A prediction of victory by 2030

[Michael Mozina]

I'm feeling pretty optimistic now about the odds of me living to see the transition from supernatural dogma to real empirical physics in the field of astronomy. I believe that the odds are in my favor now, and I haven't always felt that way.

That last quasar study, and it's damaging effect on the dark energy concept has me a bit "giddy" frankly. I'm not necessarily betting the farm that the mainstream will abandon the whole dark energy concept anytime soon, but that recent study further damages the credibility of the LCDM model, and particularly the subjective interpretation that redshift is due to expansion. A simple non-zero constant in GR evidently won't suffice to explain redshift.

That recent dark energy blowup comes on the heals of a completely miserable decade for dark matter research too. Between the dozens of failed DM tests and another important failed test of dark energy, it's getting pretty difficult for the mainstream to claim that the LCDM model correctly predicts anything observed at higher redshifts or in the lab. It's been one gigantic fail after another after another.

Even if the FCC is fully funded, it will take close to 20 years before it's ready to deliver any useful data, and there's certainly no guarantee that it's going to help the DM concept when/if it comes online. In fact a new collider could end up being even more damaging to the idea of stable forms of exotic matter than LHC has been. There aren't even any "good" exotic dark matter candidates to choose from which don't create more problems than they profess to solve in terms of improving/explaining the remaining enigmas of the standard particle physics model.

Between the two new solar probes that are either in orbit as we speak or in design, and the JWST finally being launched early next decade, I think the mainstream is going to be in big trouble pretty soon. There won't be a lot of room to hide if JWST shows 'mature" galaxies for as far as it can see as Hubble has done. Hubble long distance lensing studies have already been rather unkind to mainstream theory as it relates to galaxy evolution claims.

The LCDM doesn't really haven any solid legs to stand on anymore as it is, and some additional bad news is likely to start motivating some of he younger astronomers to seek better answers than they're currently getting with the LCDM model. How long can anyone be happy with a model that is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance and has little if any predictive value at all?

Empirical physics always trumps supernatural dogma eventually, so we all know it's only a matter of time. Time however seems to running out for the LCDM model. There's not much left standing in the LCDM model after the last decade, and the next decade looks to be even more challenging for the mainstream model of cosmology.

A decade ago I was rather pessimistic about living long enough to see a transition from LCMD to an EU/PC cosmology model, but I'm becoming more optimistic every year. Every year there seems to be at least one new revelation that simply doesn't conform to the LCDM model. This year the dark energy wheel fell off the wagon.

I'm no spring chicken, but I am in good health and I might live another 25+ years. I think that will be long enough to see the transition occur. We'll see.

[jacmac]

Victory by 2030 is a good target.
Today this link from Ben Davidson:
https://www.pppl.gov/news/2019/02/steve ... e-saturday
With the Magnetic Universe here, the Electric Universe must be around the corner.

[nick c]

Michael,
I don't know about a "victory" per se. But what you will see is the usurpation of EU concepts into mainstream with no admission of priority. And when you point that out to them, they will say, "oh, that has been known for a long time."

[Michael Mozina]

Victory by 2030 is a good target.
Today this link from Ben Davidson:
https://www.pppl.gov/news/2019/02/steve ... e-saturday
With the Magnetic Universe here, the Electric Universe must be around the corner.

In reality, it makes almost no sense at all to talk about the "magnetic" universe. Magnetism is a function of moving charged particles. It's caused by moving charged particles in the plasma of spacetime. "Magnetic lines" in plasma are simply flux tubes of flowing current which are sustained and driven by electric fields.

The mainstream still has a ways to go before it comes out of the closet with respect to electricity in space. It's created a dumbed down universe, and the illusion that magnetism is somehow possible in plasma in the absence of electric fields and electric current. That's just ridiculous.

Maxwell's equations solve for either E or B, but replacing all the E's with B's in a math formulas doesn't suddenly make the electric fields go away.

I think the PSP and SO satellites will bring electricity out in the open in solar physics, and I think the JWST will drive the final nails in the LCDM cosmology coffin. We're finding massive objects and mature galaxies further back in time than is actually predicted by the LCDM model. It's hanging in there by a thread simply because the old guard doesn't want to admit that they've been barking up the wrong tree for their entire careers. They'll be retiring soon and that should help move things along.

That recent distant quasar study demonstrates that the interpretation of redshift as 'expansion" is simply unreliable and unsupportable in the final analysis. It's another great example of a massively failed prediction of their expansion interpretation of photon redshift in space. The billions of dollars of lab failures of dark matter also confirm that the LCDM model is destined for the scrap heap of astronomy, just like epicycles. It's really just a question of when, not if.

[MotionTheory]

Please describe the moving charges mechanism which created magnetic field of a permanent magnet? further more, are there moving charges within a permanent magnetic field?

[Zyxzevn]

https://www.pppl.gov/news/2019/02/steve ... e-saturday
With the Magnetic Universe here, the Electric Universe must be around the corner.

I agree with Michael here. There is no "magnetic universe".
I have corresponded with SO a few times to point out this problem, but he seems to want to
stay on the mainstream side (for now?).

1) All magnetism is a result of electric currents and these are the result of electric fields.

2) They introduce imaginary physics, like magnetic reconnection, to match their models with the
observations. These imaginary explanations still give a 10^6 order mismatch, at least.
It also shows how astronomers have no clue about basic electromagnetism.

3) I would even suggest that most magnetic fields that have been "observed" are actually
electric fields. That is because they are mixing up the Stark effect with the Zeeman effect.
Astronomers think that electric fields can not exist in plasma or in space, while they can
be very big in the laboratory experiments. This is due to the wrong models that they use.

4) They even assume that plasma is superconducting. And it shows that they also don't have
any clue about superconductors. They behave very differently, as all experiments show.
The reality is that plasma is a semi-conductor. It's conductivity depends on the amount of free electrons.
Just like a semi-conductor. We see similar behaviours. And we were even using bulbs
as switches that were later replaced with transistors.

5) The way the astronomers justify the existence of magnetism is with "frozen magnetic fields" and
other things that do not exist.
Even the fact that they come up with frozen fields, shows that they have no clue about electromagnetism.
I tried to point out that free moving matter always decreases magnetic fields, because the charges
follow paths that reduce the existing magnetic field. This is also the fundamental basis of
electromagnetic waves.
But they also have created an imaginary world where plasma is continuously magnetic in some miraculous way.
Something that has never been seen in any laboratory experiment.

But of course, astronomers have so many unicorns, so no experiment is necessary.

[Zyxzevn]

Please describe the moving charges mechanism which created magnetic field of a permanent magnet? further more, are there moving charges within a permanent magnetic field?

Permanent magnets are badly understood by most scientists.
In physics class they still teach the myth of currents moving around in the iron.

For magnetism, you need moving charges.
And only in atoms charges can move without resistance, let's say due to quantum mechanics.
Also single atomic particles can also "spin" to create some magnetism.

Because it costs energy to create a magnetic field, the atoms and crystal structures tend
to form in such a way that the magnetic field is minimal.
That is why most atoms have little magnetic fields.
These atoms are like a little magnets, that point to random directions.

But in crystal structures, atoms can group together in magnetism
when the electrons are close enough to the nucleus.
We call these magnetic domains, and they maintain the magnetic direction
due to the crystal structure. They lose the magnetic direction when the
electrons get too free.

Material with magnetic domains is called ferromagnetic.
The magnetic domains can keep the magnetic field of each atom into a certain direction.
That is how this material creates permanent magnetic fields.

It does not cost energy to maintain this magnetic field, because the electrons encounter no resistance
in the atom.

In plasma the electrons encounter some resistance where ever they go.
That is why they can not hold magnetic fields..

[MotionTheory]

Whatever name science call the field around a permanent magnet - it violate laws of thermo dynamic: energy conservation and entrophy - a field can't do work on itself to move and especially to loop back. Concept of magnetic/electric quantum domain is non-physical, thereby EU/PC on the same boat.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,
I don't know about a "victory" per se. But what you will see is the usurpation of EU concepts into mainstream with no admission of priority. And when you point that out to them, they will say, "oh, that has been known for a long time."

I think that you may be right in the case of solar physics, but in terms of cosmology theory, there is no simple way to admit that redshift isn't related to expansion, or that dark stuff doesn't really exist. I think they will just have to bite the bullet and admit that they made some serious mistakes with respect to cosmology.

Still,it's kinda hard to hide the fact that their current solar model makes no mention at all about the electric field that exists between the surface of the sun and "space" (heliosphere). They may try to obfuscate that issue however by pretending that they knew it all along just as you suggest.

Please describe the moving charges mechanism which created magnetic field of a permanent magnet? further more, are there moving charges within a permanent magnetic field?

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/MagField.html

In a permanent magnet, the magnetic field comes from the motion of the electrons inside the material, or, more precisely, from something called the electron spin. The electron spin is a bit like the Earth spinning on its axis.

The electrons inside the lattice of the solid magnet are spinning in a synchronous patterns which gives rise to the magnetic field. It's still the motion of electrons that generate the magnetic field even in a solid magnet.

The motion of charged particles is always the actual 'cause' of magnetic fields. When astronomers talk about a "magnetic universe", they're still ignoring the actual cause of the magnetic field. It makes sense to talk about an "electromagnetic universe", or an "electric" universe, but not really a "magnetic universe".

In terms of the math, It's fine to simplify the math formulas to B's if you prefer, but somehow astronomers confuse themselves into then believing by changing all the E's to B's in the math formula, magnetism magically becomes the driving force of the process in question. It's not. The electric current sustains the magnetic fields and the current is "caused" by the presence of electric fields in space. The actual "physics" driving the physical process does ultimately matter. They keep trying to put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and they don't understand why it doesn't work right.

Alfven warned the mainstream about using a B (magnetic) orientation when describing a current carrying plasma. One has to include the energy of the *whole circuit* to fully understand some types of processes and energy exchanges which occur inside of current carrying plasma. Alfven consistently used circuit theory and exploding double layers to explain the same events that the mainstream describes as "magnetic reconnection", including solar flares.

Circuit theory is typically 'better/safer" at describing events in current carrying plasma but it's not as physically 'detailed" as an MHD orientation. Either orientation is mathematically acceptable, but they don't necessarily lead to the same answer in all cases, particularly if one forgets to include all of the available circuit energy in an MHD oriented explanation. Alfven warned the mainstream about that circuit energy problem in his book, but alas the mainstream never seems to care about the opinions of the individuals that wrote the math they use, or that made the actual discovery. The mainstream kludged Einstein's work, Alfven's work, and Hubble's work too. Einstein rejected black holes as point like objects, Alfven rejected magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience", and Hubble never claimed to "prove" that the universe is expanding, in fact he preferred a static universe and a tired light explanation of "Hubble's law".

The mainstream misuses their work rather than using it wisely or correctly.

[MotionTheory]

Maybe my point was - all fields use by mainstream and or EU/PC are incomplete or wrong because they violate laws of Thermal Dynamics. So trashing MU is presumptous because EU/PC is on the same boat.

Models based on poor understanding of electron therefore incomplete. In other words, a model based on probabilistic will be compound error+probabilities/uncertainties.

Will 2030 be victory or just hop on another wagon of wag.

[Brigit Bara]

by MotionTheory » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:31 pm

Maybe my point was - all fields use by mainstream and or EU/PC are incomplete or wrong because they violate laws of Thermal Dynamics. So trashing MU is presumptous because EU/PC is on the same boat.

The entire circuitry of the electric universe has not been observed, but that is not the same as violating the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It means that so far, the entire observable picture of the Universe includes only a couple of Superclusters of galaxies.

Still, not bad. (:

[Brigit Bara]

I make no remark about the Magnetic Universe.

But I will point out that it is demonstrable that the magnetism of a lodestone is based on the spacing of the atoms, which is just right so that the individual motions of the electrons in the atoms enhance eachother, and produce a strong magnetic field. As soon as the magnet is heated or melted, it "can destroy the spacing and cause the loss of magnetism."

A magnet can also lose its field from a hard blow.

The problem with magnetism in the universe came up for me when I noticed that magnetic fields were spontaneously springing up too often, in too many completely different celestial bodies. Meaning, if a rocky body has a field, they say it is caused by an iron and nickel core, at just the right temperature and rotation. If a gas or "ice" giant has a magnetic field, it is because of Hydrogen in a metallic phase. If a star has a magnetic field it is another mechanism. If a comet or meteorite has a magnetic field, there is another excuse. And with the invention of the radio telescope, the magnetic fields can be traced between galaxies.

On the other hand, your friendly local crane operator can just show you the switch.

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe my point was - all fields use by mainstream and or EU/PC are incomplete or wrong because they violate laws of Thermal Dynamics. So trashing MU is presumptous because EU/PC is on the same boat.

Huh? How do you figure that EU/PC theory violates any laws of thermodynamics? Be specific. I would argue that the LCDM model violates the conservation of energy laws, but I'm not sure that it actually violates any laws of thermodynamics.

Models based on poor understanding of electron therefore incomplete. In other words, a model based on probabilistic will be compound error+probabilities/uncertainties.

Is your cellphone "incomplete" due to a poor understanding of electrons? Your TV? I don't understand that criticism. Circuit theory is well understood and enjoys a lot of application in useful consumer products. EU/PC theory is essentially nothing more than circuit theory applied to space.

Will 2030 be victory or just hop on another wagon of wag.

IMO, it's likely that it will take many decades to figure out some aspects of astronomy using an EU/PC model, but it will be a lot more useful in terms of space travel and in terms of useful consumer products than is currently possible with the LCDM cosmology model.

[Zyxzevn]

Models based on poor understanding of electron therefore incomplete

I think you want to push your own poor understanding.

[MotionTheory]

Don't confuse between usefulness and completeness. I didn't state Newtonian/GR/EU/PC/LCDM/Quantum useless - just incomplete. However rather than accepting incompleteness, these theories insist/tout their 'this is the one' whence their foundation/fundamental are mystics instead of actual physics.

Common sense - motion is an affect from force. Motion for all currently defined fields failed Newton 3rd Law of Motion. Thus failed conservation of energy because field can't force/move itself. Puzzling somehow world denial reigned instead of logical consistence.