Missing Radiation?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:08 pm
Missing Radiation?
I am a noob to this forum and couldn't find a reference to this when I did a search, so forgive me if this has already been dealt with. I'm trying to find information that would help me understand the supposed EU debunking idea that there would be a great deal of background radiation in an electric universe but it isn't seen. Because I couldn't understand how this radiation may prove or disprove EU theory, I couldn't give an explanation to someone in the pro-establishment boat. Subsequently, I "lost" the debate, despite not having any of my questioned rebutted in the area of predictions and observation the EU model shows. Here is the question posed to me:
Why isn't there enough background x-ray and gamma radiation that would be present in an electric universe?
Can someone please help me to understand the question better? I have a remedial understanding of physics (1 class in high school and college) but am excited to learn more.
Why isn't there enough background x-ray and gamma radiation that would be present in an electric universe?
Can someone please help me to understand the question better? I have a remedial understanding of physics (1 class in high school and college) but am excited to learn more.
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: Missing Radiation?
Why isn't there enough background x-ray and gamma radiation that would be present in an electric universe?
Who says there isn't enough?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: Missing Radiation?
The EU view on CMB is the following:
1) First of all, the documentary Cosmology Quest (Plasma Cosmology) does summarize issues well:
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 1 - CMB (Eric Lerner, Fred Hoyle et al)
"Their theory could be adjusted so that the temperature becomes a free variable - you just take in what is observed"
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 2 - structures (Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt)
2) It's caused by ambient radiation from any electrical source and density of electrons, as well as medium diffusion
Hereby the local sources being more dominant and genereally all sources being increasingly ambient with cosmic distance. Sources include Earth, the heliosphere, the Milkyway and all galactic filaments. Various mediums work as radio-absorbing and scattering mediums.
This can be linked to research by plasma physiscists Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, radiologist Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and astronomer Gerrit Verschuur. The latter have more up-to-date research, whilst all researchers here have strong cases, and all clearly challenge the Big Bang and favour an electric model of the universe:
Anthony Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles (1989)
Eric Lerner, Plasma Model of the Microwave Background (1988)
Eric Lerner, Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1990)
Eric Lerner, Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation (1992)
Eric Lerner, Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1993)
Eric Lerner, Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data (1995)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, One the Apparent Asociations between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Strucutre and (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (2010)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, 'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted? (Discovery article, 2012)
" Seeing is believing, except when you don’t believe what you see. This is according to veteran radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, of the University of Memphis, who has an outrageously unorthodox theory that if true, would turn modern cosmology upside down."
3) Inverse logic in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and issues with image methodology
This is a more controversial argument. It can be linked to papers by Stephen Crothers and Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who point to several interesting arguments, and refer to CMB data (from COBE and WMAP) practically as space junk:
Stephen J. Crothers, COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? (2011)
“WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research”
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy (2008)
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP and Relikt-1 Satellites
Last but not least, some arguments by supporters of Plasma Cosmology:
http://cosmologystatement.org/
See also background info about Stephen Crothers and Dr Robitaille here:
EU 2014 in the news
See background info about Eric Lerner here:
Eric Lerner, Lawrence Plasma Physics, Inc.
1) First of all, the documentary Cosmology Quest (Plasma Cosmology) does summarize issues well:
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 1 - CMB (Eric Lerner, Fred Hoyle et al)
"Their theory could be adjusted so that the temperature becomes a free variable - you just take in what is observed"
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 2 - structures (Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt)
2) It's caused by ambient radiation from any electrical source and density of electrons, as well as medium diffusion
Hereby the local sources being more dominant and genereally all sources being increasingly ambient with cosmic distance. Sources include Earth, the heliosphere, the Milkyway and all galactic filaments. Various mediums work as radio-absorbing and scattering mediums.
This can be linked to research by plasma physiscists Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, radiologist Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and astronomer Gerrit Verschuur. The latter have more up-to-date research, whilst all researchers here have strong cases, and all clearly challenge the Big Bang and favour an electric model of the universe:
Anthony Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles (1989)
Eric Lerner, Plasma Model of the Microwave Background (1988)
Eric Lerner, Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1990)
Eric Lerner, Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation (1992)
Eric Lerner, Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1993)
Eric Lerner, Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data (1995)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, One the Apparent Asociations between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Strucutre and (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (2010)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, 'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted? (Discovery article, 2012)
" Seeing is believing, except when you don’t believe what you see. This is according to veteran radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, of the University of Memphis, who has an outrageously unorthodox theory that if true, would turn modern cosmology upside down."
3) Inverse logic in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and issues with image methodology
This is a more controversial argument. It can be linked to papers by Stephen Crothers and Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who point to several interesting arguments, and refer to CMB data (from COBE and WMAP) practically as space junk:
Stephen J. Crothers, COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? (2011)
“WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research”
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy (2008)
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP and Relikt-1 Satellites
Last but not least, some arguments by supporters of Plasma Cosmology:
http://cosmologystatement.org/
See also background info about Stephen Crothers and Dr Robitaille here:
EU 2014 in the news
See background info about Eric Lerner here:
Eric Lerner, Lawrence Plasma Physics, Inc.
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: Missing Radiation?
Siggy_G wrote:The EU view on CMB is the following:
1) First of all, the documentary Cosmology Quest (Plasma Cosmology) does summarize issues well:
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 1 - CMB (Eric Lerner, Fred Hoyle et al)
"Their theory could be adjusted so that the temperature becomes a free variable - you just take in what is observed"
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 2 - structures (Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt)
2) It's caused by ambient radiation from any electrical source and density of electrons, as well as medium diffusion
Hereby the local sources being more dominant and genereally all sources being increasingly ambient with cosmic distance. Sources include Earth, the heliosphere, the Milkyway and all galactic filaments. Various mediums work as radio-absorbing and scattering mediums.
This can be linked to research by plasma physiscists Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, radiologist Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and astronomer Gerrit Verschuur. The latter have more up-to-date research, whilst all researchers here have strong cases, and all clearly challenge the Big Bang and favour an electric model of the universe:
Anthony Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles (1989)
Eric Lerner, Plasma Model of the Microwave Background (1988)
Eric Lerner, Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1990)
Eric Lerner, Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation (1992)
Eric Lerner, Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1993)
Eric Lerner, Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data (1995)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, One the Apparent Asociations between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Strucutre and (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (2010)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, 'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted? (Discovery article, 2012)
" Seeing is believing, except when you don’t believe what you see. This is according to veteran radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, of the University of Memphis, who has an outrageously unorthodox theory that if true, would turn modern cosmology upside down."
3) Inverse logic in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and issues with image methodology
This is a more controversial argument. It can be linked to papers by Stephen Crothers and Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who point to several interesting arguments, and refer to CMB data (from COBE and WMAP) practically as space junk:
Stephen J. Crothers, COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? (2011)
“WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research”
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy (2008)
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP and Relikt-1 Satellites
Last but not least, some arguments by supporters of Plasma Cosmology:
http://cosmologystatement.org/
See also background info about Stephen Crothers and Dr Robitaille here:
EU 2014 in the news
See background info about Eric Lerner here:
Eric Lerner, Lawrence Plasma Physics, Inc.
We have our assignment for 2014...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:08 pm
Re: Missing Radiation?
Sparky wrote: Who says there isn't enough?
The person which I was debating said because there wasn't enough CMB, it proved EU theory false. I didn't know enough about the subject to rebut, giving him the "win". Unfortunately, he wouldn't clarify in better detail what he was saying with sources.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:08 pm
Re: Missing Radiation?
Thanks for the response. As I am more of a visual learner (I don't read so goodly), I am looking forward to the videos you suggested.Sparky wrote:Siggy_G wrote:The EU view on CMB is the following:
1) First of all, the documentary Cosmology Quest (Plasma Cosmology) does summarize issues well:
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 1 - CMB (Eric Lerner, Fred Hoyle et al)
"Their theory could be adjusted so that the temperature becomes a free variable - you just take in what is observed"
The Cosmology Quest excerpt 2 - structures (Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt)
2) It's caused by ambient radiation from any electrical source and density of electrons, as well as medium diffusion
Hereby the local sources being more dominant and genereally all sources being increasingly ambient with cosmic distance. Sources include Earth, the heliosphere, the Milkyway and all galactic filaments. Various mediums work as radio-absorbing and scattering mediums.
This can be linked to research by plasma physiscists Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, radiologist Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille and astronomer Gerrit Verschuur. The latter have more up-to-date research, whilst all researchers here have strong cases, and all clearly challenge the Big Bang and favour an electric model of the universe:
Anthony Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles (1989)
Eric Lerner, Plasma Model of the Microwave Background (1988)
Eric Lerner, Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1990)
Eric Lerner, Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation (1992)
Eric Lerner, Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium (1993)
Eric Lerner, Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data (1995)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, One the Apparent Asociations between Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Strucutre and (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission (2010)
Gerrit L. Verschuur, 'Echoes' of the Big Bang Misinterpreted? (Discovery article, 2012)
" Seeing is believing, except when you don’t believe what you see. This is according to veteran radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, of the University of Memphis, who has an outrageously unorthodox theory that if true, would turn modern cosmology upside down."
3) Inverse logic in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and issues with image methodology
This is a more controversial argument. It can be linked to papers by Stephen Crothers and Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who point to several interesting arguments, and refer to CMB data (from COBE and WMAP) practically as space junk:
Stephen J. Crothers, COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? (2011)
“WMAP images do not meet accepted standards in medical imaging research”
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Earth Microwave Background (EMB), Atmospheric Scattering and the Generation of Isotropy (2008)
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP and Relikt-1 Satellites
Last but not least, some arguments by supporters of Plasma Cosmology:
http://cosmologystatement.org/
See also background info about Stephen Crothers and Dr Robitaille here:
EU 2014 in the news
See background info about Eric Lerner here:
Eric Lerner, Lawrence Plasma Physics, Inc.
We have our assignment for 2014...
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:55 am
- Location: Nairobi, Kenya
Re: Missing Radiation?
It seems rather odd to me that people want to discuss the particulars of what is happening millions of light years away -- discussing background radiation -- before clearly establishing what is happening in our own solar system.
I don't claim to have any experience in making presentations in a debate scenario. However, it would seem logical to look for some kind of common ground on the electric effects seen in our own star (the Sun) and then move from there before getting tangled up in a discussion about the more obscure topic of cosmic radiation.
One does not elucidate what is clear by making reference to what is obscure.
I would have replied (to the guy talking about radiation): "You're trying to take something obscure and use it to debunk something that is relatively easy to understand. The question is not about missing radiation. The question is about explaining two key local questions: 1) Why is the corona a million degrees hotter than the photosphere and 2) why are charged particles accelerating away from the sun?
In other words, many of the theories about what's happening FAR AWAY depend on assumptions -- usually unspoken -- about what it happening in our own cosmic backyard. We can only deal with the far-away case after we deal with the obvious case, i.e., what's happening "at home".
So like sparky said, "what missing radiation?" -- but now applied to the sun. If the EU model for the sun predicts lots of radiation, and we don't see it, that's a killer flaw in the model. But what radiation are we talking about here?
That, for what it's worth, is my take on the problem.
I don't claim to have any experience in making presentations in a debate scenario. However, it would seem logical to look for some kind of common ground on the electric effects seen in our own star (the Sun) and then move from there before getting tangled up in a discussion about the more obscure topic of cosmic radiation.
One does not elucidate what is clear by making reference to what is obscure.
I would have replied (to the guy talking about radiation): "You're trying to take something obscure and use it to debunk something that is relatively easy to understand. The question is not about missing radiation. The question is about explaining two key local questions: 1) Why is the corona a million degrees hotter than the photosphere and 2) why are charged particles accelerating away from the sun?
In other words, many of the theories about what's happening FAR AWAY depend on assumptions -- usually unspoken -- about what it happening in our own cosmic backyard. We can only deal with the far-away case after we deal with the obvious case, i.e., what's happening "at home".
So like sparky said, "what missing radiation?" -- but now applied to the sun. If the EU model for the sun predicts lots of radiation, and we don't see it, that's a killer flaw in the model. But what radiation are we talking about here?
That, for what it's worth, is my take on the problem.
In lumine tuo videbimus lumen.
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: Missing Radiation?
LOL ...Can't get those in the same camp to agree on a common ground!!!However, it would seem logical to look for some kind of common ground on the electric effects seen in our own star (the Sun)
Well, they agree that it is big , round and shiny !!!
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests