BecomingTesla wrote: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.
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.
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.
BecomingTesla wrote: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...
I hate living in the dark ages of astronomy. It's *soooooo* darn annoying.
BecomingTesla wrote: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!
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.
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 think that is why SAFIRE is a great step in the right direction. One "test" is worth a thousand expert opinions IMO.
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".
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 wrote: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.
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 agree with you 100%; SAFIRE is the best thing to happen to the EU movement in a *long* time.
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 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests