Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

[Michael Mozina]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It seems to me that there are four basic "supernatural" (not naturally occurring on Earth) components to Lambda-CDM, virtually all of which have been *falsified* by satellite measurements from space over the past decade. The observation of confirmation bias over the past decade is simply astounding as it relates to Lambda-CDM.

Dark matter

In 2006, "dark matter" proponents claimed that lensing data supported the existence of an *exotic* form of matter. Their grandiose claims about the supposed existence of supernatural forms of matter were of course *entirely* dependent upon the *assumption* that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate in 2006, and therefore any "missing mass' was necessarily found in a *non baryonic* form of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Since 2006 however, there have been five major revelations of a systematic problem with their flawed calculation of stellar masses that are present in various galaxies and galaxy clusters:

1) Two years later in 2008, they "discovered" that they've been underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in the IGM, and the universe is actually at least *twice as bright* as they *assumed*, leading to an *underestimation* of stellar mass:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archiv ... 439,en.php

Keep in mind that their entire basis for the baryonic mass calculation of stellar masses relates back to galaxy brightness. They blew the brightness aspect by a factor of two.

2) They "discovered" a year later that they've been using a *flawed* method of 'guestimating" the number of smaller stars that cannot be directly observed at a distance, compared to the larger mass stars that we actually can observe at a distance. They underestimated stellar counts of stars the size of our sun by a factor of 4. and all of it was *ordinary baryonic material*! Ooops....

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex ... 90819.html

3) The following year in 2010, they 'discovered" that they've been underestimating the most *common* sized star (dwarf stars) in various galaxies by a *whopping* factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the galaxy type. Again, they grossly underestimated the *normal baryonic material* that is present in galaxies. Oooopsy......

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/

4) Two years after that, in 2012, they 'discovered' more ordinary baryonic matter *surrounding* every galaxy that exist inside of the stars themselves. In fact they discovered more ordinary baryonic matter in 2012 than had been ''discovered' since the dawn of human history.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/398

5) Last year in 2014 they also "discovered" that they underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies*, particularly galaxies undergoing a collision process like that Bullet Cluster study:

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal ... 08929.html

There's been at least *five* revelations of *serious* baryonic mass underestimation problems used in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of exotic forms of matter. They didn't prove any such thing in 2006. All they *actually* "proved" was that their baryonic mass estimation techniques were *worthless* in 2006 as at least five major discoveries have since *verified*. Note also that their stellar mass underestimates are congruent with their finding that most of the 'missing mass' which they called "dark matter' simply "passed on through" the collision process. Since stars are spread so far apart, they don't typically 'collide' in a galaxy collision, and therefore mass contained in stars, including all the stars they forgot to count, would indeed pass right on through that Bullet Cluster collision just as they observed in their lensing patterns.

Now if there was any doubt about their ordinary mass estimation problems, let's look at how they did in the lab with respect to exotic matter claims since 2006:

1) LHC *destroyed* every single "popular" brand of SUSY theory and we're left with whatever is sitting at the bottom of the barrel. In fact the whole thing has become a SUSY theory of the gaps claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

2) LUX experiments demonstrated that the mainstream poured tons of money down a hole in the ground and found exactly *zero* evidence of exotic matter as they erroneously *predicted*.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... s-up-empty

3) PandaX experiments also verified that the mainstream has a bad habit of pouring money down a hole and coming up empty:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092814.php

4) They "tested" some other predictions related to electron roundness, and again they *falsified* every prediction they made:

http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect ... 131219.htm

If the *numerous* revelations of *gross* baryonic mass underestimation in 2006 wasn't bad enough, they've already falsified every "popular" brand of exotic matter that they put forth since 2006. In at least nine different ways, they've either *destroyed* their own claims about the accuracy of their baryonic mass estimates they used in 2006, or they falsified every so called 'prediction" that they ever made about exotic matter in the lab.

Dark Energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

The entire basis of their 'dark energy' claims is based upon the *presumption* that all SN1A events act as "standard candles' and occur pretty much exactly the same way, every single time. Since their original claims however, several studies have since undermined their claim that SN1A events are all the same, and are really 'standard candles' as they *assumed*:

1) Major studies done as far back as 2011 cast serious doubt on their dubious claim about 'standard candles' that apparently aren't standard after all:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 10112.html

2) A more recent study verifies that standard candles aren't really 'standard' after all as well:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 041015.php

Note that dark energy makes up almost 70 percent of their entire theory, meaning that the *vast* majority of their theory rests upon a now *falsified* premise!

Inflation

Inflation theory was all the rage again last year when the mainstream made *ridiculous* and grandiose claims about having 5+ sigma confidence that the polarized light patterns they observed were caused by inflation and gravity waves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Guth even make claims about it being Nobel Prize worthy work. They called it the "smoking gun" for inflation.

Of course the *entire* claims was based upon their "assumption' that they could rule out other very *ordinary* causes of polarized light patterns, and that 'assumption' fell completely apart by the time the paper passed the peer review process. Despite all the outrageous hype, it turns out that *ordinary dust* around out own galaxy is the likely culprit, not inflation:

http://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-infla ... -dust.html

That leaves inflation's only claim to fame it's '"prediction' of homogenous layout of matter, and even *that* claim has been blown out of the water by Planck's revelation of a hemispheric variations in the CMB and "cold spots'.

http://sci.esa.int/planck/51559-hemisph ... ackground/

There's really *nothing left standing* of Lambda-CDM after the revelations of the past decade. The whole thing was based upon *now falsified* premises, none of which the mainstream has come to terms with. They're simply in denial at this point.

I think this also brings up a good question with respect to EU/PC theory, particularly since it's in it's infancy at the moment and there are multiple viewpoints and multiple theories to choose from within EU/PC theory. How are *we* as a community going to avoid the same problem of confirmation bias with respect to various 'electric' solar models to choose from, and with respect to various ideas put forth within the framework of EU/PC theory?

[BecomingTesla]

Simple: we work in the method of Faraday - make absolutely no assumptions, directly present our failures right alongside our successes, and we rigorously test all the possibilities within the lab.

There is no phenomena within Nature that we, as a integrated part of Nature, cannot replicate ourselves. If we cannot establish and confirm any hypothesis of the EU/PC model within the lab, and cross-reference it with case studies from direct astronomy observations, then that hypothesis cannot be accepted as part of our framework.

Let's work exclusively with fact.

[Michael Mozina]

Simple: we work in the method of Faraday - make absolutely no assumptions, directly present our failures right alongside our successes, and we rigorously test all the possibilities within the lab.

That "sounds" like a nice philosophy, but in reality I don't believe that the Safire project has put nearly as much effort into testing Birkeland's cathode sun theories as they have put into testing the Jurgen's (anode) solar model. How can we be sure that's even going to occur?

There is no phenomena within Nature that we, as a integrated part of Nature, cannot replicate ourselves. If we cannot establish and confirm any hypothesis of the EU/PC model within the lab, and cross-reference it with case studies from direct astronomy observations, then that hypothesis cannot be accepted as part of our framework.

Let's work exclusively with fact.

Philosophically speaking we appear to be on the same page, but the reality of the testing done to date doesn't seem to match up well with the philosophy.

[BecomingTesla]

I agree completely, and I think the responsibility to pursue rigorous testing falls on all of us, not just the SAFIRE team. Part of being a member of this framework/paradigm, to me, means not being a passive observation of scientific inquiry. I'm not interesting in resting my ideas about the Universe, Nature or science on anyone's authority - be it the mainstream or Alfven/Birkeland. I'm here because, to date, the observations that have been made public and the work conducted by Alfven and Birkeland seem to line up with reality significantly more than the LCDM model.

I want my own lab, with my own equipment, to test every possible configuration. I think the SAFIRE team's work is an incredible step in the right direction. It's also a baby step, at most. No one can say that we "understand" the mechanism of the solar system, until there is a miniaturized solar system, moving in perfect rotation/revolution, in a laboratory.

[Michael Mozina]

I agree with you 100 percent.

I should point out that 'space expansion' was the forth supernatural construct/supernatural agent that is required by Lambda-CDM, and we all know that such a claim *assumes* that every photon that reaches Earth magically weaves and dodges it's way around every temperature and EM field gradient over *billions* of light years without experiencing a even a *single* inelastic scattering event. Oy Vey.

The other point I should add is that the mainstream has been consistently underestimating the number and size of 'black holes', including central black holes as well as smaller mass objects, all of which would also directly affect their lensing data claims from 2006. Technically there's at least *10* revelations of galaxy mass underestimation, or exotic matter falsification, not just 9. That's an average of about one major falsification of their dark matter theory per year, every year for the past decade, and that's only *one* of the four supernatural constructs they rely on!

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/06/t ... space-time
http://www.gizmag.com/dwarf-galaxy-supe ... ole/33862/

[Michael Mozina]

The evidence of confirmation bias by the mainstream keeps mounting by the day, along with mounting evidence that Lambda-CDM is utterly and completely unfalsifiable. No failure ever counts against their model, and all NULL results are simply ignored.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144842.htm

Although the team did not detect dark matter, the capabilities demonstrated by the XENON100 detector are encouraging. The high sensitivity shown in the experimental results could free the international research team from the need to constrain analysis to only a portion of the data captured, Lang said.

Translation: Were getting a lot more efficient at finding absolutely nothing while completely and utterly ignoring the results of our numerous failed tests!

I love how they "spin' another detection failure into a "bright spot". It should be noted that these aren't even real "experiments" in the first place because they completely lack any type of actual control mechanism. There's no known source of dark matter, and no way to turn the source on or off to see if anything they might observe is *actually* a signal that is caused by what they claim it might be caused by. The whole concept is based upon a series of affirming the consequent fallacies, and they *still* can't find anything. Oy Vey.

But it's actually a two for one failure day for Lambda-CDM:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144719.htm

That's what Hamilton, Müller and his team did. They dropped cesium atoms above an inch-diameter aluminum sphere and used sensitive lasers to measure the forces on the atoms as they were in free fall for about 10 to 20 milliseconds. They detected no force other than Earth's gravity, which rules out chameleon-induced forces a million times weaker than gravity. This eliminates a large range of possible energies for the particle.

Again, it's noteworthy that this is also no "experiment" because it contains no control mechanism for 'dark energy" whatsoever. It's just another affirming the consequent fallacy that went up in smoke.

The evidence of mainstream confirmation bias grows by the day, and the lack of falsification potential of Lambda-CDM is demonstrated yet again, twice in one day in fact. Lambda-CDM is simply a stupid and useless theory.

[BecomingTesla]

So the XENON100 team not only failed to make any detection with their instrument, but likewise ruled out another possible detected signal, and yet somehow, they get to build an even *bigger* machine with the XENON1T?...They're been rewarded for their failure with the chance to build something even more expensive?

For #%?$ sake man...

[Michael Mozina]

So the XENON100 tea not only failed to make any detection with their instrument, but likewise ruled out another possible detected signal, and yet somehow, they get to build an even *bigger* machine with the XENON1T?...They're been rewarded for their failure with the chance to build something even more expensive?

For #%?$ sake man...

Yep. Same deal for their dark energy "test" too. Every Lambda-CDM failure simply results in them throwing more good money after bad. Nevermind the fact that they blew the stellar count estimates in that pathetic 2006 "dark matter" lensing study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20, and forget about every prediction failure they had at LHC, LUX, PandaX, those electron roundness tests, and now the Xenon100 tests. Forget their string of failures for the past decade, dark matter must exist anyway. Just trust them...

We're also apparently just supposed to ignore the fact that those dark energy 'standard candles" have been shown to not be standard as they originally claimed, their mythical magical "dark energy" deity must exist anyway.

If the government spent just 10% of what they blow on dark nonsense "tests" who's results they utterly ignore anyway, on something tangible like electric sun theories, we'd actually learn something useful about the universe in no time. As it stands, we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy, and regardless of how many failed predictions they make, their growing list of falsifications never matter, and never falsify any of their claims.

Lambda-CDM devotees have the worst case of confirmation bias ever seen in the history of physics. They even spin their failures in the media, calling another blatant failure to find anything a 'bright spot" for DM theory. WTF?!?!? It's the ultimate dark stuff theory of the gaps, with a never ending amount of money to throw down another hole in the ground. I hate living in the dark ages of astronomy. It's *soooooo* darn annoying.

[BecomingTesla]

I hate living in the dark ages of astronomy. It's *soooooo* darn annoying.

I think all of us are feeling the same way - I definitely am. But for me, the issue comes "what are we going to do about it?" I feel that the vest majority of us here in the EU community, myself included (for the time being), are nothing but spectators. We're watching on the sidelines while laying the weight of future progress on people like Thornhill, Scott, Childs, etc., while the mainstream cosmological model continues to chug along without impediment. And the simple truth is - and I may lose some popularity for this - how many of us have taken it upon ourselves to learn the necessary mathematics, mechanics, and plasma physics to be *able* to contribute to progress?

The current leaders of the EU community have held the charge for a long time now, and quite honestly, beyond pointing out the glaring epistemological and observational crises within the Lamda-CDM model, what have they produced that has moved our own model forward? Not very much, certainly very little that can be pulled into the laboratory and tested/quantified.

While I think the work/ideas of Birkeland, Alfven, Juergens, Scott, etc. is certain on the correct theoretical track, the simple truth is that very, very little experimentally has been done to give the EU model the kind of credit that will draw in the support of the *layman*, which, in the end, is the name of the game. We don't have to convince the mainstream astrophysical community, we have to convince everyone else that they are wrong, and we don't do that by resting the laurels of Birkeland and Alfven. We do it by taking their research, and pushing it even farther than it's ever gone before: Birkeland's work with the terellas could be extrapolated into *crazy* directions, and this has never been done. Bostick's work on plasmoids and spiral morphology needs to be pulled out of the 50's and developed much, much further. Alfven's theoretical ideas on the galaxy as a homopolar motor needs to be modeled in a laboratory, and then compared to recent work by R. Beck on the helical magnetic field lines around galactic spiral arms. Alfven's criticisms of the astrophysical community's treatment on space plasma needs to be *rigorously* analyzed by comparing the last 70yrs of plasma physics literature against the astrophysical literature to see, one way or the other, if it's legitimate. There is decades of work on the table...

No one is going to do this for us. Certainly not the present academia, and not the current leaders of the charge. We've all got to be learning the mathematics, science, and engineering to start doing this ourselves. We can generate the funding initially through crowdsourcing, and follow that up with private funding if we have to. Let's *do* something!

[Michael Mozina]

I hate living in the dark ages of astronomy. It's *soooooo* darn annoying.

I think all of us are feeling the same way - I definitely am. But for me, the issue comes "what are we going to do about it?" I feel that the vest majority of us here in the EU community, myself included (for the time being), are nothing but spectators. We're watching on the sidelines while laying the weight of future progress on people like Thornhill, Scott, Childs, etc., while the mainstream cosmological model continues to chug along without impediment. And the simple truth is - and I may lose some popularity for this - how many of us have taken it upon ourselves to learn the necessary mathematics, mechanics, and plasma physics to be *able* to contribute to progress?

I think there's validity to your argument, but I for one have read a lot of books on MHD theory as well as chemistry in an effort to actually get some papers published:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Admittedly I haven't been as prolific as say Alfven, but I have made some effort on that front, not that the mainstream cares one iota.

The current leaders of the EU community have held the charge for a long time now, and quite honestly, beyond pointing out the glaring epistemological and observational crises within the Lamda-CDM model, what have they produced that has moved our own model forward? Not very much, certainly very little that can be pulled into the laboratory and tested/quantified.

Well, part of that problem stems from the fact that all the public funds are being squandered by the mainstream, and they continue to publicly berate the whole EU/PC concept rather than explore it scientifically. I don't think you can just blame *us* for that particular problem, particularly since there is a significant bias as it relates to the politics of public funding.

While I think the work/ideas of Birkeland, Alfven, Juergens, Scott, etc. is certain on the correct theoretical track, the simple truth is that very, very little experimentally has been done to give the EU model the kind of credit that will draw in the support of the *layman*, which, in the end, is the name of the game. We don't have to convince the mainstream astrophysical community, we have to convince everyone else that they are wrong, and we don't do that by resting the laurels of Birkeland and Alfven. We do it by taking their research, and pushing it even farther than it's ever gone before: Birkeland's work with the terellas could be extrapolated into *crazy* directions, and this has never been done. Bostick's work on plasmoids and spiral morphology needs to be pulled out of the 50's and developed much, much further. Alfven's theoretical ideas on the galaxy as a homopolar motor needs to be modeled in a laboratory, and then compared to recent work by R. Beck on the helical magnetic field lines around galactic spiral arms.

I think that is why SAFIRE is a great step in the right direction. One "test" is worth a thousand expert opinions IMO.

Alfven's criticisms of the astrophysical community's treatment on space plasma needs to be *rigorously* analyzed by comparing the last 70yrs of plasma physics literature against the astrophysical literature to see, one way or the other, if it's legitimate. There is decades of work on the table...

And yet when you look at say the plasma physics literature produced by the mainstream over the past several decades, it's all based upon something that Alfven called "pseudoscience". Furthermore, their actually "experiments" with "magnetic reconnection" almost always begin and end with *charge separation* and current flow, not simple "magnetic lines". In the lab they begin with the electric horse in front of the magnetic cart, but when they write their papers about that same experiment, they consistently put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and misrepresent the actual experiment!

No one is going to do this for us. Certainly not the present academia, and not the current leaders of the charge. We've all got to be learning the mathematics, science, and engineering to start doing this ourselves. We can generate the funding initially through crowdsourcing, and follow that up with private funding if we have to. Let's *do* something!

I hear you on that point, and that is why I support the whole SAFIRE concept of *experimentation*, rather than simply writing papers that apply to astrophysical phenomenon. If there's real lab experiments to support the concept, then the concept is definitely going to get more attention. The problem however is funding. Right now *nothing* is being spent in terms of public funding on the EU/PC paradigm in this country. Apparently only Canada is even willing to invest in the idea in terms of public funds. It's the distribution of public funding that must change in order for the EU/PC concept to be "tested" the way dark stuff is 'tested'.

Look at it this way:

Every single 'test" done in the lab to date related to particle physics has supported the EU/PC concept, whereas not a single result from the lab has supported Lambda-CDM. Why then are we continuing to spend money on dark matter theory? It's been a complete and utter bust in the lab. The mainstream doesn't even care about the lab results at this point in time. They simply ignore the negative results entirely, while they continue to bleed public money from the system that *should be* spend on empirical physics testing the EU/PC concept. EU/PC theory is consistent with the standard particle physics model, and every test done in the lab just so happens to be consistent with the standard particle physics model. Why isn't the mainstream interested in that fact?

[BecomingTesla]

I think there's validity to your argument, but I for one have read a lot of books on MHD theory as well as chemistry in an effort to actually get some papers published.

I respect the effort, genuinely. I've spent the last year reading bios on Tesla, Faraday, Birkeland, reading everything that I can understand by Alfven, and right now I'm working through John Bird's "Basic Engineering Mathematics." I figure I've got about ~6-7yrs learning the necessary math, and building up a workshop, and then I'll be off the sidelines and into the game.

Well, part of that problem stems from the fact that all the public funds are being squandered by the mainstream, and they continue to publicly berate the whole EU/PC concept rather than explore it scientifically. I don't think you can just blame *us* for that particular problem, particularly since there is a significant bias as it relates to the politics of public funding.

I understand that, but here are the two of the biggest problems standing in front of us, as I see them: (1) There is *zero* cohesion between all of the different subjects that the EU tries to cover. From electric comets, to ideas of solar system formation and electric activity, to galaxy formation, to electric weather, none of these concepts have been brought together into a single, quantified, consistent framework that can be built upon. Yes, the EU covers all of these ideas, but no one has tied them together in a way that is satisfying or well consolidated. No where can I find the *actual* literary work of Birkeland/Alfven/Bostick/Peratt/Juergens/Scott/Childs etc brought together into one place, where all the threads of ideas are tied together to form a single picture. I can't find the scientific literature in one place, weigh the measured/demonstrated evidence, and form an opinion on it. In my own journey with EU, I've had to source all of Alfven's work myself, all of Birkeland's, all of Tesla's, all from different places, and try to bring the concepts together in piecemeal. *All* of this work, and *only* the laboratory research - none of the conjecture, not even someone like Thornhill's - needs to be brought into one place. (2) Our presentation is terrible. The Thunderbolts site looks like it was made in the early 2000's. Thornhill's the same. Scott's website looks like it was made in the 90's. When people see these things, *particularly* the layman, the first thing that pops into their mind is that (a) amateurs, or worse, crackpots, are behind the site and (b) that there is nothing of value to be found. This entire endeavor needs a rebranding, desperately. And beyond that, it needs a PR campaign.

We have to sway the public's opinion before there's any possibility of government funding. But beyond that, we don't *need* government funding. We can begin all of the small-scale experiments that this group needs to gain momentum by crowdsourcing the money. People raise hundreds of thousands of dollars on sites like Indiegogo or Kickstarter. The latter could be used to gain money to build a whole series of new, improved, and exciting terella/sollelus experiments that could give us some serious notoriety.

I think that is why SAFIRE is a great step in the right direction. One "test" is worth a thousand expert opinions IMO.

I agree with you 100%; SAFIRE is the best thing to happen to the EU movement in a *long* time.

And yet when you look at say the plasma physics literature produced by the mainstream over the past several decades, it's all based upon something that Alfven called "pseudoscience".

I think you are confusing the primary plasma physical literature, which is say the IEEE, IOP Plasma Science or Cambridge Journal of Plasma Physics, which should report exclusively on laboratory plasma experiments and general plasma theory, with the astrophysical literature and the plasma theory contained there within. Alfven's critique was about the misuse of MHD theory in regards to the astrophysical plasma paradigm, and how they treat space plasmas as superconducting so that they may consider the magnetic field lines frozen-in. This is what he was referring to as "pseudoscience" because it ignores the general behavior of laboratory plasmas in which plasma is not superconducting, is generally inhomogeneous, and the measure of E fields and currents has to be taken into account. I respect Alfven as a scientist, and I take his critique seriously, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to differ to his authority over the authority of the astrophysical community. The two domains of literature have to be compared to one another, preferably in line with direct experimentation, to see if Alfven's criticism is correct or not.

EU/PC theory is consistent with the standard particle physics model, and every test done in the lab just so happens to be consistent with the standard particle physics model. Why isn't the mainstream interested in that fact?

The point is that it doesn't matter what the mainstream academia is interested in, what matters is what the public is interested in. It's our job to convince *them* that the EU is worth support, intellectually and fiscally, and we should do that through genuine, honest science and experimentation. Sitting and waiting for the public opinion to turn isn't going to work. Someone here has a Bucky Fuller quote in their signature, the famous one about building new models: we need to take that to heart. We need to *completely* stop wasting energy on combatting the current regime, and we need to get our own shit in line. If dark matter is wrong now, it'll be wrong fifty years from now. The only question is what *we* will have to show for ourselves after those fifty years, and it shouldn't just be one sollelus experiment and whole bunch of professing that the other side has been wrong.

[Michael Mozina]

I respect the effort, genuinely. I've spent the last year reading bios on Tesla, Faraday, Birkeland, reading everything that I can understand by Alfven, and right now I'm working through John Bird's "Basic Engineering Mathematics." I figure I've got about ~6-7yrs learning the necessary math, and building up a workshop, and then I'll be off the sidelines and into the game.

Keep in mind that the moment you decide to get into the game as you call it, you're going to be faced with some cold stark realities. While is certainly possible to use currently available data sets to write a paper on a budget, and I've already done a few of those, there's a limit to what you or I as an individual can do in terms of laboratory experimentation on a shoe string budget. If you want to write papers on an astronomical observation, that will likely be within your financial constraints, but if you wish to recreate something like Birkeland created in his lab, you need to be a millionaire like he was, or you're going to need some kind of public/major private funding to do that kind of research.

I understand that, but here are the two of the biggest problems standing in front of us, as I see them: (1) There is *zero* cohesion between all of the different subjects that the EU tries to cover. From electric comets, to ideas of solar system formation and electric activity, to galaxy formation, to electric weather, none of these concepts have been brought together into a single, quantified, consistent framework that can be built upon.

