Do any of you have credentials?

[Maddogkull]

First off I would like to say I am a huge fan of the EU models/ plasma cosmology. I do have a couple of questions though if some of you would not mind answering. It is not my intention to start an argument if this is what these questions might sound like.

First off, do any of you have a masters or p.h.d in physics or cosmology/astronomy? If not how can you criticize the mainstream models without having a wide degree of expertise in it first? So that is my first question your credentials

I am just trying to see how can all the mainstream scientists can be against the EU and plasma models. It just seems like plasma cosmology does not stand up to the computer simulations and other things mainstream science has done.

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Maddog, welcome to the form.

There are plenty of credentials withing the writings of EU, PHD's, professors, Nobel prizes, etc. But as anyone who investigates scientific history, some of the greatest contributions have come from self educated (Michael Faraday)...

It can be a common misconception that PC is non-mainstream science, this could not be anything further from the truth. The 'appeal to authority' 'non-mainstream fear agenda' that can often be pushed by any establishment to curious laymen i find very distasteful, and have often experienced it. Once you meet this fear campaign with names like Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Halton Arp, Tom Van Flandern, Kristian Birkeland, you realize the fear campaign is a pointless house of cards... credentials aplenty on both sides... it then becomes time to put the 'shiney badges' down and address the science.

I am just trying to see how can all the mainstream scientists can be against the EU and plasma models.

another misconception....
Mainstream scientists are definitely involved in PC... Later this year in Japan, there will be the Alfven conference, specifically discussing Space Plasma.
Here is a list of Mainstream-Scientists, from Mainstream Institutions that attended the last one.
http://alfven2007.cesr.fr/organizing/pa ... _list.html

Essentially once you get past the usual 'appeals to authority' that can be projected, all that is left is to address the science.

It just seems like plasma cosmology does not stand up to the computer simulations and other things mainstream science has done.

Another misconception....
I have seen a (1980's) plasma computer simulation of galaxy formation, from NASA JPL Mainstream Scientist Professor Anthony Peratt: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... _formation
I have NOT seen a stable galaxy formation simulation from the gravity cosmology....

Welcome to the forum.
EU/PC makes very distinct and different predictions to gravity dominated standard model cosmology. With or without shiny badges, evidence has the final say.

[The Great Dog]

That is a very good response Jarvamundo.

[junglelord]

Hi Maddog, but with such an uninformed response with such broad and sweeping statements, with no proof of their validity, like this one.

I am just trying to see how can all the mainstream scientists can be against the EU and plasma models. It just seems like plasma cosmology does not stand up to the computer simulations and other things mainstream science has done.

I have to ask, what are your credentials?
No offense, but their are many computer simulations and real life results like Eric Dollard has created in vaccum tubes with plasma, that are clearly spiral galaxy shapes. Also how can any reputable scientist have a problem with plasma physics?

When it comes to Peer review, it is a con game of money at this point from pharacuticals to this BP oil disaster....clearly the process of peer review is out of sync with the results in the lab or in the field. Please do more research, as this gives you accredidation, only if you seek out all sides, not relying solely on peer review. I would ask you first to read the original works of Tesla, Maxwell, Faraday...the Originals. Then read the work of modern plasma physics, from Birkeland onwards. Then connect the two....then and only then, start to look at the mainstream...for the mainstream leaves out the original, all the while teaching you that you are learning the original. That in and of itself is a lie and a huge misconception. For instance, Maxwells theorums are not Maxwells at all, they are Heavisides....which is purely vectoral while the work of Maxwell is in Quaternions and is a complex plane. So how can Heavisides reduction be Maxwells theorum?

Please tell me...

When it comes to Tesla, I will let Eric Dollard to the talking...
So much to learn, so much not being taught, so much crap floating around as "truth", it makes me sick. So much money changing hands with those with credentials, that they have no way to be unnbias to the corporate stink...rather follow the money, thats where the corruption lies. The assumption that a scientist will not fudge data to assist the corporate plan is pure lack of judgement of human nature on your part.

[Maddogkull]

I know what you are saying, but it has to be more than just money and power. Lawrence Krauss is an astronomer and I honestly think he believes the universe is expanding ect. How can someone who studies the universe so much not notice the plasma effects? That is what does not make sense. If you study the universe everyday of your life noticing the plasma effects would be 100% noticeable. This is what is confusing.

[junglelord]

Dear maddog, scientist are specialist, they know more and more about less and less.
You do not cut off your own funding by giving credience to other specialist.
They fight for every dollar and the prestige of the position, again you underestimate the human condition.

[Siggy_G]

Maddogkull, your query is justice, and yes one could truly wonder why they don't see the full plasma scenario. On the other hand, one need to take into account that the majority of astrophysicists, are not neccesarily putting too much work into the cosmology part. I.e. they are studying one specific aspect of the universe, the Sun or our atmosphere. They rightously have to assume that the model they're contributing with data for, is the result of an empirical process. So, they are not neccesarily attempting to re-invent the wheel or even looking for alternative explanations. As Tim Thompson say (physisist and opponent to EU), the standard model of the Sun works and there is no reason to search for a completelly different model...

