Here's The Real Science

reply to post by constantwonder


That is not useful productive information.

No ones lives have been improved because of it.

In fact, its a bunch of hypothetical nonsense that has no bearing on anything.

What I'm looking for is: "theoretical physicists working at x accelerator discovered a new property of matter that will allow engineers to build x."



[edit on 17-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Not to be bullish but what has plasma cosmology lead to the invention of. . . .

"Mainstream" science has given us all kinds of fun little gizmo's like fiber optics, transistors, pet scans, and an entire plethora of other tech. . . If we are basing our argument on which model has lead to more engineering advances then I'm afraid "standard" physics is far beyond the contributions of plasma cosmology. . .



[edit on 17-4-2010 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder


I am waiting for a quantum computer and I believe that it is the safe and most reliable one that will ever be made.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

Originally posted by constantwonder
Not to be bullish but what has plasma cosmology lead to the invention of. . . .

"Mainstream" science has given us all kinds of fun little gizmo's like fiber optics, transistors, pet scans, and an entire plethora of other tech. . . If we are basing our argument on which model has lead to more engineering advances then I'm afraid "standard" physics is far beyond the contributions of plasma cosmology. . .



[edit on 17-4-2010 by constantwonder]

Alfven was an electrical engineer before he became a cosmologist.

In fact, he's the one that formulated MHD theory.

His work on plasma theory is used constantly by engineers working with plasma. Even the scientists attempting to build the TOKAMAK fusion reactor rely on work done by Alfven.

reply to post by triplehelix888


really?
was it necessary to bring this kind of unsubstantiated babble to a scientific thread? You just spewed out like 30 conspiracy theories in a thread based around conflicting universe models...

That said, the Electric universe idea is new to me, but infinitely interesting. I've always taken issue with the lack of unification in Einstein's theories, and this model seems to definitively win the Occam's Razor test.

I don't know how this passes the Occams razor test any better than relativity or the standard model.

Relativity and the standard model have mounds of evidence and confirming experiments, both in space and in labs.

The electric model has only scant lab evidence and each time they have looked into the actual cosmos for evidence they have failed. So that being more "Occam" than the standard model is rediculous.

Sure it may be easier to understand but it's also meaningless without corroborating evidence. Of course I mean real data, not a few papers by people who can't even finish their education on the subject because they're to big of a pompous ass.

reply to post by constantwonder



No, they don't have "hundreds of tests" that confirm their models.

Lets start with what constitutes a valid test.

Tests that include hypothetical entities are not valid.

Any test that includes made up matter (dark matter), made up energy (dark energy), or physics defying matter (neutronium) is not a valid test.

If I postulate fairy dust can account for auroras, and then set about creating a test based on the presumed existence of fairy dust, without ever proving fairy dust exists in the first place - my test is a bogus sham.

In fact - nearly every test ever created that could actually prove conclusively Einstein's theories have FAILED with a capital F.

LIGO fail

CDMS fail

Gravity Probe B fail

WMAP background fail

ect.. ect.. ect...

Of the few tests that remain, those tests can be explained within the framework of Lorentz relativity (eg. steady state - no bending space)

Here's a revised article with several additional points along with links to the relevant papers.

fascistsoup.com...

Einstein's theories are a joke.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Personally I am fond of the theory of relativity and I see no reason to throw all of it out yet. The problems I see that are being discussed here have to do with the explanations of warped time-space and point particles. The more I learn about the wave structure of matter the more fault I see in particle physics. It appears your presentation states that there are no such things as particles, just waves. I agree with you but I also think this will be a hard sell to particle physicists.

Is it true that an electric current generates a magnetic field and inversely a magnetic field is present around an electric current? Or, more to the point, the two are one of the same? In other words you cannot have one without the other. If this is true than the nature of the electric Sun theory seems to be a no brainer. The Sun creates a magnetic field therefore, there must be an electric current creating this field. The question is where is the source of this electricity. This same phenomena is present within the Earth, since the Earth has a magnetic field where is the electric current?

[edit on 4/17/2010 by Devino]

This electric current you are wondering about is coming directly from the sun as explained in this article here. science.nasa.gov...


"But where is the energy coming from to power the sun?" you might ask, well lets scale up, or "zoom out" to see more of the picture, this is just information i noticed earlier in this very thread. www.holoscience.com... It is my belief that the sun is acting as the anode while the Heliopause acts as the cathode, i have no idea how this works as i type this, but perhaps it's stating that "Energy from the cathode or Heliopause, is flowing twoards the anode or Sun and providing the energy that keeps it running" and as the sun releases energy as the solar wind, it travels out to the Heliopause and loops back to the sun again.

"Well where is all of THAT energy coming from?" We have to zoom out again and see even more of the picture, scientists have claimed to detect large amounts of energy ejected from the center of our galaxy www.redicecreations.com... I think all of that excess energy loops around to the edge of the galaxy and flows back to the center only to be ejected again, and this may be what is powering the stars along the way as described in this article www.holoscience.com...,

People feel that such a vast amount of energy may be difficult to understand and they may be right, our galaxy, while it looks big to us is downright puny in size compared to the rest of the universe as shown here blogs.nature.com... I strongly believe the electric universe therory has solid ground, you truly can scale that in either direction, from small static shocks when you grab a doorknob (mini lightning bolts from your point of view really) up to planetary electric scarring and possibly beyond.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Alfven was an electrical engineer before he became a cosmologist.

In fact, he's the one that formulated MHD theory.

His work on plasma theory is used constantly by engineers working with plasma. Even the scientists attempting to build the TOKAMAK fusion reactor rely on work done by Alfven.

Alfven's theory and results are well known in plasma physics now.

Hannes Alfven was not alive to witness the COBE and Wilkinson results on cosmology nor did he witness the results leading to dark energy and the reintroduction of the cosmological constant (or something simulating it).

Real scientists like Alfven, unlike crackpots, change their minds when experimental data come in.