The Current Situation

[BecomingTesla]

It's been a good number of years since I've posted actively on this forum. In part, the majority of that time I chose to walk away from electrical engineering and physics in general (for a number of reasons), and so I didn't really have anything to contribute here. In the last two or three months tho, I've been pulled back into my passion for studying electricity, astronomy, physics, etc. and, of course, back into this forum.

That said, having been gone for ~4 years and coming back into the forum, I felt compelled to share my perspective on how I see the current situation, both in this forum and with the larger 'EU' framework as a whole. If folks don't feel like there's anything useful to take away from it, then no hard feelings. But my hope is that this post can act as a gentle-but-swift kick in the ass for a large majority of folks here (if there are very many left).

With the singular exception of the SAFIRE Project, which is an actual experimental rig setup for empirical testing, there is no science happening in this forum (and SAFIRE is not really a part of this forum). What I see ~95% of the time is armchair hypotheses developed over pop-sci articles, cherry-picking research papers to hobble together potential explanations or models, and appeals to Alfven and Peratt's work - which hasn't been rigorously developed by anyone over the last couple of decades. I don't see anyone taking the data from the last ~2 decades of exploration missions from spacecrafts and using it develop their models; I don't see anyone developing new mathematics to analyze that data in empirical ways; I don't see anyone building experimental setups to explore plasma physics and discharge phenomna. I said this exact thing four years ago in another thread (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15987) that was basically ignored, and unfortunately, I doesn't seem like much has changed in since then..

Perfect example, Steve Bates (an ~amazing~ glass-blowing artist) posted back in October of last year that they'd be willing to help people build experimental vacuum chamber rigs (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=17151), would donate parts, may even help teach people how to blow glass if we asked him nicely enough and offered to throw some cash his way. The post barely got attention, and I didn't see anyone in the thread actually ask him to help build something. That's an enormous opportunity just going to waste, when folks with experience in engineering and building circuits could be building vacuum chamber tanks right now, exploring and pushing Birkeland's work further (and working, altho in a smaller capacity, right alongside the SAFIRE team).

I want to be really clear: I think that there's is enormous potential for expanding the work of folks like Tesla, Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt, etc. into the field of astronomy; I do think that, at least, our solar system is a large electrical mechanism, and that celestial mechanics could be entirely redeveloped in terms of just electrodynamics. But I also think that this work is never going to happen by the academy, that'll it'll need to be driven "'amateur" researchers doing work on their own in a distributed network, and that if anyone's going to be doing that work, it needs to be us.

That said, the course forward that I want to encourage is this one:
- Rigorously develop your mathematical toolbox. The phobia/resistance to mathematics in this forum isn't healthy or helpful. No, you can't use mathematics to just "deduce" your way to correct empirical science, but mathematics is an extremely powerful analytical tool. Without it, almost none of the work from the folks mentioned above can be understood, and it definitely can't be developed and expanded. I've been using https://www.khanacademy.org to re-learn my primary level math: I'm 55% done with Algebra I, ~60% with Geometry, and when that's done I'll work thru Algebra II, Trigonometry, Pre-calculus, Calculus I and II, and Statistics. They've also got coursework for AP Physics and Classical Mechanics, and I'll be doing that as well.
- Study the history of the electrical theory. I found this amazing textbook, "The Experimental and Historical Foundations of Electricity, Vol.I and II," which walks you thru the entire history of electrical theory thru present-day, very cheat approximations of the actual experiments done by the founders of the field. This, coupled with Whitaker's "A History of the Theories of the Aether and Electricity," will provide a solid base for any to begin an experimental journey thru the entire history of the electrical sciences, and I encourage everyone to do that.
- Begin and share a practice of building circuits and vacuum chambers: to start with, there's another awesome book called "The Boy Electrician" that will teach folks the very, very basics of batteries, circuits, coils, etc., and from that point, we can move on more complex circuits and vacuum chambers! The same way folks participate in "amateur" radio, or building Tesla coils, we need to do the same with terella's and vacuum chambers. If the issue is funds, there are platforms where people can crowdsource tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I think projects regarding vacuum chambers could be really successful in raising funds.

If you agree with the overall way I'm feeling/thinking, or if you want to work together on studying any of the stuff I mentioned above, or even want to work on building things together like circuits or tanks, DM me! I'm posting this not just share my concerns and critiques, but also to find folks who feel the same and want to work together! Get at me sometime, and let's make cool shit happen.

[Michael Mozina]

That said, the course forward that I want to encourage is this one:
- Rigorously develop your mathematical toolbox. The phobia/resistance to mathematics in this forum isn't healthy or helpful. No, you can't use mathematics to just "deduce" your way to correct empirical science, but mathematics is an extremely powerful analytical tool. Without it, almost none of the work from the folks mentioned above can be understood, and it definitely can't be developed and expanded.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=17335

I believe that you missed a couple of relatively new and important mathematical models that were put forth by Dr. Scott in your absence. I also think it's incredibly unfair to suggest there's any "phobia" or resistance to mathematics in the EU/PC community. Between Birkeland's math and lab work, Peratt's models, Alfven's models, Bruce's math, Lerner's work and Scott's work, there's actually quite a bit of mathematics associated with EU/PC theory. There's certainly a lot to learn. Even with calculus classes and electromagnetic theory in my formal background, it's been challenging to fully digest and appreciate the EU/PC mathematical models that I've run across in my reading. Some of it is quite simple, but some of it takes a while to digest.

If my discussions around the internet of Dr. Scott's recent mathematical model of galaxy rotation patterns are any indication, the mainstream isn't even remotely interested in discussing mathematical models, often removing the thread before it's even discussed. The few (and completely false) mathematical objections that I've seen to Scott's model were actually very easy to pick out and dismiss as long as you know something about 3D vectors, and a little bit about electromagnetic theory, so the haters typically took the low road and they went on their personal attack binges, *AS USUAL*. The math is of no real interest to the mainstream. They won't even take the time to properly understand the math associated with EU/PC theory. Even when their own mathematical models come into direct conflict with observation, they simply ignore it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/

It's been seven years now and the mainstream has never even attempted to update their mathematical models related to convection to address that observation of slow convection speeds. Why? Because it fundamentally destroys their ability to describe a power source related to "magnetic reconnection' in the solar atmosphere.

In over 14 years of debates on these topics, I've yet to see anyone on any forum pick out a real mathematical error in any single part of Alfven's mathematical models or Peratt's mathematical models or Bruce's work, or even Birkeland's math. EU/PC mathematical models are actually reasonably plentiful and robust in terms of describing coronal loops and double layers and plasma behaviors in general. The problem is that the mainstream simply handwaves at the math the way they handwave at everything else. They also run around falsely and ignorantly claiming that there is no math to support EU/PC theory, apparently because they've simply been too lazy to bother to read it, let alone taken the time to *understand* it.

During my discussions at JREF, I watched the entire EU/PC hater posse back themselves into a mathematical and physical corner over the topic of "magnetic reconnection". For over a decade I've waited patiently for them to produce a mathematical formula to describe a non-zero rate of magnetic reconnection in Clinger's vacuum contraption without a single plasma particle to his name. Clinger is a math professor over at JREF who *promised* me that he would *mathematically* demonstrate for us that plasma was optional in the magnetic reconnection process. For *months* he kept repeating that irrational crap, and badmouthing me personally and berating my math skills while he put together a 4 or 5 part "presentation" of his absurd nonsense. In all that time, not a single other member ofJREF ever pointed out to Clinger how physically and mathematically impossible it would be to generate "magnetic reconnection" without plasma.

When Clinger finally got done with his lame vacuum presentation, I immediately pointed out that he was still missing a critical math formula related to his promised non-zero rate of reconnection in his vacuum contraption. I promptly got myself banned at JREF as soon as I started demanding to see it. The mainstream's math and physics skills as it relates to plasma physics are utterly abominable. They aren't the least bit impressive IMO. They may mathematically understand GR theory better than I do, and they certainly know how to stuff a GR theory full of magic better than I do, but their mathematical and physical understanding of plasma physics is simply pathetic.

Its been almost a decade now since I pointed out Clingers missing math formula, along with his absurd physics error. To this very week however, EU/PC haters *continue* to cite Clinger's absurd MR rants as being "important", and yet not a single one of them can ever produce that missing math formula, including the math professor himself. The EU/PC haters are mathematically and physically incompetent when it comes to plasma physics.

Unfortunately I think you've bought into mainstream BS as it relates to EU/PC theory and mathematics. There's no real lack of mathematical modeling associated with EU/PC theory. There's no fear of math within this community either. I certainly don't fear math, or the mainstream's grasp of math. There is however a complete lack of any intent by the mainstream to understand the math associated with EU/PC theory. How many of them have even bothered to read Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe"? I've yet to meet even a single EU/PC hater that has done so.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't see anyone taking the data from the last ~2 decades of exploration missions from spacecrafts and using it develop their models; I don't see anyone developing new mathematics to analyze that data in empirical ways; I don't see anyone building experimental setups to explore plasma physics and discharge phenomna. I said this exact thing four years ago in another thread (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15987) that was basically ignored, and unfortunately, I doesn't seem like much has changed in since then..

I really do suggest that you checkout Dr. Scott's EU conference video and his 2018 paper on galaxy rotation. It directly refutes that accusation. He introduces several new ideas related to galaxy counter rotation and Marklund convection separation of elements into galaxy predictions, and even shows how both issues have been demonstrated by real astronomical data. It might cheer you up a bit.

I also think you need to consider the fact that unfortunately most of us are not full time astrophysicists, being paid to conduct the "real science" you'd expect to see in astronomy today. Instead however of spending public tax payer funding to research Birkeland's full range of experiments, and plasma redshift and all the things that must be done to fully understand what we observe in space, it's being *wasted* on metaphysical nonsense.

Most of us taxpayers have day jobs. We have families too. Expecting the public to do the heavy lifting in "Science" simply isn't tenable over the long haul.

Imagine for a moment that all the money that we've wasted on dark matter research over the past 80 years had been spent on real research based on real working laboratory physics? Even if only a *fraction* of that money had been spent on laboratory research related to EU/PC theory, we'd already have all the answers you seek.

I think you're pointing the fingers of blame a little too restrictively. What have the "professional scientists" that taxpayers pay to do that kind of work have to show for all the money we gave them? Absolutely nothing. They've "constrained" their invisible snipes to the most unreachable invisible realms. No useful consumer product runs on dark energy, inflation, dark matter or space expansion. Their cosmology model is even self conflicted as it relates to the speed of expansion based on the CMB vs. Hubble data. The expansion model has a long track record of failing one prediction after another, starting with the SN1A data. The "fix' to the expansion model was a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws. WTF?

[BecomingTesla]

The only reply that feels productive and insightful, rather than just defensive, is that I spent the majority of my last experience in this forum working from the perspective of “the mainstream are wrong, the EU is right, and they need to be beaten so that we can be proven right.” I found that perspective extremely unproductive, it didn’t lead me to study more or work on my math or conduct any experiments, and I don’t honestly recommend it to anyone. Building resentment isn’t nearly as liberating a feeling as taking direct action and making shit happen on your own, at whatever level that may be.

I’ve actually read Scott’s paper and seen his lecture, and I think it’s great. I feel the same way about SAFIRE and the same way about Birkeland/Alfven/Peratt’s work. I didn’t say that the EU framework didn’t involve successful mathematics or models, I said that not enough work is being done by enough people, and that I think there’s extraordinary potential in the amateur-scientist getting involved - like the people in this forum. In four years, Scott’s paper is just that: one paper, and one SAFIRE, and one recent textbook I recall on the electrodynamics of the solar system that looked real good. If you disagree that’s fine, but I want to see, and do, more. And I want to see if other people here do too, that’s all.

I have a family and a full-time job, I’m not holding myself to a standard that says I need to be a PhD physicist. I think there’s a path forward for the amateur scientist to really explore this field in meaningful ways, but that still takes a commitment to doing the work; beginning with figuring out what the work is, and what skills have to be learned in the process of doing it.

In the spirit of that, I’m going to reach out to Steve Bates and see a) what kind of setups he could imagine building and donating to a crew wanting to work with vacuum discharges, and more importantly, b) how realistically they could put together a glass-blowing 101 course, so folks can learn how to build their own vacuum tubes. Would anyone here be interested in that?

[Michael Mozina]

The only reply that feels productive and insightful, rather than just defensive, is that I spent the majority of my last experience in this forum working from the perspective of “the mainstream are wrong, the EU is right, and they need to be beaten so that we can be proven right.” I found that perspective extremely unproductive, it didn’t lead me to study more or work on my math or conduct any experiments, and I don’t honestly recommend it to anyone. Building resentment isn’t nearly as liberating a feeling as taking direct action and making shit happen on your own, at whatever level that may be.

I’ve actually read Scott’s paper and seen his lecture, and I think it’s great. I feel the same way about SAFIRE and the same way about Birkeland/Alfven/Peratt’s work. I didn’t say that the EU framework didn’t involve successful mathematics or models, I said that not enough work is being done by enough people, and that I think there’s extraordinary potential in the amateur-scientist getting involved - like the people in this forum. In four years, Scott’s paper is just that: one paper, and one SAFIRE, and one recent textbook I recall on the electrodynamics of the solar system that looked real good. If you disagree that’s fine, but I want to see, and do, more. And I want to see if other people here do too, that’s all.

I have a family and a full-time job, I’m not holding myself to a standard that says I need to be a PhD physicist. I think there’s a path forward for the amateur scientist to really explore this field in meaningful ways, but that still takes a commitment to doing the work; beginning with figuring out what the work is, and what skills have to be learned in the process of doing it.

In the spirit of that, I’m going to reach out to Steve Bates and see a) what kind of setups he could imagine building and donating to a crew wanting to work with vacuum discharges, and more importantly, b) how realistically they could put together a glass-blowing 101 course, so folks can learn how to build their own vacuum tubes. Would anyone here be interested in that?

Well, I certainly hear you with respect to the fact that we could all do more, but..........

The next logical step isn't a backyard/garage style series of experiments, it's along the lines of SAFIRE. It costs a whole lot money, and it requires all sorts of specialized equipment, and many many man years of professional commitment.

An individual like Scott can collaborate with a few others and work for a few years and come up with a new mathematical model to explain something unusual/specific in astronomy, and find evidence to support it. That's great too. The concept won't advertise itself however.

Someone still has to get out there in the public and discuss these ideas, and I'm happy to contribute to that public discussion. On the other hand, I haven't even seen a lot of evidence of any real interest in honest scientific discussion by astronomers. They prefer to live and play in their heavily moderated and heavily fortified castles in the sky, where empirical alternatives to their metaphysical nonsense are forbidden from even being discussed. All heretics are put on trial and burned at the public stake.

http://forum.cosmoquest.org/forumdispla ... 27b61dcc1c

Even in more neutral settings, they rarely focus their attention on the math or the physics, but rather they spend their efforts and attention on badmouthing the individual. They typically don't even debate fairly in the first place.

The problem in astronomy today isn't our fault. It's the fault of the so called "professionals". Instead of spending our tax money wisely, they've been pouring it into holes in the ground and finding nothing useful. Many billions of dollars have been spent on the precious dark matter snipe hunt and nothing has been found.

Meanwhile a *paltry* sum of funds have been spent on SAFIRE, studying less than half of Birkeland's full range of physical experiments, albeit with better technology trying to get a handle on Birkeland's full range of experiments. We have spent next to nothing at all studying plasma redshift in the lab.

Ya, we can try to replicate Birkeland's entire body of work on a shoestring budget by ourselves in our garages, but Birkeland was actually quite well funded for his time. We need to get through to the mainstream and get them to stop wasting our public funds on irrational nonsense.

[BecomingTesla]

To each their own, you're welcome to do as you like. I disagree with you about what the "next steps" are, or whether meaningful research/experiments can be done by amateur individuals and smaller crews with less sophisticated apparatus than SAFIRE.

As I said above, I also deeply disagree with your perspective on having to engage in some kind of "battle" with mainstream astronomers. If that's your course of action, more power to you, but from your description it doesn't sound like you've had a terribly fun, pleasant, or productive time doing it..

In a different direction, I was doing more research on Bates, and as it turns out he has a YouTube channel with a four-part webinar on lampworking, i.e. glass-blowing with a torch rather than a furnace, so that you can make stuff in your garage as opposed to a dedicated studio. Here's part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmk2f4ckAzE&t=1s

Later today I may also open a thread with the notes I have regarding all my little experiments with magnetism and dielectricity. Right now they're very simple, not even working on simple circuits yet, but it's important to start with the fundamentals and it's been really fun, and surprising, to see what happens even with some friction rods and a couple bar/disk magnets. If I set that up today, I'll post a link in the thread. I think it'd be really cool to see other people start doing the same, posting notes about experimental setups and results, even if they start off small!

[Younger Dryas]

You can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into! -- is what comes to mind when I consider whispering wise council to Mr. Mozina on his endless campaign against the mainstream.

[nick c]

Younger Dryas,
You are not considering the whole picture. Maybe Mr. Mozina will not convince the individuals or the PTB in mainstream Science, but there are many people reading those posts, and a percentage of them will weigh the evidence he presents and indeed be convinced. So his posts have value to them!

[Younger Dryas]

Younger Dryas,
You are not considering the whole picture. Maybe Mr. Mozina will not convince the individuals or the PTB in mainstream Science, but there are many people reading those posts, and a percentage of them will weigh the evidence he presents and indeed be convinced. So his posts have value to them!

I'm not particularly invested in either position. If Mr. Mozina would like to continue waging a war against an ideology he himself employs - terrific. Would I like to see him take better care of himself? Absolutely. Can we all learn something about ourselves - no doubt.

[Michael Mozina]

To each their own, you're welcome to do as you like. I disagree with you about what the "next steps" are, or whether meaningful research/experiments can be done by amateur individuals and smaller crews with less sophisticated apparatus than SAFIRE.

I think SAFIRE is an excellent example of a sophisticated series of experiments and tests of an anode solar model. To duplicate Birkeland's entire set of experiments however, SAFRE would have to engage in a whole new series of cathode sphere experiments, including a cathode with an internal EM field. Such experiments may not even easily lend themselves to the use of the same equipment that they're currently using. The costs for those kinds of professional level experimental tests are beyond the scope of a single individual's budget. Birkeland was unique in the sense that he was quite rich and he could spend whatever he wanted to spend on such experiments.

I'm just noting that to do this properly and thuroughly, we will need the kind of sophistication and professionalism that we're seeing at SAFIRE.

Consider the cost of a single "modest" dark matter experiment. They typically range in the 10+ million range. They do them by the dozens. SAFIRE hasn't even spent that kind of money yet and already they're returning useful scientific data. This is the kind of research that will generate real scientific breakthroughs because like Birkeland, we'll learn important things from those kinds of sophisticated experiments.

The same is true in terms of experiments with plasma redshift. They'll be expensive to do properly, but we'll learn important things about how light travels through thin plasma.

As I said above, I also deeply disagree with your perspective on having to engage in some kind of "battle" with mainstream astronomers.

Well, I didn't start off "battling" anyone. I started off by typing my name on Google one day and I discovered that someone had started a thread over on "Bad Astronomy" (now Cosmoquest) about a published paper that I had done with Oliver Manuel and HIlton Ratcliffe on the topic of a modified version of Birkeland's solar model.

I honestly expected to take a bit of flack about the running difference solar images that I had included in that paper. Instead what I quickly discovered is that I had innocently stepped in the middle of on ongoing "battle" between proponents of EU/PC theory and mainstream astronomers. Keep in mind that I had no idea what EU/PC theory was even about at that point in time. After being accused on that website for being an "EU nutter", I decided I should probably check it out. It was clear from those conversations that the discussion of electric currents in the solar atmosphere was actually more controversial than proposing the existence of a more rigid layer underneath the surface of the photosphere. I really didn't expect that going into that conversation. It never even occurred to me prior to that conversation that the discussion of electrical current in solar physics was such a controversial topic. The moment I suggested electrical current lit up the coronal loops, I was immediately descended upon by what I would describe today as the 'EU/PC hater posse". They called me every name in the book for even suggesting that electrical currents heated up million degree coronal loops in spite of the fact that Birkeland demonstrated the coronal loop process in the lab. I was shocked that there was so much anger directed at such a simple and well demonstrated process.

If that's your course of action, more power to you, but from your description it doesn't sound like you've had a terribly fun, pleasant, or productive time doing it..

Well the mainstream anger that was directed at me personally, and all the personal attack nonsense hasn't been fun or pleasant, but in terms of productivity and learning, that's a completely different story. I found all sorts of useful resources during my online discussions, and I've learned a great deal about astronomy as a result of those discussions.

I also learned from my discussions about MRx theory over at JREF that the EU hater posse is utterly clueless about plasma physics. They don't understand the first thing about MRx theory, starting with the fact that it involves and describes energy exchanges in plasma. Clinger's missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection in his vacuum experiment is no small problem. Someone should have clued Clinger into his physics and math errors from the very start. I tried to explain to him that he needed charged particles to get "magnetic reconnection', but nobody in the EU hater posse ever tried. For *months* they all buried their reputations and flushed them down the toilet for even supporting his vacuum reconnection nonsense. I certainly learned that I had nothing to fear from the EU hater posse. I will never see a math formula to express a non zero rate of magnetic reconnection in a vacuum because it is physically impossible to transfer magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration without plasma and plasma particles to accelerate. Clinger made a completely *bonehead* error that everyone should have caught. Instead they all defended his nonsense for months until the very end of his presentation and I pointed out his missing math to support his erroneous claim. To this day, the EU hater posse still points to archived copies of Clinger's irrational nonsense and claims that Clinger's crap had some scientific value. All that demonstrates is that the EU haters really don't understand anything at all about plasma physics.

It was very helpful in terms of personal education for me to "discuss" these issues online, even in "hostile' environments. I actually learned about the objections to EU/PC theory and how to answer them. I've also learned about the weaknesses in the LCDM model. That's been helpful in terms of convincing me of the merits of EU/PC theory. It's been a good learning experience IMO.

In a different direction, I was doing more research on Bates, and as it turns out he has a YouTube channel with a four-part webinar on lampworking, i.e. glass-blowing with a torch rather than a furnace, so that you can make stuff in your garage as opposed to a dedicated studio. Here's part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmk2f4ckAzE&t=1s

Later today I may also open a thread with the notes I have regarding all my little experiments with magnetism and dielectricity. Right now they're very simple, not even working on simple circuits yet, but it's important to start with the fundamentals and it's been really fun, and surprising, to see what happens even with some friction rods and a couple bar/disk magnets. If I set that up today, I'll post a link in the thread. I think it'd be really cool to see other people start doing the same, posting notes about experimental setups and results, even if they start off small!

I want to say that I honor and I respect your desire to roll up your sleeves and get actively involved in learning about plasma physics via active experimentation. That's exactly what Birkeland and Langmuir did. There's no substitute for that kind of hands on learning.

[Michael Mozina]

You can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into! -- is what comes to mind when I consider whispering wise council to Mr. Mozina on his endless campaign against the mainstream.

I try to think of it as an ongoing campaign to *educate* the mainstream (and myself). Considering the fact that I've seen professional astronomers erroneously claim that EU solar models (plural) predict "no neutrinos" and I've seen them erroneously claim that Kristian Birkeland proposed three different solar models, it's pretty clear that someone has to educate them.

The only part that's a bit of a drag is the endless campaign against blatantly dishonest statements and behaviors from a handful of vocal EU haters. That nonsense was going on long before I ever heard of Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt, etc.