Origins of the UNIVERSE

[harry]

Hello All

I do not understand Nereids attitude.

He reminds me of the horse racing, where some horse have eye flaps so that they cannot see sideways.

Where is he coming from and what does he think. Please leave out the ad hoc ideas and prove this and prove that attitude.

I know what the science community has had in the past. The next 12 months is going to be very interesting. Many scientists have been hammered for not applying science to their research. Nasa is opening their eyes, asking the questions.

I can post a thousand links, but! I would be wasting my time.

[makc]

I do not understand Nereids attitude... Where is he coming from and what does he think.

Take a guess

[Nereid]

I do not understand Nereids attitude... Where is he coming from and what does he think.

Take a guess

That forum has a moderator with the handle "Nereid". As it is an open internet discussion forum, anyone can quite easily find, and read, everything posted by Nereid* in that forum.

Among the >7,000 posts are those in the following thread: Reflections on a year and a half’s experience with BAUT’s ATM section.

hary, if you wish to think of Nereid as a "he", then of course you are free to do so. OTOH, you may consider checking the etymology of the name.

*Be sure to check the spelling; several handles with very similar spellings can be found.

[Nereid]

Here[/url] is an ESO PR, from 2002, that gives some details of this 'dramatic U-turn' star (that came as close as only 17 light-hours to the SMBH ... whew!).

As a general rule of thumb, Alfven's view of such events included whirlpool like currents in the center of every galaxy. In essence your view of the moving stars in the center of the galaxy is analogous to watching houses and cars being tossed around in the eyewall of a tornado of electromagnetic currents.

Do you know of any papers which present an analysis of the observational data, in terms of this view?

I'd be fascinated to read how such a scenario could be shown - quantitatively - to come within even 3 OOM (order of magnitudes)!

[makc]

if you wish to think of Nereid as a "he", then of course you are free to do so. OTOH, you may consider checking the etymology of the name.

I knew this, but I still thought you were a man

[kovil]

In my opinion Neried behaves more like a Sophist than a man or woman.

In that he/she ignores the spirit of the posting and wants to try and scuttle the mainframe of the argument by nitpicking with the details, and does not spend any effort to understand what the poster is actually trying to say.

btw, that post of mine you deleted is a news press release and is offered by Fermilab for republication by the media in their news stories. Talk about copyright, you didn't leave my op-ed at the end did you.

OOps, I stand corrected. That was the Thunderbolts post. Sorry, I figured they'd like to be posted here. I have more to learn about this copyright issue. I will watch for this in future. Kovil

[Nereid]

As a general rule of thumb, Alfven's view of such events included whirlpool like currents in the center of every galaxy. In essence your view of the moving stars in the center of the galaxy is analogous to watching houses and cars being tossed around in the eyewall of a tornado of electromagnetic currents.

Do you know of any papers which present an analysis of the observational data, in terms of this view?

I've certainly not read anything that involves this specific data set. I can't recall off the top of my head where I've read Alfven's galaxy core theories, but I'll try to round you up a link when I find it.

I'm looking forward to it.

I'd be fascinated to read how such a scenario could be shown - quantitatively - to come within even 3 OOM (order of magnitudes)!

Me too. Just looking at the movie for a few minutes in loop mode, it would appear that there are significant movements in the z-axis that I didn't expect to see. Just eyeballing the movie, it's difficult to see where the center of gravity might located be based on the movements of the various stars. If the authors had not placed that little yellow + symbol in the movie where they think the black hole is located, I would never have guessed that to be the center of gravity based on the movements I can observe in that image. Obviously one would need to understand all the x,y and z movements and relative masses of the various stars to do a proper analysis.

Well, from the ESO PR that I provided a link to: "The information presented in this Press Release is based on a research article ("Seeing a Star Orbit around the Supermassive Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way" by Rainer Schödel et al.) that appears in the research journal "Nature" on October 17, 2002."

A quick search on Google Scholar turned up this: A star in a 15. 2-year orbit around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way (it's a PDF letter to Nature, and has been cited >200 times).

A more recent paper on the same topic (no need to look at movies!)

[Nereid]

[snip]

btw, that post of mine you deleted is a news press release and is offered by Fermilab for republication by the media in their news stories. Talk about copyright, you didn't leave my op-ed at the end did you.

Please provide a reference for this, such as a URL, so that I may compare your claim here with the copy that I have saved.

In any case, if it wasn't your own words - as you seem to be saying - then all the more reason to delete it ... after all, you didn't provide anything, in the post itself, to say that you were merely quoting from a PR.

[harry]

Hello All

You mean to tell me that Neried is a girl?

Darn, now I have to be more humble. My wife read it and told me off.

I agree that Nereid is logical and does have alot of info at hand. My wife tends to agree with Neried.

If she (Neried or my wife)agreed with all that I said, we would never had a discussion past two posts.

On the other hand I'm not that logical and do not have the information at hand and therefor rely on links that I tend to agree with.

So please allow the links in that frame of mind.

[kovil]

LOL , Michael.
I should have known, good, I like a good catfight.

There is nothing so pushing as ones own unexamined belief systems.
I'll push all she needs to wake up.

Antagonism aside, I am rather obnoxious myself on too many occasions.
But hey, who's perfect?

I was more worried Neried was like the paid bashers on the Yahoo Finance Message Boards, and would constantly have a hidden agenda to behave like they do, and there is no reasoning with them, as they are not interested in the truth, they have a spin to sell, as they are mercenaries.

Anyway, I probably need to lighten up a bit. Like I was talking with Harry; "It's a body language of weakness to be defensive towards an inferior viewpoint, and BBT is the weaker position. It is a body language of strength to simply move forward and speak positively and discuss from the Electric Cosmos view, as that will be shown to be more correct than BBT, as it includes electricity, magnetism and gravity in its conception to what is happening in galactic structures."

This mornings thought was that Neried is playing Devil's Advocate and using the argumentative Socratic method to flesh out what us electric advocates think, in order to better understand our mindset. As all this is new and not completely expressed in papers. Leading edge conceptualization is still forming. Old defenses need to be disassembled to BBT, and this may be one of the forums that can do that.
(friends close and opposition closer etc)

At the base of this Electric Concept , is the premise that gravity generates an electrical activity in matter. Gravitational force manifests an electrical reaction from matter. If this is true, then all else follows naturally; the resultant magnetic activity and the generation of electron and ion flows along the field paths, seeking to equalize the charge potentials.

The true investigation needs to be in the gravity producing an electrical reaction from the matter being accumulated in one location and being subjected to internal pressure from that propinquity, and exhibiting an electrical reaction. Whether the atom itself becomes an electrical dipole from the nucleus' protons being offset from the electron cloud because the proton has an inertia component, and the electron does not. And so a large gravity will pull the protons and neutrons closer to the aggregation center of attraction and by results offset the electrons towards the outside. And in this way begin the move towards creating the electric charge differential setup that this large gravitational object will ultimately produce.

I am coming to the conclusion that black holes do not exist and event horizons are prohibited from forming. What we are seeing we are incorrectly imagining. They are electrical activity points in the Cosmos. Further testing needs to be done by better observations, and keeping an open mind, and not immediately describing things in BBT language. Not including BBT suppositions in all news articles. Explain the new data but refrain from including a BBT supposition of what the implications are, something the media cannot refrain from doing in every story, and that behaviour leads me to the conclusion there is a conspiracy afoot to institutionalize BBT as Church and State position to the tune of BBT uberalles, and I get pissed off by that narrow minded and closed mindset viewpoint. But hey, that's my problem, eh?

- - -

To go another step further and pissoff the moderators who do not want political rants here; There is a political, power, social and cultural psychological agenda afoot as well in the institutionalizing of BBT; which is, by the nature of the electrical theory of the cosmos, I can see the newspaper headline someday, " Scientists prove sun could go nova at any time in the next ten years. Pictures at eleven." If this was media dispersed, everyone would quit their jobs, society would break down and law and order could disappear. BBT and the standard solar model predict another 5 billion years of solar stability. It would be rather disconcerting to the common man that the sun's stability is completely dependent on the vagaries of galactic magnetic field strengths and local electrical galactic currents. Who would obey the Law? Who would believe in God anymore? Who would think we are 'special' and live in a chosen place of goodness? So I can see the benefits to preserving social order and harmony by having the general population believe a 'myth' that the sun will be stable for another 5 billion years.

[astro_uk]

First off, to the frat party that seems to have taken over this board, get back on topic or go someplace else. If you can't answer Nereids questions, go away and do some research, your frankly borderline misogynist posting of late has no place here.

Second kovil, you have succeeded in achieving your goal, your rant is political, and utterly foolish to boot.

Get back on topic or I'll lock this discussion.

[kovil]

Hi Michael,

I will take your points and advice. I do value this APOD forum as it provides a place to converse with intelligent knowledgeable people who are from the mainstream and the further out. As Copernicus and Galileo were not mainstream, neither was Birkeland or Dobson. It is here I have learned about the Electric Theory, in the last 6 months. I just transfered Neried's 5 points for debate as well as your 5 points. (as they say in big business, I'll get back to you on that! LOL) Been busy with other things last few days and have more to go to finish, then do some research and make more scientific-like postings in the future. I reread some of Neried's posts. I was too emotionally hot in being reactive to be able to read those posts coolly. I am interested in the Truth above all, and if Neried is right I will join in that perspective. Tho all I have experienced has led me to where I am now. Nice news story about the 6 million LY cloud! [* Now watch it! (as Dobson would say), are you able to resist that opportunity to take a dig at BBT?, and speak and post from a position of strength by not being negative toward the opposing viewpoint and only state the positive?]

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of quarks -- and larks -- and plasma-sparks --
Of cosmology -- and strings --
Of why stars are so far apart --
And how do thoughts have wings."

- - -

For Neried: The 1945 paper by Wheeler and Feynman 'The Absorber as the Mechanism for Radiation' , explains the 'pure wave-function aspect' of matter. They talk about electrons mainly, but I see it as expressing all matter.

"Matter is a special state that energy has the ability to assume." Moi.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_r ... I_toc.html

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_r ... 0.html#3.1

[kovil]

In researching the mass differential between the proton, electron and neutron, these web pages appeared.

basic mainstream physics lectures.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/home.html

Galileo and Einstein series of lectures.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classe ... elist.html


Galileo was born in Pisa, Tuscany in 1564, the son of Florentine musician Vincenzo Galilei. Actually, Vincenzo was a revolutionary musician-he felt the formal church music that then dominated the scene had become sterile, and that classic Greek poetry and myths had a power the church music lacked, that perhaps could be translated into modern music. He attempted some of this, and his work began the development that culminated in Italian opera.

To understand something of Galileo's early upbringing, here is a quote from his father, Vincenzo Galileo:

"It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth."

- - -

the same can be said today/

[makc]

"It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth."

- - -

the same can be said today/

Well, it seems that Nereid will not return to this thread, so someone else has to say this...

Mainstream stuff is mainstream for a reason. And in Galileo times, pro-christian mainstream was mainstream for a reason, too. While some bright individuals like Galileo were, indeed, ahead of time with their ideas, the vast majority of idiots were trying to turn pee into gold or cure ill with sorcery. Just like back then, the same thing happens today, indeed, and that actually validates the reason behind mainstrem and the way things are. There simply is no other way. Do not complain about that. It's pointless.

[cosmo_uk]

citing galileo or copernicus is always the calling card of the crank (as is copyrighting their material)

It seems that they believe they are right simply because they are unpopular

this is not proof of a theory

[makc]

as is copyrighting their material

i bet they would patent it if they could.

[Nereid]

As I, and at least one other posting here, have said before, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, you are free to imagine the 'real person' behind a poster as any gender, species, or whatever, that you wish.

Or even more than one 'real person'; perhaps Nereid is the (grand-) daughter of Nicolas Bourbaki?

However you choose, surely the key thing is the merits of the post, as written?

Is it English?
Is the spelling, the grammar, acceptable?
Does it read easily?
Are the points being made logical?
Does it relate in an acceptable way to other posts in the thread?

And so on.

[Nereid]

[snip]

Anyway, I probably need to lighten up a bit. Like I was talking with Harry; "It's a body language of weakness to be defensive towards an inferior viewpoint, and BBT is the weaker position. It is a body language of strength to simply move forward and speak positively and discuss from the Electric Cosmos view, as that will be shown to be more correct than BBT, as it includes electricity, magnetism and gravity in its conception to what is happening in galactic structures."

(my bold)

You're more than welcome to try presenting such a case!

However, as this is a scientific forum, you will be required to do so using methods that are standard in modern astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology).

The key criterion (or set of criteria) is the ability of "the Electric Cosmos view" to match the good, relevant astronomical observations, quantitatively.

In this regard, a set of five such has been on the table for some time now:

1) Olbers' paradox
2) the primordial abundance of the light nuclides, H, D, 3He and 4He
3) the CMB - blackbody SED, dipole, angular power spectrum
4) large-scale structure
5) the Hubble distance-redshift relationship.

This mornings thought was that Neried is playing Devil's Advocate and using the argumentative Socratic method to flesh out what us electric advocates think, in order to better understand our mindset. As all this is new and not completely expressed in papers. Leading edge conceptualization is still forming. Old defenses need to be disassembled to BBT, and this may be one of the forums that can do that.
(friends close and opposition closer etc)

Such sentiments are oft repeated, by proponents of the EU/PU/PC/etc view. However, no more an hour or so's work is sufficient to show that such claims are either deliberate untruths or reflect profound ignorance of how science works.

For example: plasma physics is a well-established branch of physics, and is taught at a great many universities. While in most cases it does take several years' of hard study to become sufficiently familiar with the field to begin to do leading edge research, such familiarity with the field is available. So, given the statements you can read on the websites promoting these EU ideas, how come there are no plasma-physics based papers*, backing up the wild claims presented there? And it's not that any such papers need to be published in ApJ (say); it is very easy to write a PDF document, and post it on your website.

Care to comment, kovil?

At the base of this Electric Concept , is the premise that gravity generates an electrical activity in matter. Gravitational force manifests an electrical reaction from matter. If this is true, then all else follows naturally; the resultant magnetic activity and the generation of electron and ion flows along the field paths, seeking to equalize the charge potentials.

The true investigation needs to be in the gravity producing an electrical reaction from the matter being accumulated in one location and being subjected to internal pressure from that propinquity, and exhibiting an electrical reaction. Whether the atom itself becomes an electrical dipole from the nucleus' protons being offset from the electron cloud because the proton has an inertia component, and the electron does not. And so a large gravity will pull the protons and neutrons closer to the aggregation center of attraction and by results offset the electrons towards the outside. And in this way begin the move towards creating the electric charge differential setup that this large gravitational object will ultimately produce.

OK, so please show - by reference to published papers - how this is consistent with quantum mechanics.

Also, please show that this effect has been observed, in experiments done in labs, here on Earth.

Note that to demonstrate such an effect, you need to have quantified it, at least to an OOM (order of magnitude) level.

What - quantitatively - is the relationship between the strength of "the electric charge differential" and gravity?

I am coming to the conclusion that black holes do not exist and event horizons are prohibited from forming. What we are seeing we are incorrectly imagining. They are electrical activity points in the Cosmos. Further testing needs to be done by better observations, and keeping an open mind, and not immediately describing things in BBT language.

(my bold)

Specifically, observations of what?

And in what sense "better"?

Not including BBT suppositions in all news articles. Explain the new data but refrain from including a BBT supposition of what the implications are, something the media cannot refrain from doing in every story, and that behaviour leads me to the conclusion there is a conspiracy afoot to institutionalize BBT as Church and State position to the tune of BBT uberalles, and I get pissed off by that narrow minded and closed mindset viewpoint. But hey, that's my problem, eh?

[snip]

Indeed.

I would also suggest that you have the rather big problem of not being able to present anything even remotely resembling science, in support of your EU claims.

BTW, EU claims re the Sun have been demolished, many times. An example.

*The only ones I've ever seen presented, by EU proponents, are either very old (e.g. those of Jürgens) or a small number by Perratt (also now quite old).

[makc]

Oh and there she is back. Look, Nereid, I take it you are actually enjoy running threads like this in circles, but don't you think 40+ pages are more than enough? Isn't it time to use the magic button?