Astronomy students beware.......

[Michael Mozina]

If you're currently considering a career in astrophysics today, I strongly urge you to spend some time studying the historical records related to Hubble, Einstein and Alfven for yourself, and not to just rely upon the information that is presented to you in a classroom or television setting.

The most common deception that is used to "sell" the whole Big Bang concept is to blatantly misrepresent the meaning of Hubble's redshift observations, and his own personal opinions on the topic of photon redshift.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/ ... ress-85962

Virtually every video presentation I have ever seen on Big Bang theory (Lambda-CDM) begins by erroneously claiming something to the effect that: "Hubble proved that the universe is expanding", or "Hubble observed that distant galaxies are all moving away from us". Nothing could be further from the truth. Edwin Hubble personally rejected that claim, and the historical record will verify that fact, and the fact that he embraced a static universe concept, not Big Bang theory. That inconvenient truth is almost never mentioned by Lambda-CDM proponents, in fact Hubble's beliefs are typically *misrepresented* by Lambda-CDM proponents. Hubble studied the photon redshift phenomenon for many years and he ultimately came to the conclusion that light simply lost momentum to the medium of spacetime over distance.

Lambda-CDM proponents also tend to use a "bait and switch" tactic of advertising when presenting their "expansion" explanation. They typical use "Doppler Shift" which is caused by moving objects to attempt to justify their 'space expansion" argument. Doppler shift however only demonstrates that moving objects can generate photon redshift. It does not demonstrate that "expanding space" causes photon redshift. This a confusing bait and switch argument and it's unethical from the start.

The second common deception that I see presented quite often by Lambda-CDM proponents is a consistent insertion of *optional* (often magical) components to a variation of Einstein's "blunder" theory, while trying desperately to ride the coattails of Einstein's GR theory proper. Einstein's GR theory does *not* require the existence of "space expansion". It does *not* require dark energy. It does not require dark voodoo or dark magic either, but all of these "extra" concepts can easily be stuffed somewhere into a "blunder" formula. That doesn't mean that "dark voodoo" gains any scientific credibility simply by virtue of being stuffed into a GR formula. GR is not dependent upon dark energy for it's legitimacy, even though the reverse is not true.

The third major deception in astronomy today the misuse of Alfven's MHD theory to promote the mainstream theory called "magnetic reconnection" in relationship to high energy plasma events. Alfven flat out rejected the whole concept of magnetic reconnection, in fact he called it "pseudoscience" more than a half dozen times at the very conference where he first presented his double layer paper that made the whole magnetic reconnection theory obsolete and irrelevant. Alfven preferred to use a "circuit" (E oriented) mathematical approach to describing high energy events in space, not a B/field oriented approach.

Another thing that you should know is that Lambda-cold-dark-matter theory has been a complete and utter failure in the lab tests it's been put to. LHC hasn't produced any stable exotic forms of matter even after billions of dollars spent and huge amounts of data. LUX experiments failed to find any evidence of exotic matter. Cresst experiments failed too, as did PandaX, AMDx and the folk that tested the electron roundess claims of exotic matter theories (plural). In each and every case, all the "predictions" made were simply falsified in the lab.

Worse yet, the whole basis for claiming the existence of exotic matter in space has been shown to be critically flawed since their landmark 2006 "dark matter" lensing study of galaxy cluster collisions. They never actually proved the existence of exotic matter in 2006 as they erroneously claimed. They only really proved that their baryonic galaxy mass estimates that they were using in 2006 were *hopelessly flawed*, as many later studies have demonstrated over and over and over again.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

It's also never mentioned by Lambda-CDM proponents that astronomers as far back as Eddington were able to correctly estimate the backround radiation of the universe based upon the scattering of starlight in plasma to within a 1/2 of a single degree Kelvin, whereas early BB "predictions" were off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

It's also been shown that SN1A events are not "standard candles" after all as Lambda-CDM proponents first claimed. They come in *at least* two different flavors, and therefor the entire basis of "dark energy" is based upon pure quicksand.

When it's all said an done, Lambda-CDM is *not* any kind of real "explanation" for the universe we live in. Lambda-CDM is based upon 95 percent placeholder terms for pure human ignorance, and it's based upon a blatant misrepresentation of Hubble's own beliefs as it relates to the real cause of photon redshift.

In contrast, EU/PC theory is based upon tried and true empirical physical alternatives to explain exactly the same observations in spacetime. It's possible for objects to move in EU/PC theory, and for expansion to occur in EU/PC theory, but EU/PC theory works to explain photon redshift from distant objects with or without expansion. Expansion isn't a "dogma" in EU/PC theory, whereas "space expansion" is a necessary requirement and pure dogma in Lambda-CDM. More importantly however, "space expansion" has never redshifted a single photon in any lab ever.

On the other hand, moving objects and several forms of inelastic scattering can and do cause photon redshift and all those empirical alternatives can be applied to EU/PC theory.

It's definitely a "buyer beware" environment in astronomy today. If you don't do your own historical research, you might actually believe that Hubble supported BB theory, when in fact he rejected the whole concept.

[comingfrom]

This recent article shows how far they have come with magnetic reconnection.

NASA Directly Observes Fundamental Process of Nature for the 1st Time

[Zyxzevn]

Magnetic reconnection

I don't understand where the idea of collapsing flux lines comes from.

Magnetic flux lines are no "thing". Plasma lines are.


As a scientist educated in Electromagnetism, this is total bullshit.
Electromagnetism behaves like fields and waves, different fields/waves just add to each other.
Any other interpretation would be a total rewrite of physics.

[quote=Nasa]The observations were able to track how the magnetic fields suddenly shifted, and also how the particles moved away.

The observations show that the electrons shot away in straight lines from the original event at hundreds of miles per second, crossing the magnetic boundaries that would normally deflect them. Once across the boundary, the particles curved back around in response to the new magnetic fields they encountered, making a U-turn. These observations align with a computer simulation known as the crescent model, named for the characteristic crescent shapes that the graphs show to represent how far across the magnetic boundary the electrons can be expected to travel before turning around again.[/quote]

A shift in magnetism causes electric fields, according to maxwell's laws.
(Faraday's law of induction)
(see also the Lorenz force).
That is how we generate electricity for our homes.

So we have an electric field, generating by a changing magnetic field.
This causes electrons to accelerate and when they reach the other magnetic field,
they start to form U curves.
No "reconnection" at all. Just faraday's law.
Something that you can test in the laboratory.
Did the scientists skip eduction somehow?

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic reconnection

I don't understand where the idea of collapsing flux lines comes from.

Magnetic flux lines are no "thing". Plasma lines are.


As a scientist educated in Electromagnetism, this is total bullshit.
Electromagnetism behaves like fields and waves, different fields/waves just add to each other.
Any other interpretation would be a total rewrite of physics.

Alfven also realized their error, which is why he went out of his way to make the whole concept obsolete with his double layer paper which he first presented at a plasma physics conference where he gave the keynote speech. In that keynote speech he referred to the whole concept of magnetic reconnection as "pseudoscience" over a half dozen times.

The whole concept of individual magnetic "lines" is really a gross oversimplification, since magnetic fields are actually *entire fields* of energy that move and change over time, not oversimplified lines. Changes of the magnetic field over time induce current in all conductors, including plasma, but it's still just a form of induction, not a "new and different" process.

My conversations at JREF/ISF were very enlightening. The mainstream really doesn't "get it". Those "lines" they believe to exist in the solar atmosphere are current carrying plasma filaments, full of all kinds of kinetic energy, not just "magnetic lines". The whole concept of magnetic reconnection is in fact based on a gross oversimplification, and a very poor understanding of basic EM field theory.

[comingfrom]

Equivalent to Geologists theorizing that earthquakes and land slides are caused by reconnecting contour lines.

Would we be more correct in saying the lines represent double layers, or the layers of a double layer, and the "connection" events caused by instability in the layers, in turn causing the double layer to explode, releasing energy and scattering particles.

And the readings they are getting in the Van Allen belts are in fact micro novas.
?

[willendure]

It's also never mentioned by Lambda-CDM proponents that astronomers as far back as Eddington were able to correctly estimate the backround radiation of the universe based upon the scattering of starlight in plasma to within a 1/2 of a single degree Kelvin, whereas early BB "predictions" were off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

Very interesting, I will look into this.

[willendure]

It's also never mentioned by Lambda-CDM proponents that astronomers as far back as Eddington were able to correctly estimate the backround radiation of the universe based upon the scattering of starlight in plasma to within a 1/2 of a single degree Kelvin, whereas early BB "predictions" were off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

Very interesting, I will look into this.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Perhaps not so simple as you think?

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Perhaps not so simple as you think?

Ah, good old *unpublished* material from Ned Wright. From the first sentence, he *assumes* something he couldn't possibly "know".

Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

Eddington knew that "space" wasn't zero degrees, it was affected by the light from various stars in the galaxy. As Ned points out, there might be some variation between the "average" temperate of intergalactic space, vs the temperature of intersellar space, but keep in mind that various studies of the CMB do their best to "remove" any foreground effects, and the "average" we're talking about is really the average temperature of intergalactic spacetime. There *must* be some effect of starlight scattering on the plasma/dust of spacetime, yet the mainstream must sweep that information under the rug.

It's *much* more likely that simple starlight scattering can explain an "average temperature" of spacetime than any sort of "bang" process. Keep in mind that Eddington nailed the number to within 1/2 of a degree, not even knowing that the universe was composed of many galaxies. Meanwhile the first BB "predictions" related to the average temp of spacetime were off by a whole order of magnitude! It took the *years* to get the figure into the right ballpark, whereas Eddington nailed it on his first paper napkin calculation using ordinary scattering processes from the light of stars.

[Webbman]

the fieldlines do exist but not how they are portrayed. They exist as aligned force strands and thus you could not pick out one from a lot and have the appearance of a continuous distribution since the force strand is the smallest unit of matter.

each strand combined with other strands to form an individual circuit we call magnetism when enough strand circuits are aligned such that we can see their effect.

so while gravity cannot warp anything, strand alignment (magnetism) quite literally warps the aether around it (into circuits) and maintains it until something overcomes them ( too much heat, stronger magnets, material degrades).

There is something there and Its not magic.

[JHL]

MM, because of their interest I look for your remarks but please allow me to ask for further clarity on how you emphasize some words. I think you may want to italicize words for effect where I see instead *asterisks*, but I'm not clear what your intent is when placing other words within quotes.

I'd just like some clarity on this because as noted, I find your posts thought-provoking and informative.

[Michael Mozina]

MM, because of their interest I look for your remarks but please allow me to ask for further clarity on how you emphasize some words. I think you may want to italicize words for effect where I see instead *asterisks*, but I'm not clear what your intent is when placing other words within quotes.

I'd just like some clarity on this because as noted, I find your posts thought-provoking and informative.

I missed this earlier....

I wouldn't read too much into the ""'s oro the *'s*, other than my attempt to place emphasis on specific key words the sentence the way that I might try to highlight them in a verbal conversation. I'm trying to break the bad habits, but apparently such bad habits die hard.