The Thought Police Files...

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

The Thought Police Files...

Unread post by StevenO » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:16 pm

Forum Moderator wrote:This appeared to be a somewhat separate topic from the original thread, so it has been split out and moved to the Net Talk section of the forum and named appropriately.

This is strictly a forum tidying / maintenance action and should not be misconstrued as any sort of criticism of the poster(s) contributing to the split-out portion(s) of the aforementioned thread.

Forum Moderator
(FMV 7-6-08: Split & moved to Net Talk)
And again comments that try to question the sense of all the fairy tales get censored by the "peer" review fortress:
StevenO wrote: Yesterday, 14:10 #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator note: speculative material deleted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Larne : Yesterday at 21:28.
1. Moderator note: speculative material deleted
2. Einstein never predicted black holes. Also it is also not a consequence of his GR formula.
Moderator note: more speculative material deleted
Originally Posted by StevenO
GR does not predict anything, since it describes the interaction of a massive particle with itself, which can neither be falsified nor proven.
Originally Posted by StevenO
I agree with you on the predictions, but I think these were the result of the Einstein's great intuition, not a mathematical result of his GR formula.


These two statements are simply false, as can be readily verified by reading any textbook on the subject.

Per the rules of this forum your more speculative comments have been deleted. Any future such remarks must be backed up with appropriate references to peer-reviewed journals or standard textbooks. Any messages violating this policy will be subject to deletion without further notice. Continued violation of forum policy will be grounds for banning.
__________________
But look at me still talking when there's science to do. -- GLaDOS
Apparently it is fine to speculate about "quark stars" but not about a conservation law for the speed of space (which would be equivalent with conservation of momentum)..... :shock:

Still, some of my comments have survived ;)
StevenO wrote:GR does not predict anything, since it describes the interaction of a massive particle with itself, which can neither be falsified nor proven.

But, hey, is'nt that exactly what was verified by LIGO?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/LI...Event_999.html
StevenO wrote:I did'nt object against the large scale effects that are envisioned for "Black Holes", rather the "Black Hole" object itself. You will not find it as such. Instead you'll find a region of space with a lot of matter in a coherent state and light behaving like it always does.
(I think 'plasma in a coherent state' would have been a better description)

Sigh...well...let's assume the censoring it is for the good of the physics students....they might develop some ability for critical thinking :x
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:17 pm

We got some backing!
wound wrote:
Originally Posted by Larne wrote: I have no problem with plasma cosmology being discussed here, but I'll remind everyone again of the rules: published peer-reviewed references only. The arxiv doesn't count unless the article has also been accepted for publication in a journal. Vanity/promotional web sites like metaresearch and thunderbolts certainly don't count.
I have to agree that using thunderbolts or metaresearch as a primary source of information isn't ideal, however a few things of note:

We know Einstein did a tremendous amount of his work while working as a patent clerk. Should he have been dismissed because of his office and lack of a doctorate?

Most of those sites, such as thunderbolts or metaresearch are hosted by people with doctorates in their respective feilds. To dismiss out of hand the ideas postulated there because they aren't referenced in an approved journal is to lock ones self into only those ideas that the mainstream agrees with.

History shows us that most of the radical discoveries in science have not come from the mainstream, but from independent researchers operating on their own. Tesla, the founding father of our modern electrical world, is probably the greatest example of this. Einstein himself is also an excellent example of this.

If an idea put forth is based in science, let it be judged on the basis of its scientific backing and not on who or where the idea is put forth. Dr Flandern is not a stupid man, nor was Hannes Alfen, Einstein, or Lorentz. His ideas should be judged here on the merits of his argument, not on the merits of his approval by mainstream physics journals.

The biggest problem in cosmology today is that the mainstream has failed to provide scientific answers to what we whitness in nature. The science that dominates mainstream cosmology today is nothing more than the postulation of theoretical physics (which can be made to prove nearly anything) with no basis in reality.

Einstein famously said:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Not only do they have no basis in reality, they are not in agreement with Einstein himself who could not believe in such a thing as a black hole even though his own equations postulated its existence. If an alternative idea is put forth that can explain things with less dependence upon theoretical assumptions it should be investigated to the fullest extent and judged on the merits of its scientific backing.

Isn't that what internet forums are for? To debate the merits of ideas? If we were to only rely on what is published in peer reviewed journals, why have an internet forum to discuss them at all?

Don't shield yourself from new ideas.

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice."

Perhaps a forum where ideas outside the mainstream are free to be discussed might be in order. If you wish to keep only "accepted" ideas in the traditional forums, creating a seperate place where free thinking and alternative ideas can be explored without the need of a journal reference would be a great way to do it.

Advanced Physics and Physics.org are internet boards that draw a large number of physicists. While certainly there are other boards on the web that provide such a place, I think it is a shame that such a discussion group isn't allowed on these great web sites.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:23 pm

Continued...
wound wrote:Hi Pluto, I'd like to chime in here as well.

I realize this thread is a little old but its a good place to start a discussion about it. I think a little history on Plasma Cosmology's place in modern science is in order.

For the most part PC has been classified by mainstream cosmologists as a fringe science. Discussion of its theories typically lead to bans on most physics boards which, as we can see here already in this thread, probably isn't too far off.

While there is a great body of published scientific papers behind it and it carries the support of multiple nobel laureates, its ideas of scrapping GR and SR are considered scientific heresy.

I would urge those who have a serious problem with discussing PC to read "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" as published in New Scientist May 22, 2004. Basically it urges cosmologists to keep an open mind and review the findings based on the merits of the facts and not on assumptions.

There are many assumptions made in modern cosmology today that so far have defied explaination. LIGO has failed to detect gravitational waves, which by all rights it should have. The CDMS project has failed to detect Dark Matter. Gravity Probe B has had its funding discontinued after failing to meet its primary objective of proving frame-dragging. The Higgs particle has not been found yet which supposedly the LHC is going to accomplish. Along with these issues more questions continue to be raised as recent observations of space phenomina force ever more assumptions to be compounded with existing assumptions to hold Einstein's relativity together.

Dr Flandern has made quite a substaintial argument that Lorentz may have been right all along and the famous Michelson-Morley experiment disproving the aether failed due to an unaccounted for contraction of matter. We know that LR and ER (Einstein's relativities) share the same basic foundation with essentially the biggest difference being the reference frame. Of the observed effects of gravity that we whitness today, to my knowledge, all of them can be accounted for under Lorentz version of relativity as well as Einstein's, while none of Einstein's exclusive predicted effects have been confirmed.

Given the rather large assumptions that 94% of the universe is composed of matter that can not be detected, neutron stars that defy known nuclear chemistry, and the use of multiple dimensions and singularities in physics equations. The idea that Lorentz was right suddenly doesn't look so crazy any more.

When cosmologists start postulating that the physics of the universe somehow changed over time, we have reached the point where all association to reality has been lost. Why should it be that the physics of the universe changed in such a fashion as to give rise to life? That smacks of a religious undertone to me and should not be considered in science until all other options have been exhausted.

Given our new understanding of standing wave physics, it seems reasonable to me that the possiblity of matter acting as standing waves in an aether is something that should be given serious consideration. It answers the question of why matter should contract to skew the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and it also provides explainations as to why free electron creation should occur in space - which then of course gives complete credence to plasma cosmology's take on things.

Occam's razor is rarely wrong. We know nature does things efficiently and in the most reasonable and consistent way. Is it more reasonable that almost all matter in the universe is undetectable or is it more reasonable that the large scale structures of the universe are a function of electromagnetic forces?

I've spent a great deal of time looking at the theories put forth by the plasma cosmologists and so far they have not only been consistent with answers to just about every problem out there, they have had a good track record of predictions. Something unheard of these days in mainstream cosmology.

If we look at predictions as a meassure of a theories success, ER is hurting. It hasn't forumlated a successful prediction since the discovery of red shift and the CMB. Of course today we know there are significant problems with the red shift theory due to the grouping of quasars around galaxies. To resolve this gravitational lensing was postulated to account for them all. Of course this is an assumption upon an assumption yet again and it comes with its own bag of problems. Significant problems also exist with the observed CMB that are much more easily accounted for in plasma theory. Its nonhomogenous nature, the clumpiness of matter, its return not lining up with observed matter, and so forth.

While the ideas of plasma cosmology seem radical. At this point to me they don't seem any more radical than the ideas put forth by standard cosmologists of multiple universes, dark matter, multiple dimensions, black holes, neutron stars, strange matter, dark energy, etc..

Taking a fresh look at the theories put forth shouldn't be met with fear, but with healthy scientific skepticism and an open mind.

btw, here is Lerner's rebuttal to Edward L. Wright's comments
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:22 am

Here is my reply about the censoring. Posted it here quickly, before it might get censored again :D
Larne wrote:These two statements are simply false, as can be readily verified by reading any textbook on the subject.

