Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PersianPaladin

Rethinking Mainstream Cosmology

Recommended Posts

I would like to present to you - a tutorial segment from a very interesting documentary titled "Thunderbolts Of The Gods".

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P4zixnWeE8A

NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Donald E. Scott on plasma cosmology (electric cosmology)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=wOI-X215A8Y

Plasma cosmology does have a firm foundation in the nobel-prize winning scientist Hannes Alfven. Regardless, this cosmology was marginalised by people who delved in assumptions of a "big bang" (albeit things like string-theory don't even need a big-bang). For me, plasma cosmology seems to make more sense to me than conventional cosmology. Mostly in the sense of the inter-connectedness of all things as well as the mysterious repeated-nature of certain patterns (the filaments, dendrites, etc seen in the human body and then in the planet and then in the universe). Fractal geometry is also mysterious in the sense that fairly simple mathematical formulae essentially describe a large variety of complex patterns. In the midst of this - certain themes seem to repeat themselves from the microcosm and the macrocosm. The idea that planets and stars are isolated bodies - and depend their existence on some purely hypothetical "big bang" - just seems more speculative to me. Currents of energy flowing through the universe, connecting stars, connecting galaxies (and even seemingly at a microscale - connecting human-cells) - just seem to be all part of the unity of creation. Unity that still allows for a great amount of variation in the detail and general theme. And if empirical plasma experiments can demonstrate this; then why do we need to believe in increasingly unwieldy, exotic mathematical hypotheticals such as dark matter, black holes, etc?

Here are some peer-reviewed papers on plasma cosmology:-

http://sites.google....reviewed-papers

Another challenge to the "big bang theory" was developed at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Bare in mind, that the author of the study is not a plasma cosmologist. I just posted this to show that plasma cosmology is not the only model/theory that challenges the "big bang" (and "cosmic background radiation" as bb proof) theory:-

http://www.physorg.c...s199591806.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. Very interesting stuff. Will have a watch of that video before i retire to bed.

I have been looking into a lot of ancient knowledge left to us and it points to these conclusions you mention.

This you may find interesting, a long watch and fairly poor video quality but fascinating subject material.

I would also recommend the work of Graham Hancock if your interested in more evidence of ancient knowledge and past advanced civilizations that understood what we just seem to be re learning.

Meso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. Very interesting stuff. Will have a watch of that video before i retire to bed.

I have been looking into a lot of ancient knowledge left to us and it points to these conclusions you mention.

This you may find interesting, a long watch and fairly poor video quality but fascinating subject material.

I would also recommend the work of Graham Hancock if your interested in more evidence of ancient knowledge and past advanced civilizations that understood what we just seem to be re learning.

Meso

Thanks for that. I'll definetly check it out.

I take it you've also heard of David Talbott and his documentary "Symbols of An Alien Sky"?

A preview of it is here:-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me a Luddite, but these speculations are all pure conjecture and more aligned with the way religion conducts itself. For example Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. i.e. the repeated translation of a sacred text, then interpreted by the sages of the day for the consumption of faithful followers looking for an enlightened meaning.

I am open to being proved wrong, however there is no empirical evidence which would favour these assertions over say a pagan religious interpretation of the observed motion of celestial objects.

A modern Erik von Daniken.

Humbug.

ffO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me a Luddite, but these speculations are all pure conjecture and more aligned with the way religion conducts itself. For example Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. i.e. the repeated translation of a sacred text, then interpreted by the sages of the day for the consumption of faithful followers looking for an enlightened meaning.

I am open to being proved wrong, however there is no empirical evidence which would favour these assertions over say a pagan religious interpretation of the observed motion of celestial objects.

A modern Erik von Daniken.

Humbug.

ffO.

Hi FFO,

I watched the first 15 minutes of the video, and, in that time came to a very similar conclusion. Perhaps I prefer "hard science", but up to the point I saw, it was all conjecture, with very little evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi FFO,

I watched the first 15 minutes of the video, and, in that time came to a very similar conclusion. Perhaps I prefer "hard science", but up to the point I saw, it was all conjecture, with very little evidence

Oh really?

Did you bother watching the NASA Goddard presentation too?

This is cutting-edge stuff, and is not part of the group-think of the existing cosmological mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, ffo. Van Daniken was what sprang into my mind, too...

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#

I'm willing to listen to this Pete, I'm a bit enamoured with electrickery (and it's impacts) from our own neural interaction to larger scale 'electrical events'. I don't know whether it was Iain Banks that turned me onto fulgerites or whether it was in me to begin with but i do think it's worth a 'think' at least?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really?

Did you bother watching the NASA Goddard presentation too?

This is cutting-edge stuff, and is not part of the group-think of the existing cosmological mainstream.

Hi PP,

I've been following all the different developments in Cosmology for about 10 years. From what I saw in that first 15 minutes, this came across very much as conjecture and one man's unsubstantiated belief.

There was a comedian on one of the game shows who was talking of "the pseudo science, presented as fact, of face creams in adverts". Sorry, but this came over in the same way. If I have time I will look at the Goddard presentation and give you an opinion on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PP,

I've been following all the different developments in Cosmology for about 10 years. From what I saw in that first 15 minutes, this came across very much as conjecture and one man's unsubstantiated belief.

There was a comedian on one of the game shows who was talking of "the pseudo science, presented as fact, of face creams in adverts". Sorry, but this came over in the same way. If I have time I will look at the Goddard presentation and give you an opinion on it

Maybe have a quick look at the 'google link' on my post above? I'm sure that there will be areas that will give you pause for thought? The 'Comet' issues won't 'go away' without explaination now will they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe have a quick look at the 'google link' on my post above? I'm sure that there will be areas that will give you pause for thought? The 'Comet' issues won't 'go away' without explaination now will they?

Hi GW, I would if it would play, gets about 43 seconds in and freezes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: 'neither crank nor charlatan — although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.'

And as far as I can tell, your second link, PP, might well have been filmed in a hired out room at NASA, but it doesn't appear it has anything to do with NASA; it appears Dr Scott has never even worked for NASA. But hey if we say NASA enough times, then it might be the use of the word NASA that adds weight to an otherwise creative link of Cro-Magnon man painting pictures of the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: 'neither crank nor charlatan — although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.'

And as far as I can tell, your second link, PP, might well have been filmed in a hired out room at NASA, but it doesn't appear it has anything to do with NASA; it appears Dr Scott has never even worked for NASA. But hey if we say NASA enough times, then it might be the use of the word NASA that adds weight to an otherwise creative link of Cro-Magnon man painting pictures of the sky.

He was a guest speaker.

http://ecolloq.gsfc....unce.scott.html

And he's not talking about the mythological-theory of EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as I can tell, your second link, PP, might well have been filmed in a hired out room at NASA, but it doesn't appear it has anything to do with NASA; it appears Dr Scott has never even worked for NASA. But hey if we say NASA enough times, then it might be the use of the word NASA that adds weight to an otherwise creative link of Cro-Magnon man painting pictures of the sky.

And there was I thinking you'd be supportive of a person who thinks they have 'noticed' an equally plausible theory to explain what mainstream science would like us to believe?

As I've said earlier I was a tad surprised to see the first images of a 'comet' as I'd been brought up to believe that each time it visited the sun it's head was melted out (the dirty snowball that we believed them to be) by the solar wind. I live and learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there was I thinking you'd be supportive of a person who thinks they have 'noticed' an equally plausible theory to explain what mainstream science would like us to believe?

As I've said earlier I was a tad surprised to see the first images of a 'comet' as I'd been brought up to believe that each time it visited the sun it's head was melted out (the dirty snowball that we believed them to be) by the solar wind. I live and learn?

The difference is, GW, that you need to decompose Maxwell's equations to look at least something like Newton's law of gravitation. The falsification - correction: the proof of the pudding - is when that is achieved. And a Nobel prize awaits that first person. At the minute this idea is that it all kinda looks the same - it would be nice, for instance, if one can describe the motion of the planets in a purely electromagnetic fashion. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's been achieved.

Whilst I presume your comment of 'be .. supportive of a person' I think is something to do with the LI hypothesis, at the LI hypothesis can be synthesised, algebraically, to and from the Stefan-Boltzmann law ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will take a look at this later, have not got the time right now, but for me, with all the theories out there, I have always struggled to believe that before the "big bang" there was nothing, nothing maybe compared to what we see now, but I doubt it was "nothing". Whether it is the collapse of higher dimensions, a break in the basic forces, a shattering or whatever, in my view there HAS to have been something before.

We do not have a complete view of the cosmos, and maybe wont for sometime, as has been said before, some theories are bizarre, but are they bizarre enough? Not wise to dismiss out of hand, you may just be throwing the solution away. We are but mere specks in this universe and many are very naive to even suggest that we know, understand or even begin to understand the workings of this place we live. New research and discoveries will come, and most likely completely over turn what we thought we knew. Some theories may seem way out, but they may hold a very small part of the truth which when combined with other knowledge changes our view point drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is, GW, that you need to decompose Maxwell's equations to look at least something like Newton's law of gravitation. The falsification - correction: the proof of the pudding - is when that is achieved. And a Nobel prize awaits that first person. At the minute this idea is that it all kinda looks the same - it would be nice, for instance, if one can describe the motion of the planets in a purely electromagnetic fashion. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's been achieved.

Whilst I presume your comment of 'be .. supportive of a person' I think is something to do with the LI hypothesis, at the LI hypothesis can be synthesised, algebraically, to and from the Stefan-Boltzmann law ....

Have a watch of Dr.Scott's full talk, before jumping to conclusions.

Just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a watch of Dr.Scott's full talk, before jumping to conclusions.

Just a suggestion.

He hasn't unified gravity and electromagnetism, PP (and you know that since your incessant rambling on about peak oil would be over since such a unification means unlimited energy (because you can suck the energy right out of the universe if gravity is simply a form of electromagnetism))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two interesting quotes from Don Scott's book "The Electric Sky":-

"The physical laws of electromagnetism have a wider domain of validity than does Newton's law of gravity. The science of electromagnetic plasmas is useful when we are discussing the properties and interactions of laboratory plasmas here on Earth. It also successfully predicts the shapes and the rotational behaviour of galaxies.

Newton's law of gravity fails to explain the way galaxies rotate because that phenomenon is outside its domain of validity. The macro-micro domain in which the galaxies resides is well described by the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, not Newton's.

Some day, perhaps we will discover a Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) that is valid in all domains. We do not have it yet. Until then, we will have to be content in knowing that certain physical laws are valid (useful) in certain size domains - no single one is valid in all size domains. Trying to force-fit Newton's equation into a domain where it does not apply is a primary reason for most of the present difficulties experienced by astrophysics."

"Both our own galaxy and the whole Coma cluster were missing mass. Zwicky had an inspiration: Perhaps the missing mass was in the form of bodies that didn't give off or reflect enough light for us to see them. He coined the term "Dark Matter". Using Newton's Law, astronomers could calculate how much Dark Matter would be required to produce the observed motions. They developed additional hypotheses about the likely properties of the Dark Matter.

Meanwhile, an entirely separate problem arose. Cosmologists who had embraced the Big Bang Theory discovered that there was not enough gravitational energy in the cosmos to satisfy the requirements imposed by Einstein's Relativity Theory. So this too suggested that something was missing. Cosmologists invented another hypothetical force to satisfy the requirements of their theory. This one was dubbed "Dark Energy".

I think I'll go with plasma cosmology rather than "dark matter", "dark energy" and other hypothetical fairy dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He hasn't unified gravity and electromagnetism, PP (and you know that since your incessant rambling on about peak oil would be over since such a unification means unlimited energy (because you can suck the energy right out of the universe if gravity is simply a form of electromagnetism))

The strength of the electric current (low current-density) within the dark-mode plasma in the Earth's ionosphere is extremely low. We can measure it's electrical activity, however, with sensitive radio instruments. So, without massive-scale equipment to somehow beam down this electricity; we will not be able to properly harness it. Mind you; we only know so much about how electromagnetic plasmas behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strength of the electric current (low current-density) within the dark-mode plasma in the Earth's ionosphere is extremely low. We can measure it's electrical activity, however, with sensitive radio instruments. So, without massive-scale equipment to somehow beam down this electricity; we will not be able to properly harness it. Mind you; we only know so much about how electromagnetic plasmas behave.

One of the principle arguments for free energy is precisely what these guys are talking about: you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Furthermore, as at least one of your links states, electromagnetism is orders of magnitude of stronger than gravity. What this thread is, I think, and in my opinion, is a precursor argument for free energy - since, and as a direct consequence, once you remove the Heaviside variations in Maxwell's equations you no longer need a dipole, and it is theoretically possible to tap into the 'source' of the 'cosmic' 'energy'

Clearly, I am rather sceptical about this. Your links have not changed this, no matter how it is dressed up, and presented. I am sceptical because of the results of an awful lot of experimentation that verify the standard model. That there might be things we observe that cannot be explained by the standard model IS important, and is likely to lead to modification of the standard model, or a complete rethink - I do not know - but to say because these observations exist - that can only be loosely explained by some other theory, in my book, is an identical justification for the existence of a deity.

I do not know whether a deity exists - whether or not it does has no place in science.

When these chaps stop theorising (and pattern matching) and start quantifying, they'll have my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...