Wish List

[kell1990]

If you folks could do some publicly-funded research in the cosmological area, what would it be?

Here's a short list of things that have come up recently in the discussion:

Recreate and further Birkeland's work, to include a "Terrella";
Pursue Dr. Don Scott's work, especially as it pertains to "The Electric Sky";
Recreate some of Tesla's work on various subjects;
Pursue Hans Alfven's work more vigorously;
Pursue Maxwell's work as it pertains to cosmological events;
Pursue Wal Thornhill's work, especially on comets and asteroids;
Pursue Dr. Anthony Perratt's work on galaxy formation;
Et cetera.

Those are just some of things that popped up in my mind, and if I over looked anything it wasn't by design, with one exception, and that's the work of Velikovsky. IMHO, if that's included in a request for funds, it would be a deal-breaker. It's much too controversial, still.

The reason I decided to post this is because I think it is very apparent that the present "guess" (I won't even call it an hypothesis) is so obviously wrong that it's time to go in another direction in trying to understand how the Cosmos really works. (For example, if "dark matter" or "dark energy" are removed from the present speculation, the entire "theory" <gah> simply falls apart.)

I hope this will spur a conversation which will lead to a specific request for certain research projects, where they might be conducted and an estimate of cost.

IMHO, now is a very good time to petition our government for the necessary access to facilities and obviously for funding to carry out this research.

[Chickenmales]

Dr Paul LaViolette has some interesting ideas regarding ether and antigravity, with some good ideas for experiments too. There's also the Biefield-Brown effect which could possibly be more throughly investigated, assuming it hasn't been already.

[Michael Mozina]

If you folks could do some publicly-funded research in the cosmological area, what would it be?

Here's a short list of things that have come up recently in the discussion:

Recreate and further Birkeland's work, to include a "Terrella";
Pursue Dr. Don Scott's work, especially as it pertains to "The Electric Sky";
Recreate some of Tesla's work on various subjects;
Pursue Hans Alfven's work more vigorously;
Pursue Maxwell's work as it pertains to cosmological events;
Pursue Wal Thornhill's work, especially on comets and asteroids;
Pursue Dr. Anthony Perratt's work on galaxy formation;
Et cetera.

Those are just some of things that popped up in my mind, and if I over looked anything it wasn't by design, with one exception, and that's the work of Velikovsky. IMHO, if that's included in a request for funds, it would be a deal-breaker. It's much too controversial, still.

The reason I decided to post this is because I think it is very apparent that the present "guess" (I won't even call it an hypothesis) is so obviously wrong that it's time to go in another direction in trying to understand how the Cosmos really works. (For example, if "dark matter" or "dark energy" are removed from the present speculation, the entire "theory" <gah> simply falls apart.)

I hope this will spur a conversation which will lead to a specific request for certain research projects, where they might be conducted and an estimate of cost.

IMHO, now is a very good time to petition our government for the necessary access to facilities and obviously for funding to carry out this research.

Well, I'd definitely want to start with solar model experiments. Birkeland and his team were the last individuals to test the whole *range* of electric sun experiments in terms of terella polarity, magnetic field orientations and terella textures and compositions. That is lab proven technology with a direct application to the sun's corona and a direct application to solar physics in general. I'd definitely start there in terms of asking for public funding.

Velikovsky would be the absolute last thing on my personal wish list. I have no interest in his work at all.

I would love to see some serious well funded experimentation with plasma redshift/inelastic scattering in the lab too. It seems to me that one simple process, or the range of inelastic scattering processes (plural) has the empirical possibility of killing three supernatural birds with a single empirical stone. Those kinds of experiments would be *very* high on my priority list.

I'd enjoy putting some of Thornhill's comet ideas to the spectral test in the lab, including seeing how it performs with cathode sun configurations, as well as anode surface configurations. IMO some comets may in fact be 'dirty snowballs', but I doubt that's true of them all.

I think I'd like to see how various comet models perform in the lab in terms of their spectral output and in terms of tail formation, maybe as a side experiment of the terella experiments.

I'd certainly encourage any work related to Telsa, particularly as it relates to a wireless transfer of energy. That seems like a promising field of study.

All we'd need is to divert the dark matter snipe hunt money for a few years, and it would revolutionize solar physics. A few more years of research on real photon redshift in the lab would probably change cosmology theory too. That would be my "wish".

[orrery]

Mapping of the local darkmode Interstellar plasma filaments. Then, to develop an electric train to ride those filaments.

[sketch1946]

My wish list would include all the above,
maybe starting with a sensible non-political look at Robitaille and his claims about Kirschoff's Law and Planck's constant...

Has anyone with mainstream clout rigorously proved Robitaille wrong about Planck's derivation?

There are plenty of ad-hominems out there...
But it appears that this Thunderbolts Project is making headway...

This guy admits there is an information war going on,
casts nasturtiums at Thunderbolts,
labels alternate views as 'slick pseudoscience',
and calls for help in making videos:

"Robitaille has been espousing his ideas for more than a decade, but I started getting requests to consider his clearly wonderful work when a talk of his was posted on YouTube. Fans of the electric universe, for example, flood my inbox with links and demands based upon YouTube videos. The biggest proponent of the electric universe is the Thunderbolts Project, which has over 200 videos, with millions of views. The videos are clear, and argue in simple terms that they are right, and thousands of trained scientists are wrong. And they’re winning hearts and minds.

Making videos is not something that’s been at the top of my list. It’s much easier to simply write blog posts and link to refereed sources. But if anyone wants to help make some videos, I’m ready to get busy. I’ll do what I can to make things more appealing and accessible, because the scientific gains we’ve made are too precious to be drowned in the noise of slick pseudoscience.

"the scientific gains we’ve made are too precious" clearly refers to the billions of dollars spent looking for dark things that can't be measured, seen or understood?

But Robitaille is so 'wildly wrong', that why bother to counter his claims?
His work isn't 'real science' so let's just move on... without peer-reviewed refutation...

Many of you reading this might figure that Robitaille is so wildly wrong that I shouldn’t even bother trying to counter his claims. I should just respond with “Eppur si muove!” and get on with real science. But then for most of you I’m preaching to the choir. I’m tilting at windmills, because the great debate isn’t occurring on blogs or in the refereed journals.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/12/30/t ... windmills/

Koberlein's page is also evidence that more and more people are starting to question the direction of mainstream cosmology

In this page, Stephen Crothers clearly deals with the issue of non-refutation in the comments section, it's worth reading through carefully
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Ki ... n_now_dead

I also agree with the proposition that including Velikovsky would be too much...he was definitely too far ahead of his time, or even of our time, we have to acknowledge catastrophism generally first, sort out what's going on with comets, including their origin, and deal with the mainstream core doctrinal belief system, which has a belief in the 'constants' of physics, nuclear fusion sun, gravity only cosmology, and of course the recent stability of planetary orbits.

Velikovsky was far too radical, and so copped a lethal dose of ad-hominem from such greats as Carl Sagan and Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin... fancy suggesting that planets in the solar system were capable of changes in their orbits... these theories in mainstream science are abundant, but they must have occurred in the remote past... it was inconceivable that it could have happened recently and been seen by people all around the world and recorded in 'myths and legends'....

Velikovsky also suggested the role of electric fields in the solar system, and was greeted with the same religious indignation and righteous condemnation as Wegener copped with his 'drifting' continents...

As far as being interested in Velikovsky's theories, Einstein publically disagreed with him, but had Velikovsky's book open on his desk the day Einstein died...

[jacmac]

This just came in:

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

Oh, sorry my bad, it was from September 7, 1999.
From NASA.

Last I heard:

Plasma is not a gas, liquid, or solid - it is the fourth state of matter. Plasma often behaves like a gas, except that it conducts electricity and is affected by magnetic fields.

With this knowledge the mainstream cosmology folks still say gravity is doing everything.
It is incredible.

We might as well put everything we can think of on the WISH LIST,
because that is where it will stay !

Jack

[sketch1946]

Haha... how about Alfven:
80 years and still his work is not generally recognised and often still not accepted

In 1937, Alfvén argued that if plasma pervaded the universe, it could then carry electric currents capable of generating a galactic magnetic field. <...>

In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.

His theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland) was confirmed in 1967, these currents now being known as Birkeland currents.

At least something happened after 30 years...

Alfvén's work was disputed for many years <...> Alfvén's disagreements ... stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity only to have his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time. He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists, ...... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize..." and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals.

Alfvén recalled:

When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.

Alfvén played a central role in the development of:

Plasma physics
Charged particle beams
Interplanetary medium
Magnetospheric physics
Magnetohydrodynamics
Solar phenomena investigation (such as the solar wind)
Aurorae science

"In 1939, Alfvén proposed the theory of magnetic storms and auroras and the theory of plasma dynamics in the earth's magnetosphere. This was the paper rejected by the U.S. journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity.

Imagine how it must have felt to have this understanding and see it rejected for most of your life....

Applications of Alfvén's research in space science include:

Van Allen radiation belt theory
Reduction of the Earth's magnetic field during magnetic storms
Magnetosphere (protective plasma covering the earth)
Formation of comet tails
Formation of the solar system
Dynamics of plasmas in the galaxy
Physical cosmology

Alfvén's views followed those of the founder of magnetospheric physics, Kristian Birkeland. At the end of the nineteenth century, Birkeland proposed (backed by extensive data) that electric currents flowing down along the Earth's magnetic fields into the atmosphere caused the aurora and polar magnetic disturbances.

Areas of technology benefiting from Alfvén's contributions include:

Particle accelerators
Controlled thermonuclear fusion
Hypersonic flight
Rocket propulsion
Reentry braking of space vehicles

Contributions to astrophysics:

Galactic magnetic field (1937)
Identified nonthermal synchrotron radiation from astronomical sources (1950)

Alfvén waves (low frequency hydromagnetic plasma oscillations) are named in his honor. Many of his theories about the solar system were verified as late as the 1980s through external measurements of cometary and planetary magnetospheres.

...Fifty years later

....Alfvén himself noted that astrophysical textbooks poorly represented known plasma phenomena:

A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).

Alfvén reported that of 17 of the most used textbooks on astrophysics, none mention the pinch effect, none mentioned critical ionization velocity, only two mentioned circuits, and three mentioned double layers.

Maybe the world is finally waking up, thanks to youtube and blogging etc to wean people off peer review censorship....

Alfvén believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n