Per the rules of this forum your more speculative comments have been deleted. Any future such remarks must be backed up with appropriate references to peer-reviewed journals or standard textbooks. Any messages violating this policy will be subject to deletion without further notice. Continued violation of forum policy will be grounds for banning.
Oomph....I thought this was a public forum for open exchange of idea's, not a peer reviewed journal. :evil:

To come back to my first speculative comment, which was that constant light speed would indicate a conservation law for the momentum of space, please explain why it is invalid in GR context, since:

1. In the context of exact solutions in General Relativity:

Emmy Noether showed that a slight but profound generalization of Lie's notion of point symmetry can result in an even more powerful method of attack upon any differential equation which has a nontrivial symmetry group. This turns out to be closely related to the discovery that some equations, which are said to be completely integrable, enjoy an infinite sequence of conservation laws.

(Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solu ... relativity, which is peer reviewed, I assume)

2. The well know list of classic integrable system contains:
  • Two center Newtonian gravitational motion
As such I think it is completely valid to discuss this conservation law in the context of GR.

This would also indicate that GR could be better explained from a minimum two body perspective, similar to the Collective Electrodynamics approach from Carver Mead:

(Ref:http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/de ... 2&tid=3717 )

which was developed, quoting Feynman and Mead:

"To develop a way of thinking such that the law becomes evident".

I would think that could allow to reformulate GR as a set of equations centered around: "two-body momentum = M1 * M2 * C^4". (my humble apologies: speculative inference).
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:05 pm

As predicted....this is where it ends and it is also explained why:
Oomph....I thought this was a public forum for open exchange of idea's, not a peer reviewed journal :evil:
Moderator note: It is neither. It is a privately owned and operated forum which was created to discuss established physics and peer-reviewed new ideas.
To come back to my first speculative comment
Moderator note: snip.
Noether's theorem is well established, and wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable reference for it. Your application of the theorem is not established. If you wish to discuss it here you must provide a reference to an article that discusses this particular idea in one the journals listed here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Larne : Today at 02:24.
They are not interested in progress in science, they just want articles for their expensive magazines...

I'll tell you: progress in science will not come from peer reviewed journals anymore. The internet has sliced straight through that.

Thank the heavens for Thunderbolts... :mrgreen:
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:59 am

Wow! Apparently, one censor is not enough....
Fernanda,moderator wrote:this isn't a forum for "open exchange of ideas..." that is what journals are for.

this forum is for "open exchange of research topics and established physics theories"

...it's public alright, but we have rules.
"journals" are for an open exhange of idea's? After an anonymous review and selection process???

The fortress is well protected.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
substance
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by substance » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:20 pm

Wow, this is incredible! Apparently not only mainstream astronomers, but the general public is somehow negatively disposed against PC. Why are people so stubborn and why do they hate changes so much, even not so radical ones?! Especially it is incredible to see that these people actually BELIEVE in this nonsense of what the mainstream astronomy has become. Some things sound more logical like the formation of objects from gas clouds influenced by gravity, but other far fetched ideas like multiple dimensions are exactly as widely accepted. I seriously fail to understand this? Actually the idea of the universe having a beginning and a potential end is a lot more frightening! I feel good knowing that the universe is eternal, but constantly changing. Apparently people like the idea of creationism. I doubt if the church has much to do with the negative attitude of people against PC, but still big bang is a lot more appealing to religious people.
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:46 pm

Tease them a litle bit more. Post it here in case you find a journal paper with this idea.... :ugeek:
Fernanda;45338 wrote:this isn't a forum for "open exchange of ideas..." that is what journals are for.

this forum is for "open exchange of research topics and established physics theories"

...it's public alright, but we have rules.
You guys are a bunch of fools. I hope you sell a lot of journals...

Einstein could never have known that the momentum of a photon is carried by two counterrotating neutrinos and that you can calculate the torque from that.

Don't tell anyone I told you. Might get you some nice journal submissions.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:47 am

StevenO,
It sounds like you have been busted by the thought police.
wound wrote:
Hi Pluto, I'd like to chime in here as well.
Surely that should have been 'Hey Pluto' a la Mickey Mouse? Seriously though, that was a good, intelligent post by Wound. Have you invited him over here to the EU forum?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Have astronomers reached the limit of their imagination?

Unread post by StevenO » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:49 pm

StevenO wrote:
Fernanda;45338 wrote:this isn't a forum for "open exchange of ideas..." that is what journals are for.

this forum is for "open exchange of research topics and established physics theories"

...it's public alright, but we have rules.
You guys are a bunch of fools. I hope you sell a lot of journals...

Einstein could never have known that the momentum of a photon is carried by two counterrotating neutrinos and that you can calculate the torque from that.

Don't tell anyone I told you. Might get you some nice journal submissions.
Post has disappeared as expected. Wait for an interesting paper on the role of neutrino's in GR.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests