Cohesiveness

[homie12]

This being the 21st century, wouldn't it change the previously 300+year old paradigm of gravitational theory with electric universe theory? Can we examine Anthony Perats work in this field? Anyone with a source for that? Shouldnt hannes Alfvenes work as well as Kristien Birkelands, considered in a venue of this nature?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from "Suggestions, Comments and Support"

[ajb]

Are you talking about "plasma cosmology"?

[John Cuthber]

"This being the 21st century, wouldn't it change the previously 300+year old paradigm of gravitational theory with electric universe theory?"

No. This is the 21st c because we choose to start counting from a date about 2000 years ago.

It has nothing to do with models of gravity.

[homie12]

well with the new data since the time of newton, especially in the last decade or so. hence my reference to the 21st century. Are you guys going to make this topic like pulling teeth? Because gravitational theory has brought so much theory when just about every convienence invented came from tesla and not einstein nor edison. And the electric universe theory was what i was refering to. Wallace Thornhil made a few predictions nasa couldnt. Anyone try asking him? I have. He has reproducible answers. . So does Don Scott. What do you think about point of view? Thanks for your responses.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have forgotten to

1 tell us what you are on about and

2 answer ajb's question

[homie12]

Oh im sorry. You havent heard of Wallace Thornhil nor Don Scott? Pleasant people really they are. I was wondering how , with 85% of gravitational theory theoretical, wouldnt it qualify as speculation? Blackholes are something you cant see so how did they get away with that? Then when instruments detected energy coming from galactic centers, they invented the acrecian disk. When will we get a picture of the famous ort cloud? What does it mean, "on about", that saying or phrase. I believe I answered ajbs question? Thanks for your responses

 

!

Moderator Note

Moved from "Suggestions, Comments and Support"

 

Wouldnt gravitational theory, Like the sun being a fusion engine , and blackholes and such qualify gravitational theory as speculation?

Actually whats the definition of mass? Because my college professor said dont ask. Id like to know really. thanks for your responses

 

Are you talking about "plasma cosmology"?

This is what I was refering to. Thanks for asking ajb. http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html thanks for your responses.

[John Cuthber]

I think that most of the evidence about the fact of the existence of gravity is clear to everyone.

While it is strictly speaking speculation to say that if I throw a ball in the air it will come back down again, it's a fairly robust assertion.

There are something like 7 billion people on earth and most of them are aware of gravity so I think that saying it's 85% theoretical is missing something.

 

So gravity isn't moved to speculation.

 

Is there any experimental evidence for plasma cosmology?

[homie12]

Good questions, thanks. If you wouldnt mind saving me quite a bit of typing and review this documentary minus the mythology areas? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374# Wallace and Don Scott make undenial rebuttals to the status quo. And i havent thought of some new idea nor do i want to be different. But i would like a fair review of the electric universe theory/ What do you have to lose, the old paradigm? And thanks for your response

 

 

 

Good questions, thanks. If you wouldnt mind saving me quite a bit of typing and review this documentary minus the mythology areas? http://video.google....590301316220374# Wallace and Don Scott make undenial rebuttals to the status quo. And i havent thought of some new idea nor do i want to be different. But i would like a fair review of the electric universe theory/ What do you have to lose, the old paradigm? And thanks for your response

 

 

Oops i forgot, over 4000 years ago someone figured out if you can herd sheep, you can herd people, It takes 3 things: control access to energy i e food control access to information control violence to discipline them to do what you want. So 7 billion people i dont know about every single 1 but I am trying to find some that arent asleep or hyptnotyzed.

[John Cuthber]

They spent 2 or 3 minutes telling me that views change when new evidence becomes available which I already knew.

Then they said "only electric currents create magnetic fields" which is false so I stopped watching.

I'm not wasting over an hour watching a video that's that clearly wrong.

Does it actually say anything interesting later?

If so, could you give us a précis?

[swansont]

Wouldnt gravitational theory, Like the sun being a fusion engine , and blackholes and such qualify gravitational theory as speculation?

 

No. There is a model (several inter-related ones, in fact) and there is supporting evidence. Open questions but no direct contradictions. The models can be applied to solve problems.

[ajb]

Is there any experimental evidence for plasma cosmology?

 

From my very limited exposure to plasma cosmology there is no experimental evidence. Or for sure nothing that cannot be easily explained using GR and the standard model of cosmology.

 

Like all cosmologies the devil is in the details,so I ask: can you see any signs of plasma cosmology in the CMBR?

[D H]

Is there any experimental evidence for plasma cosmology?

It's important to distinguish between plasma cosmology and the electric universe "theory". Plasma cosmology is a bit fringy. Electric universe is pure crap. Unlike that electric universe nonsense, plasma cosmologists don't claim that gravitation doesn't exist. What they do claim is that their science has been given short shrift.

 

With regard to star formation, there are some aspects of plasma astrophysics that may provide answers to some open questions such as the angular momentum problem. (The Sun has almost all of the mass of the solar system, about 99.9% of it. The Sun has very little of the angular momentum of the solar system, less than 1% of it. Why is that?) The currently accepted mechanism is magnetic breaking, so obviously an electromagnetic phenomenon. Magnetic breaking isn't really plasma cosmology, however. It's plasma astrophysics. Once the star does form you aren't going to be able to explain what's going on inside it without plasma physics. That again however is not plasma cosmology. It's plasma physics.

 

On a galactic scale, there are fewer open questions to which plasma cosmology provides even a clue of an answer. There several concepts from plasma cosmologists that have been falsified at this scale. On an even grander scale, its gravitation that provides the answers. There are no answers from plasma cosmology.

[homie12]

WOW great I'm glad you coined the term pure crap, lol. when you dont want to face something, putting your hands over your eyes is effective , yes? How is this for some reference? http://stagevu.com/video/sdjuiwajeoqf

 

Astronomy is the science with the most up to date technology being driven with the most behind paradigm. Astronomers have no or limited electrical background. As far as experimentation by plasma or electrical sciences, you have never even bothered to look. Kristien Birkeland, Hannes Alfvenes, Don Scott, Anthony Peratt, Wallace Thornhil to name a few. Now all of you have had some quote or derivative quote to mention from einstein. Now if you can dig him up/ You can follow those names and actually see the real work being done today. What do you have to lose, your old paradigm? And thanks for your responses. Its not a waste of your time. Tesla invented the 20th century. Not einstein nor edison or feinman heh.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=wOI-X215A8Y&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_273757&v=t8tqgntbjyE for give me for posting the wrong link in the previous posting.

 

Gentlemen, may I say and should have said, I am not the discoverer of any new ideas in science. Nor do i want to be. What I would like is being a part of an activity with others that improves our lives and what we are as human beings. If you open your mind for a minute and gather some of the collected knowledge now being circulated on the net as well as other venues, you might come to the conclusion that we as a civilization are about to make a huge jump into the future. As I have a construction background, I need my pursuits to actually take on a physical existence. Therefore I intend to link my direction of thought to existing items products etc. And I am not selling anything. I am trying to acheive a cohesiveness with others. After all it takes us all.

 

If your interested in papers, does this link help? http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html And since many of you seem to have heavy academic backgrounds, does this link interest you? http://plasmauniverse.info/

 

No. There is a model (several inter-related ones, in fact) and there is supporting evidence. Open questions but no direct contradictions. The models can be applied to solve problems.

What would those applications or models be?

 

I hope I'm not boring anyone,,http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

 

It's important to distinguish between plasma cosmology and the electric universe "theory". Plasma cosmology is a bit fringy. Electric universe is pure crap. Unlike that electric universe nonsense, plasma cosmologists don't claim that gravitation doesn't exist. What they do claim is that their science has been given short shrift.

 

With regard to star formation, there are some aspects of plasma astrophysics that may provide answers to some open questions such as the angular momentum problem. (The Sun has almost all of the mass of the solar system, about 99.9% of it. The Sun has very little of the angular momentum of the solar system, less than 1% of it. Why is that?) The currently accepted mechanism is magnetic breaking, so obviously an electromagnetic phenomenon. Magnetic breaking isn't really plasma cosmology, however. It's plasma astrophysics. Once the star does form you aren't going to be able to explain what's going on inside it without plasma physics. That again however is not plasma cosmology. It's plasma physics.

 

On a galactic scale, there are fewer open questions to which plasma cosmology provides even a clue of an answer. There several concepts from plasma cosmologists that have been falsified at this scale. On an even grander scale, its gravitation that provides the answers. There are no answers from plasma cosmology.

Then what is anthony peratts work refering to?

 

Gosh this seems like its going to break a lot of hearts? http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#

 

This is a 10 minute gem.

And easily understandable

[swansont]

What would those applications or models be?

 

Putting satellites into space, for one. Gravity.

[dimreepr]

Putting satellites into space, for one. Gravity.

 

 

Add to this GPS, mobil phones, computing, dvds etc... none of which is possible without QM.

[md65536]

Add to this GPS, mobil phones, computing, dvds etc... none of which is possible without QM.

Isn't that a bit like saying "Planetary movement isn't possible without epicycles" some time in the past?

 

Isn't QM considered just a model of reality (one with unprecedented predictive precision and accuracy), and not the mechanism that drives reality? Or is it more---Is QM also a label for the mechanism?

 

If a better model was known (if one even is possible), then couldn't all those things work without QM?

 

 

 

 

QM is our best understanding of phenomena, and hasn't been found inconsistent with reality (unlike epicycles), but that doesn't mean it's been proven correct or the only explanation possible.

 

Sorry if I've wandered off topic. I suppose, none of those things could be explained by current knowledge, plus "electric universe", less QM.

[homie12]

You guys are funny. You all think you can create rules and theories to shore up a busted down torn up model like gravitational; theory. Now remember gravity was supposed to be universal. Now I am getting on in age. So if its tough for me part with the old paradigm, you could just call me old and set in my ways. But I dont think you guys are. And its gonna take your generation to stand the current western civilations' phylosophies and straighten out the messes mine and my predicessers have created. How much electronic enegineering experience do you guys have? Maybe the answers lie there for y'all? But Im positive we exist in an electric field, as i built a simple free energy circuit for an indicator. And It definitely is putting out voltage. And more voltage with a longer higher elevated wire. QM never poured itself into my gas tank and took me to work. Before you say the electric universe is meaningless at least understand what it is saying. Gravitational theory is so disfunctional looking that it doesnt offer any solutions for the changes we are going thru.its only creating more theory and more controversy.

 

Isn't that a bit like saying "Planetary movement isn't possible without epicycles" some time in the past?

 

Isn't QM considered just a model of reality (one with unprecedented predictive precision and accuracy), and not the mechanism that drives reality? Or is it more---Is QM also a label for the mechanism?

 

If a better model was known (if one even is possible), then couldn't all those things work without QM?

 

etycElectro magnetism explains atractive forces while gravity theory cant explain repulsive forces in our solar system , galaxy, universe etc.

 

 

QM is our best understanding of phenomena, and hasn't been found inconsistent with reality (unlike epicycles), but that doesn't mean it's been proven correct or the only explanation possible.

 

Sorry if I've wandered off topic. I suppose, none of those things could be explained by current knowledge, plus "electric universe", less QM.

[DrRocket]

This being the 21st century, wouldn't it change the previously 300+year old paradigm of gravitational theory with electric universe theory? Can we examine Anthony Perats work in this field? Anyone with a source for that? Shouldnt hannes Alfvenes work as well as Kristien Birkelands, considered in a venue of this nature?

 

 

I have looked at it in some detail.

 

Birkelands experimental work regarding the mechanism behind the aurora borealis was and remains seminal. It is erroneously cited by electric universe wackos as supporting their "theory". His reports from expeditions to measure electric fields associated with the aurora are availablehere.

 

Hans Alfven's book Cosmical Electrodynamics was and is an excellent reference for many aspects of plasma physics. This should come as no surprise as it includes in part the work for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. EU proponents tend not to be familiar with this book, as it contains actual physics with the associated equations.

 

Hans Alfven's subsequent books Worlds-Antiworlds and Cosmic Plasma, set forth some of Alfven's later notions regarding cosmology. They are basically absurd and fly in the face of physics and observation. One wonders if in later life, Alfven, like Birkeland, was insane.

 

While the early scientific work of both Alfven and Birkeland is indeed of value, it is not germane to the case for the "electric universe" which is just plain trash.

 

Anthony Perat, and his opinions, are not worth spit in the ocean. The entire EU proposition is of similar value.

[homie12]

Yes mr rocket i too sometimes text as if im retaliating. The problem im having in doubting the EU explaination is the experiments i have done so far shows electricity is all around us and can be tapped freely. Secondly in learning how we presently distribute , generate etc. and you are just not going to like finding out the history of how we have created our present social structure, and energy distribution. Our methods of transportation are so barbaric, I am wondering where are all the scientists? Have they been harrassed into a corner? Since we build our knowledge on top of how we perceive nature, then if theres a fundemental flaw in our understanding, wouldnt our current understanding be flawed?

[homie12]

Putting satellites into space, for one. Gravity.

 

what part of cell phone technology has to do with gravity? and did you know sattelites are constantly monitored for position alignment/ seems something else is putting a force on them. Could it be magnetic? And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

[D H]

And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project [link to cracked beyond crackpot site elided]

No. He. Didn't.

 

That link you gave was to an article by Richard Hoagland. Hoagland is either an absolute nut or a very canny charlatan, or perhaps both. The electric universe crackpots look almost legit in comparison to Hoagland's nutty writings.

 

Over fifty nations have put satellites into orbit, about nine of them with their own launch vehicles, the others using one of those nine countries / associations of countries to put satellites into orbit. The United States has a program that lets colleges put microsatellites (cubesats) into orbit. If Hoagland was right, somebody would have blabbed. There is nothing to blab.

 

Rather than focusing your time and energy on crackpot sites, I suggest that you spend your time and energy learning some real science.

[swansont]

what part of cell phone technology has to do with gravity? and did you know sattelites are constantly monitored for position alignment/ seems something else is putting a force on them. Could it be magnetic? And von braun discovered gravity wasnt universal in 1958 during the explorer project http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

 

Who the hell said anything about cell phones? You asked about gravitational theory. Putting payloads into space and having them do what you want (orbit, or go to the moon or another planet and land or orbit there) requires an accurate model of gravity.

 

We can measure magnetic forces. They aren't responsible for gravity. They don't act like gravitational forces. That idea is DOA.

[John Cuthber]

Isn't that a bit like saying "Planetary movement isn't possible without epicycles" some time in the past?

 

 

No.

Because at that time people were not relying on the model in order to put planets in motion.

On the other hand we do rely on our understanding of gravity to put satellites in orbit.

 

That's one of the important bits of science- you can use scientific models to predict how things will work and, on that basis, you can undertake projects like satellite communication.

[homie12]

Who the hell said anything about cell phones? You asked about gravitational theory. Putting payloads into space and having them do what you want (orbit, or go to the moon or another planet and land or orbit there) requires an accurate model of gravity.

 

We can measure magnetic forces. They aren't responsible for gravity. They don't act like gravitational forces. That idea is DOA.

 

you didnt back read your text. of course i know thats why i was questioning your test because it was ambiguous

 

thank you

 

No. He. Didn't.

 

That link you gave was to an article by Richard Hoagland. Hoagland is either an absolute nut or a very canny charlatan, or perhaps both. The electric universe crackpots look almost legit in comparison to Hoagland's nutty writings.

 

Over fifty nations have put satellites into orbit, about nine of them with their own launch vehicles, the others using one of those nine countries / associations of countries to put satellites into orbit. The United States has a program that lets colleges put microsatellites (cubesats) into orbit. If Hoagland was right, somebody would have blabbed. There is nothing to blab.

 

Rather than focusing your time and energy on crackpot sites, I suggest that you spend your time and energy learning some real science.

you are the expert of whats a waste? Well then could you post a link or 2 of your latest accomplishments? Show me what you can do since you feel you,re an authority. I know some sites are crackpots. so i test out as much as i can. You use the words real science now show me your deeds thanks. oh and the fact that the satewlite trajectory was way out of alignemnt enough to cause a 12 min plus delay or over shot is what they refered to.

 

No.

Because at that time people were not relying on the model in order to put planets in motion.

On the other hand we do rely on our understanding of gravity to put satellites in orbit.

 

That's one of the important bits of science- you can use scientific models to predict how things will work and, on that basis, you can undertake projects like satellite communication.

 

but they dont included the data when sattelites have to be adjusted. and let me get a list so im not just spouting off thanks