2020s: The decade of electric universe and anti-relativity memes?

[EtherQuestions]

While the arguments presented by the Thunderbolts Project are nothing short of compelling and greatly informative through media such as youtube, having a slideshow of Birkeland Currents, and the same ambient trumpet music soundtrack in the background, (on its own) probably isn't going to cut it for the short attention span of many potential Electric Universe followers who belong to Generation Z(ombie).

Even when the content itself is amazing, intriguing and so are the many guests that share their ideas as we all know. Many new people want the "straight to the point", new fresh stimulating content that evokes a feeling of purpose, inspiration, and almost instantly appeals to humor and things that are relatable and understandable.

Which leads me to a proposal for all those EU enthusiasts reading, memes. May-mays. Wonderful little things that can hook the attention span and titillate the impatient mind - whilst also effectively making them aware of:

1.) Obvious reasons why Special/General Relativity are actually impossible, and why alternatives must to be considered. Since SR/GR are opposed to basic common sense, it isn't hard to quickly invalidate them and make people aware of the logical fallacies in a quickly understandable way.
2.) Compelling reasons for an Electric Universe, and its mounting predictions - reasons why it should be considered as a viable theory.

People being aware of these blatant errors in SR/GR might put them on a search for the scientific truths. Like explorers discovering new lands.

Here are some marvelous recent examples found on reddit's Electric Universe page (r/electricuniverse).

https://i.redd.it/wbjodn00xl941.png
https://i.redd.it/qtxww66qzya41.png
https://i.redd.it/jcc289cyscb41.png
https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... ompletely/
https://old.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniver ... s_special/
https://i.redd.it/cuqt7go2rrc41.png

This would be a humanitarian meme effort. And its outcomes could help in saving us from environmental catastrophe. We are talking about a greater understanding of science. 100 years. And barely nothing developed in space travel and our understanding of cosmology.
Wasted intellect, brilliant mathematicians and minds just being wasted! Can you imagine a Stephen Hawking as a plasma cosmologist? The new technological advancements that humanity could spring with intellect not being squandered in the tens of thousands by the illogical (and also impossible) theories of relativity. If you are reading this, what are you waiting for? Get memeing. Get youtubing. Share the wisdom.

It's an uphill struggle for now, but once the ball of logic and common sense actually gets rolling ...

"Preaching to the choir isn't enough when your in the midst of a racket. You have to sing, and draw people in to join in your music, making it ever louder and ever more coherent. Until the racket is drowned by coherence."

[crawler]

Re the Einsteinian Dark Age costing science 115 years.
The Popes have cost science over 1000 years. Imagine what present science would have been like had Armstrong walked on the moon in July 969.

[Michael Mozina]

1.) Obvious reasons why Special/General Relativity are actually impossible, and why alternatives must to be considered. Since SR/GR are opposed to basic common sense, it isn't hard to quickly invalidate them and make people aware of the logical fallacies in a quickly understandable way.

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point. It's not SR or GR theory that is actually 'scientifically impossible", it's the LCDM cosmology model that is impossible because unlike GR theory itself, the LCDM model violates conservation of energy laws via 'space expansion" and 'dark energy", neither of which are *required* in GR. Furthermore GR theory itself isn't necessarily incompatible with EU/PC models.

We all agree that gravity exists even if we aren't entirely sure of the cause of gravity. There's nothing wrong with using GR theory to describe gravity, just the way it's *abused* in the LCDM cosmology model. You wouldn't blame Newton for "space expansion" or "dark energy", or "inflation" additions being kludged into Newton's formulas, or blame Alfven for "magnetic reconnection" models because the are based on MHD theory, so why would you blame Einstein for the mainstream's misuse of GR theory in the LCDM model?

There's no inherent incompatibility between GR and EU. That's a misconception that the mainstream would *like* us to believe, but it's simply not true. The mainstream attempts to justify their own mythical cosmology model by trying to inappropriately ride the coattails of GR theory to give it an air of credibility.

[EtherQuestions]

1.) Obvious reasons why Special/General Relativity are actually impossible, and why alternatives must to be considered. Since SR/GR are opposed to basic common sense, it isn't hard to quickly invalidate them and make people aware of the logical fallacies in a quickly understandable way.

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point. It's not SR or GR theory that is actually 'scientifically impossible", it's the LCDM cosmology model that is impossible because unlike GR theory itself, the LCDM model violates conservation of energy laws via 'space expansion" and 'dark energy", neither of which are *required* in GR. Furthermore GR theory itself isn't necessarily incompatible with EU/PC models.

We all agree that gravity exists even if we aren't entirely sure of the cause of gravity. There's nothing wrong with using GR theory to describe gravity, just the way it's *abused* in the LCDM cosmology model. You wouldn't blame Newton for "space expansion" or "dark energy", or "inflation" additions being kludged into Newton's formulas, or blame Alfven for "magnetic reconnection" models because the are based on MHD theory, so why would you blame Einstein for the mainstream's misuse of GR theory in the LCDM model?

There's no inherent incompatibility between GR and EU. That's a misconception that the mainstream would *like* us to believe, but it's simply not true. The mainstream attempts to justify their own mythical cosmology model by trying to inappropriately ride the coattails of GR theory to give it an air of credibility.

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point.

I get enough threats on other forums for criticizing and pointing out the obvious logical fallacies in relativity. I'm not putting up with that trash on here. This isn't a General Relativity forum.

You want to debate, debate. I like being proven wrong in a scientific debate. But do it with scientific arguments, not suggestive threats.


so why would you blame Einstein

Never mentioned him in my post so you're being purposefully misleading. He was one of the many minds behind General Relativity anyway.


You wouldn't blame Newton for "space expansion" or "dark energy", or "inflation" additions being kludged into Newton's formulas

Those aren't Newton's formulas. Nobody in relativity claims they are either. So this argument is invalid.


It's not SR or GR theory that is actually 'scientifically impossible",

They are impossible. They have HUNDREDS of logical fallacies. And GR is not a theory that is cross compatible with an Electric Universe either.

Do I need to post every logical fallacy I know of in relativity? Have you read SJ Crother's papers? Or anybody's criticizing relativity?

I would be typing for days if I posted them all (you probably wouldn't even consider or read them) ... here have this one.


The Doppler Effect invalidates light invariance

Special Relativity is absolutely impossible when one considers the Doppler Effect. For an approaching observer (to explain what happens when light is reflected/absorbed at shorter wavelengths) relativity must increase the frequency of the waves (photons) for that observer (this is what happens in a normal non-relativistic wave as the approaching waves are actually approaching the receiver faster in the receivers reference frame).

But in the impossible theory of relativity light must remain c. So in relativity for an approaching receiver the frequency increases, but the light must also slow down to remain c! Both of these things can never happen.

If one assumes a constant phase velocity c, the photons (wave peaks themselves) must slow down to remain c for the observer, reducing the real distance between them and increasing the actual frequency. This means the frequency overtakes the rate of emission, the number of photons (or waves) emitted will only increase in difference for the observer over time. Which is impossible.

If one assumes a constant group velocity c, the photons (wave peaks themselves) remain unchanged from their original real velocity and must overtake the velocity of light c for the observer, but they are confined inside a "wave packet" that remains c for the observer (group velocity).
As the waves (photons) are traveling faster than the wave packet itself they must diminish in amplitude before leaving the wave packet.
Of course not to lose photons they must "reappear" at the beginning of the wave packet with no physical cause. This causes an amplitude disparity for the observer (which is impossible and contradicts superposition experiments), but not a frequency disparity if one assumes a "detached" emitted wave packet. Now what really busts up light invariance/Special Relativity and creates an undeniable logical fallacy is when one considers a continuous wave packet that is still being emitted with varying wavelengths, where do the diminished photons/light waves reappear now? They can't.
If they do you have a phase, frequency, and amplitude disparity all at the same time that grows over time.

Light invariance is impossible. And so are Special/General Relativity.

[jacmac]

Michael Mozina:

I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree on this point.

This seem like a rather mild way for a person to say that he differs with your statements.

EtherQuestions:

I get enough threats on other forums............I'm not putting up with that trash on here

Really, that's how you want to engage someone here on this forum?
Good Luck,
Jack

[Michael Mozina]

I get enough threats on other forums for criticizing and pointing out the obvious logical fallacies in relativity. I'm not putting up with that trash on here. This isn't a General Relativity forum.

Threats? What are you even talking about? The term "barking up the wrong tree" isn't a threat, it's simply a phrase that suggests that I disagree with your assessment of GR theory. Chill out and relax. Nobody here is threatening you here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_up_the_wrong_tree

You want to debate, debate. I like being proven wrong in a scientific debate. But do it with scientific arguments, not suggestive threats.

Again, the term "barking up the wrong tree) has nothing to do with a "threat', I simply think that you're incorrectly blaming GR theory of gravity for the sins of the LCDM cosmology model. I think that you missed my point entirely. I certainly wasn't threatening you in any way, even though I tend to disagree with your position on the topic of GR theory.

FYI, GR is completely compatible with Doppler shift. Although light continues to travel at C in GR, the loss (or gain) of energy of the photon related to the relative movement of the emitting object results in redshift (or blueshift), so the phenomenon of Doppler shift is completely compatible with SR and GR. In fact it's a "prediction" of GR theory. Light cannot change speed so any change of momentum of the photons results in redshift or blueshift of the photon.

In terms of other types of "evidence' to support GR theory, a very recent article suggests that "frame-dragging" (a prediction of GR theory) seems to have been observed recently.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time

There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that time isn't 'fixed", rather it's variable depending on speed and proximation to mass and such.

Something causes me to stick to my couch as I type this response. Whether one attributes it to a force (Newton/QM oriented models), or geometric curvature (GR) theory, it's hard to deny the fact that I'm not floating off my couch as I type.

My point was that GR theory isn't *necessarily* incompatible with *any* cosmology model, including EU/PC theory. I think LCDM proponents tend to try to "take the high ground" by erroneously trying to ride the coattails of GR theory to promote their energy conservation defying nonsense that they call the LCDM model. GR theory isn't incompatible with any EU/PC model that I'm aware of. I'd personally be "happier" with a QM based explanation of gravity that is based on EM fields, but I simply haven't seen one yet that has convinced me that it's "better than" GR theory in terms of explaining the phenomenon of gravity. Your mileage may vary of course.

My point wasn't to threaten you, merely to point out that GR theory isn't incompatible with EU/PC models, nor is it's the exclusive domain of the LCDM model.

[crawler]

In terms of other types of "evidence' to support GR theory, a very recent article suggests that "frame-dragging" (a prediction of GR theory) seems to have been observed recently.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that time isn't 'fixed", rather it's variable depending on speed and proximation to mass and such.

Einsteinologists are fond of proving GTR, they never say that their observations support GTR & every other theory that fits.

[EtherQuestions]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_up_the_wrong_tree


Again, the term "barking up the wrong tree) has nothing to do with a "threat', I simply think that you're incorrectly blaming GR theory of gravity for the sins of the LCDM cosmology model. I think that you missed my point entirely. I certainly wasn't threatening you in any way, even though I tend to disagree with your position on the topic of GR theory.

FYI, GR is completely compatible with Doppler shift. Although light continues to travel at C in GR, the loss (or gain) of energy of the photon related to the relative movement of the emitting object results in redshift (or blueshift), so the phenomenon of Doppler shift is completely compatible with SR and GR. In fact it's a "prediction" of GR theory. Light cannot change speed so any change of momentum of the photons results in redshift or blueshift of the photon.

Sorry this was my error I didn't know what this tree barking meant. English problems, it does sound like a threat, which I often get huge amounts for criticizing relativity.

Athough light continues to travel at C in GR, the loss (or gain) of energy of the photon related to the relative movement of the emitting object results in redshift (or blueshift),

This doesn't solve the phase problem I brought forward before, as light behaves as a wave and has corresponding wave components ... energy changes are completely irrelevant to the original problem which is one of phase, frequency. and amplitude disparities that are inevitably brought about by light invariance.


The reason relativity must be removed is it is impossible, and holds back scientific progress as proposals that don't fit into relativity are ignored.

To use the tree barking analogy:

"If relativity is a giant tree, then it's successive branches have overshadowed the growth
of alternative ideas that are much closer to the truth for a century,
it does this by blocking out the light of wisdom and common sense.

We are not just barking up that tree, we're uprooting it to show everybody
it had NO ROOTS to begin with and it was ALWAYS a waste of space
in the field of cosmology.

It's time for new seeds to grow,
new ideas to flourish, a mighty beanstalk to the stars!
And free fruit for all! The true beauty of the Universe will no
longer be blocked by the decrepit lifeless branches of relativistic thought
and the dead rotten tree they hang from!

The garden of natural philosophy with breathe life, logic and wisdom once more!"



(Thunderbolts if you're reading this you have my 100% consent to use that in one of your videos/presentations)

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -spacetime

There are many scientists who are interested in seeking QM oriented definition of gravity, but it's hard to simply ignore the numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

My main point however is that GR theory itself isn't incompatible with any particular cosmology model, including EU/PC oriented models. There's nothing inherent to GR theory that automatically validates the big bang model, or that favors a big bang model. The LCDM *cosmology* model is scientific mess, but that's not really the fault of GR theory itself, it's the fault of those who choose to *misuse* GR theory by stuffing it full of metaphysical nonsense.

I guess I don't fully understand your argument about Doppler shift but I've never seen anyone try to use Doppler shift to refute GR theory before. Could you elaborate, or cite a prior post that explains your argument a bit better? Maybe I missed it.

[LaSuisse1]

In terms of other types of "evidence' to support GR theory, a very recent article suggests that "frame-dragging" (a prediction of GR theory) seems to have been observed recently.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that time isn't 'fixed", rather it's variable depending on speed and proximation to mass and such.

Einsteinologists are fond of proving GTR, they never say that their observations support GTR & every other theory that fits.

Then the simplest thing to do would be to link to the proofs in the scientific literature that prove that other 'theories' can also explain frame-dragging, time dilation, precession, etc. My view would be that they do not exist.

[LaSuisse1]

My main point however is that GR theory itself isn't incompatible with any particular cosmology model, including EU/PC oriented models.

If those EU/PC models deny relativity itself, or black holes or neutron stars, etc, then they are most certainly ruled out by relativity.

[Zyxzevn]

There are many scientists who are interested in seeking QM oriented definition of gravity, but it's hard to simply ignore the numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

I agree that we do not need to attack General relativity, and can just use it if we need to.
And I can work fine with that idea.

With General relativity you can just drop the idea of inflation, because it is just a parameter.
And drop black holes, because it is a mix between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity.

But I like to continue the scientific progress and look whether we can find a
gravity that is compatible with QM.
QM and Einstein's gravity are incompatible due to the way they handle space and time.
QM is the most accurate theory ever constructed.

All efforts have been into changing QM with all kinds of weird things, but due to some taboo,
nobody changed Einstein's ideas.
If we remove some of Einstein's principles, and replace it with simpler versions, we can get a solution.
With QM we can directly get something like Newton's gravity using the Heisenberg uncertainty.

I think it would be nice to explore QM further into how it can cause other processes to show
something similar to time-dilation.
Maybe the processes are faster/slower depending on the gravitational potential (=energy state).
One way that can be measured is with the Aharonov–Bohm effect, where we can see that the
energy state is affecting the phase of the quantum waves (=electrons).

[crawler]

In terms of other types of "evidence' to support GR theory, a very recent article suggests that "frame-dragging" (a prediction of GR theory) seems to have been observed recently.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that time isn't 'fixed", rather it's variable depending on speed and proximation to mass and such.

Einsteinologists are fond of proving GTR, they never say that their observations support GTR & every other theory that fits.

Then the simplest thing to do would be to link to the proofs in the scientific literature that prove that other 'theories' can also explain frame-dragging, time dilation, precession, etc. My view would be that they do not exist.

There are no other theories that can explain frame-dragging, mainly because frame-dragging is an impossibility.

[crawler]

There are many scientists who are interested in seeking QM oriented definition of gravity, but it's hard to simply ignore the numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

Mercury's perihelion stuff was not a prediction of GR. Einstein's equation was invented to cater for the known 40 arcsec per century. The equation is an impossibility (Crothers). Einstein took 3 of them & added 2 of them & subtracted 1 of them. Numerical analysis shows that the equation is krapp (Eckhardt & others) -- orbits run away off the page. I have read that for Mars it predicts 1 arcsec instead of the 9 arcsec. And the 43 arcsec is not correct, or at least not that simple.

[crawler]

There are many scientists who are interested in seeking QM oriented definition of gravity, but it's hard to simply ignore the numerous successful predictions of GR which aren't predicted in Newtonian physics. For instance time dilation, and the orbit of Mercury are examples of predictions made by GR which demonstrate it's advantages over Newtonian definitions of gravity.

Mercury's perihelion stuff was not a prediction of GR. Einstein's equation was invented to cater for the known 40 arcsec per century. The equation is an impossibility (Crothers). Einstein took 3 of them & added 2 of them & subtracted 1 of them. Numerical analysis shows that the equation is krapp (Eckhardt & others) -- orbits run away off the page. I have read that for Mars it predicts 1 arcsec instead of the 9 arcsec. And the 43 arcsec is not correct, or at least not that simple.