Also, much of the work astrophysisists/astronomers do, are very specific and "narrow" (funded) assignments from e.g. NASA or ESA; studies of the ionosphere, the surface of Mars, the corona etc. Just look at the "areas of focus" page for the Norwegian Space Centre:
http://www.spacecentre.no/English/Areas_of_Focus/

The Norwegian Space Centre (NSC) has a down-to-earth approach to space activities. Use-value is the catchword. A principal aim is to foster high-tech ventures based on work for the European Space Agency (ESA). That aim has been attained and has triggered spinoff business. (...)

Not saying it's wrong, but it illustrates that often the work is not about cosmology, but "down-to-earth" approaches and sticking to the current model in use. Much of the work is creating the methods for gathering data, technology and equipment - and analyzing images in accordance with the model given.

As another illustration, a friend of mine works for a similar space centre, and when I asked him about his view on cosmology related topics, he replied that he frankly hadn't looked so much into that since highschool, as the stuff he studied and worked on since was more related to specific technical aspects about equipment and the higher atmosphere. I.e. they are specialists and the job they receive salary for is related to that.

How can someone who studies the universe so much not notice the plasma effects?

But they ARE also studying the plasma effects. They are central at the moment. It's just the full-picture cosmological aspect which there is high reluctancy towards.

[Jarvamundo]

I know what you are saying, but it has to be more than just money and power. Lawrence Krauss is an astronomer and I honestly think he believes the universe is expanding ect. How can someone who studies the universe so much not notice the plasma effects? That is what does not make sense. If you study the universe everyday of your life noticing the plasma effects would be 100% noticeable. This is what is confusing.

Hi Maddog,

Lawerence Krauss is a mathamatical theoretical physicist. Not an astronomer. Lawrence still rests on the assumptions that redshift = distance (velocity of recession)... known as the Hubble Relationship... or hubble law.

Edwin Hubble was the ASTRONOMER who discovered a slight similarity in his early results, that as the redshift of a faint smudge (galaxy) increased the apparent distance increased. It is now known that Hubbles law does NOT apply even remotely to the local group (virgo), of which he was studying. Later in his career Hubble began to retract his view of expansion.... but the inertia behind Einstien relativity had taken off... his cautions were ignored by the excitement that the universe could be described by man's imagination and graph paper.

Halton Arp, Edwin Hubbles' assistant went on to study interacting galaxies. Arp noticed that high redshift objects (apparantly far far away if one takes Hubble law as gospel), were interacting with low redshift objects. This is impossible if hubble law applies.

Now remember very clearly.... Hubble and Arp are astronomers.

Krauss is a theoretical physicist.

Hubble and Arp, take measurements and spend their time looking at the sky, they have an appreciation for 'error factors', 'correction factors' of the equipment used, and of which objects they are studying. Krauss, on the other hand, takes mathematical formulas and try to build a universe on graph paper, focusing on a small set of parameters that 'bend and fit' the equations.

I thoroughly recommend reading Halton Arp's "Seeing Red" book. I also recommend reading any of Krauss's books side by side with it. You will notice that Theoretical Physicists pick and choose and IGNORE specific measurements taken of the night sky. Time after time they put their head in the sand when it comes to confronting data.

There is a clearly different head-space with these gentlemen, once you notice the difference between "imaginary ideas on graph paper" and that large body of real measurements which they flat out ignore, it becomes the most sorry realization.

Krauss is clearly a bright man, but as long as real measurements are flat out ignored, i just can't take him seriously.

Before PC/EU i had a bookshelf of expansion, dark matter, bbt.... as soon as i started to recognize the body of observations which standard model ignored, i felt ill. Then i investigated these observations and measurements more thoroughly through some of the names in my first post. It lead me here. The modern proponents of PC/EU; Scott, Thornhill, Perratt, Lerner i have found have the utmost respect and wide knowledge of empirical measurements. I find they do not conveniently 'wipe over' or 'ignore' a fact to serve an equation.

I feel this is real science.
You have valid queries, i can only encourage you to respect your own mind, and read both materials side by side, make your own judgments. There is never any 'appeal to authority' here.

[webolife]

Maddog,
By definition, credentials are awarded by those promoting the standard model... if you pass the "tests" which have been created by the SM-ers, you qualify for "credence." Those who jump through the most hoops, get the credentials. It's not unlike a reality game show. I "qualified" years ago graduating from the Univ of Wash with a BA in Earth Science Teaching. 32 years of science and math teaching later, the most important lesson I tell my students to learn from my class is to question authority, question the scientific consensus. I make sure they understand the standard model[s]... it's my job. I also make sure they understand there are other models in play, and that paradigms are made to be "broken." I remind them that most of the science most people get to read is not written by scientists, but by journalists and textbook writers, whose job is to dumb down the science enough for the uneducated to understand. Of course this applies generally to pre-college level literature. I teach them to honor honest wording like "may", suppose", "believe", "many scientists think...", "observations suggest..." etc. and to mistrust literature that is written in declarative "factual" language. I teach the distinction between an observation and a conclusion, between evidence and opinions.
Students of all ages are liberated by the realization that science is not about how much you know, but about questioning, guessing, observing, rethinking, communication, ... and debate.

[ElecGeekMom]

What a satisfying answer!

So, Web, are you the teacher the students hoped they would get--or the one they hoped they wouldn't get?

[junglelord]

I taught college for five years.
I agree with web.
I have two diplomas, neither one taught me the truth, rather some little pocket at best!
The paradigms surround us, but you must seek it out, unless you have a teacher like me or Web you will tell you, my job is to get you a diploma, by answering the answers they want too see, not necessarily the truth.

[nutcat]

Do any of you have credentials?

let me answer this directly.
Speaking for myself; Absolutely not. (which are very impressive credentials from where I stand!)

So what is credibility?

Function: noun
Date: 1594

1 : the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
2 : capacity for belief <strains her reader's credibility — Times Literary Supplement>

Sounds like we are now dealing with Belief!
Belief is a deep subject that I will avoid.

I like your Questions Maddogkull!

I'm just here to add a little flavor.

[Siggy_G]

I should also add that being self-thought isn't a bad thing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

In my case, I have 15 years experience within my field, and I got my first job based on my showcase. I believe I was quite ahead of my time / expected level, and this was solely based on my own interests and experimentation/results. Further on, astronomy/comsology has been a field of interest since my teens, and I also had quite a bit of physics/math during my education. However, I felt more like the math and physics was just doing text decryption and calculator work.

Having a degree is often a label of quality, meaning that it's a proof that one has been through a certain amount of subjects. But from what I've seen so far, it's not until you reach a really high level that you can start asking your own questions or do your own research. And even then, it's pretty much based on subjects picked for you, and certainly so if you are dependant on funding.

[altonhare]

I'm teaching chemistry at the college level now, having finished my M.S. in January. I'm a physical chemist and I did my graduate work studying the effects lasers on atomic and molecular beams. Among other things I teach the atomic theory of the electron, proton, and neutron. Occasionally I mention quarks but chemistry classes don't go that far. Chemistry more or less ends at the P/E/N and physics begins there. I make sure to emphasize that the planetary model is completely wrong and that the electron is not a tiny orbiting planet, but rather to all appearances it is a shell that encapsulates the nucleus. My students are confused at first because they've always been taught to envision the electron as a bunch of tiny balls whirring about. I ask them to open their chemistry textbooks and tell me what all the pictures and images, calculated or experimentally taken, look like. What is right in front of your face? The sheepish answer is always something along the lines of "a shell" or "a cloud" or "an extended, diffuse thing".

I empathize a lot with Web in this respect, I teach my students that being a scientist is about asking questions and answering them yourself. In the end, the only way to learn something is to ask your own question and then do your own experiment/research/etc. to answer it. It's not enough to find the answer to someone else's question. You haven't learned anything unless you've asked your own. Sometimes your own turns out to be identical to someone else's, but oftentimes someone else's question just doesn't mean the same thing to you. Being a scientist is being skeptical of theories and interpretations of observations/data. Being a scientist means taking the observation/data at face value for what it is, not for what any particular interpretation says it should be.

To my mind this is the fundamental problem and it goes back very far. The MM experiment is a good place to start. The experiment established that the theory of a stationary aether, distinct and separate from matter, which acts as the carrier of signals between matter, was incorrect. Getting rid of the stationary aether solves this issue immediately. The apparatus is just an inertial frame like any other, and there is no reason to expect it to act differently. However, what Lorentz did was to insist upon the aether. He went back and made the results fit his theory, which is exactly backwards. He invented new terms (contraction/dilation) to bring things into line. This is ad hoc. The problem was solved more simply. Einstein's error is double. Einstein also insists upon the aether but pretends not to by disguising the aether hypothesis in his invariant c hypothesis, which is a mathematical statement from which Lorent'z terms can be derived. So here we have an ad hoc fitting of aether theory to experiment wherein the only physical aspect (aether) is replaced by a mathematical one. When we finally get to experimental observation of "time dilation" there is no physics left in anyone's minds. The equations worked out and that's that.

However time dilation is easily explained physically without any 4th dimension or "time travel". Reinstate the aether but now NOT as distinct and separate from matter, but rather propose that there is only one fundamental entity. Now if an electron shell expands at the characteristic speed of this fundamental material (all motion of this material is at a characteristic velocity) and then contracts, it pushes and pulls on adjacent material, sending signals. If the electron is in motion "to the side" it traverses a longer distance to complete the same expansion/contraction, the pythagorean distance. Longer distance at the same speed = longer time. If we are measuring time by how often this atom is sending us signals (as with a cesium clock) we will count fewer signals from it while it's in motion.

If Lorentz hadn't insisted upon his precious luminiferous aether he would never have derived the lorentz contraction term (which makes the dilation term necessary for consistency). If Einstein' hadn't reduced physics to a purely rationalistic exercise of mathematics then this perfectly rational and sensible physical explanation for the so-called "time dilation" would be widely known today and taught in textbooks as the standard "accepted" theory as opposed to space-time/4th dimension/time travel.

[Jarvamundo]

Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

gold