Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby nick c » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:29 pm

When you are a legislator or government administrator and you have money to allocate for scientific research, how do you determine who gets the funding? Of course, not knowing anything yourself, you consult the established experts in the field and they scratch the backs of colleagues, who are of a like mind. "Mainstream" is a self feeding process....it is consensus driven.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:50 am

MerLynn wrote:"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
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15919
and
http://www.magneticwaterscience.com/?page_id=9


Actually, I wold say that this is a great example of one of the primary strengths of EU/PC theory. EU/PC theory is fully compatible with the standard particle physics model and GR theory. It is however theoretically possible that a QM based concept of gravity could replace GR, and it's going to be compatible with any future replacement of the standard particle physics model for that matter too. The beauty of EU/PC theory is that it is compatible with existing theories as well as any potential replacements. So long at there is any merit at all in circuit theory, we're basically good to go, and circuit theory is one of *the* most successful empirical theories of all time. Our computers, cell phones, cars, TV's etc are all based on it. Even if circuit theory were to eventually be replaced, it would simply be replaced with something that builds upon circuit theory, it's not going to falsify the entire concept which suddenly causes my cell phone and the electrical outlets in my house to fail. :)

Tesla was *way* (and I mean way) ahead of the mainstream of the time, as was Birkeland. The scientific community is *still* playing catch-up to the this very day. Whatever the future holds, it's going to build upon their work in electrical theory, not falsify it outright. It's impossible to falsify a form of pure empirical physics.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:20 am

BecomingTesla wrote:@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.


We really are pretty much on the very same page. I would simply add that solar theory is the obvious and most important place to begin in terms of EU/PC experimentation. Birkeland's primary motive in beginning his experimental process was to explain aurora, a process that is "close to home". This allowed him to compare in-situ measurements of magnetic field alignments on Earth to things that he could experiment with in his lab. This initial interest in aurora led him to create a number of additional experiments related to solar physics and planetary physics. He actually "predicted' things that he didn't originally know based upon what he actually learned in the lab. This is basic empirical physics/science at it's finest.

The first segment of the "mainstream" that we are likely to reach will be the 'space weather' folks. They probably already have a pretty good idea that electricity plays a vital role in the Earth's weather patterns. Connecting the dots and connecting the flow of current in the Earth's upper atmosphere back to solar physics will be necessary to "win them over". Furthermore the atmospheric processes of the sun remain, and will continue to remain an enigma to the mainstream until and unless they finally turn on the electricity. :)

*When* we create a lab experiment that demonstrates the basic processes related to solar and planetary physics, it's going to be downright impossible to ignore that type of data forever. I suspect that in terms of coronal loops and high energy solar physics that the SAFIRE team has already amassed enough supporting spectral data to demonstrate conclusively that electricity and charge separation play a vital role in those high energy solar atmospheric processes.

What ultimately needs to happen however is a complete and full replication of Birkeland's work, including changing the polarity of the sphere and modifying the internal magnetic fields of the sphere, the texture and composition of the sphere, etc. I'm not sure that even SAFIRE has progressed to that level yet. It's more than a little sad that we as a community are still 100 years behind Birkeland in that respect.

That said, the improvement of technology along with our increased understanding of physics that has taken place over the past 100 years is on our side however. The equipment to measure magnetic fields, electric fields, and spectral data have improved dramatically. Once the experimentation process begin in earnest, the progress will occur rapidly, and I suspect it already has progressed rapidly with respect to the SAFIRE project and high energy solar physics.

Many if not most of the "cosmology" aspects of EU/PC theory will need to be computer modeled rather than recreated in act experiments. Peratt has already created some interesting computer models but to date they haven't included much in the way of gravity theory, they've been based entirely on plasma physics. In order to get to the "next level', the cosmology models of EU/PC theory will need to include both elements of plasma physics along with elements of GR theory. Once that happens, and once we can agree upon a specific solar model based upon active experimentation in the lab, the EU/PC model of the universe will start to come together quite rapidly. I do see that happening over the next decade or two, but it's going to take some real effort and some serious financial support.

Keep in mind that Rome wasn't built in a day, and Lambda-CDM wasn't built in a day either. In fact it wasn't until 1998 that the mainstream starting to even consider including "dark energy' into BB theory, and that aspect of their theory actually makes up nearly 68 percent of Lambda-CDM. Inflation mythology wasn't invented until Guth came along in the Early 70's. Even the mainstream model is still pretty "young" in that respect. The mainstream model may be a bit more mature at the moment, but it's not an insurmountable gap by any stretch of the imagination. It's conceivable for instance that we could simply include and incorporate some elements of standard theory into the EU/PC model over time.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:22 am

nick c wrote:When you are a legislator or government administrator and you have money to allocate for scientific research, how do you determine who gets the funding? Of course, not knowing anything yourself, you consult the established experts in the field and they scratch the backs of colleagues, who are of a like mind. "Mainstream" is a self feeding process....it is consensus driven.


Agreed. That's why we are going to need to convince at least a minority within the mainstream astronomy community of the potential benefits of the EU/PC paradigm if we're ever going to enjoy any public financial support for our cause.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:41 am

I agree with you completely that Birkeland is where the laboratory research needs to begin. But, despite the difficulty that would come with it, I'd love to see Bostick's work extended simultaneously as well, aided by Peratt's research. Bostick's early work in the 50's with plasmoids reminds me a lot of Birkeland's solar system work, and I think his ability to create simple spiral morphologies in the plasma *needs* to be continued to understand what we're seeing in galaxies.

Again, I'm not certain how strongly I agree with your appeal to the scientific community over the public, but, I do agree that if that's the approach you want to take that the solar "weather" community should be who you reach out to first. Expose them to Birkeland/Aflven's work, which they probably have little exposure to, and probably "white-washed" by academia (for example, their treatment of magnetohydrodynamics). The SAFIRE project is the *perfect* way to do this, and I really, really just want to see what they've done so far. I hope they're already building the first full-scale rig right now as we speak.

I'm 100% in agreement with you though: all of Birkeland's work has to be rebuilt. Again, I think this could make a perfect series of Kickstarter experiments, and I've personally taken it up as my own charge. I want to learn the math, build a small lab of my own to teach myself the basic electric theory, and then get started.

No, Rome was not built in a day. And neither will our own community, but I'll admit, I do have a vision for us, I see small steps where we can make serious legitimate progress, and start to build a reputation for Birkeland/Alfven's ideas. PM me some time if you want to talk personally, I like the headspace you think in.

Best,
BecomingTesla
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:26 pm

I do agree with the notion that the E/U ideas are spread out and not really presented in a coherent manner. After 5 years I have not even organized them for my own use. Guilty as charged.

Also, I agree with most of the above points made. However, there is one item that I need to speak about. That is the idea of the success of circuit theory and therefore the need to mount bigger efforts for more experiments using circuits, such as SAFIRE.

With our circuits we provide a voltage across points A and B and ask our machines or experiments in the circuit to do something for us. This is how we "use" electricity. We control it to suit our needs. I am thinking that the sun is not in an electric circuit, but it is free electricity. It self organizes. It is constrained by it's own nature and the available environment.

For example, The discussion of whether the sun is an anode or a cathode comes about because WE NEED a circuit. I see the sun as exhibiting the properties of both. Current goes in...current comes out etc.

The Crookes tube shows us various arrangements of glowing plasma. Some parts look like parts of the sun. But the sun is not inside anything controlling its behavior. Relative to a Crookes tube the sun is inside out. So the plasma probably behaves differently. If the photosphere is anode tufting then perhaps the cathode is the bottom of the corona emitting current away from the anode, or inside out.

We need to Think Outside the Circuit !

Thanks for your consideration.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:40 am

jacmac wrote:I do agree with the notion that the E/U ideas are spread out and not really presented in a coherent manner. After 5 years I have not even organized them for my own use. Guilty as charged.

Also, I agree with most of the above points made. However, there is one item that I need to speak about. That is the idea of the success of circuit theory and therefore the need to mount bigger efforts for more experiments using circuits, such as SAFIRE.

With our circuits we provide a voltage across points A and B and ask our machines or experiments in the circuit to do something for us. This is how we "use" electricity. We control it to suit our needs. I am thinking that the sun is not in an electric circuit, but it is free electricity. It self organizes. It is constrained by it's own nature and the available environment.

For example, The discussion of whether the sun is an anode or a cathode comes about because WE NEED a circuit. I see the sun as exhibiting the properties of both. Current goes in...current comes out etc.

The Crookes tube shows us various arrangements of glowing plasma. Some parts look like parts of the sun. But the sun is not inside anything controlling its behavior. Relative to a Crookes tube the sun is inside out. So the plasma probably behaves differently. If the photosphere is anode tufting then perhaps the cathode is the bottom of the corona emitting current away from the anode, or inside out.

We need to Think Outside the Circuit !

Thanks for your consideration.

Jack


FYI, if you read Birkeland's work, he was "perplexed" about how the sun might continue to spew electrons into space over long periods of time, and somewhat mystified by the fact that positively charged particles were building up on the sides of the glass walls as 'soot'. He was convinced that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements', and he "assumed" that both types of charged particles would ultimately flow off the sun, in a process that is today known as "sputtering". He even proposed some potential changes to Maxwell's equations to resolve his continuous particle flow problem, but ultimately his assumption about positively charged particles flowing from the sun too proved to be supported by the solar wind measurements. In short, Birkeland was willing to 'think outside of the box' in terms of simple circuit theory, and his model did not require an external power source of any sort.

Alfven was more of circuit theory 'purest' in that sense, as was Juergens.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:31 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
jacmac wrote:I do agree with the notion that the E/U ideas are spread out and not really presented in a coherent manner. After 5 years I have not even organized them for my own use. Guilty as charged.

Also, I agree with most of the above points made. However, there is one item that I need to speak about. That is the idea of the success of circuit theory and therefore the need to mount bigger efforts for more experiments using circuits, such as SAFIRE.

With our circuits we provide a voltage across points A and B and ask our machines or experiments in the circuit to do something for us. This is how we "use" electricity. We control it to suit our needs. I am thinking that the sun is not in an electric circuit, but it is free electricity. It self organizes. It is constrained by it's own nature and the available environment.

For example, The discussion of whether the sun is an anode or a cathode comes about because WE NEED a circuit. I see the sun as exhibiting the properties of both. Current goes in...current comes out etc.

The Crookes tube shows us various arrangements of glowing plasma. Some parts look like parts of the sun. But the sun is not inside anything controlling its behavior. Relative to a Crookes tube the sun is inside out. So the plasma probably behaves differently. If the photosphere is anode tufting then perhaps the cathode is the bottom of the corona emitting current away from the anode, or inside out.

We need to Think Outside the Circuit !

Thanks for your consideration.

Jack


FYI, if you read Birkeland's work, he was "perplexed" about how the sun might continue to spew electrons into space over long periods of time, and somewhat mystified by the fact that positively charged particles were building up on the sides of the glass walls as 'soot'. He was convinced that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements', and he "assumed" that both types of charged particles would ultimately flow off the sun, in a process that is today known as "sputtering". He even proposed some potential changes to Maxwell's equations to resolve his continuous particle flow problem, but ultimately his assumption about positively charged particles flowing from the sun too proved to be supported by the solar wind measurements. In short, Birkeland was willing to 'think outside of the box' in terms of simple circuit theory, and his model did not require an external power source of any sort.

Alfven was more of circuit theory 'purest' in that sense, as was Juergens.


There is one further point that I believe warrants *serious* discussion as it relates to thinking outside of the box, with respect to circuit thoery and solar theory. *if* via SAFIRE and future empirical lab tests we discover that a cathode solar model is the most likely model, Brant has proposed a cathode variation that is based upon Telsa's work, and the concept of a wireless transmission of energy via "standing waves". We already know that Tesla's theories were correct, and there are wireless transfer of energy products already being sold and used on the market. The notion of transferring energy to the sun from an external transmission of energy is still a *hugely* viable possibility. The fusion that we observe from the sun is mostly occurring inside the coronal loops, and other plasma pinches throughout the sun where plasma is being pinched together and it achieves multi-million degree temperatures. At least *some*, and maybe all of the heat that is generated by the sun may in fact be due to fusion in the solar atmosphere, and interior. Based on neutrino counts that seems quite probable IMO. However, that whole fusion process that we observe in coronal loops and plasma pinches could still be driven by and sustained by a continuous flow of wireless energy into the sun. The plasma flow from the sun, along with the fusion/resistance/heat generated in those pinched threads inside and outside the photosphere, can simply be the ultimate "effect" that is created by the continuous flow of energy throughout a much more advanced wireless "circuit' than we fully understand or appreciate. Brant could better explain that particular variation of Birkeland/Tesla's cathode solar model to you.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:22 am

For a very long time now I've been pretty sure that resonant coupled transfer was occurring between, at the very least, the Sun and the planets. The Sun is basically an enormous, spherical electrical oscillator, working through a diffuse plasma medium. The planets and their magnetospheres are the same, and to me it seems extraordinarily likely that energy transmission is occurring wirelessly in some format. If you could post a link to Brand's model, I'd really like to see it.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby querious » Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:00 am

Michael Mozina wrote: The fusion that we observe from the sun is mostly occurring inside the coronal loops, and other plasma pinches throughout the sun where plasma is being pinched together and it achieves multi-million degree temperatures.


I'm confused. We already know that the neutrino counts correlate well with the sun's energy output, so why are you guys still discussing any kind of external power source for the sun?
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:47 pm

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: The fusion that we observe from the sun is mostly occurring inside the coronal loops, and other plasma pinches throughout the sun where plasma is being pinched together and it achieves multi-million degree temperatures.


I'm confused. We already know that the neutrino counts correlate well with the sun's energy output, so why are you guys still discussing any kind of external power source for the sun?


I want to be extremely clear that Birkeland's mdel was simply internally powered by a "transmutation of elements", aka fusion today. This is completely consistent with neutrino counts from the sun. No other external power source is required in his model.

The only reason that I bring it up with respect to circuit theory is that even though the energy release and the heat release.and the fusion processes are local, the entire electrically driven fusion process could still be "caused by" the sun wirelessly interacting with a much larger circuit. The fusion that we observe/record locally could simply be a *result of* that wireless energy transfer process, and the completion of that larger circuit.

In either case, the *local* energy release would still be directly linked to fusion inside and outside of the photosphere, but the "power supply" that sustains it could still be related to, and driven by a much larger wireless circuit. It would be more like a Birkeland/Tesla wireless hybrid model.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby nick c » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:58 pm

The Electric Universe on neutrino counts, changing flavors, and alleged verification of the standard fusion model:
Solar Neutrinos in the Electric Universe
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby querious » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:20 pm

nick c wrote:The Electric Universe on neutrino counts, changing flavors, and alleged verification of the standard fusion model:
Solar Neutrinos in the Electric Universe
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm


By now, "A great deal of evidence for neutrino oscillation has been collected from many sources, over a wide range of neutrino energies and with many different detector technologies."

Is it really the position of the EU community that neutrino's don't oscillate, in order to save the electric sun theory?

Or that neutrino's from the sun are special, and don't oscillate?
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:42 pm

querious wrote:
nick c wrote:The Electric Universe on neutrino counts, changing flavors, and alleged verification of the standard fusion model:
Solar Neutrinos in the Electric Universe
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm


By now, "A great deal of evidence for neutrino oscillation has been collected from many sources, over a wide range of neutrino energies and with many different detector technologies."

Is it really the position of the EU community that neutrino's don't oscillate, in order to save the electric sun theory?

Or that neutrino's from the sun are special, and don't oscillate?


No.

The energy source of Alfven's "electric sun" model is exactly the same as the standard model, namely fusion. Birkeland also assumed that the sun was internally powered by a 'transmutation of elements'. Both Alfven's solar model, and Birkeland's (cathode) solar model predict exactly the same number of neutrinos as the mainstream solar model.

Juergen's (anode) "electric sun" model however is more 'flexible' with respect to neutrino emissions. It was originally conceived of and published during the "missing neutrino" phase of solar research when astronomers were puzzled by the fact that they were only measuring about 1/3 of the expected electron neutrinos from the sun, and prior to any hint of neutrino oscillation. Juergens attempted to explain that electron neutrino deficit by theorizing that the sun was at least partially powered by an external (to the sun) electric circuit which drove fusion processes in the solar atmosphere like every electric sun model, but which also contributed to some of the sun's total energy production and output via ordinary resistance. It was more of a 'solar resistor'/fusion hybrid type of model in some ways, where the external currents were heating up the sun as well as driving fusion in the atmosphere. The sun is simply a resistor in a larger circuit in his model.

Even Juergen's model however can (and may need to) be modified to simply change the overall resistance of the circuit, or generate as much fusion as you want to achieve just about any neutrino emission count. The external circuit would simply drive whatever amount of fusion that might be required to meet whatever neutrino output count that we observe. It's more flexible than either of the other two models, but it's not technically tied to any "specific' neutrino count in theory, although Juergen's himself did try to match the observed electron neutrino counts at that time. It can of course be modified however. It's simply more flexible in terms of neutrino output than either of the other two electric sun models.

About the only "electric sun" model that is falsified by neutrino oscillation is the original anode solar model that Juergen's himself proposed, but it wouldn't falsify every potential anode solar model, just that specific one which he personally wrote about.

It's also possible to construct an "anode' solar model that is fully internally powered and do away with the need for an external circuit altogether, so basically all the options remain on the table regardless of the neutrino counts. Juergen's model is simply the most "flexible' in terms of potential neutrino counts, whereas any purely internally powered solar model would be as tightly constrained as the standard model in terms of neutrino counts.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:56 pm

I should add one more point here. All the aforementioned solar models are all "DC" models (not sure about the Birkeland/Tesla one actually), but electrical energy is most easily conducted over long distances via "AC". The EU/PC community hasn't even fully explored that kind of solar model yet, but I suspect it may be headed in that direction as we attempt to explain the rotation of the sun's magnetic field over a 22 year cycle. The only thing that neutrino counts tell us is how much fusion is occurring in and around the sun. It really doesn't tell us a whole lot about the way the energy flows through the entire system, or how it all works in terms of the circuitry. It could be that 'small' suns are more like resistors as Juergen's envisioned, whereas the fusion produced in larger stars may supply an overall excess of current that flows through and into other smaller stars. The center of the galaxy is where most of the current is concentrated.

In absolutely no way is the EU/PC cosmology model threatened by or falsified by any particular neutrino count from any particular object.

Neutrino counts offer us vital clues about how much fusion is occurring perhaps, but in no way does it even constrain or falsify any 'generic" solar model. At worst case, it could only ever tell us how we'd need to modify any particular solar model to meet that figure, but only one *single* potential, highly specific model could ever be falsified by a *single* neutrino number, not even the generic version of Juergen's anode/resistor model could be falsified, just the single one he wrote about. I'm sure that even Juergen's would simply have modified his model as required to make it work.

In terms of overall EU/PC *cosmology* theory, it really doesn't matter which solar model is the most like the ones we see in nature. It really doesn't matter in terms of overall electric universe theory. We're still trying to figure out how it's all wired together at the moment, which is why the *experimental* aspects are absolutely critical. Once we figure out which solar modal best matches all the observations, in terms of AC/DC, Anode/Cathode, then it's just pure plug and chug to figure out the exact voltages, amperage, etc to get the correct amount of fusion and heat, and meet the right neutrino count.

We really need to do some real lab work to move things forward which is why SAFIRE is so very, very important to EU/PC theory. It's the first example in 100 years of anyone in astronomy even trying to reproduce the "Birkeland example" of how real cosmological physics should be done, specifically in the lab.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests