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 querious » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:28 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


In the 1st link (2014), Wal concedes that the neutrinos do oscillate, but that fusion occurs in the upper atmosphere, citing the Juergens model.

The 2nd link disputes neutrino oscillation altogether, concluding... "Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified."

I haven't seen any EU predictions of the types of fusion occurring in the flares, and powered by an "external circuit".
The existing neutrino production rates are well accounted for by the standard model. I think they'd notice if there was any appreciable fusion occurring in the flares.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:35 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


In the 1st link (2014), Wal concedes that the neutrinos do oscillate, but that fusion occurs in the upper atmosphere, citing the Juergens model.

The 2nd link disputes neutrino oscillation altogether, concluding... "Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified."

I haven't seen any EU predictions of the types of fusion occurring in the flares, and powered by an "external circuit".
The existing neutrino production rates are well accounted for by the standard model. I think they'd notice if there was any appreciable fusion occurring in the flares.


I highly doubt it. They haven't even figured out that there are huge amounts of current that pinch coronal loops together yet, so I highly doubt they'd begin to even understand how fusion could even occur in coronal loops. Only Alfven and EU/PC proponents apply circuit theory to coronal loops and that's the only way you even could get fusion. Rhessi and other instruments show all kinds of evidence of fusion.

You might take a gander at this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

It's also *highly* likely that hydrogen fusion is also occurring inside those same plasma pinch processes. Unless and until the mainstream turns on the electricity with respect to solar physics, they'd never begin to understand how it works.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:50 am

querious wrote:The existing neutrino production rates are well accounted for by the standard model.


In a very crude definition: Neutrinos are "particles" that represent the loss of mass caused by nuclear reactions.
This loss of mass is directly related to the amount of energy that is produced by the sun.

We can see the sun, and estimate how much energy it produces, so we can make a rough estimate
of how much neutrinos we would detect independent of the model,
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby querious » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:52 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
querious wrote:The existing neutrino production rates are well accounted for by the standard model.


In a very crude definition: Neutrinos are "particles" that represent the loss of mass caused by nuclear reactions.
This loss of mass is directly related to the amount of energy that is produced by the sun.

We can see the sun, and estimate how much energy it produces, so we can make a rough estimate
of how much neutrinos we would detect independent of the model,


No, only in those models which don't have an external energy source can we correctly estimate the neutrinos.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:35 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMWCkcn7TD4

I've sat through most of this hour long video from February of this year to get some idea of how "dark matter" theory is presented to scientific peers in 2015, and of course to the public as well. It was discouraging to say the least.

All four "justifications" for exotic matter theory came from BB theory exclusively.

Two of the four justifications for exotic matter theory were a tacit admission that they simply cannot begin with a Big Bang creation mythology, that is based exclusively upon only ordinary forms of matter, and get a proper data fit to two of the data sets, specifically the CMB power spectrum, or the threaded/clumping structures we observe in the mass layout pattern. I'd call both arguments a form of special pleading. If big bang theory doesn't work right without exotic matter, then exotic matter must exist! You'd think that would be their first two clues that there might be a real and serious problem with big bang theory, but *noooooooooo*! :(

For what it's worth, Dr. Hooper does present the power spectrum information in a very elegant, and simple to understand manner. Kudos for his presentation of that concept, even if I wasn't impressed with his "solution" to his curve fitting problem. :) He does a good job explaining how and why they have to fudge the power curve numbers just right, and how they arrive at their need for X amount of exotic matter to save their otherwise falsified model from instant falsification without a magic matter fudge factor. :)

The third justification was based on that hugely flawed 2006 bullet cluster lensing study. It's amusing to see him overlaying the optical images with the "dark matter" regions in blue. It clearly shows the effect of them grossly underestimating the number of entire stars in galaxies by a whopping 3 to 20 times, as well as their underestimation of the plasma around every galaxy. If anything, that whole argument is *destroyed* by the later revelations of stellar miscounts, and that 2012 study on the million degree plasma they finally found around our own galaxy, and which must surround all galaxies. That argument was a pure implosion with with 20/20 hindsight with respect to stellar mass underestimates. Unfortunately none of that newer information about stellar miscounts and additional mass discoveries was even mentioned in the presentation. :(

The only really "semi-valid" argument was the galaxy rotation pattern argument, but alas all their movement models are based upon pure gravity without respect to any EM field effects on a mostly plasma structure. :( It also showed IMO that while there are differences in the rotation patterns, they are *extremely* difficult to see unless you have the advantage of millions of years of time to watch the rotation patterns unfold, and *only* if you discount all possible EM field influences on the rotation patterns.

The most "amusing" part of the video IMO comes about the 19-21 minute mark where he explains all the reasons why they have to rule out every potential subatomic particle from consideration if they want to get all the proper fits to the aforementioned Big Bang theory data sets. The last three particles left standing after all the ad hoc properties were considered were the neutrinos, and he explains why those don't work either because they are "hot", and would therefore mess up the fit to the other data sets. :)

The amusing part is when he actually states rather bluntly that this conclusion could be considered a "catastrophe" (presumably for exotic BB based matter theory only), and then proceeds to explain why denial is more fun, and why it's actually a "playground" from his perspective. :) Wow.

I'm also miffed by the whole concept that he needs to eliminate all the subatomic particles known to humanity, yet he can also assign ad hoc properties to this mythical BB matter in terms of supposedly emitting gamma rays. Based on his drawing, apparently this happens during a "collision" between dark matter particles, even though they can't get them to collide with any ordinary matter at LUX, or PandaX, Xenon100, etc. He doesn't even really explain how or why or where dark matter particles might produce gamma rays "out in the open" rather than in say some dense core of a sun where it would simply be absorbed by the surrounding plasma. He basically just "assumes" that this mythical matter must 'occasionally' releases gamma rays out in visible space somewhere, in some unexplained "process' that supposedly takes place in locations where the gamma rays aren't instantly absorbed.

Now of course all this depends on them have an understanding about the amount of gamma rays emitted by various suns, and by the interactions of cosmic rays in stellar atmospheres, which I doubt they even fully considered. It's obviously prone to the same pitfalls with respect to stellar miscounts, and the fact it doesn't including any EM field effects associated with gamma ray production in the atmosphere of Earth or the sun in very ordinary electrical discharges in their atmospheres.

In fact, when he shows the original FERMI image, its very clear that the raw gamma ray images can be linked to known objects in the universe, and suns in the galaxy in particular, as well as some known high energy objects in space. The whole galaxy is lit up along the edge of the disk just as we would expect it to be lit up if solar emissions, and cosmic ray impacts on the solar atmospheres are the primary cause of gamma rays. Now of course we could add more current to the inside areas of the galaxy, and we'd have a *known and demonstrated* source of gamma rays to discuss, and a logical way to explain why we see them from Earth too. We'd have a logical way to explain why high energy collisions occur *outside* of the solar cores, rather than *inside* of them where the gamma rays would never been observed.

The more I listen to the mainstream claims, the more convoluted and ad hoc they sound. It's pretty clear that the industry is very electrophobic, and their dark gap filler is directly related to that problem.

I must say that the biggest "whopper" I heard was around the 55-57 minute mark when an astute member of the audience noted the fact that dark energy theory violates the conservation of energy law. I was totally and completely disgusted by his answer. :( The conservation of energy law one of the best tested laws in all of empirical physics, not to mention the fact that his answer was inconsistent with his *own* theory! Holy Cow. He's personally claiming to be turning "dark energy" into light (energy), and then ignoring it's implication with respect to the conservation of energy. His own claim would insist that some amount of galactic "mass", supposedly the most abundant form of mass according to him, is slowly but surely being converted into a different form of kinetic energy. Sometimes I wonder if these guys even think about the implications of their own theories and beliefs. It never adds up when you look at it logically.

I kinda wanted to hurl when he called himself an "empiricist" while promoting a purely *hypothetical* form of matter based entirely upon an affirming the consequent fallacy. Wow!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:05 am

Another BB problem.
Far red-shift Galaxy is too old..
http://www.caltech.edu/news/farthest-ga ... cted-47761
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:28 am

querious wrote:..No...

I assume that this no is about an very strong external (and electrical) power-source.
Not about the obvious strength of electric and magnetic fields on the sun.

Seriously, I don't know. The neutrino count could be wrong, due to the obvious confirmation bias.
But I was not really thinking about an external source in the first place.
It seems that electricity is very apparent in nuclear fusion on the sun. We can even EMP bombs
using similar tricks. This electricity could be necessary for a sustained fusion reaction,
and it seems like it because its force is stronger than the gravity on the sun.

Hypothetically the external source could be necessary to initiate a fusion reaction.
If we look at real pictures of beginning stars we can clearly see branches similar to a common
plasma ball. A plasma ball that is powered by electricity.

In the dark corners of science there is much more fusion related stuff.
The low energy nuclear reaction experiments show that there is some anomalous fusion going on when
electricity is applied within a crystal lattice.
These observations are tabooed by most scientists, because they don't fit into the mainstream
ideas either. But it is funny how these observations are all pointing towards an electric powered
fusion.

So should we choose the confirmation bias and job security, or choose the observations?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby querious » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:03 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
querious wrote:..No...

I assume that this no is about an very strong external (and electrical) power-source.
Not about the obvious strength of electric and magnetic fields on the sun.

Seriously, I don't know. The neutrino count could be wrong, due to the obvious confirmation bias.
But I was not really thinking about an external source in the first place.
It seems that electricity is very apparent in nuclear fusion on the sun. We can even EMP bombs
using similar tricks. This electricity could be necessary for a sustained fusion reaction,
and it seems like it because its force is stronger than the gravity on the sun.

Hypothetically the external source could be necessary to initiate a fusion reaction.
If we look at real pictures of beginning stars we can clearly see branches similar to a common
plasma ball. A plasma ball that is powered by electricity.

In the dark corners of science there is much more fusion related stuff.
The low energy nuclear reaction experiments show that there is some anomalous fusion going on when
electricity is applied within a crystal lattice.
These observations are tabooed by most scientists, because they don't fit into the mainstream
ideas either. But it is funny how these observations are all pointing towards an electric powered
fusion.

So should we choose the confirmation bias and job security, or choose the observations?


1. Gravity is sufficient to explain sustained, stable-over-time fusion in the core. It even explains WHY it is a self-regulating process.
2. Neutrinos counts roughly match the assumption of H fusion in the core, even though scientists were initially puzzled by the missing 2/3 of the predicted neutrinos.
3. I'm not aware of any reputable references to fusion being observed outside the core.
4. I am actually excited about Widom-Larson theory's ability to explain LENR. How about those massive E-cigarette explosions?
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:22 pm

querious wrote:3. I'm not aware of any reputable references to fusion being observed outside the core.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37.1834L

You should note that his paper also supports the whole concept of a glow discharge being responsible for the sun's corona. FYI, the same author has been writing about fusion in solar flares since the late 90's.

https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.asp ... N:29043764
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:22 pm

Zyxzevn wrote: ..electricity could be necessary for a sustained fusion reaction...


I just found this article (via reddit/OB1_kenobi) that supports this idea.

http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einstein ... hypothesis

Sending 35kV electrons through hydrogen creates neutrons.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

LUX strikes out yet again, but it's only a "constraint"

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:17 am

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-world-sensitive-dark-detector.html

LUX's sensitivity far exceeded the goals for the project, collaboration scientists said, but yielded no trace of a dark matter particle. LUX's extreme sensitivity makes the team confident that if dark matter particles had interacted with the LUX's xenon target, the detector would almost certainly have seen it. That enables scientists to confidently eliminate many potential models for dark matter particles, offering critical guidance for the next generation of dark matter experiments.


This is like watching a bunch of folks engaging themselves in a never ending snipe hunt. Negative results are never used as a basis for the falsification of the dark matter snipe claim. Instead the negative results simply 'offer them critical guidance' as to where the dark matter snipes cannot be found. :)

Oy Vey. Lambda-CDM proponents have the worst case of confirmation bias in the history of physics.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:00 pm

http://www.livescience.com/54545-axion-like-particles-probably-not-a-dark-matter-answer.html

FYI, the spectacular blow out of WIMP theory at LUX (again) is actually the second major empirical blow to exotic matter theories this year. Apparently axion-like particles won't fill in the gaps correctly, and now the most sensitive lab "test" of "cold dark matter" theory that has ever been done to date has turned up nothing. This is all on top of the LHC blowout of all the popular brands of SUSY theory.

Now keep in mind that *numerous* baronic galaxy mass estimation problems have been "discovered" since 2006, and all these results are consistent with a *lack of any need* for exotic forms of matter to explain lensing patterns, and rotation patterns which were based upon flawed mass estimation techniques. In fact, the rotation patterns of the plasma halo surrounding our galaxy match with exactly what "dark matter" predictions would expect:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_discover_dizzying_spin_of_the_Milky_Way_galaxys_halo_999.html

"This flies in the face of expectations," says Edmund Hodges-Kluck, assistant research scientist. "People just assumed that the disk of the Milky Way spins while this enormous reservoir of hot gas is stationary - but that is wrong. This hot gas reservoir is rotating as well, just not quite as fast as the disk."
Image


Emphasis mine.

And oh by the way.....

The "hot gas" (AKA million degree "plasma") that surrounds the galaxies which they only found in 2012 also rotates at about the same speed as the rest of the disk, so a halo of hot plasma sure *acts* like a "dark matter" halo too. :)

Is there actually any falsification method possible with exotic "cold dark matter" theories (plural)? If it's not falsifiable, in what way is "cold dark matter" theory/hypothesis a form of "science"?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby GenesisAria » Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:48 pm

I can't help but feel there's a lot of misunderstandings going on here, and even in a lot of the EU/PC practitioners.

First one is the confusion of terms:
What most people call "Electricity" is an electromagnetic waveform.
What most people call "electrical charges" is much more simply referred to by it's energy polarization, dielectricity.
And then there is "magnetism" which, as EU states, is created by electrical charges, but that's just something they say. To understand why and how that is you have to investigate the scientists that not only studied electricity, but referred to æther and dielectricity; the inventors of the core concepts EU/PC scientists rely on.

https://archive.org/download/magnetism1 ... 1small.pdf
Read Ken Wheeler's book on magnetism. He's the only one i know of that has actually EXPLAINED magnetism, and didn't just describe it or it's effects.

In the basis of everything there are 2 inertial attributes, charge(+) and discharge(-). It's not that everything is AC or DC electrical streams, everything, matter itself is made from this. Currents and magnetism and even gravity are all macro effects of the fields. This is where you have your universally applicable fractal universe, this it necessitatively so, for anyone to be able to experiment with miniatures representing cosmic scale events. This is a full explanation of why plasma formations are completely scalable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

I really like this video. Even though it's sorta unprofessional, it explains a way even current quantum mechanics can be reinterpreted in a way that matches nature more accurately, and complies with what is necessary for EU to work.

You can't say there are particles, and then say they have electrical properties, as you're just falling into the same trap of atomism. All the evidence points to there being an electron FIELD not an electron particle. You measure it by units of energy, but there has never been an image taken of an electron, ever. If you want to get cheeky, you could even say that "atom" might mean "incommensurable," meaning sure it's indivisible, but it has no finite scale, it's always the same behaviour no matter how big or small - size is relative. Of course, the issue then is, how do you explain what plasma is since "electron stripping" doesn't makes sense. Well it's actually even simpler than that - it's matter put into a state of extensive discharge, where it boundaries on where "particles" start becoming "waves". Basically there's so much energy in the quanta that the "electron fields" (which are the same as magnetic fields) intensify tremendously (boost their gauss/tesla rating), and magnetic coherency is easier to achieve. This makes energy move through it easier, and magnetic formations easier to put in resonance. You could say, plasma is the easiest way to make pictures of aspects of magnetic fields - the geometry of the universe.

The way they've explained the "plasma sheaths" of stars in varying geometry and density, can be used to interpret and understand quanta as well. Particle-wave duality being rubbish, there is quanta, charging quanta, discharging quanta, big quanta, small quanta, quanta that spread over vast distances in waveform, quanta that stay condensed in what we like to call "particles". They're not solid, they're just more dense, like say a vapour cloud instead of rarefied plasma.

How i understand the EU model, is as i described here (which is similar to Tesla and the rest), i'm not sure if that's how Thornhill and the other 'top' EU guys see it, but it's the only way the model can be 100% empirically correlated with reality.
❀桜舞う空~ ☯
User avatar
GenesisAria
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:57 pm
Location: Canada

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:38 pm

GenesisAria wrote:I can't help but ...


Sorry, but your comment is totally not about "LCDM" or the related "Cold Dark Matter"..
Please place them elsewhere, if you want to discuss them.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby GenesisAria » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:08 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
GenesisAria wrote:I can't help but ...


Sorry, but your comment is totally not about "LCDM" or the related "Cold Dark Matter"..
Please place them elsewhere, if you want to discuss them.

Sorry, I have a bad habit of beating around the bush and skipping steps. It's that there's issues with both models. Talking about dark matter is redundant if we don't know what matter is. Talking about gravity is redundant if we don't know what gravity is. Comparing it to EU/PC is redundant if we don't know what electricity is. It needs to be explained, not just described in attribute. It relates to this, and any scientific discussion really - an everpresent confirmation bias where people are deciding what counts as evidence, and how far back they feel they have to follow the train of cause and effect. The only scientific answer, is all the way. You can't build models off ideas of previous people if you don't completely understand what they're trying to define, and whether it describes concepts or explains empirically.

The issue is not necessarily in particular aspects of it, but the core thinking behind it.
❀桜舞う空~ ☯
User avatar
GenesisAria
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:57 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest