Anything Goes — Science advances through irrational methods.

Thunderbolts.info ^ | Nov 18, 2014 | Stephen Smith

[Teacher317]

The church had a point with Galileo when it said that Galileo did not prove his case that the earth revolved around the sun. That wasn’t proven until Isaac Newton and mechanics.

And yet he was right, and he was still punished for it repeatedly by the irrational and authoritarian church.

[Moonman62]

You missed the point of the entire article.

...

I get the point of the article exactly. It’s to distract people from the fact that the Electric Universe is a bad theory by attacking real science with philosophical jibber jabber.

[Moonman62]

(remember that Bohr and Einstein regarded themselves as outsiders).

...

Say what you will about Einstein the man, but his work was mainstream. His theories were solidly based on competent astronomical observations and experimental results. He also improved upon the previously published theories of other competent scientists. Einstein’s work was published, scrutinized by other scientists and eventually verified by more astronomical observations and experiments.

There’s no comparison to what goes on with the Electric Universe.

[Swordmaker]

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein

Physics New Suit

“Relativity is one of the most well tested theories in science!” And perhaps that is a true statement, but does it reflect the accuracy and usefulness of those tests? Does repeating the same wrong test over and over count? What about the interpretation of the tests, does everyone agree? A little known fact is that Relativity is the only pillar of science still hotly contested in scientific circles even after 100 years of supposed acceptance. While other widely accepted ideas such as Evolution may still be contested, it is always in association with religious beliefs. Relativity’s dissenters share no common religious background or reasoning. Their contentions are purely scientific in nature. Most people’s first thought is, “Surely the people who do not agree are the same group of people insisting congress is populated by aliens”. However, I’d like to introduce you to some of the scientists and inventors who fall in with the dissenters.

• Albert A. Michelson: The very first American Nobel prize winner (1907) is also the pioneer of interferometry, which enables the precision guidance of modern weaponry. He received honorary science and law degrees from ten American and foreign universities. He was President of the American Physical Society (1900), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1910-1911), and the National Academy of Sciences (1923-1927). He was also a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society of London and the Optical Society, an Associate of l'Académie Française and among the many awards he has received are the Matteucci Medal (Societá Italiana), 1904; Copley Medal (Royal Society), 1907; Elliot Cresson Medal (Franklin Institute), 1912; Draper Medal (National Academy of Sciences), 1916; Franklin Medal (Franklin Institute) and the Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1923; and the Duddell Medal (Physical Society), 1929. Though his understanding and experience with the nature and manipulation of light has made vast contributions to our modern world, it is an unfortunate fact that his most widely known contribution to science is the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. This experiment is heralded as one of the primary proofs of Relativity yet Michelson never believed relativity to be a tenable theory even to his death in 1931.

• Robert A. Millikan: The second American winner of the Nobel Prize (1923) for his “Oil Drop Experiment” which proved the elementary electronic charge. Millikan's 1916 paper on the measurement of Planck's constant was dramatic in its time but the interpretation was far from the quantum movement caused by relativity. The very first sentence of one of his 1916 papers was “Einstein's photoelectric equation... cannot in my judgment be looked upon at present as resting upon any sort of a satisfactory theoretical foundation" What we now call the photon was, in Millikan's view, "[a] bold, not to say the reckless, hypothesis". In a textbook written by him as late as 1927 he unambiguously supports the existence of ether. Finally, in 1950 at age 82 (3 years before his death), under the barrage of relativity’s mainstream popularity, he somewhat fell in with the majority in his autobiography by stating that his experiments were proof of the photon.

• Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’

• Ernest Rutherford: 1908 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His research into radioactive emissions brought forth the notion of an atomic nucleus we know today. While at the Macdonald Laboratory in Montreal, he worked on a “disintegration theory” of radiation. Otto Hahn who later discovered atomic fission, worked under Rutherford at the Montreal Laboratory in 1905-06. By exposing nitrogen to radiation thereby transforming it to an oxygen isotope, he is known as the first person to deliberately transmute one element into another. As the leader of the Cavendish Laboratory, he inspired numerous other Nobel prizewinners to their achievements. C.D. Ellis, his co-author in 1919 and 1930, pointed out "that the majority of the experiments at the Cavendish were really started by Rutherford's direct or indirect suggestion". With awards and medals too numerous to mention; the progenitor of atomic physics he is truly a forefather of modern science. When asked what he thought about relativity he exclaimed "Oh, that stuff! We never bother with that in our work." Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!" Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S. Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955. "The War had just ended; and the complacency of the Edwardian and Victorian times had been shattered. The people felt that all their values and all their ideals had lost their bearings. Now, suddenly, they learnt that an astronomical prediction by a German scientist had been confirmed by expeditions to Brazil and West Africa and, indeed, prepared for already during the War, by British astronomers. Astronomy has always appealed to public imagination; and an astronomical discovery, transcending worldly strife, struck a responsive chord. The meeting of the Royal Society, at which the results of the British expeditions were reported, was headlined in all the British papers; and the typhoon of publicity crossed the Atlantic. From that point on, the American press played Einstein to the maximum." Quotation from: Chandrasekhar S., (1987) Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, University of Chicago press
• Herbert Ives: First transmission (1924) of pictures by wire, resulted in first public demonstration (1927) of television, for which he was awarded (1927) the John Scott Medal. As the lead researcher of Bell Labs’ television development project, he is often known as the father of modern television. As an accomplished physicist, his knowledge and experience in the propagation of light has changed our world. He is also well known for his part in the Ives-Stillwell experiment, which is regularly listed as one of the proofs of relativity. How is it that this individual who participated in this experiment, afterwards wrote numerous papers in peer reviewed journals against relativity? “The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary. . . . Also of philosophical import is that with the abandonment of the 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light, the geometries which have been based on it, with their fusion of space and time, must be denied their claim to be a true description of the physical world." - Herbert E. Ives, "Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", October 27, 1950

• Ernst Mach: The namesake of the sound barrier, Einstein entitled him as the forerunner of relativity. Most of his studies in the field of experimental physics were devoted to interference, diffraction, polarization and refraction of light in different media under external influences. Though Einstein cited Mach as a source of ideas, Mach rejected Einstein's relativity theory and asked not to be associated with the "dogmatic" and "paradoxical nonsense", in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give Mach his due credit for major elements of the theory of relativity. Einstein initially adored Mach, and asked for his guidance and help. When it became known, after Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed Mach. “Scientists have now become a church and I do not regard it as an honor to be part of this or of any church.”

• Nikola Tesla: Very likely the greatest inventor of all time and certainly the greatest elecrical engineer of all time. Tesla is most well known for his invention of the AC power distribution system that we still use today. However, he is also responsible for a variety of inventions and patents so wide he could easily be considered to be the single greatest contibuter to the modern age of technology. Just a few of his inventions include the electric motor, radio and wireless communication, electronic logic (the AND gate), the discovery of X-rays, charged particle beams, the rotating magnetic field, flourescent lighting, and the vertical take-off and landing concept. The undeniable link between electricity, magnetism and advanced physics concepts are well known to even laymen. While Relativity is entirely for the purpose of explaining eletromagnetic phenomenon, Tesla, the wizard of electromagnetism who produced so many working useful concepts with his understanding, laughed at the rediculous nature of relativity. ... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed. - "Prepared Statement of Tesla". July 10, 1937. Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - "Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World". Modern Mechanics and Inventions. July, 1934.

How can so many Nobel laureates, inventors and great contributors to society go to their grave believing relativity was false? How could anyone not be convinced all the way into the 50s and 60s? Wasn’t it proven over and over and widely accepted by that time? Isn’t that what we are taught? History is written more by popularity than by fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There are logical reasons why these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are far too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Only those exceedingly strong in mind and of the greatest humility can stand to see that which they held in the highest regard, those things they trusted as universal truth, utterly fail. Only those with the greatest mental fortitude and confidence can become one of the few willing to withstand the onslaught of ridicule and not be swayed by the popularity of popular belief. You have been given the opportunity to examine doubt, while not free from scorn, in very good company. Like the story of 'The Emporer's New Suit', will you be the child that says aloud, “The Emperor is Naked!”? — Source

Of course, all of the above is the "appeal to authority" fallacy, however, it demonstrates that there were in the past scientists who did not fall into lockstep, marching with the orthodox herd shouting "me too," as they all fall off the cliff like the mythical lemmings.

There are still such physicists and cosmologists today who challenge the paradigm such as Physicist Dr. Ed Dowdye who asks why the light bends around the Sun's gravity field only when it passes through where the Sun's plasma atmosphere exists, but does not where the plasma atmosphere is absent but there is still a strong gravity field?

The gravitational deflection of light and microwaves propagate along a least timeor minimum energy path
only at the plasma-rim of the sun exposed to the gravitational gradient field of the sun.

Solar light bending as function of the impact parameter R {at solar plasma limb}, 2R, 3R, 4R, etc
"The Observations"
explainable with least-time or minimum-energy waves in
a plasma exposed to solar gravitational gradient field
versus
"General Relativity"
an assumption of space-time effects or curvature of space
to explain gravitational light bending

Relativity Theory states that it should always be distorted because of the gravity field yet all of our empirical data observations show it does not, except where there is a plasma atmosphere. If there is no plasma atmosphere, the light travels on its way, unimpeded, undistorted by gravity. Why? How? The Relativity confirmation data came from the observations that went through the plasma atmosphere. . .

Remarkably as it may seem, however, historically the solar light bending effect has been observed only at the solar rim, the refractive plasma atmosphere of the sun. This is strongly confirmed by a large number of very-long-baseline-interferometer (VLBI) measurements on the gravitational deflection of microwaves from radio pulsar sources that were deflected at the thin plasma rim of the sun at precisely the angle of 1.75 arcsec.

The observed solar grazing effect of rays of star light at the thin plasma limb (a thickness that is greatly exaggerated here) is depicted in the following animated illustration:

Where are the thousands of Einstein Rings that should be observed?Animated Image is taken from Nasa — Science News It is interesting to note that the focal length F of the sun of radius R is determined to be roughly 550 astronomical units (AU's), nearly 14 times the mean orbital radius of Pluto, according to the equation

The focal length F and the radius R of the sun are expressed in the same units. As depicted in Figure 7, the light rays from a distant star will come to a focus at a distance of roughly 550 AU's, assuming a convergence angle of 1.75 arcsec. It has been a long desire of many astrophysicists, to include SETI study groups and the International Academy of Astronautics, to send spacecrafts loaded with observational instruments 550 AU's out to the focal point of the solar plasma lens.

If light were to bend around a star's gravitational field forming a gravity lens, then every far field star behind that star would be lensed in front of it in a blurry ring, not a point source because gravity attenuates with distance from the source and the light bends less as you get farther away from the source. . . in other words, the stellar lens is imperfect and will never form a perfect image. The best a gravity lens can produce would be a cloudy ring image around the gravity source forming the lensing. There should be thousands if not millions of Einstein Rings in where ever we look in space, but they are so rare we've found only a handful, if that is what we are seeing at all. In fact, with the sheer number of stars and galaxies in our sky, every star should vice an Einstein Ring, however faint of those objects behind it. However, what lensing is seen is used to explain away high red-shift point source objects that seem to be too close for their velocities. . . and being point sources, they are certainly not Einstein Rings, and could not therefore be artifacts of gravity lenses. So, which is it? Are they impossibly close, or are they impossible gravity lenses forming images that are inexplicable point sources instead of the rings theory predicts?

What we SHOULD be seeing at Sagittarius A circling a massive gravity source, if Gravitational Lensing was occurring.


What we are actually observing at Sagittarius A, circling a massive gravity source: Undistorted time resolved images of
stellar objects orbiting about Sagittarius A — recorded processed images collected from 1992 to 2006
Note there are no gravity lensing artifacting at all.

If there ever was a location where we should be seeing Einstein Rings Sagittarius A is it. But there are none at all. Zip, Nada, Zero. Why not? Where are they? Why are observations not comporting to theory. . . or perhaps it should be the other way around?

[Moonman62]

I don’t find your short posts worthwhile. Why would I read all that?

[Fred Nerks]

from your collection of gems:

There are still such physicists and cosmologists today who challenge the paradigm such as Physicist Dr. Ed Dowdye who asks why the light bends around the Sun's gravity field only when it passes through where the Sun's plasma atmosphere exists, but does not where the plasma atmosphere is absent but there is still a strong gravity field?

Now that is a question I like. I wonder what the answer might be?

[Moonman62]

That's kind of cool. Why does there appear to be plot points and error bars on one of the paths?

[Swordmaker]

That's kind of cool. Why does there appear to be plot points and error bars on one of the paths?

Good question, Moonman, I don't know. Those came from NASA and were Hubble plots. Probably have to do with when the plots were taken. Telescope times and schedules are sporadic so probably have to do with when that star was looked at and plotted. Since it seems to be the larges blip on the plot, it also may be a binary and that is showing the orbital extent of the two stars in their orbits.

By-the-way, thanks for looking.

[Swordmaker]

You want publication, Moonman, try this one on.

The orthodoxy is starting to wake up, although they've got it backwards, thinking magnetic fields cause electrical currents, rather than the other way around, but they're starting to get it, even if they're only doing computer simulations. They seem to think that counter to all evidence strong magnetic fields exist absent the flow of electric current.

A current filamentation mechanism for breaking magnetic field lines during reconnection

H. Che, J. F. Drake & M. Swisdak

Nature 06/01/2011 — Summary of the above entitled peer-reviewed paper

(Emphasis is mine— Swordmaker)

During magnetic reconnection, the field lines must break and reconnect to release the energy that drives solar and stellar flares1, 2 and other explosive events in space3 and in the laboratory4. Exactly how this happens has been unclear, because dissipation is needed to break magnetic field lines and classical collisions are typically weak. Ion–electron drag arising from turbulence5, dubbed ‘anomalous resistivity’, and thermal momentum transport6 are two mechanisms that have been widely invoked. Measurements of enhanced turbulence near reconnection sites in space7, 8 and in the laboratory9, 10 support the anomalous resistivity idea but there has been no demonstration from measurements that this turbulence produces the necessary enhanced drag11. Here we report computer simulations that show that neither of the two previously favoured mechanisms controls how magnetic field lines reconnect in the plasmas of greatest interest, those in which the magnetic field dominates the energy budget. Rather, we find that when the current layers that form during magnetic reconnection become too intense, they disintegrate and spread into a complex web of filaments that causes the rate of reconnection to increase abruptly. This filamentary web can be explored in the laboratory or in space with satellites that can measure the resulting electromagnetic turbulence.

(These guys need to rediscover the difference between a real hands-on laboratory working with real plasma and a computer simulation lab. . . Where they can actually see these double layers behave in the plasma microcosm exactly the same way. . . and then they might understand that an electrical current is running through the plasma and WHY the double layers collapse catastrophically when they reconnect when too much current flows through with too little plasma to support the flow. — Swordmaker)

References (to the article)

1. Tsuneta, S. Heating and acceleration processes in hot thermal and impulsive solar flares. Astrophys. J. 290, 353–358 (1985)

2. Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

3. Baker, D. N., Pulkkinen, T. I., Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W. & McPherron, R. L. Neutral line model of substorms: past results and present view. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 12975–13010 (1996)

4. Yamada, M. et al. Investigation of magnetic reconnection during a sawtooth crash in a high-temperature tokamak plasma. Phys. Plasmas 1, 3269–3276 (1994)

5. Galeev, A. A. & Sagdeev, R. Z. in Basic Plasma Physics (eds Galeev, A. A. & Sudan, R. N.) Vol. 1, 677–731 (North Holland Publishing Company, 1983)

6. Hesse, M., Kuznetsova, M. & Hoshino, M. The structure of the dissipation region for component reconnection: particle simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 1563 doi:10.1029/2001GL014714 (2002)

7. Matsumoto, H., Deng, X. H., Kojima, H. & Anderson, R. R. Observation of electrostatic solitary waves associated with reconnection on the dayside magnetopause boundary. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 1326 doi:10.1029/2002GL016319 (2003)

8. Cattell, C. et al. Cluster observations of electron holes in association with magnetotail reconnection and comparison to simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A01211 (2005)

9. Ji, H. et al. Electromagnetic fluctuations during fast reconnection in a laboratory plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 115001 (2004)

10. Fox, W. et al. Laboratory observation of electron phase-space holes during magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 255003 (2008)

11. Eastwood, J., Phan, T. D., Bale, S. D. & Tjulin, A. Observations of turbulence generated by magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 035001 (2009)

12. Vasyliunas, V. M. Theoretical models of magnetic field line merging. 1. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 13, 303–336 (1975)

13. Drake, J. F. et al. Formation of electron holes and particle energization during magnetic reconnection. Science 299, 873–877 (2003)

14. Che, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M. & Yoon, P. H. Electron holes and heating in the reconnection dissipation region. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 L11105 doi:10.1029/2010GL043608 (2010)

15. Kaw, P. K., Valeo, E. J. & Rutherford, P. H. Tearing modes in a plasma with magnetic braiding. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1398–1401 (1979)

16. Drake, J. F., Kleva, R. G. & Mandt, M. E. Structure of thin current layers: implications for magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1251–1254 (1994)

17. Lazarian, A. & Vishniac, E. Reconnection in a weakly stochastic field. Astrophys. J. 517 700 doi:10.1086/307233 (1999)

18. Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. & Otmianowska-Mazur, K. Reconnection in a weakly stochastic magnetic field. Astrophys. J. 700, 63–85 (2009)

19. Openheim, M. M., Vetoulis, G., Newman, D. L. & Goldman, M. V. Evolution of electron phase-space holes in 3-D. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1891–1894 (2001)

20. Omura, Y., Matsumoto, H., Miyake, T. & Kojima, H. Electron beam instabilities as a generation mechanism of electrostatic solitary waves in the magnetotail. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 2685–2697 (1996)

21. McMillan, B. F. & Cairns, I. H. Lower hybrid turbulence driven by parallel currents and associated electron energization. Phys. Plasmas 13 052104 doi:10.1063/1.2198212 (2006)

22. Goldman, M. V., Newman, D. L. & Pritchett, P. Vlasov simulations of electron holes driven by particle distribution from PIC reconnection simulations with a guide field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 L22109 doi:10.1029/2008GL035608 (2008)

23. Che, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M. & Yoon, P. H. Nonlinear development of streaming instabilities in strongly magnetized plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 145004 (2009)

24. Kingsep, A. S. Chukbar, K. V. & Yan’kov, Y. Y. in Reviews of Plasma Physics (ed. Kadomtsev, B. B.) Vol. 16, 243–288 (Consultants Bureau, 1990)

25. Ferraro, N. M. & Rogers, B. N. Turbulence in low-β reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 11, 4382–4389 (2004)

26. Ricci, P. Brackbill, J. U., Daughton, W. & Lapenta, G. Collisionless magnetic reconnection in the prescence of a guide field. Phys. Plasmas 11, 4102–4114 (2004)

27. Zeiler, A. et al. Three-dimensional particle simulations of collisionless magnetic reconnection. J. Geophys. Res. 107 1230 doi:10.1029/2001JA000287 (2002)

28. Pritchett, P. & Coroniti, F. V. Three-dimensional collisionless magnetic reconnection in the presence of a guide field. J. Geophys. Res. 109 A01220 doi:10.1029/2003JA009999 (2004)

    Author information

    Affiliations

    Center For Integrated Plasma Studies, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
    H. Che

    Department of Physics and Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
    J. F. Drake

    Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
    M. Swisdak

[Moonman62]

So a computer model possibly discovers a new physical process that wasn’t expected. I think we can assume that the model was based on standard quantum electrodynamics, not some alternate theory popular on a small number of internet chat forums and blogs.

[Swordmaker]

So a computer model possibly discovers a new physical process that wasn’t expected. I think we can assume that the model was based on standard quantum electrodynamics, not some alternate theory popular on a small number of internet chat forums and blogs.

So you want to "Assume" something not in evidence. OK. They specifically state: "Here we report computer simulations that show that neither of the two previously favoured mechanisms controls how magnetic field lines reconnect in the plasmas of greatest interest, those in which the magnetic field dominates the energy budget." Those are the models that are based on the standard quantum electrodynamics. Sorry. Again, in a laboratory, it can be demonstrated how this DOES work. Astrophysicists insist on using mathematical models rather than real world experiments. The MAP is not the territory. Math should not be assumed to reflect reality. Models are not reality. If they were, we'd be burning up in a Global Warming Climate.

[editor-surveyor]

Well stated!

[editor-surveyor]

To quote Robert Heinlein:

From the short story “Lifeline:”

“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method, the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are to be junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority”

[Swordmaker]

“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method, the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are to be junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority”

Thank you, Ed. I have always considered Heinlein to be my philosophical mentor. I had forgotten that passage, but it lies at the heart of my own philosophy.

[Moonman62]

Wow! Just wow!

[Swordmaker]

Wow! Just wow!

I am still waiting for your purely gravity explanation of this Butterfly Nebula:

But you keep avoiding saying anything about it. This Planetary (a misnomer because of when it was found) Nebula M2-9 is over a light year across. . . Please, please, tell me what function of gravity can keep its shape over a LIGHT YEAR and symmetrical on both sides, and in fact pinch it down smaller, farther away from the primary causal star???

Face it, Moonman62, gravity simply cannot make an object such as Planetary Nebula M2-9. Orthodox Cosmologists have no explanations for how it holds together.

Here is the Orthodox Cosmologists' gravity theoretical explanation from on of NASA's Astronomical Pictures of the Day:

"Explanation: Are stars better appreciated for their art after they die? Actually, stars usually create their most artistic displays as they die. In the case of low-mass stars like our Sun and M2-9 pictured above, the stars transform themselves from normal stars to white dwarfs by casting off their outer gaseous envelopes. The expended gas frequently forms an impressive display called a planetary nebula that fades gradually over thousand of years. M2-9, a butterfly planetary nebula 2100 light-years away shown in representative colors, has wings that tell a strange but incomplete tale. In the center, two stars orbit inside a gaseous disk 10 times the orbit of Pluto. The expelled envelope of the dying star breaks out from the disk creating the bipolar appearance. Much remains unknown about the physical processes that cause planetary nebulae.

No mention of the two obvious plasmoids on either side of the star. References to "gas." What disk? Do you see one? I certainly don't. No mention of the 200,000 K measured temperatures of those "gases" in the nebulae on either side. . . which by definition makes them a plasma, the fourth state of matter that is NOT gas. In other words, they don't know. They have no clue.

Oh, this exact high energy z-pinch formation can easily be created in a plasma laboratory in the microcosm and the effects are scalable by just adding more power.

[Moonman62]

I’m not the only one who thinks the Electric Universe is a crackpot theory.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=electric+universe+crackpot

[Swordmaker]

I’m not the only one who thinks the Electric Universe is a crackpot theory.

You should check your search results. . . just because it has the word "crackpot" in the results does not mean it is proof of your search. Thanks.

[Swordmaker]

Oh, and still waiting for you to address that photo. . . and the reality of that object just 2,100 light years away from us.

"Eppur si muove"— Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). You are willfully blind.

[Moonman62]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

The “Electric Universe” (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank (author to author). A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can’t put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the “plasma cosmology” of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2] EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart).