- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
19 years 8 months ago #12505
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />THE HISTORY is getting interesting. Seems that Da vinci observationalism got Copernicus going, and they along with Nichlus of Cusa infinity threaded its way through Bruno and the infinite, and got burned at the stake for his ideas that contradicted the teahings of the Chruch. So much for peer review...
Looks like there was a very intimate relationship between the Chruch and cosmology at the social level during that time.It was the cosmology that the chruch used to have its way.This remnds me so much of today, so much is riding on the Big Bang, that if it were declared falsified, thousands would be looking for new jobs
But anyway, then the telescope was invented and anyone could see the solar system. And that is how it all started.
<br />THE HISTORY is getting interesting. Seems that Da vinci observationalism got Copernicus going, and they along with Nichlus of Cusa infinity threaded its way through Bruno and the infinite, and got burned at the stake for his ideas that contradicted the teahings of the Chruch. So much for peer review...
Looks like there was a very intimate relationship between the Chruch and cosmology at the social level during that time.It was the cosmology that the chruch used to have its way.This remnds me so much of today, so much is riding on the Big Bang, that if it were declared falsified, thousands would be looking for new jobs
But anyway, then the telescope was invented and anyone could see the solar system. And that is how it all started.
How did the Big Bang start? I wonder...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
investigate[]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12414
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Plasma has two complimentary states. One state is that state which we experience by it's effects on ordinary matter. The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.
way to simplistic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What is wrong with that? Simplicity is as valid as complexity, add up all the complexity in you and the result is one North. We can think in teerms of simple and complex too. Wrongness comes with over-simplification. I said it right, I don't have to give more detail at this level of explanation. After all, the simpler is more likely to be the true.
Puthoff shows us the grond state of an electron derives it radiative energy from what he called the SPF. It was Planck who first thought of that. Doesn't take much to say it, the electron, all of them, are connected to the INSIDE, and while we can see the outside of that, we don't know what the INSIDE looks like. Do you want me to invent something? Puthoff once said it was determinstic chaos. I think it is more like PURE.
So far my reading indicates that Plasma is ordinary matter, but in the electromagnetic sense. The Northern lights have been explained by Plasma theories. Birkeland even built a model which the pure theoretician Chapman refused to look at. The main researcher was Alfven, and it was his explanation of the Northern lights that led to present day plasma theories. The particles coming from the sun are electrons and protons, nothing unusual about them. So far.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
So when we talk about plasma, are you talking about the electron? Or are you talking about something else, something that the electron derives its energy from? My thinking has it that plasma is a flow of ions, having to do with atomic processes. Some say that anomalous heat can be detected around Plasmas. It is this anomalous heat that is extra energy, sometimes called free energy.
investigate <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually it was this very question that led me here. There are hundreds, thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of sightings of Balls of light. They have been seen in space by astronauts, in the sky by airplane pilots, and from the ground most often. They have been seen up close at some crop circles in England. So often that the residents pay no attention to them anymore. In one case, A ball of Light was caught by a video camera hovering a newly formed crop circle. A farmer on a tractor approached in the video, the Ball of Light then moves acoss the field and toward the farmer. As the Ball of Light flies over the farmer, the video clearly shows him twisting his head to follow it.
They are thought to be Balls of Plasma. Some of the crop circles show indications of great heat, abrupt crystalization of clays, elongated and burst nodes of the stalks, fusion of iron and silica, even fusion of fly wigns to the plants, molten metal solidified to the plants bilogical structure, indicates brief but great heat. All of this is anomalous or at least inexplicable.
In the case of the crop circles intelligence is involved, for example five new geometrical theorems have been found in the crop circle geometry.
Reading the story of Plasma research is surprising to me. I used to be an electronic technician, I used to test those magnetrons that utilized plasma, twisting the electrons in tuned cavities and magnetic fields. The SPS-8 magnetron's magnet was huge. I pondered many years over how the RF Pulse of energy could travel down the waveguide without getting shorted out. A wavewguide matches the wavelength such that the opposite sides well I am not sure exactly. But it boggles the mind of someone used to wires and insulation.
Plasma research is not new, Birkeland predicted filaments in space and Alfven produced the theory and space flights show that they exist.
Birkeland actually built a small model of a sphere coated with stuff which glowed when elevtrons hit it. The sphere had a magnetic field which forced the electrons and protons toward the poles where the magnetic lines are vertical. Alfven's influence went so far as to resolve problems with nuclear fusion, so we aren't talking crack pot here. Eventually he would go on to develop a cosmology of his own based on Plasma.
Which would be ignored by mainstream cosmology in favor of a theory that has even mre fantastic players such as Dark Energy, "We can't see it, but we know it is there because our theory says so."
Much more interesting, to observe first, then make the theory. Seems that even Alfven was haunted by a theorist, Chapman, claiming that Alfven's work was meaningless.
Plasma is not just current flow like the flow of electrons along a wire conductor. Plasma's differ in that magnetic fields are involved.
in the flow. These magnetic fields restrict the flow of electrons along the lines of magnetic force. Pinching is when these line come together. So what we have as a model of Plasma is an integration of Electric and Magnetic current flows. This integration leads to new behavoirs which can be seen operating at all levels up to the cosmic
level.
Now, all of this is basic electricity. The electric current flow and restrictive magnetic fields are ordinary in the sense that maxwell's equations are not falsified.
So, when I said
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I was talking about what drives the electrons in plasma flow. All I know for sure is that there is an INSDIE and that there is energy flow across the place where they meet. This may sound too simplistic but it covers one of our greatest mysteries today in the simplest way. I don't know how the energy moves across the interface, but I do know it does.
I wonder if it might not be more fruitful to ask how does an electron do what it is doing, and just what is it doing, then it is to ask how all of them happened. If we can figure out how one electron works, maybe we won't have to figure out how all of them work.
An electron involves both electric and magnetic just like plasma. . It has a negative charge and it had magnetic moment. I am not sure what that means, but I think it means that it has to be moving. So it almost apears like a plasma itself.
Here is my point. Th point that Puthoff replied to. If the electron is moving and creating a magnetic field, it must also be radiating energy. Where does this energy come from?
I think this is where Maxwell comes in. His idea was the displacement currents, tiny currents fed from the Ether.
Some mathematician might do well to investigate these displacement current in light of the modern observation of the INSIDE of space, a.k.a., hyperspace.
I believe that the principle of the electron plasma is also going on at the cosmic level, not only behind the scenes as the source of all matter, but proactively in the sense of matter creation.
Like Thomas Kuhn wrote, "perhaps someday we will know what displacement currents are...
Plasma has two complimentary states. One state is that state which we experience by it's effects on ordinary matter. The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.
way to simplistic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What is wrong with that? Simplicity is as valid as complexity, add up all the complexity in you and the result is one North. We can think in teerms of simple and complex too. Wrongness comes with over-simplification. I said it right, I don't have to give more detail at this level of explanation. After all, the simpler is more likely to be the true.
Puthoff shows us the grond state of an electron derives it radiative energy from what he called the SPF. It was Planck who first thought of that. Doesn't take much to say it, the electron, all of them, are connected to the INSIDE, and while we can see the outside of that, we don't know what the INSIDE looks like. Do you want me to invent something? Puthoff once said it was determinstic chaos. I think it is more like PURE.
So far my reading indicates that Plasma is ordinary matter, but in the electromagnetic sense. The Northern lights have been explained by Plasma theories. Birkeland even built a model which the pure theoretician Chapman refused to look at. The main researcher was Alfven, and it was his explanation of the Northern lights that led to present day plasma theories. The particles coming from the sun are electrons and protons, nothing unusual about them. So far.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
So when we talk about plasma, are you talking about the electron? Or are you talking about something else, something that the electron derives its energy from? My thinking has it that plasma is a flow of ions, having to do with atomic processes. Some say that anomalous heat can be detected around Plasmas. It is this anomalous heat that is extra energy, sometimes called free energy.
investigate <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually it was this very question that led me here. There are hundreds, thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of sightings of Balls of light. They have been seen in space by astronauts, in the sky by airplane pilots, and from the ground most often. They have been seen up close at some crop circles in England. So often that the residents pay no attention to them anymore. In one case, A ball of Light was caught by a video camera hovering a newly formed crop circle. A farmer on a tractor approached in the video, the Ball of Light then moves acoss the field and toward the farmer. As the Ball of Light flies over the farmer, the video clearly shows him twisting his head to follow it.
They are thought to be Balls of Plasma. Some of the crop circles show indications of great heat, abrupt crystalization of clays, elongated and burst nodes of the stalks, fusion of iron and silica, even fusion of fly wigns to the plants, molten metal solidified to the plants bilogical structure, indicates brief but great heat. All of this is anomalous or at least inexplicable.
In the case of the crop circles intelligence is involved, for example five new geometrical theorems have been found in the crop circle geometry.
Reading the story of Plasma research is surprising to me. I used to be an electronic technician, I used to test those magnetrons that utilized plasma, twisting the electrons in tuned cavities and magnetic fields. The SPS-8 magnetron's magnet was huge. I pondered many years over how the RF Pulse of energy could travel down the waveguide without getting shorted out. A wavewguide matches the wavelength such that the opposite sides well I am not sure exactly. But it boggles the mind of someone used to wires and insulation.
Plasma research is not new, Birkeland predicted filaments in space and Alfven produced the theory and space flights show that they exist.
Birkeland actually built a small model of a sphere coated with stuff which glowed when elevtrons hit it. The sphere had a magnetic field which forced the electrons and protons toward the poles where the magnetic lines are vertical. Alfven's influence went so far as to resolve problems with nuclear fusion, so we aren't talking crack pot here. Eventually he would go on to develop a cosmology of his own based on Plasma.
Which would be ignored by mainstream cosmology in favor of a theory that has even mre fantastic players such as Dark Energy, "We can't see it, but we know it is there because our theory says so."
Much more interesting, to observe first, then make the theory. Seems that even Alfven was haunted by a theorist, Chapman, claiming that Alfven's work was meaningless.
Plasma is not just current flow like the flow of electrons along a wire conductor. Plasma's differ in that magnetic fields are involved.
in the flow. These magnetic fields restrict the flow of electrons along the lines of magnetic force. Pinching is when these line come together. So what we have as a model of Plasma is an integration of Electric and Magnetic current flows. This integration leads to new behavoirs which can be seen operating at all levels up to the cosmic
level.
Now, all of this is basic electricity. The electric current flow and restrictive magnetic fields are ordinary in the sense that maxwell's equations are not falsified.
So, when I said
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I was talking about what drives the electrons in plasma flow. All I know for sure is that there is an INSDIE and that there is energy flow across the place where they meet. This may sound too simplistic but it covers one of our greatest mysteries today in the simplest way. I don't know how the energy moves across the interface, but I do know it does.
I wonder if it might not be more fruitful to ask how does an electron do what it is doing, and just what is it doing, then it is to ask how all of them happened. If we can figure out how one electron works, maybe we won't have to figure out how all of them work.
An electron involves both electric and magnetic just like plasma. . It has a negative charge and it had magnetic moment. I am not sure what that means, but I think it means that it has to be moving. So it almost apears like a plasma itself.
Here is my point. Th point that Puthoff replied to. If the electron is moving and creating a magnetic field, it must also be radiating energy. Where does this energy come from?
I think this is where Maxwell comes in. His idea was the displacement currents, tiny currents fed from the Ether.
Some mathematician might do well to investigate these displacement current in light of the modern observation of the INSIDE of space, a.k.a., hyperspace.
I believe that the principle of the electron plasma is also going on at the cosmic level, not only behind the scenes as the source of all matter, but proactively in the sense of matter creation.
Like Thomas Kuhn wrote, "perhaps someday we will know what displacement currents are...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #13165
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So maybe cosmic plasma is cosmic displacement currents?
new knowledge changes ideas, concepts. does'nt bother me i just enjoy the journey....investigate...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK, I finished part one of Lerner's book "The Big Bang Didn't Happen"
Seems that Lerner plays a role in plasma cosmology too, along with Alfven and Peratt although is somewhat an independant way.
Actually the plasma Cosmology is field cosmology. When Lerner talks about cosmic plasma, he is talking about electric and magnetic fields. What is unusual about plasma's is that it doesn't use wires.
So plasma cosmology is simply the concept of electrical and magnetic fields in space. We know that all molecules are held together by the interaction of the electron's fields. Molecules make up matter, so all matter is in one sense a field. We can't see these fields at work because photons are absorbed or reflected by the fields. We can see the reflection but hot the field itself.
So if all matter is a field of interacting fields, then it should be of no surprise that the fields of interacting field work according to field laws.
And all I have to add is that these fields exist because of an interaction with the source of those fields.
Are plasma currents displacement currents?
new knowledge changes ideas, concepts. does'nt bother me i just enjoy the journey....investigate...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK, I finished part one of Lerner's book "The Big Bang Didn't Happen"
Seems that Lerner plays a role in plasma cosmology too, along with Alfven and Peratt although is somewhat an independant way.
Actually the plasma Cosmology is field cosmology. When Lerner talks about cosmic plasma, he is talking about electric and magnetic fields. What is unusual about plasma's is that it doesn't use wires.
So plasma cosmology is simply the concept of electrical and magnetic fields in space. We know that all molecules are held together by the interaction of the electron's fields. Molecules make up matter, so all matter is in one sense a field. We can't see these fields at work because photons are absorbed or reflected by the fields. We can see the reflection but hot the field itself.
So if all matter is a field of interacting fields, then it should be of no surprise that the fields of interacting field work according to field laws.
And all I have to add is that these fields exist because of an interaction with the source of those fields.
Are plasma currents displacement currents?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12415
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Lerner presents an interesting take on evolution. He describes evolution in terms of energy, that is, energy flows or interactions.
And with this he moves into system ideas. Not system as reinvented by the moderns, but archetypal systems, elementary system principles. Remember that a system differs from a group in that it is the relationships which are looked at. A pile of sand does not act like a system, a sandcastle or beach does.
Also note that there are two primary relational elements found in plasma. There is the interplay of electric and magnetic fields, and on a differrent level, the interplay of positive and negative.
It would not be deductive thinking to guess that the origin of matter was into two parts - positive and negative, although it is the deductive process that is being used, if the guess is right.
The Univerrse is the interplay of positives and negatives. Positives and negatives do not oompete with eachother especially in the sense that one is victorious over the other. Unity in nature is not achieved by the banishment of all but one. Like the black and white of this page, positives and negatives work together and in the process create an emergent property, in the case of these letters, that new idea is the meaning of the balck and white together.
So it is with plasma, an interplay of positives and negatives, a tendency to attract and form new processes which then interact forming agian new processes.
Lerner moves to Prigogine and his idea that systems can break the cycle of entropy, instead of running down, systems at far from equilibrium develop instabilities which acto to differentiate bifurcate into new systems.
An interesting idea - what if the evolution of scientific knowledge can only occur at points far from equilibrium, at instabilites which bifurcate and lead to new science?
And with this he moves into system ideas. Not system as reinvented by the moderns, but archetypal systems, elementary system principles. Remember that a system differs from a group in that it is the relationships which are looked at. A pile of sand does not act like a system, a sandcastle or beach does.
Also note that there are two primary relational elements found in plasma. There is the interplay of electric and magnetic fields, and on a differrent level, the interplay of positive and negative.
It would not be deductive thinking to guess that the origin of matter was into two parts - positive and negative, although it is the deductive process that is being used, if the guess is right.
The Univerrse is the interplay of positives and negatives. Positives and negatives do not oompete with eachother especially in the sense that one is victorious over the other. Unity in nature is not achieved by the banishment of all but one. Like the black and white of this page, positives and negatives work together and in the process create an emergent property, in the case of these letters, that new idea is the meaning of the balck and white together.
So it is with plasma, an interplay of positives and negatives, a tendency to attract and form new processes which then interact forming agian new processes.
Lerner moves to Prigogine and his idea that systems can break the cycle of entropy, instead of running down, systems at far from equilibrium develop instabilities which acto to differentiate bifurcate into new systems.
An interesting idea - what if the evolution of scientific knowledge can only occur at points far from equilibrium, at instabilites which bifurcate and lead to new science?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12416
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An interesting idea - what if the evolution of scientific knowledge can only occur at points far from equilibrium, at instabilites which bifurcate and lead to new science?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Lerner brings up Prigogine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on dissipative structures. In ordinary thermodynamics, any system runs down due to entropy - the system will settle down to an equilibrium state, a state of minimum energy. What Prigogine did is discover that at far from equilibrium, the system will become unstable eventually bifurcating into two new systems.
I was thinking of that in terms of Kuhn's paradigm shift, er, revolutions. Seems that the orthodox view is always held to, in spite of the fact that the philosophy of science paints a different picture of discovery. If science were pure, then the peer review system would work. But science is not pure, and resists new discoveries.
I look at that "ignor-ance" as a violation of free speech. Scientists do not have freedom of speech. If they are dissenters, they are censored by the standard view. Someone makes the point that when science resorts to authority as the basis of knowledge, then it is replacing observation with faith, and thus has become like a religion, complete with the high priests who have the power to dismiss any and all "Crack-pots." Science has become the religion.
I like this idea of Plasma, but actually it is based on the idea of fields. What makes Plasma "different" from ordinary electron current flow, is an interplay of electric and magnetic fields, and in the plamas the ions and electrons, differing in weight, move at different velocities, so they tend to wrap themselves around eachother.
Exactly like the DNA molecule wraps one strand around another strand, physically interconnected. Interesting mechanical model of plasma spirialing by Nature isn't it...
Spirialing seems to be characteristic in many fields. We use the spirial in systems theory, a returning to the same point but at a higher level will look like a spirialing.
Well, this is simple enough, if the Universe is governed by plasma interactions, then spirialing should be all over the place. Lerner included several pictures of plasma on the one hand and a galaxy on the other hand, they looked identical.
I always assumed that a galaxy was spinning inward, and at the center of the galaxy was a black hole sucking all matter up and converting it to one huge neutron just like water flowing down a drain. But that is only one way to look at it. It could also be that the galaxy is spinning outward, and energy is being infused from the center outward. I don't know, I haven't heard any yays or nays yet, but it is a real intriguing thought meanwhile...
So we are back to Maxwell's displacement currects again. Is a star a Maxwell displacement engine? Are galaxies Maxwell displacement current engines on a cosmic scale? Is there evidence of Maxwell displacement currents in plasma? I think there is, but they call it the ZPE. Moray B King writes about Quest for Zero Point Energy, and plasma's are brought up many times. It was in his book that I first heard of Plasmoids, tiny vortexes of plasma, I forgot what they do.
Interesting, Lerner says that when the Big Bang goes, particle physics will go with it. We will need a new physics to go along with the new cosmology. Matter is a vortex?
I wonder just how far the plasma model can be pushed. Is it that "everything" now should be explained in terms of plasma?
This is important. Scientists, and everyone else too, often discover a principle that seems profound, they realize that it is universal. So they do the natural next steop and apply it in a universal way. So when they applied their thing to everything, they knew they were right, but they are wrong. For the universality was in the principles of what they found, not the thing they found. We forget to generalize the particular back to generality again.
So we need to know what the principles are that are involved in plasma science. From what I read, the two basic elements are positive and negative charges. I know from experience that there is a relationship between the positive and negative charges such that the relatinship has new properties. Not at all unlike the positive proton and the negative electron in an atom.
I don't see any difficulty explaning an electron if I am allowed the assumption of something nside the atom driving it. If I am allowed to use Maxwell's displacement currents, then it would like a vortex. Perhaps the difference between a positive and a negative vortex is like inner and outer, spinning in or spinning out.
Lerner brings up Prigogine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on dissipative structures. In ordinary thermodynamics, any system runs down due to entropy - the system will settle down to an equilibrium state, a state of minimum energy. What Prigogine did is discover that at far from equilibrium, the system will become unstable eventually bifurcating into two new systems.
I was thinking of that in terms of Kuhn's paradigm shift, er, revolutions. Seems that the orthodox view is always held to, in spite of the fact that the philosophy of science paints a different picture of discovery. If science were pure, then the peer review system would work. But science is not pure, and resists new discoveries.
I look at that "ignor-ance" as a violation of free speech. Scientists do not have freedom of speech. If they are dissenters, they are censored by the standard view. Someone makes the point that when science resorts to authority as the basis of knowledge, then it is replacing observation with faith, and thus has become like a religion, complete with the high priests who have the power to dismiss any and all "Crack-pots." Science has become the religion.
I like this idea of Plasma, but actually it is based on the idea of fields. What makes Plasma "different" from ordinary electron current flow, is an interplay of electric and magnetic fields, and in the plamas the ions and electrons, differing in weight, move at different velocities, so they tend to wrap themselves around eachother.
Exactly like the DNA molecule wraps one strand around another strand, physically interconnected. Interesting mechanical model of plasma spirialing by Nature isn't it...
Spirialing seems to be characteristic in many fields. We use the spirial in systems theory, a returning to the same point but at a higher level will look like a spirialing.
Well, this is simple enough, if the Universe is governed by plasma interactions, then spirialing should be all over the place. Lerner included several pictures of plasma on the one hand and a galaxy on the other hand, they looked identical.
I always assumed that a galaxy was spinning inward, and at the center of the galaxy was a black hole sucking all matter up and converting it to one huge neutron just like water flowing down a drain. But that is only one way to look at it. It could also be that the galaxy is spinning outward, and energy is being infused from the center outward. I don't know, I haven't heard any yays or nays yet, but it is a real intriguing thought meanwhile...
So we are back to Maxwell's displacement currects again. Is a star a Maxwell displacement engine? Are galaxies Maxwell displacement current engines on a cosmic scale? Is there evidence of Maxwell displacement currents in plasma? I think there is, but they call it the ZPE. Moray B King writes about Quest for Zero Point Energy, and plasma's are brought up many times. It was in his book that I first heard of Plasmoids, tiny vortexes of plasma, I forgot what they do.
Interesting, Lerner says that when the Big Bang goes, particle physics will go with it. We will need a new physics to go along with the new cosmology. Matter is a vortex?
I wonder just how far the plasma model can be pushed. Is it that "everything" now should be explained in terms of plasma?
This is important. Scientists, and everyone else too, often discover a principle that seems profound, they realize that it is universal. So they do the natural next steop and apply it in a universal way. So when they applied their thing to everything, they knew they were right, but they are wrong. For the universality was in the principles of what they found, not the thing they found. We forget to generalize the particular back to generality again.
So we need to know what the principles are that are involved in plasma science. From what I read, the two basic elements are positive and negative charges. I know from experience that there is a relationship between the positive and negative charges such that the relatinship has new properties. Not at all unlike the positive proton and the negative electron in an atom.
I don't see any difficulty explaning an electron if I am allowed the assumption of something nside the atom driving it. If I am allowed to use Maxwell's displacement currents, then it would like a vortex. Perhaps the difference between a positive and a negative vortex is like inner and outer, spinning in or spinning out.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12419
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ALL MATTER electrons,protons etc. come from high energy plasma(Cosmic Plasma) this is why i keep saying that what you are describing, this ZPE, is just another name for plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, North, I am almost finished reading Eric Lerner's book "The Big Bang Neer Happened" but the last parts are the hardest to deal with --How does the system work on the social level?
If we are to believe Lerner, the Big Bang is a deductive approach to our origins. The application of abstract mathematics, and then observing the particulars. It is a mystery to me, however, how can the Big Bang original prediction of 50K for the CMBR be so wrong, and yet manage to be right on the dime now?
Can mathematics really be manipulated to produce absurd conclusions? And how come those absurd conclusions when confronted by mathematics such as infinitites can be manipulated as if they were not there? Isn't that "renormalization" what they are doing with Maxwell's equations? His equations work (they were derived from the test bench) so they ignore the displacement currents, and it is the displacement currents that frive plasma, betcha...
The Big Bang as a concept emerged after the war in Gamov's book "One, Two, THree, Infinity" where he used the Atomic bomb explosion as a model. Hmmmm How come when that model proved wrong they created new mathematics? The Big Bang model fails, so they introduce impossible expansion effects, which then go away, just in time for things to get back to normal again. The Big Bang isn't big enough, so in their theory they inflate it to big enough. And just what is this "inflation" anyway?
I think it is obvious that when things get moving they will keep moving the same way.If there were an expansion, matter wouldn't know the difference between moving and expansion, and it would simply keep moving. Forever.
Turns out though, that the Big Bang has to have happened if our social model is to be sustained. To study that is to study evolution in general. Particularily the evolution of science and religion. It gets to be very complicated. And paradoxal. Science needs the Big Bang to support their use of mathematics, which is not how science should work, and religion needs the Big Bang to explain how it happened with a beginning. But in accepting that, religion has to fight the predicted evolution. A war of metaphors...
The whole thing is sick. What I see is a war. And the people are the ones to suffer. It is a war of metaphors, being fought by the blind, against the blinded and neither side will budge.
At the same time, there are people who are able to think for themselves, and find the answers we seek. Not all of them get to be burned at the stake...
What is sad, is that they won't be found in any respected journal...
Well, North, I am almost finished reading Eric Lerner's book "The Big Bang Neer Happened" but the last parts are the hardest to deal with --How does the system work on the social level?
If we are to believe Lerner, the Big Bang is a deductive approach to our origins. The application of abstract mathematics, and then observing the particulars. It is a mystery to me, however, how can the Big Bang original prediction of 50K for the CMBR be so wrong, and yet manage to be right on the dime now?
Can mathematics really be manipulated to produce absurd conclusions? And how come those absurd conclusions when confronted by mathematics such as infinitites can be manipulated as if they were not there? Isn't that "renormalization" what they are doing with Maxwell's equations? His equations work (they were derived from the test bench) so they ignore the displacement currents, and it is the displacement currents that frive plasma, betcha...
The Big Bang as a concept emerged after the war in Gamov's book "One, Two, THree, Infinity" where he used the Atomic bomb explosion as a model. Hmmmm How come when that model proved wrong they created new mathematics? The Big Bang model fails, so they introduce impossible expansion effects, which then go away, just in time for things to get back to normal again. The Big Bang isn't big enough, so in their theory they inflate it to big enough. And just what is this "inflation" anyway?
I think it is obvious that when things get moving they will keep moving the same way.If there were an expansion, matter wouldn't know the difference between moving and expansion, and it would simply keep moving. Forever.
Turns out though, that the Big Bang has to have happened if our social model is to be sustained. To study that is to study evolution in general. Particularily the evolution of science and religion. It gets to be very complicated. And paradoxal. Science needs the Big Bang to support their use of mathematics, which is not how science should work, and religion needs the Big Bang to explain how it happened with a beginning. But in accepting that, religion has to fight the predicted evolution. A war of metaphors...
The whole thing is sick. What I see is a war. And the people are the ones to suffer. It is a war of metaphors, being fought by the blind, against the blinded and neither side will budge.
At the same time, there are people who are able to think for themselves, and find the answers we seek. Not all of them get to be burned at the stake...
What is sad, is that they won't be found in any respected journal...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.204 seconds