Eletrical universe theory discussion

[McLowery]

I was getting my masters in relativistic physics, up until about two years ago, when I stumbled across plasma physics and how it pertains to the electric universe theory. I turned my back on relativity and haven't looked back since.

 

[Urwumpe]

I was getting my masters in relativistic physics, up until about two years ago, when I stumbled across plasma physics and how it pertains to the electric universe theory. I turned my back on relativity and haven't looked back since.

So, we can safely assume that you have never understood plasma physics, because otherwise, you would know how stupid the "electric universe theory" or "plasma cosmology" is today. Since 1966, nobody ever researched actively on plasma cosmology, because plasma cosmology fails at explaining the CMBR. The results of satellite missions like COBE or WMAP even contradict the idea of plasma cosmology completely.

This book here contains a pretty detailed criticism on the plasma cosmology and even questions if Alven or Klein really did develop their theories based on star light measurements as they claimed... it is a devastating blow to the claims in the "Worlds-Antiworlds" book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691074283

And if you think you can work in the universe without knowing the general theory of relativity, you are wrong on a criminal level. Even I had already to include relativistic corrections in my work, and I don't even get close to astronomical distances in it.

You likely did not even understand what the difference between plasma cosmology and relativity really is, because actually, plasma cosmology is still using general relativity, but claims that the large scale structures of the universe are created by electromagnetism. Epic fail.

 

[McLowery]

So, we can safely assume that you have never understood plasma physics, because otherwise, you would know how stupid the "electric universe theory" or "plasma cosmology" is today. Since 1966, nobody ever researched actively on plasma cosmology, because plasma cosmology fails at explaining the CMBR. The results of satellite missions like COBE or WMAP even contradict the idea of plasma cosmology completely.

This book here contains a pretty detailed criticism on the plasma cosmology and even questions if Alven or Klein really did develop their theories based on star light measurements as they claimed... it is a devastating blow to the claims in the "Worlds-Antiworlds" book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691074283

And if you think you can work in the universe without knowing the general theory of relativity, you are wrong on a criminal level. Even I had already to include relativistic corrections in my work, and I don't even get close to astronomical distances in it.

You likely did not even understand what the difference between plasma cosmology and relativity really is, because actually, plasma cosmology is still using general relativity, but claims that the large scale structures of the universe are created by electromagnetism. Epic fail.

That's quite an assumption there Urwumpe! Relativity is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century! You assume I balk at General Relativity, that's your failure, you assume! As for the idea that the universe has come to where it is at this very moment, all dictated by the WEAKEST force in nature? LOL I laugh at the idea, it is ludicrous! If you think the electromagnetic force sat on the sideline while hydrogen and helium began to compress into stellar objects, go ahead and keep a closed mind. Why do you think theories as profound as General Relativity only come around every other century or so?

 

[Urwumpe]

As for the idea that the universe has come to where it is at this very moment, all dictated by the WEAKEST force in nature? LOL I laugh at the idea

Gravity is maybe the weakest force in nature, but strangely also one of longest ranging forces and the force that has most "sources". Remember something?

Gravity ~ 1/r²
Electromagnetism ~ 1/r²
Weak and Strong force have even a fixed limit because of the half-life of their gauge particles.


Also since the plasma cosmology can't deal at all with the pure existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, you should also be a bit more careful with your laughter... when people now also start to laugh, this must not be because they agree with you.

 

[McLowery]

Gravity is maybe the weakest force in nature, but strangely also one of longest ranging forces and the force that has most "sources". Remember something?

Gravity ~ 1/r²
Electromagnetism ~ 1/r²
Weak and Strong force have even a fixed limit because of the half-life of their gauge particles.


Also since the plasma cosmology can't deal at all with the pure existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, you should also be a bit more careful with your laughter... when people now also start to laugh, this must not be because they agree with you.

As for my opinion concerning the microwave background? The only thing this proves is that space, as far as we can measure is a few degrees above absolute zero. There are several reasons this could be. The idea that this proves things like the big bang is just as flimsy an idea to me as plasma cosmology is to you. To accept things like black holes and the big bang is to accept that the conservation of energy can be violated, but we're unable to explain how or why yet! You have your ideas, I'll have mine. Attack my ideas all you want, I don't prescribe to the new religion of modern day science. I prescribe to the idea of what true science used to be.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe you should first of all read about the measurements of the COBE probe (or WMAP) before you form your opinion. you are badly far away from the measurements.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9902027

Also space has no temperature. Only matter has a temperature. Radiation can have the spectrum of a black body with such a temperature.

 

[McLowery]

Maybe you should first of all read about the measurements of the COBE probe (or WMAP) before you form your opinion. you are badly far away from the measurements.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9902027

Also space has no temperature. Only matter has a temperature. Radiation can have the spectrum of a black body with such a temperature.

I know what we're all told and explained to about with the data gleaned from the COBE probe mission. Do I have to accept it at face value? Should I accept it at face value? Of course not! You got me on the temp thing. What's YOUR personal take on black holes?

 

[Linguofreak]

As for the idea that the universe has come to where it is at this very moment, all dictated by the WEAKEST force in nature? LOL I laugh at the idea, it is ludicrous! If you think the electromagnetic force sat on the sideline while hydrogen and helium began to compress into stellar objects, go ahead and keep a closed mind. Why do you think theories as profound as General Relativity only come around every other century or so?

The thing is, that while gravity is the weakest force in nature, it's also the only one that doesn't tend to cancel itself. An object with a strong positive charge will either expel positively charged particles from its surface or attract negatively charged particles until it is neutrally charged, or nearly so. So strongly electromagnetically interacting objects tend to make themselves more weakly interacting.

With gravity on the other hand, a massive object will attract other massive objects, and the combined system will be more massive. So strongly gravitationally interacting objects tend to make themselves more strongly interacting. Thus, while electromagnetism dominates at short distances (and the nuclear forces at even shorter distances), gravity tends to dominate at large distances simply because of the fact that, unlike the other forces, it doesn't take itself out of the game.

 

[Urwumpe]

I know what we're all told and explained to about with the data gleaned from the COBE probe mission. Do I have to accept it at face value? Should I accept it at face value? Of course not! You got me on the temp thing. What's YOUR personal take on black holes?

1. If you don't trust the COBE values, do your own measurements and document them. The nice thing about science is, that you are not forced to trust the people who did the measurements, but can reproduce them.

2. Real Black holes are collapsed stars and no singularities, because the singularity can only exist after infinite time. The collapse of the star is just getting slowed down by relativistic effects and thus they are just very very close to being a true singularity. There is nothing mystical about them.

 

[Linguofreak]

2. Real Black holes are collapsed stars and no singularities, because the singularity can only exist after infinite time. The collapse of the star is just getting slowed down by relativistic effects and thus they are just very very close to being a true singularity. There is nothing mystical about them.

Not entirely true: From the reference frame of an observer watching from outside, no infalling object ever even reaches the horizon, let alone the singularity, in finite time. However, from the reference frame of the infalling matter the singularity forms, and infalling matter reaches it, in finite time.

 

[Urwumpe]

However, from the reference frame of the infalling matter the singularity forms, and infalling matter reaches it, in finite time.

No, that is an improper application of the twin paradox. The incoming matter will have to join the inertial frame of the black hole, it can't need less time for falling to the black hole, as the event horizon of the black hole needs reaching the incoming observer.

Also, I speak more about the formation process of a black hole: The process that makes the distortion in space-time approach the state of singularity needs the same infinite time until finally reaching it, regardless from where you observe it - for the matter in the core of the collapsing star, the distortion will make the incoming matter reach it slower and the rest of the universe appear to be further away - in the singularity state, the distance between inside and outside the event horizon would be infinite, like any good singularity.

Relativity only exists in different inertial frames, once you enter the same inertial frame, effects of time dilation are no longer existing.

 

[RisingFury]

I know what we're all told and explained to about with the data gleaned from the COBE probe mission. Do I have to accept it at face value? Should I accept it at face value? Of course not! You got me on the temp thing. What's YOUR personal take on black holes?

Well...... no... you can review the data yourself. If you really do have a masters in Physics, you should understand it far better then the final pretty picture that's shown on the evening news...

 

[statickid]

this is like a chat room!

 

[Ghostrider]

this is like a chat room!

Yes, but BIGGER and IN SPACE!

 

[Urwumpe]

this is like a chat room!

sorry, but your observation is wrong:

• People can write in proper grammar.
• People don't write lol after every funny line.
• Nobody asks every 15 seconds if anybody has "MSN" or "Webcam".
• People here know, that in the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

 

[Notebook]

Didn't understand anything above, except the very last line. Woof Woof lol. Whatever that means.

N.