Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

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: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:04 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
JeanTate wrote:... Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, ...



Wow. I am becoming a famous cat.

I understand both sides of the problem. Walked all the way through the university.

The mainstream has a lot of assumptions on certain subjects. From these assumptions,
we can do calculations with some mathematical models.
The EU makes other assumptions on certain subjects. The EU can do calculations as well with
certain mathematical models, but lacks the manpower to approach every angle. The EU has to use
the observations of mainstream, that are interpreted in a different way, and translate them into
EU models instead. It is like double the work.

The main difference in assumption is: The EU assumes that electromagnetism has much more influence
in the universe than mainstream assumes. This is based on the common logic that Plasma is
electromagnetically active. Something that we clearly see at the sun.

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

2) high energetic objects. Model: dark holes. Alternative: Electric systems.

3) variations of redshift. Model: dark energy. Alternative: Influence of interstellar plasma.

Then there are some mainstream models that are clearly wrong:

4) high radiation in solar corona. Model: magnetic reconnection.
Alternative: Electromagnetically active plasma.

5) Corona of Comets. Model: Icy comets with geysers.
(I personally think that this is clearly wrong)
Alternative: Electrochemistry.

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.

Then the EU has alternative models for things that seem OK in the mainstream perspective.
And these models are usually attacked by many mainstream scientists.

6) redshift related to distance. Model: inflation. Alternative: interstellar plasma.

7) alignment of stars, shape of star formations. Model: dark matter/ big bang. Alternative: electromagnetism.

8) Lines of craters. Model: mysterious impacts. Alternative: Electromagnetic discharges.

9) Birth of stars. Model: gravity induced fusion. Alternative: Electric attraction and electromagnetic discharges.

Etc.

You will get my point. Electromagnetism everywhere..

While this might not always be true, it gives a realistic alternatives to certain models.
Especially alternatives to mythical dark stuff.
So as a scientists, I am very happy: we can test different models and learn more science.
But sadly most mainstream scientists just neglect any alternative ideas, as.. pseudoscience?
That is pure bullshit. Electromagnetism is far more real than "dark matter".

The question is more: How much electromagnetism do we need to add to the system to explain
the things that we see. Because there certainly is electromagnetism.
The force of electromagnetism can be a bipolar 1/r³ or polar 1/r² or a current 1/r or a flare +-1/sqrt(r)

So, if we look at the rotation speed of galaxies, we can assume a force 1/r. Such a force would
imply a current from the side to the centre. And if we look closely at a galaxy, we can indeed see
spiral structures from the centre to the edge. Assuming these might be currents, we might expect
that stars are forming along these spirals. And indeed they do.
So instead of dark matter that we can not find in any laboratory, we now have simple
electromagnetic currents.
We could search a nearby galaxy with some stars on the background. That way we may be able to see
dark-mode plasma currents. Not very hard. And because very strong magnetic fields already have been found
in some galaxies, this electromagnetic model is very promising.
Magnetism and charged objects on a large scale might even be responsible
for the rotation speed as well, since the force of a charged object in a magnetic field is stronger
when the object moves faster. So even within the Electric model, we have plenty of alternatives to test.

And even when we find not enough to explain the rotation speed, from the direct observations of magnetic fields it is clear that we will find some interesting new features of galaxies.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:49 am

JeanTate:

Indeed.

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.


Of course Birkeland has a whole book full of calculations as did Alfven and Peratt. Then there are papers by Mann, Bruce, Lerner and many others. They don't really even *care* about their own "tests" of their own "mathematical models", otherwise "dark matter" theory would long since been dead and buried. I named ten specific failures of their "predictions" related to either their flawed baryonic mass estimates they've been using, or the *uselessness* of their "lab tests" when it comes to make "predictions" about lab results.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Their standard candle maths related to "dark energy" were also shown to be *dubious* at best, and their mathematical "predictions" about the speed of solar convection were off by two entire orders of magnitude. They don't care about math when it falsifies their own claims and never have any of them pointed out a single mathematical error made by Alfven or Peratt.

The incessant whining about a perceived "lack of math" related to EU theory is all just hypocritical personal attack nonsense. It speaks more to their own ignorance of the basic ideas than anything else. I'd bet money that for all of Jean's whining, Jean has never bothered to read the entire textbook full of maths that Peratt wrote. I guess "ignorance is bliss" if you're a hater. :)

That ignorant hit piece by Koberlein demonstrates that the mainstream doesn't even grasp the basics of EU theory, or they simply lie about it, one or the other.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Some questions for Jean Tate

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:57 am

Since you seem to be intently following this particular board and thread, I might as well ask you some questions which you're welcome to answer at ISF.

Have you read the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven? Yes or no?

Have you read any of his 100+ published papers?

Have you read Anthony Peratt's book called Physics of the Plasma Universe yet? Yes or no?

Have you read any of his published papers yet?

Those two particular books, particularly the last book that I cited would be the two *best* mathematical presentations of EU cosmology theory that I can personally think of. If you *really* actually cared at all about the mathematical underpinnings of EU theory you would have already read both books.

Have you read this particular paper yet?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

FYI it uses Holushko's (who's work I've cited online many times) "tired light" mathematical model to demonstrate that a static EU theory passes that mathematical "test" too.

Since you folks fancy yourselves as being mathematically superior the EU community, and you keep erroneously claiming that the EU model has no mathematical support, perhaps you could do us all the honor of proving your point by picking out the mathematical errors in any of those EU books and/or 100+ published papers?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Some questions for Jean Tate

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:34 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Since you folks fancy yourselves as being mathematically superior the EU community, and you keep erroneously claiming that the EU model has no mathematical support, perhaps you could do us all the honor of proving your point by picking out the mathematical errors in any of those EU books and/or 100+ published papers?


I suspect you may be waiting to the end of the universe for an answer, Michael.

And that could be a long time, given that we live in a static universe. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Some questions for Jean Tate

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:50 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Since you folks fancy yourselves as being mathematically superior the EU community, and you keep erroneously claiming that the EU model has no mathematical support, perhaps you could do us all the honor of proving your point by picking out the mathematical errors in any of those EU books and/or 100+ published papers?


I suspect you may be waiting to the end of the universe for an answer, Michael.

And that could be a long time, given that we live in a static universe. :D


LOL!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:45 am

MM said: you keep erroneously claiming that the EU model has no mathematical support, perhaps you could do us all the honor of proving your point by picking out the mathematical errors in any of those EU books and/or 100+ published papers?

I haven't read much of Peratt's or Alfven's works, but Alfven didn't well support the EU model and Peratt criticized Thornhill's model. I don't know of any math that supports the Thunderbolts EU model's electric currents in space or how the currents are generated, if stars etc don't generate them, nor of how currents can produce z-pinches strong enough to form stars and planets. What's the math for such z-pinches? Charles Chandler's EU model explains almost everything with precise math all the way. He has critiqued the TB EU model, but no one else pays much attention, unfortunately. He explained how filaments form in molecular clouds from collisions and from supernova ejecta and how the filaments achieve charge separation and then snap together to make stars, planets and exotics, how stars and planets produce relatively current-free electrical double-layers, which produce most features there, and how exotics form when the filament implosions reach higher rotational velocities and form toroidal ring currents with powerful magnetic fields instead of forming spheres. I can look up Charles' critiques of the TB model, if you like, and quote it here. Much of his model is available to read at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 for comparison with the TB model and others.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4111
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby nick c » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:49 am

Lloyd,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not intentionally attempting to hijack this thread.
Any discussion or debate of CC's theories is off topic for this thread.
Those interested in discussing/debating that topic should direct their comments here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:46 am

Dear Lloyd,

I think we're all painfully aware of the fact that there are many "options" in the EU/PC umbrella to choose from, including various "electric" solar models, different interpretations of redshift, different concepts about where energy is generated/comes from, etc. Juergen's solar model even allows for "variation" in terms of how much fusion might occur in a core of a sun vs. how much happens near the surface. There are indeed options galore to choose from in EU/PC theory, and some of them are mutually exclusive ideas.

That's also true of LCDM theory however. There's different models to describe inflation. There are various concepts relate to dark energy too. Some prefer "quintessence" over holographic dark energy models. There are different "dark matter" models to choose from in LCDM theory, ranging from axions, to WIMPS, to MACHO's and "black holes", some of which are also mutually exclusive. There will always be variety in any cosmology theory that we might try to discuss.

I specifically started this particular thread however to counter a similar debate taking place at ISF/JREF over EU theory and 'testing' and how we might falsify various ideas.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 6&t=302933

The mainsteam's track record over the past decade has been *atrocious* in terms of lab tests, and their baryonic mass estimates used in 2006 were shown to be ridiculously flawed from the start, and that too has been revealed over the past decade as well.

The mainsteam makes such a big deal about testing mathematical models, but when their own math's bite the dust like they did at LHC, they simply sweep those negative results under the run and pretend it never happened! That's certainly the case at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. Their ideas are not actually "testable" because they refuse to abide by any negative results of any of their tests! When their solar model failed to correctly predict the speed of convection, they didn't "falsify" the whole solar model did they?

Jean keeps whining so much about coming up with 'tests', but in the end they never even *care* about their own "tests" of their own models otherwise 'dark matter' theory would already be toast by now.

The other common fallacy being discussed at hater websites is mathematical modeling in EU theory, but lot's mathematical models have already been created by a variety of authors with respect to EU/PC theories (plural). That "test" of static universe theory for instance is based upon Holushko's 'tired light" concept and that also passes the same mathematical tests as LCDM.

Jean/Nereid/Dierendopa (random handle dejour of the moment) seems to be under the erroneous opinion that EU theory somehow lacks any mathematical expression. I'm just pointing out to Jean that this is simply not the case.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:55 pm

Nick, I don't try to hijack any threads. I was just curious what Michael has been discussing lately and just read the last couple of posts and was responding to that. Velikovsky inspired interest in interdisciplinary synthesis, from which the SIS got its name and direction, I think, and synthesis is important for scientific progress. Having little cliques discussing among themselves without significant input from other parties doesn't seem ideal to me at all.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4111
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:32 pm

Lloyd wrote:Nick, I don't try to hijack any threads. I was just curious what Michael has been discussing lately and just read the last couple of posts and was responding to that. Velikovsky inspired interest in interdisciplinary synthesis, from which the SIS got its name and direction, I think, and synthesis is important for scientific progress. Having little cliques discussing among themselves without significant input from other parties doesn't seem ideal to me at all.


I absolutely agree with you Lloyd. In fact, in spite of my (our) preference for a Birkeland (cathode) solar model I've recently found myself publicly defending Jeurgen's anode solar model from professional public abuse and misrepresentation on the internet.

I think that we're much stronger as a community when we stick together and we acknowledge that we still don't have all the answers yet. It's important as a community that we insist that the mainstream *correctly* portrays our various solar and cosmology models to the public.

I also strongly believe that we as a community have a duty to one another to act and behave very differently from the mainstream in terms of being open to criticism and in terms of keeping an open mind. I certainly have "preferences" as it relates to various aspects of EU theory, but I think we should all have the luxury of speaking our minds, and we should firmly insist that the mainstream *correctly* portrays the variations within EU theory.

That's all I'm really trying to do.

Birkeland actually experimented with a lot of wiring options, surfaces, sizes, magnetic fields, current, etc. He had no idea what might work best when he began his experiments. It was only *after* he had conducted a full range of such experiments that he was willing to pick a specific solar model that he liked the best.

We (as a community) haven't actually had the luxury yet of recreating Birkeland's full set of experiments. Until that has happened, I think it's wise to keep an open mind, and to be open to various options.

Until then I intend to bust the mainstream's chops for wasting valuable time and money chasing invisible sky entities, and for their blatant confirmation bias with respect to "dark matter" in particular. :)

They're like 0 for 5 or 0 for 6 in the lab now with "dark matter", yet they keep taking away our lunch money to spend on their invisible nonsense! :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:00 am

Michael Mozina wrote: think that we're much stronger as a community when we stick together and we acknowledge that we still don't have all the answers yet. It's important as a community that we insist that the mainstream *correctly* portrays our various solar and cosmology models to the public.
I agree, however, this matter is about housekeeping, not censorship. That is it concerns where certain topics are located on the forum, which is composed of several different boards. It is nothing more than that.
Read the topic title to this thread...there is plenty of comment in EU literature and videos on dark matter and mainstream's attempts to salvage the gravity only paradigm. Also the available EU materials often reference the work of Alfven and Birkeland.
If you wish to discuss CC's theories it is certainly acceptable to do so, however, that would not be appropriate on this thread.

Anyone who wishes to discuss my decision on this matter can do so by sending me a PM. Any further comments here would only serve to further derail the thread.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:03 am

Lloyd wrote:I haven't read much of Peratt's or Alfven's works, but Alfven didn't well support the EU model and Peratt criticized Thornhill's model. I don't know of any math that supports the Thunderbolts EU model's electric currents in space or how the currents are generated, if stars etc don't generate them, nor of how currents can produce z-pinches strong enough to form stars and planets.


FYI, there are a few of your comments that I feel compelled to respond to as it relates to the Jeurgen's solar model in general, and how it might it might be "wired" to the circuits of the universe that Alfven describes in his cosmology theories:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994papf.conf.....S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..DPPGP1108K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JFuE...25..141M

In terms of the mathematical aspects of z-pinches and fusion measurements in the lab, the first two papers are a good place to start. The last paper uses the Rhessi spacecraft to *verify* that the z-pinch atmospheric fusion processes that occur in electrical discharges that Scott and Thornill describe are applicable to solar physics. Now admittedly the same three papers would apply equally to *any* electric solar model, not just the model described by Jeurgen's, Scott and Thornhill.

With respect to where the currents of the universe are being generated, the basic anode model described by Jeurgens can certainly be inclusive of fusion at the core of stars, particularly the largest stars in galaxies. The amount of internal fusion can be modified in a basic anode model, just as it can be modified in Alfven's "homopolar generator" model, or any Birkeland cathode model. It could be that the largest stars in the galaxy generate a net surplus amount of energy due to greater amounts of fusion in their cores, whereas smaller stars may be net energy negative and draw power from surplus current that flows through the universal circuits that are described in Alfven's Plasma Cosmology theory. Keep in mind that according to Alfven, stars are converting their rotational spin energy into electrical energy, and that "homopolar generator" concept applies equally to any electric solar model. Some electric energy in the circuitry is generated that way as well.

In his book, and in his "bang" theories, Alfven also talked about vast clouds of preexisting matter and antimatter, and double layers composed of ambiplasma. His pre-bang universe was composed of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. These preexisting clouds of matter/antimatter might still be supplying power to our little visible sliver of the universe as well in his circuit model. His model even presumes the potential of currently existing galaxies (or stars) to be composed of antimatter, and share current and energy via ambiplasma double layers. There are many potential ways that those currents might be generated in Alfven's basic cosmology framework. I think it's important to keep an open mind with respect to energy production and the overall energy states of the circuits that Alfven describes no matter which solar model one prefers.

I can appreciate (and share) Peratt's resistance to using a Jeurgen's anode solar model that is a net *negative* energy producer. Jeurgen's model would however produce fusion locally (inside the photosphere) and at least some of the power release of the sun occurs locally, even if external currents help to facilitate that local fusion process. Jeurgen's model is actually a lot more complex than it seems at first glance. You and I may still prefer a different solar model, but Alfven's overall circuit concepts, and homopolar generator concepts would absolutely, positively still apply to a Jeurgen's style anode solar model.

Again, I'm not taking any sides with respect to solar theory in this particular thread. I'm just explaining how and where Alfven's cosmology theories can be applied to Jeurgen's solar model, as well as pretty much any EU solar model.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby kell1990 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:25 pm

I actually went over to the ISF forum (if it can even be called that) and what I found was a huge pile of personal attacks. "MM" this and "MM"that . Nothing that could dispel even the remotest challenge to their claim of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy", both of which are required to make their theory work.

In the immortal words of the late Nobel laureate Richard Feinman (to paraphrase): "If your data doesn't match the theory, then the theory is wrong." Immortal words.

Their theory doesn't match the data, so they attack the outsiders. Incredible.

But that's what we have to work with. And every day I see more and more evidence piling up on the EU/PC side of the argument.
Last edited by kell1990 on Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kell1990
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby kell1990 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:52 pm

I actually went over to the ISF forum (if it can even be called that) and what I found was a huge pile of personal attacks. "MM" this and "MM"that . Nothing that could dispel even the remotest challenge to their claim of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy", both of which are required to make their theory work.

In the immortal words of the late Nobel laureate Richard Feinman (to paraphrase): "If your data doesn't match the theory, then the theory is wrong." Immortal words.

Their theory doesn't match the data, so they attack the outsiders. Incredible.

But that's what we have to work with. Every day I see more and more evidence piling up on the EU/PC side of the argument.
kell1990
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:01 pm

If you study the history of astronomy, the first thing you realize is that anyone who has ever dared to attempt to replace supernatural creation mythology with pure empirical physics was personally maligned and attacked. Blaming the messenger is basically their last line of defense.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1190
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