Do any of you have credentials?

[tholden]

First off, do any of you have a masters or p.h.d in physics or cosmology/astronomy? If not how can you criticize the mainstream models without having a wide degree of expertise in it first? So that is my first question your credentials

You assume that degrees in math should confer some ability to deal with logic and when science theories which you read about are not consistent with basic logic, it doesn't take the degrees in cosmology or astronomy to infer that a problem exists.

The "big bang" idea is a classic example. Having all the mass in the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. The entire idea should be rejected as a violation of logic before the first word ever gets said about redshifts or anything else.

[altonhare]

Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

gold

I'm glad you appreciate my sig .

[nick c]

tholden,

The entire idea should be rejected as a violation of logic before the first word ever gets said about redshifts or anything else.

Yes, quite correct.
When creating a model of anything, the validity always rests upon a foundation of 'a priori' assumptions. The following mathematics (no matter how complicated, sophisticated, or elegant) are only valid to the degree that the first assumptions conform to reality.
So for example, as Thornhill has pointed out, the nuclear fusion powered Sun model is based on Eddington's assumption that the Sun is a ball of gases, and ideal gas laws are applied. This is not an assumption that conforms to reality, the Sun is a plasma and plasmas, as observations have shown, apparently do not know they are supposed to conform to ideal gas laws...all the thousands of pages of elegant mathematical modeling of the fusion model done in the last one hundred years by eminently 'qualified' scientists, are completely invalid if they are based on an erroneous first assumption.

Nick

[Jarvamundo]

to true nick c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

[mharratsc]

Like I stated in another forum- mathematics is just another language... it's just a little bit more precise than spoken words and lends itself well to the Sciences.

As to the idea of 'qualifications'... here's my two cents:

Guy goes through school, goes to a university- he has a goal of being a scientist in the discipline of Whateverness. He learns *everything* that everyone has ever written about Whateverness, and is a walking oracle of knowledge on the subject.

Nother guy reads a book about Whateverness, and decides that Whateverness should rather be considered Whateverz instead. He starts to experiment to prove himself right.

If he fails, he's just another 'garage experimenter'. If he succeeds... he's a 'maverick' if he can't be refuted, and a 'genius!' if he gets accepted!

Nicolai Tesla. Genius. Inventor par excellance! Credentials? Here's what Wikipedia reports:

Tesla then studied electrical engineeringat the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz (1875). While there, he studied the uses of alternating current. Some sources say he received Baccalaureate degrees from the university at Graz.[13][14][15] However, the university says that he did not receive a degree and did not continue beyond the first semester of his third year, during which he stopped attending lectures.[16][17][18][19] In December 1878 he left Graz and broke all relations with his family. His friends thought that he had drowned in Mura. He went to Maribor, (today's Slovenia), where he was first employed as an assistant engineer for a year. He suffered a nervous breakdown during this time. Tesla was later persuaded by his father to attend the Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague, which he attended for the summer term of 1880. Here, he was influenced by Ernst Mach. However, after his father died, he left the university, having completed only one term.[20]

Tesla pushed the envelope. Outside the box. He was an original, not a copycat, or a knock-off. It has been very few men who've toed the line of formality in education who've reached beyond 'what is known' to actually discover something new. Truth be told- most of even those men had educations in other disciplines of science!

Don't put so much faith in paper, or other people's opinions of other people. Make up your own mind.

Question dogma.

Look for reality with your own eyes, you know?

[Good_Science]

You assume that degrees in math should confer some ability to deal with logic and when science theories which you read about are not consistent with basic logic, it doesn't take the degrees in cosmology or astronomy to infer that a problem exists.

No, but it does take a whole lot of learning to work out how to solve the problem. Someone with a degree in science will have spent at least 3 years learning about science and being taught by researchers and experts in the field and so will have a better position to solve science problems than someone without a degree.

the Sun is a plasma and plasmas, as observations have shown, apparently do not know they are supposed to conform to ideal gas laws...all the thousands of pages of elegant mathematical modeling of the fusion model done in the last one hundred years by eminently 'qualified' scientists, are completely invalid if they are based on an erroneous first assumption.

Luckily scientists know the sun is a plasma and have accounted for this and now know more about the workings of the sun than the core of the earth.

[nick c]

the Sun is a plasma and plasmas, as observations have shown, apparently do not know they are supposed to conform to ideal gas laws...all the thousands of pages of elegant mathematical modeling of the fusion model done in the last one hundred years by eminently 'qualified' scientists, are completely invalid if they are based on an erroneous first assumption.

Luckily scientists know the sun is a plasma and have accounted for this and now know more about the workings of the sun than the core of the earth.

Scientists may know that the Sun is a plasma, but how do they know that a plasma would condense due to gravity? Where is there some observation supporting the notion of gravitational collapse? The fact is that Eddington modeled the Sun assuming it as an ideal gas...which we know it is it not, and the nuclear fusion at the core model is based on Eddington's work. So knowing the Sun is a plasma and modeling it according to well known rules of plasma physics are not the same thing.

Eddington defended his method by pointing to the utility of his results, particularly his important mass-luminosity relation. This had the unexpected result of showing that virtually all stars, including giants and dwarfs, behaved as ideal gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

Bottom line- plasmas do not behave as ideal gases. Eddington's model, despite all the elaborate mathematical modeling that has followed, is called into question because of this key assumption.

I would suggest that you read some of the EU literature, (but then I suspect that investigating electric universe paradigm is not your reason for being here?)
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Nick

[Good_Science]

I would suggest that you read some of the EU literature, (but then I suspect that investigating electric universe paradigm is not your reason for being here?)

Investigating the EU is why I'm here. I did a course in Plasma physics last year, I'm currently doing a cource on Fluids and Plasmas and next term i'll be doing a course on Splace Plasmas, so it's fair to say I know a bit about Plasmas. I'm, interested to see how EU fits with what I already know and what predictions it makes or evidence it has supporting it.

Where is there some observation supporting the notion of gravitational collapse? The fact is that Eddington modeled the Sun assuming it as an ideal gas...which we know it is it not, and the nuclear fusion at the core model is based on Eddington's work. So knowing the Sun is a plasma and modeling it according to well known rules of plasma physics are not the same thing. Bottom line- plasmas do not behave as ideal gases. Eddington's model, despite all the elaborate mathematical modeling that has followed, is called into question because of this key assumption.

Astrophysics may not be my forte but I know that the theories we have of the workings of stars fit extemely well with observational evidence, if they didn't we wouldn't be using them. As for evidence of gravitational collapse, how about White Dwarfs or Neutron stars?

[nick c]

hi Good_Science,
There are alternate explanations for white dwarfs and neutron stars.

Investigating the EU is why I'm here. I did a course in Plasma physics last year, I'm currently doing a cource on Fluids and Plasmas and next term i'll be doing a course on Splace Plasmas, so it's fair to say I know a bit about Plasmas. I'm, interested to see how EU fits with what I already know and what predictions it makes or evidence it has supporting it.

Excellent. I think that you may find the Electric Universe challenging.
Don Scott's website, to which I linked in my previous post, is a good place to start. For more detail I would recommend his book, The Electric Sky.
You could also read articles on Wal Thornhill's website:
http://www.holoscience.com/
This site also has a link to the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPoD) which presents the EU perspective on the whole spectrum of plasmas in space.

Nick

[kiwi]

Hi GS

As for evidence of gravitational collapse, how about White Dwarfs or Neutron stars?

Nicks (and others) state probably the most important point ...

When creating a model of anything, the validity always rests upon a foundation of 'a priori' assumptions. The following mathematics (no matter how complicated, sophisticated, or elegant) are only valid to the degree that the first assumptions conform to reality.

Stephen Crothers papers are a good place to start,... dealing with Swchartzschilds original work, michel-laplace dark bodies and other associated areas, ...the acceptance of the "point-mass" as an actual physical "object" seems to be the smoking gun.. the History and evolution of the theoretical "black hole" is written in plain understanable language

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -05-10.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

there is a great article by Dave Smith on the search for gravataional waves that is another associated area that is quite a key point for the reletavistic universe theory ... as is the red-shift to the expansion, ... both these "markers" have come under hard scrutiny

I did a course in Plasma physics last year,

what are the Text books issued for that course if you dont mind me asking

cheers:)

[Good_Science]

Nicks (and others) state probably the most important point ...

When creating a model of anything, the validity always rests upon a foundation of 'a priori' assumptions. The following mathematics (no matter how complicated, sophisticated, or elegant) are only valid to the degree that the first assumptions conform to reality.

Usually the most important point is whether the data agrees with the theory, and in the case of the sun it does.

there is a great article by Dave Smith on the search for gravataional waves that is another associated area that is quite a key point for the reletavistic universe theory ... as is the red-shift to the expansion, ... both these "markers" have come under hard scrutiny

The Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar provides some good evidence for gravitational radiation, its experimental data fits with relativistic theory extremely well.

The recommened reading for Plasmsa was Plasma Dynamics by R O Dendy and Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion Volume 1 Plasma Physics by F F Chen

[kiwi]

Usually the most important point is whether the data agrees with the theory, and in the case of the sun it does.

thanks GS,.... do you have a link to that data? ... from what I have read from an EU perspective there are quite a few areas where the theoretical mainstream model does not fit the observations and in some cases the hard measurements as well

The Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar provides some good evidence for gravitational radiation, its experimental data fits with relativistic theory extremely well.

I found a link through Tom Bridgeman's SJC rebuttal page (after posting here last night) with the Hulse-Taylor material,... not had a look yet but will do.

The recommened reading for Plasmsa was Plasma Dynamics by R O Dendy and Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion Volume 1 Plasma Physics by F F Chen

Thanks

[mharratsc]

Hey Good Science,

You said:

No, but it does take a whole lot of learning to work out how to solve the problem. Someone with a degree in science will have spent at least 3 years learning about science and being taught by researchers and experts in the field and so will have a better position to solve science problems than someone without a degree.

You're absolutely right.

However, I don't feel that you are considering just how disparate some of the disciplines are that have been looking at these cosmological issues. We've been trying to convey the concept to you that the current solar model is based upon a 100 year old assumption, annd you still seem unable to grasp the implications of this.

So back to the educational aspect of this- these 'Plasma' courses that you took in school... did they cover electrical physics to a great degree? Did you get Maxwell's Laws drilled into you prior to attempting to get a grip on plasma dynamics and behaviors? Did you do any laboratory work, and get 'hand's-on' experiment time? Did you play with sheathes and Langmuir probes? Play with plasmas of differing charges and see their behavior up close, and then look up at cosmic plasmas and note the similarities and differences?

I'm just wondering what these two courses of yours entailed... because if they taught you the mainstream junk that I continuously read about in NASA press releases and whatnot... myeah. :\

But then again- you're going for a career in Astronomy or Astrophysics, right? Well, if you want that job, make sure you memorize the rote that they want you to learn from all the popular textbooks. If you tell them that you went to any of the Plasma cosmology websites-tell them that you made everyone there feel stupid and then you logged out triumphant...

Because if you don't... if you learn anything here and then go back and openly question the mainstream folks... well, you won't get that job you want, that's for sure.

Just stick with what they want you to believe, bud. It's much, much safer for you that way. Ask Halton Arp.

[Good_Science]

So back to the educational aspect of this- these 'Plasma' courses that you took in school... did they cover electrical physics to a great degree? Did you get Maxwell's Laws drilled into you prior to attempting to get a grip on plasma dynamics and behaviors? Did you do any laboratory work, and get 'hand's-on' experiment time? Did you play with sheathes and Langmuir probes? Play with plasmas of differing charges and see their behavior up close, and then look up at cosmic plasmas and note the similarities and differences?

Of course we were taught Maxwell's equations, there is no other theory that describes the world of electromagnetism so simply and accurately. If you try and do anything with charged particles without Maxwell's equation you won't get far. Over 100 years of experiments and technology back them up. If Maxwells equations were wrong you probably wouldn't have been able to write this reply to me.

No we didn't get to experiment on any plasmas, but that doesn't mean the theory we were taught is wrong. People far smarter than you or I have already done the experiments and shown they fit with the theory, and if not then the theory is changed. Scientists don't purposely teach things that aren't correct.

But then again- you're going for a career in Astronomy or Astrophysics, right? Well, if you want that job, make sure you memorize the rote that they want you to learn from all the popular textbooks. If you tell them that you went to any of the Plasma cosmology websites-tell them that you made everyone there feel stupid and then you logged out triumphant...

Because if you don't... if you learn anything here and then go back and openly question the mainstream folks... well, you won't get that job you want, that's for sure.

Actually I'm not going for a career in Astronomy or Astrophysics.

I don't know where you're getting all your info from but at the university I go to we are constantly taught to question, but there's no point questioning ~100 year old theories that has never been proved wrong, not unless there is evidence to do so.

[webolife]

Unfortunately, yes, scientists DO teach things that aren't correct, regularly and persistently.
This is because:
1. They are fallible.
2. Their [human] sources are fallible.
3. Their/Our observations of the factual evidence are synthesized through their/our assumptions.
4. They don't realize they are teaching incorrect things, because they themselves were taught standard paradigms.
5. Honest scientists will openly tell you they are teaching things that are [probably] incorrect. Dishonest ones won't.
6. They don't mean to be dishonest or incorrect, they are just teaching what they learned, or what they perceive.
7. They are invested in a particular view and/or...
8. They receive funding from an organization biased toward a particular result, and need more supporters.
9. This is the very nature of science, scientific thinking, science history, and scientific revolutions.
10. Once you are considered an authority, you may stop questioning your own authority. "They" depend on you.