things yet unexplained by plasma cosmology

[damabo]

1. cosmic microwave background radiation (it is of course small in comparison with "95% of the universe is of unknown nature" (dark matter and dark energy))
2. I'm not sufficiently educated yet, but I suspect there to be a problem with
-quantum physics
-relativity: poincaré proposed special relativity with an ether (possible with maxwell's equations) whereas einstein postulated no ether (and afterwards empty space bent in on itself? of course 4-dimensional thinking is quite inhumane; this is probably why there is such a crisis: we can't do all this multi-D thinking, whereas we are postulating them in relativity and string theory, so we don't comprehend what we postulate).

[GaryN]

Hi damabo,
You may be interested in some information from Bibhas De, who is well qualified it would seem, to cast doubt on the Big Bang cosmology:
http://dreamheron.wordpress.com/categor ... ite-fraud/
And I agree with you that Einstein stole and misinterpreted his ideas for Relativety from Maxwell, Poincaré, Faraday, Hertz and others. I think Minkowski was the driving force though, and I believe Einstein dropped many clues to the fact that he himself had doubts about Relativety. The mainstream media had a great deal to do with promoting the deceit,and killing off Aether, much as they do in other areas now.
And welcome to the TB forums!

[damabo]

thanks for the welcome . I have scanned the site quickly, but I found largely things like 'this guy is wrong' or 'this organization does conspiracies' (well, along those lines). Maybe another time I will read it fully, but it seems plasma cosmology has not yet answered microwave background radiation. Once this framework finds a good explanation, I believe the mainstream cosmology will become plasma cosmology.

[nick c]

hi damabo,

but it seems plasma cosmology has not yet answered microwave background radiation

There is not too much written about that, but from what I could find, the Electric Universe position on the CMB is summed up by Wal Thornhill here:

The evidence2 is available that shows the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB) radiation is not “background” at all.

It is a local radio “fog” from interacting Birkeland filaments within the Milky Way.



2. G. Verschuur, On the Critical Ionization Velocity Effect in Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Aug. 2007, Vol. 35, Issue 4, Part 1, pp.759-766.

also a similar comment here:

The father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, expressed the opinion that double layers should be classed as “a new type of celestial object.” They are responsible for the radio noise from ‘radio’ galaxies. In interstellar space they produce the cosmic microwave radiation, mistakenly interpreted as the afterglow from the mythical big bang. Alfvén tentatively suggested that X-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers.

[jjohnson]

Nick's reference is an excellent short paper, co-authored by Anthony Peratt, dated in 2000. There are many possible sources, in my reading so far, posited for this background radiation. Microwaves are everywhere in space, not just in microwave ovens, but the unique aspect of them as background is that when a visible image of them is created from microwave receivers, the source locations remain fairly constant and widely spread, even if their strength and polarization varies slightly with coordinates on the sky.

As we have no direct knowledge of the size or extent of the Universe, there is no good way of telling how far or from where these microwaves have travelled before arriving at our receivers. We also know little about gravity's potential effects on bending light, although the likeliest position based on presentations I've heard from the NPA, the alleged bending of starlight and other radiation by large masses is unlikely. And the measurement errors and problems with the CMB have already been critiqued by other scientists, and so far not successfully refuted. If the CMB is but part of a continuum of radiation omnipresent in space, how does one differentiate it and discover its origin and source attributes?

The EU makes no specific claim on the age nor the extent of the Universe, so it is possible that it is very much larger and older than the boundaries and age expected by BB theory. If so, there is a very large number of sources of microwave radiation (stars, galaxies almost without end, ranging from a few light years to unimaginable distances from every possible angle in our sphere of observation, which may have been radiating microwaves continuously throughout their existence. That there is finely variable but remarkably consistent microwave radiation in the background radiation we observe is not nearly as surprising as would be the case if there were not such a continuum.

Jim

[damabo]

somebody should set straight the stance of plasmacosmology on wikipedia on microwave background radiation

[nick c]

somebody should set straight the stance of plasmacosmology on wikipedia on microwave background radiation

Wiki is an online encyclopedia, as such, it's mission is to convey the consensus thought. Do not expect a fair hearing for alternative theories or dissenting opinions, it is just not the nature of the beast.

If you are interested in the Electric Universe here are some sites with much to study:
Wal Thornhill's Holoscience
Thunderbolts Picture of the Day
Don Scott's Electric Cosmology

[damabo]

can somebody tell me the following:
- how can GPS work if general relativity is wrong?
- how can lasers work if general/special relativity is wrong ?
also:
-if particle physics is wrong, then how come atomic bombs and quantum computers are possible?

also: am I correct to assume that EU theory assumes GR and particle physics (or quantum physics (don't really know if there's a difference)) are wrong?

[Goldminer]

can somebody tell me the following:
- how can GPS work if general relativity is wrong?
- how can lasers work if general/special relativity is wrong ?
also:
-if particle physics is wrong, then how come atomic bombs and quantum computers are possible?

also: am I correct to assume that EU theory assumes GR and particle physics (or quantum physics (don't really know if there's a difference)) are wrong?

How come we don't fall up because we do not understand gravity?

I am not belittling your question. Stop and think though. Just because someone thinks they have an understanding about some subject, does that change the way things work? By better understanding the real world, perhaps new inventions will be possible. Hindsight does make previous ideas occasionally seem silly, once a better understanding is acquired.

My answer to your last question is no, you are not correct. My advice for you is: assume that there is a better understanding, and turn over all the rocks until you find it. Some of the tools you'll need are skepticism, logic, a good knowledge of history (this one requires turning over more rocks,) and some good luck!

[nick c]

how can GPS work if general relativity is wrong?

According to Dr. Thomas Smid, relativity adjustments to GPS translate to a positional error of 0.8 cm! This is far less than the margin of error for the whole system.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm
See:

Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!

[damabo]

to goldminer: Did I somewhere imply that the laws of nature change if our theory is false? Anyway, what I meant was that everybody says GPS and lasersystem are calculated according to the principles of relativity. Also I have seen some websites on the electric universe claiming that there are no subatomic particles (besides electrons and neutrons), and that general relativity is blatantly wrong (thornhill it was). Is thornhill not representative then for EU theorists? Or what do you mean when you say 'no you are not correct'? of course there may be a consolation of a more electric/plasma approach to cosmology and GR and quantum physics, but from what I have seen, most EU theorists claim GR and quantum physics are simply wrong.
to nick c: interesting. Ok, but still there is no argument against relativity. But what would be some arguments against general relativity (besides its cosmological consequences (the dark matter and dark energy problem, black holes, the big bang))?

[damabo]

hi damabo,

The father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, expressed the opinion that double layers should be classed as “a new type of celestial object.” They are responsible for the radio noise from ‘radio’ galaxies. In interstellar space they produce the cosmic microwave radiation, mistakenly interpreted as the afterglow from the mythical big bang. Alfvén tentatively suggested that X-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers.

Also, what are these "double layers"?

[Sparky]

damabo, if you will take the time to search each of your concerns at this site, you will find qualified people making good explanations.

The forums have, as you have observed, a wide variety of opinions.

The TPODS are more authoritative.

Plasma is the 4th state of matter, and does not behave as a fluid nor gas!
It can be in dark mode, glow mode, or arc mode.

[nick c]

to nick c: interesting. Ok, but still there is no argument against relativity.

The calculations do not disprove relativity. However, I was responding to your statement:

how can GPS work if general relativity is wrong?

The answer is that it can work fine if relativity is wrong. So the calculations by Dr. Smid answer your question- Relativity is irrelevant to the functioning of GPS, despite the claims made by relativity proponents.
It shows that GPS cannot be used as an example of a practical application of Einstein's theories as we are so often told. In fact there are no practical applications of relativity theory.

As for the rest of your questions; in a previous post in this thread I gave you some links to various EU sites...TPoD's, Scott's Electric Cosmos, and Thornhill's Holoscience. If you are genuinely interested in learning about the EU that would be a good place to start.

[Goldminer]

to nick c: interesting. Ok, but still there is no argument against relativity.

The calculations do not disprove relativity . . . It's just that the calculations don't make any relevant difference.

The Electric Universe Paradigm is not a panacea for all subjects! You don't look for an optometrist to find out about your ears.

I doubt there is much logical argument against relativity vs an absolute reference from which to measure. Relative motion is all we have in lieu of some absolute reference. The argument is over whether Einstein's theory involves mere paradox or actual absurdity. Just web search the subject; you can't say there is no argument!

If I may toot my little horn (You know damn well I'm gonna') check out these Tbolt Forum threads: Silly Einstein and Relativity Linear Thread

I think the crew involved in the Electric Universe paradigm wisely spend little time discussing the rabbit trails which branch off of said discussion, since it mainly affects the existence of already proven false (by the plasma paradigm) fantasies such as Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark This and That, and such.

However a definitive answer would allow Physics to regain understandability, respect, and logic! As it is, the mainstream consensus is "Yeh, you need to be an Adept to understand this stuff. Obviously, you just ain't that smart."

I beg to differ!

.