EMField

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.

I just want one answer, what causes two objects in space to approach one another? And are you sure you want to talk about potentials?? So you replaced the electrical formula of charge with mass, as charge says it all: http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html Wait, I thought there was no external force under the sheet. I thought it was just curved nothing? E=mc^2, learn it. Please show me your theory on atomic gravity and we will get you the Nobel Prize in no time. As for plasma you have been ignoring it since you found it, and you sure seem sure it aint plasma when for every 100 experts you get 100 different answers, because you haven't studied it until now. Watch the video and learn a bit. http://www.nasa.gov/...launchnews.html So much for the old rules indeed, quite prophetic.

Let me show you how much they avoid mention of electricity in space: What are radio waves? http://en.wikipedia....iki/Radio_waves So, lightning and astronomical objects emit it naturally. Lightning is plasma as are all astronomical objects. Plasma is an electrified gas. http://en.wikipedia....Radio_frequency But you will say I didn't finish that quote, that it can be mechanical: http://en.wikipedia....chanical_filter So mechanical filters don't work without an electrical signal first. So what is causing these radio signals from space again? Not "you" you, but all those that refuse to accept the data for what it is, and instead prefer to hold onto a dying and outdated theory of red-shift, expansion and the Big Bang. In other posts I've discussed the erroneous mass calculations that enable you to hang onto Dark Matter, but only as long as you don't count all that plasma: Dust and plasma so thick in galaxies it blocks 50% of the light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies already half as bright. http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html Then add some more mass from all that plasma hidden in the light: http://www.jpl.nasa....fm?feature=2287 The missing mass isn't missing, it is hidden in the dark and also hidden in the light. The red-shift isn't expansion, it is a plasma event, as is all the EM radiation emitted in space. There was no creation event, contrary to what the church has told you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

As for 99% of the universe being plasma, don't take my word for it, take NASA's: http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html 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. And as for your theories about plasma, NASA has this to say: Because your models refuse to recognize that plasma is an electrified medium. Hubble made no mention of plasma because plasma red-shift as of that time was a "hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." It is a plasma event and plasma red-shift had not been discovered yet. As I said, constantly disregarding discoveries since the space age. just as you disregarded Kristian Birkeland's discovery of Birkeland currents for over 42 years until satellites went into orbit and proved him correct. http://en.wikipedia....stian_Birkeland http://en.wikipedia....rkeland_current Yet space is electrically neutral according to mainstream, go figure. These same currents you found between Earth and Sun that you consistently once again ignore and attempt to attribute to other causes: http://science.nasa....7/11dec_themis/ Just as it connects Jupiter and its moons: http://hubblesite.or...leases/2000/38/ Just the reason they were surprised that the moon is NOT electrically neutral: http://www.nasa.gov/...ic-moon_prt.htm And the solar wind is not "blown off" it is accelerated and continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and you can look up CERN if you want to know how particles are accelerated. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cathode_ray http://science.nasa....7/ast09dec97_3/

Two objects placed "at rest", i.e. stationary in space, begin to move towards one another EVERY time, yet you insist no force is pulling them towards one another. Why do they begin to move if no pre-existing force is causing them to follow this curvature? Maybe you should learn a little of what you are arguing about. I am arguing against magic, you for. Your curved space composed of nothing gives rise to no reason for the two stationary objects to begin moving towards one another in the first place, since no force is causing it. Learn science before you start repeating what you were taught by rote.

And if the ball is "AT REST" it begins rolling "downhill" anyway without any force causing it to do so, analogy or not. Magic, pure and simple.

Gravity is the biggest unknown in science and you and I both know that, so don't try to play that card. Your only answer for gravity is a curved space-time that is composed of nothing, and this nothing is warped by mass and then tells mass how to move. So, let us suppose space is a space-time composed of 3 dimensions and a 4th of time. That mass curves it and then space-time tells the mass how to move. The rubber sheet is a good analogy. I place a ball on the sheet and the sheet becomes indented. I then place a 2nd ball and it is attracted to the 1st ball and rolls downhill. Why? Why would the 2nd ball roll "downhill" if there was not already a force pulling at it from beneath the sheet? What causes it to begin to move in the first place, if nothing is pulling it downhill? The lack of causality is the biggest problem I have with relativity. Add to this the fact that two balls of the same mass if placed on the sheet would create two equal indentations with a bulge between them, not an even deeper indentation between them as is required for binary pulsar's. Then you have the fact that orbits are along the EM plane of all bodies, i.e. Birkland currents polar, magnetic field perpendicular to them. Currents traveling in the same directions attract, currents traveling in the opposite directions repel. This is why orbits tend to be stable overall. So yes, gravity does exist but it's an EM phenomenon, not a curved space-time. You want effect with no cause. You want a ball to magically begin rolling towards the other ball without any reason to do so, since according to relativity, objects simply follow this curved space time with no reason to begin movement in the first place. And red-shift means little nowadays since laboratory results show plasma electron density causes red-shift. Since 99% of the universe is plasma, I hope you don't mind if I do not take mainstream expansion theories to heart. http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089 Especially when Hubble himself maintained his red-shift data fit better with observations if one considered a static universe with red-shift caused by as then undiscovered event. One that has now been discovered and used for several years to increase efficiency in plasma devices. So Hubble it turns out was correct after all about red-shift, just not in the way you want it to be. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edwin_Powell_Hubble.aspx So you let theoretical scientists with no practical laboratory work or even actual investigations override Hubble's direct evidence that something was not right in wonderland. And now it seems he is vindicated but will go unrecognized as you want to keep theory over observational data.

Because your ammeter is also measuring all the internal fields that are cancelling each other out and is not sensitive enough to differentiate between just the outer electrons. http://en.wikipedia....i/Spin_(physics) And it possesses a nonzero magnetic moment because it is a charged particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron http://en.wikipedia....c_dipole_moment And it was discovered it was NOT a fundemental particle because: http://en.wikipedia....ong_interaction Yet you to this day still call the Strong force a fundemental force even though to be a fundemental force: http://en.wikipedia....tal_interaction Yet they are NOT fundemental particles and it can be described in terms of color charge. http://en.wikipedia....i/Spin_(physics) Actually it should have been an early indication that neutral does not mean no charge, but a balancing of charge, both positive and negative. And that those charges are still interacting with every other charge. Protons, electrons and other atoms included. Call it color in an effort to disguise the fact if you want, but it is all due to the movement of electrically charged particles, i.e. current. And you are correct, it is all due to spin: http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html

http://www.allaboutc.../chpt_14/1.html AND WHAT ARE SPINNING ELECTRONS???? Moving charges, i.e. current flow. http://www.howmagnetswork.com/ http://farside.ph.ut...res/node77.html And as for the core of the Earth or Sun being a permanent magnet, think again. there must be a constant current flowing to produce a constant magnetic field under conditions that would destroy a magnet in seconds. http://www.mceproduc...e-dtl.asp?id=23

Yet a static magnetic field requires a constant flow of current to exist. The same word static is used to describe this electric field, yet current is the FLOW of charges, so static can not be taken as meaning non-moving, but simply constant, not changing perceptionally from moment to moment. And if the electric current is constantly flowing then the magnetic field is constantly regenerating, else there would be NO magnetic field at all. Only from flowing current are magnetic fields produced. There is no known laboratory evidence that any other way exists. Only deluded fantasies and wishfull thinking. And what, you think mainstream is never wrong? If that was the case we would still be under the assumption that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All these theories you claim to follow were devised before we had the equipment of the space age. Yet you still refuse to accept the data of the last 20 years and continue to hang onto your outdated theories from the 1900's. Even in the time of Einstein it was believed our galaxy the milky-way was the only galaxy in existence. Do you still believe that? Why not, it was once "mainstream"? Your mass calculations for the universe are clearly off by orders of magnitude, but I don't see you questioning mainstream on why they have not revised thier mass calculations for so called Dark Matter?????? http://www.jpl.nasa....fm?feature=2287 http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html Instead you will simply agree with anything they tell you, even when thier mass calculations are clearly based on eroneous data.

Because the field is composed of a dielectric and already has the energy stored, it simply needs polarized to transmit this energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric The electric field is already present. The nanosecond the magnet begins to move it begins interacting with this field, which is why no delay is observed. The energy is already stored in this field, hence the CMB.

No, it has been interpreted as that because they refuse to accept observations. http://en.wikipedia....stance_(physics) So the electron magically orbits the nucleus without intermediate particles transfering energy? Yet science still relies on the field concept, which requires mediating particles. Yes, it is CONSTANT, not varying over time, but constant does not imply static, i.e. non-moving. It means it is the same from momemt to moment as it regenerates itself. Just as an electric current that is constant, i.e. non-varying over time is a flow of charges from one point to another. You say the speed of light is constant, does this mean a photon is static, i.e. non-moving?????? And you and I both know a truely static, i.e. non-moving field could never impart motion to another object. It is simply constant in strength, i.e. it does not fluctuate but is constantly regenerated, i.e. has movement which enables particles to spiral. Constant does NOT mean static.

So if light is constant and only relies on delay of absorption and emission, then how does a Black Hole stop light? Light MUST slow so that it does not physically reach escape velocity. Just as the occillation of the atom slows near a gravitational source, i.e. time slows. Yet no gravitational model yet exists for the atom or the photon, so gravity must be an EM event.

Oh I agree, space is composed of an aether and this aether is a dielectric. This polarization of the aether allows transfer of energy without the need for particle transfer over large distances, but just a slight shift in axis. Call it a field if you want, but a field must be composed of something to exist. And as observations show there is no aberration in the gravitational force as it is a polarization of the dielectric medium and does not depend on particulate movement except to align axis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric So tell me, if light is constant and velocity only depends on the delay from absorption to emission, then how could a Black Hole ever stop light from escaping? The light MUST physically slow so it is unable to reach escape velocity. Therefore the speed of light is not constant but depends on the density of the material (i.e. it's gravitational potential) that it travels through. Just as atomic oscillations are slowed by nearness to a gravitational potential, i.e. clocks slow. And since no known gravitational model exists for the atom, then the gravitational force must be an EM event, hence mass is energy. E=mc2

Yes, plasma is the most basic form of matter before it becomes atoms and planets and stars. But plasma redshift calls into question expansion so it will be ignored. Even Hubble favored another explanation for redshift which was unavailable at that time. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Edwin_Hubble And indeed it appears he was correct as plasma redshift due to electron density was then unrecognized and undiscovered.

Or it could possibly be that plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift which would match the obsrvation that 99% of the universe is plasma. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

But saying a vacuum exists between atoms asks the question: how does an electron orbit the nucleus if smaller particles are not transferring energy between the nucleus and the electron? Unless science is proposing action at a distance?

Ok, then my suggestion is we name Dark Matter: "Plasma" and Dark Energy "Electricity."

That is because it is NOT static: http://dictionary.re...m/browse/static The current is simply steady so the field is constant, not varying over time. Static means non-moving, so if you want magnetic fields and particles to spiral you need to admit the current is steady, and that does not mean static, charges must flow to be current. It just means it is constant and non-varying over time, the same as the magnetic field. It is static in the sense of a waterfall that is basically the same over time verses a frozen one which is static in the sense that it does not move. And that is NOT speculation, it is scientifically supported FACT: http://en.wikipedia....Magnetostatics: You say they are static, yet to have a steady current one MUST have moving charges: http://en.wikipedia....ectric_currents So you can say what you want, but your interpretation of definitions belies what laboratory experiments says they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photons http://www.bourbaphy.fr/grangier.pdf http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

I don't think anyone knows what gravity or energy is, if you do please explain what causes them for me?

So science is not to question, but just to repeat by rote? I always thought the basics of science was to question and thereby discover and learn, my bad. And who is speculating? Dust and plasma so dense it blocks 50% of all light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of those edge on galaxies because they were already half as bright. And show me one laboratory evidence (not speculation) where anything I said is wrong????????? http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html I will certainly agree a nanosecond magnetic switching event may appear static over the long run, as long as you agree that it requires a steady current to produce that event. http://en.wikipedia..../Magnetostatics http://en.wikipedia....ectric_currents But I understand theories can never be wrong. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

Virtual particles are the biggest fudge in modern science to try to explain how something can interact with something else yet mass or energy is not required. Static magnetic fields are the next biggest fudge. Magnetic fields cause things to spiral, a static field could never cause this reaction. Neither are electric fields static. You don't want to go down that false line of reasoning, it will get you no where but wrong answers. You should also research dielectric mediums before you assume that something that stores and transfers energy must do so across vast distances. A dielectric can simply align axis and energy transfer is complete without the need to cross vast distances, hence gravities seeming instantaneous affect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

Does a vacuum really lie between atoms? Then what makes up electric and magnetic fields? Can't be atoms or we would already know what makes them up. To assume that the electron magically rotates around the protons and neutrons without crashing into them is stretching it a bit. There MUST be smaller particles transfering the EM force, no two ways about it. Who was talking about the glow? You cant see all that dust and plasma surrounding every galaxy? Really? Then why is the permativity of air only .0006% different than what you call a true vacuum? http://en.wikipedia....ectric_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. The lowest pressures currently achievable in laboratory are about 10−13 torr (13 pPa).[49] However, pressures as low as 5×10−17 Torr (6.7 fPa) have been indirectly measured in a 4 K cryogenic vacuum system.[3] This corresponds to ≈100 particles/cm3 Interstellar space has 1 particle per cm. Intergalactic space has 10-5 Our best vacuum has 100 particles per cm.

But you are welcome to browse by anytime. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php

First of all if light travels at c in a vacuum according to the math, then why does it travel at c in our solar system which is not a true vacuum? We do know that light travels slower in a denser medium. Slower in water than air, slower in air than our solar system. Does anyone believe the great voids between galaxies are as filled with particles as is our solar system? look at a galaxy photo, they are filled with plasma and dust. It is also likewise clear that the space between galaxies is less dense. Since we have never measured the speed of light outside our own solar system, there is no basis for the claim that the measured speed of c is the same speed in a true vacuum as it is in our solar system. It is just a handy calculation aid to assume that it is.