EMField

No, the math says it ends up the same amount of charge when it ended as when it started. Humans then theorized that this meant it took no work. They then admit to magnetic induction, that movement of a charged particle in a magnetic field creates electric currents, i.e. charge. Yet the charge has the same amount of charge before, it does not have excess, nor does it have a deficiency. The common sense answer is the math shows it gains energy as well as losses energy. Instead you want me to believe the math says it took no work. This is what the math says: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node85.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node70.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node32.html Your entire theory rests on the fact that you can possibly have a fixed charge. As if those protons and neutron inside the nucleus of an atom where rooted in place and not spinning. In theoretical math, but in real life it doesn't work that way. And this is for your black holes: http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2011/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf Which the formula you see today for black holes they claim is Schwarzschild's is certainly not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

I can't, because it is impossible to have a scientific discussion of the universe when 99% of it and the affects it causes are ignored, and then 96% of it is attributed to fairy dust to account for the 99% and the affects it causes that were ignored in the first place. What is plasma? What does plasma do in space? According to "STANDARD" theory it just sits there, yet every laboratory experiment with plasma shows just the opposite. Plasma coalesces subatomic particles into atoms and dust, and eventually planets, stars and galaxies. It forms filaments. http://apod.nasa.gov...fGeissinger.jpg http://www.nasa.gov/...829_946-710.jpg http://i.ytimg.com/v...LsSoc-4K4/0.jpg http://images.astron.../m87jet_hst.jpg It does this through the EM forces, the same force you base your atom on, the CMB on. The photon: the very particle (or wave) that defines the entire meaning of velocity and time, yet you then ignore this EM phenomenon in every theory but that of the atom. The very force that pervades the universe that you base the CMB on to back up theory is an EM event. Why Einstein titled his first paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which was promptly misunderstood by everyone. Just please put the electro back into electromagnetic. And I only have one answer for Black Holes or an expanding space-time: http://www.cscamm.um...hwarzschild.pdf

I am saying that according to standard theory it takes x amount of energy to move a charge from point A to point B in a straight line and at the end the charge will have less energy of x than it started with. Yet this same theory says that this same charge if moving in a closed loop requires ZERO amount of energy to move any amount of distance and at the end this charge will have the same amount of energy it started with. That is what standard theory says, that no work is required to move a charge in a closed loop. I am saying this is not correct. That it requires energy to make a charge move whether it is in a straight line or a closed loop. That the reason it appears that charges traveling in closed loops require no energy is beacuse through electromagnetic induction it gains the same amount that it used to complete the loop. Otherwise you would be implying that charges magically require no energy to move in a closed loop, but do in a straight line, as standard theory states. This is because standard theory has no answer, because to their reasoning it is better that it magically took no work, than to admit electric currents were generated from nothing. Yet at the same time they admit that electromagenetic induction creates electric currents. Contradictions at every turn.

It is your math not mine. I believe all charges whether going in a straight line or in a closed loop require energy to move them. I believe in energy conservation, you apparently do not. It is your science that says charges traveling in closed loops require no energy to do so, contrary to your own laws of conservation of energy. Please explain to me why charges going in closed loops are said to require no work to move them in that closed loop? You have NO explanation other than magic. As a matter of fact standard cosmology attempts no explanation of that fact, they ignore it in every description. Why? The best particle accelerators is electric currents. You have not one shred of evidence that anything other than electric currents accelerate charged particles. Please, show me one laboratory experiment where you have accelerated particles using something other than electricity. Gravity could only accelerate a particle towards the source, not away. Science has never accelerated a particle without electric fields, NEVER. Every black hole you claim exists supports electrical events, not gravitational. Only electrical currents generate x-rays and gamma rays, exactly what you see streaming from so called black holes. Get rid of your fairy dust and start doing science.

No, NASA's mission is based upon technology YOU seem to think is false. I believe the universe is electric, and 99% of it is plasma, an electrified medium. YOU believe it is all held together gravitationally and no electricity happens in space, contrary to NASA's declaration that the entire universe is filled with this electrified gas. Yet YOU give not one consideration to these electrical and magnetic events. Even though you and I both know that only electricity causes magnetic fields, only electricity accelerates particles and only electricity causes x-rays, etc. But YOU refuse to accept that scientifically proven fact and still want your fairy dust when it is totally uneeded. 1) How are particles accelerated in laboratories? 2) How are x-rays created in laboratories? 3) How are magnetic fields created in laboratories? Ignore electricity if you want, but you use it every day to create the same things we observe in space, and then try to explain it away because you understand NOTHING about plasma. Theory says that to move a charge from point A to point B requires energy. Then theory says that to move a charge around a closed loop requires no energy at all, even if it is 10 times the distance from point A to point B. Then theory also tells you that conductors moving in closed loops in magnetic fields create electric current. Yet you can not grasp the fact that this electric current is what makes the charge seem to require no energy to traverse the closed loop, because the energy used to start its movement is recovered from the electromagnetic induction traveling in the magnetic field. Then theory wants to tell me that photons are the charge carriers for the EM force. Are different photons aborbed for charges going in straight lines verses charges moving in closed loops??????? It must be so since photons add no energy if the charges are traveling in a straight line, but add energy if charges are traveling in loops. Maybe you just need to figure out why charges traveling in closed loops in a magnetic field only generate current, while those traveling in straight lines don't. And as for the moderator comments, I for one will not stand by while you try to teach unfounded and unproven science. Make sense and I'll gladly conform, until then its just fairy dust. And all that fairy dust already has an answer, EM forces. Do you really want me to believe that charges traveling in closed loops magically take no energy to move them around the loop, but takes energy to move a charge in a straight line?????????

And movement in a magnetic field creates electrical currents, so maybe your theories are wrong as everything seems to radiate energy. The Earth both speeds up and slows down in its orbit around the Sun, it gains energy and uses energy to keep its orbit. http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html These are standard cosmology math for charged particles. The universe is made up of 99% of a charged medium. http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html So any movement of a conducting material in a magnetic field creates electrical charge. http://farside.ph.ut...res/node85.html http://www.astronomy...40-5474af1661a3 But it will all get sorted out soon when the NASA mission to study plasma starts bringing back data. Then we can get on with science and drop all the fairy dust. But NASA already knows the answer. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html

So theory says if charge q1 moves from point A to point B in a straight line it requires x amount of energy (or work) to do so and the system reduces overall charge by q1/x. Simplified, but you can look up the math if you want the exact formula in more complex form, I am too lazy to do it for you Now if this same charge q1 moves 20 times the distance in a circular orbit from point A to point A it requires no energy to do so, because otherwise the math would imply it gained energy out of thin air. Well duh, we do it every day in generators. But, but, but, you say, we put energy into the system, and yes we do, but then according to the rules of electricity, none of this force is actually used up. Granted transmission lines are not perfect conductors so some of the energy escapes the system, but even so, it remains relatively constant even while working itself along the lines. So aether to be or not to be, because out of thin air is not allowed. Unless it is in a circle, then somehow that just means it takes no work at all, not that energy is gained somehow. Do not poke too closely there, your theories might shatter. Better to believe no work is magically not being done, than the opposite. Because when the public finds out the worth of the garbage they peddle all to keep a theory standing that has no right to. To keep you paying for something that can be created out of thin air, or accept an aether. But, there is still one possible out. Electromagnetic induction. An electric current is created when a conductor moves through a magnetic field. http://en.wikipedia....netic_induction How, out of thin air? It just so happens magnetic fields cause things to circle, but well, as we know it takes no work to move in a circle, so this electric current is gained by these particles how? Fine, let us not look for an aether, let us first discover what makes up an electric and magnetic field. It is kinda a warping and bending of space-time, the brilliant man did get that right, not his fault fanatics followed up and twisted it all in his name. But you can be sure this space-time is composed of exactly what makes up this electric and magnetic fields, two forces at complete opposites. One is work, the other just allows work to well, work without working as long as it goes in a circle, oh but dang, going in a circle in the magnetic field creates work, but no, that can't be right, but, but, but..... So really you shouldn't be talking about energy conservation when your laws on charge contradict each other.

Yes we do know why they are disc shaped: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

Some more speculative data I guess. From NASA this time no less. I suppose you'll be moving their data to speculative too? http://www.space.com/15957-moon-sun-surprising-interaction.html http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cathode_ray

If Dark Matter was called Plasma and Dark energy was called electricity, then observations would match the data. Change your names to existing forces and you wouldn't have to grope for explanations. imatfaal, on 16 August 2012 - 03:53 AM, said: "Dark matter is called dark - because it is matter and it is dark (it doesn't emit light and does interact with light and scatter it). Dark Energy - is a bit more of a conceit, something is happening and we don't really know what is causing it. Dark Energy is a placeholder name until we have a better idea of what is going on, I believe it was chosen to mirror the name Dark Matter and to sound funky." They are both placeholder names even though the forces already have names and explanations. Dark Matter was called dark because it is not detectable by sight, or by any known process, same for Dark Energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy. Yet supposedly it is the x-rays that enable us to detect it, even though it emits no radiation at any significant level, i.e. undetectable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, i.e. not a valid theory.

The same force that causes quasars and proto-galaxies to be ejected from galaxies. You don't believe that galactic clusters just happen to be aligned by mere chance do you?

Because people have preconceived ideas that even in the face of contrary evidence they refuse to give up their outdated theories.

And of course the link wasn't supplied because as we know most people are too lazy to do their own research and certainly won't go try to find it. As a matter of fact, just how much do YOU know about plasma? You might want to actually study up on it since 99% of the universe is made of plasma, but of course plasma physics is not a required course for astronomy or cosmology, even though as NASA and every text-book will tell you that all but 1% of the universe is made of it. So ignore 99% of the universe if you want, it's nothing but par for the course in theoretical science today anyways. But when you ignore 99% of the universe it is no wonder you have to invent about the same amount in fairy dust.

Please, re-read the article, you apparently overlooked half of it: "More recently, the warm–hot intergalactic medium (a sparse plasma with temperatures of 105 kelvin to 107 kelvin) residing in low-redshift filaments has been observed in emission4 and absorption." "This filament is coincident with an overdensity of galaxies10, 13 and diffuse, soft-X-ray emission4, and contributes a mass comparable to that of an additional galaxy cluster to the total mass of the supercluster. By combining this result with X-ray observations..." So the plasma filaments are emitting x-rays and suddenly it's dark matter. Do you people even read what they say? If they combined the results of the plasma filaments with the x-ray data that the plasma filaments are producing, they wouldn't have to twist it to make it sound as if the x-ray data they admit is from the plasma filaments somehow means some other process is at work. And it is, it is called electricity as plasma is an electrically charged medium. There was no absence of x-ray data, the results rely on x-ray data and you have no other source for this x-ray data than the plasma, because only electric charge produces x-rays and plasma is an electrically charged medium. Plasma forms filaments, not gravity. And plasma is an electrically charged medium. At least NASA has the guts to admit it, even if theorists want to live in fantasy land. http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia....er_%28plasma%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

I posted it in the correct forum. There is not one shred of evidence for DM or DE that isn't directly related to existing forces. Ignore them all you want, but NASA says you do not understand anything about plasma because you refuse to accept what it is. http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html As for your theories, NASA has this to say about them: "We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren't very good at that." You aren't very good at it because you do not understand plasma. And plasma physics is an approved science, so why is it speculative? http://en.wikipedia....a_%28physics%29 And plasma is dark until it goes into glow mode. http://en.wikipedia...._glow_discharge Wake up people, get your heads out of the sand. And if you are going to move my post please have the courtesy to post the link you moved it to, or is that your way of hiding contrary evidence?

No, they have evidence that plasma is there and this plasma is emitting the x-rays and EM forces. Maybe soon NASA will get everyone all straightened out as to what plasma is: http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html That electric fields and magnetic fields cause this: http://www.astronomy...40-5474af1661a3 They have evidence plasma causes red-shift: http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089 They have evidence that gravity is the electric and magnetic forces combined: http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html Magnetic map: http://core2.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/pur ... index.html Gravitational map: http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... ghest.html They also have that fact that relativity was based upon a static universe, not an expanding one: http://en.wikipedia....Static_universe "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" They have evidence that electrical fields and only electrical fields accelerate particles. It is called CERN. http://public.web.ce.../HowLHC-en.html They have zero evidence for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The only thing dark that is there is theorists refusal to connect the dots because they are trying to keep their beloved and dying theories propped upright. Even if it requires ignoring existing forces and adding fairy dust instead. CERN uses electric fields to accelerate particles and magnetic fields to "squeeze" (as they term it) particles closer together. You have measured the x-ray and magnetic fields given off by the plasma, which as NASA puts so eloquently and standard theorists ignore, is an electrified gas. Only charge causes magnetism which "squeezes" things closer together, only charge accelerates particles, and 99% of the universe is made up of a charged medium. As a great man once said: E=mc^2

Before you believe in DM you should first figure out what is causing those x-rays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray X-ray fluorescence: If the electron has enough energy it can knock an orbital electron out of the inner electron shell of a metal atom, and as a result electrons from higher energy levels then fill up the vacancy and X-ray photons are emitted. This process produces an emission spectrum of X-rays at a few discrete frequencies, sometimes referred to as the spectral lines. The spectral lines generated depend on the target (anode) element used and thus are called characteristic lines. Usually these are transitions from upper shells into K shell (called K lines), into L shell (called L lines) and so on. Bremsstrahlung: This is radiation given off by the electrons as they are scattered by the strong electric field near the high-Z (proton number) nuclei. These X-rays have a continuous spectrum. The intensity of the X-rays increases linearly with decreasing frequency, from zero at the energy of the incident electrons, the voltage on the X-ray tube. Hmm, so they discover emissions of EM forces from plasma filaments, and attribute it to DM instead of the electric currents that must be present for such emissions. Blinded by their own theories.

If we are going to keep speculative ideas to the correct forum, then why are we discussing Dark Matter and Dark Energy since they have no laboratory evidence that such exist, or any observations in space?????????????? Other than pure speculation of course.

Here, try this for starters, give you the basics: http://hozturner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/gravity-force-solved.html

Sure, here's the only answer that makes sense and is laboratory tested. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

Want to see an atom, look at the universe, same thing, just different scales.

Who says it is everywhere? Just how far out do you think we have actually measured the CMB? From orbit, and if those rays were coming from our galactic neighborhood you would never know because they have never measured it anywhere but from near earth orbit. Kinda like telling me how many neutrinos leave the Sun and change flavor en-route when they have never measured a single neutrino in the vicinity of the Sun, but by god we are 100% sure it has to be this way. Even now voyager is undergoing events never predicted by standard cosmology, but it was predicted by other theories.

It is endless, not orders of magnitude larger, 14-20 billion years distant is all you can observe because of the intervening dust and plasma. Not because that is the end. http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html And when we get a view through this dust and plasma, what do we see? http://news.sciencem...est-spiral.html A spiral galaxy where none has the right to be according to standard cosmology. How spiral galaxies are formed is already answered. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

The Higg's is highly suspect to begin with. Two protons, accelerated to fractions of c are smashed together and lo and behold, a larger massed particle that instantly decays back into it's constituent parts. Every fundamental particle is smaller, not larger. Neutrons were once believed to be fundamental particles, then it was found they were actually composed of smaller, more fundamental particles called quarks. The other evidence is exactly what they use to accelerate particles at CERN, they just include it in atomic theory and exclude it in galactic theory, and never the two shall meet. Just maybe that's why they can't unite the two theories.

There are questions as to whether the CMB is actually nothing more than the energy given off by our local cluster of galaxies. It certainly is not a settled issue as you will commonly hear. Currently they are investigating what is termed gamma-ray bursters, which from the data, may be coming from areas near our Sun's heliosphere and not from deep space. I believe there is already a theory being worked out that explains most things we observe, but research goes where the funding points, and although most of this theory is backed by laboratory experiments, cosmology tends to resist change. Just as it has in all shifts of cosmology from Newton to Einstein. Those supporting relativity had to battle to get it accepted, it did not happen overnight. Even so relativity did not replace Newtonian theory, merely added to it. The universe is complex and every time we think we have it all figured out new discovery's are made which need new fudges. I think it is time to rethink the whole thing. Technology has made it impossible with the new discoveries since the space age to continue onward without questioning the things we have taken for fact, when in reality they are far from it. Theories are constantly failing to meet observations. Within the last 20 years the data has called into question almost everything we have taken for granted.