Rethinking Mainstream Cosmology

[PersianPaladin]

One of the principle arguments for free energy is precisely what these guys are talking about: you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Furthermore, as at least one of your links states, electromagnetism is orders of magnitude of stronger than gravity. What this thread is, I think, and in my opinion, is a precursor argument for free energy - since, and as a direct consequence, once you remove the Heaviside variations in Maxwell's equations you no longer need a dipole, and it is theoretically possible to tap into the 'source' of the 'cosmic' 'energy'

Clearly, I am rather sceptical about this. Your links have not changed this, no matter how it is dressed up, and presented. I am sceptical because of the results of an awful lot of experimentation that verify the standard model. That there might be things we observe that cannot be explained by the standard model IS important, and is likely to lead to modification of the standard model, or a complete rethink - I do not know - but to say because these observations exist - that can only be loosely explained by some other theory, in my book, is an identical justification for the existence of a deity.

I do not know whether a deity exists - whether or not it does has no place in science.

When these chaps stop theorising (and pattern matching) and start quantifying, they'll have my attention.

Not talking about what is "theoretically possible". Just what we know from laboratory observations (Birkeland, Alfven, Langmuir, Peratt et al). Mind you, we do not have a complete explanation for all phenonema. Although, it is more intellectually satisfying than the hypothetical inventions of dark-matter, dark-energy, string-theory, black holes, etc of the mainstream model (which brings up such exotic hypotheticals to try and explain what electromagnetic plasma phenonema already addresses).

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QhyHCj_cVKk

Also, take one example. Our sun. The electric model explains things like sunspots (and their migration, penumbra, cycles, their darkness, etc), the solar atmosphere (and the temperature disparity of the corona from the photosphere), the accelerating solar wind, equatorial plasma torus, solar density, etc.

Edited February 12, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

So, in order to continue discussing this, you want me to wreck another quarter of an hour of my life?

It seems to me to be half a dozen of one, and six of the other. Neither is entirely provable. The problem is, of course, that relativity has already been shown to work in practice, as has quantum mechanics. The fact that this has happened might well be down to electromagnetism, and there are, actually, good theoretical reasons why that's the case (not for here)

But nevertheless these chaps need to construct proofs why verified experiments that, hitherto, have been down to relativity, and QM, are really manifestations of electromagnetism.

That's some big ask, PP - and it's not new; the proponents of this theory started c.1974; they have largely been ignored, ridiculed, or otherwise sidelined since.

Also, take one example. Our sun. The electric model explains things like sunspots (and their migration, penumbra, cycles, their darkness, etc), the solar atmosphere (and the temperature disparity of the corona from the photosphere), the accelerating solar wind, equatorial plasma torus, solar density, etc.

Yes, yes - I can type stuff from which I have seen from youtube. Must be true.

Edited February 12, 2011 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

So, in order to continue discussing this, you want me to wreck another quarter of an hour of my life?

It seems to me to be half a dozen of one, and six of the other. Neither is entirely provable. The problem is, of course, that relativity has already been shown to work in practice, as has quantum mechanics. The fact that this has happened might well be down to electromagnetism, and there are, actually, good theoretical reasons why that's the case (not for here)

But nevertheless these chaps need to construct proofs why verified experiments that, hitherto, have been down to relativity, and QM, are really manifestations of electromagnetism.

That's some big ask, PP - and it's not new; the proponents of this theory started c.1974; they have largely been ignored, ridiculed, or otherwise sidelined since.

Yes, yes - I can type stuff from which I have seen from youtube. Must be true.

Since when was the majority-view always correct? Group-think comes to mind.

You talk of quantum mechanics in a dismissive and somewhat presumptuous tone. I already addressed the issues of domain and what we can measure and where different things can be observed.

I like this quote from Wal Thornhill:-

At the other extreme of scale is quantum theory, which describes the behavior of subatomic particles. But the theories of gravity and quantum behavior are incompatible. "String theory" was supposed to provide a theory of everything by unifying the incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is that there is not just one string theory, there are many. Now the push is on to develop "M Theory," which means the "Mother of all Theories!" This endeavor would be comical if it weren't so costly and misguided. The ill effects of such nonsense have spread throughout western science and culture over the last century. The problem seems to have sprung from the worship of Einstein, who was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

Don't assume that the scientists of the recent past got support from the majority of the day, or required approval from the peer-review of the majority, etc. They encountered a lot of skepticism before their ideas were eventually shown to be correct. Sadly, there is a lot of institutional inertia and vested interests that don't want their entire house-of-cards coming down by the inconvenience of contrary facts. Better to just ignore them or sideline them, rather than be shown to be false, forced to learn something new and get a real job.

Edited February 12, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Since when was the majority-view always correct? Group-think comes to mind.

You talk of quantum mechanics in a dismissive and somewhat presumptuous tone. I already addressed the issues of domain and what we can measure and where different things can be observed.

I like this quote from Wal Thornhill:-

At the other extreme of scale is quantum theory, which describes the behavior of subatomic particles. But the theories of gravity and quantum behavior are incompatible. "String theory" was supposed to provide a theory of everything by unifying the incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is that there is not just one string theory, there are many. Now the push is on to develop "M Theory," which means the "Mother of all Theories!" This endeavor would be comical if it weren't so costly and misguided. The ill effects of such nonsense have spread throughout western science and culture over the last century. The problem seems to have sprung from the worship of Einstein, who was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

Don't assume that the scientists of the recent past got support from the majority of the day, or required approval from the peer-review of the majority, etc. They encountered a lot of skepticism before their ideas were eventually shown to be correct. Sadly, there is a lot of institutional inertia and vested interests that don't want their entire house-of-cards coming down by the inconvenience of contrary facts. Better to just ignore them or sideline them, rather than be shown to be false, forced to learn something new and get a real job.

But the minority view is not always correct either, PP.

What do you know about institutional inertia? Do you have a job, yet? Any job? When one remarks on tone, one, normally, has lost the argument since you know nothing of what I think of QM. If you are right you don't require approval - nor do you require some forums chat to make it valid.

Worship of Einstien? Say what?

Like many people, it seems, you seem all at sea when asked to frame anything, mathematically. That's not a problem, in my view, but if you want other people to take you seriously, it needs to be framed, and described in mathematics. That's of course, if you actually want to be taken seriously.

I can see, despite my best efforts, we are back to lizards in Buckingham Palace drinking the worlds supply of oil again.

Edited February 12, 2011 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

But the minority view is not always correct either, PP.

What do you know about institutional inertia? Do you have a job, yet? Any job? When one remarks on tone, one, normally, has lost the argument since you know nothing of what I think of QM. If you are right you don't require approval - nor do you require some forums chat to make it valid.

Worship of Einstien? Say what?

Like many people, it seems, you seem all at sea when asked to frame anything, mathematically. That's not a problem, in my view, but if you want other people to take you seriously, it needs to be framed, and described in mathematics. That's of course, if you actually want to be taken seriously.

I can see, despite my best efforts, we are back to lizards in Buckingham Palace drinking the worlds supply of oil again.

Maths should be the servant, not the master.

https://www.thunderb.../soupdragon.htm

And please DON'T use ad hominem's against me concerning the issue of Peak Oil. I had an article published in The Journal newspaper and another one featured on the US ASPO institute. I'm also a member of a Transition group. I may only be a citizen journalist (although currently I have received a job offer from a Turkish news-agency in London), but I do try and stick to what I deem credible.

Edited February 12, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Maths should be the servant, not the master.

And please DON'T use ad hominem's against me concerning the issue of Peak Oil. I had an article published in The Journal newspaper and another one featured on the US ASPO institute. I'm also a member of a Transition group. I may only be a citizen journalist (although currently I have received a job offer from a Turkish news-agency in London), but I do try and stick to what I deem credible.

That's the problem, PP: mathematics IS NOT the servant, it is the language of science. If one doesn't grasp it, and, I admit, it takes an awful lot effort, then what are you doing talking about theoretical physics which is entirely about applied mathematics? It's like criticising the English language without being able to speak English.

Your Peak Oil agenda drives me nuts by the way - and I'm fairly certain, that I'm not the only one.

Nice one for the job offers. Honestly.

Edited February 12, 2011 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

That's the problem, PP: mathematics IS NOT the servant, it is the language of science. If one doesn't grasp it, and, I admit, it takes an awful lot effort, then what are you doing talking about theoretical physics which is entirely about applied mathematics? It's like criticising the English language without being able to speak English.

Your Peak Oil agenda drives me nuts by the way - and I'm fairly certain, that I'm not the only one.

Nice one for the job offers. Honestly.

Read the article.

Experiments and empiricism are the emphasis. I do not see maths as un-important.

Edited February 12, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Read the article.

Experiments and empiricism are the emphasis. I do not see maths as un-important.

I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad: I do not need to read some article posted by someone on some website.

How does one write up experiments? How does one condense a relationship for general consumption by the scientific community? How does one interpret empirical data? I think you do see mathematics as unimportant. I can smell it a mile away.

THIS IS BASIC STUFF!

Edited February 12, 2011 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad: I do not need to read some article posted by someone on some website.

How does one write up experiments? How does one condense a relationship for general consumption by the scientific community? How does one interpret empirical data? I think you do see mathematics as unimportant. I can smell it a mile away.

THIS IS BASIC STUFF!

*sigh*

Am I saying that the experiments are not described mathematically? Nope.

[VillagePlank]

*sigh*

Am I saying that the experiments are not described mathematically? Nope.

Yes - you denigrated Einstein (of all people) in terms of being 'purely mathematical' At least that's what I got when I read: 'The problem seems to have sprung from the worship of Einstein, who was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory'

All physical scientific theories are framed mathematically in some form or another. I find your comment/quote as wholly inappropriate. Particularly the reference to 'worship'

Edited February 12, 2011 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

http://wzeu.search-r...2Fmss0225a.html

One of the 'grand dads' of this understanding seems to be a man after your own heart V.P.? if we forget his Nobel prize and focus on his 'output' he seemed a very busy and committed man (who did the numbers thing you're so keen on?)

I know you appear a bit 'miffed off' atm but ,once calmed, you might enjoy a 'diversion' through some of his papers?

EDIT: I thought it was Einstein who denigrated his own work? was this not why he struggled, in later life, to plug the leaks his earlier ruminations had sprung?

EDIT:EDIT; but then he did once say;

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." - H. Alfvén

which might not sit too pretty with you?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[PersianPaladin]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

"Such theories are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them!†- Hannes Alfven

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical."

- Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

The difference is, GW, that you need to decompose Maxwell's equations to look at least something like Newton's law of gravitation. The falsification - correction: the proof of the pudding - is when that is achieved. And a Nobel prize awaits that first person. At the minute this idea is that it all kinda looks the same - it would be nice, for instance, if one can describe the motion of the planets in a purely electromagnetic fashion. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's been achieved.

Whilst I presume your comment of 'be .. supportive of a person' I think is something to do with the LI hypothesis, at the LI hypothesis can be synthesised, algebraically, to and from the Stefan-Boltzmann law ....

Aren't I right in thinking that Maxwell's equations only unify the Electomagnetic side of the fundamental forces, and that the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Gravity are seen as totally separate parts of the overall description of out universe?

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

"Such theories are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them!†- Hannes Alfven

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical."

- Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

OK PP, help me devise the experiments...

As an aside, the "Axis of Evil" in the CMB is thought to be an example of what happens when 2 string theory branes collide. So that's the result of an experiment we could not hope to repeat

[PersianPaladin]

Aren't I right in thinking that Maxwell's equations only unify the Electomagnetic side of the fundamental forces, and that the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Gravity are seen as totally separate parts of the overall description of out universe?

OK PP, help me devise the experiments...

As an aside, the "Axis of Evil" in the CMB is thought to be an example of what happens when 2 string theory branes collide. So that's the result of an experiment we could not hope to repeat

But "string theory" is entirely speculative and exists merely as a mathematical hypothetical in order to attempt to explain/support something that is unexplained within the main gravity-oriented model. Hence they created it (and things like dark matter, dark energy) in order to balance the equations.

In plasma cosmology, the filamentary structure of the universe is explained in the form of Birkeland currents. In the Goddard presentation, Don Scott explains the fact that charge-separation has been observed in space regardless of dismissive claims to the contrary.

Edited February 12, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

"Such theories are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them!†- Hannes Alfven

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical."

- Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

What do you want to do? Three quotes each until our favourite search engine gives up?

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. ~Bertrand Russell

The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. ~Euclid

Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics. ~Dean Schlicter

Aren't I right in thinking that Maxwell's equations only unify the Electomagnetic side of the fundamental forces, and that the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Gravity are seen as totally separate parts of the overall description of out universe?

Yes - the goal is to unify them into a single theory. The one that PP is going on about seems to me to be purporting to be that grand unified scheme. I don't agree with him.

[PersianPaladin]

What do you want to do? Three quotes each until our favourite search engine gives up?

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. ~Bertrand Russell

The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. ~Euclid

Go down deep enough into anything and you will find mathematics. ~Dean Schlicter

Yes - the goal is to unify them into a single theory. The one that PP is going on about seems to me to be purporting to be that grand unified scheme. I don't agree with him.

Ok, I'm done here.

People can read\watch the resources I posted in the first post of this thread, and reach their own conclusions.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention P.P., much the same as Alfven's own efforts most of this is 'hidden' from mainstream 'understanding' and will either lead those who bother with it to a stronger confirmation of the 'current' model or leave us with a lot of work/understanding to grapple with!

[mesocyclone]

I openly admit to not being able to back up this suggested theory with mathematics, for that a highly educated mathematician would need to study this view and explain there conclusions. I'm not sure if that has happened and been published so far.

It is a very logical explanation to the way the universe works. The sun has caused black outs in Canada and we are always being warned these days of the coming dangerous solar flares which will wipe out our digital era. An electric universe? Sounds like it.

I have only in the last few years started to read and take an active interest in the cosmos, so I claim to be no expert but neither I'm i full with and education that may or may not be the reality of things, a clear mind.

Almost all i read about our universe is openly said to be theory's and not concrete facts. We are always finding out new discovery's which smash old myths and notions we have held. History is riddled with this in every field of research.

The problems encountered these days and in the past (Edison and Tesla) are compounded by self interest. If you go digging hard enough you will find many ways to generate energy which are suppressed by the ruling powers of these industry's due to the control and profits they are generating.

The greed of man is responsible for a slower pace of evolution. The world we live in today is a prime example of this for those who can follow one of Einsteins greatest sayings..."Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.â€

Whilst we are copying and pasting sayings, may be a few more from Einstein who's theory's are being challenged.

"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

I recently started a thread on Comet Elenin, my research leads me to believe these are "Dusty Snowballs". I'm sorry but this just doesn't sit right with me. Another quote from the man, last one i promise! "The only real valuable thing is intuition".

Can someone explain to me how this is a dusty snowball and not a charged object?

Edited February 13, 2011 by mesocyclone

[Gray-Wolf]

I have to agree with the final comet comment Meso, after the images we were treated too of the comet bodies it's hard to see any signs of melt/fusion of the surface? they just look like asteroids? If hailstones build the potential difference for lightning then what does the solar wind do to an object rushing through it?

I don't think you have to take on board the whole of the 'electric sKy' theories but surely there is place for the concept of an electromagnetic universe?

As for 'gravity', why should it be so incredibly weak if it 'controls' the evolution of the universe? Why are the other 'forces' similar in their 'power' with only gravity being so 'weak'?

I'm sure that there is more to this and if we had an 'Einstein' schooled in Plasma theory then he'd have taken a similar path to the guys studying it today? As for 'scaled' impacts? well that is just fascinating! I've seen enough ball bearings fired into sand (mimicking asteroid impacts) to have a healthy respect for what a 'scaled up ' mega discharge could do to a body!!!

And now for the 'whacked out' spooky bit? What of 2012? If we are to pass through the 'central plane' of our galaxy could we be passing through a very high 'charged' region? Would a planet act like a Comet if it where (relatively) to travel into the charge? Would it develop enough P.D. to 'arc' to moons/other planets? We'll wait and see eh?

Edited February 13, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I'm afraid 'looking good' or 'looking like it' really doesn't cut the mustard.

For sure, visually, there are good correlations, with an electric solar system, universe, etc. And, for sure, it seems that small scale structures do look like large scale structures; but that is not enough. Correlation whether visually, or numerically, is insufficient.

I am for ever amused, and it happens endlessly on here, that people talk of fractal and chaos as if they are some philosophical concern. They are not. They are distinct fields in applied mathematics. And those fields take an enormous amount of study to understand them properly. Perhaps that's why I am so annoyed that PP can dismiss things with a wave of the hand ... (even though he uses fractals in his very first post - and there is nothing mysterious about self-similarity at all dimensions, either)

Interesting line of research? Yes. Grand Unified Theory? Not yet. Capable of serious publication? No - a seriously long way to go.

These professional guys should start writing research papers outlining their ideas. If they have and they haven't been published they need to go public with why.

Edited February 13, 2011 by VillagePlank

[SnowBear]

//---//

These professional guys should start writing research papers outlining their ideas. If they have and they haven't been published they need to go public with why.

Maybe because the scientific establishment can and often do dismiss things too quickly or without perhaps looking a little into a subject. They ask for proof or ways to reproduce results, but often with things on the very edge of testability or our ability to test with our technology at the moment, its dismissed as not fact, cannot be tested, thus not true and laughable. The theories accepted at the moment are not complete, they "don't add up", we still have a system which requires numerable values put in by hand to make it work, the true theory will not require such actions, all will fall into its place, with no infinities and no screwy anomalies.

Dismissal of theories has happened many times before only to be resurrected later with maybe some changes or once new technology comes along to enable testing, and each one sets back our journey to understand this wonderful universe we live in.

It really does nark me so much that progress is often held back in this way.

[mesocyclone]

These professional guys should start writing research papers outlining their ideas. If they have and they haven't been published they need to go public with why.

Is that not what they are trying to do with the film they have made? Outlining their ideas.

Many things cause me to ask questions of lots of theory's that are taken as fact. Something i don't understand is our current explanation of electrical weather.

On an amazing flight to Italy a few months ago i witnessed thunderstorms running in a line for miles and miles of the journey, my neck was rather stiff the next day as i was glued to them! What i saw was lightning coming from above the clouds, and striking the top of them as well as the lightning i could see coming at ground level. It was a truly spectacular sight.

This lead me to thinking about something i had read a few years back which i can not remember the source of. The theory was that the ionosphere is attracting charged water particles up towards it, an electrical phenomenon as it were. This being the reason for low pressure centers spinning counterclockwise (northern hemisphere).

I always thought that in the northern hemisphere water spins to the right and not the left. So what we have in hurricanes etc is the opposite of that, a force pulling it up, spinning it in the opposite way as it acts on the ground as such.

I have come across this quote, I wouldn't really recommend trying the experiment though!

"Water does spin in opposite directions north or south of equator. North of equator water spins to the right. South spins to the left.

A test can be done by anyone. Simply fill a small room with smoke, have a hose ready and open the window. If north of equator, hose spray in right circular direction will force smoke out window. BUT if do it left circular direction smoke will come at you. It will be other way around south equator. Firefighters aboard naval ships on both hemispheres are trained to evacuate smoke in both directions due to which pole we on relating to the equator."

Apologies if i am missing something here, i am more of a thinker than an academic.

Meso

Edited February 13, 2011 by mesocyclone

[PersianPaladin]

I'm afraid 'looking good' or 'looking like it' really doesn't cut the mustard.

For sure, visually, there are good correlations, with an electric solar system, universe, etc. And, for sure, it seems that small scale structures do look like large scale structures; but that is not enough. Correlation whether visually, or numerically, is insufficient.

I am for ever amused, and it happens endlessly on here, that people talk of fractal and chaos as if they are some philosophical concern. They are not. They are distinct fields in applied mathematics. And those fields take an enormous amount of study to understand them properly. Perhaps that's why I am so annoyed that PP can dismiss things with a wave of the hand ... (even though he uses fractals in his very first post - and there is nothing mysterious about self-similarity at all dimensions, either)

Interesting line of research? Yes. Grand Unified Theory? Not yet. Capable of serious publication? No - a seriously long way to go.

These professional guys should start writing research papers outlining their ideas. If they have and they haven't been published they need to go public with why.

They have.

Plasma cosmology is recognised by the IEE (Institute of Electrical Engineers). It doesn't fit the current portfolio of conventional cosmology; but that may perhaps be because plasma cosmology diverged from mainstream cosmology after Hannes Alfven gave a warning about a "crisis in cosmology" (you can google it) and over-dependence on certain theoretical areas of physics.

This page features a paper by Dr.Don Scott:-

http://members.cox.n...cott3/index.htm

Have you watched his talk yet? I don't think you have. I think I'm wasting my time here posting stuff (which I find personally interesting) that simply gets dismissed and ignored. Probably best to just keep information to myself. I'm clearly not as knowledgable in the areas of pure math as you are, in all my intellectual feebleness.

EDIT - Sorry, I said I was done here.

Edited February 13, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[mesocyclone]

EDIT - Sorry, I said I was done here.

I hope you won't be put off posting, I'm sure many are interested in this subject. It only natural to have opposition to your views. If we all thought the same it would be a very boring mundane world with no progress.

Most of the time new ideas only get the time of day once the old are forgotten. That can take many generations sometimes. This is something known by many a rewritten book in our past.

It doesn't stop those that were ahead of their time.

[VillagePlank]

I'll try and dig out some papers, and we'll see where we go from there, then, PP. If you have any links, that'll be handy,