Vampire? No, individual error steers Science

[Anaconda]

This TPOD, Vampire Astronomy, May, 28, 2009 does a good job of spelling out the troubles with so-called "black holes".

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ampire.htm

The article links the New York Times' obituary of John Wheeler, who coined the term "black hole" and was instrumental in popularizing this idea. It is worth reading the New York Times obituary because it goes along way to explaining the dynamics in theoretical Science, if not today, then at a time when there was no "consensus" and astronomy was truly open to new ideas.

John Wheeler was a strong personality who as the obituary related, "Dr. Wheeler set the agenda for generations of theoretical physicists, using metaphor as effectively as calculus to capture the imaginations of his students and colleagues and to pose questions that would send them, minds blazing, to the barricades to confront nature."

(Did his students "confront nature" or did they sit in offices with pencil and paper in hand [calculators and computer programs, today] working unending computations and thinking the computations explain the Universe?)

Was it the physics that set the scientific agenda, or was it a "strong personality" using effective "metaphor" to sell mathematical scribbles?

I say mathematical "scribbles" because as the TPOD makes clear, the math doesn't work out for "black holes": You can't divide by zero. But there is also a corollary which is equally problematic:

When I first started looking at all this (astronomy) what jumped out at me was that "infinity" was a key component of the definition of "black holes" (as well as the "big bang"). And that raised a big problem in my mind: Infinity can't be quantified. And it raises a big problem for so-called "modern" astronomy because it holds itself out as being rigorously constrained by the precision of mathematical logic, indeed, this supposed rigorous quantification is the basis for taking "modern" astronomy seriously, as opposed to chalking it up as glorified shamanism, which is how most people viewed the "study of the stars" in bygone ages.

And "modern" astronomy promotes this supposed rigorousness at every possible opportunity to the general public: It is a lie, infact, it is the "BIG LIE" of "modern" astronomy. "Infinity" can't be quantified, no matter how hard you try.

I've raised this 'infintiy" problem with various interlocutors on different websites, at first they ignore the problem, but when I press the question, again, they attempt to divert the question by stating infinity can be quantified, or by asking what do you mean by "infinity", I kid you not. Or they even try to state that "black holes" don't rely on "infinity". In response I cite the definition of infinity and state the theoretical definition of a "black hole" (a point-mass singularity with infinitely dense mass in an infinitely small volume).

At this point, they start to squirm and try to wiggle off the hook (I set the hook), their reaction often gets nasty, I end up feeling like I have a cat at the end of a metal snare stick (a metal pole with a steel loop at the end that tightens around the neck) and I'm stuffing them into a burlap bag, all the while they're snarling and hissing.

What is interesting about all this is that when these budding astronomers, astronomers, or "wanna be's" are drinking the Kool-Aid, the mathematics is undoubtedly the fig leaf of legitimacy, but it is the "strong personality" and the "metaphor" that closes the deal. Now, don't get me wrong, metaphor can be a valuable tool to convey ideas, describe the unkown by reference to the known, but as any "tool" it can be misused. Metaphor unhinged from a strong foundation of observation & measurement can lead people astray. And that is the problem with "modern" astronomy, it's predicates are not based on a foundation of observation & measurement, but rather, an a priori set of assumptions fleshed out by abstract mathematical equations focussed on gravity, the weakest force of the Fundamental Forces.

Science, particularly in disciplines not constrained by rigorous laboratory experiment and testing are subject to "strong personalities" with insightful grasp of language -- language is the key to persuading others to follow, not mathematics (the mathematics is the intellectual justification, but it is the language that strikes the imagination).

In this sense, "modern" astronomy is still under the grip of "shamans" who, while professing reliance on rigorous quantification, actually depend on that 'ol time religion of the cult of personality cloaked in some "authority".

But as I've tried to demonstrate, above, in this case mathematics offers no authority for the speculations of "modern" astronomy.

And when you point this out, astronomers don't like it.

But point it out you must. Ten times 50 you must keep pointing it out -- even to...you got it...infinity...keep pointing it out.

[StevenO]

Just like "infinity" is an impossibility in our universe, so is the concept "zero" as its reciprocal. So, if black holes cannot exist, the same argument holds for "the vacuum"

[Solar]

Just like "infinity" is an impossibility in our universe, so is the concept "zero" as its reciprocal. So, if black holes cannot exist, the same argument holds for "the vacuum"

How, or by what, is "infinity" an "impossibility in our universe" when we don't know what; our universe is? It seems like an ill put analogy compared to what is observed.

Conjecture: An "infinitely dense point mass" on one had, and a 'space warping' ric=0 on the other appears to express the limits of 'measure' and conceptualization of Einsteinian relativity. But reality still isn't listening. It seems we keep holding our conceptual protractors and rulers up to the universe expecting it to 'fit' within the parameters and its just not happening.

Its the other way around. The inappropriately named "vacuum" isn't "empty" (non-zero), so its 'infinite compression' cannot form a "hole". The dynamic would form an object.

“(…) Classical theory tends to start out with charge as the source of electric fields, whereas Relativity pulls field out from nowhere by the magic of abstract transformations or reference frames” - Harold Aspden, “Modern Aether Science”, pg. 85

Real "space" is composed of 'charge'. Not 'occupied' by it, but composed of it. Matter results from the asymmetrical 'condensation'/'compression' of 'charge' which objects (matter). Both aspects are infinite, neither is zero.

[Anaconda]

Gentlemen:

Infinity can't be quantified. Whether the Universe is infinite, Science doesn't know.

Can there be absense? I would suggest that there can be absense or nothing at a given location. Zero seems to be an appropriate denotation for absense.

Solar, could you provide a littel more explanation for this passage: "Real "space" is composed of 'charge'. Not 'occupied' by it, but composed of it. Matter results from the asymmetrical 'condensation'/'compression' of 'charge' which objects (matter). Both aspects are infinite, neither is zero."

Something that can't be quantified doesn't result in a useful description for Science.

[Osmosis]

The endless computations of mathematicians makes me remember "Logopolis" on Dr. Who, years ago.

[Solar]

Konstantine Meyl’s work with “scalar waves”, pg 7 graphically portrays how Maxwell’s vortices come off the “electric field lines”.

Tom Bearden & the Bedini Motor which demonstrate the ability to charge a battery and/or run a motor from “electrostatic scalar potential”.

Harold Aspden:

In summary, a natural wave involving that up-and-down motion, is one in which the potential energy (electric field energy) is exchanged with kinetic energy (magnetic field energy) without obliging energy to move at the wave propagation speed. This means that the energy sustaining this exchange process is conserved locally in space; it is energy that exists ab initio, just as there is water in the ocean before it is rippled by surface waves. The forced wave arises where energy is forced into the space medium, as by a radio antenna, with the kinetic energy (magnetic field energy) and the potential energy (electric field energy) being fed together so as to be driven forward, keeping in phase, with both having their wave crests at the same instant along the propagation path. – Lecture 10 “The Ocean of Space”

The Correas & Aetherometry, in particular “Energy Conversion Systems”

Tesla Radiation (See Aetherometry)

WAMP’s evidence suggestive of a “Neutrino Sea”

Maxwell’s original Quaternions based EM dynamics:

Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centerpiece of his theory. In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centerpiece of electromagnetic theory. According to him, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary ... A few years later there was a great debate between Heaviside and Tate about the relative merits of vector analysis and quaternions. The result was the realization that there was no need for the greater physical insights provided by quaternions if the theory was purely local, and vector analysis became commonplace.”

All of these are based on strong, some would say verified, evidence suggestive of a ubiquitous ‘radiative electricity’ or fundamental ‘background continuum’ of ‘charge’ electrodynamically referred to as “Potential”; the electromagnetic spectrum of which does not fall within the parameters of physical electromagnetic detection without experimental equipment. It is analogous to the “Dark Discharge” of plasma regimes when compared to the “Glow Discharge”. Its as if we keep looking at the electromagnetic ‘glow’ without considering that the ‘glow’ needs to be ‘fed’. In the same manner that the “Cathode Dark Space” and “Faraday Dark Space” of a glow discharge are integral in that relationship, so to ‘dark radiative electricity’ is integral to the cosmos as the ‘Potential’ which ‘feeds’ transverse cosmic electrical forces.

If the coronal currents are high enough, corona discharges can be technically “glow discharges”, visible to the eye. For low currents, the entire corona is dark, as appropriate for the dark discharges. Related phenomena include the silent electrical discharge, an inaudible form of filamentary discharge, and the brush discharge, a luminous discharge in a non-uniform electric field where many corona discharges are active at the same time and form streamers through the gas.

The “Glow Discharge” tube and its “Dark Discharge” is more accurate to the Electric Universe than I initially realized. It answers the question of why space is black. There is a “Dark Discharge” in the form of “Voltage Potential” constituting “Space”. An Electric Universe would need to have “Voltage Potential”.

What is “Potential”? Interpretations from mechanical engineering in the early part of the century liken it to ‘boulders sitting on a hill’, or untapped ‘water under pressure in a pipe’. Even the standard model measures via ‘electron volts’. So, ‘where’ is the “Potential” producing “electron volts” in the standard model and producing observed circuital flows of current and energetic events in the Electric Universe? Where does it exist? Where is the unseen electric “Potential” spatially located? It exist in the form of a radiative continuum, a “Dark Electrical Discharge” that we call “Space”.

The tendency has been to automatically exclude “Space” by considering everything as existing *in* “Space” which simultaneously leaves “Space” unaccounted for. This is why “virtual particles” that pop in and out of existence, “quantum jitter” and/or “phonons” and the like are needed. Otherwise you have relativistic ex nihilo! – No causative energy input i.e. “Potential” energy ready to perform ‘work’. Thus, as the article states:

In Schwarzschild’s actual solution, as r goes to zero, R—the actual distance variable—goes to α, a non-zero number. There can be no point mass and therefore no black hole.

In this case the “Potential” is Alpha, the non-zero fine structure constant; and as stated by Aspden:

(…) Classical theory tends to start out with charge as the source of electric fields, whereas Relativity pulls field out from nowhere by the magic of abstract transformations or reference frames” - Harold Aspden, “Modern Aether Science”, pg. 85

The origin of the electron must be a medium which is electrical in character and no amount of abstract thinking can avoid this conclusion. Relativity does not have the power to cross these boundaries either. The language of the aether is not Relativity. It is the physics of the electron, the properties of electric charge, which can reveal the secrets of the aether medium. – Modern Aether Science pg 91

“Potential”, in the form, for example, of non-zero Alpha, a ‘standing wave’ of immeasurable magnitude (therefore considered “infinite”), is the electrodynamic equivalent of an Aether. It functions the same i.e. a non-zero “base” or ‘background continuum’ that refutes relativistic ric=0 assumptions. The assumptions of the latter stem from the inability of ric=0 to account for the supposed geometric effects on “Space” as it is literally “nothing”.

But non-zero Alpha provides the substantive nature of a background charge continuum as the “Potential” from which stems the energy of ‘work’. This, to me, is the true reason why the relativistic standard model absolutely fears the Electric Universe. The later being a, orthogonal phase-state, or phase-space of transverse waves resulting from superimpositions of Alpha as the ‘standing wave(s)’ of “Potential”. “Longitudinal/Standing Waves” of “Potential” for which the “group/phase velocity” exceeds the speed of light on a regular basis.

As soon as you consider “Space” to be “nothing” you are immediately back into relativistic assumptions. But as “Potential” (“Dark Mode” radiative electricity aka Tesla Waves) now you have something to work with as a precursor to traditional transverse electric ‘work’ and you can account for “Space” as a “Dark Electric Discharge” (Alpha as a ‘standing wave’ or the ‘standing energy’ called “Potential”). This is what is exhibiting the nature of dynamical Continuity and Maxwell, Boscovich, Newton et al knew there had to be such a thing.

When the already existing substantive “Potential” of a ‘background charge continuum’ undergoes superimposition, “folding”, compression, collapsing” (charge units occupying the same region) the dynamic produces other ‘energy objects’ of their own phase-space - as a result of shedding excess energy in order to maintain relative equilibrium. If you think of it in linear fashion for example, the ‘Sea of ‘Alpha Charge’, as “Voltage Potential”, can asymmetrically “fold” or collapse on itself producing a ‘Sea of Electrons’ as shed energy, which can then “fold” producing the various ‘Sea of Atoms”, which then “fold” or compress, resonantly couple, resulting in various ‘Molecular Seas’ etc. “Gravity” is a manifestation of that ‘enfolding’ dynamic.

Beginning with an electromagnetically substantive ‘Sea of Potential Charge’, as may be implied by Alpha, immeasurable in its magnitude – therefore infinite according to the limits of one’s ability to measure – undergoing such ‘compressive’ dynamics producing further compactification towards ‘matter’ one ends up with the formation of resonant ‘phase-locked’ objects. But this does not tend towards infinite compactification such as believed in via the other mathematical gravitational extreme of relativistic assumptions. There is a “cut off frequency” we recognize as “radiative decay” wherein the ‘unfolding’ of that compactification begins. This forms a complete cycle. The dual, or “bimodal” nature of this ‘longitudinally radiative charge continuum’ is that which conveys those aspects of Continuity in the universe. The superluminal ‘group/phase velocity’ of its ‘wave speed(s)’ is what accounts for so called “action at a distance” - because, with photons for example, you're tampering with a longitudinally continuous 'phase-state'.

[mharratsc]

These are some very thought-provoking ideas, Solar- thanks for posting this!

I have a question tho: it seems like the explanation goes from talking about space being a dark discharge state (wherein I presume it's mostly of equal charge) and then talks about 'compactification' (compresson?) that forms solid matter?

That part I can't wrap my mind around. Current flows in the Universe- we've seen it in the extra-galactic currents mapped via it's RF radiation, and the lesser currents all the way down to what we see under a microscope in a lab. Charge separation seems to be the norm vs the charge neutrality that mainstream espouses.

It seems like (from your description) that this Alpha state is a neutral charge state. Where is the current? And if everything is pretty much at this Alpha state, where does the energy come from to 'compactify' (compress?) the matter in the Universe?

Now if this topic has been covered over in another forum, I will happily go read something over there so you don't have to re-type a bunch of stuff. You just peaked my curiosity is all.

Mike H.