The Theory of Nothing

Zero stars was not an option....

Well, you were not able to harvest any converts in either of the other technical posts on the subject here on CR4 after arguing ad nausium, so why not try again. Good luck.

Probably because your worshiped host decided he had to stop me from posting when he couldn't answer my questions and also deleted half my responses. I will have the decency to not do the same. I do not need to rely on the suppression of fact or ideas in order to sustain my theories.

Like I said, good luck.

However, just to clear the air, perhaps you might want to submit your "work" to Nature or any scholarly institution and see how you fare with a real peer review.

Most of us are just armchair astronomy hobbyists (myself included), and if you are so convinced of your superiority on the subject, take it toe-to-toe with the pros.

Just keep us updated with your progress.

Why bother, it will just be dismissed as is every article not complying with the current cosmology. Yet I can write a review on how a parallel universe is the cause of the void in the WMAP and as long as it doesn't contradict current theory it will be accepted no matter how wild the speculation. Neutron Stars violate the island of stability, a well documented experimental fact, yet those papers are accepted because they attribute the cause to gravity so are accepted no matter how invalid they might be. Your faith in your peer review system just shows how blind you truly are. Science admits to all possibilities, yet you rigorously stop anything but what current cosmology teches from reaching the masses. Why is that, should not the data and facts stand on their own no matter what theory it relies upon? If the shoe fits as the saying goes. I can show you dissatisfaction with your vaulted peer review by the very scientists that use it. Deliberate errors have been inserted into papers to check the system and 9 out of 10 times they went through because the paper supported current cosmology.

As I recall, an interesting study of the Great Nothing can be found in The Neverending Story. This may roughly parallel the Theory of Nothing, but I'm not qualified to judge the similarities.

As to the "Modified Lorentz Aether Theory", it either is aether or it isn't.

As for the statement, "Gravity is the weakest force known to exist," that may be true, but it's strong enough to hold us onto this great spinning sphere and I hope you don't do anything to disprove its existence. Then, we'd all be floating in the aether.

Are you sure that it is what holds us onto this sphere? Tell me, how does bent space accomplish that? What causes gravity? How is it propagated? We know the E/M force both attracts and repels. Two unequal masses fall at the same rate even though one has a greater gravitational potential then the other. Why isn't its greater mass causing additional attraction? If you take the attractive and repulsive aspects of the electrical force then the greater the mass the larger its attraction, but also the greater its repulsion as a square of the distance between two charged bodies, therefore it falls at the same rate as one of a differing mass. What causes gravity is not understood, let alone if it is but a misunderstood attraction/repulsion aspect of the E/M force.

No, I am not sure.

Bent space?

I don't care.

Through the aether.

I don't normally engage in these discussions. I have problems enough remembering my way home, during the day. And hanging onto this spinning sphere when I'm about to fly out into the Nothing.

Your oratories, are.................interesting.

"Coincident that all planets and galaxies spin according to the right hand rule no matter their orientation in space?"

Is it not correct that the right hand rule is applied to a celestial body for the purpose of defining the positive pole? Why or how is this significant here?

Because electrical forces act in the universe. All planets and galaxies and everything that exists spins and orbits perpendicular to the electric force and with the magnetic force. The right hand rule not only defines the positive pole but the electrical current direction as well as the magnetic and spin/orbital direction. Gravity attracts equally from all directions, yet everything spins down to even the smallest particle, and everything possesses a magnetic field. What is left out is that magnetism causes things to circle perpendicular to the electric force, and without an electric force there is no magnetism. Everything we know of possesses an inherent magnetic moment, yet magnetism is impossible without electrical currents. Without the electric currents passing between Sun and Earth there would be no magnetic field surrounding the earth and life would not exist. These same currents that THEMIS has detected between Sun and Earth stretch across the vast interstellar distances as well, connecting everything. We have only begun to start mapping these fields. The problem is they try to explain these threads as non-detectable Dark Matter, instead of its true nature, electrical currents.

First it was CDM then that fell through as experiments falsified it so it became WDM, and the underlying theory that predicted the wrong answer was never once looked at. LIGO has detected not one gravitational wave since it began operation, yet this non detection has been heralded as a success. Now they want to waste billions more of my tax dollars building another LIGO when all the data suggests it is the theory that is in error, not the data. When this one still fails to detect gravitational waves they will simply ask for more funding to build another, not once looking at the underlying theory that predicted the non-existing waves to begin with. Job security requires it. Even I admit an aether is likely, yet the space-time of GR would have these waves propagate through nothing and waves require particles to well, wave :) Tell me, how is nothing bent? How does nothing tell mass how to move?

False. Venus and Neptune spin retrograde to the other planets.

However, feel free to weasel word that away, too.

Not every celestial body has a magnetic field or it is so weak as to be essentially zero.

You forgot to mention that the north pole of Venus points downwards relative to the other planets and Sun. It orbits relative to the Suns magnetic pole, right hand rule, and spins relative to its own north pole, right hand rule. Study up some!

As for Neptune astronomers believe the magnetic axis more represents its true spin, not the cloud cover. Either way it is agreed more data is needed.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/125360768.html

The only thing in dispute is whether the planet controls the magnetic field or whether the magnetic field controls the planet. Electrical fields wonder, it is not surprising that the magnetic fields of planets would wonder as well as they followed the current pathways.

So, when the magnetic pole of a planet reverses, so does its spin relative to the ecliptic?

I think your logic is also flipped.

If you understood electrical processes you would know that reversal of a magnetic field does not change the direction of the current flow or you would not have asked that question. All it relies on is amplitude, which we use every day in AC transformers.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100401polarity.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/06/polar-wondering/

A temporary flip of poles does not change the rotation because the electric current still flows in the same direction. It may indeed cause problems, perhaps even events that lead to the mythology of vast floods, etc. Poles are merely indicators of the current flow, but a change in amplitude can reverse the magnetic poles but that does not change the current flow or the right hand rule. Only if the current reversed direction would the planets spin be affected. The fact that secondary North and South poles can be created by an increase in amplitude does not necessarily point to the main poles moving at all.

If you care to look at post # 12 (which I believe was your post) you will see that you stated that the cause for the retrograde rotation was the reversed pole of Venus. That is your claim, not mine.

However, according to Wiki and NASA Venus does not even have a magnetic field of any significance at all.

The other thing that strikes me is the idea that the theory of the right hand rule of the magnetic field dictating which way the solar system rotates is impossible to prove.

Just 10 years ago our own sun flipped its pole orientation and there is no reason to believe that this has not been happening many times before. How can you be sure what orientation the magnetic field was upon its creation or any other point thereafter?

Like I said, the plasma cosmology theory keeps getting more holes blasted in it every year as we learn more about our cosmos.

However, the more evidence that is uncovered that disputes the theory, the more entrenched defenders (fanatics) get about their theory. This is why plasma cosmology has long left the realm of science and now has attributes much closer to a religion.

I am absolutely convinced that you will never change your mind on your belief regardless of how much evidence is poured in front of you, so I have no illusions that I can change your thinking on the subject and I don't care. What is striking is that you still believe that you can change anyone else's mind on CR4, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

But as long as you are willing to keep digging a bigger hole for yourself I am happy to keep handing you bigger shovels.

There is no evidence that the poles have actually shifted, changes in amplitude can create secondary north and south poles in the crustal layers without ever affecting the original pole direction. You want it to be only one way, and experiments with AC transformers (actual experimental evidence, not wishful thinking) show that the major poles can remain in place while secondary poles are created. If you did a little rsearch on electricty and magnetism you might have known this already.

Are you suggesting that Venus never had a magnetosphere at any time in its past? Based on what evidence? Once in motion...a body tends to stay in motion. The fact that it has none today would not affect any previous rotation imparted, or are you doing away with that as well?. Tell me, what causes magnetic fields?

I am blinding myself? What about your island of stability and Neutron Stars? What about your gravitational waves that have never been detected? What about CDM, oops that's WDM now since CDM didn't pan out. What about your Higgs Bosun that failed? How's Supersymetry panning out? What about your gaping hole in the WMAP? Oh yah I forgot, that's a parallel universe, my bad. I am still waiting on that answer of how mass bends nothing and then nothing tells mass how to move? Why is the Sun hotter by millions of degrees above its surface if the core is a nuclear furnace, kind of defeats the whole purpose of thermodynamics doesn't it? Sunspots that allow us to see deeper into the core are cooler than even the surface. You have already dug a pit, you just can't see it because you are inside it. Why does every particle that exists emit E/M radiation if it has no importance? You are obviously blinded to seeing the facts. I was wondering when the name calling would begin, a standard tactic when one has no evidence to present, as if that somehow justifies your position. Actually it only shows how shaky is the ground you stand upon that you feel threatened and need to resort to such tactics. So far you have presented nothing that anyone with any common sense could not see through, so I don't feel too concerned.

Hmmm, more electricity in space and more magnetic anomalies. The data just keeps piling up against you doesn't it.

http://spaceflightnow.com/cassini/041220lightning.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0110/0110183v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.2138v1.pdf

wander

Hmm, with every discovery we find more and more evidence of electrical and magnetic forces at work: So much for an electrically neutral space. seems they are always surprised by the evidence, wonder why that is?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/galileo-20080430.html

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/100639/1/EPSC-DPS2011-1468.pdf

If gravity is now defined by curvature rather than by a centripetal force, what impels an object placed at rest in a field to begin moving? General Relativity supplies us with field differentials, which can explain why an object already moving in the field will move as it does. But field differentials, being math, cannot create a force. The math of GR represents motions, it cannot cause them. GR is also not a field of potentials, since it requires a field of forces to create potentials. GR is not a field of forces, so the differentials cannot be interpreted as potentials. Einstein admitted that GR was the bypassing of Newton's inertial field. How can an object that is "feeling no forces" begin moving in such a field? In other words, Einstein inherited and extended the field of Newton, but he did not overwrite Newton's first law. If he had, we would not still be taught it in high school. Newton's first law is that an object at rest will remain at rest unless a force acts upon it. What force acts upon an object placed in Einstein's curved field? How does the object know that the field differential just below it is any different than the field differential it inhabits? It can't know, and therefore GR fails to explain motion from rest in a field. Two bodies placed at rest move towards one another, but both are in free-fall and not subject to external forces, why do they approach? Mass bends nothing and nothing tells mass how to move. A theory of nothing... Shovel Load number one.