NPA Conference - Plasma Cosmology Questions

[Lloyd]

Plan to Hear Wal, Dave et al this summer!
* Wal Thornhill will be delivering the 2011 "John Chappell Memorial Lecture" at the NPA Conference, July 6-9, 2011. The title of Wal's paper will be "The Natural Philosophy of the Electric Universe".
* According to http://conf18.worldnpa.org and http://www.worldnpa.org/main: This year's conference will be held at the University of Maryland, College Park. I don't seen an admission price. Does anyone?
* I asked some of the NPA members the following questions.
1. Do you think it's possible that large-scale electric currents could form features on planets or stars, such as per this video? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-qrnsh83f4
2. Could larger electric currents also form planets, stars, or galaxies?
3. Could electrical forces be responsible for galactic motions etc that are attributed to dark matter and dark energy?
4. Could pulses from pulsars be electrical effects, instead of effects of rapidly spinning neutron stars?
5. Are Dr. Santilli's claims plausible that his hadronic mechanics theory is a great improvement over quantum mechanics, as per this website? See http://www.i-b-r.org
6. Do you know of any evidence that would likely disprove plasma cosmology theory, that electric currents form features on planets and stars, or that they also form planets, stars, galaxies etc?
7. Do you know who may like to have a friendly debate arguing against such plasma cosmology theory?
Thank you much for your time.
* I'll post an interesting response below.

[Lloyd]

Intriguing Reply from Thierry De Mees of Belgium

Interesting questions. The probability that the planets are ejected from the sun is about 99%, based upon a huge solar protuberance model, that was formed by multiple electromagnetic arcs between sunspots. See my papers:

Curiosum: The Titius-Bode Law Shows a Modified Proto-Gas-Planets' Sequence http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4724&tab=2,

The Core-Planets' Tilt and Spin Rate can be Explained by the Solar Protuberance Hypothesis and Gyro-Gravitation http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4941&tab=2,

Is the Earth a Former Solar Sunspot? http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4936&tab=2,

Did the Proto-Gas Planets' Core Lose Mass Before Their Final Formation? Did Beta-Decay of Neutrons Occur? http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4945&tab=2

Dark matter is a hoax. It has been invented by Zwicky because there was no immediate explanation why the disc galaxies have stars with a constant velocity. See my papers

A Coherent Dual Vector Field Theory for Gravitation http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4894&tab=2 (chapter 6) and

Deduction of Orbital Velocities in Disk Galaxies. "Dark Matter": a myth? http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... 4927&tab=2

Pulsars are a very general term based upon observation, not upon type or activity. However, fast spinning stars very probably exist.

I suggest that gravity is a side-effect of electromagnetism, so, the Maxwell equations, which works well for the latter, could be fully valid for the former. My papers prove the excellent results of the Maxwell-like gravity equations.

Dr Santilli's work is valuable but not applied upon cosmic objects.

My work http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... ry_De_Mees (the Maxwell-like gravity equations) has been applied upon many cosmic topics.

Please take a look to my work, which is an approach that has many tangible results.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

[Lloyd]

* Here are the next person's replies.
1. Do you think it's possible that large-scale electric currents could form features on planets or stars, such as per this video? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-qrnsh83f4
Absolutely. In fact, I was among the first to see this video, since I talk with Dave Talbott regularly.

2. Could larger electric currents also form planets, stars, or galaxies?
Halton Arp’s evidence points toward possible formation of some bodies by ejection from larger bodies. Certainly electric forces could be involved.

3. Could electrical forces be responsible for galactic motions etc that are attributed to dark matter and dark energy? This answer is interesting!

This one I can’t answer so quickly, because it would take some time to explain my understanding of what is called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. To make a long story short, the labels are quite misleading and need to be replaced entirely. I regard “energy” as a measure of “relationship” between objects, which can be expressed mathematically per Poynting as the interaction (dot product) of fields, which are themselves accounting devices used to track the location and movements of matter. In this sense, it’s no big deal for “energy” to be spread throughout all space, since there is nowhere entirely devoid of influence from matter.

4. Could pulses from pulsars be electrical effects, instead of effects of rapidly spinning neutron stars?
Short answer: yes. Slightly longer answer: Things “pulse” because something circulate in a regular pattern. However, we could observe the same pulse effect from the spinning a single large object OR from multiple smaller object all spinning synchronously. I regard the electrons and protons which form atoms as tiny electrical circuits (magnets) which “pulse” by their very nature. It’s possible that certain atomic structures under certain conditions can resonate with their neighbors to create macroscopic, visible “pulses”.

5. Are Dr. Santilli's claims plausible that his hadronic mechanics theory is a great improvement over quantum mechanics, as per this website? See http://www.i-b-r.org
I am a great fan of Dr. Santilli’s work, though honestly I don’t understand all of it. Years from now, when contemporary quantum mechanics is overthrown by something superior, I think his work will be recognized as part of the foundation. However, there are many others (Jan Post, Robert Kiehn, Al Kracklauer, etc.), whose contributions are also significant. I don’t believe we yet have a complete replacement, all set to bring into the classroom. We first must break down some conceptual walls regarding the meaning of energy, entropy, temperature, etc.

6. Do you know of any evidence that would likely disprove plasma cosmology theory, that electric currents form features on planets and stars, or that they also form planets, stars, galaxies etc?
As I hinted earlier, I believe that matter is fundamentally electrical in nature, so I have no trouble accepting a “plasma cosmology”, though I might differ with you about what that term means. However, theories are notoriously slippery, because one can “almost” always adjust a pet theory to accommodate pesky facts that seem to falsify it. Therefore, in the end the issue will not be about “proving” or “disproving” this or that theory, but rather finding the best set of axioms from which all the known laws flow, which make specific experimentally valid numerical predictions. In my opinion, electricity and magnetism has the best chance of providing those axioms, and therefore of unifying physics. (To be honest, I find efforts to prove or disprove this or that theory to be mostly hot air and a waste of time.)

7. Do you know who may like to have a friendly debate arguing against such plasma cosmology theory?
There are plenty in the NPA who would love to debate with you over just about anything. You can get active in its many forums.
[See http://www.worldnpa.org/main]

[Lloyd]

* This is the third person's reply.

Hi!

I am developing Quantum Information Dynamics, which is language appropriate for describing quantum phenomena in general (like C++ for ANY classical computer program).

It can explain "lab physics", and currently I am not concerned with large scale structure of the Universe, although some fundamental implications are immediate (there is no background space, time is not a physics dimension, but just a plethora of models of change - mine being Q-networks with boundary- which is reversible at a fundamental level, i.e. if not "truncated" by entropy/lack of knowledge etc.).

For further details please browse my physics articles on arXive:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+ionescu ... /0/all/0/1

So, I'm sorry to say, I can't answer your questions, being too much tied to the framework of plasma cosmology ...

Even more, I'm struggling to understand what a "current" is and E/M charges etc. (which one is primary? or both? it's probably like Lagrangian vs. Hamiltonian picture q, q' or q, p ...)

I wish you luck,
Lucian

[Lloyd]

Upcoming WSD Video Conferences
I think this announcement was sent to me by Greg Volk. This is some more very interesting stuff. Is it not?
[Note Dave Talbott et al at bottom]
Friday, February 25, 2011 5:56 PM
From: http://www.worldsci.org/php "World Science Database" <contact@worldsci.org
Here are some upcoming video conferences.

To participate, you only need a computer, and internet hookup, and sound.

Click here to RSVP: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events

The Engineering Value of the Cosmological Constant

Date: Saturday, February 26, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-02-26 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-02-26 01:00 PM
Rome: 2011-02-26 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-02-26 08:30 PM
Sydney: 2011-02-27 02:00 AM

Length: 2 hours

Guest Speaker: Jan Peter Roos
Fluid dynamicist, President of APGR (Retired)
Interests: Energy Density of the Vacuum, Pushing Gravity, Ou Generation

Nationality: US
Abstracts: 4
Read details...
[ENERGY DENSITY OF AETHER] - The Engineering Value of the Cosmological Constant

The basis of the new alternative energy knowledge is the realization that Einstein did not emphasize the physical properties of the vacuum and caused the cosmologists to assume that the cosmological constant, which is the energy density of interstellar space, is very small, while the quantum theorists calculated it to be enormously high. In reality, the engineering value of it is somewhere in the middle of both extreme values and could be surprisingly close to the old classical value of the energy density of the eighteenth century space fluid, called the ether. Charles Muses quoted the classical value to be about 1.4x10^30 Joules per cubic meter. Another value of 4.14x10^30 J/m^3 was calculated by Robert E. Var and published in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 1975 in his paper "On a Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Theoretical Physics". Since 1 J/m^3 = .000145 psi, the above energy densities equal 0.6x10^26 psi and 2.03x10^26 psi respectively.

[MASS DENSITY OF AETHER]
If the speed of light, by virtue of the analogy of the Lorentz factor [1-(v/c)^2]^.5 and the air shockwave equations term (1-kM^2)^.5, is treated like the speed of sound in air, then some interesting deductions follow. In air the velocity of sound squared equals the medium pressure or its energy density, divided by its mass density. [James] Clerk Maxwell, the 19th century scientist and the originator of the electrodynamic Maxwell equations, derived the equation c^2=1/epsilon mu, one and a half century ago, thereby fixing the interdependency of the three properties of non-matter space that we have known now for some time; namely the speed of light, the electric permittivity of space and the magnetic susceptibility of space. Robert Var takes 1/epsilon as the energy density of space. His analysis allowed him to calculate the mass density of the ether to be 7.57 kg/cc. Not too bad a number for a medium that occupies more intervening space than the separated atoms of matter.

[FORCE = ENERGY DENSITY GRADIENT]
The energy density of the cosmological constant has the same dimensionality as hydrostatic pressure [lbf inch / cubic inch] if it is divided by [inch] in the numerator as well as in the denominator, to give psi [lbf / square inch]. Herein lies the understanding of how forces come about: They are energy density gradients, field energy gradients, or changes in energy density arising from medium flow velocities in accordance with the fluid dynamic equations of Bernouilli, giving rise to negative pressure differentials, with respect to the ambient pressure for the medium at rest, in a vector direction, which then, while acting on a finite perpendicular surface area of X inch square, allow the removal of the [square inch] dimensionality of psi and then leaves nothing else than just the force [lbf]. Forces are thus energy density gradients due to steady and accelerating motion in energetic media. The media can be material, such as air, or non material, such as the vacuum medium.

Upcoming Conferences:

Saturday, February 26, 2011: In 11 hours
The Engineering Value of the Cosmological Constant for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Jan Peter Roos
Saturday, March 5, 2011: In 8 days
First Principals for Aether for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
William R. Hohenberger
Saturday, March 12, 2011: In 15 days
The Meaning of Maxwell's Equations, Part 2B: Ampere's Law for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Greg Volk
Tuesday, March 15, 2011: College Park, MD, United States In 18 days
Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum 2011 for 3 days
Friday, March 18, 2011: In 21 days
Gravity Group for 2 hours
Time: 06:00 PM - 08:00 PM (U.S. Pacific time)
Group Leader
Bob de Hilster
Saturday, March 19, 2011: In 22 days
Beyond Euler: Simple Geometry Unifying Vectors, Scalars and Complex Numbers for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Michael Studencki
Saturday, March 26, 2011: In 29 days
New Foundations in Mathematics: The Geometric Concept of Number for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Dr. Garret Sobczyk
Saturday, April 9, 2011: In 43 days
Experiment of the Biefield-Brown Effect using Symmetric Plate Capacitors Charged below 35kV for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Jeffrey N. Cook
Saturday, April 16, 2011: In 50 days
Practicism: The Unifying Body of Understanding for Everything for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
Wilfred Berendsen
Saturday, April 23, 2011: In 57 days
To Be Determined for 2 hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Guest Speaker
David Talbott

[Lloyd]

Barry's Zero Point Energy Plasma Cosmology with No Dark Matter etc

Thanks for your enquiry. Here are the answers to your questions.

1. I had already assessed the video as Dave Talbott had sent it to me some little time ago. In my reply to him I informed him that I was in broad agreement with the conclusions drawn on the video. We took the opportunity to share it with some of our students. One was very enthusiastic.
[LK: Only ONE?]

2. I have already written a peer-reviewed paper in which I show that the basic equations of plasma physics support the contention that galaxies, stars and planets were formed by electric and magnetic processes.

3. In that same paper I point out that the motions of galaxies can be accounted for by electric and magnetic phenomena without the necessity for dark matter or dark energy. The article can be found here:
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfConte ... iverse.pdf

4. I have gone on record as stating that the postulated spin rate of pulsars is far too high to be physically attainable. Therefore the model is wrong. I have gone on to say that electric discharge in a dusty plasma disk or between two bodies in a magnetic field can achieve the same results without any new physics. I have pointed out that similar effects can be obtained by charging a capacitor.

5. I have been involved in a developing branch of physics called stochastic electro-dynamics (SED) which does essentially the same thing. It shows that classical physics plus a real Zero Point Energy (ZPE) can produce the effects that quantum mechanics attributes to the properties inherent within matter. However, SED physics has the vacuum ZPE as an actual physical mechanism whereby it can be achieved. Dr. Santilli's work is to be encouraged as another way of of overcoming the problems of quantum mechanics. I believe that it is good science to follow all lines of enquiry.

6. I would have to give that question more thought than the time I have here. Let me say, however, that plasma physics coupled with EU ideas is a far more fruitful line of enquiry than the standard gravitational approach to astronomy. Therefore, it has my backing.

7. You state that it is to be a "friendly" debate. I find that most of my astronomical and physics peers are so sold on gravitational causes in astronomy that they will not even countenance a plasma alternative. I had a chance to meet with an astronomer for several days in LA a couple of years ago in order to discuss the possibilities of the plasma alternative. He was adamant that he would not even listen to such an alternative because, as he said, he "got his doctorate on gravitational physics and made some correct predictions." Unfortunately, this attitude is typical, but you must realize that the validity of their doctorate is at stake here. So my brief answer to your question is "No. I do not know anyone from the standard astronomical community who would be prepared to debate the matter."

I trust that gives you the information that you need, Lloyd.

With Kind Regards,

Barry

[Lloyd]

Prof. Kanarev's Electron Clusters
Questions on cosmology
1. Do you think it's possible that large-scale electric currents could form features on planets or stars, such as per this video? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-qrnsh83f4
Dear, Mr. Lloyd Kinder,
I have attentively seen your video.... In it [is] very interesting and very valuable scientific information. I inform you [of] the point of view on physics of processes which have generated small and big craters on Mars. Electric charges form electrons (fig. 1). In a space where there is no atmosphere, they can form linear bipolar (fig. 2,) and linear without polar (fig. 2, b) clusters [of] the different sizes. Ions of air participate in atmosphere of the Earth in this process at the moment of a thunder-storm also. In cosmic space ...[positive?] ions is not present, [so] there clusters of electrons form only.

[See http://symmetrymath.com/Electron-Protons-Neutrons.html]
Fig. 1. Theoretical model of electron
Fig. 2. a) Linear bipolar (S and N) [4 disk-shaped electrons stacked axially]
Fig. 2. b) Linear without polar clusters of electrons [4 electrons stacked North up, next to 4 stacked North down].
These electronic clusters co-operate with a surface of Mars and form the craters of the different sizes shown in [the] film.

2. Could larger electric currents also form planets, stars, or galaxies?
No, [the] process of formation of stars and planets goes on [in] another [way]. I recommend to you to read my hypotheses about [the] birth of [the] material world and formation of planets of [the] Solar system. [There] it is published in Russian [at] http://www.micro-world.su/ in folder Astrophysics.
[Here's an English translation of the home page: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... tKZE9jbKXg ]
[See also http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw= ... cc530c3619 ]

3. Could electrical forces be responsible for galactic motions etc that are attributed to dark matter and dark energy?
Processes in galaxies operate not [by] electric and magnetic fields. The dark matter and an aether is the same substance named ... miscellaneous. I have already published the detailed analysis of [the] process of braking of the ... companion which has fallen outside the limits [of the] solar system. This article in Russian, is published on several Russian sites. If it is interesting to you I can publish it and on a site http://www.micro-world.su/ in folder Astrophysics.

4. Could pulses from pulsars be electrical effects, instead of effects of rapidly spinning neutron stars?
It is very interesting process and I am ready to analyze it, but I do not have detailed information on it.

5. Are Dr. Santilli's claims plausible that his hadronic mechanics theory is a great improvement over quantum mechanics, as per this website? See http://www.i-b-r.org
Dear Mr. Lloyd Kinder, the New physics and new chemistry are developed by me. Results of mine of 35 summer researches have no analogues in the world and advance ideas of my colleagues for 50-70 years. The concept [of] hadronic [is] an error of the author of this theory.

6. Do you know of any evidence that would likely disprove plasma cosmology theory, that electric currents form features on planets and stars, or that they also form planets, stars, galaxies etc?
No, [the] process of formation of stars and planets goes on [in] another [way]. I recommend to you to read my hypotheses about a birth of a material world and formation of planets of Solar system. [There] it is published in Russian to http://www.micro-world.su/ in folder Astrophysics.

7. Do you know who may like to have a friendly debate arguing against such plasma cosmology theory?
This theme is interesting to me. I do not know others. However I [point out to] your attention that 75% of modern physical and chemical knowledge not only have become outdated, but also are deeply erroneous. As a result ... more [than] half of astrophysical knowledge too are erroneous.

Best regards,
Prof. Kanarev
26.02.11.

[Lloyd]

* The next person said Yes to my first two questions and No to the last two and said as follows re question #3.

3. Could electrical forces be responsible for galactic motions etc that are attributed to dark matter and dark energy?
Galactic motion > Yes. But not responsible for Dark matter and energy. Those ideas are needed to satisfy ... false assumptions of GRT.

* So he doesn't seem to regard dark matter and energy as real.
[See structure of aether: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_2649.pdf]
[See: http://challenge.bfi.org/application/fi ... y-paradigm]
[See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0J04t_DP5c]

* The last person said this.

If you are interest[ed in] my point of view, then see below, but you can completely ignore it.
[See e.g. http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Putting-r ... _3208.html]
1) plasma cosmology is not ... my interests, because I see too many open questions which is closer [to home?] than cosmology.

2) We still have a lot problems in understanding of electricity, magnetism and light, for example, we do not know what electric current is. I do not know who knows [either]. We still do not reproduce ball lightning as physical object (not discharge [of] nearby ... electrodes)

3) I saw outward appearance of electric phenomena and photo[s of] cosmological objects: analogy is clear, but analogy is very dangerous base to make conclusions.

4) we have to analyse all possible causes of cosmological form, includ[ing the] source of cosmological electric[ity].

[Lloyd]

Thierry Comments Further to Dave T on the Mars Video.
[See second post of this thread for links to his articles.]

... I can confirm:
It is clear that the sun is full of huge electro-magnetic potentials. Cooled planets without water or fluids could remain electro-magnetic, like any dielectric material, because of their electro-magnetic solar origin. So, your findings and explanations are extremely interesting. (But if there is an atmosphere, it is important to make [note of] the difference between pure electrical landscape formation and dune formation. The same difference [applies] in case of deformation by heat or by melting.) For me, it is still difficult to confirm if all your findings correspond to electro-magnetic effects.
Though, your findings support the idea of the great importance of electro-magnetic effects in the universe. Your theory is also a support of my work and vice-versa, as you will see below.

Since I found in the NPA database that your education is philosophical, you might not be familiar with the maths of my papers. Therefore I explain some main views of my former e-mail.

My basic assumption is that one doesn't need to search things too far (as S. Hawking, who believed in wormholes for example; the Hubble constant as a witness of a rapidly expanding universe; 'dark matter' as the cause for disc galaxies; curved space, etc...).

The main tracks I have followed since 2003 and which were successful are:
1) gravity acts just like electro-magnetics (at least, by the same kind of Maxwell maths, which are similar but much easier than the general relativity). The consequence I found is that 'dark matter', as originally defined, doesn't exist. The mainstream scientists now try to transform the definition of 'dark matter' until it becomes more tangible and they now talk also of 'dark energy'. I found that elliptic galaxies automatically end-up to become the actual disc galaxies because of their spinning center. The theory is "gravito-magnetism", which I applied very successfully upon many cosmic phenomena.
2) the planets might be formed out of the sun. However, the actual mainstream idea that the planets came from surrounding dust cannot be right because then you would have several planets on one orbit and [many] more planets in total (compare with the Saturn rings). My theory is the "Solar Protuberance Theory" [See links in second post of this thread], which gives a correlation-probability of 99% between the actual distance between the planets, their composition (and type) and their mass. The condition is the simultaneous electro-magnetic explosion of protuberances out of the sun: 4 protuberances with a + side and a - side, forming 4 gas-planets, 4 core-planets and some [others?].
3) maybe "electro-magnetic waves" are the only thing ... our universe is made of. "Light-like" waves and "trapped light"-like waves. The latter is what we call "matter". My corresponding theory is the "Coriolis Gravity Theory", which shows that all the forces could be reducible to "Coriolis effects", which are physical interactions between a spinning particle and escaping "light" from another particle.

I also strongly support Lyndon Ashmore's idea that the Hubble constant describes the redshift that is mainly caused by interaction (energy losses) with hydrogen in space.

Best regards,

Thierry

[Lloyd]

DARK MATTER MYSTERIES
Ph. M. Kanarev
[Prof. Kanarev followed up his previous reply with the following. For the full article, see http://www.wbabin.net/science/kanarev4.pdf.]

Announcement. The parameters of the flight of the American spacecraft Pioneer 10 remain the only one experimental result, which deserves attention when analyzing the hypothesis concerning “dark matter”. But even it has no unique interpretation.

“Dark matter” notion has been introduced not long ago. It is connected with an experimental discovery of space medium resistance to the motion of the American spacecraft Pioneer 10 in it (Fig. 1, a ). It was launched on March 2, 1972. In December, 1973, it passed by Jupiter within 132,000 km and was accelerated by gravitation force of this planet up to the solar escape velocity of 16.67 km/s and went outside solar system and left it in 1978 (Fig. 1, b). The last communication session with it took place on December 4, 2002, and January 22, 2003. According to the American investigators, Pioneer 10 spacecraft was at the distance of 12 billion kilometres from the Earth at that time and moved at a speed of 12.20 km/s.

Fig. 1. a ) picture of the American spacecraft Pioneer 10; b) diagram of the spacecraft flight

Thus, if we take the date of its passing by Jupiter (December, 1973, Fig. 1, b) as a benchmark bearing in mind that Jupiter’s gravitational filed has given it the solar escape velocity of 16.67 km/s as well as the date of the last communication session with it (January, 2003), total time, within which its velocity has been decreased by 16.67 – 12.20 =4.47 km/s, is 29 years and 1 month, or t=29х12+1=349 months=349х30х24х60х60=904608000 s. It appears from this that the spacecraft moved with a slowdown.

[Lloyd]

Bill Lucas Plasma Cosmology
* Bill's group is in considerable agreement with EU theory, as you can see below. 3 abstracts are included at the end. He says his son actually got a scholarship to Cal Tech and Harvard based on an EU Science Fair project he did. Bill works with Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, David L. Bergman, Dr. Glen C. Collins and their website is http://www.commonsensescience.org which I think I've seen before.
* Bill said as follows.

- Good to hear from you!! There are many different viewpoints in the NPA. It is a very rich source of information that does not agree with politically correct science. - I represent the organization known as Common Sense Science. It is a non-profit scientific educational foundation in Atlanta, GA. Some of the officers of the NPA are also in Common Sense Science. We generally support Electric Universe advocates in our work.
- What we have done is to replace Maxwell's electrodynamics, which is based on point particle and Superposition Principle (linear only forces) approximations with a properly derived axiomatic version of electrodynamics. In that version of electrodynamics Special Relativistic effects are found to be due to the self-field effects of finite-size charged particles and not to a separate theory called Special Relativity.
- Quantum mechanical effects are found to be due to the geometry of standing waves of the internal structure of finite-size elementary particles and not due to a separate theory called Quantum Mechanics of point particles.
- The force of gravity is found to be of electrical origin and is the force between vibrating neutral electric dipoles. The force of inertia is also of electrical origin related to vibrating neutral electric dipoles. The concept of mass upon which Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is based is flawed. There is no fundamental property of matter called mass. Mass is just a group of electrodynamic constants related to vibrating neutral electric dipoles that occurs frequently in nature.
- There is no dark matter or dark energy. There are no black holes in nature. The Big Bang model of the universe is invalid theoretically and does not agree with the astronomical data. The Cosmic Microwave Background is due to the decay of the vibrating neutral electric dipole oscillations. The force of gravity is decaying over time. The Hubble Red Shift Law is due to that decay over time. The gravitational red shift, which was much stronger in the past, gives rise to increasing red shifts with distance or time in the past.
- The abstracts of my two NPA talks for the July meeting are attached plus the abstract of a demonstration that won a grand prize at the International Science Fair for my son Joseph. As a result of that project, Joseph received a full academic scholarship to California Institute of Technology (CalTech #1 in physics in USA) and also to Harvard University(#2 in physics in USA). He went to both schools. We published a number of papers together.
- Our only complaint with Electric Universe advocates is they do not take their work seriously enough. We believe that all the universe is of electrodynamic origin. The electrodynamic force is the universal force. There is no other. All phenomena on all size scales from elementary particles, to nuclei, to atoms, to molecules, to crystals, to solar systems, to galaxies, to nebula, to the structure of the universe as a whole are determined by electrodynamics. Even the very nature of life is electrodynamic in origin.
- Best regards,
Charles W. Lucas, Jr. - B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Theoretical Physics

Electrodynamic Origin of Gravitational Forces
Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
Common Sense Science
- From the derived universal classical electrodynamic contact force law for finite-size elastic particles the force of gravity is identified as a statistical residual force of the fourth order term in v/c due to vibration of neutral electric dipoles consisting primarily of atomic electrons and nuclear protons plus polarized vibrating neutrons in the nucleus. The gravitational force is calculated and found to be a relativistic version of the customary radial term of Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation plus a new non-radial term. From the radial term the gravitational mass is defined in terms of electrodynamic parameters. The non-radial term gives rise to an R x (R x V) force that causes the orbits of the planets about the sun to spiral about a circular orbit giving the appearance of an elliptical orbit tilted with respect to the equatorial plane of the sun. The vibrational mechanism causing the gravitational force slowly decays over time giving rise to the cosmic background radiation and Hubble’s Law for red shifts versus distance due to gravitational red shifting. Halton Arp’s discovery of bound galaxies with significantly different red shifts is explained in terms of the larger galaxy’s neutral dipole vibrations decaying more slowly than those of the smaller galaxy. It also explains Tifft’s quantized red shifts as a type of Bode’s law and Tifft’s measured decay of the magnitude of red shifts over time.

The Universal Electrodynamic Force
Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
Common Sense Science
- A classical universal electrodynamic force law for real finite-size elastic charged particles is derived in a proper axiomatic fashion by solving simultaneously the fundamental empirical laws of classical electrodynamics, i.e. Gauss's laws, Ampere's generalized law, Faraday's law, and Lenz's law assuming Galilean invariance. This derived version of the electromagnetic force law incorporates the effects of the self fields of real finite-size elastic particles as observed in particle scattering experiments. It appears to account for radiation, radiation reaction, gravity, inertia, and relativistic effects. The non-radial terms of the force law explain the experimentally observed curling of plasma currents, tilting of the orbits of the planets with respect to the equatorial plane of the sun, and certain inertial gyroscope motions. This proper axiomatically derived force law satisfies Newton's third law, conservation of energy and momentum, conservation of charge, and Mach’s Principle. Hooper’s experiments showing that the fields of a moving charge move with the charge require that the electrodynamic force be a contact force based on field extensions of the charge instead of action-at-a-distance. The Lorentz force is shown to be derived from Galilean invariance instead of Lorentz invariance. This universal electrodynamic force law appears to be superior (theoretically and experimentally) to all previous force laws, i.e. relativistic quantum electrodynamic, gravitational, inertial, strong interaction and weak interaction.

Combinatorial Geometry Packing of Electrons in the Structure of the Atom
Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
Common Sense Science
- Plato and other ancient Greeks believed that geometry was the key to all knowledge in natural philosophy. In the 1940’s a structural reformation was begun by European natural philosophers in reaction to the point-particle approach of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and Newton’s laws of mechanics and gravity. A demonstration of some of the key magnetic constraints of combinatorial geometry will be presented that forms the foundation for a new theory of finite-size elastic elementary particles and the nuclei, atoms and molecules formed from these particles. This work won the Grand Prize at the regional high school science fair for the University of Maryland area known as the Prince George’s Area Science Fair and a grand prize at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1995.

[Lloyd]

Electric Sun & Electricity
[This is from another forum.]
1. Pulsar Magnetosphere and the search for the Holy Current
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/conf ... kovsky.pdf
- There is content on plasmas, unipolar inductors, energy source, and heliospheric current sheets. In other words, despite the focus on pulsars, there might be some useful applications to the Electric Sun.

2. Understanding Electricity and Circuits: hat the Text Books Don't Tell You
http://sydney.edu.au/science/uniserve_s ... sefton.pdf
... Electrons in a wire do not transfer energy to your light bulb.
- This paper was referenced by William J. Beaty's excellent site on electricity, in particular his page on Electricity misconceptions, at http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html.

[jjohnson]

Lloyd, from your last post, I have downloaded and read 1. Pulsar magnetospheres very carefully.

In the event anyone thinks that serious mainstream attention is not being directed via plasma physics to complex phenomena like pulsars, looking at what can be real and what not, weighing alternate explanations, and generally exhibiting sound scientific investigation principles, let me disabuse you of the fact by recommending you look at this well illustrated and straightforward presentation. Note that there is no mention of gravity or mass or dark matter - this is a plasma and electric currents paper. Well, it's from the Aspen conference on plasma cosmology, so no wonder, and it's good, with competent authors from Princeton and Cal Berkeley.

Thanks for this link!

Jim

[jjohnson]

Note that Bill Lucas and Common Sense Science have religious ties. This is only observed so that no one is surprised if they follow up on that link. I am in no way implying anything about whether or not that detracts from their scientific work, or enhances it, or even whether it has anything to do with the validity their scientific work. If we are going to be open-minded, well, in for a penny, in for a pound.

We are supposed to be good thinkers here, and we can likely see if this site or any other site on the web contains material of interest to readers such as those here. I read a lot of mainstream, highly funded sites and routinely ignore press commentary about "proving" this or that, or references to dark matter and dark energy as if they were factual and well-examined in labs, or use of hydrodynamic and fluid mechanics words like "hot gas" and "stellar winds" when in fact we all know that cosmic plasma conditions are being discussed. Unlike many who read Alfvén, I don't personally happen to like anti-matter explanations because there seems to not be enough (observed) to matter. That hardly means I totally disagree with him; I just go through what I think I can understand and seems sensible or plausible to me. Be a sensible parser of information and glean what you deem most useful, and don't harbor grudges if you disagree with this or that point.

Jim

[webolife]

Two bits only from me, seriously just two bits:
1. Everyone is religious, scientists many times more than most...
2. The more open we are about our "faith base" the more understanding we can impart to those needing to know where we are "coming from".

Great thread, Lloyd.