EMField

Source of DM (P L A S M A) 99% of the universe. Like LIGO detecting gravitational waves, that kind of Hawking Radiation that has never been observed?

ALL calculations for orbital maneuvers, orbital of planets, etc., use NO aberration and use the instantaneous speed of gravity, not the speed of c. You might want to do some research yourself before making the claim gravity travels at c. GR reduces to Newtonian gravity and Newtonian gravity uses the instantaneous speed for gravity, not c. Even the math of GR uses no aberration for gravity which is the same thing as saying it is instantaneous. You can SAY anything you like, but the math says it is instantaneous, contrary to the words they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

The electric susceptibility χ_e of a dielectric material is a measure of how easily it polarizes in response to an electric field. This, in turn, determines the electric permittivity of the material and thus influences many other phenomena in that medium, from the capacitance of capacitors to the speed of light.

Not hard to do if one bothers to do any research. EM fields affect everything.

Mainstream ignore Kristian Birkeland for 42 years, ridiculing him even, until satellites were launched and proved him correct. Yet to this day there is no talk of the Birkleland currents that he predicted, nor the charge that must be flowing, instead they doggedly insist space is electrically neutral against all evidence to the contrary. They are blinded by their own religion, for that is what modern science has become. Science by faith and not data.

Because mediums possess dielectric properties and dielectrics controls the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

So much so that "whether light "actually" travels at c through a medium, or is actually slowed, is only a matter of interpretation" has already been answered.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/27mar_stoplight/

Because light is not constant contrary to what you have been told. light is only constant when and if it travels in a true vacuum, i.e. with no medium present, or in the space between atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

This is because all mediums, including the one that exists within our galaxy are NOT true vacuums. It is filled with electrified particles.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

And also contrary to what you have been told, red-shift is mainly due to plasma electron density, the only laboratory evidence that anything can affect the speed or wavelength of light.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

And this is what electron density can do to the speed of light.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/27mar_stoplight/

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

Because lightning is plasma. Plasma is an electrified medium, not a "hot" gas. And the natural consequence of z-pinches is radiation:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pinch

Of course the sun is plama, has a magnetic field and emits the same radiation as a z-pinch, but it just has to be fusion, lol, you guys kill me!

Polorization of the dielectric ether. Two choices are available: 1) ether, or 2) action at a distance. A dielectric transfers energy with only a shift in axis required and does not require particle transfer as a mechanism. This explains why gravity appears to act faster than light as no particle transfer is needed, merely an alignment of axis in the dielectric medium (ether).

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dielectric

Which is why light travels at c and not faster:

The electric susceptibility χ_e of a dielectric material is a measure of how easily it polarizes in response to an electric field. This, in turn, determines the electric permittivity of the material and thus influences many other phenomena in that medium, from the capacitance of capacitors to the speed of light.

All of the interactions other than gravity have force carriers whose existence has been confirmed. EM interactions, for example, are mediated by photons.

Wrong, photons are byproducts of energy transfer. According to science charges moved from point A to point B require x amount of energy. Charges moved from point A to point A in a closed loop require no energy. Charges moving in a closed loop generate electric charge (see magnetic induction). Are not the same photons interacting with charges moving in closed loops as well as charges moving in straight lines? So why do only charges in closed loops seem to require no energy expenditure and generate charge if the same photons are the force carriers of the EM force and interact with both charges in closed loops and straight lines?

Your first link says "Heat may be defined as energy in transit "

Wiki says "Heat is energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction"

That's not the same as "Heat is the TRANSFER OF energy:"

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node39.html

http://en.wikipedia....odynamic_system

Overview

 

Thermodynamics describes the physics of matter using the concept of the thermodynamic system, a region of the universe that is under study. All quantities, such as pressure or mechanical work, in an equation refer to the system unless labeled otherwise. As thermodynamics is fundamentally concerned with the flow and balance of energy and matter, systems are distinguished depending on the kinds of interaction they undergo and the types of energy they exchange with the surrounding environment.

There is nothing but the transfer of energy, stop deluding yourself, the universe is electrical.

I'm rather new to this, but do you have an opinion on R.M. Santilli's papers on the subject of IsoRedShift?

 

http://www.santilli-...n.org/news.html

 

http://www.santilli-...hift-Letter.pdf

 

Private messaging me back would be fine if that is more appropriate. Thanks!

He has some interesting ideas, I read his paper quite awhile ago, will reread them and get back to you. Unlike others I actually READ stuff, not just repeat what everyone else has told them is correct. But as I recall he agrees with Arp on red-shift interpretation of qusars being from what Arp described as inherent nature of the qusars, and recent evidence seems to indicate plasma electron density is the major cause. Makes sense to me as a recently ejected quasar would have a higher electron density. Z-Pinches draw in and confine the plasma until its density becomes more than the current can sustain and then ejects the excess.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pinch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

What also just happens to be going on inside the center of the sun and not a nuclear furnus. The nuclear reactions are only occuring on the surface due to arcing from the corona which explains the low thermal turbulance from the interior and the corona's multimillion degree heat.

Why not? If someone else discusses gravity then I certainly have a right to discuss it as well in response in an effort to correct all of your misconceptions about it. And I guess gravity would have paramount importance in the steady or expanding therories of the universe, so quite a relavent topic in this thread I would say. IMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

 

Magnetic moment

 

Main article: neutron magnetic moment Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks.

 

 

Electric dipole moment

 

Main article: Neutron electric dipole moment The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.^[21] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions. New theories going beyond the Standard Model generally lead to much larger predictions for the electric dipole moment of the neutron. Currently, there are at least four experiments trying to measure for the first time a finite neutron electric dipole moment.

Your own books tell you the experiments are not sensitive enough, so why do you keep asking why we can't detect it????? A charge rotating with respect to another charge constitutes current. Even stationary charges produce electric fields, but ONLY moving charges produce both electric and magnetic fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183201/electromagnetic-field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law

Are you talking to me?

To anyone that believes that gravity is anything other than the EM force. Mass, i.e. energy, increases with acceleration, yet the amount of matter does not increase, nor its volume, nor its density. So mass has little to do with the amount of matter, but everything to do with its energy content. When acceleration stops the weight, i.e. energy, immediately returns to its orginal amount prior to acceleration. Gravity therefore can NOT be dependent on the amount of matter, but the amount of charge the matter contains. Otherwise acceleration would never change an objects mass or energy, as its matter content never changes under acceleration.

They are indeed moving outwards, http://phys.org/news/2010-11-milky-stars-mysterious-ways.html and it has nothing to do with gravity and everything to do with the EM force. As soon as you realize this, that charge controls the universe, we can get back to science.

Well for starters I would google magnetic maps of the moon and gravitational maps of the moon. Compare them then come back and tell me what you have discovered.

Heat is the TRANSFER OF energy:

http://hyperphysics....hermo/heat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

The more energy a particle has the more radiation it emits. Particles do not possess heat, it only occurs when energy is transfered and radiated off, from hotter to colder, i.e., more energetic to less energetic.

And here is your space-time:

http://en.wikipedia....omagnetic_field

The universe is electrical people, and opperates on electrical principles. As soon as you realize this science can advance again. E=mc^2! And why his paper was entitled "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies". You have just let them twist it without thinking on your own, and now leave the electro out of electromagnetic.

Plasma, an electrified medium comprising 99% of the universe. The electrical force, 10^39 powers stronger than gravity. And there is your red-shift, your flat rotation curves, your ion plumes, your Dark Matter and Dark Energy. And this is the center of our galaxy, a plasma tourus:

"It is an electrified gas, not a "hot" gas. Don't forget to mention the easiest way to strip electrons from an atom is electrical."

Bollocks.

For millennia the only way to generate a plasma was to light a fire.

(Granted that thy didn't know they were doing that).

 

It's a fairly trivial experiment to demonstrate that a candle flame conducts electricity.

And heat is nothing more than EM radiation given off by excited atoms. So learn what makes the world work please, and stop disiminating false data.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_electrons_removed_from_atoms_to_form_ions_in_a_mass_spectrometer

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120329055938AA1FBiC

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/hollow_atoms_lcl_pulses_make_electrons_strip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy

 

The ionization energy of a chemical species, i.e. an atom or molecule, is the energy required to remove electrons from gaseous atoms or ions.

Again, you are using the word evolve in different ways in the same post. This is liable to confuse and introduce ambiguities. It is not a good idea.

 

Individuals change over time, but those changes are not heritable. Only mutations in the germ cells (sperm and ova) are heritable. Changes in the individual do not affect the germ cells.

 

Rocks certainly evolve, but in a quite different way from biological evolution or individual evolution. Drawing the terms together creates more confusion thant clarity. At the end the only thing it does is provide a less elegant way of saying "things change".

But life evolved from non-life, so the non-genetic became biological where once it wasn't. Basically we are made of the same stuff as the rocks, protons, neutrons and eletrons, just in different combinations and configurations. Energy my man. The very thing that makes you, you and me, me. Without that electric current brains don't function and no thoughts exist. Muscles don't move and hearts don't beat, and life ceases. And it all boils down to atoms and thier configuration and energy level. But before biological life formed, there was only non-biological so they are related beyound seperation.

There is no option but to think EM fields can affect light. According to "standard" cosmology, a photon has no mass, so would be unaffected by gravity. Since all light is EM radiation and is caused by electric and magnetic fields, no other conclussion is possible. Only when the field strength is strong enough, large stars or galaxies, is light affected due to its velocity.

http://en.wikipedia..../Faraday_effect

Light can interact with the energy in materials, so can not be chargeless.

http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering

Modulate the frequency of light (its EM property) and you can bend a beam of light without gravity needed, so argue all you want that EM fields can not bend light, you just do not have any powerful enough

http://news.sciencem...-by-itself.html

Something basic for you

http://www.colorado....calculator.html

Light bends all the time without gravity.

http://ww2010.atmos....t/mch/diff.rxml

Oh and one question, if photons have neither mass or charge or magnetism, then just how are they the carriers of the electromagnetic force since they have none according to "standard" science? It is impossible for a photon to be the EM force carrier and not posess any EM force. Oh, wait, I know, magic!

E=mc^2, learn what it means.

Could that be because of photon rotates and travels through something? ether? Without ether, It could travel straight, right?

Oh it rotates for sure, everything spins, everything: http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html

And its speed is controlled by that dielectric: http://www.pa.msu.ed...dielectric.html

Magnetic Reconnection?

 

I'd ask what you're talking about, but you've been asked that since you started.

Do we need to do a search and see how many of you have supported magnetic reconnection theories to explain events? Half the theories mainstream uses has no basis in reality. And the funniest part of all that, in your need to be important, you will agree with every one. The more ridiculous and arcane the faster you will jump on the bandwagon. Black Holes, a nice mathematical fudge, but far from reality. Even Einstein agreed they are not reality. http://www.cscamm.um...hwarzschild.pdf As a matter of fact you can't even use Schwarzschild's original formula, but instead every modern textbook shows only the corrupted version by David Hilbert. (http://en.wikipedia....rzschild_metric)

You wont let any idea that crosses his theory surface, but you will sure ignore him when you want your pet theories.

Red-shift from velocity and distance? http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089 Nope, even against what Hubble believed:

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Edwin_Hubble

A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "Einstein" universe, is a model in which space is neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology in 1917.

Einstein's static universe is closed (i.e. has hyperspherical topology and positive spatial curvature), and contains uniform dust and a positive cosmological constant

After observations indicated that the universe was expanding, most physicists of the twentieth century assumed the cosmological constant is zero. If so (absent some other form of dark energy), the expansion of the universe would be decelerating. However, with the discovery of the accelerating universe, a positive cosmological constant has been revived as a simple explanation for dark energy.

So you revived the cosmological constant that you did away with because it pointed to a static universe. And now try to tell me that same constant explains an expanding universe. You disregard how much plasma there is in space: http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html So much it blocks 50% of the light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies in deep field images. Throw in even more mass hidden in the light this time instead of the dark: http://www.jpl.nasa....hp?feature=2287 and one begins to wonder why you have not started recalculating the total mass and just how much Dark matter and Dark Energy is really required???

And I am more on topic than you, you ignore 99% of the universe (plasma) and then are required to make up about the same amount of fairy dust to explain it.

http://www.nasa.gov/...launchnews.html

You have been avoiding plasma for over 100 years, ignoring every laboratory experiment with it, and you wonder why you are constantly surprised with every new data set.

Pseudoscience

EmField talks about 'belief'. He doesn't talk about experiment, or observation, or falsification, or verification, he talks about 'belief'.

 

Well, we know he has his 'belief'.

 

Too bad for him that 'belief' is not a part of science.

That is because you believe Magnetic Reconnection is possible, although no evidence even suggests it is possible, In fact all the evidence points to its impossibility.

http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node69.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/magnetic-field/

When you find a magnetic monopole let me know and we will discuss magnetic reconnection. Until then any theory that includes it is going contrary to everything we know about magnetic fields. Pseudoscience.

Can there be anything but an Aether? Everyone still arguing the obvious?

http://www-groups.dc...tein_ether.html

It is because the Aether is a dielectric and does not rely on particle movement across vast distances, merely a shift in axis as it polarizes.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dielectric

A dielectric is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field. When a dielectric is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in a conductor, but only slightly shift from their average equilibrium positions causing dielectric polarization. Because of dielectric polarization, positive charges are displaced toward the field and negative charges shift in the opposite direction. This creates an internal electric field which reduces the overall field within the dielectric itself.^[1] If a dielectric is composed of weakly bonded molecules, those molecules not only become polarized, but also reorient so that their symmetry axis aligns to the field... The study of dielectric properties is concerned with the storage and dissipation of electric and magnetic energy in materials.

Why all light is polarized.

Yah, crackpot ideas like Magnetic Reconnection, Dark Matter and Energy, Back Holes, etc., you mean? It ALWAYS takes controversy to upset any belief. Beliefs have a way of taking on their own momentum apart from the evidence. Usually every few hundred years the old theories are replaced by new ones as technology advances and new data becomes available. It is those that fight against this new data to merely keep the status quot that do more damage than crackpots. It has happened this way since we invented science. When old theories die you must restructure your educational systems, new books printed, curriculum disrupted, ongoing experiments funding's cut. A financial burden as well. It is no easy matter to change ones ideas about what one thinks controls the universe, let alone the disruption in financial and educational sectors.