I'd say that's mostly a function of the infancy of the EU/PC model and the fact that out community is not as 'closed minded' as the mainstream to begin with. One of the serious problems with the mainstream model is that it tries to cover all the bases with the very same mindset and model. One of the primary reasons that they have to continue to bury their head in the sand with respect to 'dark matter' is directly related to the fact that their nucleosynthesis claims would fall apart if they tried to replace a big chunk of 'dark matter' with ordinary baryonic mass. Their model is so constricted by certain aspects of the model that it's like a house of cards. In some ways I think we're far better off because no one piece or idea in EU/PC theory will necessarily falsify the whole concept of EU/PC theory. In other words, Birkeland's solar model is in no way dependent upon the validity of electric comet ideas, or the Jeurgens solar model for that matter. The independence of the models does provide us with the ability to falsify some aspects of the EU/PC paradigm without falsifying the whole ball of wax. That's a strength IMO, not necessarily a weakness.

I also think that the mainstream does it's very best to "complain" about the lack of maturity in the EU/PC model, but their own models are based on 95 percent supernatural nonsense, none of which they can actually 'explain' to begin with. It's really easy to have a more 'complete' model when you've had more time and man hours to work on it, and when you've got all the funding, and when you've got 95 percent supernatural gap filler to work with. We can't just "make stuff up" on a whim, we're forced to do it the 'old fashion way' with real physics. That's a serious constraint compared to a a model with 95 percent fudge factor where the various properties can change on a whim.

Yes, the EU covers all of these ideas, but no one has tied them together in a way that is satisfying or well consolidated. No where can I find the *actual* literary work of Birkeland/Alfven/Bostick/Peratt/Juergens/Scott/Childs etc brought together into one place, where all the threads of ideas are tied together to form a single picture.

Well, you're right of course. Maybe we should start an online public library for EU/PC enthusiasts. That would actually help.

I can't find the scientific literature in one place, weigh the measured/demonstrated evidence, and form an opinion on it. In my own journey with EU, I've had to source all of Alfven's work myself, all of Birkeland's, all of Tesla's, all from different places, and try to bring the concepts together in piecemeal. *All* of this work, and *only* the laboratory research - none of the conjecture, not even someone like Thornhill's - needs to be brought into one place. (2) Our presentation is terrible. The Thunderbolts site looks like it was made in the early 2000's. Thornhill's the same. Scott's website looks like it was made in the 90's. When people see these things, *particularly* the layman, the first thing that pops into their mind is that (a) amateurs, or worse, crackpots, are behind the site and (b) that there is nothing of value to be found. This entire endeavor needs a rebranding, desperately. And beyond that, it needs a PR campaign.

One of the more confusing aspects of the EU/PC paradigm is that fact that there are competing and often mutually exclusive models to choose from, even under the same EU/PC umbrella. Alfven for instance had very different solar concepts than Jeurgens, and therefore the 'newbie' not only has to learn about *one* potential solar model, but maybe several of them in order to make an informed decision. They'll ultimately be forced to choose between at least three mutually exclusive solar models for instance, and several subsets of each of those three models. They may like one of those solar models, or one of their own, yet have no affinity for electric comet ideas too. It's still a pretty 'open' concept at this point, and without better lab work to judge by, it's going to remain that way for awhile yet.

We have to sway the public's opinion before there's any possibility of government funding.

I agree which is why I've tried to discuss these ideas publicly and to compare them to mainstream ideas. It's tough to even talk about "against the mainstream" ideas on many astronomy websites. Some of the more "popular' astronomy websites even hold online 'witch hunts', and have a whole different forum for any "non standard' beliefs. Even communicating to the public is difficult at the moment, mostly due to the mainstream mindset, and those who put up the first astronomy websites who wish to limit and all discussion of EU/PC ideas.

The other thing you'll notice almost immediately is that there are very specific 'attack dogs' within the mainstream that go out of their way to *misrepresent* EU/PC concepts and models. Tom Bridgman comes to mind. Those few very vocal "pseudo-skeptics" often do not even properly understand the ideas that they are bashing on. It's frustrating to deal with that kind of "blowback' from the ignorant mainstream and to make much headway with the public while being attacked publicly. They usually spend most of their time attacking *people* rather than the actual ideas too. It's actually pretty hostile out there in fact.

One of the things that 'surprised' me when I first got into the whole EU/PC model was the mainstream resistance to electricity in space. I expected to take a lot of heat for promoting a 'rigid surface' solar model. To me that seemed "fair". What I wasn't expecting was all the flack I took over the whole electrical aspect of solar physics. That didn't seem even 'controversial' to me when I started, but apparently it freaked them out more than even the concept of a more rigid layer of plasma under the photosphere.

But beyond that, we don't *need* government funding. We can begin all of the small-scale experiments that this group needs to gain momentum by crowdsourcing the money.

I beg to differ. If we're really going to compete with the mainstream, we're going to need a piece of the public funding pie. They're literally outspending us by *billions* of dollars on a yearly basis. Competing with that kind of funding pressure is simply non tenable over the long haul. Even the whole EU/PC community would have a tough time coming up with say even a million dollars to do a SAFIRE level project, and they haven't even had the resources yet to try out all the various EU/PC solar model options to choose from. If we're really going to pair down the various solar models and falsify a few of them, we're going to need some public funding IMO.

People raise hundreds of thousands of dollars on sites like Indiegogo or Kickstarter. The latter could be used to gain money to build a whole series of new, improved, and exciting terella/sollelus experiments that could give us some serious notoriety.

Sure, but compare that to the billions the mainstream has spent at LHC, the millions they've spent at LUX, at PandaX and every other 'dark matter' experiment, a few hundred thousand dollars is really just "chump change' in terms of the real science that could be done with some actual public funding.

I agree with you 100%; SAFIRE is the best thing to happen to the EU movement in a *long* time.

And yet even that project, probably the best funded EU/PC project in 100 years, has still not duplicated all of Birkeland's work, or even fully tested every aspect of one EU/PC solar model for that matter. There's a limit to what even they can do on their shoe string budget and it's a relatively large budget by EU/PC standards. When you compare it to what's been wasted on dark matter experiments to date however, it's simply a tiny little drop in the bucket.

I think you are confusing the primary plasma physical literature, which is say the IEEE, IOP Plasma Science or Cambridge Journal of Plasma Physics, which should report exclusively on laboratory plasma experiments and general plasma theory, with the astrophysical literature and the plasma theory contained there within. Alfven's critique was about the misuse of MHD theory in regards to the astrophysical plasma paradigm, and how they treat space plasmas as superconducting so that they may consider the magnetic field lines frozen-in. This is what he was referring to as "pseudoscience" because it ignores the general behavior of laboratory plasmas in which plasma is not superconducting, is generally inhomogeneous, and the measure of E fields and currents has to be taken into account. I respect Alfven as a scientist, and I take his critique seriously, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to differ to his authority over the authority of the astrophysical community. The two domains of literature have to be compared to one another, preferably in line with direct experimentation, to see if Alfven's criticism is correct or not.

The thing is, Alfven was correct about 'magnetic reconnection' and that is the model that is used by the mainstream to attempt to explain atmospheric solar phenomenon *instead of* charge separation and circuit theory as Alfven used, and every EU/PC solar model is based on. It is a competing idea that gets a lot of media coverage. When you ask them for lab results to verify their claims however, they always hand over a paper that *actually* uses charge separation to create 'circuits' in plasma which are then "rewired" during the experiment, and then erroneously called 'magnetic reconnection" The only paper I've ever seen that didn't start with charge separation and current flow used two lasers to create two moving "currents" which simply interacted over/through a double layer. Alfven's double layer paper would easily replace the 'reconnection' process in that paper as well. In short, their 'experiments' usually shoot their own claims in the foot, but you have to understand where the "slight of hand' takes place, and you have to know something about MHD theory to even follow along.

The point is that it doesn't matter what the mainstream academia is interested in, what matters is what the public is interested in.

In terms of public funding I think it does very much matters what the mainstream academia is interested in. They get all the grant money, whereas self employed programmers like myself don't get much in the way of public funding. In terms of convincing the public, even that is not easy when the attack dogs start with the misrepresentations, and publicly burn their heretics at the stake at all their websites.

You're ultimately right on some levels, but even reaching the public isn't as easy as you might imagine.

It's our job to convince *them* that the EU is worth support, intellectually and fiscally, and we should do that through genuine, honest science and experimentation.

True but there is a limit on what we can hope to achieve in the lab in comparison to what the mainstream can hope for and write about. The press cares about and writes about those XENON100 experiments because they are "big buck" experiments, not because they produced the desired results. Since those experiments are done by the 'mainstream", they even get to put the public 'spin' on a NULL results and call it a "bright spot in dark matter theory'. Oy Vey.

Sitting and waiting for the public opinion to turn isn't going to work. Someone here has a Bucky Fuller quote in their signature, the famous one about building new models: we need to take that to heart. We need to *completely* stop wasting energy on combatting the current regime, and we need to get our own shit in line. If dark matter is wrong now, it'll be wrong fifty years from now. The only question is what *we* will have to show for ourselves after those fifty years, and it shouldn't just be one sollelus experiment and whole bunch of professing that the other side has been wrong.

I hear you, and I understand your argument. I agree with it too in some ways, but I still think you're being a tad naive. The "scientists' should be doing this stuff for us on their own, if only motivated by pure scientific curiosity, and by the fact that their own model has failed so many tests. We as amateurs can try to do some of that work for ourselves, but we have day jobs, and budgetary constraints that preclude us from being fully competitive with the Lambda-CDM political machine.

That doesn't mean we should be lazy, or complacent, or simply give up. I do however think we're going to need real public funding to do 'real' science in the lab. Birkeland happened to be a millionaire and could afford to throw almost unlimited funds at his own ideas. Most of us aren't in that kind of a financial position.

[MerLynn]

"EU/PC theory is consistent with the standard particle physics model, and every test done in the lab just so happens to be consistent with the standard particle physics model. Why isn't the mainstream interested in that fact?"

Your problem, Becoming Tesla, is that Tesla said "everything is energy, frequency and vibration". Tesla purposely left out imaginary particles like electrons and protons (etc) and publicly debated with Einstein "silly equations" about an undefinable 'mass' factor.

So if the EU/PC theory is based upon standard particles physics model, which is ONLY a theory, then in your own Tesla mindset, it is wrong.

It is not the EU that is wrong, it is the theory of "particles" that are the building blocks of 'matter' that is wrong.
for more info see
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15919
and
http://www.magneticwaterscience.com/?page_id=9

[Michael Mozina]

Cost of LUX: 10 million

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/i ... ark-matter

PandaX and Xenon100: 10 million each

http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter- ... ep-1.12455

Cost of the ACME collaboration (electron roundness tests of SUSY theory) : 10 million

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/20 ... 08918.html

Cost of LHC: 13.5 *Billion* (With a capital B).

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/large-hadr ... le-1819412

Without even counting LHC money, which far and away blows all other public dark matter experiments out of the water in terms of money spent, there's at least 40 million dollars that has been *utterly wasted* on DM experiments, and which all produced *NULL* results that defy DM theory. Compare and contrast that figure to the *minuscule* amount of money that has been invested in SAFIRE to date. Is it any real wonder why we have a tough time competing for press interest and competing at the level of physics when the money is spent so disproportionately? Since when should empirical physics be given a back seat to theoretical physics in the first place?

I'll grant you that LHC serves a dual purpose (standard and extended concepts), so it doesn't all count as money spent in search of DM, but the Higgs Boson has now been found, so the whatever money is spent in the future at LHC is all about trying to extend the standard model, and it's all justified by "Dark matter" theory in terms of the press releases.

If DM theory warrants a 14 billion dollar financial investment, or even just a 40 million dollar investment to date, then surely investing say 20 million on the SAFIRE project is warranted. I'm not sure exactly what SAFIRE found already with respect to solar physics, but I guarantee you that SAFIRE didn't produce all NULL results.

[BecomingTesla]

@MerLynn: Forgive me, but I think you're attributing Michael's words as mine. That being said though, I do want to say a few things: (1) That quote is attributed to Tesla, but in the last year I've never been able to find a source for it. I have no idea where he's supposed to say this, despite its wide circulation. (2) I'm aware of Tesla's issue with particle physics, but Tesla never had an issue with the existence of the electron himself. I've read the article where he mentions one of his issues with it: 1932 - Great Scientific Discovery Impends. He acknowledges the existence of the electron, he simple does not agree that it may be described as a particle, because there's no way to observe the electron as a discrete object. I agree with him, and more to the point, I agree with J.J. Thompson, the discovered of the electron, who suggested that the electron was simply the terminus to one of Faraday's "tubes of electrical induction," analogous to his concept of magnetic lines of force, which, like Faraday, I agree exist in physicality. This is another subject that I hope to study vigorously in a laboratory. (3) I saw your post earlier today, and while I certainly don't mean to hijack Michael's post to comment on yours, I feel that you would do well to go back and edit the post again, particularly for clarity. I won't outright comment on its validity, but language is a bit manic and it's hard to glean any clarity.

@Michael: For me, the name of the game boils down to "how prepared are we"? One of my issues is that, if we had an infinite amount of money, *what would our experiments be*? I love the SAFIRE project because I think it will be extremely productive, but I also love it because it's also just about the only experiment I've seen proposed by our community. If we had infinite resources, what would we spend them on? We need to begin there: designing experiments thoroughly, mathematically and mechanically so that we can bring them to the table and say "here, we want to test this hypothesis. The experiment has been planned out, and we're ready to try it." And when it comes to crowd sourcing, I think you're mistaken. Take SAFIRE as a perfect example: imagine if that documentary were turned into a project video on Kickstarter, and we tried to raise money that way. Pono Music, a freaking MP3 player of all things, was able to raise $6M. Imagine what the SAFIRE team could do with that amount of money? They could raise a lot of money for this experiment, and they've already got the preliminary experiment as proof of concept.

Yes, it's outrageous the amount of money the mainstream gets to spend on failures, but for me, we need to focus on our own project and start to ask ourselves, as a team, what measurable goals can we reach? How can we continue to make progress? Just because we're in our infancy does not mean that we'll mature to adolescence, unless we take active steps to reach it. And part of that, for me, means getting everything together. I agree that it's actually a strength that our community considers multiple theories - it worked extremely well for the one/two-fluid theory of electricity to have two models in direct experimental competition with each other. But that doesn't mean that we can't create a place where the evidence for each model cannot be located, and connected, so that they can be viewed in a consistent, coherent way. A repository, or library, brought into the digital realm where all of the actual evidence is housed and linked by the general ideas and patterns that connect them. I'm glad that you agree with the idea, and I think it should be something the core EU team focuses on.

Ultimately I think we agree with each a lot, but differ in our view of how much we can do collectively. In the end though, I feel very strongly that the list of goals I mentioned are goals that we *will* have to meet, in whatever way we have to, in order to be taken seriously. I almost don't fault the layman for not considering the EU, because we haven't done these things. If we need to move towards these steps in half measures or full measures, then so be it, but it needs to be done.