Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Utter nonsense imo.

This imaginary matter is not what shapes the universe. Just like string theory needing 10 dimensions to work mathematically, maths creates something from nothing in Dark Matter.

Electrical activity and gravity are what shape the universe. Black holes and Pulsars are also a load of ****e. Black holes are actually immense energy concentrations and the galaxy expands into the electromagnetic field it creates. Gravity alone is not responsible and so calls into question everything we learned. Pulsars rotating at the speed they supposedly do is a ridiculous theory, it is more likely there are 2 binary stars in close proximity and there are massive discharges between them.

Not all the scarring on Earth Mars the moon asteroids comets are from impacts. Much of it is from electrical arcing which carves out rock in a scalloped fashion that an impact would never create. The same with comets, scarred from these electrical arcs.

Jupiter's moon Io's volcanoes, nonsense, supposedly caused by tidal stress. NASA had shots that were whited out at the location of the "volcano" and coloured it freaking orange in released photos, some astronomers called it the Great NASA colouring book.. The plumes from the "volcano" were dome shaped and symmetrical and blue white, hardly what you would expect from a volcano More proof of the electric universe.

Our own sun's magentic field propels solar winds and CME's towards earth, they actually pick up speed en route to us. This is consistent with Cern and how they use the LHC to speed up particles.

Comets are not dirty snowballs, they are rocks, the tale is not water vapour it is an electrical reaction between the asteroid (negatively charged and the sun (positively charged. This can release free silicates and this is what astronomers think is from water. Comets did not deliver the abundant water to earth. The elements from water are coming from the sun constantly, check out star water.

This is the result of several decades of work.

For anyone interested in astrophysics and Astronomy I would strongly recommend the following, The Thunderbolts Project.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

 

I'm glad you can tell all this form your sitting room then.

no need for any astronomers or physicists here then.







































#mustbearhcwindup

 

greatest threat to this planet is the twats that currently occupy it ie us.

seen all the stuff on black holes etc, seems a bit odd that in this day and age we know more about outer space than we do our own planet, obviously no financial reward for this.

i get all my physics from watching big bang theory although that may be more to do with i want to **** kaley cuoco brains out, not sure.

 

Sorry Sis but it's all crap! If we did have a Big Bang then equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created and cancelled each other out. Hence the big bang would have been even less than a wet fart. However more matter was created than anti-matter and what's left is the result. Find out why and you can answer all of the other questions.

Some friends of ours have a son who is an astrophysicist in Liverpool and he's been working on a theory involving neutrinos. But after 5 minutes of hime explaning the outline of his theory I'm totally lost!

 

the problem is those thinking about it have fallen for the in crowd speak.

just like how executives can talk thier own language that is utterly tripe... scientists choose to make things incomphrensible.

If plain english were used for

a) banking

b) politics

c) science

everyone would understand everything said.

 

banking used to work in so understand the bull that goes on.money for shareholders is what it all boils down to basically.

politics, well understand again, just why is it such an effort to get a simple yes or no answer. i realize criteria need to be made to reach a decision, but can still answer yes or no and say if this criteria is met etc then yes other wise no.

science, was a poor subject of mine, although i was good at biology, phsyics and chemistry confused the **** out of me, sadly when i was at school they was all combined into one.

 

How is the sun positively charged? Comets are not dirty snowballs? Electrical arcing causes craters on the moon? From where?

Sorry, Sisu, sounds as convincing as some of the other far-fetched stuff you've posted, previously. I'll stick to peer-reviewed, mainstream science thanks.

 

Just checked out the link. One of the authors has a physics qualification, the other is a doctor of Electrical Engineering and the last is a major in political science. All were inspired by the loon Velikovsky...

As the Dragons say: 'I'm out!"

 

It's not crap, and you have admitted you are not qualified to call it crap

The problem with Astronomy is that when gravity fails them they turn to maths and create things that do not exist. Again Strong theory, the idea was born and the maths done and redone until it worked, with 10 dimensions.

What I find great about this project is that it is solidly based in observation (@mito Not by me, I just have opinions as stated in the OP I said "IMO") as well as experimentation and results. That and the new telescopes that can see particles propelled by radiation trillions of light years in a jet and be held in shape and direction by electromagnetic fields of immense power which indicates these electric fields extend to great distances.

It's hardly crap I would say, scientists do not even really know what gravity is and so that gives a shaky foundation to any model based on gravity of which we have little understanding, get my point.

What we know to be fact is that when someone's career is based on 40 years of assumptions and maths that do not add up to the reality then ego and vanity make some defend their theories. How often does one or two brilliant ideas get met with dismissal only to be vindicated years later.
The whole theory of how our sun actually works from core to corona is fundamentally flawed and so many experiments and observations have proven the settled science as at best incomplete and at worst totally incorrect. Many experiments and observations have given results totally at odds with mainstream theory.

On the Deep Impact NASA mission they fired an 800 pound copper projectile into a comet. There was an electrical discharge before the projectile impacted and a much bigger explosion than expected. The flash was predicted by the Thunderbolts project team prior to the test taking place, NASA and Astronomy in general did not as they expected it to be a dirty snowball but the footage from that mission clearly shows there was no ice on that comet. Also not expected by NASA or Agronomists was high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas.
In 2007 Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km. It was moving away from the sun when this happened.

A comet has passed through the sun, now how does a block of ice pass through the Sun? That also throws the theories about how our Sun is made up and functions into serious doubt.

 

Science is not an exact er.....science.
The main body of scientists favour a particular theory because it best fits the knowledge that we currently hold. If the observable facts change, then the theory evolves or is discarded for a better one.
Although there may be some corruption for economic purposes in the world of applied science, why would there be in the theoretical world? What benefit is there to most of the scientific community to knowingly foist a false model of the universe on us? Far more benefit for some rogue self-publicists to go against the grain in order to draw attention to themselves.
All scientific theory is open to examination by the scientific community as a whole, and any theory that holds water will be examined and given credence if it deserves it.
As for us, we may have opinions, but unless we are experts in the field and have empirical knowledge of it those opinions are not sufficiently well informed to be of any value.

 

I believe you just gave a perfect example of how people get discredited these days based on something that has nothing to do with the data they present. That attitude is what prevents advances in science It has prevented advances by years or decades in some cases if you look at scientific history and those who were laughed at only to be proven right years or decades later.

Those three are the team but the contributors are many other physicists in different fields including plasma and energy research. They also have the work of brilliant predecessors to base it on and the work and data NASA provides also.

 

These people are working on the fringe, Sisu. If there's any validity in what they say, they'll get into mainstream journals. If not, they won't. Until I'll ignore them as it's not my area.

 

The theories we are fed, some of them never sat right with me. The findings, if you manage to open your eyes for 10 minutes actually tick more boxes than the crap we call Astronomy today.

I never heard of the project, just happened on some pieces and videos when researching a few things, it's an interesting subject. It was the new concepts that were interesting, do I know it's right, of course not but it is a far more logical and visible explanation than an invisible matter say, that mathematicians cooked up.

You really need to see what they are on about and understand it, at least in concept before discrediting it and also, you would need to have have a grasp of the current theories and the data from past observations and experiments that just don't add up.

We really do not know what gravity is, that is a fact and yet everything we think we know is based on that. Dark matter something invisible and undetectable. 10 Dimensions, seriously? All because maths says so it must be true, never mind what observations and experiments tell you eh.

 

No, I didn't. People get discredited by people in their fields. Peer-reviewed science. That's how it works. You sound like you're not familiar with the process. Just disagreeing with scientific orthodoxy doesn't make you Galileo, being correct does!

That has been true, but very rarely. Eventually, amassed evidence make disagreement pointless. It's about evidence.

Fine then. If there's anything to what they said, it'll become the norm if the evidence is there. I have my doubts about anyone who bases their science around Velikovsky, having read his Worlds in Collision at university. I'm sure he was a much better psychiatrist.

 

interesting theory.

anyone give me one example where the maths has been wrong and the experiment actually disproved the math?

 

George Zweig and quarks, was called a charlatan.
Ludwig Boltzmann and his crazy "atoms" theory.


Anytime something new and radically different comes alone, even one based on science, the status quo get all ****ty pants.

 

they aimed at me sisu?

theory? so no experiment then, and also does the maths not justify that now being correct, just because we didn't know the equation at the time, the math always wins.

 

So we don't know what gravity is? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean we can't make accurate observations of its effects.
Our not fully understanding its nature doesn't prevent it from doing what it does. Do we really understand electricity any better?

There's a lot of current thinking that doesn't entirely convince me, but I'm not qualified to formulate an alternative. Anything based purely on mathematics is vulnerable, because a formula can only be trusted if it includes all the pertinent factors, and what if there are some that are significant, but as yet undiscovered?

However, it's a big step from accepting that the prevailing theory is incomplete, to uncritically embracing an alternative with even less evidence to back it up.