Time and technology are on our side

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

Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:48 pm

IMO the two areas of science where the LCDM model is the "weakest" relate to their insistence in the existence of exotic forms of matter (CDM), and their claims about the 'evolution' of the "early universe".

A decade or so ago, the mainstream "assumed" that LHC would help them find their beloved exotic matter. The reality however with LHC is that it utterly *crushed* their best dark matter models out of existence, along with the mathematical basis for their beloved WIMP models (SUSY theory). SUSY theory isn't just on life support anymore, it's dead and buried. WIMPS today really have no real mathematical basis for their existence, but they just won't die a natural scientific death. Of course there are "little Higg's concepts and extra spacetime dimension concepts' that also predict "WIMP like" particle, but SUSY theory was in fact the primary basis for WIMP claims, and SUSY theory went down in flames at LHC. Not a single new "sparticle' was produced or observed at LHC, and the standard particle physics model has proven to be extremely accurate at predicting even secondary decay processes with unbelievable accuracy. Every WIMP claim either requires SUSY, or it requires the existence of additional spacetime dimensions, or both. Axion and sterile neutrino concepts don't tend to work very well in the mainstream computer models, and they too have been studied and falsified by recent high precision experiments.

What started out as optimistic enthusiasm as it relates to dark matter claims a decade ago has since turned into a kind of dark matter zombie apocalypse. The dark matter concept won't die, even though the entire mathematical basis for the concept has been utterly destroyed. The mainstream makes such a big deal about their mathematical prowess, but they've struck out consistently in terms of their mathematical claims about DM. It's like being a mathematical expert on astrology. Sure, the math has value as it relates to the movement of objects in the sky, but their mathematical expertise is *useless* in terms of predicting events in the lab.

LUX-LZ, Pandax-III and Xenon-NT will push the WIMP interaction cross section with ordinary matter right down into the realm of neutrino interactions. At that point they'll be no way to distinguish between them. For all intents and purposes, those three experiments are the 'last hurrah" of WIMP theory. If they don't find anything (and we already know from the LHC results that they won't), then WIMP theory will have died a slow and agonizing death in the lab and even the WIMP zombies will be dead and buried. All this will occur over the next 5-7 years.

The next LCDM zombie apocalypse relates to quasars. They keep showing up further and further back in time, at higher and higher energy levels. Quasars should not have formed so "early" in a big bang universe. They keep defying all the mainstream computer models. Things will only get much worse when the James Webb Space Telescope starts returning images of the distant universe. Unlike Hubble, JWST will be able to probe a wider wavelength range which will let it see more distant galaxies and more 'redshifted' objects. It not only contains a larger reflection area, it has the ability to look much further due to it's improved wavelength sensitivity.

The mainstream already struggles to (doesn't) explain distant quasars as it stands, but as quasars show up at greater distances, it's only going to get worse for them. Unlike with LHC, I'm sensing and feeling enthusiasm for JWST but unlike with LHC before it started up, I'm not seeing any real confidence that JWST will "validate" the LCDM model. It feels like there's enthusiasm for the improvement in technology and enthusiasm for the new images the JWST will produce, but I'm also sensing some real fear and trepidation about what JWST might do to their cosmology model. It's not clear what exactly JWST will produce in terms of images yet, and I think they already know that. If it does keep showing the presence of massively energetic quasars even further back in time, and mature galaxies as far as it can see, it's going to create huge a dilemma for the LCDM model. The mainstream already has to resort to exotic 'dark stars" and absurd ad-hoc explanations to attempt to explain high redshfit Hubble observations, and t's only going to get worse once the JWST images start arriving IMO.

If photon redshift is in fact related to "tired light" rather than space expansion, then deep field JWST images should show us mature, well defined galaxies and massive quasars in it's deep field images, just as Hubble deep field images show us today. If however redshift is related to expansion as the mainstream claims, then galaxies and quasars should stop being visible beyond a certain redshift. It takes time for galaxies to form and to grow in the LCMD model. It takes quasars even more time to form in mainstream models. Quasars also happen to be the brightest objects in the universe, so they will be visible as far back in time as they exist, or that JWST can hope to observe. JWST will have the technology to quite literally blow the LCDM model out of the water in deep field images. If like Hubble, JWST also observes "mature' galaxies and massive quasars as far back in time/distance as it can observe, the party will be over for LCDM proponents.

Keep in mind that not only will the WiMP zombie apocalypse run it's course and be completed at the smallest scales by around 2025, the JWST should have returned images by then which blow away their claims at the largest possible scales. Astronomy is on track to experience a "quantum shift", and an epiphany experience over the next decade.

As LHC has already demonstrated, time and technology have been on our side, and it continues to be on our side. When you look however at where things are headed, the LCDM model is likely to be ripped to shreds within the next decade. If they don't find actual evidence of WIMPS in the next round of Xenon experiments, and they keep finding massive quasars in JWST images, LCDM won't survive another decade.

Personally I think that the jig will be up when JWST starts returning deep field images. I don't believe that the mainstream is emotionally or scientifically prepared for what it is likely to see in those images. I think even they know that there is a distinct possibility that JWST will blow their model away, which is why the enthusiasm seems to be somewhat muted by trepidation.

IMO, things are likely to remain as they are though about 2022-4 and then I think that all hell is going to break loose in astronomy. :) History has consistently demonstrated that metaphysics is always replaced with real empirical explanations sooner or later. Astronomy will be no different.

I for one am really looking forward to JWST images. LHC and other experiments can and have already blown away their mathematical models at the smallest scales on the ground, but JWST will have the ability to blow away their model at the largest possible scales. Recent Hubble images are already pushing their model to it's limits, but JWST will leave them with no place to hide IMO.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby willendure » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:50 pm

Yes, fingers crossed the JWST gets up there safely, its going to be very impressive.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby verisimilitude » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:22 pm

Meanwhile, they will continue to simply assume Inflation is correct, even though was an afterthought to explain away both the Horizon and Galaxy Formation Problems. I have yet to see any density calculations to account for the virtually uniform CMBR other than "it had to be infinite." Five to seven more years of that as an answer... ugh.

LCDM: United as one, Divided by zero.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby antosarai » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:58 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:... will leave them with no place to hide IMO.

Do you believe the fall of LCDM means the rise of EU?
antosarai
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:44 pm

antosarai wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:... will leave them with no place to hide IMO.

Do you believe the fall of LCDM means the rise of EU?


Absolutely. I think it's almost a given in fact. The moment one switches from believing that redshift is caused by expansion to believing that redshift is caused by inelastic scattering, everything that we observe in space is easily explainable by ordinary plasma physics and gravity, including the heat source of the corona, "dark"(ish) galaxies, galaxy rotation patterns, and plasma redshift.

It's highly likely that once their need for metaphysics is removed, Hannes Alfven's work and particularly Anthony Peratt's work will become much more attractive empirical and mathematical options to the mainsttream. I also think that Kristian Birkeland's work and Charles Bruce's explanations on the electrical aspects of solar physics will begin to look a lot more attractive once Alfven's work on circuit theory in space is given it's rightful due. The solar physics changes might take more time IMO, but EU/PC theory is already the second most common cosmology theory. I think it will simply continue to grow until there's a wholesale abandonment of LCDM.

As it stands now, the mainstream is totally convinced that only space expansion can explain photon redshift, and they therefore consistently underestimate the amount of photon scattering taking place, hence their reliance upon invisible forms of matter to explain the mass of distant galaxies.

I am also quite certain that the mainstream will want and need some mathematically models of spacetime processes to work on. Peratt's book on EU/PC theory in particular is second to none in terms of offering that kind of mathematical framework. Alfven's book is great too of course, but it's actually nowhere near as sophisticated as Peratt's book (and his computer modeling) on cosmology theory. Eric Lerner and Donald Scott will also be given their rightful due IMO in terms of their mathematical modeling. At the moment all their collective works remain pretty much unknown to the mainstream, but that will change sooner or later.

The mainstream is so caught up at the moment on the focusing on the CMB data that they cannot see the forest for the trees in terms of mathematical models related to EU/PC theory. They seem to erroneously believe that 'there is no math to support EU/PC theory". I hear that ridiculous nonsense all the time, and of course it's not true. It may however "seem" that way in comparison to the highly finely tuned LCMD model, but the LCDM model is mostly based on pure metaphysics and pseudoscience.

The mainstream won't want to give up GR theory even when they do give up their belief in "space expansion", and they'll still want to create and use mathematical models to describe the universe. EU/PC theory is a natural replacement IMO. With the rise of gravitational wave observations, I seriously doubt that they'll quickly or easily abandon their belief in "black holes" or neutron stars however, but I don't really have a problem with that.

Assuming that JWST gets into orbit safely and works as expected, I'm pretty sure that I'll live long enough to see the transition from LCMD to EU?PC cosmology theory. I'm not as certain about the solar physics transition prospects during my lifetime, but I'm pretty sure that the spaceweather folks already find some EU/PC ideas attractive as it relates to the heat source of the corona, and explaining CME's. That change may happen in my lifetime as well, but I'm convinced that JWST will be the catalyst of change in cosmology theory. I'm just crossing my fingers that the launch goes off without a hitch. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:24 am

Michael Mozina wrote: Absolutely...

I would add a couple of things:
1. The Standard Model is a political construction for the purpose of controlling the moneys going into space science. SM will never acknowledge EU but will be happy to steal suitable parts as a way to maintain control.
2. EU lacks the understanding of the importance of the recycling effect of black holes, seeding the universe with fresh energy bits, among other things giving birth to new stars.
3. The math pointing to this phenomenon may actually be the reason why SM is fumbling with different forms of dark stuff.
4. Quantum theory correctly points out that the weak point in SM is their lack of a credible mechanism for gravity, i.e. politely implicating space time.
5. If EU would focus their criticism of SM to where there is room for improvement and promote a credible mechanism for gravity, the scientific world outside SM would surely listen.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:49 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: Absolutely...

I would add a couple of things:
1. The Standard Model is a political construction for the purpose of controlling the moneys going into space science. SM will never acknowledge EU but will be happy to steal suitable parts as a way to maintain control.


The only parts of EU/PC theory that mainstream might hope to steal without destroying itself in short order would be aspects of solar physics and homopolar generator concepts related to "black holes". Both issues however come with "risks' to their cosmology model. It's difficult to pick and choose their poison without risking the death of their entire model IMO.

2. EU lacks the understanding of the importance of the recycling effect of black holes, seeding the universe with fresh energy bits, among other things giving birth to new stars.


I think that depends on whom you ask:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

3. The math pointing to this phenomenon may actually be the reason why SM is fumbling with different forms of dark stuff.


I think they fumble with dark stuff because they continue to underestimate the amount of scattering taking place in space, and their mass calculation models based on light are therefore FUBAR.

4. Quantum theory correctly points out that the weak point in SM is their lack of a credible mechanism for gravity, i.e. politely implicating space time.


Perhaps. It does seem likely that a QM oriented description of gravity is eventually bound to replace GR. They're still pretty emotionally attached to GR however.

5. If EU would focus their criticism of SM to where there is room for improvement and promote a credible mechanism for gravity, the scientific world outside SM would surely listen.


I agree that an accepted EU oriented definition of gravity could open that door, but it's hard to open that door without destroying the whole basis for the LCMD model. I think a lot of the resistance is related to the fact that many astronomers have now spent their entire careers chasing metaphysical rainbows in the sky rather than focusing on empirical physical solutions. It's emotionally, professionally, and financially difficult to 'come out the metaphysical closet" and admit that one's professional career has been a waste to time. SUSY proponents have had to deal with that problem already but the rest of them aren't willing to go there yet.

IMO the basic problem is the fact that 95 percent (actually more) of BB theory is based on pure metaphysical nonsense and virtually everyone involved in the theoretical side of astrophysics is committed to demonstrating/proving some metaphysical claim or another. There just aren't that many astronomers that don't have dirty metaphysical hands, or that don't something to lose by embracing EU/PC theory. Amateurs like myself can make that transition quite easily, but if your entire career is based on promoting metaphysical dark stuff or inflation, it's a much more complicated and emotionally and professionally painful transition to real physics. Such a transition is a career path destroyer at the moment because it threatens the whole industry, and they react very badly. Just look at Halton Arp's scenario. The mainstream has so much to lose in terms of prestige, funding and credibility that they tend to overreact to anyone who challenges them from a scientific perspective.

The leadership of astrophysics have become a lot like the "church clergy" when Bruno and Galileo were trying to 'change the system". It's simply easier for the astrophysical clergy to burn their heretics at the public stake than it is to let go of their power. People tend to resist change as it is, but when there is so much financial and professional prestige at stake, things tend to get ugly in a hurry.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:21 am

If SM is 90 % right, EU should recognize this and work on the remaining 10%.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:05 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:If SM is 90 % right, EU should recognize this and work on the remaining 10%.


True, but therein lies the rub, and it speaks to the heart of the problem. The operative word in that sentence is "if".

A full 95 percent of the standard cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance which are a direct result of their gross underestimation of the effects of inelastic scattering in a plasma medium. The remaining 5 percent is mostly 'pseudoscience' according to Hannes Alfven. That means that virtually the entire SM is metaphysical garbage that must eventually be replaced with real empirical physics. There's not a lot of room for empirical compromise IMO.

I'd agree with you if there actually was anything substantive about the SM that was accurate, but as it stands, I don't really see any logical empirical way to compromise with the LCDM crowd. They're completely and utterly emotionally and professionally attached to metaphysical constructs at the moment, and virtually everything they believe to be true is actually false. They believe in a specific age of the universe, whereas the universe is probably infinite and eternal. They believe that a metaphysical form of energy called "inflation' caused that creation process to occur, but hemispheric variations in the CMB demonstrate that such a claim is completely wrong. Penrose even demonstrated that is 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a flat universe would occur *with* inflation rather than without it. They believe that the universe is dominated by invisible forms of matter and energy that simply do not exist and for which there is no empirical laboratory evidence to support it. They believe that "space expansion" is the cause of photon redshift, whereas it's just ordinary inelastic scattering in plasma that causes photons to lose some of their momentum to the medium through which they travel. They think that the CMB represents some mythical surface of last scattering, but Eddington explained that it's simply the average temperature of spacetime as a result of the scattering of starlight on the 'dust" of spacetime. There just isn't that much in common between our two communities. I wish things were different, but unfortunately I see little if any common empirical middle ground to work with. Even their mathematical modeling of plasma is completely messed up because they refuse to include the effects of the electric fields that permeate spacetime. Their whole model is metaphysical bathwater. There's simply no empirical baby in the SM model to work with. The whole SM needs to simply be tossed out and they need to start over from scratch if they are ever to offer any real empirical explanations to events in space.

About the only common ground that *might* exist is the concept of gravitational waves and heavy objects, and that is one area where our community might be able to "give a little". Beyond that however, there's just no empirical middle ground to work with in the SM. The SM is all metaphysics and pseudoscience. It's like trying to find middle ground with astrologers.

Once we get beyond the movement of objects inside the solar system, and we start discussing cosmology theory, there's simply no empirical middle ground to work with in the SM. That is why the transition to EU/PC theory is so difficult for them, and why they vehemently and violently reject any attempt to lead them to empirical solutions. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to (empirical) water, but you can't make them drink.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:39 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:If SM is 90 % right, EU should recognize this and work on the remaining 10%.

A full 95 percent of the standard cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance ...

Michael, your angry and exaggerated condemnation of contemporary cosmology hurts both yourself and EU.
SM relies too heavily on GR because that's all they got. It's up to us to give them something better.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby verisimilitude » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:35 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
4. Quantum theory correctly points out that the weak point in SM is their lack of a credible mechanism for gravity, i.e. politely implicating space time.

Michael Mozina wrote:Perhaps. It does seem likely that a QM oriented description of gravity is eventually bound to replace GR. They're still pretty emotionally attached to GR however.

QM is Particle Physics sans Gravity. GR is Gravity sans Particle Physics. They are not reconcilable, which makes the idea of Inflation an absolute joke:

Gravity+Scalar Field (comprised of vacuum energy)=Quantum Gravity. But the scalar vacuum energy is commonly seen as the L in LCDM, so Quantum Gravity=Having_Cake+Eating_It.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:02 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:If SM is 90 % right, EU should recognize this and work on the remaining 10%.

A full 95 percent of the standard cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance ...

Michael, your angry and exaggerated condemnation of contemporary cosmology hurts both yourself and EU.
SM relies too heavily on GR because that's all they got. It's up to us to give them something better.


Well, I certainly won't deny that I'm upset and even somewhat 'angry' about being lied to and more importantly lied about by the mainstream, but I'm not sure what part(s) of my statements that you feel are "exaggerated".

IMO GR theory is simply mathematical window dressing that is being used to introduce invisible (and metaphysical) forms of matter and energy galore into the equations and into the conversation. Between DM and DE, metaphysical stuff makes us a full 95 percent of the SM in terms of mass/energy. How can that fact possibly be exaggerated? At most I could exaggerate a total of five percent. :) That 95 percent figure is not even including their gawd awful metaphysical claims about inflation and "space expansion", so 95 percent is *conservative* if anything, it's certainly not 'exaggerated.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that the remaining five percent of actual plasma in the SM is mostly modeled using "magnetic reconnection' theory, a concept and a mathematical framework that Alfven himself rejected as "pseudoscience" till the day that he died, and a concept that is made obsolete in all current carrying environments by Alfven's own double layer paper. Again, I'm not making that up, nor am I exaggerating that fact.

GR theory does not require the existence of exotic forms of matter or energy, space expansion or inflation. Big bang proponents added four unsupported and highly metaphysical claims to a "blunder" variation of GR theory. Einstein himself called the introduction of a non zero constant into GR "my biggest blunder".

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... t-blunder/

“My biggest blunder”

In his memoirs,15 the émigré Russian scientist George Gamow reported that Einstein once described the cosmological constant as “my biggest blunder.”


Einstein also bluntly rejected the concept of black holes as well:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-2007-04/

In his 1939 paper Einstein credits his renewed concern about the Schwarzschild radius to discussions with Princeton cosmologist Harold P. Robertson and with his assistant Peter G. Bergmann. It was certainly Einstein's intention in this paper to kill off the Schwarzschild singularity once and for all. At the end of it he writes, The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why Schwarzschild singularities do not exist in physical reality. In other words, black holes cannot exist.

To make his point, Einstein focused on a collection of small particles moving in circular orbits under the inuence of one another's gravitation--in effect, a system resembling a spherical star cluster. He then asked whether such a configuration could collapse under its own gravity into a stable star with a radius equal to its Schwarzschild radius. He concluded that it could not, because at a somewhat larger radius the stars in the cluster would have to move faster than light in order to keep the configuration stable.


Now of course you can choose to argue that Einstein was simply wrong about the validity of adding a non-zero cosmological constant, and/or that Einstein was simply wrong about black holes and Alfven was wrong about 'magnetic reconnection" being 'pseudoscience", but I'm not exaggerating these points, I'm simply noting the historical facts.

As I mentioned earlier, the EU/PC community could choose to "give a little" with respect to embracing GR theory (which I do), and give a little with respect to the possibility of black holes (which I do) and even give a little with respect to magnetic reconnection models (which I do), but I have no interest at all in giving much in terms of introducing exotic forms of matter or energy until and unless I see them produced in a lab. As it stands, I see no empirical evidence to support their existence, and I can think of many ways to live without them in terms of explaining events in space.

I would admit that I'm not thrilled or happy about being forced to live in the dark ages of physics, but I really don't believe that I'm guilty of exaggeration. It's no exaggeration that most of LCDM is based upon metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's no exaggeration that it's also based on dubious claims about inflation and 'space expansion" either. These are simply the facts.

I also think it's a tad naive to believe that the mainstream will quickly or easily give up GR theory in favor of a QM model of gravity. Any new QM oriented model of gravity would have to deal with things like time dilation, and predict the orbit of Mercury at least as well as GR. It's not going to be an easy sell if only because the mainstream is now 'comfortable' with GR theory in terms of the mathematical implications of that theory, as well as the "flexibility' it offers them in terms of being able to add "optional' metaphysical elements like space expansion and invisible forms of mass and energy. They've become quite comfortable with GR and quite adept at adding optional components to it. It's going to be a 'tough sell' to get them to switch to a QM oriented definition of gravity unless and until a new theory can tie all the forces of nature together into a single package deal.

I'll cop to being upset about how I've been treated in public by the mainstream, but I really don't believe that I'm exaggerating the problem of trying to find middle empirical ground with a SM theory that is only 5 percent empirical to start with at best case, and again that's not even including concepts like inflation or space expansion. I'd be curious to see if *anyone* in our community would accept concepts like dark energy or dark matter or inflation *prior to* finding empirical laboratory justification for such claims. I know that I would never compromise on those issues without valid empirical laboratory support of those ideas, and I frankly doubt that will ever happen. It's certainly not necessary to introduce such concepts simply to explain observations in space. There are many better, and better empirically demonstrated ways to explain everything that is supposedly "explained' by introducing placeholder terms for human ignorance to explain photon redshift or observations of 'missing mass".

Perhaps the "angry" element in my responses hurts my own personal reputation at times, but I don't really see how I've exaggerated the problems with the SM, nor do I think I'm hurting EU/PC theory by pointing out these serious problems in terms of finding common empirical ground with the mainstream. IMO, I'm just being honest and realistic. I've already compromised as far as I'm likely to compromise with the mainstream, and in fact I've probably compromised more than most in the EU/PC community. What is the percentage of EU/PC proponents who are willing to accept GR theory as it was taught by Einstein, or accept the concept of massively heavy objects (black holes) and concepts like gravitational waves? I feel like I've already bent over backwards to "compromise' and I've seen nothing remotely resembling compromise from the mainstream. They refuse to even accept that electrical current is the heat source of the corona for crying out loud. That seems like the *easiest* and most logical compromise possible since it's already been demonstrated in the lab, and the mainstream doesn't even have a physically demonstrated explanation for a sustained full sphere 'hot' corona.

Where do you believe that they are likely to start compromising with our community?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:53 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Where do you believe that they are likely to start compromising with our community?


Never. They will just steal what they think they can use. Same as has always been.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:36 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Where do you believe that they are likely to start compromising with our community?

I don't. EU sees itself as a formidable opponent to SM. SM, the general science community and the public does not. EU does not offer an integrated image of space, instead EU picks the raisins out of the SM fruitcake but does not bake a cake of its own.

SM understands that the institutions and the public who fund them need the illusion of a whole cake before anybody buys. Never mind that the SM cake contains parts that are indigestible.

A marketable EU cake must be free of old placeholder nonsense and must be 100% digestible even if the details of QM and SP offers little or no nourishment to most people.

In my opinion, an EU model which still contains space time as a placeholder for gravity fails its mission to point out that gravity is ELECTRIC. The key here is electric charge, not electric current. Sansbury recognized this which was later adopted by Wal, unfortunately both of them tripped on the rather complex details. I explained in 1996 how electric gravity works and have not had a reason to change it since.

It's ironic that Don Scott in a video in 2012 talks about Dr. Anthony Peratt's computer simulations of clouds of electrical charges behaving as if in space, but stating that it: "demonstrates the laws of electrical science, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY". He should have said that it: "demonstrates the laws of electrical science, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EINSTEIN SPACE TIME, but demonstrates the fundamentals of Coulomb electric gravity.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:51 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Where do you believe that they are likely to start compromising with our community?

I don't. EU sees itself as a formidable opponent to SM. SM, the general science community and the public does not.


I think that's true, but I believe that's mostly because the vast majority of astronomers know almost nothing about EU/PC theory. Most of what they think they know about it is inaccurate because their opinions come from EU/PC hater blogs, not from Alfven's actual work, or Peratt's work or Birkeland's actually writings. They're mostly just uniformed and misinformed about EU/PC theory.

EU does not offer an integrated image of space, instead EU picks the raisins out of the SM fruitcake but does not bake a cake of its own.


Hmmm. I'd have to say that I vehemently disagree with that assessment. Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" is a well integrated presentation of EU/PC cosmology theory, as is Peratt's book. The problem IMO is that most astronomers and most people in general have simply never read those books.

I really don't agree about us "picking the raisins" concept either. About the only "raisin" of the mainstream model that Alfven uses in his book is the basic solar model and GR theory to describe gravity. Everything else is based on circuit theory. There's no dark energy, no dark matter, and no pseudoscience in his book. Ditto for Peratt's presentation.

SM understands that the institutions and the public who fund them need the illusion of a whole cake before anybody buys. Never mind that the SM cake contains parts that are indigestible.


But that's just it. The SM model is at least 95 percent indigestible and members of the public like myself find it to be unimpressive. It sounds legit only because it proclaims to know when the universe began but once you look under the hood a bit, it's hard to miss the fact that the SM is using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe most of the universe. IMO most people just don't care that much about astronomy so they simply ignore the problems and don't peek under the hood. That's the only reason the public "accepts" it.

A marketable EU cake must be free of old placeholder nonsense and must be 100% digestible even if the details of QM and SP offers little or no nourishment to most people.


Just out of curiosity, which part(s) of Cosmic plasma or Physics of the Plasma Universe did you find to be indigestible?

In my opinion, an EU model which still contains space time as a placeholder for gravity fails its mission to point out that gravity is ELECTRIC.


IMO EU doesn't need to negate the influence of gravity so much as it needs to make sure that the electric field takes it's rightful place in cosmology. It would be "nice" if we could all agreed on a specific "theory of everything", but I don't personally feel that it's necessary to do so.

The key here is electric charge, not electric current. Sansbury recognized this which was later adopted by Wal, unfortunately both of them tripped on the rather complex details. I explained in 1996 how electric gravity works and have not had a reason to change it since.


I need to make an effort this holiday season to check out your work. I really haven't done so yet, and i think it's high time that I check it out a bit.

It's ironic that Don Scott in a video in 2012 talks about Dr. Anthony Peratt's computer simulations of clouds of electrical charges behaving as if in space, but stating that it: "demonstrates the laws of electrical science, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY". He should have said that it: "demonstrates the laws of electrical science, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EINSTEIN SPACE TIME, but demonstrates the fundamentals of Coulomb electric gravity.


I do think it's a mistake to try to overly minimize the effects of gravity, and I think our community is at times guilty of doing so. You are probably correct that gravity is a secondary effect of living inside of an electromagnetic universe, but like I said, I don't believe we *must* have an agreed upon "theory of everything" to be attractive to SM proponents. In fact, that might be counterproductive. I think most SM proponents would at least like to believe that they can take their GR skills with them, even if they toss out all the "dark" nonsense. I don't really have a problem using GR to model gravity in the EU model so long as the other EM effects are properly dealt with and accounted for.

After my last conversation on this topic with Selfsim over at CF, I'm starting to realize that the biggest obstacle of change is all the blatant misinformation and the overt attempt of EU/PC haters to control the content of the internet. The conversations are currently dominated by a few very vocal, ignorant and flat out dishonest mainstream individuals. They seem to control the WIKI pages and mainstream astronomy websites, and they seem to spew more false statements about EU/PC theory than true statements. That's a serious problem because as I mentioned before, most of the public, and even most astronomers are simply not interested in spending the time to properly educate themselves about EU/PC theory. It's simply easier for them to believe what they've been told for years, and to believe what they read on a single blog page or two about EU/PC theory. Unfortunately most of that material is simply a completely dishonest presentation of the EU/PC model. The authors typically have an agenda, specifically protecting the status quo. They therefore flat out lie about our models, like that no neutrino nonsense, and their false claims about EU/PC theory not offering any mathematical support.

I do think that the whole dark matter fiasco is finally having an impact on younger astronomers who are starting to see the handwriting on the wall. The younger astronomers haven't spent their whole career invested in those ideas, so I think that change will eventually begin from the bottom up. I also think that the SM is headed for a crisis as it relates to JWST images. If photon redshift isn't related to expansion (and I know its' not), then we will see mature galaxies and massive quasars to the limits of JWST's abilities. That's going to blow their minds as it blows their creation mythology out of the water. I believe that we live inside of an infinite and static universe, and I'm sure that JWST will demonstrate that to be the case.

Assuming the JWST launches safely, and performs as expected, it's going to start returning images that simply don't fit with the big bang model. That IMO will lead to a crisis for the SM. Like I said, time and technology are on our side, but we're inching ever closer to a quantum leap in technology in terms of being able to produce higher resolution and higher quality deep field images. I think those images specifically will be the downfall of the SM.

I still keep holding out some hope for the Parker probe too, but the mainstream seems pretty unwilling to embrace reality as it relates the *obvious* heat source of the corona, namely the electric field that sustains it. I think the spaceweather folks may know what's going on now, but the rest of them are so heavily invested in MR theory that they refuse to embrace reality. I'm skeptical about that changing anytime soon.

I think the surest way to demonstrate that solar wind is driven by an electric field would be to string out a long tether towards the sun and measure the voltage at both ends, but that's not even on the drawing board at the moment.

I am however quite optimistic that JWST deep field images will be a game changer.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests