A better theory about coal

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Possible Abnormality In Fundamental Building Block Of Einstein's Theory Of Relativity


Science Daily
Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:34 UTC


© Indiana University
An image taken from an animation using Kostelecky's Standard Model Extenstion to predict how apples might fall differently.

Physicists at Indiana University have developed a promising new way to identify a possible abnormality in a fundamental building block of Einstein's theory of relativity known as "Lorentz invariance." If confirmed, the abnormality would disprove the basic tenet that the laws of physics remain the same for any two objects traveling at a constant speed or rotated relative to one another.

IU distinguished physics professor Alan Kostelecky and graduate student Jay Tasson take on the long-held notion of the exact symmetry promulgated in Einstein's 1905 theory and show in a paper to be published in Physical Review Letters that there may be unexpected violations of Lorentz invariance that can be detected in specialized experiments.

"It is surprising and delightful that comparatively large relativity violations could still be awaiting discovery despite a century of precision testing," said Kostelecky. "Discovering them would be like finding a camel in a haystack instead of a needle."

If the findings help reveal the first evidence of Lorentz violations, it would prove relativity is not exact. Space-time would not look the same in all directions and there would be measurable relativity violations, however minuscule.

The violations can be understood as preferred directions in empty space-time caused by a mesh-like vacuum of background fields. These would be separate from the entirety of known particles and forces, which are explained by a theory called the Standard Model that includes Einstein's theory of relativity.

The background fields are predicted by a generalization of this theory called the Standard Model Extension, developed by Kostelecky to describe all hypothetical relativity violations.

Hard to detect, each background field offers its own universal standard for determining whether or not an object is moving, or in which direction it is going. If a field interacts with certain particles, then the behavior of those particles changes and can reveal the relativity violations caused by the field. Gravity distorts the fields, and this produces particle behaviors that can reveal otherwise hidden violations.

The new violations change the gravitational properties of objects depending on their motion and composition. Objects on the Earth are always moving differently in different seasons because the Earth revolves around the Sun, so apples could fall faster in some seas


Einstien retarded science.DB
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
picture of the day

chronological archive subject archive


[FONT=Times New Roman,serif] [/FONT]Galaxy DLA-3C286. Credit: H.W. Chen/University of Chicago

A Magnetic Problem with “Protogalaxies”
Jan 07, 2009


It seems that it doesn’t matter how far out in space we choose to observe, there are galaxies, fully formed galaxies organized in higher level structures that stretch for billions of parsecs.
As if this hasn’t been enough evidence to undermine the standard model, there was new information gathered in 2008 that must create even further misgivings. The issue involves galactic magnetic fields.

The accepted "mean-field-dynamo" theory held by establishment astronomers asserts that a magnetic field in a galaxy evolves from a “magnetic seed” and builds over the course of billions of years. Young galaxies have no coherent magnetic fields, but over time, a magnetic field “spins up” that spans the galaxy. The mechanism by which this occurs is not well formulated. However, this model predicts that galaxies observed at sufficient distances should have weak magnetic fields compared to our own galaxy.

This assumes a Universe that is about 13.7 billion years old, so that if we look at galaxies 6 to 8 billion light years away, they are comparatively young. Over the course of 2008 there were two separate reports (one in July, the other in early October) of galaxies 6-8 billion light years away with magnetic fields at least as powerful as that found in our own galaxy. In one report, the magnetic field in the distant “young” galaxy was about ten times the strength of that in the Milky Way. As usual, the reporting scientists expressed surprise at their findings.

The research teams actually used different approaches for measuring the magnetic field strength in the different galaxies. Simon Lilly’s group reporting in July performed analyses on a number of galaxies using Faraday Rotation data derived from the polarization of light from quasars behind the galaxies in question. Lilly used FR quasar measurements generated by Philipp Kronberg from the University of Toronto.

Alternatively, the group led by Arthur Wolfe measured the magnetic field in a single galaxy using the Zeeman Effect, where an absorbing gas in a magnetic field splits absorption lines symmetrically.
Some of Wolfe’s comments are interesting and indicative of a general mindset in the astronomical community. Here are excerpts from the October report:

Astronomers have made the first direct measurement of the magnetic field in a young, distant galaxy, and the result is a big surprise.

Looking at a faraway protogalaxy seen as it was 6.5 billion years ago, the scientists measured a magnetic field at least 10 times stronger than that of our own Milky Way. They had expected just the opposite.

The authors assume this is a “protogalaxy” simply because of its distance. However, the relative strength of the magnetic field (10x) is interesting. In reading some source data elsewhere the exact number is a magnetic field of B = 84 μG in DLA-3C286 (the galaxy in question) at z =0.692, using the same Zeeman-splitting technique that revealed an average value of B = 6 μG in the interstellar gas of the Milky Way. So, actually the value is >10x the Milky Way's magnetic field measurement. In the picture credited to HW Chen above, it is tempting to infer that there are prominent jets emitted by DLA-3C286 consistent with the magnetic field findings.

"This new measurement indicates that magnetic fields may play a more important role in the formation and evolution of galaxies than we have realized," said Arthur Wolfe, of the University of California-San Diego (UCSD). "Our results present a challenge to the dynamo model, but they do not rule it out."

There are other possible explanations for the strong magnetic field seen in the one protogalaxy Wolfe's team studied. "We may be seeing the field close to the central region of a massive galaxy, and we know such fields are stronger toward the centers of nearby galaxies. Also, the field we see may have been amplified by a shock wave caused by the collision of two galaxies."

It is clear that observations have directly contradicted the mean-field-dynamo model, yet investigators have trouble letting go of the theory in the face of data. The argument about shock waves and galaxy collision is just embarrassing and perhaps can be forgiven in the light of the sheer usefulness of the data.

In a New Scientist report the language is more balanced.

Magnetic fields are difficult to model, so they tend not to be incorporated into cosmological simulations. But if it turns out more such galaxies are scattered about the early universe, "it might mean we have to rewrite all the models of galaxy evolution because magnetic fields play a big role", Beck says.

The quote is from Rainer Beck, not involved in the research but an astronomer at the Max-Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany. Beck is clearly allowing the observations to shape his logical assessment of the mean-field-dynamo model.

The team next plans to measure the magnetic field of an even more distant backlit galaxy - one that would have had just 1 billion years or so to spin up its field. If the galaxy has a similarly strong field, "I'd say that would be very difficult for the dynamo theory," Wolfe says.

According to the Electric Universe theory, the observations were predictable. Galaxies are formed along immensely powerful Birkeland currents where magnetic z-pinches play a critical role in shaping galaxies and, in turn, the star systems within them. Therefore, all galaxies will have magnetic fields whose strengths will vary depending on the Birkeland currents that power them. So the observation of galaxies 6-8 billion light years away with powerful magnetic fields is completely in keeping with the Electric Universe model, because magnetic fields are integral to galaxy formation and their ongoing dynamics.

This research should be closely monitored, but the EU model makes a clear prediction. Wolfe and his colleagues will find a magnetic field spanning the next galaxy they directly measure with the Zeeman effect. Galaxies do not “spin up” magnetic fields, it’s the other way around.

As long as astronomers and astrophysicists continue with a conceptual framework that does not include electrical forces acting at the cosmological scale, they will continue to be surprised by their observations. Ultimately, the really interesting phenomenon to observe in all this is the human ability to cling to belief systems in the face of overwhelming data. The Electric Universe movement is an exciting opportunity to witness a single explanatory framework driving paradigm shifts across multiple disciplines.

Contributed by Thomas Wilson​

 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The textbook accounts of stellar explosions are fiction

The second report is titled obscurely "A Symmetric Bipolar Nebula Around MWC 922." The nebula is known by the term 'The Red Square' (see below). Click here for a more readable account.


>> MWC 922: The Red Square Nebula. [Click on image to enlarge]
The image above combines data from the Mt Palomar Hale telescope and the Keck-2 telescope. It was taken in near-infrared light (1.6 microns) and shows a region 30.8 arcseconds on a side around MWC 922. As the outer periphery of the nebula is very faint compared to the core, the image has been processed and sharpened to display the detail and structure. Credit: Peter Tuthill (Sydney U.) and James Lloyd (Cornell)


>> If we imagine moving away from the precise (and fortuitous) edge-on viewing angle onto this object that we find from Earth, we might get a view like that depicted above. The left-hand panel shows the skeleton of the twin opposed cones as we see them from earth, but if we rotate away from our view at 90 degrees to the axis (middle panel) we can visualize that the bright bars seen edge-on become elliptical rings encircling the polar axis of the system (right panel). Credit: Peter Tuthill (Sydney U.)

argued that all of the detailed features of that spectacular supernova remnant could be explained in terms of a cosmic 'Z-pinch' plasma discharge, focused on a star.


>> Experimental and simulation derived geometries for extreme plasma currents in a plasma column. The Birkeland current filaments will only be visible where the plasma density is high. The diagram above shows the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch (left), the detailed filamentary current structure (center), and the 'witness plate' result of the Birkeland current filaments interacting with the equatorial expulsion disk of supernova 1987A. The number of filaments forming a cylinder follows a regular pattern. Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt writes, "Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments; hence the 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns. In actuality, during the pairing, any number of filaments less than 56 may be recorded as pairing is not synchronized to occur uniformly. However, there are 'temporarily stable' (longer state durations) at 42, 35, 28, 14, 7, and 4 filaments. Each pair formation is a vortex that becomes increasingly complex."

I wrote in the August 2005 report, "If the equatorial ring shows the Birkeland currents in the outer sheath of an axial plasma current column, then the supernova outburst is the result of a cosmic z-pinch in the central column, focused on the central star. It is important to note that the z-pinch naturally takes the ubiquitous hourglass shape of planetary nebulae. No special conditions and mysteriously conjured magnetic fields are required." The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia











If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?
If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?

The Michelson-Morley basement experiment was heralded as having lain to rest the notion of an aether. It didn’t.[24] Dayton Miller carried out far more rigorous repeats of that experiment at different locations and elevations. He found a residual, which allowed him to conclude that ponderable bodies like the Earth drag the aether with them. He was able to determine the relative motion of the solar system with respect to the aether.


>> Dayton Miller (left) with Irving Michelson (right). Credit: Case WRU Archives. “Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science.”

Others and I have argued that a plenum of neutrinos forms the aether.[25] Based upon nuclear experiments, I have also proposed that neutrinos are the most collapsed, lowest energy state of matter. In other words they exhibit vanishingly small mass. However, being normal matter composed of subtrons, they are capable of forming electric dipoles. In an oscillating electromagnetic field a neutrino must rotate through 360˚ per cycle. That would link the speed of light in a vacuum to the moment of inertia of a neutrino. Having some mass, neutrinos must be ‘dragged along’ by gravitating bodies. They form a kind of extended ‘atmosphere’ which will bend light. It has nothing to do with a metaphysical ‘warping of space.’

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

DB: Eienstien was a funny old man and Stephen Hawkins is insane. Now he's telling us what came before the big bang, he's actually sneaking up on the other end of the black hole to complete his circular orbit arround fizz.
There you go Sinister it's the one, down on your knees heretic electricity is god.DB:idea::lol:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer
29 October 2006
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer



"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them." —George Orwell

"Consensus discourages dissent... It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong. Committees... that decide which projects shall be funded are inevitably run by scientists who are at peace with the dominant theory. Changing the consensus on cosmology will be an arduous task, like turning a supertanker with a broken rudder.
...the competition of theories has been the driving force behind scientific progress. Isolated individuals and private companies have been the most fruitful sources of this advance.”
—paraphrasing Tom Bethell from his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science


The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2006 was shared between John C. Mather and George F. Smoot "for their discovery of
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia

07 March 2004
Black holes tear logic apart



"It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer. ..Bertrand Russell acknowledged..”Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little.” ..Mathematics may be indispensable to physics, but it obviously does not constitute physics."

– Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY - The Adventure of Physics.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg


>>Survey of the nearby universe maps the distribution of about 75,000 galaxies (small orange dots). The Earth is located at the intersection of the two wedges. The galaxies clearly trace a network of filamentary structures.
Image courtesy of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey team.

Although operating in “dark current” mode in deep space, the presence of cosmic (Birkeland) currents is demonstrated by their magnetic fields. A galaxy like ours is effectively a giant homopolar motor, with current flowing along the spiral arms toward the galactic center and then out along the polar axis.

There is a simple device known as a dense plasma focus, or “plasma gun,” that mimics what is going on in active galactic nuclei, or AGN’s. It shows what happens when converging current streams along the galactic arms are focussed into a very small volume at the galactic center.


While astrophysicists have left the real universe for metaphysics, we must turn to practical engineers for some answers. The prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has recognized the subject of plasma cosmology for some years. Plasma cosmology has no problem explaining the ubiquitous spiral shape of galaxies and reproducing it in the plasma laboratory. All that is required to produce the phenomenon is electrical power. Galaxies are threaded like pinwheels on invisible cosmic threads of electric current. Those cosmic threads are fundamental to the web-like appearance of the visible universe.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The universe is as one and it is god almighty the omnipotent creator of all and mankind is high on it's list of accomplishments at # 69, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,004.7. All our operators are busy please hold god will listen to your prayers through the first available client representative. press two for instant kharma
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Okay Beave, you've been spamming this thread with BS hoping to draw me back, so here I am for the final time. Do this calculation if you can, or find somebody who can. What would it take to power the sun with a current of electrons? You'll have to make various reasonable assumptions about the electron density and the average energy of the electrons--Donald Scott's The Electric Sky will provide a starting point--then calculate the range of current sizes they produce, then you can calculate the power in those currents, which must at least equal the observed power output of the sun, about 4x10^26 watts, then calculate the magnetic field strengths those currents would produce. Any bright second year physics undergraduate could do those calculations, it's very basic (i.e. 19th century) electromagnetic theory based on Ampere's Law and Maxwell's equations.

Here's what you'll find, and I can give you a web site that shows the calculation if you're interested in understanding the real physics: the magnetic field at the sun's surface will be on the order of a million Gauss, over 100 times larger than what is observed, and the magnetic field at the distance of the earth would be strong enough to completely overpower the earth's field by a factor of at least 2000; compasses would follow the solar magnetic field, not the earth's. Elementary physics busts one of the core claims of the electric universe theory. I'll repeat for the final time: you don't understand what you're talking about, and as far as I'm concerned, this subject is now closed.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia

12 April 2004
An Open Letter to Closed Minds




>> Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal.

Everything astronomers can see, stretching out to distances of 10 billion light-years, emerged from an infinitesimal speck.
Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (2001).

“A widely-accepted foundation stone of scientific logic involves a process of elimination, requiring all available possibilities to be considered with incorrect ideas discarded when they fail to predict experimental results. Just as the police must consider all possible suspects during an investigation, so a scientist must, as a matter of professional responsibility and competence, consider all possible explanations when forming his conclusions. However, some scientists are able to ignore these duties, while the safeguards built into the scientific bureaucracy, supposedly to ensure quality, do not prevent such malpractice but rather enable it.”
John Hewitt, A Habit of Lies.



The open letter exhibited here is addressed to the scientific community by a leading group of concerned scientists. It questions a core belief – the belief in the so-called big bang theory. So it will be instructive to watch the behavior of that community in response. Already, the first line of defense – censorship – has held. The journal Nature rejected the letter for publication. New Scientist, the more populist magazine, on 22 May 2004 finally published the letter under the title ”Bucking the big bang.” [Note: This news item was temporarily withdrawn while waiting for publication of the final version of the letter.]

"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." – Paul C. Lauterbur, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, whose seminal paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by Nature.

That scathing commentator on errant human behavior, John Ralston Saul, has compared the scientific community to the medieval church. Some of the signatories to the open letter would agree with him. We humans, at least the males it seems, have a penchant for setting up organizations – political, religious, and scientific – that with time become authoritarian, exclusive and dogmatic. Despite this we are led to believe that scientists are somehow trained to be above such human failings. The deception only succeeds because there is no effective investigative reporting of science.

A challenge to orthodoxy tends to be ignored at first. But if it gains popular support, the first move is to discredit and silence the challenger. The protectors of the scientific faith often parade the “scientific method” like a holy icon to warn off evil, heretical spirits. And the demand is made that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” However, as Robert Matthews in the New Scientist of 13 March 2004 notes: “Over the years, sociologists and historians have often pointed out the glaring disparity between how science is supposed to work and what really happens. While scientists routinely dismiss these qualms as anecdotal, subjective or plain incomprehensible, the suspicion that there is something wrong with the scientific process itself is well founded. The proof comes from a rigorous mathematical analysis of how evidence alters our belief in a scientific theory.”

“Belief” is the crux of the matter. The usual declaration that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence is merely a smokescreen for the fact that no amount of evidence will change the consensus view until a sufficient number “convert” to a belief in the new theory. Science is therefore a political numbers game based on subjective beliefs. Max Planck was right when he said, “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.”

Matthews continues: “It gets worse. As the evidence accumulates, the two camps will not only fail to reach consensus but actually be driven further apart - propelled by their different views ..And worst of all, there is no prospect of such a consensus unless the two sides can agree about the cause of the data.” Such a conclusion bodes ill for any attempt to change the status quo. Meanwhile, the big bang theory continues to make extraordinary claims based upon little or no evidence.




An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Initial signers:
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, Washington University (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics(retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)




What is the Real Problem with Cosmology?

The sentiments expressed in the open letter are welcome. However, I don’t think it will result in any change. The proposal that "the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology,” is a small step in the direction that science generally should be taking. However, many astronomers and physicists outside the field of cosmology believe in the big bang theory or have a vested interest in it. It would be preferable if there were a kind of jury system with educated people from engineering and the humanities as well. Any proposal that could not be explained simply to such an audience would demonstrate that the author did not understand it either. In addition, arguments against a proposal should be admissible from any quarter.

The modern problem with cosmology began with an assumption about the nature of the redshift in the spectrum of faint extragalactic objects, discovered by Edwin Hubble. Hubble wrote, “If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time.” (Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 17, 506, 1937).


>>The astronomer Edwin P. Hubble

Hubble’s logical scientific attitude toward the phenomenon of extragalactic redshift is in stark contrast to the illogical and nonsensical opening quotation from the Astronomer Royal. The big bang theory sprang from a theoretical preference for Hubble’s first possibility. Hubble’s brilliant student, Halton Arp, later confirmed that the second possibility was correct. But by then the big bang theory had become dogma. Arp was effectively “excommunicated” for his heresy.


>>Abbé Georges Lemaitre, astrophysicist and a monsignor in the Catholic church, with Einstein in 1933.

The medieval church of science now has its own miraculous version of creation, partly because the astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, wanted to reconcile the creation of the universe to Genesis. It is reported that after the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” But the great surrealist artist, Salvador Dali, has effectively parodied Einstein’s appreciation of aesthetics. Einstein also said, "When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." Is it any wonder that big bang cosmology is a fantasy?

Modern astronomers have never understood what the ancients meant when they talked about "creation." It is clear from comparative religion that creation stories are NOT about the origin of the universe. In fact, our modern view of the concept of "creation" would be incomprehensible to the authors of the religious texts. What they were memorializing was the “re-creation” of a new cosmic order in the skies following apocalyptic chaos.


>> We have stared annihilation from heaven in the face and it has deeply scarred us. It fuels our irrational fear of comets and imagined impacts from space. It colors our cosmology as we desperately seek to understand the cosmos in reassuring terms.

So my misgivings about cosmology run much deeper than the theories written in scientific journals. My concern is with human fallibility in observing and interpreting the cosmos. I consider that the human psyche and therefore our cosmological beliefs are deeply affected by the past, which science has chosen not to recognize. It is a past of cosmic catastrophe. Recent genetic research has shown that the entire human race “may have been in such a precarious position that only a few thousand of us may have been alive on the whole face of the Earth at one point in time, that we almost went extinct, that some event was so catastrophic as to nearly cause our species to cease to exist completely.” It is therefore not surprising that ALL religious symbolism relates back to the heavens, the home of the capricious gods of chaos.



This could help explain the tendency for cosmologists to be drawn into a theory that has much in common with the biblical creation story and little to do with science. Ironically, if astronomers took the time to understand the earliest information we have about the heavens we would be closer to seeing the universe clearly for the first time. Observation and experience should come first, not theory. Until we understand our own planet’s history and that of our solar system a lot better we cannot hope to chart the history of the universe. And that, necessarily, will require a wider perspective than the current tunnel vision predominating in astronomy and physics. But first we must understand ourselves.




 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Behind science, behind every human institution there is the gold that enables or disables, the gold isn't applied unless the hands of the hidden monarchy approve. Power is a selfsustaining loop, knowledge is it's weapon of choice. Those who have remembered history write the script of those who have forgotten.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Okay Beave, you've been spamming this thread with BS hoping to draw me back, so here I am for the final time. Do this calculation if you can, or find somebody who can. What would it take to power the sun with a current of electrons? You'll have to make various reasonable assumptions about the electron density and the average energy of the electrons--Donald Scott's The Electric Sky will provide a starting point--then calculate the range of current sizes they produce, then you can calculate the power in those currents, which must at least equal the observed power output of the sun, about 4x10^26 watts, then calculate the magnetic field strengths those currents would produce. Any bright second year physics undergraduate could do those calculations, it's very basic (i.e. 19th century) electromagnetic theory based on Ampere's Law and Maxwell's equations.

Here's what you'll find, and I can give you a web site that shows the calculation if you're interested in understanding the real physics: the magnetic field at the sun's surface will be on the order of a million Gauss, over 100 times larger than what is observed, and the magnetic field at the distance of the earth would be strong enough to completely overpower the earth's field by a factor of at least 2000; compasses would follow the solar magnetic field, not the earth's. Elementary physics busts one of the core claims of the electric universe theory. I'll repeat for the final time: you don't understand what you're talking about, and as far as I'm concerned, this subject is now closed.

Why don't I just look at the tables Dexter? We don't bother with numbers up here at the theoretical end of things Dexter and if we need some we order out same as Chinese food or pizza.
I'm spamming my own thread? Laying a sticky film of Fly Paper for you was I? The final time eh. You've left like that so many times before. You don't appear to now what final is, and that's on top of your insane idea about giant vacumm cleaners in space. Look whatever stimulation you get out of our relationship is your affair, I don't need or crave your attention. You don't get to close subjects Sinister, you just get to avoid them.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Hubble’s logical scientific attitude toward the phenomenon of extragalactic redshift is in stark contrast to the illogical and nonsensical opening quotation from the Astronomer Royal. The big bang theory sprang from a theoretical preference for Hubble’s first possibility. Hubble’s brilliant student, Halton Arp, later confirmed that the second possibility was correct. But by then the big bang theory had become dogma. Arp was effectively “excommunicated” for his heresy.


>>Abbé Georges Lemaitre, astrophysicist and a monsignor in the Catholic church, with Einstein in 1933.

The medieval church of science now has its own miraculous version of creation, partly because the astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, wanted to reconcile the creation of the universe to Genesis. It is reported that after the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” But the great surrealist artist, Salvador Dali, has effectively parodied Einstein’s appreciation of aesthetics. Einstein also said, "When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." Is it any wonder that big bang cosmology is a fantasy?

DB: You sir are a creationist and a religious BIG BANG fanatic math does not preceed discovery, it does not trump observation it does not replace experimentation and it does not initiate the questions which eventually lead to scientific confirmation. In all this history of science we see that the math has supplanted the scientific method. Incidentally it does not make an economy either.DB: Here's the thing, there is no way you can proove how much I don't know about the universe, and here's the other thing oweing to the size and complexity of the universe there is no way that your knowledge compared to mine gives you any advantage at all. At best that value between us is indeterminate. So we are left with observation and predictability and replicateability of those observed aspects of the universe where the electric universe far outperforms the thermonuclear nonscence known as todays astrophysics. You have nothing but mathmatical models and I got actual rocks and actual history carved in other rocks. The math is derived from the actual science it is not in of itself science.
So while I must give ground with respect to your learned accomplishment and I do, without the slightest testiness, I in no way am prepared to yield my belief as respects the true nature of the universe in which I have every reason to believe I understand and you don't. If you don't question dogma it takes over the mind no matter the educational background. As you can see the Big Bang was and is in essence at it's foundation a tarted-up creation story and that sir is where it stands today. May god bless you pickled soul.:smile:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Okay Beave, you've been spamming this thread with BS hoping to draw me back, so here I am for the final time. Do this calculation if you can, or find somebody who can. What would it take to power the sun with a current of electrons? You'll have to make various reasonable assumptions about the electron density and the average energy of the electrons--Donald Scott's The Electric Sky will provide a starting point--then calculate the range of current sizes they produce, then you can calculate the power in those currents, which must at least equal the observed power output of the sun, about 4x10^26 watts, then calculate the magnetic field strengths those currents would produce. Any bright second year physics undergraduate could do those calculations, it's very basic (i.e. 19th century) electromagnetic theory based on Ampere's Law and Maxwell's equations.

Here's what you'll find, and I can give you a web site that shows the calculation if you're interested in understanding the real physics: the magnetic field at the sun's surface will be on the order of a million Gauss, over 100 times larger than what is observed, and the magnetic field at the distance of the earth would be strong enough to completely overpower the earth's field by a factor of at least 2000; compasses would follow the solar magnetic field, not the earth's. Elementary physics busts one of the core claims of the electric universe theory. I'll repeat for the final time: you don't understand what you're talking about, and as far as I'm concerned, this subject is now closed.

Obviously it dosen't, but I suppose you don't care to check your calculations which obviously have an incorrect assumption or two, which is standard in contemporary astrophysics, included in there.
In the interest of science and the emotional welfare of the dog I will once again allow emotion to overrule my judgement and engage to help you understand ou solar system a little better. It was only last week that I read exactly the function that has you perplexed. Observation comes before the math. The math does not constitute an observation.
I remember reading a paper, " solar field variability".
 

Trex

Electoral Member
Apr 4, 2007
917
31
28
Hither and yon
That's one of them. It's widely known and well understood that earth's electrical and magnetic fields vary significantly over time. We've been around this stuff before DB, and my conclusion is the same: anybody who thinks Velikovsky was right doesn't understand enough physics or chemistry or geology or any other major field of science to have a legitimate opinion about stuff like this.
.................................................................................................
Right you are Dexter,

As someone who has suffered through sedimentary petrology, crystallography, stratigraphy,historical geology and mineralogy as well as a couple of quarters in nuclear physics I'm sticking with Dexter.

Conservation of energy is as old as the hills.

The earths magnetic field has reversed its polarity numerous times. Ferric compounds trap their polarities in magma flows.

The best theory about coal is no theory.
Tropical and subtropical shoreline facies subject to organic deposition.
Silted over, heat and pressure a few million years to cook and Shazam.... coal.

Deeper sea deposition (like krill etc) is a bit less understood, but, I will agree possible.

Trex
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Eddington's argument is too simplistic. It seems aimed to keep the model simple rather than realistic. Thermal ionization of hydrogen only becomes significant at a temperature of about 100,000K. Therefore, atoms and molecules will predominate through most of a star''s volume, where the gravity is strongest. That applies to the entire star in the electric model. The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the center of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. It is significant that if you want to discover the physics of atomic and molecular dipole forces you need to turn to chemistry texts. Such is the problem with specialization. The atomic and molecular dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than Eddington's simple gravitational sorting allows. It leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star.





Important Consequences of the Electric Star Model for the Sun.

1. A star is formed electromagnetically, not gravitationally, and is powered thereafter electrically (by Eddington's "subtle radiation").

2. Near the Sun, galactic transmission lines are in the form of 0.3 parsecs wide rotating Birkeland filaments (based on those detected at the center of the Milky Way). Their motion relative to the Sun will produce a slowly varying magnetic field and current density –' in other words a solar activity cycle. To that extent, all stars are variable. And just like real estate, location is vital.

3. An electric star has an internal radial electric field. But because plasma is an outstanding conductor it cannot sustain a high electric field. So plasma self-organizes to form a protective sheath or 'double layer' across which most of the electric field is concentrated and in which most of the electrical energy is stored. It is the release of that internal stored energy that causes CME's, nova outbursts, polar jets, and the birth of stellar companions.

4. In a ball of plasma like the Sun the radial electric field will tend to be concentrated in shells or double layers above and beneath the photosphere. A double layer exists above the solar photosphere, in the chromosphere.

5. The photosphere and chromosphere together act like a pnp transistor, modulating the current flow in the solar wind.* It has an effective negative feedback influence to steady the energy radiated by the photosphere so that astrophysicists can talk of a 'solar constant,' while the Sun''s other external electrical activity (UV light and x-rays) is much more variable. Because the photosphere is an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon it also expands or contracts to adjust to its electrical environment. That explains why the Sun 'rings' like an electric bell.

6. Double layers may break down with an explosive release of electrical energy. A nova outburst is a result of the breakdown of an internal stellar DL. Hannes Alfvén suggested that billions of volts could exist across a typical solar flare double layer.

7. A star is a resonant electrical load in a galactic circuit and naturally shows periodic behavior. Superimposed is the non-linear behavior of plasma discharges. Two stars close together can induce cataclysmic variability or pulsar behavior through such plasma discharges.

8. The correct model to apply to a star is that of a homopolar electric motor. It explains the puzzle of why the equator of the Sun rotates the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind. (The same model applies to spiral galaxies and explains why outer stars orbit more rapidly than expected. The spiral arms of the galaxy and the spiral structure of the solar 'wind' then have an obvious connection).

9. The current that powers the Sun can be viewed as flowing in along the wavy polar magnetic field lines, then from the poles toward the equator. That current flow manifests as huge sub-photospheric flows of gas. In the mid-latitudes the circuit is completed as the current flows outward in a current sheet called incorrectly the solar 'wind.'

10. The transfer of charge to the solar wind takes place through the photosphere. It occurs in the form of a tightly packed global tornadic electrical discharge. The importance of the tornadic form for us is that it is slower than lightning, being under the tight control of powerful electromagnetic forces, and less bright than lightning. The intense, equally spaced solenoidal magnetic fields of the photospheric tornadoes gives rise to the surprisingly evenly spaced magnetic field lines of the Sun.



11. Encircling the Sun''s equator is a ring current forming a doughnut-shaped plasmoid. It is visible in UV light and is a source of stored electromagnetic energy. Occasionally the plasmoid discharges directly to lower levels of the Sun, punching a hole, that we call a sunspot, through the photosphere. A sunspot group can be compared to regional lightning on Earth. Scientists were surprised when they discovered 'awesome plasma hurricanes' just beneath a sunspot. Electric discharges in a plasma naturally drive such rotation. Sunspots of the same magnetic polarity are drawn toward each other, which is inexplicable if they are simply magnetic phenomena. However, two parallel electric current filaments following the magnetic field lines are naturally drawn together.

12. Sometimes the slow discharge that forms a sunspot may trigger a stellar lightning flash, resulting in a more sudden and powerful release of stored electrical energy. An x-ray flash is the signature of such lightning. That arc may result in a CME. The corona often dims as power is withdrawn from the solar plasmoid.

13. The conventional thermonuclear story of stellar evolution is incorrect so we do not know the age of the Sun, or its character in the past or future. The inexplicable and drastic global climate changes on Earth in the past may have found an answer at last in the variable nature of stars.

The Bottom Line

Our Sun, like all stars, is a variable star. We must learn to live with the uncertainty of a star that is a product of its environment. We can expect our Sun to change when it enters regions of interstellar space where there is more or less dust, which alters the plasma characteristics. In the meantime, we can only look for reassurance by closely examining the behavior of nearby stars. A few massive CME's are the least of our concerns.


* I am indebted to Professor Don Scott for this insight. He points out that the complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999 is understandable with his transistor model. It is inexplicable on the thermonuclear model since there was no change in the Sun''s visible energy output that accompanied the phenomenon.
 
Last edited: