things yet unexplained by plasma cosmology

[StevenJay]

"Yeh, you need to be an Adept to understand this stuff. Obviously, you just ain't that smart."

*Queue the naked emperor!*

[damabo]

to goldminer: that 'no argument'-thing only related to the GPS thing. afterwards you should have found that I asked the question 'what arguments would there be against GR (besides dark matter, dark energy, big bang) ?'. Although I find those 3 arguments to be sufficient to change the paradigm, I would like even more arguments, so that I am sure that when I devote my study to plasma physics, I know I have chosen my object of study wisely. Why I think plasma physics is a 'panacea' or whatever is the fact that 99.99 percent of the universe is plasma. So if we understand plasma physics well, we should understand the universe pretty well no? given that EM is far stronger than gravity. (and still most of cosmology is gravity-based, as if gravity is the primary cause of all other forces). Of course there are the strong and the weak force (which are nuclear ones, I think?) and all those 20 or so subatomic particles. How do these relate to plasma and electricity? I would not know. Seems like an interesting question. I have heared some (like Penrose) say that quantum physics is wrong, or incomplete. I did not mean that the electric universe theory should also account for all other phenomenon, but I just asked these questions from interest. And of course, having a wholistic approach to science is something EU theorists will not resent.
One of the comments I have about GR is for instance the first 'confirmation': some guy (eddington i think) really wanted einstein to be right (against war), so after the initial rejections in germany, in england einsteins theory was tested numerous times to be false, and they kept researching till they found an effect. Talk about confirmation bias.
Also, I have read an article by thornhill where he shows that the depiction of the mechanism of spacetime curvature supposedly causing gravity actually ASSUMES gravity from the beginning.

[Sparky]

damabo:

So if we understand plasma physics well, we should understand the universe pretty well no?

I would say, "better". You still need to study many other things, and gravity effect does rule over a weaker electrical. And since we don't know what electricity or gravity is, but only their effects, then there is much to study and learn about both. And the more diverse your knowledge, the more you can bring to the "table" in any chosen discipline.

The more i learn, the less i know.

[damabo]

damabo:

So if we understand plasma physics well, we should understand the universe pretty well no?

I would say, "better". You still need to study many other things, and gravity effect does rule over a weaker electrical. And since we don't know what electricity or gravity is, but only their effects, then there is much to study and learn about both. And the more diverse your knowledge, the more you can bring to the "table" in any chosen discipline.

The more i learn, the less i know.

well I agree with everything with everything you say. Except for 'gravity effect does rule over a weaker electrical'.
Every source I see says electricity is much more powerful than gravity. For instance, http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm says 'The electromagnetic force is actually second in effective strength only to the strong force'.
But of course you have google yourself.

[Sparky]

I think you will find that these comparisons of forces is measured at the atomic level. A much stronger electrical force will overcome a weaker gravity. A much stronger gravity force will overcome a weaker electrical force. Most of the time I would guess that there is a balance of some sort between them.

Until we figure out what they are, we just have to go by their measured effects.

Example: On Jupiter, weak refrigerator magnets would probably fall off...
Need someone to do the math on that..

Have you had time to read some of the TPODS or other papers on EU?

[damabo]

I think you will find that these comparisons of forces is measured at the atomic level. A much stronger electrical force will overcome a weaker gravity. A much stronger gravity force will overcome a weaker electrical force. Most of the time I would guess that there is a balance of some sort between them.

Until we figure out what they are, we just have to go by their measured effects.

Example: On Jupiter, weak refrigerator magnets would probably fall off...
Need someone to do the math on that..

Have you had time to read some of the TPODS or other papers on EU?

hm interesting.
I have read quite some articles on the EU, some being TPODS on this site.
But could it be that gravity is just a side-effect of some other force (for instance the EM)? gravity might be an attraction or repulsion as with electricity, although of course this is my entirely uneducated voice .
On wikipedia however, I see reasons for trusting the general relativity explanation of gravity, since there are so many experiments concerning GR that were confirmed (of course not always as rigid as should be).

[nick c]

have read quite some articles on the EU, some being TPODS on this site.
But could it be that gravity is just a side-effect of some other force (for instance the EM)? gravity might be an attraction or repulsion as with electricity, although of course this is my entirely uneducated voice .

Wal Thornhill thinks that might be the case:
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

[Sparky]

That's a good paper! Here is an index to help you find specific subjects. Otherwise, the information is spread all over the forums.

[klokskap]

Thomas Phipps does a fairly swell job of outlining the problems of GR & SR in his book Old Physics for New. He also covers the GPS issues as well as the "clock" problem and "time." This book answered many of the same questions I had discussed here. Pleasant reading, at times hilarious for me.

I've been digging into this stuff for a long time--since Eric Lerner published his book. I still don't understand all of it and find myself asking repeat questions. But it has totally changed my perspective of the universe and has explained why a number of ideas seemed ridiculous. Good luck in your searching. The material IS there if you have the patience to dig it up.

[damabo]

Thomas Phipps does a fairly swell job of outlining the problems of GR & SR in his book Old Physics for New. He also covers the GPS issues as well as the "clock" problem and "time." This book answered many of the same questions I had discussed here. Pleasant reading, at times hilarious for me.

I've been digging into this stuff for a long time--since Eric Lerner published his book. I still don't understand all of it and find myself asking repeat questions. But it has totally changed my perspective of the universe and has explained why a number of ideas seemed ridiculous. Good luck in your searching. The material IS there if you have the patience to dig it up.

Welcome to thunderbolts.info . I'm not much of a book reader, I like to search the web. perhaps I can look this guy up.

[damabo]

looking him up on wiki, I found he's that guy from that youtube movie 'the big bang never happened'.

[Goldminer]

Thomas Phipps does a fairly swell job of outlining the problems of GR & SR in his book Old Physics for New. He also covers the GPS issues as well as the "clock" problem and "time." This book answered many of the same questions I had discussed here. Pleasant reading, at times hilarious for me.

I've been digging into this stuff for a long time--since Eric Lerner published his book. I still don't understand all of it and find myself asking repeat questions. But it has totally changed my perspective of the universe and has explained why a number of ideas seemed ridiculous. Good luck in your searching. The material IS there if you have the patience to dig it up.

I'm one of those cheap skates that try to obtain knowledge for free. Thus I can only read the foreword to Thomas Phipps's book. Having so read; I conclude that his viewpoint is very similar to my own train of thought at the Silly Einstein thread

Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical view that the practicalities of the measurement process must play an unambiguously prominent role in the theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this was not done (with hugely significant consequences), we need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics. In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors used by (inertial) observers to measure field quantities be at rest in the observer’s frame. Thus, if we have two observers, each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two observers to make simultaneous measurements of the same field point. In other words, certain choices made at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a particular place at a given time. Phipps’ answer to this conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why the detector measuring field quantities should be fixed in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source currents which generate the field are not, so why should the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be? And since the detector need not be fixed in one observer’s inertial frame, why should it be fixed in any inertial frame?

I have the same general idea, except that "motion" is either inertial or accelerated; and "acceleration" is not a part of the Special Theory, and complicates said discussion. That egotist Goldminer! Always trying to toot his own horn!

[damabo]

Hey Goldminer. I don't quite follow your arguments. I have a picture of the big lines of your arguments, I think, which is in the lines of: all confirmations of GR rely on minuscule deviations, which could come from anything really. And, also, everything after Einstein assumes GR to be correct and thus makes possible impossibilities (such as creation of matter).
I myself have some troubles believing in a 4-d-space-time-thing which is invisible, supposedly consisting of empty space (am I correct ?) or if it consists of matter this would be some kind of special matter no one has observed?

[Goldminer]

Hey Goldminer. I don't quite follow your arguments. I have a picture of the big lines of your arguments, I think, which is in the lines of: all confirmations of GR rely on minuscule deviations, which could come from anything really. And, also, everything after Einstein assumes GR to be correct and thus makes possible impossibilities (such as creation of matter).

My idea is about the "Special Theory" not the "General Theory". The "General Theory" is based upon the "Special Theory." Thus, if the "Special Theory" is messed up, so is the "General Theory." Since the "Special Theory" is based upon a diagram that pertains to infinite speed light, and does not include the finite speed, it cannot help but lead to silly conclusions. The finite speed of light causes delays between the transmission and reception of the signal. This is where the "time problem," otherwise named "Einstein Relativity of Simultaneity," enters his theory. I show that there is no such problem when the diagram does include said delays or latency. You may have to study the thread, and pick up the subtle definitions (such as "inertial frame," and "relative motion") used by the so called "authorities." I have tried to include such in the thread, but I suppose everyone reading the thread has their own baggage that steers their thinking. The diagrams that I can send make the whole story very simple, However, they are too big to post within the thread.

I myself have some troubles believing in a 4-d-space-time-thing which is invisible, supposedly consisting of empty space (am I correct ?) or if it consists of matter this would be some kind of special matter no one has observed?

The "fourth axis," which would be perpendicular to one of the other three used in the Cartesian coordinate system is a non sequitur. By including the "expanding sphere" of the wave front in the basic diagram (named the "Galilean transform") and using "unit velocity" for the divisions along the three axes, I show that there is no need for "time" to have its own axis. ("Unit velocity" is the fact that Light travels about a foot per nanosecond. All other velocities necessary in the discussion are merely ratios to this unit.)

Before drawing the diagrams using above said ideas, I had no inkling the "moving frame observers" would turn out the way they do. As far as "empty space" vs "the aether" I think the aether wins. However the aether is not "photons," "neutrinos," "special matter," or anything else my fellow Tbolters tout as being such, IMHO, of course. Their ideas all lead to contradictions which they do not foresee. I refuse to imitate MJV and others who try to enter every discussion with their own opinion presented as the Godawful Truth. I suppose they will figure it out someday.

(I am not promoting my idea as the Godawful Truth either, it just makes more sense with less confusion. If you really wish to understand the "Silly Einstein" thread, read it again. Do not hesitate to stop and post some point with which you don't understand, or disagree. Request my drawings, no charge. All the best to you)

[damabo]

Hey goldminer. I haven't took the time to read the whole idea carefully, but once I am at special relativity courses in school, I will pay attention, and perhaps look for the silly einstein thread again ; ). Only then can I evaluate properly.

I think the big issue with the relativistic view vs the plasma cosmology is about math vs observation. can we trust equations without looking at the sky? can we trust our own observational skills above an objective mathematical description? both answers are no. the task of the scientist is to know the philosophical assumptions on the basis of the mathematics, but also to acknowledge the unlikelihood of a phenomenological intuition to be true. Both sides have problems, both have their strengths.
Still the most repulsive idea that follows from the mainstream mathematics is the dark matter thing. It could exist of course, but it seems a huge statement to somewhat justify the equations preceding the idea, without any observational evidence. But then again, so many speculations based on math only have turned out to be, eventually, truth. For the sake of Ockham's razor however, one would have to take the plasmacosmological perspective, it seems.

One of the articles of Thornhill tried to reinvoke the more classic model of the atom: atom, electron, proton, neutron,that's about it. What about all those particles found by quantum physicists?