Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Carl, you state Dr Arps brief note of electrically dominated matter, but then you go on to state a separate theory for galaxy formation, which is clearly at odds with Arps hypothesis.
"galaxies form from vast clouds of hydrogen and helium "
You know this is misrepresenting his work and theories. Why would you use his quote to then lead into describing standards model which is clearly at odds with his work.
Arp's ejection model is extremely consistent with the galactic plasma z-pinch hypothesis (a plasma gun). It is infact the basis of the research work of E.Lerner and many other focus fusion teams you so often trash here.
I'm happy to take note of the differences in hypothesis, but you have clearly misrepresented Arp's hypothesis, by including and confusing standard's coalescing gas model of formation with it. Arps model is ejection.
These distinctions should be made Carl.
It is also important to note that PC/EU regularly acknowledges the role of 'gravity' in comparison to EM in particular scales of matter.
EU/PC is well aware of these distinctions, it is an integral part of the theory.
You have either misunderstood the body of work, or seek to misrepresent it.
|
Alex, as per usual, you've completely taken everything I have said out of context, added your own brand of BS and come up with an answer that has absolutely no meaning to anything I had posted.
I did not state any hypothesis, of any sort, let alone anything mentioned by Prof Arp in the journals, except for that
which has been accepted by all astrophysicists/astronomers for a very long time (including Arp) and it is clear from your response that you haven't a clue about either "mainstream" science, as you would put it, or even his own hypothesis, as you would have us believe it to be.
I am more aware of the science than you are, for the simple reason of the fact it is my area of study....I have been very aware of Prof Arp's work for many years. So trying to come across all intellectual with me won't cut the mustard. Nor will you pull the wool over the eyes of most of the posters here at this site. You have consistently shown from your posts that you have little intention of actually engaging in anything like meaningful debate and are only out to cause controversy and to convert others over to your brand of "reality". And if you deem that a lie, I can easily go and put my hand on the thread over at Thunderbolts where yourself and a number of others talk about this. So, you can't hide behind anything. You have been challenged on any number of occasions to put up or shut up about your EU ramblings and on every occasion you have dodged the questions asked of you. So what is it Alex, either you know about the stuff you're so eager to preach about, or you don't. If you don't, just say so. If you do, where's the answers to our questions...we're waiting.
I've lost patience even talking to you Alex. Quite frankly trying to explain to you where your brand of nonsense is wrong is a seeming waste of time. My time and the time of the others here who have taken that time to write a response when you decide to post.
Do I need to go over to thunderbolts and copy all the posts I, and others, have seen over there decrying anything to do with gravity, accepted theory or anything else you care to like or want to comment on???. Trying to sound all reasonable and open minded Alex only goes to magnify the hypocrisy of your attitude.
As far as misrepresentation is concerned, go read what Prof Arp had wrote there. Do I need to underline the salient points of his email, because it seems you don't understand basic English.
If you can't understand this...."
But I see no evidence for electric dominated matter on a galaxy scale or cosmic scale today."....then you have no business even posting anything that you have. You obviously can't understand the meaning to a simple sentence. How do you propose to understand the science, then??.