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

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:35 am

Michael Mozina wrote: Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" is a well integrated presentation of EU/PC cosmology theory, as is Peratt's book. 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. Ditto for Peratt's presentation.

That is the problem; Alfven and Peratt both left the most toxic part of SM in their own works: Space time gravity.
The biggest fallacy in SM and GR is space time gravity.
Anybody accepting space time gravity as part of their model of the universe has accomplished nothing over SM.
EU's nag about plasma and electric fields should wait until you have a model of Coulomb gravity which is compatible with particle physics, quantum mechanics and string theory.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:23 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" is a well integrated presentation of EU/PC cosmology theory, as is Peratt's book. 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. Ditto for Peratt's presentation.

That is the problem; Alfven and Peratt both left the most toxic part of SM in their own works: Space time gravity.
The biggest fallacy in SM and GR is space time gravity.
Anybody accepting space time gravity as part of their model of the universe has accomplished nothing over SM.
EU's nag about plasma and electric fields should wait until you have a model of Coulomb gravity which is compatible with particle physics, quantum mechanics and string theory.


These types of conversations underscore the fact that the EU/PC community is a very diverse group, with lots of different points of view. :)

I can appreciate your desire to move us toward a description of gravity that is compatible with QM and particle physics, but the life of me I have no idea why it has to, or should be compatible with string theory. I don't even see any evidence that string theory would help anything to start with, or that it has any scientific merit.

I tend to disagree with the notion that GR theory itself is the most toxic part of the SM. I think all the optional metaphysical dark stuff is the most toxic part of the SM. Dark matter, dark energy, space expansion and inflation are the worst parts of the SM model from my perspective.

I do believe it's likely that the EM field is the cause of the strong and weak force, as well as gravity, but I would hate to think that we'd have to all agree on a specific GUT before EU/PC theory replaces the SM. That could take a very long time indeed.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:55 am

Michael Mozina wrote: ...

EU needs to make a contribution above and beyond Alfven and Peratt.
EU also needs an official spokesperson representing EU's positions on space science.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:50 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: ...

EU needs to make a contribution above and beyond Alfven and Peratt.
EU also needs an official spokesperson representing EU's positions on space science.


I think that Eric Lerner has made some important contributions in terms of supporting a static universe, and I love Dr. Scott's recent Birkeland current paper.

In terms of cosmology theory and astronomy in general however, the biggest obstacle to progress seems to be related to the mainstream's unwillingness to accept the role of the *electric* field in space. It's blocking all progress in relationship to solar physics, and cosmology theory in general.

IMO until the mainstream starts to recognize the value of Alfven's work and Peratt's work and Birkeland's work, it really doesn't matter what we publish.

Solar physics has the most to gain by embracing electric fields in space, but almost every aspect of cosmology will benefit as well. Until that bigotry towards electric fields and current flow in space is dealt with, I really don't see how any real progress can take place. We could write the "perfect" cosmology theory based on an elegant GUT, and it would still be ignored by the mainstream for exactly the same reasons that every other aspect of EU/PC theory is ignored by the mainstream. They have this huge chip on their shoulder as it relates to anything related to electricity in space.

When I put up my website on Birkeland's solar model, I fully expected to meet a lot of resistance over the concept of a layered solar atmosphere and a "rigid" surface below the surface of the photosphere, but I actually took much more grief over the electrical aspects of his model. That really surprised me. I didn't think that part of Birkeland's model was even particularly controversial and it goes a long way to explaining aspects of solar physics which are are currently unexplained in the standard solar model.

The moment I started debating the idea on "Bad Astronomy" (now Cosmoquest), I got labelled an "EU crackpot". At the time, I had no idea what EU/PC theory was even about. I was just interested in discussing solar physics and satellite imagery. That conversation at Bad Astronomy, and that accusation of being part of the EU/PC community was one of the things that motivated me to check out the EU/PC cosmology model, and to read Alfven's work and Peratt's work for myself. I could *never* go back now to supporting the LCDM cosmology model.

The main obstacle to acceptance seems to be directly related to the mainstream's irrational electrophobia, not due to a lack of material to support the EU/PC model.

The mainstream has put so many eggs in the CMB basket, it's a almost impossible to get through to them. Eddington predicted the average temperature in space to within 1/2 of one degree on his very first attempt based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. It took BB proponents three or four tries to get any closer than he did to the correct number. The mainstream *still* think's they're able to see a mythical "surface of last scattering" on the walls of a snow globe universe, hence the whole BICEP2 fiasco.

The mainstream is too electophobic to listen to any theory that includes the influence of electric fields in space. It wouldn't matter what we published IMO. If it included electric fields, it would be immediately ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Maybe it's the season but I'm less pessimistic.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:00 pm

It just may be the season, but I'm feeling more optimistic about the future of astronomy during my lifetime. 10 years ago, I just couldn't see a clear path to change. With the upcoming capabilities of the Webb telescope however and the potential to exclude WIMP intersections down into the realm of neutrino interactions in the next five years, I can see now how things could actually start to shift away from the LCDM model.

It certainly should be a more interesting decade ahead than the one behind us. I foresee a lot of serious soul searching lies ahead for the mainstream over the next 5-10 years.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Maybe it's the season but I'm less pessimistic.

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:09 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:It just may be the season, but I'm feeling more optimistic about the future ...

Happy New Year Michael !
Bengt Nyman
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:40 pm

The NCGT Journal at http://ncgt.org publishes EU articles occasionally. Louis Hissink is one of their editors. He calls himself a plasma cosmologist, I think. Bruce Leybourne seems to write there sometimes, I guess, and he has a Stellar Transformer Earth model for the Earth. Louis said NCGT assumes the Big Bang etc so Catastrophism may be hard sell there, but I'm working on it. They published my letter the June issue. I'm working as a facilitator at the CNPS site forum at http://naturalphilosophy.org , and some of their members support EU. I still favor Charles Chandler's Electrostatic Universe model.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Xantos » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:22 am

Don't worry.

PhysicistAI will prove Mainstream Physicists wrong and make them obsolete by 2025. By 2050, we are leaving this galaxy.
Xantos
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: Time and technology are on our side

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:59 am

Xantos wrote:Don't worry.

PhysicistAI will prove Mainstream Physicists wrong and make them obsolete by 2025. By 2050, we are leaving this galaxy.


Interesting concept. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests