NASA Releases New Hubble Photographs - Breathtaking!

The only problem that I see is that Hubble was completely wrong. The Hubble constant is proven wrong by direct observation (www.haltonarp.com) of NCG7603. The fact that NASA tried to doctor photos to hide the inconsistent red shift data is all anyone should need to see that this is the case. Once the Hubble Constant is seen as an incorrect assumption, it removes all proof of the 'Big Bang' ever occuring.

Remember, if the Universe is not expanding (which is only proven by the Hubble Constant), then there is no need for a 'beginning' or a central point of mass. Further, if this is removed, the need for the Theory of Relativity is also removed. There is interesting research going on right now on the Plasma/Electric Universe which does a much better job of explaining the observed data, although it is less elegant mathematically.

It is also interesting to note that many of the artifacts of the Theory of Relativity (Black Holes, Neutron Stars) have zero evidence outside of mathematical equations that would demand them due to the lack of observable data (mass).

I didn't think I could love a machine more than I loved my '69 VW Camper top.

I think I love HST more.

#7 | Posted by EdBilling at 2009-09-09 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot

"Such beauty I cannot believe can come about randomly."

"how can such majesty come from chaos?"

Even in chaos there is order.

In order there is form.

Even what is perceived to be form is still tinged with chaos if one looks deep enough.

There is no true individuality, only infinite similarity.

Beauty perceived is sometimes merely misconception of true violence. The first pic, NGC 6302, the Butterfly nebula, is the result of a star in its final death throes, though incredibly beautiful, the destructive forces involved are unfathomable. Imagine if you will this star had a planetary system, maybe supported life. It too is gone, to be recycled one day, through chaos and order and seemingly random meetings, into yet another star.

We are all made from the stars...

#7 | Posted by EdBilling at 2009-09-09 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot

Please explain NCG7603 if the Hubble Constant is correct. Obviously, you do not even understand the issue enough to contribute or you would at least make an attempt to research the topic before name calling. Here is a direct link to the NCG7603 picture which shows the red shift theory of the Hubble Constant to be wrong. www.haltonarp.com

This is established fact in the scientific community where the actual cosmologists are pushing back on the theories developed by Mathematicians which contradict the observed universe. Did you know when the Theory of Relativity was developed, the known universe consisted of the Milky Way Galaxy? It was not until we realized that the Universe was much, much larger that the lack of matter problem was discovered in the Theory of Relativity, which ultimately 'solved' the problem by inventing Black Holes and Dark Matter.

"Black Holes"

No such thing as a black hole, unless you're in Calcutta.

I believe the term is singularity. Matter checks in, but it can never leave.

"I believe the term is singularity. Matter checks in, but it can never leave."

It is a mathematical invention. It is needed as there is not enough observable mass in the universe for the Theory of Relativity to be correct without them. Of course, there is no proof that such things exist, or Neutron stars for that matter (Neutron Stars are also required for TR to hold true). A neutron star has such high gravity that the force of gravity overcomes the magnetic force of individual atoms causing the eletrons to crush into the nucleus turning the protons into neutrons. I highly doubt this is the case as the relative strength of a magnetic field vastly outweighs the weak force of gravity.

Also, it is interesting to note that on page 2 of the link for this story of the Hourglass Nebula, the nebula is clearly a result of a very high magnetic field effect, not gravity. Magnetic fields that should not exist on these levels according to TR.

#13 | Posted by EdBilling at 2009-09-09 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Babble on

"Flag: Babble on

#14 | Posted by grumpy_too"

Yet another clueless poster. Do you have anything to disprove anything that I said? Do you have an explanation for NCG7603? I didn't think so. However, your attempt at humor, despite being childish and lacking originality, was 'cute'

Do you have an explanation for NCG7603?

Four objects with different redshifts in that cluster? Can you rule out the possibility that the four objects lie down our axis of vision? It is small, so let's move on. Can you rule out the possibility that you are observing the redshifted, receding side of a supernova shock wave while the oncoming, blueshifted side is filtered by dust? Compression of the dust cloud creates a situation where the absorbtion lines can broaden so the cloud filters most light above a certain wavelength.

Arp said those redshifts are young objects. They are. What you are observing could be doppler redshifts added onto the cosmological redshift. No need to throw away the well-validated theory of an expanding universe.

#15 | Posted by EdBilling at 2009-09-09 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Rage On

"Can you rule out the possibility that you are observing the redshifted, receding side of a supernova shock wave while the oncoming, blueshifted side is filtered by dust?"

It could be that, or it could be leprachans screwing with the radio telescopes, both theories are equally valid. The example I cited is just one of many that invalidate the Hubble constant. Pretty much any time that you have an 'ejection' from a nebula, you will see the exact same effect so this is far from an isolated incident.

"No need to throw away the well-validated theory of an expanding universe."

Well validated how? Other than a redshift map predicated on the Hubble Constant, what evidence do you have? The reality is that the more experients that are attempted to prove these mathematically derived views of the cosmos, the more problems arise. As another example, take a look at Gravity Probe B, which attempted to prove time distortion caused by gravity (part of TR). After almost $1B was spent, the net result is that no such effect is present given the data collected. Rather than assuming that the effect was not present because it does not exist, we instead get the true believers stating that the effect did not exist because the test was not performed correctly. Relativity, the Big Bang, and String Theory are nothing more than religions based on mathematics.

It could be that, or it could be leprachans screwing with the radio telescopes, both theories are equally valid.

A physical mechanism, consistent with observations and theory, is equivalent to Leprechaun intervention?

That might be your first problem, Ed. One of many.

The only problem that I see is that Hubble was completely wrong. The Hubble constant is proven wrong by direct observation (www.haltonarp.com) of NCG7603.

Thats an oversold statement. Theres a mountain of observations which hubble works just fine for, running up against a particular anomaly for which we do not have a very good explanation for. Thats a far cry from proving hubble wrong.

Zero evidence?
en.wikipedia.org

www.space.com

I highly doubt this is the case as the relative strength of a magnetic field vastly outweighs the weak force of gravity.

Publish a paper and collect your nobel seriously.

Knighthawk, your links do not show conclusive proof of anything. For the 'Black Hole' the article even admits that no event horizon has ever been proven and they are only trying to fit observed data into a prior framework. The original Theory of Relativity did not include Black Holes, they were invented post-fact to explain why the real observable world does not match the mathematical model of Relativity. There are other theories which offer much more simple explanations for the observations. In the 'Electric Universe' model, the prevailing force in the cosmos is Magnetism (which is equivalent to energy as proven by Telsa). A spiral galaxy (such as the Milky Way) will be formed from two groups of plasma interacting with each other due to electrical current and magnetism. This model does not require any 'Black Hole', simply accepting the universe is not empty, it is filled with plasma (energetic particles).

The same applies to Neutron stars. I would assume that at some point the observed data for Neutron stars would start to coincide with the theoretical models for the stars. However, this is not because the models are correct. Instead, it is because the model has been changed many times by adding more extravagent features to the model to make it match the observed universe. The electric universe model does not require neutron stars to exist, the phenomenon being observed are part of the overall framework rather than requiring a special made up item with near magical properties to produce the observed effects. In fact, this whole theory came about from a misunderstanding of Pulsars. A Neutron Star was required because the observed sub-milisecond pulsar would need to have a very, very small diameter to enable to RPM required to produce the pulses. Even this theory breaks down when you once again take observational data such as SAX J1808.4-3658. If we use the 'Neutron Star' explanation, than the material making up SAX J1808.4-3658 would need to be even more dense than that of a Neutron Star to explain its 24,000 RPM (based on that theory).

"Theres a mountain of observations which hubble works just fine for, running up against a particular anomaly for which we do not have a very good explanation for."

I have a magic rock in my pocket that I carry to ward of bear attacks. For 40 years, it has been successful keeping me safe. If I happen to be attacked by a bear, it will be an anomoly and no proof whatsoever that my magic rock does not indeed ward of bear attacks. That is your argument in a nutshell.

I was wondering how a thread about Hubble photographs (cool as they are) was already at 21 posts. Now I know.

Zat, aren't you like an astrophysicist or something? Could you take this guy to town, please?

No, I have nothing else to contribute. Cool pictures, though.

"Zat, aren't you like an astrophysicist or something? Could you take this guy to town, please?"

I sincerely hope you were not refering to Zatoichi. If anything, he is probably another mathematician that fails to believe that his precious formulas could be wrong. A Cosmologist actually uses observable events to create their hypotheses. A mathematician looks through the wrong end of a telescope and tells you what they imagine that they see. The observations continue to bring up contradictions which force them to make up ever more magical creations to explain away the flaws. I leave you with the following:

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous "dark matter" to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.

www.physorg.com

"he is probably another mathematician"

Wrong again. As usual.

Experimental astroparticle physics.

The boys upstairs:

HETDEX is a project designed to understand the evolutionary history of dark energy. Dark energy is the mysterious property that consists of over 70% of the total energy in the Universe. We know very little about it, beyond its existence, but we do understand how to study it. The goal is to use results from HETDEX to precisely describe how the Universe expands, thereby illuminating the nature of dark energy.

www.as.utexas.edu

Research interests

* AGN
* Black Holes
* Galaxy Formation and Evolution
* Secular Evolution and Pseudobulges
* Bars and their Impact on Galaxy Evolution
* Galaxy Mergers and Tidal Interactions
* Starburst and AGN Galaxies
* Dwarf Galaxies
* Gamma-Ray Bursts

www.as.utexas.edu

I build imaging cosmic ray detectors for archaeological applications.
www.archaeology.org
www.hep.utexas.edu
dsc.discovery.com
www.sciencenews.org

When I saw that 'electric universe' nonsense it was obvious we had another lunatic like Ray or Tadowe here.

This is a fun desktop.
blogs.discovermagazine.com

"Dark energy is the mysterious property that consists of over 70% of the total energy in the Universe."

It is great to see that you deal only in facts. Dark matter has NEVER been proven and you know this to be true. As a matter of fact, it was not even part of TR. It is a mathematical necessity to keep a 'gravity' dominated universe theory going after the voids of space outside the Milky Way was discovered. If you were honest, you would admit this is the case. I see that you are studying AGN and Black Holes, you might as well study Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster as there is just as much proof that they exist. Of course, your paycheck is dependent upon a continuation of the Big Bang theory. Just like Flat Earth scientist eventually lost funding, you will as well.

I'm tickled that the ancient war between astronomers and mathematicians has yet to be settled.

We could talk to them about wearing egos on one's sleeve, but that presupposes emotional development above about age ten,

What? There's no Bigfoot?

Oh well, I have said my piece. You can read my links and get educated or keep your current beliefs. I really don't care either way but I thought I would point out that what science typically presents as facts are more approriately classified as theories. This isn't isolated to Black Holes and such, but also String Theory, which is even more off the wall.

You said your piece without revealing your hidden agenda. Brilliant!

The universe is only 6000 years old.

Klifferd, I did not figure YOU for an Ussherite! LOL

Damn, now I'm hungry for a shwarma ....

#33 hahaha

Blackholes were put here to test our faith.

Ed says, "Oh well, I have said my piece."

You did a nice job of it, too.

Zatoichi, and his ilk, will *never* discuss these issues, directly because there is no evidence for neutron stars, supernova, black holes, or dark matter (whether hot or cold).

He knows that these explanations; e.g., black holes and neutron stars; are ad hoc inventions designed to support theory in the face of observations which have been made continuously since our first venture into space, observations which were not, and continue not to be predicted by the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

The prime example is the discovery of older and older and older galaxies that are *still* spiral, and which 'gravity' should have dispersed, in 'flying apart' or being absorbed into the 'humungous' supposed black hole at the center of each of these galaxies, and which supposedly formed billions of years ago.

They know fully well that the plasma which fills space and ejected by our sun (and every sun in every galaxy) constitutes an electrical circuit, but literally refuse to acknowledge that ... calling it a 'solar wind' of 'ejected mass' in the form of 'gas' ...

Even if it weren't constituted of ions, but actual gas molecules, it still constitutes a circuit which passes current and charge ... but they cannot let themselves recognize that and prove the Emporer is buck assed naked ...

... stupid fools of science is what they happen to be and more concerned with their face and livelyhood than in any real science.

Zat for example reviles and dehumizes for his 'science' ...

"fills space"

lack of comprehension of how much SPACE is in space.

Kliff gets abstract, "... lack of comprehension of how much SPACE is in space."

The same holds true, in reverse, with those who realize how small our 15% of 0.035% of the entire atmosphere happens to be!

I've been across the pacific by troop transport ship ... so perhaps I have a better grasp on the immensity of 'space' than most others who fly across it in a matter of hours, instead of being at sea a month ...?

Anyway, and so far, the universe is how old? 15 billions years and growing with each new quasar, or impossibly bright galaxy/cluster discovered in observation, using red-shift?

That means that all the stars of all the galaxies since the beginning have been filling space with ions. Ions, which even considering the unkowlable size of the universe, have had *billions* of years to reach every extant of that infinity?

However tenuous that/those 'ciruits' happen to be, they still provide current a 'shortest' distance between those ions, while 'charge' pumps that 'shortest' distance with voltage, and eventually provide a path for current; directly or inductively.

However, I think the lack of 'imagination' takes place in the bricklike understanding of the Institution of Science, and the whining acolytes of the faith in Big Bang (as God) and Dark Matter (as the Angels) and Dark Energy (which apparently equivalent to midi-clorians as far as proof goes) who infest every discussion about the electrical nature of the universe and side with faith in invented 'stuff' as religionists have faith in Angels and Demons ...

Big Bang is as dead as Obamacare ...

"Black Holes"

No such thing as a black hole, unless you're in Calcutta.
I believe the term is singularity. Matter checks in, but it can never leave.
#12 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-09-09 01:45 PM

"360 degrees from Mars and we have black stars.." Rob Swift

Their gamma ray fountains make them easily identifiable, otherwise, they are blackness and apparently gigantic ones exist at the center of each galaxy.

Speaking of which, what is theorized that might occur as Sol passes us through the galactic center plane? We're getting close now.. perhaps this is altering energy output from a sputtery Sol causing extra-solar radiation in "hickkup" bursts?

what is theorized that might occur as Sol passes us through the galactic center plane? We're getting close now.. perhaps this is altering energy output from a sputtery Sol causing extra-solar radiation in "hickkup" bursts?

#39 | Posted by redlightrobot

2012, December 21

It will be interesting to see if the Maya had it right. Coming up to the end of the fourth quarter. Will there be OT? Or will it will BAU as it was with the great millenium scare?

"You did a nice job of it, too."

Thank you Tadowe. I know that I was not as articulate as I would like to be, that is very difficult given this type of medium.

"They know fully well that the plasma which fills space and ejected by our sun (and every sun in every galaxy) constitutes an electrical circuit, but literally refuse to acknowledge that ... calling it a 'solar wind' of 'ejected mass' in the form of 'gas' ..."

That is an issue when the people writing the 'laws' are purely mathematicians and not cosmologists or physists. I never heard anything from Zatoiti so I can not pass too much judgement on him but he sounds like a mathematician that spent his entire life learning incorrect laws and views of the universe and now refuses to accept any alternate explanation. This is much like a long time priest where he can not accept any challenge to his religion of Relativity and mathematics.

"I never heard anything from Zatoiti(sic) so I can not pass too much judgement(sic) on him but he sounds like a mathematician"

#41 | Posted by EdBilling at 2009-09-10 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: Can't read, lies out his sorry ass and can't spell, either.

Yup, just another stupid, ignorant loon like Tadowe.

Zat proves me correct, "Yup, just another stupid, ignorant loon like Tadowe."

This is all you'll ever get from Zat, as far as his ability to comment is concerned. He will, of course, post cut-and-paste material (much of it over 10-20 years old) in an inane effort to 'refute' whatever you might say or reference, yourself. That's literally all he is capable of doing.

Cut and paste, or vilify the messenger. However, what do you expect from Democrats? Certainly not any reasonable and direct discussion ... that's for sure!

"Can't read, lies out his sorry ass and can't spell"

Yes, I misspelled your name, I can see how this thoroughly counters my argument and data that I linked to yesterday. I find it funny that you seem to have friends on this chat forum that were expecting you to "take this guy to town", and the best that you can do is find a few misspellings. I did not post to start a personal attack pissing contest so I will leave my correspondence with you at that. Good day.

Great pictures from Hubble--beautiful really.

That means that all the stars of all the galaxies since the beginning have been filling space with ions.

Yet on large scales, structures have a net neutral charge. Your whole "plasma cosmology" is based on ignoring several facts.

Ions, which even considering the unkowlable size of the universe, have had *billions* of years to reach every extant of that infinity?

Tadpole, a little advice. Figure out what the hell you're trying to say, learn how to say it, and then post.

CalifChris - Wow, ten images.. And the images link isn't working. I was expecting at least 100 images, but that's like asking for the highest-resolution SOHO EIT imaging - never going to happen for the public. Hubble was modified by an "astronaut" for what purpose? The reflector that took 15 years to make? Or, maybe it was fully activated as a keyhole satellite with a more sinister purpose.. And this thread celebrates what - ten images that have been modified, cropped with "data" layered?! Not even raw images. NASA is a sack of shit.

Excuse me, they were modified. BOTH of the "Hubble".

Hubble was modified by an "astronaut" for what purpose? The reflector that took 15 years to make? Or, maybe it was fully activated as a keyhole satellite with a more sinister purpose..

Or maybe you're insane.

"Hubble was modified by an "astronaut" for what purpose? The reflector that took 15 years to make? Or, maybe it was fully activated as a keyhole satellite with a more sinister purpose.."

Or maybe you're insane.
#49 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-09-10 03:02 PM

Maybe, I certainly hope that my suspicions are proven entirely wrong. Until then, investigate, verify and then "believe".

Zombie tries to be specious, "Yet on large scales, structures have a net neutral charge."

What 'large' scale on what 'structures' are you talking about? Where is the data showing 'net neutral charge?' Or, is this just another example of pseudo-scientific dialectic idiocy?

"Your whole 'plasma cosmology' is based on ignoring several facts."

Name the 'facts' ignored.

"Tadpole, a little advice. Figure out what the hell you're trying to say, learn how to say it, and then post."

Try answering the questions presented by your own inability to explain what you are talking about, why not?

Btw - why don't we have better imaging for the UFO's that SOHO constantly images? What might be a possible reason for that decade-long omission from all scientific research?

Just some of today's C2:
20090910_0630_c2_1024
20090910_0230_c2_1024
20090910_0130_c2_1024
20090910_0106_c2_1024
20090910_0030_c2_1024

"Yet on large scales, structures have a net neutral charge"

Why would this be the case? I could see arguing this if one were to believe in the Big Bang. If that was the case, you would probably argue that the 'point of singularity' was one giant neutron as gravity caused the electrons to collapse into the protons of the component atoms forming the point of singularity. However, if you are coming at the problem from the electric universe, none of that is required. As the electric universe does not require a beginning, there is no need to have everything in perfect balance at any point in time. Further, we know that electricity = magnetism (per Tesla) and a common thought would be that would necessitate balance as magnets also have 2 poles. However, recent studies have uncovered dipole magnets, which shows that magnetic energy does not require balance. Given this, it would mean that universe does not require perfect balance either.

I could see arguing this if one were to believe in the Big Bang.

Or most anything you see through a telescope.

However, recent studies have uncovered dipole magnets, which shows that magnetic energy does not require balance. Given this, it would mean that universe does not require perfect balance either.

I think it's magnetic monopoles you're talking about, and they certainly don't unbalance the universe. Their existence makes Maxwell's equations more "balanced". Gauss's law for magnetism would correspond to the law for electricity.

What 'large' scale on what 'structures' are you talking about?

Where is the data showing 'net neutral charge?'

Spectroscopy. Ions absorb differently than neutral species.

Background radiation. Large pockets of charged material would cause cosmic rays (mainly protons) to be distributed anisotropically.

Cosmic Synchrotron Radiation. Charged particles accelerating through a magnetic field give off polarized EM radiation with a characteristic non-thermal signature. An "electric universe" must also be rich in magnetic fields, and cosmic radiation passing through those fields would emit synchrotron radiation. If there is an "electric universe," there must also be a cosmic synchrotron radiation background. Synchrotron radiation is currently only seen in supernova remnants and the supermassive black holes of a certain active galaxies.

Thermo-fucking-dynamics. A system consisting of isolated patches of charged particles will equilibrate over time.

...just another example of pseudo-scientific dialectic idiocy?

You've already established that as your area of expertise, Tadpole.

You don't say anything, Zombie, except repeat some specious claim issued by someone else!

There are large areas of magnetic fields detected in space ... so where do they come from? Isn't magnetism intimately associated with the movement of electrons? How are these galaxy sized magnetic fields generated without electricity?

Why aren't all of these magnetic fields generating synchotron radiation, and not just some of them around supposed supernova? How come when I hold up this neodymium magnet, I don't get x-rays?

I don't mind admitting I'm a layman with questions ... while pseudos like you pretend that you know all the answers and can dismiss your correspondent's questions with dialectic trash talk ...

If the theory of general relativity is false, how does the electric universe theory explain the precession of planetary orbits (Mercury) deviating from Newton's inverse square law?

I'll check back tomorrow night; for 5:15am comes awfully early and I'll be mowing most of the evening. Thank you for your reply.

Jay wonders, "... how does the electric universe theory explain the precession of planetary orbits (Mercury) deviating from Newton's inverse square law?"

Mercury's Perihelion

"Newton's laws do not explain the rate of precession of Mercury's perihelion. It is offered as proof' of the validity of Einstein's theory of gravity. However, Einstein's theory does not explain gravity so we must ask if Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND) can provide the answer.

Perhaps so, since subtle changes in the orbit of Mercury will occur as a result of variable charge transfer from the solar wind due to the planet's eccentric, tilted orbit. (See More on Mercury's Mysteries). Mercury is close to the Sun and should experience a decreasing orbital eccentricity by charge exchange with the solar wind."

HAPPY NEVER FORGET 9/11!!

Pretty interesting images today, particularly 20090911_1019_c3_1024:
20090911_0354_c2_1024
20090911_0254_c2_1024
20090911_1019_c3_1024
20090911_0318_c3_1024

The SOHO project has found over 1500 new comets, it seems. This has satisfied a lot of comet interest and also provided observations which have definitely surprised the predictability of BB theory/cosmology, while allowing an explanations based on EMOND.

For instance, some X-Ray observations outside of those where a 'supernova' provide a convenient excuse for observing them, and specially dedicated to Zombie and his science high horsey:

Comet Hyakutake Produces X-Rays

"A comet is believed to be a dirty snowball slowly wasting away in the heat of the Sun. But this ROSAT image from March 27, 1996 reveals a comet radiating x-rays as intense as those from the x- ray stars that are ROSAT's usual target."

Ed mentions, "point of singularity"

This is one of those mathematical oxymorons which has been elevated into the realm of 'scientific truth'!

It was discussed last month, and my reference is www.holoscience.com

In calculating the influence of gravity, a zero point provides a base for calculating distances and gravitational force.

Cosmologically, this point is given reality by inventing a 'neutron' star, where all matter reaches infinite mass and "zero" volume ... a 'black hole' where nothing can escape the infinite gravitational attraction.

Fine mathematically, but actually impossible scientifically, since neutrons, as seperate atomic bits, only last on average 15 minutes before decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. With all those protons hanging around, it is difficult to keep them away from the neutrons, etc.

... or does beta decay stop due to 'infinite' gravity? And, how does zero mass volume create gravity, if mass and gravity are indeed cause and effect (however that works ... they don't know.)?

Even Heisenberg and Einstein disbelieved in 'singularities' ...

Cosmologically, this point is given reality by inventing a 'neutron' star, where all matter reaches infinite mass and "zero" volume ...

Tadowe, a neutron star has a mass of roughly three solar masses and a diameter of ~10 km. They do not have a density that requires an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. Neutron stars are not black holes.

a 'black hole' where nothing can escape the infinite gravitational attraction.

The gravity is not infinite, though, I believe it can be said that the density is virtually infinite, e.g., 10e100 that of water. If the Earth was hypothetically compressed down to the size of a ping-pong ball it would have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, making it a black hole, but it will still have the same gravity as before, an observer on Mars would be unaffected, except for not being able to see the Earth in the Mars night sky.

since neutrons, as separate atomic bits, only last on average 15 minutes before decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. With all those protons hanging around, it is difficult to keep them away from the neutrons, etc.

As I understand it, a neutron star (pulsar), over a million years or so, will electromagnetically radiate away its energy and become "neutral", and I freely admit this topic is way above my pay grade.

My reference is Cosmology: The Science of the Universe.

`Jay says, "...a neutron star has a mass of roughly three solar masses and a diameter of ~10 km."

The radius of a black hole of mass equal to that of the Sun is about 3 km.

Hmmm, some are neutron stars with 3 solar masses, and some are black holes with 1 solar mass ... confusing stuff these inventions of science ...

"As I understand it, a neutron star (pulsar), over a million years or so, will electromagnetically radiate away its energy and become "neutral", and I freely admit this topic is way above my pay grade."

The observation that stellar objects were rotating at a significant percentage of the speed of light, and flashing high energy 'beams' led to the Deus ex machina known as "Pulsars" ... really BIG ONES are "Quasars."

All you are doing is repeating the inventions, as fact, and to someone who has already expressed reason to doubt those *standard* scientific 'explanations' ...

And, not a word about Mercury's perihellion and EMOND predictions? I'm disappointed.

The radius of a black hole of mass equal to that of the Sun is about 3 km

What's the point of that statement, other than splitting hairs? I guess that .3333... is the difference between a black hole and neutron star.

And, not a word about Mercury's perihellion and EMOND predictions? I'm disappointed.

I read to the point where I got to this photo, and the text above and below it read: "It is impossible for low-angle impact ejecta to form neatly graded circular craters with little disturbance of one crater by its neighbor....A good example of crater chains on Mercury. They cannot be explained by impacts."

Of course they negate tidal forces breaking up incoming objects before impact, that can be demonstrated by comet Shoemaker-Levy-9. And furthermore, many of those craters in the photo are elliptical, hardly circular, talk about disappointment.

All you are doing is repeating the inventions, as fact, and to someone who has already expressed reason to doubt those *standard* scientific 'explanations' ...

Then perhaps it's pointless; you say the precession is caused by "variable charge transfer from the solar wind due to the planet's eccentric, tilted orbit", predicted general relativity observations notwithstanding. And if I asked: why do the GPS satellites need to be corrected for both special and general relativity? The answer will undoubtedly be solar wind?

Oh, by the way, "Deus ex machina." Ha, that got me, good stuff there. You just went up a notch in my book, that puts you at one.

Jay responds, "What's the point of that statement, other than splitting hairs? I guess that .3333... is the difference between a black hole and neutron star."

No, I thought you might notice that the sourced 'blackhole' was 1 solar mass and same diameter, and where you said that 3 solar masses did not a 'blackhole' make ...

"I read to the point where I got to this photo, and the text above and below it read: "It is impossible for low-angle impact ejecta to form neatly graded circular craters with little disturbance of one crater by its neighbor..."

You avoid that whether perfectly 'round' or slightly 'round' (eliptical), the orientation of the crater does not support meteors coming in at other angles than the perpendicular, and with little to no disturbance in adjacent cratering; even granting that the original body broke into pieces, the impact ejecta should mark and mar other nearby craters, but doesn't. Your excuse seems more an effort to save belief, than it does to refute the information provided.

"Then perhaps it's pointless; you say the precession is caused by "variable charge transfer from the solar wind due to the planet's eccentric, tilted orbit" ..."

"And if I asked: why do the GPS satellites need to be corrected for both special and general relativity? The answer will undoubtedly be solar wind?"

Well, I don't think that is germane to the issue, and it isn't 'wind,' and since that is a term used to avoid that the flow of charged ions from the sun is plasma, and that it is constitutes a circuit for electrial current(s) as such. See? A 'gas wind' wouldn't be such a path for electricity and that is why 'science' continues to misdirect the plasma as a wind. If you disagree, why ...?

No one is arguing that time measuring devices don't need to be reajusted for relativistic reasons.

"Oh, by the way, "Deus ex machina." Ha, that got me ..."

Indeed, and since it is true that science is playing at being Greek dramatists by answering the impossible contretemps they've created in excluding the electrical force from theory, and thereby failing to predict these "surprising" observations. So willy-nilly, they present godlike explanations to support their theory's failure ... well, if not 'godlike' at least on the imaginary level that "Angels" reside at in religion ... and as even science knows will hold an infinite number of them in a finite space ...

So, I wouldn't mock these explanations electrical out of hand, Jay. Read more at the Thunderbolts site and notice that their explanations more easily match Occam's razor than do those of standard cosmology.

No, I thought you might notice that the sourced 'blackhole' was 1 solar mass and same diameter, and where you said that 3 solar masses did not a 'blackhole' make ...

Sorry for the confusion. The book I cited as my reference in post 61 does indeed put the radius of a neutron star at ~10km not the diameter.

Whoa! It isn't my theory, and you asked me to present the EMOND explanation. What about their prediction do you think is unscientific? Or, are you trying to avoid any such discussion which might cast doubt on your personal, however scientific you think it to be, opinion?
Touch. But I really don't think I am trying to avoid discussion, and I never said that the EU scientist were unscientific; I know I'm in no position to make that claim.

and it isn't 'wind,' and since that is a term used to avoid that the flow of charged ions from the sun is plasma, and that it is constitutes a circuit for electoral current(s) as such. See?

Yes, I see. Terms get bandied around quite a bit like, solar wind, black hole, big bang, that really don't describe the process very well at all.

Well, I don't think that is germane to the issue,...

I think it is quite germane. As I understand it, the Electric Universe proponents reject Relativity, Gravity, and Big Bang theory, all of them, altogether; if I'm wrong I am sure you will correct me.

Greek dramatists...

Tadowe, to my understanding the EU proponents claim that our Sun, and all other stars in the universe for that matter, greater and smaller, are powered by huge electrical currents. The stars get there power and radiate energy like an incandescent light bulb, if you will, by being resistors to this great electrical circuit (nuclear fusion notwithstanding). Where does that electromotive force (voltage), whose resistance is so great it can illuminate a hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone, come from? If there was no Big Bang, no beginning, why didn't this force neutralize (ground) a billion trillion years ago, what powers it?

