A prediction of victory by 2030

[neilwilkes]

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.

I wish I could see signs of hope there, but I can't because he is still talking about Nuclear Fusion as if this is how Stars operate - it is precisely because this is not how stars operate that again, as with LCDM etc almost Ad Nauseam, has had squillions of taxpayer pounds & dollars & euros wasted on a project that cannot possibly succeed because it is all based on and around flawed assumptions in the first place.
Nuclear Fusion is the power source of the future, and it always will be. I cannot remember who said this first but it is so true.

[jacmac]

Michael:

In reality, it makes almost no sense at all to talk about the "magnetic" universe.

nick c:

what you will see is the usurpation of EU concepts into mainstream with no admission of priority.

Zyxzevin:

I agree with Michael here. There is no "magnetic universe".

I agree with all the above.
I think when Steven Cowley, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
gives a lecture on the "Magnetic Universe" it is a step in the right direction.
To Nick's point, the mainstream is crashing the party through the back door.
It is all about owning the stage and the microphone.

[Michael Mozina]

I wish I could see signs of hope there, but I can't because he is still talking about Nuclear Fusion as if this is how Stars operate - it is precisely because this is not how stars operate that again,....

Actually that depends upon which EU/PC solar model is correct. Alfven was actually quite happy with an internally fusion powered solar model. He just added a little induction and external electrical connections to the rest of the universe with his homopolar generator model. Birkeland also predicted that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements". I'm pretty sure that he would have embraced fusion with his cathode solar model once fusion was discovered. Even Jeurgens anode solar model allows for and predicts fusion to occur in the upper atmosphere, and theoretically in plasma pinches all throughout the sun.

I don't have anywhere nears as big of a problem with a fusion powered sun as I have with the LCDM cosmology model. At least *some* of the energy of the sun is produced locally in fusion processes regardless of which EU/PC solar model you prefer.

[nick c]

I don't have anywhere nears as big of a problem with a fusion powered sun as I have with the LCDM cosmology model. At least *some* of the energy of the sun is produced locally in fusion processes regardless of which EU/PC solar model you prefer.

But aren't they both based on the same thing? The gravity only paradigm. Why would a plasma collapse under the force of gravity?

All the calculations of the workings of a fusion furnace in stellar cores are based on the a priori assumption that the molecular gas cloud behaves as an ideal gas. Reality is quite different and plasmas themselves do not know that they are supposed to behave in accordance to that assumption.

The working assumption must be that molecular gas clouds behave as plasmas and start over from there.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't have anywhere nears as big of a problem with a fusion powered sun as I have with the LCDM cosmology model. At least *some* of the energy of the sun is produced locally in fusion processes regardless of which EU/PC solar model you prefer.

But aren't they both based on the same thing? The gravity only paradigm. Why would a plasma collapse under the force of gravity?

It's not clear (to me at least) that the sun has to be *just* plasma. It obviously has a plasma atmosphere of course, but we can't really 'see' underneath of the surface of the photosphere other than perhaps using heliosciesmology techniques.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Dr. Kosovichev's heliosiesmology research shows that somewhere around 4800 KM below the surface of the photosphere, the plasma flows which are near and around sunspots tend to "flatten out" and move horizontally rather than vertically. IMO that's probably the location of the electrode. It could simply be a more dense layer of plasma or a solid surface IMO.

I would say that the effect of gravity depends on many factors, including the elements that are present as the sun is forming. I'd assume that heavy elements like Iron and Nickel would tend to sink and form a dense core. SAFIRE experiments have confirmed that the electrode can be significantly cooler than the surrounding plasma atmosphere so I wouldn't automatically 'assume" that the sun must be made entirely of plasma. It probably has a hot plasma core and a hot double layered plasma atmosphere, bit it may have a solid layer near the surface of the electrode too IMO.

Alfven seemed to be quite happy with the standard solar model from the core to the surface of the photosphere, so apparently he also assumed that gravity would pull the sun together, and generate fusion in the core, regardless of it being strictly made of plasma or not.

All the calculations of the workings of a fusion furnace in stellar cores are based on the a priori assumption that the molecular gas cloud behaves as an ideal gas. Reality is quite different and plasmas themselves do not know that they are supposed to behave in accordance to that assumption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aPMc32Snxw

Gravity would tend to pull the elements together once they're "pinched" into a big enough bundle. If you watch some of Don Petitt's experiments on the space station, Don found that electrostatic forces tended to cause things in space to "stick together' and become clumpy. It also and causes them to move around in space which may help explain how things started to become 'clumpy" in the first place. With a large mass body present, gravity will eventually have a significant effect on even plasma.

The working assumption must be that molecular gas clouds behave as plasmas and start over from there.

True, but I wouldn't assume that all of the elements present were necessarily ionized. There likely would be dust present in the plasma since all plasma tend to be 'dusty'. I also think Don is correct about electrostatic forces playing a significant role in the early formation of objects in space.

Regardless of which model might be correct, I think we would all assume that plasma pinches due to electrical current would act to "pinch' the plasma and could lead to fusion. Jeurgen's original anode solar model must have included some fusion, at least in the upper atmosphere since his model was intended to create about 1/3rd of the neutrinos of the standard solar model. I'm assuming he presumed they were due to fusion in the upper atmosphere inside of plasma pinches. I don't see why the plasma pinch process couldn't occur all throughout the sun, including in the core.

A key predictive difference between any EU/PC model and the standard model relates to the location of fusion and the source of neutrinos. If we had high enough neutrino resolution images to determine exactly where the neutrinos originate, it might be possible to demonstrate that they originate in the upper atmosphere during solar flare events, not just in the core as predicted by the standard solar model.

[Webbman]

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 have to agree with this though given that public consumption and the inner workings may be vastly different this might actually be true.

[Michael Mozina]

I've been thinking a lot about the revelations of the past few weeks. Between the quasar study implying problems with dark energy claims, and the XENON1T and SNOLAB null results that throw more cold water on dark matter, it should be clear to everyone, even clear to mainstream astronomers, that they have some serious problems with the LCDM model that aren't going to be easily resolved.

Even if the FCC eventually gets funded, it will be close to another 20 years before any new collision experiments start returning results. PandaX, Xenon1T and various other experiments have been a total bust in terms of proving any alternative ways of finding evidence to support DM theory. Worst still, observational study after study over the last 13 years have revealed numerous problems with the mainstream's baryonic mass estimation techniques based on luminosity, and we can be pretty sure that trend will continue over the next few decades as well. DM theory is in a world of hurt and there's no obvious path to finding support for that model in any current experiments. Thirteen years ago, things looked pretty rosy for DM theory with the bullet cluster study and the LHC and other DM experiments about to come online. Today however things look pretty bleak for DM proponents.

The dark energy problem is actually a bigger problem. Theories are supposed to be judged by how well they "predict' future observations and the concept that redshift is related to expansion has now failed twice in just the last two decades. We got 'dark energy" the last time the BB model failed,which could easily be associated with a "constant" prior to the quasar study. But now it seems as though they'd have to turn dark energy into something else altogether and it can't be a constant anymore. That's a serious problem. It's bad enough that dark energy had to remain at a constant density during the expansion process, but now it has to *increase* in density per unit volume throughout the expansion process. Nothing in physics works like that.

If the JWST starts/continues returning images of 'mature' galaxies as far as it can see, just like Hubble, it's going to be darn difficult to justify the LCMD model in a few years. There's just nothing about the LCMD model that seems to be working as predicted, either in the lab, or related to distant redshift observations.

The change to EU theory could happen even sooner than 2030 at the rate things are going, particularly if the new solar satellites start to return evidence that supports one or more of the EU/PC solar models.

I've been posting those recent articles to Reddit, CF and some other forums and the mainstream astronomers don't want to touch them with a 10 foot pole. There's already signs of palpable fear happening out there and signs of dissent and frustration with the LCDM model on the physics forums. I just don't see how astronomers can keep up this charade for much longer, particularly once the JWST images start rolling in.

[Aardwolf]

If the JWST starts/continues returning images of 'mature' galaxies as far as it can see, just like Hubble, it's going to be darn difficult to justify the LCMD model in a few years. There's just nothing about the LCMD model that seems to be working as predicted, either in the lab, or related to distant redshift observations.

Shouldn't JWST observe space be empty at some point? After all expansion predicts that we should be constrained by the observable universe "bubble". It also means that some of these galaxies at the very edge should dissappear while we are watching them.

Haven't seen anyone stick their neck out to predict these affects though.

[Michael Mozina]

Shouldn't JWST observe space be empty at some point? After all expansion predicts that we should be constrained by the observable universe "bubble". It also means that some of these galaxies at the very edge should dissappear while we are watching them.

Haven't seen anyone stick their neck out to predict these affects though.

You're essentially correct on those points. Even in deep field, long exposure images, Hubble sees dark areas but...

Hubble can only observe the universe in a very limited energy spectrum that is pretty much what human eyes can observe. JWST on the other hand will be able to see objects that are *much* more redshifted than Hubble. It should be able to pick out galaxies at a much further redshift distance compared to Hubble not only because it's main mirror is bigger, but also because it can see far more lower energy (more redshifted) photons.

According to the mainstream theory it took awhile for galaxies to even begin to form and it took even longer for them to 'mature' into spirals and get large. What Hubble has already observed is very "mature" and massive galaxies and massive quasars which are already inconsistent with the LCMD model. JWST will likely see even more of the same thing at even greater redshift distances. Eventually the objects will become even too redshifted for the JWST can pick out, but not before blowing the lid off the LCDM model. I suspect JWST will see "mature" and "massive" galaxies as far back as it can see too and that won't be consistent with the LCMD "galaxy evolution" model.

[Sceptical lefty]

Empirical physics always trumps supernatural dogma eventually ...

Not really. This only happens when there is absolutely no prospect of escaping the confronting dilemma by any other means -- including ignoring the problem. So long as Establishments retain the power to sustain a cherished illusion they will do so.

Here's another boring quote, this time from Josh Billings: "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." This applies as well to Science as to most other things.