasha/shiva/whateveryouwannacallit...
how to create a "wave" that throws "space out of equilibrium", force it into twirls, or whatevers actually the case, in order to manifest matter...

a reply to: chr0naut

I think its important to understand that alternative science (I dont like the term pseudo-science, for what its worth) is several decades behind mainstream science. However, they tend to see current scientific stances strictly in the light of the 1950s and tend to not explore modern advances in any way.

That said, I think that as it progresses in its own way, it will yield some very interesting things that may very well shake the foundation of what we understand as "fact." I dont think its necessarily close, but if they actually start to employ the core of the scientific method.. their approach may address blind spots that we didnt even know we had.

I would say that proponents of Alternative Science could use scientific method training more than Astronomers needing EU education. That said, I think exploring the ideas present in both could lead to new understandings for everyone involved.

originally posted by: Serdgiam

I think its important to understand that alternative science (I dont like the term pseudo-science, for what its worth) is several decades behind mainstream science. However, they tend to see current scientific stances strictly in the light of the 1950s and tend to not explore modern advances in any way.

actually thats far from right. its been alternative science that came up with a mathematical way to describe spacetime in descrete values, wich is far ahead of MSC.
yet its totally unrecognised(see below, mumbo-jumbo)...

not everybody whos concluded that the modern physics aproach wont lead anywhere(for several reasons) is either unfamiliar with accepted physics modells, or a "pot smoking hippy full of spiritual garbage" for that matter.
it took me years to figure that natures wheelwork is far too precise to be coincidential, and defended whatever the authorities told us, in the believe that we couldnt really have overseen alot, in those last 100years.

the truth is, msc knows theyr stuck, but refuse to overthrow the laborous-conclusions theyve drawn...
so if anything, its exactly the other way round, and MSC sorta still resides in the past, without the will to move on.

I would say that proponents of Alternative Science could use scientific method training more than Astronomers needing EU education.

again, the exact opposite is the case.
mainstream science went far far off the original concept of being "scientific", dismissing stuff they cant explain as mombo-jumbo or making "political descisions" to preserve the laborous-models in place, even if its apparent that they needs to be rewritten.
ive seen both sides of the coin by now, and have to admit that "alternative amateurs" make alot more use of scientific methods, then their "professional counterparts" do.

a reply to: Dolour

Please attempt to at least partially limit how many assumptions are made.

I am an "alternative scientist" in a technical sense.

I was not speaking about individuals, I was speaking about social groups. More specifically, the people who tend to scream the loudest on this topic (from both sides) dont tend to have any scientific experience at all. Most have not even done a single experiment to test out their ideas and hypotheses.

And, I am speaking specifically about the scientific method, not plural. I am also talking about the core method of exploration and not the industrialized, bastardized version.

originally posted by: Serdgiam

Please attempt to at least partially limit how many assumptions are made.

im not making assumptions really, thats first hand expirience.

I am an "alternative scientist" in a technical sense.

i am a 1st degree geek, whos been allways fascinated by the whole of "creation". i wanted to KNOW how the universe ticks.
had computers eversince i can think, spent all my pocket money/gifts for communion etc(that didnt got burnt buying more powerful computers) for microscopes, chemistry equipment, flowmeters and whatnot...
spent 6 semesters on a technical school, and spent as much time as technically possible on soaking up every bit of information science could provide.
i decided against becoming a professional(there are really better ways to generate money), but rest assured that i am a reliable source of information when it comes to physics.

I was not speaking about individuals, I was speaking about social groups. More specifically, the people who tend to scream the loudest on this topic (from both sides) dont tend to have any scientific experience at all. Most have not even done a single experiment to test out their ideas and hypotheses.

im moaning because of the above generalization, since i do scream pretty loud and feel somewhat offended by that statement.
not even regarding that theres been voices screaming "liquid universe theory beeing unscientific, bc it cant be falsified by experiment".
so, what experiments exactly?
have a whack on the equations provided by hamarein(thats what i was refering to regarding the descrete values for describing spacetime), i must say that its an amazing find!
but other than telling you the equations "look fine to me", i really dont know what else i could do.
this log mass/log radius graph clearly shows that hes definetly up to something(too weired to be coincidential), and our standard proton is most likely garbage...

okok, hawking might not be so happy with this(i recall him not beeing so happy with any holographic universe theorem), but his aproach is purely mathematical either!

And, I am speaking specifically about the scientific method, not plural. I am also talking about the core method of exploration and not the industrialized, bastardized version.

well yes, but this "core science" isnt really applied anymore, wich was essentiallly what ive been saying. :p

/edit: or is it because i try(really hard lol) to express things in simple terms, instead of throwing stuff at you, that only a handful of people understand?
"only the simple mind needs to use complicated words." ;o

originally posted by: Mary Rose
It seems obvious that electric theory should be incorporated as part of the science of astronomy.

It already is. The sources implying it's not are unreliable. Do your research and find out for yourself. I'll bet you can't find a professional astronomer without electric theory training.

originally posted by: Dolour
but rest assured that i am a reliable source of information when it comes to physics...

have a whack on the equations provided by hamarein(thats what i was refering to regarding the descrete values for describing spacetime), i must say that its an amazing find!

Nobody citing Haramein as anything but nonsense is a reliable source of information regarding physics.

Bobathon is a fairly reliable source of information when it comes to physics, and he explains the problems with Haramein's catastrophe.

A look at Nassim's response to this blog

There's been a lot of talk about Nassim Haramein's physics on this blog over the past few months. I'm intending to wrap up the saga with this little post. Wish me luck.

There are six previous posts: an introduction, the original article questioning his legitimacy as a scientist, observations of his approach to mathematics, a detailed look at his current flagship physics paper, a collection of extracts from grossly misleading presentations, and a more personal article about why I started writing all this in the first place. Number seven seems like a good place to end.

I've focused throughout on Haramein's physics. Why physics? Because he claims to be doing serious science, and his institution claims to be revolutionising our physical understanding of the world. If his physics is as awful as I'm saying it is, then that is a very serious bit of misselling.

If fancy physics isn't your cup of tea, there's no shortage of blatant examples of misunderstanding of basic physics that you might get more sense out of. I'd encourage anyone to sit down with their cup of tea and investigate these things further.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Nobody citing Haramein as anything but nonsense is a reliable source of information regarding physics.

your display of how to give one's 0,02$ without reading into the topic is impressive...
as allways you googled some defraud bull(see below) without spending time on the actual paper in question. really poor.
allso, you may discuss how reliable their physics are with the max-eight-schools authorities if you dont like them. kthnx?

Bobathon is a fairly reliable source of information when it comes to physics, and he explains the problems with Haramein's catastrophe.

really weak article, with that guy pickin on hamarein for calling it the first instead of 3rd law of newtonian mechanics, while ignoring that its assertion(yes the math part) is actually correct...
the guy stated quite alot that hes mostly self-tought, so i would "not allways knowing the proper term" not consider a capital crime.
(allso, read the bottom statement of my last post. yay)
couldnt find anything better? apparently not, read on.

heres a good example, quoted from the linked website, on how your "reliable source" miserably(purposely?) fails to understand/apply the archimedic principle:

Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes

he clearly didnt understand what hamarein was saying in the first place...
were still talking liquid universe right? shouldnt it be self explanatory to apply the archimedic priciple?
even more so since hamarein even provides the solution in his paper, and points this out like a bajillion times?
that guys just been awfully stoned or is he purposely spilling disinfo?

Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill points out the errors in a new NASA report about the potential electrical dangers posed by asteroids in this new Thunderbolts Project Space News video:






He said a solar wind is not blown from the surface of the sun; it accelerates away from the sun. Additionally, the higher speed winds come from the coolest parts of the sun known as coronal holes, so it's not the heat of the sun that accelerates the particles throughout the solar system, it is an electric field.

He said the report talks about magnetic fields doing all the work and magnetic field lines as if they were physical constructs when actually they're merely concepts - they don't literally snap. He said it's the electric currents surging in magnetic storms that are doing the work - the electric current drives the magnetic fields in the solar wind.

He said that when you treat the sun and other objects in the solar system as charged bodies, and recognize that the solar wind is actually a plasma that can transfer current from one object to another, you begin to see things in an entirely different light.

The video goes on to talk about comet and asteroid theory.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
He said a solar wind is not blown from the surface of the sun; it accelerates away from the sun.

When wind blows, it's accelerated. Without the wind blowing, air is still. without something speeding up the still particles (accelerating them), wind wouldn't blow. The implication that mainstream and NASA think particles don't accelerate away from the sun is false.

If there was nothing accelerating the particles away from the sun at some point, they wouldn't leave the sun.

Here is a mainstream paper talking about the acceleration of particles away from the sun, emphasis mine:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

We investigate the effects of kinetic wave-particle interactions on the solar wind using a global hybrid model. The model follows the evolution of the particle distributions along an inhomogeneous field line under the influence of wave-particle interactions, an am-bipolar electric field that is consistent with the particle distributions themselves, and Coulomb collisions. This represents the “first results” of global evolutionary study of the solar wind that take into account these kinetic effects. The model can account for the bulk acceleration of the solar wind, the preferential heating of the helium ions over the protons, as well as the occasionally observed double-peaked proton velocity distributions.

There's no doubt that the particles accelerate. Where there's perhaps a discrepancy is over what range of distances from the sun and how much acceleration, and as usual, the mainstream view correlates with observation while EU doesn't. Speaking of theories not matching observation:

originally posted by: Dolour
he clearly didnt understand what hamarein was saying in the first place...
were still talking liquid universe right?

Liquid universe? What?

Haramein responded to the problem in his paper about the mass of the proton, and he said "this may be a silly thing to predict", but he never really refuted that it's the wrong value, in fact he confirms it:

web.archive.org...://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon

“The nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons.”

As the gentleman points out, this may be a silly thing to predict. Obviously, I thought of modifying G and the Planck’s scale so that the Schwarzschild Proton mass would come out to the standard value (as others have done arxiv.org...), however my point in this paper is actually to show (and this is why I added a scaling graph) that objects in the Universe from universal size to subatomic particles tend towards the Schwarzschild condition as demonstrated by the scaling graph in the paper. It was clear to me when I first made the calculation that this would be an issue, and this is exactly why I included a graph based on observational data of the mass of objects in the Universe from universal size to quasars, galactic structures, stellar size objects and so on to see if the Schwarzschild proton mass had any merit whatsoever. Since the initial calculation I have made with the collaboration of Dr. Hyson, we have made many graphs, attempting to find a way to show the standard proton mass to be related to the rest of the objects in the Universe including the Planck’s mass. But in every case, whether it is the log of the mass versus the log of the surface area or the log of the mass versus surface volume ratio, or mass versus entropy (surface), the Schwarzschild condition proton falls nicely on the trend line (in some cases where we have a multitude of objects from Universal size to quasars, large galactic clusters, local superclusters and so on), while the standard model proton always falls completely off the trend line.

So he admits it's wrong he made a graph that shows the standard proton falls off his trend line, but he puts his incorrectly predicted value on a trendline. As nice as he thinks it is to have the value on the trendline, that's not the value of the proton that's measured, hence being on the trendline doesn't make it right. It's wrong and he knows it and if you read his explanation he really doesn't deny it. And he didn't say "liquid universe". I think you're the one who hasn't researched this; I spent a whole weekend reading both sides of this debate a few years ago.

As bobathon says:
azureworld.blogspot.com...

The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it. The whole point of science is that it is attempting to reflect nature. As Carl Sagan puts it, "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."

If your theory comes up with a mass of the proton that doesn't match observation, your theory is wrong.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Liquid universe? What?

hello mr esowatch, time to put your babbling into the right light.
you pretend to have read hamareins work, didnt you?
your like 100% sure you did grasp what hes been saying?
bc then youd obviously figured that the whole thing is ABOUT the underlying, assumably fluidlike structure, of spacetime. *duh*
but as its common with you hired goons, the slightest view into the topic will reveal that you dont have the slightest clue what your actually arguing against...

Haramein responded to the problem in his paper about the mass of the proton, and he said "this may be a silly thing to predict", but he never really refuted that it's the wrong value, in fact he confirms it:

read again carefully, he says it was a silly thing to not normalize the value, but use its "mass" instead of "weight" to put it that way.
he did not refer to the graph being a silly idea, not missunderstandable to anyone who did actually read the paper, and not just looked over a poor defraud side from "anonymous professors" who fail to even figure the idea behind what the whole theory is about they try to "defraud".
i.e. see archimedic principle, both you and this "bob" utterly fail at even recognizing that.
nope you even take this as an argument for your irritatingly illogical defraud attempt.
payments gotten too poor to leave any investigative time inbetween hate-flames?

lemme add that your "argument" is the only thing aside from personal attacks this "bill" really brought up.
very scientific to attack the person behind a theory without really saying anthing about the actualy work.

that's not the value of the proton that's measured, hence being on the trendline doesn't make it right.

another proof of you clearly not having any clue what your talking about.
the MEASUREMENT does not take the rediculous ammount of energy within space into account, while the graph does
showing that the assumption of "space" contributing to mass-total(including vacuum energy) might very well be true.
the assumption is that strong force is a gravitational effect, instead of "mysteriously missing mass" being the result of some weired esoteric force that just has to be added in a arbitrary hight to bring it back in line with the observed or predicted.

It's wrong and he knows it and if you read his explanation he really doesn't deny it. And he didn't say "liquid universe". I think you're the one who hasn't researched this; I spent a whole weekend reading both sides of this debate a few years ago.

prolly thats been a couple years too much to remember it correctly?
"liquid universe" is just a metapher to describe the energy inherent in space itself.
allso, again, you purposely pervert the original statement.
since you claim to be a scientist, i deny to believe you could really misunderstand the letter in the way you pretend to do.

i wont even go into your funny last comment, even stating that the standard model fails on predicting the measurments correctly.
simply because you not only again fail to see the difference in the measured and the predicted mass, but even validating "alternative science" in your last sentence, since field equations fail in that very regard.

all this poor trollage wouldnt be so bad, if it werent so successful at diverting the average users attention, whos incapable of looking into the math themselfes.

/edit: web.archive.org...://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon (linking doesent work due to url format)
the response is indeed interesting, and i can see why you didnt link the whole thing, lol.

sorry for the doublepost, just got home and missed the timewindow for editing.
ive used the time sitting in the train while i traveled home, to look into more of "bobs" pitty defraud attempts.
i may quote from his azureworld page, just to underline what kind of lame scam were dealing with here:

So Haramein introduces us to the Schwarzschild proton. This is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm. In plain English, this is 885 million metric tonnes.

This reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton.

ummmm, actually he stacks as many "planck spherical units", whose size is derived from the planck-lenght being extended to 3rd dimension, into the proton radius of 1.32fm as possible, wich was determinated by observing a muon orbiting a hydrogen atom.
THIS then gets you this weired value of 4.98 x 10^55 gm and NOT 8.85 x 10^14 gm(wich is the mass an object that size needs to become a "black hole")

nowhere does haramein claim protons would have that mass, but that they are FAR heavier and therefore must obey the schwarzschild condition)!
how could you possibly have missed that if youd ever read the paper in question?

anyone who actually looked into the darn equations could NEVER possibly assume theese values were "chosen to meet the schwartzschild condition", or mix theese values up "coincidentially".
this "reliable source" you refer to, is easily proovable a big fat liar, same as you are if you claim to have EVER read into the paper YOURSELF and still supporting theese absurd defraud attempts, only someone totally unfamiliar with even college math would buy!

i guess its time for you to get "defrauded" bro, lol.

doublechecking the above numbers between the pdf haramein provides and that "anonymous professors" claims, clearly reveals this as a fact, even to people totally unfamilar with math at all(while that "prof" obviously didnt get at least part of it right, rofl).
"the louder and more grotesque the esowatch guys scream, the closer thou shalt look!"

/edit: as a personal sidenote, i might add that i didnt resort to rediculing your religious believes, ride the "you have mispelled thisn that boat" or anything, but the above shown is derived from analysing the actual work.
you know what i mean? or you prolly want to read "bobs" hate-flames, wich lack any substance, again to figure?

a reply to: Dolour
a reply to: Dolour

originally posted by: Dolour
THIS then gets you this weired value of 4.98 x 10^55 gm and NOT 8.85 x 10^14 gm(wich is the mass an object that size needs to become a "black hole")

nowhere does haramein claim protons would have that mass, but that they are FAR heavier and therefore must obey the schwarzschild condition)!
how could you possibly have missed that if youd ever read the paper in question?

The whole paper is based on that mass 8.85 x 10^14 gm, and it looks like he's saying that mass applies to the Schwarzschild proton here:

hiup.org...

the ratio of the quantity of density of the vacuum in the volume of a proton, Rp=4.98x10^55 to the quantity sufficient for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition, M=8.85x10^14 gm is

M/Rp = 1.78 x 10^-41

Therefore, only 1.78x10^39% of the mass-energy density of the vacuum is required to form a Schwarzschild proton.

Again this is referring to nearly a billion tons, "to form a Schwarzschild proton", to use Haramein's words.

Now if that's not clear enough for you, look at his graph which leaves zero doubt that he is indeed plotting the mass of the Schwarzschild proton as far different from the mass of the actual "standard" proton:



While I agree his fantasy mass fits better on the trendline, it's not the mass which is measured, so it's wrong. The graph clearly shows he knows it's not the measured value since he shows the measured value way off the trendline as "standard protion".

a reply to: Mary Rose

I think you are on to something.

The behavior of the Universe maybe much more like quantum physics than classical physics or even in some respect modern physics....

By not looking at the information we receive from the right angle,, we can often jump to false conclusions.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The whole paper is based on that mass 8.85 x 10^14 gm, and it looks like he's saying that mass applies to the Schwarzschild proton here

nope, 8.85 x10^14 is the mass an object the size of a proton requires to form a black hole.
even tho both, you and this "bob", state this would be the derived proton mass, everyone who did read into the paper sees that this is indeed a false claim, and the mass given by haramein is 4.98x10^55 gm/proton volume.
read point 2 in the paper again, and read carefully if you still didnt get it(despite even what you just quoted in your last post, ill get to that in a min).

Now if that's not clear enough for you, look at his graph which leaves zero doubt that he is indeed plotting the mass of the Schwarzschild proton as far different from the mass of the actual "standard" proton:

yeah but its at the derived proton mass and not the mass required to meet schwarzschild condition.
its not some arbitrary value and the graph was plotted to SHOW that for some reason this derived proton falls pretty
darn close to that overall trend, and not the other way round.

While I agree his fantasy mass fits better on the trendline, it's not the mass which is measured, so it's wrong. The graph clearly shows he knows it's not the measured value since he shows the measured value way off the trendline as "standard protion".

nope thats actually the standard-model proton, wich is why its called standard-proton.
plotting an "8.85x10^14gm proton" would make no sense, regarding the entanglement part of the theory, wich is a REAL tough one to miss for anyone who actually read the darn thing.

i really dont get how you misinterpreting the paper will falsify anything...
despite that i dont believe(anymore) you "misinterpreted" anything, after quoting

the ratio of the quantity of density of the vacuum in the volume of a proton, Rp=4.98x10^55 to the quantity sufficient for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition, M=8.85x10^14 gm is M/Rp = 1.78 x 10^-41
Therefore, only 1.78x10^39% of the mass-energy density of the vacuum is required to form a Schwarzschild proton

dude, you either have awfully low math skills for a scientist(wich i seriously doubt by now), or are purposely trolling...
and by now, that should even be clear for ppl without physical education, from the quoted stuff alone, wich is so torn out of its original meaning, or "defrauds" even dont matching at all, that "coincidentially misinterpreted" becomes very very unlikely. -.-

taking the ammount of time into account "doc bob" has dedicated to "defraud" the schwarzschild-proton paper, while utterly failing to bring up ANY mathematical disproove thats not just blatant nonsense, one could say 2 things:
a) hes definetly up to something, otherwsie some smart-guy wouldve come up with a working mathematical disproove
b) the debunk attempts ive seen so far have "DISINFO" written in big fat letters on them.