What is EU position?

[antosarai]

Presently, what is EU position regarding The Standard Model of particle physics?

Does anybody know?

[JP Michael]

Eugene (paladin17) should have a good answer for this, seeing particle physics is his specialisation!

[nick c]

The EU is primarily concerned with the macro universe but Wal Thornhill has in several articles, been highly critical of consensus particle physics:
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-6-bi ... hc-circus/
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric ... -universe/

[paladin17]

Eugene (paladin17) should have a good answer for this, seeing particle physics is his specialisation!

If you ask me, there is no "EU position" on anything, as EU is a paradigm - not a theory - under which many different (often mutually exclusive) theories exist.

[JP Michael]

Aww cmon paladin17. Ya won't even tickle our ears a little?

[D_Archer]

Presently, what is EU position regarding The Standard Model of particle physics?

Does anybody know?

Good question, the answer, EU says the standard model is flawed. Wal proposed an alternative model that does not work either... so we have nothing.

The only real progress in this field has been made by Miles Mathis by giving structure to the atomic nucleus of molecules and all force is mediated by charge (ie real physical photons). All matter recycles photons, in through the poles and out mostly at the equator.

Regards,
Daniel

[paladin17]

Aww cmon paladin17. Ya won't even tickle our ears a little?

One theory I personally favor (although not part of the EU at all - at least per se) was developed by A. Kyriakos* - the one he simply called "nonlinear quantum field theory". It is fully compatible with regular quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (at least in terms of results), and represents a relatively simple extension thereof.
The basis of such an extension is an addition of 2 postulates:
1) photon wavelength is quantized - meaning that a photon is simply an isolated wave from start to finish of a single field oscillation (with the wavelength determined by the Planck relation);
2) under certain conditions photons can form closed structures (i.e. this single wave may lock onto itself, forming a circular - or of some other shape - loop), which correspond to massive particles.

The first postulate solves the problem of photon non-locality (briefly described in this post). The second postulate, as Kyriakos has shown, demonstrates how electrons/positrons are formed (they are an advanced and retarded wave in a single linearly polarized photon loop), also neutrinos/antineutrinos (same as for electrons, but the wave is circularly polarized), nucleons (it's a 3-dimensional photon loop with 3 intrinsic oscillations - basically a Lissajous curve; hence 3 "constituent quarks" in a nucleon) etc.
The mass of these particles is generated in a normal "electromagnetic" way - i.e. through self-action of an electromagnetic field (see electromagnetic mass). It also gives physical meaning to the [previously purely abstract] concept of a wave function - it is simply the nonlinear E and H fields, i.e. the oscillating electric and magnetic fields that constitute the looped photon itself.
Etc.

*I actually talked to him via e-mail in 2018, and the funny thing is that it was him who found me and wrote to me and not vice versa - and not because of my involvement with TBs or whatever, but because of my philosophical texts (in Russian) which he somehow found (and many of which later became videos on my channel). During our dialogue he sent me some of his works, but in a twist of cruel irony I was too busy at the time to examine them in detail (given their volume), and when I finally got the time (many months later) and was sheerly amazed and wrote back to him (on all the addresses I could find), he never responded. Since he doesn't seem to be active anywhere else as well, I suspect that he is not alive anymore, so many questions I have about his theory would remain unanswered.

[Sovereign Slave]

Have been posting on phys.org, mainly about Alfven and some of his predictions, including magnetic fields in space. One poster who seems knowledgeable and claims to be an electrical physicist posted this:

"Without adding magnets or magnetic fields to the plasma all you get is the entire chamber glowing evenly. If you want to form a plasma structure at high vacuum levels you have to add magnetic fields. Electrical current alone gives you squat. This is exactly what Birkeland found with his experiments long ago.

He had to add magnetic fields to his vacuum chamber to get Birkeland currents. Look up the very definition of Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents are simply currents that follow pre-existing magnetic field lines. Birkeland currents do NOT create the magnetic field. It must pre-exist and all studies have confirmed this fact over and over again."

Have been keeping up with EU for years. It is my understanding that EU contends that electrical current produces magnetic fields, yet this guy is contending the opposite. So, can anyone point me to laboratory experiments that show the electrical currents do produce magnetic fields?

[Cargo]

I would first ask, "Which particle?".

[paladin17]

Have been posting on phys.org, mainly about Alfven and some of his predictions, including magnetic fields in space. One poster who seems knowledgeable and claims to be an electrical physicist posted this:

"Without adding magnets or magnetic fields to the plasma all you get is the entire chamber glowing evenly. If you want to form a plasma structure at high vacuum levels you have to add magnetic fields. Electrical current alone gives you squat. This is exactly what Birkeland found with his experiments long ago.

He had to add magnetic fields to his vacuum chamber to get Birkeland currents. Look up the very definition of Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents are simply currents that follow pre-existing magnetic field lines. Birkeland currents do NOT create the magnetic field. It must pre-exist and all studies have confirmed this fact over and over again."

Have been keeping up with EU for years. It is my understanding that EU contends that electrical current produces magnetic fields, yet this guy is contending the opposite. So, can anyone point me to laboratory experiments that show the electrical currents do produce magnetic fields?

You know how Birkeland created his magnetic field? He used a coil with current.

[GaryN]

Sovereign Slave:

Have been keeping up with EU for years. It is my understanding that EU contends that electrical current produces magnetic fields, yet this guy is contending the opposite. So, can anyone point me to laboratory experiments that show the electrical currents do produce magnetic fields?

pdf by George Rajna available here:
https://www.academia.edu/3833335/The_Ma ... view-paper

[toni]

In Nick's post there is Wallace's writing LHC circus where he said 'This is an electric universe not a gravitational universe'. In my opinion this is not correct either. This universe is:

GRAVITY CONTROL ELECTRIC MOTION

To say that this universe is just electric would be the same as saying that a train builds its own tracks while moving at full speed.
One of the biggest secrets of the universe is to know the wave. To know the wave and its operation is to know most of the answers that we are missing. Wallace and many other scientists are constantly reminding us that the stories we have been told are just that - stories. Stories and fantasies have very little to do with nature and the real world. Stories work perfectly for the 'do nothing community'. As soon as you try to accomplish something, it all falls apart.
One of the reasons that it is hard to move beyond this is explained by Mr. Bohm who said "Ordinary people would give their life for their beliefs but for us scientists, tomorrow everything could fall apart and we have to start anew". I feel confident that we know enough that we could replace all of the stories with something that would be much closer to nature and electricity.

[jackokie]

Sovereign Slave:

If electric currents didn't generate magnetic fields, would electric motors work?

[Bin-Ra]

In Nick's post there is Wallace's writing LHC circus where he said 'This is an electric universe not a gravitational universe'. In my opinion this is not correct either. This universe is:

GRAVITY CONTROL ELECTRIC MOTION

To say that this universe is just electric would be the same as saying that a train builds its own tracks while moving at full speed.
One of the biggest secrets of the universe is to know the wave. To know the wave and its operation is to know most of the answers that we are missing. Wallace and many other scientists are constantly reminding us that the stories we have been told are just that - stories. Stories and fantasies have very little to do with nature and the real world. Stories work perfectly for the 'do nothing community'. As soon as you try to accomplish something, it all falls apart.
One of the reasons that it is hard to move beyond this is explained by Mr. Bohm who said "Ordinary people would give their life for their beliefs but for us scientists, tomorrow everything could fall apart and we have to start anew". I feel confident that we know enough that we could replace all of the stories with something that would be much closer to nature and electricity.

Stories are always stories and models are rulesets from which stories or interpretations are given acceptance or significance.
I see old physics as being an object model formed from a subjective distancing from the field of felt resonance to definitions by which to manipulate and control our world rather than narratives to control our minds. Yet here we are again in dogma of narrative control masking as science!

That superstition and psychic emotional manipulation distorted our past is evident, and the 'solution' of science offers a genuine tool of empiric validation for otherwise invested narrative identities or Models. However to JUST look through existing Model rulesets is to see only what they dictate. The comparison of gravity based and electric based modelling is not so much of Good v Evil, but of an inclusive expansion or growth as a result of releasing a 'mindset or worldview' that has enough funding and support to operate as a virtual reality augmented with dark fudge.

My sense is that technologists have to use what works, even if they do not expand their findings to the adjusted Model. Workarounds don't have to be investigated to why if all you really want is to solve a problem reliably.
But nonetheless an insider science must know that the mainstreamed model is a narrative masking, excepting many are so specialised as to not really deal with anything else.
My point is that The EU and plasma physics perspectives are not augments to the Universe such as we seek to humanly understand, but more fundamental. And everything else has to find its place in terms of what I might consider the FIRST phase of Matter and not the fourth - and operating within solids, liquids and gases to which we JUST 'explained' for most part in terms of thermodynamics.

The making of an identity from any presumed conflict (such as EU v Gravity etc) is a particularly human expression.
The polarising of thought to charged positions that operates the psychic-emotional context, is itself an example of charge separation, leading to interactive or reactive patterns, structures and of course rapid destruction, such as in wars openly or covertly enacted.

The balance between apparently for not totally closed domains and an embracing Open Terrain is the life of a cell a self or a Solar System.
In gravity or object-space models we may see a balance of forces, but in EU I see an expression of Balance, where the zero point is anything but a 'nothing', but rather the source or whole of which all polarity extends as differentiations within a whole.

Unlike Humpty, this view of wholeness - like Bohm indicated - is always already the case and can be aligned with as coherence or defined from a point of differentiation as interactive experience. Balance and imbalance both serving Life. I realise human significance is considered very bad taste in our modern celebration of infinite meaninglessness, but Garbage in; garbage out applies to our most fundamental questions. Garbage out is a valid 'result' by which to reevaluate our questioning and its liability to frame any answer in its own suppositions, resulting in circular feedback that seems to support a pet theory or a personal creation given preference over relational honesty.

No one like to lose face, be humiliated or lose credibility, position, status, privilege funding etc.
I don't feel to try to raise the dead so much as to attend the living and anyone who engages as part of its field.
A levitational Field could be our capacity to take our self so lightly as to not regard new relational inputs as attacks, and yet our defined territory is an object continuity rather than a resonant alignment. The gravity of our human conditioning is identity set in drama resulting from felt attachments to objects of affection, taken unto ourself, rather than appreciated in Context.
Love or joy in our endeavour is what moves us, as long as we don't lockdown into a dead or past identification, to distance from current threat, under masking or Klingon technology. We either release what does not truly serve us or choose in effect to die with our illusions. Propping up idols is the 'religion' of sacrifice. 'Save our System'. But where we look for our source of identity or self-coherence is up to us, each and together, as we are moved.