Two suggestions for gaining wider acceptance of EU/PC theory

[Michael Mozina]

Particularly after reading that last paper by LIGO, I think we as a community would be well served by making a concerted effort to embrace GR theory, minus all of the metaphysical nonsense to the best of our ability. I think it's fine to resist in the introduction of "unnecessary" metaphysical concepts like "space expansion", infinitely dense "point" objects, and exotic forms of matter and energy, but IMO GR theory isn't the problem. It's all the unnecessary metaphysical junk which has been added to LCDM that's the problem with LCDM cosmology theory.

LIGO's last paper is particularly impressive IMO. It does seem to 'show' strong evidence for gravitational waves in a way they had not done before this week. It's a very impressive paper IMO, particularly when you consider that they nailed down the search for the BNS needle in the cosmological haystack to just 49 galaxies. By prioritizing their search to the larger galaxies first, they found the right one in three tries. Imagine finding the needle in a huge haystack by moving two pieces of straw. That's quite impressive. When you look at the results of subtracting out their "best fit" template from the last data set, it looks just like random noise again, demonstrating that their GR models are very good at predicting the curve they saw.

GR is a wonderful empirical theory of gravity. It may one day be replaced by a QM definition of gravity that ties all the forces together, but in the meantime I think it's in our best interest to embrace GR and offer the mainstream an olive branch in that area. GR theory isn't the problem with LCDM, LCDM is the problem with LCDM. The mainstream may try to ride the coattails of GR theory to attempt to give their LCDM claims legitamacy, but GR theory doesn't *require* exotic forms of matter and energy, nor does it *require* space expansion to occur.

The second change I'd like to see happen in our community is a renewed interest in Birkeland's cathode solar model, particularly in light of the neutrino counts and observation of 'strahl' (high speed cathode ray electrons) which stream away fromt the sun, just as BIrkeland predicted. The direction of movement of those high speed electons is *from the sun*, *toward the heliosphere*, just as Birkeland's cathode solar model predicts.

Juergen's anode solar model however predicts that those high speed electrons should be flowing *into* the sun, not away from it. That's an inherent weakness in any anode model IMO, not just Juergen's original model.

I believe that those two specific changes in our community would go a long way toward removing some of the most common objections that I hear from the mainstream , and it would make EU/PC theory a much more attractive alternative to LCMD IMO.

That's just my two cents.

[Zyxzevn]

Ah finally a discussion about GR.

I did not mind the GR theory, until I saw problems with the evidence for space-bending.

Gravity probe B produced a null-result, but with some magic they made it a success.
The Einstein-crosses and Einstein-circles look more caused by plasma than gravity.
The shifting of star-positions during solar eclipses may be caused by plasma or diffraction too.

I have not yet seen an observation of the bending of space that can not be explained by gravity alone.

Clocks does seem to be affected by gravity. But does that mean that time is affected too?

I think that GR is an interesting model, but it really needs some revision.
We may need to get back to the drawing board.

I think you can get a partial acceptance.

[Cargo]

On the first, I don't see why it's even needed. These ideas that came from a time when the combustion engine and radio was Sci-Fi. You know, the 1800's when if you would have told someone about a Jet or Rocket going above the Clouds of Gravity, you would have been taken for mad.

Your tangent of the holy LIGO equipment that is able to sense SubSpace waves, is irrelevant. Unless you believe in Neutron Stars and Black Holes, then I guess it might be important.

For the 2nd I've never heard of Juergens. So I don't see the relation to Birkeland.