things yet unexplained by plasma cosmology

[mharratsc]

Heya Damabo,

If you don't mind my jumping in on the middle of this, I'll give you my take on it.

Did you notice that they discoer 'new' particles every time they use a stronger accellerator to crash particles together?

In my mind, I think what they are seeing are a few subnuclear particles that are simply at hugely different energy states, dependent on how hard they got cracked together.

Perhaps there are only two subnuclear particles, one positive and one negative? Or perhaps they are the same particle, but 'spun' differently?

Who knows. But my intuition tells me they are not seeing what they think they are seeing when they see it!

[damabo]

your intuition of course. time will tell.

[Sparky]

But then again, so many speculations based on math only have turned out to be, eventually, truth.

Name and quantify one. The argument against that position is that data and logic is distorted to reach the same conclusion as the math prediction.

The model that they are working from is flawed, therefore all conclusions from that model are suspect, at best.

[damabo]

But then again, so many speculations based on math only have turned out to be, eventually, truth.

Name and quantify one. The argument against that position is that data and logic is distorted to reach the same conclusion as the math prediction.

The model that they are working from is flawed, therefore all conclusions from that model are suspect, at best.

heliocentrism

[damabo]

But then again, so many speculations based on math only have turned out to be, eventually, truth.

Name and quantify one. The argument against that position is that data and logic is distorted to reach the same conclusion as the math prediction.

The model that they are working from is flawed, therefore all conclusions from that model are suspect, at best.

I follow your reasoning of course. what are your arguments for their model being wrong? (I am not sure if I asked you this already)

[Sparky]

Accretion? The model stands upon gravitational accretion, an illogical speculation! There is a much stronger force than gravity, and one that does not contradict itself.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... dwarfs.htm

In a plasma cosmogony hypothesis, the stars are formed when cosmic Birkeland currents twist around one another, creating z-pinch regions that compress the plasma into a solid. Laboratory experiments have shown that such compression zones are the most likely candidates for star formation and not collapsing nebulae. --

"The fission process is repeated in further electrical disturbances by flaring red dwarfs and gas giant planets ejecting rocky and icy planets, moons, comets, asteroids and meteorites. Planetary systems may also be acquired over time by electrical capture of independent interstellar bodies such as dim brown dwarf stars. That seems the best explanation for our ‘fruit salad’ of a solar system." Wal Thornhill

When New Horizons arrives at Pluto in July 2015, Electric Universe theorists expect the Nebular Hypothesis to be falsified again, as it has in the past. 99% of the Universe is plasma, so the conclusions derived from the Hypothesis are not connected with real observations.

Stephen Smith

EU Predictions confirmed! http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

Each conformation tends to falsify the standard model, which can not make any prediction! And they are continually "surprised" by their discoveries!
Which they then have to ad hoc more absurd, speculative constructs to support their nonsensical, patch works model. It's not science, it is science fiction.

[damabo]

Sparky, what is your stance on quantum physics?

[damabo]

explain this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPIEW0fNCDQ

[Goldminer]

explain this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPIEW0fNCDQ

OK! If you like videos . . . here you go!

[Sparky]

explain this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPIEW0fNCDQ

nonsense!

Sparky, what is your stance on quantum physics?

http://milesmathis.com/quant.html

Bohr and Heisenberg made several theoretical messes in the early part of the 20th century, and these messes have been augmented and multiplied by many others in the years since then. In that time, the best commentary on this mess was probably provided by Karl Popper. But there have been two problems with Popper’s commentary. One, Popper was not a professional physicist or an insider, and so he was treated with condescension and even ridicule. That is to say, his argument was dismissed not on logical or scientific grounds, but on grounds of clubbability. Most physicists have never felt it necessary to read Popper or to reply to his critique. He has become a modern Bishop Berkeley. This is a shame since Popper came as close as anyone to solving some of the paradoxes and conundrums of Quantum Mechanics.

this sounds okay....

[damabo]

on the video of the black hole, how would EU theorists explain this one?

on quantum physics: I have read a bit on that page. the main concern was, I think, that probability is not a concept that occurs in nature, so that the extrapolation of the wave nature is wrong. But actually there is no problem with being a wave and a particle at the same time (Hilbert had a special mathematics (that is logical and consistent of course) that implied waves and particles can exist at the same time). Of course again, mathematics is not necessarily reality, but given that it is a logical framework... what is the alternative for the current quantum physics?

[Sparky]

The basic mistake of Quantum Mechanics is a mistake of theory. To speak even more directly, it is a lack of precision in defining terms. --- This imprecision has lain at the foundation of the calculus since the beginning and it has since infected all physical and mathematical fields.------We have suffered theoretical shipwreck, and no amount of pointing to our feats of engineering can hide that any longer. Our two proudest achievements—Quantum Mechanics and Relativity—have brought us to a dead end. ---- We cannot continue to toy with 11-dimensional maths, parallel universes, baby black holes, and the like, no matter how much money we make selling this drivel to the cheapsheets. ---These things must wait until we have learned something about the mechanics of light propagation, about the mechanics of gravity, the mechanics of circular motion, the mechanics of electromagnetism, and so on. We stopped doing basic physics a century ago, and we should deeply regret it. Theoretical physicists should be ashamed to be caught building castles in the air when there is so much real work to do. I say, give me a theory of gravity, not just a mathematics. Once you have done that, then you may begin trying to tie it to QM. As it is, you don’t even have a theory of Quantum Mechanics. You are trying to tie one woefully incomplete heuristics to another woefully incomplete heuristics. . . and you are surprised to fail?

what black hole?

I am suggesting, and will show, that the current theory of black holes is in large part either false, experimentally unsupported, or scientifically suspect. I leave open the possibility that black holes do exist in some form, and that a part of the astronomical data has been read correctly. But the greater part of current speculation could be called wild, and a significant part is demonstrably illogical.

The central error in the current theory of black holes concerns the singularity that is supposed to inhabit the center of the hole. This singularity is a mathematical outcome of the math of General Relativity, but I have attacked this math from many different angles in an array of papers. Firstly, I have shown that the singularity is a zero, and that the zero cannot exist in any differential math. A mathematical field led to the prediction of the black hole, and mathematical fields have led to all the current speculation about the properties of black holes. In my paper on the foundations of the calculus, I showed that an axiomatic muddle that goes all the way back to Euclid is to blame for this misunderstanding, and I showed precisely how this muddle had affected and been extended by Descartes, Newton, and many others. Put in a nutshell, the point can exist in a real field only, but never in a mathematical field. The zero-dimension point cannot enter any equations defined by cardinal or counting numbers. This mistake infected calculus from the beginning and it still infects all of contemporary math and science, since all higher math is founded on differential equations. This mistake is at the root of both renormalization in QED and of the inconsistencies within General Relativity.

Point being, that if the money and energy put into supporting falsified theories had been applied toward EU, we would have far more understanding of what is being seen in space, and possibly more insight into the microcosim . It's not one or the other! ALL knowledge is evolving. Each theory stands on it's own, to have supporting evidence or to be falsified. Standard cosmology has been falsified. It is time to figure out what is really going on in the universe.

We really do need a black hole, just to dump all the nonsense in to that has been created and accumulated.

[damabo]

you might as well turn the method around: if we understand the very small, we can understand the very big.

alltogether I would say there should be both approaches.

[Sparky]

This video addresses most of your questions.

[damabo]

This video addresses most of your questions.

Hi sparky,

I've already seen this video. it was the one that first made me aware of the problematic nature of the physics today.
Anyway, great to see it again, a year or so later.