Ask A Scientist

[michael.suede]

I thought you all might enjoy this exchange I just had through email.

I created this video which has a series of about 20 science questions in it that can't be answered using the standard model of cosmology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atiR8QgGU6Q

Then I sent it to various "ask a scientist" web sites.

My exchange with one of the scientists responding:


Barry to Me:
Michael, have you got a degree in Physics? If not why not? You ask good questions. Most physicists are asking the same ones. Instead of being such a cynic why don't you join the party and try helping figure this stuff out. I know. You will say that you can't because the 'establishment' will prevent you. No, it might be difficult, yes, but it won't prevent you. All new ideas have to go through a bit of a rough time, but just sitting there criticizing without helping with the effort will get you nowhere. Jump in, and start working on at least one of the problems. These are all huge massive problems, and believe me: you are not the only guy wondering all these things. Thousands of other physicists are too. If you did a bit more googling and searching around, I'm sure you could find a number of university professors who are asking some of your big questions. They would be delighted to have a guy like you come and work on them. You would probably get funding. (This is assuming you already have an undergraduate degree in physics, of course. You can't join the party unless you at least ante up with a bit of sweat on your own part.) These are not questions that are easy to answer. If they were, we'd have the answers. These are HUGE questions. Why not join in and help figure it out, instead of sitting there and pontificating like you are somehow better than everyone else? You're not. You are just like the rest of us. The difference is: a lot of others are really working at finding these answer. You are not. You want them handed to you. Well, come on. Join in and start working on them too. It won't be easy, but it will be rewarding if you figure out one of them.


Dear Barry,

I'm glad you didn't take my anger personally in the video.

I have my own web site dedicated to my own personal research on the subject of cosmology.

I have talked too and debated hundereds of scientists on these topics and have met with the same insistent beliefs.

Hannes Alfven, Margaret Burbridge, Halton Arp, Sir Fred Holye, Eric Lerner, Anthony Peratt, and a host of other respected scientists have found what I believe is the answer to all of these long standing questions in cosmology. Scientists refuse to accept their work because it would overturn just about every long standing theory of cosmology. Everything from black holes to the big bang would get trashed and replaced with interpretations of observations based on known properties of charged plasma acting in a vacuum.

The establishment is not ready for it.

If you are interested in learning more about what I believe and the science behind it, you can check out my web site and youtube channel.

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/default

My current collection of published papers on the subject:
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyq ... wed-papers

Thanks,

Michael Suede

Barry to Me:
Yes, but what about you? Are you a published physicist? The people you criticize are not dolts. Not EVERY physicist. There are many who are trying to figure it out the same as you. If you have not had a full education as a physicist, then you are just spouting. I'd like to see your own published refereed papers in Physical Review Letters or something like that. What are your credentials? Computer science? Any fool can make stuff up like you are doing. It's another story to build a careful edifice based on strong foundations. All scientists would agree with you: we need to constantly review our assumptions and move forward, and change if necessary. The problem is: so far, the standard model is working OK. However, I should say that there are many scientists who believe we are on the cusp of a great watershed, something like when Galileo realized that the Earth revolves around the sun. Something HUGE like this may happen in your lifetime. But it can't happen without a lot of hard work. Based on your websites, you are just a nutcase and you are not actually working on the problems. Unless you go back to university and get some physics degrees and start actually working on this stuff instead of pontificating based on junk, nobody is going to listen to you, including me. So if you want to be taken seriously, actions speak louder than words. Get a physics degree. Learn about this properly, or forget about it. Unless you do, you will be ignored. Your anger is useless. Take action. Educate yourself properly.


Me to Barry:

Hi Barry,

I don't need to do the research.

The research has already been done.

Please see my peer reviewed papers section of the web site for more information.

Thanks,

Michael Suede


Barry to Me:

On your site it says "Michael Suede" is a pseudonym. Perfect for someone who espouses pseudoscience. If you were serious you would not hide behind pseudonyms. Also, bullshit. The "research" has NOT been done. You are nuts if you think you are right (without a bit of physics education) and thousands of well educated physicists are wrong. Give me a break. If the research was done, then we'd have the answers to your many excellent questions. The reason we don't have the answers is because a lot more work needs to be done. Believe me, you are not the first guy to come up with these nutty ideas. (I get letters like yours several times a year.) Any ordinary university physicist would be able to tear your stuff to pieces in ten minutes. I've seen it done many times before. It's not worth the bother. Like I said: get a degree in physics. That will solve a big part of your problem.

Me to Barry:

Hi Barry,

The answers do exist. We do have them.

Theoretical physicists ignore them.

The answers are given to us in the published papers of plasma physicists.

My questions are rhetorical in the video. I already know the answers to all of them.

Please see my peer reviewed papers section for answers on all of the questions I asked in my video.

Thanks,

Michael Suede


Me to Barry:

Hi Barry,

To help you get started, here is a list of papers you should review.

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
Alfven, Hannes IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Donald E. Scott IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Fälthammar, G.-G., Eos,88, No. 15, 169-170, 2007. “Correction” in Eos, 88, No. 19, 210, 2007a.

Magnetic-field-aligned electric fields associated with Debye-scale plasma structures
R E Ergun 1999 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 A61-A73

Once you have a general understanding of how circuts work in cosmic plasma, you'll be able to get the rest fairly quickly.

Thanks,

Michael Suede


Needless to say I get a snicker out of his ad hom attacks and frustration.

[michael.suede]

my favorite quote from him

All scientists would agree with you: we need to constantly review our assumptions and move forward, and change if necessary. The problem is: so far, the standard model is working OK.

[earls]

Great questions and presentation. I was unaware of the CME after comets. "Awesome."

I do agree with him you should pursue a formal education in physics, however, there are two caveats:

1. The costs of doing so.
2. He's basically baiting you. Even if you had a physics degree, there's a very great possibility you would be dismissed all the same and shunned by the community.

For someone without a degree, you certainly go above and beyond the call of duty to organize, process, and present that vast sources "alternative" understanding.

Understand that his anger and frustration isn't because you're wrong, it's because you're right... And he doesn't know what to tell you. As evidenced, it's much easier to call you a lazy idiot.

Personally, the true problem with cosmology today is the pure lack of data. But all of that will change in the next year. Many tools have been launched this year including Planck, Hershel, GOCE, QUIET, AMANDA, and the updated Hubble. Plenty more I'm forgetting, but it's only a matter of time.

The new data WILL contradict theory, theory will be updated, and we'll move forward. Regarding frame dragging, look at the results from Gravity Probe B. Much smaller than it should be...

[JohnMT]

Hi Michael,

Of course there are many more questions too.
I too have been asking such questions on several sites for years and all I got back most of the time was complete derision.
Still do.

Seems to me that in order to fully understand the various aspects of Astronomy and Cosmology that you mentioned, we all have to take a physics degree!
Then perhaps we shall be listened to.
Surely, that approach would be counter-productive.

Nothing against physics degrees of course, they do have their benefits, but these days everything in "science" it seems is so specialised it is difficult to know who to talk to.
Wal Thornhill has a physics degree so maybe the poster should talk to him (quite possible on his website, as I have done in the past and Wal replied each time).

Anyway, I enjoyed your video and especiallly those concerning comets.

John

[michael.suede]

Oh, don't take my comments to mean anything hahaha

I was just trolling him back.

Of course it would be nice to have a doctorate in physics.

I'd only do it if I could study under Thornhill, Scott, or Peratt though haha.

[Anaconda]

@ Micheal.suede:

The scientist's response is typical, "get a degree, go back to school." This is an avoidance and an implied reason why he doesn't need to engage you on the merits. That is the first tactic at dodging the merits, while attempting to seem reasonable, quickly, however he resorted to name calling. Notice the scientist never engaged the merits.

Why?

Because as stated above in a previous comment he doesn't have an answer or the answer would have to acknowledge you have a scientific basis for your challenges.

Micheal, you are to be commended for putting it to him. Each time somebody challenges him, the more he is faced with the realization that these challenges won't go away.

And, even conventional astronomers are having to face the fact that NASA has confirmed by in situ observation & measurement that the solar system is alive with electromagnetic processes and phenomenon.

Where astronomers are put to the wall and have to engage the merits or look evasive regarding electromagnetism in the solar system, their response to to say, "yes, but".

Take that "yes, but" and push on the accepted norms of the Scientific Method: Explain the unknown by comparison with the known.

Science knows that electromagnetism is "alive" in the solar system, if so, then isn't reasonable that electromagnetic processes are active beyond the solar system?

This is a basic logical extension.

Regarding putting questions to scientists, be specific as possible and only one question at a time. More than one allows them to dodge.

Pinning them down on one question, particularly where the answer has already been identified as having an electromagnetic explanation forces them to say, "yes, but" and then you job is to pin point why the "but" fails to raise valid obsticles.

Our job to to force them to think or look evasive and foolish.

[Total Science]

I agree with Anaconda.

Keep up the good work Michael.

[rangerover777]

Michael,

Your courage is great and you are not alone in this “void”.
Your questions are legit and to the point. I’ll try to describe and
answer you as I see that (thou it may feel uncomfortable to some
EU researchers).

The confusion that occur with astronomy and physics in general
these days, is due to the system modern science works and “advance”
over the past 200 years. You could ask the same question 30, 50 or
100 years ago, about different “scientific discoveries”, and you would
get the same response.

The reason for this confusion, is due to the fact that modern science
never found the Building Blocks of matter and waves. Yes you heard it
right. The fact that they are after the Boson-Higgs just re-enforcing this
statement.

There are many errors in the scientific method of observations, testing
calculating and conclusions. I will not go one by one since it’s too long
of a list, but only focus on a few of them.

- Science thinks that if it will search for smaller and smaller new particles
and build huge accelerators, it will finally find the building blocks of matter
and waves. Which like I said before, it shows that science is “a live” without
knowing what are the building blocks of our universe. How can this paradox
proceed without such an important missing items ???

- No one ever went back to check if Faraday, Gauss, Lentz or Maxwell were
right !!! It’s not that no one performed the same tests and got the same results,
sure do that many times. But no one expect different conclusions. It was never
Done once the Electron, Proton, Neutron and Photons appeared. Because after
that it was too late to translate the results of the 19th century researchers, or to
perform different tests, without using these 4 particles to explain the results.
In simple words, neither you nor me had ever saw these particles, we can only
detect them through tests. Go back in time and start from the beginning of the
19th century, exactly like those who we relay upon their conclusions.

- How come for instance, no one asked if the N & S pole magnets could be at
the base of electricity, plasma, gravity, atom’s structure, matter and waves ?
No one actually and intentionally do not want to ask what Mr. Maxwell and
Mr. J.J. Thomson already concluded, and standing at the foundation of modern science.
Why no one asked ? Because technology of 200 years standing on that….. But here
comes the spin : Technology is not science and science is not technology !!!

- Science is only about nature exploration. Later, comes technology that can do
whatever it wants with the results.

- What technology needs is to find the Relations, Characteristics, Behavior of nature.
That’s all it needs in order to build and advanced, the ENVELOPE IS ENOUGH. It does
not needs the “building blocks of nature“, it does not needs to know the whole truth.
It’s enough for it to show new equipments, advanced technology, working models, etc. etc.
And that’s what science is waving with as a proof for “cracking” and knowing nature !!!
Which of course is a lie. Humanity believes in practicality - if it works, so it’s the truth.
End of story.

That’s how science basically works since it’s beginning, that's how it got it's position
in society, and as long as it “supplied the merchandise” to the public, which in turn, gives
the desired credit, appreciation and “blindfolding belief” in what science does.

- Since the pressure on the scientific community is growing, to invent and “advance” it’s
“knowledge” and performance, science have to invent from time to time !!! For instance,
No one knew what’s particle stand in the base of electricity, until J.J. Thomson came up
With his vacuum tube, or Cathode Ray Tube, which showed “electrons at work”.
If you Michael will perform the same test - yourself, without predetermined or expect
Any known results - you would see that this “Cathode Ray” is no more then tiny particles
Of matter that where ejected from the Cathode, through the anode. They could not even
Pass the glass of the tube !!! So how these could be the same particles that makes the atom ???
Let alone the wrong connections that were made in order to boost the Cathode… You better
Check that yourself, then believe me…..lol.

If you want to see that Mr. Thomson was right - touch the power line and see what happen.....
This is more or less how the method of convincing works.

- Because science never found the building blocks, new particles started to appear on left
and right, so much so that today the atom officially have approx. 30 different types of particles !!!
Does it make sense to you that a basic component of matter in the universe, will be built out of 30
different part of particles ??? More then that, it’s a non-homogenous family ever lived.
Non of it is the opposite-complimentary-half of the other !!! And no one have a problem
with that.

- The basic method modern science apply is “build on top other’s conclusions as long as
they have a working model”, And that’s a big mistake, that rolling from generation to generation.
Unfortunately, the EU promised to conclude their findings from scratch. That promise was
not full field yet and was based on others….. Although I should say, that they are much
more open minded and have much more courage than modern science.

So black holes, Gravity, Neutron stars, planets, Dark matter, the sun, plasma, light, etc.
are the bye-products of the by-products of the building blocks, that first and for all, must
be started with….

Sorry for the long post.

Cheers.

[rangerover777]

I wanted to make a few clarification on the former post I made.

I do not claim that the 19th researchers were wrong in their calculations
and descriptions of their magnetic/light/electricity/wave experiments they
performed. But that they did not show the whole picture. If they would
consider that electric current is actually two currents of opposing directional
magnetic currents (one of N pole individual magnets and the other of S pole
individual magnets), then their conclusions would cover the phenomena.
Same with the relation between magnetic field and light. They could understand
that the light is also composed of the two magnetic particles + 3rd neutral
particle of matter.
Or maybe I'm wrong.....but at least check that for yourself, not for me......

Michael, I do not mean to interrupted the thread’s subject that you raised, since
your questions are “right there”, but the answers to your questions are not in
the same level with them, but lay much deeper. For instance, whether a comets
are made of ice, gravitational waves detection, satellite speed anomaly, black
holes, Etc. are not starting with wrong observation, lab experiments or conclusions,
but in understanding the atom’s structure, magnetism, waves and the most basics
of true physics. If for instance you have a galvanometer that measuring only one
stream of electricity instead of two, then how can you proceed further ?
At least that’s the direction I would take in order to answer them.

The lab tests to verify that are very simple to perform. There are approx. 100 of
them and we really do not need a budget of 6 billion dollars…..

And sorry for the irritating question for the EU : When you started your lab
tests, as an attempt to “start from scratch” as you stated, did you already called
yourself “Electric Universe” ? I’m asking that, since if that’s the case, your name
imply the fact that you pre-assumed electricity should be made of electrons, and
you never checked that thoroughly enough and that was the ground from which
you built up the whole model. Or maybe, after coming up with the name, you did
your best to show how electrons behave and what they can do ?
It’s a question to whoever knows the answer.

I have to say that again, that the EU model may be much closer to reality than modern
science, but it would be a good idea to check what electricity is made of without
pre-determined that it’s already there and electrons are running there, even if it’s
contradicting your name…… There is a definite opposing interests here, so let’s
see if integrity will prevail…

There is no mean to offend anyone, since I read a lot of fantastic information on this
forum, from contributors. And maybe when it comes to astronomy and astrophysics,
this is one of the top websites I ever seen (better than NASA…..).

Cheers

[neilwilkes]

2. He's basically baiting you. Even if you had a physics degree, there's a very great possibility you would be dismissed all the same and shunned by the community.

As Halton Arp can personally attest, getting anything that questions the status quo published is unlikely at best and close to impossible at worst.
The problem is the whole peer review process.

[mharratsc]

"If you cannot speak Latin, you cannot know the Word of God."

Yeah yeah, it's an old trick, but its worked for them for several decades now. What they don't count on is intrinsic intelligence and the power of the Internet to disseminate information.

Your argument was entirely correct, Mike- you don't need a degree to disseminate information YOU consider valid that has been contributed by others. He was crazy to suggest that from a logical standpoint- librarians and editors would have no jobs were that true He was attacking you because you were attacking his Establishment that he had faith in to provide the answers he so desperately seeks.
However, his response does show the depth of the 'conditioning' they put these kids through to maintain their power structure. Not to mix politics with science, but it's entirely parallel to the conditioning that extremist religious movements wielding political control put their new generations through to maintain their power structure.

On a happier note tho- they can't keep these younger scientists from learning on their own via that same Internet (and via people like you, Mike). Because they can't control the information flow, they try to control their opinions of information outside their Establishment channels. Just like with teenagers- it's only going to be a matter of time before the experimentation with it begins...

The fact that these younger scientists are acknowledging that they don't know all the answers, and that they almost conciously perceive that they know far less than what they don't know- that gives hope for the inevitable paradyme shift that must come from this Establishment being built on a foundation of illusion, fantasy, and a lust for power instead of a true desire to defeat Ignorance.

Least that's what I think, anyway

Mike H.