Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:23 pm

The Science Asylum duznt i think mention JWT but duz mention the BB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSJtzn2H3Do

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:12 pm

Dave now has a youtube re Lerner & the BB.
I didnt have a close look -- it seems to contain the same stuff already mentioned on this forum -- eg Dave insists that Lerner cant criticize the BB if Lerner cant kumupwith a better bang or sumpen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S-mg1LMOAo&t=626s

Let's Examine "Dave"

by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:56 pm

Thanks crawler, we'll unpack that and what the paper says.

But the objection is that the math of the Schwarzchild singularity is up for examination.

Einstein in his paper pointed out that the warping of spacetime did not result in arbitrarily concentrated matter. This is neither "dazzlingly hypocritical" nor "using the concept" and "pretending that Einstein's right" about GR, to highlight this.

There was, and are, discrepancies in the math used to come up with the Schwarzchild singularity, or the black hole.

The math of black holes is bad.

Re: Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:50 pm

  • "[youtube channel "Dave":] Now, back to Mr. Thornhill and his lies. When lying about physics, Wal has a mantra,
    which is that most of modern physics is not really physics, but rather mathematics.

    There are two reasons for this. First, he doesn’t understand math, and would rather ignore it. Second, he knows that his target demographic probably also does not understand math, and would also like to ignore it.

    So Wal cultivates an environment where he and his followers can treat math like a mean bully, and pretend that physics can be done without it. The problem is that science requires gathering evidence. This means making quantifiable predictions that can be tested by way of some observation. And with physics, that means math. When it comes to mountains of firm quantitative, reproducible evidence supporting things like general relativity and other aspects of physics Wal denies, he either ignores the relevant experiments and applications, or attempts
    to explain how physicists are misinterpreting experimental results, to sell the story that it’s just a bunch of scary numbers that have no correlation with reality. He’s had his work cut 17:15 out for him over the past decade or so, with all the scientific breakthroughs that keep occurring."
There are quite a few ad hominem arguments here, plain and simple. This is extremely poor quality debate and he gets an F in logic also.

But the real underlying problem is that this man made a video about something that he never even researched ! While he does say that Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill often points out that "most of modern physics is not really physics, but rather mathematics" (which is a fair summation), he then claims that he is "cultivating an environment that treats math like a bully," "doesn't understand math," and his "targets don't understand math." That is a personal attack based on a false allegation [] and has nothing to do with what physicist Wal Thornhill has published or presented in his papers or conferences.

To illustrate, we can go back as far as you like. Here are his statements in January of 2006 for example:

A Real 'Theory of Everything'
Wal Thornhill

"To be gifted in mathematical ability does not imply comparable gifts in perception and critical reasoning. We perpetuate a popular delusion, fostered by mathematicians, by equating the two. As a result, theoretical physics has gone nowhere for the past century.

Where have the natural philosophers and epistemologists gone? Relativity theory, quantum theory and string theory cannot even claim to be physics. That the equations may appear to work says nothing about the validity of the concepts involved. We need to distinguish between mathematical representations and physical concepts, and we need to subordinate the former to the latter. Often, interpretation of data using these theories involves circular reasoning. Or the analysis may switch unnoticeably between incompatible models, for example between a wave and a particle; or between Einstein’s and Lorentz’s relativity theory.

A growing number of scientists are now questioning the hero worship of Einstein, not least because the Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null result for the existence of the æther. That tells us that the earlier Lorentz relativity theory, which has the same form as Einstein’s, is more empirically correct.

“… Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory.” 2

Einstein’s general theory of relativity continued this trend. The theory has nothing to say about why matter should affect empty space. Clearly, the mathematical concept of three dimensions being warped in a fourth dimension is meaningless in the real three-dimensional universe. String theory is far worse, proposing up to 26 mathematical dimensions. But a real physical dimension can be measured with a ruler. So time is not a dimension and the term “spacetime dimensions” is exposed as meaningless gobbledygook. It is no wonder that the layman is confused when countless books have been written on the subject of relativity by those superior minds who imagined they glimpsed some profound meaning on the other side of “Alice’s Looking Glass.”

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night,
God said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light.
It did not last; the Devil, howling “Ho!
Let Einstein be!” restored the status quo.
– Anon

Likewise, quantum theory is purely mathematical and has no connection between cause and effect. A given atom in a radioactive element decays for reasons unknown. It is a probabilistic theory. Einstein was unhappy with quantum theory because of its probabilistic nature. So it is no surprise that quantum theory and relativity theory are incompatible. The noted science fiction author Douglas Adams hilariously parodied quantum metaphysics with his spaceship driven by an “infinite improbability drive.” Neither theory has any concept of matter that can explain the effects we observe. This kind of thinking has allowed theoreticians to propose almost anything they can imagine as having some finite probability of occurring. When mathematicians dismiss the physics principles of “every effect must have a preceding cause” and “no creation ex nihilo,” we can understand why modern physics and cosmology reads like science fiction.

So the recent news from the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics came as no surprise. David Gross, who received a Nobel Prize for his work on the strong nuclear force and who is a leading light of string theory, admitted “we don’t know what we’re talking about.” “Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory,” he said. “But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break.”

He compared the state of physics today to that during the first Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory of quantum mechanics to explain it. “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” he said. “We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.” 3 It seems not to have occurred to attendees at the Solvay conference that quantum mechanics explains nothing. It merely provides mathematical probabilities of experimental outcomes. Mathematics can only advance science when the physical concepts are correct. If we want physics to become a real science of the natural world once more, we should not allow mathematicians to take the lead. Mathematics is a useful tool once the physical concepts are correct. Mathematics ain’t physics."

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by crawler » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:18 pm

Brigit wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:28 pm "Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force."

[Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “'The Schwarzschild singularity,' the term black hole had not been introduced then, 'does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.'"
Yes & No & Sort Of.

Early in the gravitational infall & formation processes collisions would convert confined photons (plasma & particles etc) to free photons (including paired photons)(ie neutrinos) which would depart at the speed of light & hence rob energy & hence the plasma & particles would slow.

And not forgetting that the speed of light near a body will slow as the body gains mass.

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:28 pm

  • "["Dave":] Now we get to the really devious tactics. Wal is trying to cite Einstein himself to discredit the existence of black holes. The notion that black holes are not a direct result of GR is insane.

    32:51 GR is about the warping of spacetime around massive objects. The more massive an object, the more warping there is around it, and thus the greater the escape velocity. If the warping is significant enough, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. That’s a black hole. But here’s the funny part, Wal claims that Einstein was right about black holes being impossible, and that GR is wrong, even though Einstein was using GR to make this case. So if spacetime is a “meaningless concatenation of non-physical terms”, according to Wal, why is he listening to Einstein
    33:28 use that concept to pretend he’s right about anything?"
At this point "Dave" appears to be minimizing the fact that in real time, Einstein did have serious reservations about what astronomers and physicists ended up settling on with his work, as he did about quantum theory.

He also did not address Einstein's real objection to the formation of a Schwarzchild Singularity:
"Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force." Personally, I would say there are conditions in which Einstein's GR and Newton's equations get the same results -- and there are electromagnetic fields which must be overcome in this supposed process as well. But Einstein in his paper pointed out that the warping of spacetime did not result in arbitrarily concentrated matter. This is neither "dazzlingly hypocritical" nor "using the concept" "pretending that he's right" about GR: there was, and are, discrepancies in the math used to come up with the Schwarzchild singularity, aka black hole. The math of black holes is bad. (But that's how singularities always appear, in bad math. -- They certainly do not appear in reality.)

[Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “'The Schwarzschild singularity,' the term black hole had not been introduced then, 'does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.'"

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:59 pm

I think we should listen to the sequence of events as Halton Arp saw them. He was there and he paid the price for showing through his telescope that the redshifted quasars were associated with wild galaxies and were 10 to 1000 times (ref needed) closer than had been claimed. These velocities had been claimed to support the expanding universe, and the expanding universe in turn supported solutions to Einstein's equations and General Relativity.

It is with amusement that Dr. Halton Arp relates the Einstein vs Einstein and the Hubble vs Hubble stories behind modern astronomy.

But wait, according to "Dave," recounting these historical arguments within science is -- what?

From the youtube video:
  • "The evidence for the existence of black holes has been undeniable for decades, such as observations of stars making hairpin turns around seemingly empty regions of space.
    31:20 And sorry, it’s no longer a hypothetical gravitational effect. It was predicted within the framework of general relativity, and then it was detected. So it’s not hypothetical. And if he had actually learned physics, he would know how we can be specific about the masses of black holes. Scientists don’t just pull numbers out of thin air. They do calculations regarding the motion of objects in the vicinity of the black hole, based on Kepler’s laws, which have been around for 400 years. He should know this.

    [Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “The Schwarzschild singularity, the term black hole had not been introduced then, does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light. Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force."

    ["Dave":] Now we get to the really devious tactics. Wal is trying to cite Einstein himself to discredit the existence of black holes. The notion that black holes are not a direct result of GR is insane.
    32:51 GR is about the warping of spacetime around massive objects. The more massive an object, the more warping there is around it, and thus the greater the escape velocity. If the warping is significant enough, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. That’s a black hole. But here’s the funny part, Wal claims that Einstein was right about black holes being impossible, and that GR is wrong, even though Einstein was using GR to make this case. So if spacetime is a “meaningless concatenation of non-physical terms”, according to Wal, why is he listening to Einstein
    33:28 use that concept to pretend he’s right about anything? Furthermore, he is always whining about how Einstein’s words are revered as dogma, and yet here's an instance where Einstein was wrong, and physics evolved from where it was in his time. So do physicists just blindly repeat what Einstein said, or are you now criticizing them for disagreeing with him? Who is holding Einstein up on a pedestal now, Wal? The hypocrisy is dazzling.
According to "Dave," discussing the math of the Schwarzschild singularity, or making a note of the conclusions of the original papers, or observing the lesser known history and sociology of science is apparently "using Einstein to discredit Einstein," and is "dazzling hypocrisy."

But don't let that get in the way of enjoying the historical chapter of Seeing Red, by one who was there. (Or even a whole genera of scientific history books.) In his books Halton Arp notes that several of the key players in the expanding universe/GR paradigm got very cold feet about it. And -- had they seen the results in radio and x-ray frequencies of the quasars ejected from galaxies, which came in 20-40 years later -- would they have had the decency to admit that they had interpreted the redshift incorrectly? Maybe.

But "Dave" instead argues that this is "dazzling hypocrisy" to note Einstein's personal objections. I think there's a term for that. Is it the Fahgedaboooutit Argument ?

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Sat Oct 22, 2022 9:54 pm

jackokie says »
"Look at the evidence"? That's crazy talk, said the chorus of astrologers - er, consensus astrophysicists.

You know, when you said "consensus astrophysicists," you really got me thinking about the order of events, and just exactly how the work of Halton Arp was so easily and completely minimized and suppressed. What he was finding all over the sky were quasar pairs which were positioned on either side of galactic centers, and these pairs of quasars had redshifts much greater than the galaxies they were connected to. But his papers were turned down in Journal after Journal, and publisher after publisher refused to print his observations.
"Just another isolated case," he was told.

By the time the radio and x-ray observations were coming in, showing bridges and jets and quasars associated with wild galaxies, "the fix was in." The Fix had already been in for more than 20 years, with none other than Einstein's relativity at the center of the Fix.

Halton Arp wrote:

"Key Events in Cosmology - The Theory
It is currently believed that rigorous cosmology started in the early 1920's after Einstein wrote down the equations of general relativity. These essentially represented the conservation of mass, energy, momentum, etc. in the most general possible coordinate system. In 1922, the Russian mathemetician, A. Friedmann, 'solved' these equations, i.e., showed how the system would behave in time. It is interesting to note that at first, Einstein felt this solution was incorrect. Later he said it was correct, but of no consequence. Finally he accepted the validity of this solution, but was so unhappy with the fact that it was not a stable solution, i.e., it either collapsed or expanded, that he retained the cosmological constant he had earlier introduced in order to keep the universe static. (This constant was later referred to as the cosmological fudge factor.)

In 1924, Hubble persuaded the world that the 'white nebulae' were really extragalactic, and a few years later announced that the redshifts of their spectral lines increased as they became fainter. This redshift-apparent magnitude relation for galaxies became known as the Hubble law (through lack of rigor, often referred to as the redshift-distance relation).

At this point Einstein dropped his cosmological constant as a great mistake, and adopted the view that his equations had been telling him all along, that the universe was expanding. Thus was born the Big Bang theory, according to which the entire universe was created instantaneously out of nothing 15 billion years ago.

This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble the observer, even up to his final lecture at the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else."

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by jackokie » Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:46 pm

"Look at the evidence"? That's crazy talk, said the chorus of astrologers - er, consensus astrophysicists.

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:18 pm

Dave says, "It’s hard to know whether Wal really does know zero things about general relativity or if he just relies on his targets knowing zero things about general relativity, but anyone who says something like this about GR is a moron. Completely contrary to ignoring stars and planets, it is specifically observations of stars and planets that have firmly corroborated relativity countless times.

26:04 The first was the famous observation with  Eddington of a star’s apparent position bending around the sun during a solar eclipse.  Then there was the flawless alignment with the  perihelion precession of Mercury. The observation of gravitational lensing all over the universe.  Modeling the paths of stars near galactic center as they rapidly orbit a supermassive black hole."

In the beginning of his video, "Dave" prefaces what he says by categorizing the Electric Universe and SAFIRE as "pseudoscience." That is a very interesting term he uses. We will come back to that later, but we started with his main point, and that is that any one who contradicts GR does not understand it and does not know anything about science. But the fact is, there are some individual scientists who have found real problems with GR, and with the supposed "proofs" of GR.

We have here an assertion that there is a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and in the center of most galaxies. The modeled paths of stars near the galactic center validate this assumption.
  • https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02 ... 173466.jpg
    Black hole - Wikipedia
    "A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing – no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light – can escape from it. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole."
In the Electric Universe, as physicist Wal Thornhill (and too few others) has tirelessly pointed out, the centers of galaxies are not occupied by a black hole. Galaxies are indeed the foci of powerful forces, but gravity and bent space-time are not what we are looking at. Rather, the centers of galaxies are the sources of bipolar jets spanning for millions of light years, and they are also the source of pairs of quasars, which are ejected right along their axes.

The implications of these active galaxies ejecting quasars is astonishing. The connections between these galaxies and the pairs of quasars are sometimes physical bridges of bright materials from the galactic center to the quasars. This was observed and cataloged by astronomer Halton Arp.

Now if you read this, you have a choice. Do you accept the idea that the quasars are unconnected with the galaxies because they are highly redshifted, or do you look at the evidence and consider that these redshifted quasars are connected to the galaxy that gave them birth ?

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:49 pm

Now since this thread is going to be a search for any valid point "Dave" may have made, and since no one can find even one yet, we'll at least have a little fun and create a nice resource.

On GPS adjustments, we have referenced the work of several scientists in the field of astronomy and global positioning systems who show that these adjustments have nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity.

For example, nick c here: "As Dr. Smid points out, the margin of error for GPS is about 2 to 3 meters while the relativity correction is about 8 millimeters. GPS works the same, regardless of any relativity adjustment."
  • Global Positioning System (GPS) and Relativity

    "The Global Positioning System (GPS) is nowadays considered as the prime example for the everyday importance of Relativity. It is claimed that without the relativistic corrections (which amount to 38 microseconds/day) the error in the determination of the position would accumulate quickly to values much larger then the observed accuracy (Ref.1 , Ref.2).
    However, in reality the positions are actually not obtained by comparing the time signal received from the satellite with the receiver time, but by observing the difference between the time signals obtained from a number of different satellites (see the Wikipedia GPS article for details (note that I have linked this now to an older version of the article, as the latest version is not as clear in this respect)).
    Consider for simplicity a one dimensional problem where the receiver is located somewhere on the line connecting the two transmitters. In this case the signal from transmitter 1 reaches the receiver at time
    (1) t1 = t0+ x1/c

    and the signal from transmitter 2 reaches the receiver at time
    (2) t2 = t0+ x2/c ,

    where t0 is the time the signal is being sent out (assuming both transmitter clocks are synchronized), x1 is the distance of the receiver from transmitter 1, x2 the distance of the receiver from transmitter2, and c the speed of light.
    Now if one subtracts Eqs.(1) and (2) one gets
    (3) x1-x2 = c. [t1-t2].

    One knows therefore the position of the receiver just by comparing the time signals from the two transmitters (the receiver clock is completely irrelevant).
    If one assumes now that the transmitter clocks are running fast or slow by a relative factor (1+ε), one has instead:
    (4) x1-x2 = c.[(1+ε).t1 -(1+ε).t2] = c.(1+ε).(t1-t2)

    which means that the position will simply be wrong by a relative factor ε, but there is obviously no accumulation as the transmitter clocks run at the same rate relatively to each other (assuming that all satellites have identical heights and speeds, i.e. identical relativistic time dilations).
    Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!
    For a further discussion of this issue please see my discussion pages."
"Note: anyone interested in the math in the above quote should refer to the link below (the forum software does not allow for subscript or superscripts in the equations)
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm "

Again, see Tom Van Flandern and Ronald Hatch (a guest speaker for the Electric Universe) on the first page for more references on the subject.

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:30 pm

Now addressing "Dave's" central point here

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... =814#p7849

we see that he has mainly charged Electric Universe proponent, physicist Wal Thornhill, with knowing nothing about General Relativity. He did this in a series of ad hominems, and we found a total of nine verbally abusive and false claims in less than 3 minutes.

He quotes Wal Thornhill here:
25:00 "[Quote:] 'The mission of a theoretical physicist trying to work out the nature of substance and elementary particles is to get the maths to work out correctly, and consistent with what’s gone on before.' " [W.T.:] "So we’re discussing mathematics, not physics. And of course, what’s gone on before is that mathematicians raised Einstein’s general relativity to the status of scripture, while that theory ignores the substance of stars and planets that exhibit mass and gravity. So the theory has no physical basis whatsoever. It depends instead on a warped view of reality."

The issue here is that GR "ignores the substance of the stars and planets that exhibit mass and gravity" -- in other words, what is it about the mass and gravity of planets and stars that actually warps space and time?

"Dave" then launches into a series of "proofs" of GR, which do of course "involve planets and stars."
1. Eddington's solar eclipse measurement of bending starlight, around the time of WWI
2. Mercury's orbit
3. Gravitational lensing of light by galaxies in space so that they look like they have arcs and halos
4. paths of stars near the galactic center, which is supposed to contain a black hole
5. GPS adjustments using relativistic effects

All of these are observations which the Electric Universe has discussed in terms of electrical effects, over and over through the years, along with commentary on the history of the concept of gravity from Newton to Einstein, the experiments, and the measurements. So first, Dave's argument that Wal Thornhill doesn't understand GR is a falsehood which he invented, and published on his channel.

Next, his argument that these effects are proof of GR and only of GR are fallacious, because there are other scientific interpretations of the same data. The fallacy is that the only possible interpretation is the one permitted by the experts, who are committed to proving GR. And the further fallacy is that if the experts do not acknowledge any other interpretations of these various phenomena, than there are no other interpretations.

And third, he also missed the point entirely. What within the substance of star's mass should cause a star's mass bend space and time?

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by Brigit » Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:33 pm

nick c says » "No, Wal Thornhill has put up the idea that the aether may be a "plenum of neutrinos". I don't recall any reference to the aether from Scott."

I can't quite remember Prof. Scott ever speaking about a medium of aether in space either, nick c.

I looked in Don Scott's new book, The Interconnected Cosmos, and the term does not appear in the index. But I do think he favors classical physics, and certainly on the subject of gravity is a long-time critic of Einstein's GR and of Black Holes and of dark matter. He shows that the powerful energetic events we see from active galaxies, such as bipolar jets shown below, are not caused by black holes, but are fully explainable using Alfven's model of Birkeland currents flowing through galaxies. No dark matter is needed to explain the rotational curves of these galaxies either, because the rotation is imparted by the electric current.

For example, on page 152, he discusses galaxy structures:
  • "In many galaxies the jet structure cannot be seen in visible light. So until the development of infrared and x-ray orbiting satellite telescopes, most of these features remained undiscovered. There are now many images of galaxies which show the Alfven structure.
    It is the firm conviction of this writer that the 'jet' that is positioned along the main rotational axis of the galaxy in Alfven's model is, in actuality, a Birkeland Current (a part of the Intergalactic Web) on which the galaxy was formed.

    After formation, this BC may continue to provide an electrical input to the galaxy. If the age of the galaxy is great, the BC may be vestigial -- weaker, and be in the dark mode...."



ref: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1aQ6zh_KoVQ
A homopolar motor is the simplest motor, and like filaments, jets, and electrodes, may be formed by interstellar plasmas (which tend to be bound by double layers). 99.999% of the material in the known universe is in a plasma state.

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

by nick c » Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm

crawler wrote:I seem to remember that the EU aether (or was it just Don Scott's) is neutrino based
No, Wal Thornhill has put up the idea that the aether may be a "plenum of neutrinos". I don't recall any reference to the aether from Scott.

Top