SAFIRE

[Zyxzevn]

...peddling a cosmology model that begins and ends with two pure "acts of faith" on the part of the believer in two cause/effect claims which have no hope whatsoever of *ever* being demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment, specifically space expansion and space acceleration.

Has the mainstream model purported to deal with spontaneous existence? Don't know; just asking.

I think that this is how they make their calculations work:
Video

[JP Michael]

It's also outrageously ironic that you would refer to a model that is based on laboratory experimentation and pure empirical physics as a "religious conviction"

I do believe he was referring to my statement on creationism, although Higgsy and his ilk probably also believe, to some extent, that EU (or PU, for that matter) theory is nothing more than 'religion' for the anti-science 'fringe'

Unlike the Einsteinologists, I am aware of my interpretive presuppositions and I will express them openly. I entered in on them voluntarily; I know what I believe and why I believe it. This is a far cry from any concession of the same regarding the suppositions one must accept unquestioningly by 'faith' by the adherents of religious Scientism.

And thanks, Michael, for demonstrating Higgsy's repetitive hypocrisy and neglect of empirical plasma physics.

[Cargo]

I will present Ex.1 of the neglect of Electric/Plasma State of Space in Science. A recent Paper and Experiment, publicized by the mainstream google fest. The hand wave is very strong. Watch it through these highlights.

Searching for flaws in gravity, The force due to gravity
If the universe has more than three spatial dimensions, the inverse-square law would break
We know that the inverse-square law appears to be correct. with the caveat that dark matter and dark energy are required
potential evidence of extra dimensions. The hidden dimension unable to influence anything else.

Since we also require consistency, and large hidden dimensions don’t appear to offer it at the moment, we are restricted to tiny hidden dimensions and changes to gravity at very small scales.

The force of gravity is so weak that stray electric fields (from the electrical lines in the wall, for instance) will overwhelm any signal.
researchers rely on conceptually simple experiments

experiment eliminates—so far as possible—all forces due to electrical and magnetic fields

Need I say more..

[Higgsy]

Even you have expressed "doubt" that SAFIRE experiments produce double in this very thread (one post was actually lost along the way), in spite of the fact that you can actually see them with your own eyes in their videos.

You can see double layers with your eyes? Wow! So your eyes measure electric field and electron density. Cool eyes you have there bro.There is nothing wrong with expressing doubt about something and then revising that in the face of evidence - you should try it some time.

A sustained full sphere solar corona has never been produced in a lab experiment anywhere ever.

A simulation of a sustained full sphere solar corona certainly has.

Nevertheless A sustained full sphere solar corona has never been produced in a lab experiment anywhere ever.

Even SAFIRE demonstrated that the double layers around their sphere were hotter than the sphere itself.

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Birkeland simulated a corona in a lab over a full century ago.

But he didn't simulate a solar corona, (ie a corona with the same causes and conditions as the solar corona) which has never been simulated in any lab on earth anywhere ever.

Blatantly obvious? Really? How do you demonstrate their existence and the consequence of that existence? [Three double layers in the photosphere, chrosphere and corona]

I can demonstrate it based on their various heat signatures, and via laboratory simulations.

Do it then. Demonstrate the existence of double layers in these locations. Don't forget to provide quantified data.

You're either suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance, or you're pulling my leg, one or the other. There''s no rational way that you can deny the fact that mainstream refuses to acknowledge the role of double layers in solar physics. You're doing it in this very thread in fact!

And you are failing miserably to meet the challenge which is to provide examples of cases where there is good evidence for double layers in space (not your unwarranted assumption, but actual evidence) and where the scientific community is ignoring that evidence. Some other bod listed a whole lot of things like the aurora and the bowshock and the Van Allen belts, and I produced multiple papers to show that double layers were not being ignored in these cases. So provide evidence for the assertion that the processes in the solar atmosphere are fundamentally tied to double layers and that that evidence is being unfairly ignored. If it's being ignored because it's a useless explanation and other mechanisms are better explanations, then that's another matter.

[Michael Mozina]

You can see double layers with your eyes? Wow!

Ya Higgsy. In EU/PC theory stuff isn't "dark". You can actually see some of it with your own eyes, and we certainly can see double layers in SAFIRE experiments..

So your eyes measure electric field and electron density. Cool eyes you have there bro.

https://safireproject.com/science/ewExt ... -Three.pdf

Nah, they do that with probes and stuff, but we read the instruments with our own eyes too. See figure 15.

There is nothing wrong with expressing doubt about something and then revising that in the face of evidence - you should try it some time.

I will be sure to do so when you can actually provide any empirical evidence to support your silly dark stuff or your "space expansion" dogma..

Nevertheless A sustained full sphere solar corona has never been produced in a lab experiment anywhere ever.

That's completely irrelevant. You can't even produce a simulation of one based on MRx.

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

That's the point. You can't explain why the solar atmosphere is hotter than the surface, but it's a easy thing to demonstrate in a lab based on circuit theory and double layers. Instead of going with something that works, you folks propose a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience" and which has no hope of ever working to produce a simulation of a sustained hot corona.

Birkeland simulated a corona in a lab over a full century ago.

But he didn't simulate a solar corona, (ie a corona with the same causes and conditions as the solar corona) which has never been simulated in any lab on earth anywhere ever.

Yes he did. You're simply in hard core denial of the role of electricity and electric fields in space. That's your own damn fault.

[ Do it then. Demonstrate the existence of double layers in these locations. Don't forget to provide quantified data.

In terms of the lab results it's already been done. In terms of the temperature measurements of the sun's atmosphere it has also already been done. You can't even explain why there are three separate temperature layers in the solar atmosphere, let alone simulate it in a lab experiment.

And you are failing miserably to meet the challenge which is to provide examples of cases where there is good evidence for double layers in space (not your unwarranted assumption, but actual evidence) and where the scientific community is ignoring that evidence.

Your denial process is not indicative of anyone (else) failing miserably, it simply demonstrates my point. Alfven wrote all about how double layers apply to solar physics and things like solar flares. The fact you ignore it here in this thread only demonstrates my point. You can't even simulate the processes in the lab based on MRx, but it's been done with circuit theory and double layers for more than a century.

https://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfv ... Flares.pdf

You even personally listed place where double layers *are* recognized in space, but apparently you erroneously believe they're restricted to planetary physics, as though electrical current only exists in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Some other bod listed a whole lot of things like the aurora and the bowshock and the Van Allen belts, and I produced multiple papers to show that double layers were not being ignored in these cases.

Yet as if by pure magic you think electrical current restricts itself to planetary processes? Wow. Talk about pure denial of physics.

So provide evidence for the assertion that the processes in the solar atmosphere are fundamentally tied to double layers and that that evidence is being unfairly ignored.

https://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfv ... hysics.pdf

Done. You folks have consistently ignored Alfven's work related to solar physics for decades now, in favor of a concept that he called "pseudoscience", and which *cannot and never will* produce a working simulation of a corona.

If it's being ignored because it's a useless explanation and other mechanisms are better explanations, then that's another matter.

You certainly don't have a "better" explanation of the solar heating processes, in terms of anything that actually works in a lab. Your early MRx models were even way too slow to explain a solar flare, and your new ones are useless when it comes to sustaining something like a corona. The fact that you can't simulate one even to this day precludes you from claiming your models are "better". They aren't better, they're pathetic!

Your models are useless in the lab. You can't even produce a working simulation of a full sphere hot corona in a lab a full *century* after it was done with circuit theory. That's not "better". That's just sad and pathetic.

[GaryN]

First occurrence of a double layer in a gravity theory found

Gravitational double layers turn out to be feasible in quadratic theories of gravity. New physics arises.

https://cqgplus.com/2014/03/14/first-oc ... ory-found/

[Michael Mozina]

First occurrence of a double layer in a gravity theory found

Gravitational double layers turn out to be feasible in quadratic theories of gravity. New physics arises.

https://cqgplus.com/2014/03/14/first-oc ... ory-found/

Would he atmosphere of our planet be considered a gravitational double layer? Hmmm.

[paladin17]

I've summarized my critique of SAFIRE (as well as Don Scott's model) in this recent video.

[JP Michael]

That was a thorough and balanced criticism. Cheers for that, paladin17.

Thunderbolts released a SAFIRE video of Michael Clarage in his custom-made suit going on a shopping trip in Amsterdam. Somehow I cannot feel this latest production is little more than a troll of their opulent entitlement at the donor's expense, while science lies bound and gagged in the back of some black van on its way to a FEMA camp (and no disrespect to Ben: another quality production of only questionable content).

I think I'm about done with this joke. I will return to this discussion only when SAFIRE releases science, not propaganda.

[Cargo]

I think from day one it was always the underlying question of if they did create/find something, when it would go under cover. Either by CORP, GOV, or NGO.
So the sentiment of these next steps for SAFIRE being a trash bin or another hope lost, are easy to go with. I believe the honesty of those who participated directly though, and think the best is always yet to come. The experiment was a Success, the Data is there. Time will tell, but I think it will see the light of day.

[Michael Mozina]

I've summarized my critique of SAFIRE (as well as Don Scott's model) in this recent video.

I'm still listening to the video, but I felt compelled to comment on a couple of points thus far.

First of all, I tend to agree with you that the combination of strahl electron "beams" coming from the sun, as well as cosmic rays (99 percent positive by the way) coming into the sun tend to favor a *cathode* model rather than an anode model. I've always felt that way, particularly after reading Birkeland's work on terellas in a vacuum. Unlike SAFIRE, Birkeland experimented with both wiring configurations, and he also added an electromagnetic field inside the terrella and was thereby able to simulate a much wider range of solar features than SAFIRE has managed to actually simulate to date. I thought the lack of an internal magnetic field in SAFIRE experiments was also a valid point. It's a "limitation', though I'm not sure it's necessarily a direct criticism of their work. They simply haven't done that type of experiment yet. Frankly, due to the reasons you mentioned, I'm far more interested in a cathode configuration anyway, so it's not really important to me personally if SAFIRE adds an electromagnetic field inside the central sphere. I simply don't think the sun acts as an anode with respect to space.

I think where we seem to have any differences tends to related to Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model. I understand your point as it relates to planetary current flow patterns no really fitting the model of a long filament sort of model, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem. It may be that one ends up with a relatively "stubby"/short filament with concentric currents which are still consistent with his model, albeit over a relatively short distance. I wouldn't write off his model in that scenario either, although I understand your concerns as it relates to an overall planetary current flow pattern that is somewhat more complex. That is valid point IMO, but I still think it's possible to apply his model to a very small area around a planet.

In terms of galaxy sized features, it could be the case that like the planetary issue, the length of the filament is somewhat constrained by a more complex pattern around the galaxy, in much the same way as planets. However, I do think you're overlooking the fact that when the mainstream describes 'jets"in the centers of galaxies, it's not necessarily the case the the current is limited to one or two rings, or two motions. Consider galaxies which show distinct counter rotation features. That concentric counter rotating ring motion isn't explained by mainstream dark matter models at all, whereas it's entirely consistent with Scott's model. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that type of evidence of counter rotation in galaxies at it relates to more complex filaments.

I think however that Scott's model is more 'purely" applied to the largest and 'longest" filaments in the universe, namely the ones that wire galaxies and galaxy clusters together. I'll finish watching the rest of your video and I may have some other comments once I've finished, but I wanted to respond to your points about an anode and strahl electrons, as well as BK points I raised.

[Michael Mozina]

I've summarized my critique of SAFIRE (as well as Don Scott's model) in this recent video.

FYI, I think it's *well* worth watching your *entire* video, particularly for anyone who is new to the EU/PC concept, and wants to understand some of the complexities of trying to understand an electromagnetically active plasma universe from the standpoint of how we use and relate to Maxwell's equations here on Earth. I actually enjoyed the first half of your video immensely because it takes an honest hard look at the complexities of trying to comprehend the movement of current in space where inertia plays a major role, vector potentials come into play, the influences of double layers, the major differences in terms of scales and time, and in terms of space where the percentage of the dielectric medium to compared to the conductor is entirely reversed. It's a very useful video in terms of understanding some of the complexities of trying to even measure voltages and currents in space. Very nicely done IMO. Kudos.

Overall I tended to agree with your basic criticisms/concerns about SAFIRE. I think you're right that since SAFIRE has chosen to pursue energy production rather than testing the complete range of Birkeland's original experiments, it's unlikely that SAFIRE will add a lot in terms of cosmological theory or astrophysical science over the next few years, with the possible exception of how elements are transmuted over time.

As I mentioned earlier I tend to personally favor in internally powered cathode model over an externally powered anode model so I certainly agree with your points about electron strahl/beam movement away from the sun, and cosmic rays flowing into the sun. By the way, Birkeland not only accurately predicted the movement of electron beams away from the sun, but he also correctly predicted the flow of positively charged particles away from the sun based on what he observed in his lab.

I still have a problem with your assertion that Scott's lack of boundary conditions in his Birkeland current model *requires* or necessarily implies infinite current. If we started out with an infinite "empty" space, and tried to describe what might happen if we added two objects of opposite charge, and a small amount of plasma between the two objects, the amount of current that we allow to flow through the system in our circuit will determine the total amount of current that could be flowing through the BIrkeland current, regardless of any boundary conditions that we might set on r. The size of r eventually becomes irrelevant in a limited current circuit.

In the "real" universe, you're essentially right that it probably would necessarily describe an infinite current, but that ultimately depends on the condition of space itself, not on r. If the universe is finite or the current flow is finite, then his model describes a finite current. Only in an infinite universe with infinite current could it describe an infinite current.

In terms of your question about whether or not potential difference drives the current flow patterns in space, I'd encourage you to think about the point that you made about how electrons might respond in the presence of gravity and high temperatures. Since they are lighter and more easily moved, we end up with a negative potential difference at the surface of the sun compared to the cosmic ray component of 'space". That is what drives the current flow pattern inside our solar system IMO, along with the fact that the sun is a net "generator" of electrical current, including the fact that it's 'inducing current both inside and outside of the sun. It's rotational energy is slowly being converted into induced current in the plasma around the sun according to Alfven. All suns act like homopolar generators.

I already explained some of my concerns and some of the caveats related to observational support of Scott's BK model so there's no point rehashing those points.

I *strongly* recommend that everyone at least watches the first half of your video where you describe some of the numerous complexities of trying to understand how difficult it is to try to apply our current understanding of Maxwell's equations to plasma in space. That part of your video is well worth watching, even for someone who's been involved in the EU/PC community for a long time. It's a great presentation and a wonderful introduction to this whole astrophysical topic. I enjoyed it immensely.

[JP Michael]

There is a new SAFIRE video today: [Link]

[Open Mind]

Released Sept 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dIreR9h4Ts

[crawler]

Released Sept 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dIreR9h4Ts

The weak point in Wal's dipole gravity is that it relies on gravity to make the dipole which makes the gravity.
Wal's explanation that it all happens at the birth of the universe or the star or something isnt convincing.