• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cosmology of the Electric Universe

Status
Not open for further replies.

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Measuring distances from a "Cosmological Standard Candle Light"

This is non sense as the luminosity of all measurable objects, no matter which, simply depends of their individual EM charges and not of distances.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

And making a constant of this and suggesting a Big Bang and an expanding Universe is really far out - which becomes totally bunkers by suggesting an even INCREASING expansion velocity.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Measuring distances from a "Cosmological Standard Candle Light"

This is non sense as the luminosity of all measurable objects, no matter which, simply depends of their individual EM charges and not of distances.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

And making a constant of this and suggesting a Big Bang and an expanding Universe is really far out - which becomes totally bunkers by suggesting an even INCREASING expansion velocity.

The *apparent* brightness depends on the luminosity of the object *and* the distance.

A light bulb looks brighter when you are up close than it does when it is a kilometer away. If you know the intrinsic brightness of the bulb, you can tell the distance by looking at its apparent brightness.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The *apparent* brightness depends on the luminosity of the object *and* the distance.
And WHAT does the luminocity depend of?
A light bulb looks brighter when you are up close than it does when it is a kilometer away. If you know the intrinsic brightness of the bulb, you can tell the distance by looking at its apparent brightness.
I all depends on the EM CHARGE of your light bulb battery. In both cases.

If you take a certain luminocity to count for a certain distance, you´ll for sure get the cosmic distances wrong - and there you have your "expanding Universe assumptions". All wrong.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
And WHAT does the luminocity depend of?

Irrelevant to the distance determination.

I all depends on the EM CHARGE of your light bulb battery. In both cases.

No, it depends on the temperature and size in both cases.

If you take a certain luminocity to count for a certain distance, you´ll for sure get the cosmic distances wrong - and there you have your "expanding Universe assumptions". All wrong.

You aren't understanding the process. If you know how the intrinsic brightness, you can determine the distance from the apparent brightness. if you know how far away one thing is of a certain intrinsic brightness, you can determine how far away *other* things are of the same brightness by looking at their apparent brightness and comparing.

If the sun were 10 light years away, it would look like a fairly dim star. But when it is as close as it is, it can light up the sky. How bright it *appears* is linked to how far away it is *and* its intrinsic brightness (which is mostly determined by temperature and size, not charge).
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Quote from - Hubble's law - Wikipedia

"A value for {\displaystyle q}
06809d64fa7c817ffc7e323f85997f783dbdf71d
measured from standard candle observations of Type Ia supernovae, which was determined in 1998 to be negative, surprised many astronomers with the implication that the expansion of the universe is currently "accelerating".

From where should such an extra energy come from? They just reversed another assumption of "dark attractive matter", now to have a "dark repulsive energy" as well. Completely contradictionay and non sense!

Here is yet another example of the highly worshipped, Scientific Method" and it demands for predictions:

"Hubble´s Law" assumes and predicts a certain expansion rate which is contadicted and a new increasing expansion assumption is assumed and predicted, also based on misconceptions of "redshift" which leads to yet another assumption of "dark energy"

Unsubstanciated assumptions and more assumptions after contradictions all over the places.

This has NOTHING to do with real science at all - but everything to do with science fictions all over the places, right from Newtons occult agency and up to present times and its speculative non sense.

:) Even the font formation in RF is logically enough to refuse to accept the non sense :"A value for {\displaystyle q}
06809d64fa7c817ffc7e323f85997f783dbdf71d
measured
".
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So now it is a temperature and a size which determine a distance?

Apply some philosophical logics BEFORE you´re replying.

No. it is temperature and size that determine luminosity. It is luminosity and apparent brightness that determines distance.

This is really, really basic stuff.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Quote from - Hubble's law - Wikipedia

"A value for {\displaystyle q}
06809d64fa7c817ffc7e323f85997f783dbdf71d
measured from standard candle observations of Type Ia supernovae, which was determined in 1998 to be negative, surprised many astronomers with the implication that the expansion of the universe is currently "accelerating".

From where should such an extra energy come from? They just reversed another assumption of "dark attractive matter", now to have a "dark repulsive energy" as well. Completely contradictionay and non sense!

Here is yet another example of the highly worshipped, Scientific Method" and it demands for predictions:

"Hubble´s Law" assumes and predicts a certain expansion rate which is contadicted and a new increasing expansion assumption is assumed and predicted, also based on misconceptions of "redshift" which leads to yet another assumption of "dark energy"

Unsubstanciated assumptions and more assumptions after contradictions all over the places.

This has NOTHING to do with real science at all - but everything to do with science fictions all over the places, right from Newtons occult agency and up to present times and its speculative non sense.

:) Even the font formation in RF is logically enough to refuse to accept the non sense :"A value for {\displaystyle q}
06809d64fa7c817ffc7e323f85997f783dbdf71d
measured
".

Except that it isn't nonsense *if* you have a cosmological constant. And having that was a theory that was proposed not long after Einstein did his original equations. The cosmological constant is reasonable to include mathematically and is identical to dark energy. Both represent an energy density for the vacuum.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No. it is temperature and size that determine luminosity. It is luminosity and apparent brightness that determines distance.
Oh I see! In your dogmatic world, stars in outer space isn´t electromagneticaly driven and warmed up as our own star, the Sun?

GOSH! Yur´re SO boring and inconsistent in AL your replies!
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Except that it isn't nonsense *if* you have a cosmological constant
Where have you deposited your analythic, logical and comparative senses?

They THOUGHT they had a CONSTANT in the first place - but THEN they interpreted a new measurement to be an INCREASING expansion velocity, which logically CANNOT be a CONSTANT at all.

No wonder that thye´ve filled the observable Universe with dark unexplainable things up to 96%".
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh I see! In your dogmatic world, stars in outer space isn´t electromagneticaly driven and warmed up as our own star, the Sun?

GOSH! Yur´re SO boring and inconsistent in AL your replies!

The sun isn't *driven* electromagnetically. It is driven by nuclear forces, not electromagnetic ones.

But again that is irrelevant to the distance determination. If you know the intrinsic brightness (however it comes about) and the apparent brightness, you can determine the distance. It is another inverse square law.

So, even if the stars were driven electromagnetically and the galaxies were all electric and magnetic in everything they do, we would *still* determine their distances in exactly the same way: figure out their intrinsic brightness and compare to their brightness in the sky.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Where have you deposited your analythic, logical and comparative senses?

They THOUGHT they had a CONSTANT in the first place - but THEN they interpreted a new measurement to be an INCREASING expansion velocity, which logically CANNOT be a CONSTANT at all.

No wonder that thye´ve filled the observable Universe with dark unexplainable things up to 96%".

*sigh* The constant is a constant energy density for a vacuum. That is what leads to an accelerating expansion.

They did NOT expect the expansion rate to be constant. In fact, if anything, they expected it to decrease over time. That is what the equations without the cosmological constant predict. They are now known to be wrong. But the ones with a CC are still very much consistent with the observations.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The sun isn't *driven* electromagnetically. It is driven by nuclear forces, not electromagnetic ones.
OK, so it is gravity which causes the electric charges in the Sun and its changing 11 year period changes of the magnetic polarity?

It doesn´t seem that you ever have read up on the subject of nuclear force!

The nuclear force (or nucleon–nucleon interaction, residual strong force, or, historically, strong nuclear force) is a force that acts between the protons and neutrons of atoms. Neutrons and protons, both nucleons, are affected by the nuclear force almost identically. Since protons have charge +1 e, they experience an electric force that tends to push them apart, but at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic force. The nuclear force binds nucleons into atomic nuclei.

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometre (fm, or 1.0 × 10−15 metres), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. By comparison, the size of an atom, measured in angstroms (Å, or 1.0 × 10−10 m), is five orders of magnitude larger. The nuclear force is not simple, however, since it depends on the nucleon spins, has a tensor component, and may depend on the relative momentum of the nucleons.[2]

The nuclear force plays an essential role in storing energy that is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Work (energy) is required to bring charged protons together against their electric repulsion. This energy is stored when the protons and neutrons are bound together by the nuclear force to form a nucleus. The mass of a nucleus is less than the sum total of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons. The difference in masses is known as the mass defect, which can be expressed as an energy equivalent. Energy is released when a heavy nucleus breaks apart into two or more lighter nuclei. This energy is the electromagnetic potential energy that is released when the nuclear force no longer holds the charged nuclear fragments together.[3][4]

NOTE: They don´t mention your silly invented gravity as a cause for nuclear formation anywhere at all.

Do you EVER search for alternate explanations but your dogmatic and inconsistent ones?

I´m getting SO tired and BORED to do such relevant research for you everytime you reply to something!
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
OK, so it is gravity which causes the electric charges in the Sun and its changing 11 year period changes of the magnetic polarity?

No. Did I say that it does?

It doesn´t seem that you ever have read up on the subject of nuclear force!


Clearly much more than you have.

The nuclear force (or nucleon–nucleon interaction, residual strong force, or, historically, strong nuclear force) is a force that acts between the protons and neutrons of atoms. Neutrons and protons, both nucleons, are affected by the nuclear force almost identically. Since protons have charge +1 e, they experience an electric force that tends to push them apart, but at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic force. The nuclear force binds nucleons into atomic nuclei.

Note the highlighted piece. It is the (strong) nuclear force and NOT E&M that powers fusion.

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometre (fm, or 1.0 × 10−15 metres), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. By comparison, the size of an atom, measured in angstroms (Å, or 1.0 × 10−10 m), is five orders of magnitude larger. The nuclear force is not simple, however, since it depends on the nucleon spins, has a tensor component, and may depend on the relative momentum of the nucleons.[2]

And it is NOT the E&M force.

The nuclear force plays an essential role in storing energy that is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Work (energy) is required to bring charged protons together against their electric repulsion. This energy is stored when the protons and neutrons are bound together by the nuclear force to form a nucleus. The mass of a nucleus is less than the sum total of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons. The difference in masses is known as the mass defect, which can be expressed as an energy equivalent. Energy is released when a heavy nucleus breaks apart into two or more lighter nuclei. This energy is the electromagnetic potential energy that is released when the nuclear force no longer holds the charged nuclear fragments together.[3][4]

NOTE: They don´t mention your silly invented gravity as a cause for nuclear formation anywhere at all.

Because it isn't. Gravity (with a large enough mass--like the sun) produces the pressures and temperatures that allow the hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium to *overcome* the E&M barriers and have the strong force take over. THAT is what powers the sun.

Do you EVER search for alternate explanations but your dogmatic and inconsistent ones?

I´m getting SO tired and BORED to do such relevant research for you everytime you reply to something!

Relevant research? Most of what you have given is irrelevant. That which is relevant, you have misunderstood. NONE of it supports your positions.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Note the highlighted piece. It is the (strong) nuclear force and NOT E&M that powers fusion.
Clearly much more than you have.
Note the highlighted piece. It is the (strong) nuclear force and NOT E&M that powers fusion.
And it is NOT the E&M force.
Because it isn't. Gravity (with a large enough mass--like the sun) produces the pressures and temperatures that allow the hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium to *overcome* the E&M barriers and have the strong force take over. THAT is what powers the sun.
Relevant research? Most of what you have given is irrelevant. That which is relevant, you have misunderstood. NONE of it supports your positions.
According to you. But then, you think things fall because of air pressure.
Just read my profile signature and wake up to your real scientific situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top