In my layman's opinion, as far as the unexplained accelerated expansion of the universe, and the unexplained rotation of galaxies, MOND, Dark matter/energy, Electric universe, and yes, Supernatural forces are all on the same footing.

Jay says, "Sorry for the confusion. The book I cited as my reference in post 61 does indeed put the radius of a neutron star at ~10km not the diameter."

Well, I meant that in my reference cite they indicate that a 'blackhole' can be of one solar mass, while you indicated that yours said that 3 solar masses was still just a 'neutron' star. I think the 'radius' figures have to do with their relative event horizons, above their surface; depending on their masses, but I'm not sure. I mean, what would be the radius of a 'singularity' if a 'blackhole' is one?

"... I think it is quite germane. As I understand it, the Electric Universe proponents reject Relativity, Gravity, and Big Bang theory, all of them, altogether; if I'm wrong I am sure you will correct me."

Well, I don't think they are quite that hypocritical, since they accuse science of ignoring the electrical force in cosmology. It seems that they disagree that gravity is the sole force in creating stars and galaxies to be what they are observed (more and more) to being. However, I do think that they disagree as to gravity being the sole creation of mass, either.

I think you should read more of what they do espouse, quite scientifically.

"... Where does that electromotive force (voltage), whose resistance is so great it can illuminate a hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone, come from?"

"Let there be light"? No, seriously does science explain where matter comes from? No, they don't and because it comes from some sort of nothingness-singularity, which magically contained all that mass ... except science can't find the missing matter ... except to create infinite mass in a finite (if that!) point ... like angels on the head of a pin (it was a joke on science) ...

Anyway, where the 'voltage' originates may be one of those unknowables that our finite minds can't contain ... maybe? If it is, the problem remains that science is NOT predicting the previously unknown observations being discovered, while EMOND explanations are able to cut finer using Occam's razor ...

"In my layman's opinion, as far as the unexplained accelerated expansion of the universe ..."

It appears that the red-shift may not be an accurate measure of distance from our point of observation ... many EMOND articles on why the 'shift' is *not* accurate ... and thereby tending to discount an expanding universe. No Big Bang 'angel' in other words ...

"... and the unexplained rotation of galaxies ..."

More science 'angels' in the form of dark matter 'explains' for science, while laboratory plasma experiments can show *all* the forms of galaxies observed!

You definitely need to explore EMOND without the bias you've displayed so far ... if you will, of course ...

I do think that they disagree as to gravity being the sole creation of mass, either.

It's my understanding that gravity is non-existent to them; what holds you to the Earth is magnetism alone.

I think you should read more of what they do espouse, quite scientifically

Of coarse I should, but time is merciless.

Aren't the EU proponents doing the same dance on the the same pin head as the Big Bangers? The EUers can't tell you where all that magical electric energy (matter) comes from, that's been powering stars and galaxies for infinity.

It appears that the red-shift may not be an accurate measure of distance from our point of observation

It is. You can always take a two dimensional observation, where there are galaxies in the foreground juxtaposed against galaxies in the background, and say: Viola, red-shift is false.

Jay says, "It's my understanding that gravity is non-existent to them; what holds you to the Earth is magnetism alone."

I haven't read, or seen that explanation on Holoscience, or on the Thunderbolts pages.

I recommend the latter for a brief, one page explanation of some photograph concerning observation(s) (usually NASA/Hubbel) using plasma theory.

"Aren't the EU proponents doing the same dance on the the same pin head as the Big Bangers?"

Too funny! That's what I just said to you, in reverse! The difference is that no 'dark matter' can be seen, in its infinite action on gravity-alone cosmology, whereas electrical influence can be observed *everywhere* that science mentions 'magnetic fields.' In the meantime, EMOND is *not* rejecting gravity as a force in cosmology.

That neither one knows the, perhaps, unknowable answer does not invalidate either theory ... only gravitatinal/standard cosmology is attempting to deny electricity a part in that infinite set of knowledge: known, unknown and unknowable ...

... as if standard cosmology actually does 'know' that electricity is not a factor ...

Get a clue, Jay.

"It is."

I don't think so, and since it is the main justification for all of the 'Angels' science is trying to balance on the head of the gravitational pin ... infinit this-and-that in a finite point.

But, we'll see, in the end, Jay ...