kovil wrote:[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).
