Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

We have thought through the electric universe model and evaluated evidence for or against it.

I already told you, I see EU theory as a better alternative to MS theories, your opinion on this will change nothing.

Is that because you can't? I noticed you didn't touch the gravitational lensing issue. You can't explain away all the other tests EU fails as mentioned in the above article, either.

I have already explained the Casimir Effect, Photoelectric Effect, Time dilation and some other stuff on this forum.
You seem to have a very short memory or you may be just to busy parroting MS science.

IF you would listen more carefully you would know my explanation on light bending.
BUT you don't, and I don't bother anymore how you interpret things...

originally posted by: KrzYma
I have already explained the Casimir Effect, Photoelectric Effect, Time dilation and some other stuff on this forum.
You seem to have a very short memory or you may be just to busy parroting MS science.

Those weren't the topics discussed in the article I cited. Let's keep it simple and pick two, solar neutrinos and the solar spectrum. How does EU explain those? It makes predictions which are not matched by observation, while the standard model makes predictions for those that do match observation:

Testing the Electric Universe

So, where to begin? Let’s start with the Sun. In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.

The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum. In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails.

I already told you, I see EU theory as a better alternative to MS theories, your opinion on this will change nothing.

I don't see how this has anything to do with my opinion. Neutrinos and solar spectra are well documented and match mainstream models and fail to match EU models.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But it's magic plasma so they caN make it do what ever they want. Great thing about not having a valid theory you can make it up as you go. The electronic universe model is just a very old way of looking at the ubiverse. Much like the flat earth people science moved on and left people behind.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Solar Neutrinos in the Electric Universe

a reply to: dragonridr

Great thing about not having a valid theory you can make it up as you go.

this kind of talking can only rely on self experience ...dark matter and dark energy

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Solar Neutrinos in the Electric Universe

Please show me in the video where he explains the neutrinos come from? I believe he changed the topic because he didn't have an explanation. And as far as the video can he contradict himself any further. It's almost like he forgot what he already said and then says the oppisite. And just so you know fusion was first proposed after electricity no gas lamps. See he has to make you think the theory is old. In truth the sun being powered by electricity is even older. The theory went the sun creates a dynamo that creates electricity. This idea needless to say went the way of the dinosaur.

People like him updated it saying the galaxy is the dynamo and the sun draws from that. Never mind the fact we could detect that. Also he acts like fusion hasn't been done on earth it has sadly he seems to not know this. How did they do it massive pressure like the sun uses. I suggest you look up Ivy Mike and see how they created a fusion reaction.

Now back to the question how does an electric sun produce neutronos since he didn't answer it maybe you can.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

Great thing about not having a valid theory you can make it up as you go.

this kind of talking can only rely on self experience ...dark matter and dark energy

Dark energy and dark matter are place holders until we discover what it is. Nothing more but your under a false assumption we know something's missing from our equations we just don't know what. That's not the same as making things up. And also not the way science works. Electric universe takes an idea we know has been disproven and tries to pass that off as science entirely different animal. They count on you being to stupid to look into the experiments done like the minos experiments showing that neutronos change flavor. And even measured the rates which is why we know there are none missing contrary to what EU people believe.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Please show me in the video where he explains the neutrinos come from?

He doesn't.

Thornhill says hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun is an unlikely process, because look at how hard it is for us to make our own miniature sun, a fusion reactor.

We've made miniature suns called hydrogen fusion bombs so that's proof enough hydrogen fusion works. With fusion reactors, we are trying to control a process that can produce such high temperatures it can melt just about anything, and since we don't have the same mass or gravity of the sun in our little reactors, we have to make up for that with some energy input scheme and it's no surprise that this turns out to have efficiency problems. The issues are related to engineering, but experiments show the physics works:

www.wired.com...

NIF researchers were finally able to get the hydrogen to give off as much as 1.7 times more energy than it had taken in, a result that appears today in Nature. In subsequent experiments last month, the team was able to produce as much as 2.6 times more energy than was put into the hydrogen fuel.

“The physics is a breakthrough,” said physicist Riccardo Betti of the University of Rochester, who was not involved in the work. “If fusion will ever become a viable source of energy, we may look back and say that in 2013, for the first time, a plasma produced more energy out than it took in.”

Thornhill then claims neutrinos come from the surface of the sun.

Wait, what? He just got through explaining how difficult this neutrino production process was, and now he's saying it's more likely to occur in a place where the temperature and pressure are insufficient (the sun's surface), instead of the core which has high temperature and pressure. This makes no sense at all. He's obviously contradicting himself and his own statements are devastating to his incoherent claims.

And dragonridr is right, that aside from mentioning the neutrinos appear somehow from the surface for the sun, he never does explain any process to generate them. So again the EU model fails and this video does nothing to address the failure.

Also the video has no explanation of the solar spectra matching the mainstream model and not the electric universe model.

a reply to: KrzYma

Why are you so determined to prove the EU theory right, when it's wrong? Our current theories describe everything quite well, being capable of making predictions within incredible accuracy.

Quick thought, maybe gravitational lensing isn't space actually stretching. It could be some other mechanism but, our theories are able to predict this
effect through the mathematics of warping spacetime. So, if you want to prove Einstein wrong, you should start with his math.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, we haven't ever measured the actual "fabric" of spacetime itself changing, have we?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Correct me if I'm wrong but, we haven't ever measured the actual "fabric" of spacetime itself changing, have we?

It's only been in the last decade or so since 2004 that we've had satellites sensitive enough to do that. One of the predictions of general relativity is that as the Earth rotates, it will drag "the fabric of space-time" along with it, a very small and difficult to measure effect called "frame-dragging". That was confirmed and so was another prediction of GR:

At Long Last, Gravity Probe B Satellite Proves Einstein Right

After decades of development, Gravity Probe B circled Earth from pole to pole for 17 months starting 20 April 2004 and used gyroscopes to measure two aspects of general relativity. One, the "geodetic effect," arises because Earth's mass creates a kind of dimple in spacetime that messes up the usual rules of geometry. As a result, the circumference of a circle around Earth should be slightly shorter than Euclid's value of 2π times the circle's radius. Gravity Probe B measured the predicted 2.8-centimeter decrement in its 40,000-kilometer orbit to 0.25% precision.

The satellite also confirmed the frame-dragging effect, in which the rotating Earth twists the surrounding spacetime. It's as if the spinning Earth were immersed in honey, Everitt explained. "When it spins, the Earth will drag the honey with it," he said. "In the same way, the Earth drags spacetime with it." Gravity Probe B confirmed the frame dragging effect, which is less than 1/10 times as pronounced as the geodetic effect, to 19% precision.

The article goes on to present a balanced view of the announcement, and discusses that the confidence levels in the experimental results were not as high as had been hoped, but then these are very difficult effects to measure.

I haven't run across any claims from EU folks about frame-dragging predictions, but really after seeing how drastically their predictions depart from observations on topics like Solar neutrinos and the solar spectrum, I don't plan to search for it. If they can't explain the stuff that's easy to measure like the solar spectrum, and Thornhill's statements about neutrinos are self-contradictory, I don't expect him to have anything rational to say about frame-dragging.

I don't know if it's so related to physics but I'll ask anyways.

Let's compare for a second the gravity to material that does the same effect.
The first thing I came up with is magnets.
Gravity such as magnets are pulling objects to them, or down to Earth in case of the gravity.
And like in magnets where there is negative and positive (and like most of the materials in the world) 1 pulling to each other and 1 pushing from the another one.
So maybe there is something similar with gravity something that is gravity's negative material and pushing you away from the land.
So basicly this thing will be called Anti-Gravity...

So my question is it possible theory? ?
And if so there is the possibility of object that flying by itself because it just will ignore the gravity ?

originally posted by: FederWBush
So my question is it possible theory? ?
And if so there is the possibility of object that flying by itself because it just will ignore the gravity ?

It's a good question and one with obviously important applications for commercial air travel, space travel, military aviation, and so on.

You can't prove a negative. That is you can't prove that it's impossible to negate gravity. So, what can you do?

You can hypothesize that it's possible to negate gravity somehow, and then try to prove it. One person who has claimed to do this is Eugene Podkletnov, but nobody has ever been able to replicate his experimental results and I think the vast majority of the scientific community who has an opinion is skeptical and suspects that his results might have some kind of experimental error. All experiments have small errors, biases and inaccuracies and sometimes they aren't always easy to identify, characterize and quantify when evaluating the results. There are similar unverified claims from others.

So we don't know the answer with 100% certainty, but until some experimental results can be verified that it's possible, the best we can say is that we have no good evidence that it's possible to negate gravity. The closest thing that's been identified to anti-gravity is dark energy, and it doesn't appear to negate gravity, but rather it has the effect of accelerating the metric expansion of space, in effect pushing things apart, which is sort of the opposite of the way gravity pulls things together.

I don't think it can be used to levitate an aircraft and evidence suggests that it can't, but Harold White at NASA is researching whether something like it might lead to advanced spacecraft propulsion. It's an interesting line of research, though speculative.

originally posted by: [post=19767818]FederWBush So maybe there is something similar with gravity something that is gravity's negative material and pushing you away from the land.
So basicly this thing will be called Anti-Gravity...

So my question is it possible theory? ?
And if so there is the possibility of object that flying by itself because it just will ignore the gravity ?

Negating time negates gravity and don't let any1 tell you differently

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=19767818]FederWBush So maybe there is something similar with gravity something that is gravity's negative material and pushing you away from the land.
So basicly this thing will be called Anti-Gravity...

So my question is it possible theory? ?
And if so there is the possibility of object that flying by itself because it just will ignore the gravity ?

Negating time negates gravity and don't let any1 tell you differently

There was a young lady of Wight,
Who traveled much faster than light,
She departed one day,
In a relative way,
And arrived on the previous night.


There is a reason I used this to reply to you see if you can figure it out.

are any of the decay reactions that produce neutrinos easily time reversible? meaning is there a way conceivably to shrink a neutrino detector down to desktop size maybe using an interaction other than the ones commonly use in current neutrino or anti-neutrino detectors? no huge tanks of pure water or dry cleaning fluid needed?

there are lots of decay events or collision events that produce neutrinos. surely some of them have a better probability of occurring in reverse than the ones we are using.

the neutrino sees a regular "solid" particle as mostly empty space with extremely miniscule chance of bumping into some part of the particle like a quark. to them the quarks might as well be light years apart in baryons. what about point particles? and isn't there a way to make such particles behave as if they are everywhere all at once using some quantum trick? can't you make some of those weird states of matter (bose condensate and other similar matter states) behave as a large scale solid?

we need portable high resolution real time neutrino scanners; darn it!

can you slap a neutrino around and make it behave as if it has a charge? you can actually do that to a neutron in a limited fashion because the neutron has charged components in it. quarks with their own properties charges spins, flavors, angular momentum and magnetic moments.

Lo she negated time alright.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Why do I get the impression you already know the answer to your questions?

You know that neutrons have charged quarks and you probably know that we don't know of any such charged particles comprising neutrinos so why should we be able to do something similar to neutrinos? I don't know what I could add that you don't already know about that.

The evolution of particle detectors seems to show that they keep getting better over time. A lot of these changes are incremental rather than breakthroughs but I don't know of any breakthroughs on the horizon in neutrino detector technology. Maybe somebody else does. What we really need is a dark matter detector. At least we can detect neutrinos even if difficult and with detectors that are not compact.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: stormbringer1701
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Why do I get the impression you already know the answer to your questions?

You know that neutrons have charged quarks and you probably know that we don't know of any such charged particles comprising neutrinos so why should we be able to do something similar to neutrinos? I don't know what I could add that you don't already know about that.

The evolution of particle detectors seems to show that they keep getting better over time. A lot of these changes are incremental rather than breakthroughs but I don't know of any breakthroughs on the horizon in neutrino detector technology. Maybe somebody else does. What we really need is a dark matter detector. At least we can detect neutrinos even if difficult and with detectors that are not compact.

we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: stormbringer1701
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Why do I get the impression you already know the answer to your questions?

You know that neutrons have charged quarks and you probably know that we don't know of any such charged particles comprising neutrinos so why should we be able to do something similar to neutrinos? I don't know what I could add that you don't already know about that.

The evolution of particle detectors seems to show that they keep getting better over time. A lot of these changes are incremental rather than breakthroughs but I don't know of any breakthroughs on the horizon in neutrino detector technology. Maybe somebody else does. What we really need is a dark matter detector. At least we can detect neutrinos even if difficult and with detectors that are not compact.

the question is crudely: are there any neutrino generating decays of pointlike species of particle such that

particle x -------->neutrino + something we can throw back at neutrino to get particle x again.

or some SUSY particle that is tiny enough to be so densely packed together that neutrinos have a lot less room to squeeze through compared to ordinary particles

or how likely is it that during oscillation events (assuming it is some Feynman loop diagram like process) the mid oscillation sub-components of a neutrino are interdictable.