[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'm fully aware of what a homo polar generator is, but what do you think is actually generating the fields and the currents that maybe present in the plasma of the remnant. Take a good look at the arrowed object in the attached picture. That is the pulsar at the heart of the remnant, The neutron star that you are so fond of believing is nothing more than a theoretical construct. They have observed......... .....So your argument against gravity here falls rather flat.

In 1932 the neutron was discovered.
In 1934 Zwicky declared the neutron star.

Lets be very clear here... gravity dominated cosmology has a model for a neutron star, forming a pulsar yes as you mention with the surface spinning like a lighthouse at 25% the speed of light!
This magical super heavy start also speeds up, speeds down and has 'frequency glitches'.... thats cool... thats your model...

The plasma cosmology model for the pulsar is a relaxation oscillator. This is a very simple piece of known lab physics, any freshman constructs.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
See Pulsar Section

"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"

We just have 2 different models here Carl....
I'm just not comfortable with unverified physics being concocted.
all... good lets move along

Originally Posted by renormalised

That these processes were not observable in Einstein's day, or for several decades after the fact, is a moot point. That's tantamount to saying that Democritus, in 440BC, got the idea of the atom wrong because he never had the technology to see them....

I think observation is very important. We are talking about large scale radio emissions that are not expected by gravity gas models.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Same for black holes...that we haven't physically examined an event horizon of one, seen it, or studied a singularity in a lab, doesn't discount their existence. There is more than enough observable, physical evidence which points to their existence. If you choose to ignore that, then that's your own decision to make.

I'm just saying we have not observed a black hole.

There are models for what we observe to be "Dark Matter", and also bright-plasmoid accelleration, that use real verified lab physics.... see Anthony Peratt above.

You are free to choose, i'm glad you agree we have not observed an infinitely dense point mass, or event horizon.

Originally Posted by renormalised

I have never denied the existence of EM forces involving space plasmas, the only thing I have questioned is your insistence on their predominance on large scale cosmological scenarios. You have given no evidence to back this claim on sound, verifiable, observable basis...and neither has anyone else. All they have espoused is speculations and tentative hypotheses, nothing more or less. What evidence they do produce is not much more than circumstantial. Maybe....maybe not.

Yep, cool... I've just posted several verifications of large scale EM forces.

I'm more likely to question Dark Matter, a hypothetical unobservable implied form of matter....before attacking a well known lab verified force.

But hey, thats just me i spose. agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by renormalised

You have quoted from the few papers that purport to dismiss redshift and quasars distance correlation, yet I wonder whether you actually taken the time to read the rest which also show that the links to quasars and so called parent galaxies is nothing more than chance alignments and optical illusions. Of all the quasars studies by Halton Arp in his quest to prove his ideas, not one of them has actual stood up to detailed scrutiny, yet he still insists on the link he proposes. Arp is a good scientist, but like many scientists, he has a pet idea that he can't seem to part with.

OK now this is absolute nonsense. Arp continues to publish, Redshift quantisation of quasars has now been found with over 40,000 dataset!

Add to this we now have time dilation also matching Arps models.

"nothing more than chance alignments".... sorry Carl. Please see work by Hawkins (not hawking) "quasar time dilation" Astrophysical journal .

Take your head out of the sand.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Given the number of galaxies and quasars there are in the universe, it's statistically possible that there might be one or a few genuine connections. However that in no way invalidates any previous findings or assumptions on the matter.

Sorry if you have a high redshift object, physically connected to a lower redshift parent... even just once.... this empirically falsifies a velocity ONLY redshift.
We now have distinct intrinsic redshift.

Originally Posted by renormalised

From long and exhaustive, credible and verifiable observations done over many years, there is no credible evidence for the link between Seyferts and quasars as proposed by Arp and others...only very ambiguous and circumstantial evidence at best.

it's not ambiguous, it's also backed up by: Redshift quantization, connecting gas from ejection, time dilation absence!

This is not circumstantial. Arps models predict lack of time dilation, did expansion? NO... big phat NO.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Why do I think the universe is expanding...did I actually say this at any stage. All I have done is explained what is observed based on current theoretical understanding. Yes, there are problems with Universal expansion and there are competing theories around which may explain some observations more easily than inflation, acceleration or expansion, but they have yet to explain a lot of things themselves and are just as prone to "fudges" as accepted theory is. ............

Intrinsic redshift is not in current models. Yet it is clearly part of observations.

What does this do to universal expansion? I'm not satisfied with ignoring these observations.... all good if you are.... move on.

Originally Posted by renormalised

You make a habit of quoting papers a lot, but I wonder whether you really understand what's in them. It takes more than a keen interest in the subject matter to know what they're on about. At a minimum, you have to have some background in the work.

Appeal to authority? What kind of church is this?

Have actually studied it. Do you have a degree in astrophysics or cosmology...even if it's just basic undergrad.

Studied physics optics, electronics and have 10yrs exp in raster technologies and compression algorithms, and have processed data for astronomy papers.
But who cares? can we not just stick to the science...?

Is this really going to come down to shiney badges? Pff throughout history some of the sharpest minds had zero badges. Even Einstein flunked his entrance exam.

this is exclusive nonsense!

Originally Posted by renormalised

That is a fallacious answer. There is no hard verifiable evidence pointing to the absence of expansion of spacetime...only circumstantial evidence and speculative hypothesising as to what maybe happening. The data that has been presented is not widely supported, in any case, and still need much work done to make it tenable. True, we are not stuck with BBT by default, but neither do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because someone thinks they've found some contradictory evidence. It's not perfect but it's far more sound in it's theoretical and overall observational evidence than the rest of the hypotheses espoused.

We have 2 distinct models, i'm very interested in exploring them both...

Both models are not perfect, i have questions for plasma cosmology as much as mainstream... I'll always add a bit more weight to experimental results, as it should trumph all.

Originally Posted by renormalised

It would've made no difference to what they theorised even if they had the technology in those days to use x-ray telescopes and gamma-ray scopes. That is a completely moot point. It's as I said before, not having the detectors doesn't mean that the ideas they've come up with are wrong. All you have managed to point out is that now they can scan the sky at different wavelengths and see things they previously couldn't see. All that means is they can come up with theories to explain what they observe with the new equipment. It in no way invalidates any previously held theories. And there is no observational evidence that has been published which claims these new detectors and observational techniques has done so. On the contrary, they have bolstered what was previously thought of as just theory and has brought much into light that was previously hidden to observation. Which has been a huge bonus to the astronomical community.

What I said about finding EM influence earlier on in the piece is not an appeal to authority. It's statement of fact. If they had found that EM forces were the predominant factor in the formation of the universe at all scales, they would've acknowledge that and said so. There is no authority to have any appeal to except the authority of hard physical evidence. If it was there, then it would be published and further research would've been carried out. Simple as that...cold hard scientific method at work.

No appeal to authority? you just asked me to disrobe and show you my shiney badge? You actually said i could not participate without one?

Originally Posted by renormalised

Then you go and accuse me of quoting a textbook and that this was extremely ignorant nonsense. Now, you're going way too far here. Firstly, I have never quoted anything from a text. All I have mentioned is that you should go and read up the available texts and that one of them you may look up is my own textbook I use in my studies...and that there are plenty of other current books out there. FYI...my textbook was written in 2007, so I'd say that's pretty current. Your little outburst smacks of arrogance and sheer hubris, as you seem to think that because you have found some evidence to suit your own world view that everyone else's is somehow deficient. Above all, do you honestly believe that you know more than the scientists that write these textbooks, even those written before the advent of x-ray and gamma ray scopes?? I have a funny conviction that they have not only the study and research mileage over yourself, but also the experience to not come out and make such preposterous statements as you made in this instance. You need to watch what you say.

Excellent! lets discuss your textbook, I'm interested in seeing how charge separation is discussed in them, i've not found satisfactory explanations in the ones i have.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Nothing to it, but if you continue to make snide little statements without being absolutely sure of your intentions or what you say, I won't proffer anymore information as it won't be in either of our interests.

Just cause i think gravity strange matter stars are nonsense, and am happy to express it, i do still think we could have a beer. My intentions are to explore Carl, you aswell as I are entitled to our own search....Thanks for the heads up on what terms to investigate this further. My comparative search continues.