Debunking a few mainstream ideas.

[MGmirkin]

By request (by one or more parties), I've opted to start a thread on "debunking the mainstream." It seems to me as it seemed to them, that we should have a spot for posting articles that specifically deal with mainstream matters. More specifically, articles which either refute or make the mainstream position less tenable or certain.

That said, articles should hopefully only come from reputable "mainstream" sources. IE, let's give 'em a rope, and let themselves hang... themselves... on it. So, let's leave out "pet theories," "personal web sites" (unless they're really really good scientific / rigorous sites / articles), personal blogs, or stuff better left for the New Insights / Mad [Alternative?] Ideas board.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

That said, I might as well post up an article that recently came to light (reprinted on various "mainstream" news sites):

(Gravity Wave Smoking Gun Fizzles)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Gravi ... s_999.html

(Inflation Theory Takes a Little Kick in the Pants)
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/16 ... the-pants/

It seems that even if LIGO detects so-called "gravity waves," they may not be "definitive proof" of inflation. Come to think of it, weren't gravity waves supposed to be proof of "black hole mergers" or some other nonsense? I wasn't aware that they had also been co-opted as a "proof of inflation theory."

One is tempted to point out that LIGO has already achieved a smashing success, sort of... Insofar as it failed to detect gravity waves.

(LIGO Sheds Light On Cosmic Event)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/LIGO_ ... t_999.html

Dave Smith was amused to find that they had hailed this as a success, despite the negative result.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

(Neutron stars can be more massive, while black holes are more rare, Arecibo Observatory finds)
http://pressoffice.cornell.edu/Jan08/ar ... lsar.shtml

In other words, it just got A BIT harder to become a black hole.

In the cosmic continuum of dead, remnant stars, the Arecibo astronomers have increased the mass limit for when neutron stars turn into black holes.

"The matter at the center of a neutron star is highly incompressible. Our new measurements of the mass of neutron stars will help nuclear physicists understand the properties of super-dense matter," said Freire. "It also means that to form a black hole, more mass is needed than previously thought. Thus, in our universe, black holes might be more rare and neutron stars slightly more abundant."

How far will mass estimates for the "black hole threshold" be revised upward? If the materials composing a neutron star are "highly incompressible" (IE, can't be packed any more tightly together [due to raw electrical repulsion at short range?]), how can neutron stars, or anything really, "collapse" into a black hole if it has to deal with electrical repulsion? It all seems somehow a bit silly...

Or maybe it's just me?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

(Waving goodbye to a standard model; RHESSI Science Nugget)
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/%7Etohban/ ... icle_id=68

Goodbye ambiguous black box. Hello Alfven waves and Poynting flux...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

(New discovery at Jupiter could help protect Earth-orbit satellites)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press ... php?id=350
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151238.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news124293097.html

Radio waves accelerate electrons within Jupiter’s magnetic field in the same way as they do on Earth, according to new research published in Nature Physics this week. The discovery overturns a theory that has held sway for more than a generation and has important implications for protecting Earth-orbiting satellites.

[...]

“We’ve shown before that very low frequency radio waves can accelerate electrons in the Earth’s magnetic field, but we have now shown that exactly the same theory works on Jupiter, where the magnetic field is 20,000 times stronger than the Earth’s and the composition of the atmosphere is very different. This is the ultimate test of our theory.”

[...]

The discovery also has other scientific implications for Jupiter – it overturns a theory that has held sway for more than 30 years. According to Dr Horne, “For more than 30 years it was thought that the electrons are accelerated as a result of transport towards Jupiter, but now we show that gyro-resonant wave acceleration is a very important step that acts in concert. Once the electrons are accelerated, they are transported closer to the planet and emit intense synchrotron radiation out into interplanetary space. Our theory provides the missing step to explain this high intensity radiation from Jupiter, which was first detected on Earth more than 50 years ago.”

While not a scathing indictment, it seems that science can and does occasionally get it wrong and have to self-correct. Sometimes, it gets it wrong-er than others. This is probably one of the lighter instances of having to correct a wrong thing.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I might also point out a recent Thunderblog entry by Stephen J. Crothers:

(Big Bang Busted! [The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics])
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... others.htm

While I had said above that personal websites and blogs should be avoided, this blog entry references any number of academic papers by notables in the field that have basically torn down the notion of the black hole (which appears to have been based upon erroneous mathematics?)... As such, I think it meets or exceeds the threshold for inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Tina]

This can prove very helpful - I am forever finding and losing articles that are valuable ammunition in discussions/debates about mainstream cosmological ideas.

[davesmith_au]

This can prove very helpful - I am forever finding and losing articles that are valuable ammunition in discussions/debates about mainstream cosmological ideas.

As well as the Thunderblogs Tina, for your personal interest if you haven't already you should check out PlasmaResources. If you have a good look over the "More EU" "More Resources" and "Odds and Ends" pages you'll find a wealth of supporting and opposing sources there. That way you don't have to snot up your bookmarks too much, as it's really easy to navigate from one to another there.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Dave.

[MGmirkin]

This can prove very helpful - I am forever finding and losing articles that are valuable ammunition in discussions/debates about mainstream cosmological ideas.

It is still one of my goals to *eventually* put together a site that will allow for cataloging / keywording news articles / sites that deal with things of interest to physics / PC / EU types. Preferably it will be searchable, keyworded, and possibly even utilize RSS, for those wanting constant updates on specific topics. Right now, I don't know when/how this will be set up. But it's on the "eventually" agenda.

Drupal looks like a strong candidate for a site / content management system, and appears to have built-in features that will do exactly what I want the above mentioned resource to do... Perhaps once I get the forum 1.0 archive worked out, I can work on getting some kind of web site or system in place that will be an archive for such things as those mentioned above. Unfortunately, no specific promises or timelines. Yet. But I do recognize the need for just such a resource!

~Michael Gmirkin

[Lloyd]

- I'm returning to work on this idea myself. At this thread http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=8&t=487 I asked folks here to go to a thread on my new forum at http://linc.lefora.com/2008/05/03/end-bias-science to help work on the same idea as this Debunking Mainstream Ideas thread. I call it End Bias in Science, but I ask for evidence there of such bias. And we can do that by showing that there are better explanations than conventional ones and by showing what's illogical about conventional assumptions.
- Ralph Juergens had a great method of comparing theories as a way to rate which ones are best to explain an observed phenomenon. See http://www.kronia.com/library/electrical1.html toward the bottom of the webpage, where it says Table 1. Competence of Various Sinuous Rille Theories.
- He had to list a lot of features of relevant observations [of rilles] and then analyse several theories to rate how well each theory seemed to explain each feature. And he used a system of rating, using A, B, C, O & X, where A = Predictable by the theory; B = Permissible by the theory; C = Permissible, but difficult to explain; O = Irrelevant to the theory; X = Precluded by the theory. Of 5 theories in his comparison 3 included 6 Xs each, 1 included 6 Os and 1 included no Xs, Ox, or Cs, and only a few Bs. Obviously, the last one would have to be considered most probable.
- Let's Use Juergens' Method!
- I propose that we use that same procedure on other observed phenomena as well. It seems that we should form 3 committees.
1. One committee should work to determine which observed phenomena are most worth processing first or in what order of priority.
2. Another committee should then analyze and list the known features of each phenomenon.
3. Another committee should judge what rating to give to each feature.
- I'll try to experiment a bit on this process to see how practical or impractical it may be. I don't know how long it took Juergens to use that process on that one phenomenon, but it must have taken at least a few days.
- How impressed or unimpressed are you other folks by Juergens' rating process? I personally am highly impressed and I don't know why no one else has jumped on the bandwagon yet. Wal Thornhill told me a couple of years ago that he was pretty impressed with Juergens' methods too, so I don't think I'm completely alone.

[Lloyd]

- First I think we need to decide which mainstream ideas need most to be debunked, in order to open up science for the most rapid progress.
- So which observed phenomena are most important for that purpose?
- Redshift?
- Quasars?
- Galaxies?
- Gamma Ray Bursters?
- Pulsars?
- The Sun?
- The Gas Giants?
- The Smaller Planets?
- Earth's Surface Features?
- Earth's Climate?
- Planetary & Planetoidal Surface Features?
- Comets?
- Any other proposals?
- It may be best to decide on the basis of which phenomenon has the most observations relevant to EPC = Electric Plasma Cosmology and which would likely be easiest to prove.
- I'm guessing the Sun or the Earth would best fill the bill.
- So how about the Earth? Or should we include the whole Solar System?
- How about the formation of bodies in the Solar System? Starting with small objects and working up to the largest?
- Formation of powder, sand, geodes, asteroids, planets, gas giants and stars?
- We have lab evidence of electrical formation of the small objects.
- We have comparative evidence of small bodies with large bodies, like mocqui balls with Saturn's moon, Iapetus.
- So we'd be comparing at least 3 theories: Formation of bodies by electric-plasma, by gravity, and by supernova explosion and recondensation by gravity.
- That's Thornhill's et al EPC Solar System Formation theory, the Nebular hypothesis, and Oliver Manuel's iron sun theory.
- Who wants to form teams to work on each one?
- Or who has suggestions for improving this plan?
- Who votes that we start by debunking the Nebular Hypothesis?

[Lloyd]

- This might serve as an incomplete outline for this debunking trial.
- In the previous post I suggested we could judge the Nebular Hypothesis on the basis of formation of powder, sand, geodes, asteroids, planets, gas giants and stars.
- Wal Thornhill told me he thinks a lot of sedimentary rock layers were formed electrically. Like the powder produced on the banks of rilles on the Moon etc, interplanetary lightning could have carved the Atlantic Ocean basin and thrown up powder on the continents, which became electrically solidified as sedimentary rock. The Grand Canyon was said to be carved out that way too, like the Mars canyon, Vallis Marineris. Limestone is normally thought to come from sea shells from ocean deposits. Are there limestone layers that have no sea shells in them? Shale and slate are normally considered to come from clay-type mud from ocean deposits I think.
- Next is sandstone, which I guess is normally thought to come from beach or desert sand. Can electric discharge form sand? They form the glass spherules or tektites found in the deserts and ocean bottoms. Sand is mostly glass, I think, i.e. silicon dioxide.
- TPODs have good evidence for electrical formation of Martian blueberries, geodes and Iapetus.
- Meteors are next. Have any TPODs compared blueberries with meteors? I guess we just need to sort out all the relevant TPODs and see what info we have available.
- Now, how do meteors compare to moons and small planets?
- For the gas giants I guess we need first to determine how the gases were formed electrically. Thornhill has said that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is evidence that its surface is solid, but I don't know at what depth. Haven't any satellites taken radar instruments along to get radar readings through the gas giants' thick atmospheres? Can radar data distinguish between liquid and solid? I think Thornhill was suggesting that there are tall mountains under the Great Red Spot.
- I guess formation of the Sun and Solar System would require study of galaxies from which star systems form.
-
- Next comes listing features of each phenomenon.

[redeye]

Hey Lloyd, good to see you back.

Nebular hypothesis sits at the bottom of a huge house of cards. It would be a good place to start your crusade.

Cheers!

[Lloyd]

Hi Redeye. Thanks. Did you check out the thread on my forum at http://linc.lefora.com/2008/05/03/end-bias-science? I searched through the TPODs for SAND and posted the links to them all, in order to possibly get started on the effort to imitate Juergens' theory comparison method. So I'm trying to determine what are the features of SAND, like Juergens listed features of rilles. I suppose rain, wind and temperature changes produce some sand on Earth, but it's evident that electric discharges produce some as well, as some of the TPODs indicate. Sand in space and sand that falls to Earth from space or from electric discharges may be the main sand that we need to consider for comparing EPC [electric plasma cosmology] with the Nebular Hypothesis. I or we'll probably have to venture far from the TPODs to get a thorough list of sand features. If anyone thinks this approach may be worthwhile or not, I hope you'll let me know your views. I think we could accomplish a lot, if we organize ourselves into teams for such projects. Right?

[redeye]

I don't know so much about aggregates, although there are a few people on the forum who are pretty clued up on dusty plasmas.

Nebular hypothesis...cos accretion theory aint a theory.

objection

expanding earth

theosophy?

interesting stuff

I'm trying to be unbiased!

Cheers!