21st century physics.

[Rift Zone]

I saw that love letter you left on my page, [MENTION=6650]SealHammer[/MENTION]. This one is just for you!

The universe burns neutrons for energy.

Modern science has no clue what an active galactic nuclei/galactic jet/quasar is. They can't explain a quasar because Big Bang Theory, and every other gravitationally based theory of the cosmos will NEVER be able to explain one. It's incompatible with their approach. Their physics prohibits it. They're not supposed to exist.

The closest they come to describing active galactic nuclei is through angular momentum. Which is wholly insufficient, and they know it. Apparently things are accelerated to relativistic speeds by orbiting super massive black holes along an accretion disk. (Matter does not organize into disks within their physics. It's likewise, a violation of their math.) Then, with a clear violation of common sense, they proclaim this matter/energy just kinda jumps to the perpendicular and and shoots along the axis. That whole story is a violation of their math. Quasars should not exist, according to modern science. <--that is precisely what their theories tell us. Do the math, you will see it to be true.

There's another curious trait about their math... it would dictate this: supernova would all behave more similarly , that is to say there would be less distinctions among them, and their periods of maximum intensity would all be much the same: very short. In a big enough star: core turns to iron, nuclear fire dies, crunch, and with that crunch we have made both a nice flash, and the singularity. Their math demands this. There is no mechanism to support varying periods of maximum intensity. Some supernova have been noted to last 3 weeks. It's against their laws of the universe.

You can squish normal matter into neutron stars. If we did it to the earth, it would be about the size of a ping pong ball ~ quarter dollar. Neutrons have a breaking point too. It as this point where modern science get broken. Their math does not know what to do with breaking neutrons. It yields infinities = it's saying "I don't know, have no clue". It crashes and burns. Some brilliant nobel laureate decided those infinities meant infinitesimally small. Thus singularity was born. Now you can build new math, and get some bandaids to pin the two theories together. -comedy, shady

The universe burns neutrons. There is no singularity, there is no black hole, get that shit out of your head before it corrupts your understanding of the universe. When you "crunch" neutrons, you release them from their particle state. Matter and energy are same. It's not like they transmute to another form, they NEVER change form. The difference between matter and energy is how it's organized. Particles are energy in mutual association. If you break them, you free them from that association. That means you have E=mc^2 directly applied: a conversion into pure "energy"/radiation. Thus, you break 'em = you burn 'em.

If you want to glow brighter than your entire galaxy, you must get a better energy source! Nucleosynthesis only deals with small quantities of mass/energy conversion. Its not that bright/vivid. Burning neutrons, however, not likely there is a better power source. Burning neutrons is precisely why one star can outshine its entire galaxy. (In modern theory , there would be a flash, but not nearly that bright, by the way. It's against their law.) In a big enough star: core turns to iron, nuclear fire dies, crunch, neutron star. -That would be your average short-period supernova. "Supermassive" means one thing here= massive enough to break neutrons. If a neutron star is supermassive then it will break neutrons and radiate that mass away till it does stabilize sub-supermassive. That is the reason for varying periods of maximum intensity.

What actually happens to those neutrons got to be the coolest thing in the universe! Active galactic nuclei/quasars/galactic jets are lasers (kinda/sorta). "Resonance" being the operative term in that acronym. Press neutron stability and you're gonna release the energy from its particle "confinement". A supernova is a firecracker, by comparison. A quasar maintains it's structure, while being fed even more energy and matter from the rest of the galaxy. The core of a quasar is pure energy that is largely restrained by the outer layers. We have a case of full spectrum resonance that doesn't involve matter as we know it. Particles of every sort lose distinction. A conventional laser is essentially a mirrored box where we force normal matter into resonating energy states, The core of a quasar is different: it's pure energy resonating. The core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is not a surprise they power the most energetic and vivid things in the universe.

Modern theory doesn't jive well with shooting things along the axis of accretion discs at relativistic speeds. If they try really hard, they might make something fly but it would be, at best, ~3 magnitudes shy of what we observe. It does not support massive things like stars, and neutron stars shooting out of galactic cores -they do so, we see them. This model expects them, modern science denies it.

Modern theory cannot support the intensity or periods of intensity observed in supernova. This model expects it, modern science denies it. Do the math, you will see what I say about modern theory is true. They can't even build accretion disks with their math: spiral galaxies, solar systems = no supposed to exist! This model expects them, modern science denies them.

Welcome to Plasma Cosmology! Big Bang cosmology/theory is the competing theory. The problem with Big Bang Theory is it builds everything it is/knows purely from gravitation... And gravitation is wholly insufficient!

We observe the way galaxies move. We notice that gravitation alone cannot account for their behavior. This was motivation for BBT to start producing dark matter and dark energy... Dark matter, inflationary period, dark energy, and now strings are fabrications that exist only to make a failing theiry feel good about itself. Big Bang theorists fabricate incredible amounts of erroneous bullshit and expects you to believe it simply because academia says so. All those things: dark matter, dark energy, inflationary period, and now strings are mathematical rhetoric that may look good on paper but do not apply to physical reality. Incidentally, all those fabrications don't look very good on paper; that is to say their theory still gets nowhere near actually describing the universe with any measure of accuracy.

Mathematics is an infinite realm. There are many wonderful things you can play with in there. Not all of those things have association with reality. We are perfectly capable of building perfectly self-consistent mathematical structures that have absolutely NO relation to physical reality whatsoever. This means we can easily conjure fabrications just like dark matter and dark energy! It means it might look good on paper and still have no association with physical reality!!! This is what Big Bang theorists have done: they have fabricated lies to support their ailing theories and expects you to believe their drivel. Welcome to insight into academia/modern science, by the way. This is exactly behavior of modern science!

Do you know how you can tell if a theory is worth a shit? It makes predictions!!!! A worthy theory makes accurate predictions that we can look at and verify. BBT has never made an accurate prediction. Never! EVER! not one. That's because BBT doesn't know what it's talking about.


This universe is plasma. Virtually everything in the universe is plasma: a form of ionized, electrically conducting gas. 99.99%+ of the universe is plasma. The stars, the galaxies, the clusters, superclusters, the webs that run between: they are all plasma. You see "filament" used fairly often in modern science; that expressly means plasma. The behavior of plasma is guided by electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravitation. That's 100000000000000000000000000000000000 times STRONGER than gravitation. The behavior of plasma rules this universe. Plasma does funny things like self-organize. By nature of it's own properties and very existence, it will self organize into amazing complexity. [ I'm going to demote the second law of thermodynamics and this is why: plasma provides a balance to entropy. The universe it not deteriorating in any way.] The way plasma self-organizes makes disks. Every spiral galaxy, every solar system, every accretion disk in the universe is because of plasma physics. Gravitation is incapable of building anything like them. BBT theorists don't like to share that they completely ignore electromagnetism in their models, but borrow the accretion discs from it anyway. What I say about accretion discs is mathematical fact: Big Bang physics cannot explain them They are exclusively an electromagnetic phenomena. They are a plasma phenomenon. If you do not incorporate plasma physics into your model of the universe then your model is fucking wrong, not a chance, nice try.


Plasma physics, along with gravitation, explain the motions of galaxies. If we incorporate plasma physics into BBT it will throw every off. Recall they conjured bs like dark matter and dark energy to account for discrepancies found in galactic motion... Those darkwhateverthefucks were created to account for the role plasma plays. They need to postulate crap like that to get their results remotely close to the known structure of the universe. They still fail miserably, but it gets them closer. If they put in electromagnetism/plasma physics on top of the darkwhateverthefucks, it throws everything off. It's either plasma physics, or darkwhateverthefucks! Can't have both! They are mutually exclusive. We know plasma exists. We know how strong it is. We know how it behaves. We know it is a FACT of the universe... might be time to lose the darkwhateverthefucks.


The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. -Galileo

 

[Cornerstone]

Did you write this?

 

[Rift Zone]

Did you write this?

Aye.

 

[Cornerstone]

You seem to know your stuff but I have no idea if the maths is right. It was very interesting though.

Is this related to quantum physics?

 

[Rift Zone]

You seem to know your stuff but I have no idea if the maths is right. It was very interesting though.

Is this related to quantum physics?

Alignment with the universe makes the math go smoother. Thanks.

Yes. It includes and affects aspects of QM & Relativity, and refutes Big Bang theory. Burning neutrons is just the surface of it. There are more differences than removng singularity/black hole/BBT. No space time=redefine time, gravity... QM, redefine quarks=update standard model. The Founding grandfather of this model is Hannes Alfven, sweedish plasma physicist. He wrote books on astrophysics too. In my mind, he stands as the greatest scientist of the late 20th century.

 

[Cornerstone]

Alignment with the universe makes the math go smoother. Thanks.

Yes. It includes and affects aspects of QM & Relativity, and refutes Big Bang theory. Burning neutrons is just the surface of it. There are more differences than removng singularity/black hole/BBT. No space time=redefine time, gravity... QM, redefine quarks=update standard model. The Founding grandfather of this model is Hannes Alfven, sweedish plasma physicist. He wrote books on astrophysics too. In my mind, he stands as the greatest scientist of the late 20th century.

It would be interesting to see how these ideas correlate with writings on the lifeforce energy or ch'i, mana etc.

Is there a connection to the holographic universe too?

 

[Rift Zone]

It would be interesting to see how these ideas correlate with writings on the lifeforce energy or ch'i, mana etc.

Is there a connection to the holographic universe too?

Biology/physiology is an infinite realm... eek! Astrophysics/QM is much easier to understand. Electromagnetism does influence our entire being very strongly. I doubt any of it manefests as plasma though. Our energy seems to be organized in a different way. It is known that our physiology can affect plant life and other forms of life. What that energy is and what types of things we can do with it? -meh, not enough info to know. But I fancy there's something to "ch'i," or however you like to call it -a little something, at least. Not likely we'll fully understand "ch'i" anytime soon.

Holographic universe? Oh no. Nothing like that. That type of stuff was born of the faulty big bang theory. It's a poor attempt to reconcile QM with Relativity, through principals established in bbt. It's a clusterfuck of mathematical rehetoric that has minimal grasp of reality. They like using geometries with higher demensions because it makes it easier for them to manipulate the properties of lower dimensions. It's a dirty game. Nothing like that exists in the uinverse; it's not embodied in that fashion. There are only 3 diensions: the spatial ones we are familiar with. Not even time is described as a dimension in this model. This model changes virtually everything. As far as modern theories go: the equations have the right values in the wrong place and it is throwing everything off. This model represents putting the right values much closer to where they belong.

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!""Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

That little story is noteworthy here. Trying to piece this into your current understanding of the universe will not work. These models (current theories and the model presented here) mutually exclusive and tell very us very different things about the universe. If you are interested in learning about Plasma Cosmology, it is best if you are prepared to let go of many things modern science holds to be true. It's worth letting go, the title of this thread is sincere.

 

[Y0u]

Biology/physiology is an infinite realm... eek! Astrophysics/QM is much easier to understand. Electromagnetism does influence our entire being very strongly. I doubt any of it manefests as plasma though. Our energy seems to be organized in a different way. It is known that our physiology can affect plant life and other forms of life. What that energy is and what types of things we can do with it? -meh, not enough info to know. But I fancy there's something to "ch'i," or however you like to call it -a little something, at least. Not likely we'll fully understand "ch'i" anytime soon.

Holographic universe? Oh no. Nothing like that. That type of stuff was born of the faulty big bang theory. It's a poor attempt to reconcile QM with Relativity, through principals established in bbt. It's a clusterfuck of mathematical rehetoric that has minimal grasp of reality. They like using geometries with higher demensions because it makes it easier for them to manipulate the properties of lower dimensions. It's a dirty game. Nothing like that exists in the uinverse; it's not embodied in that fashion. There are only 3 diensions: the spatial ones we are familiar with. Not even time is described as a dimension in this model. This model changes virtually everything. As far as modern theories go: the equations have the right values in the wrong place and it is throwing everything off. This model represents putting the right values much closer to where they belong.

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!""Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

That little story is noteworthy here. Trying to piece this into your current understanding of the universe will not work. These models (current theories and the model presented here) mutually exclusive and tell very us very different things about the universe. If you are interested in learning about Plasma Cosmology, it is best if you are prepared to let go of many things modern science holds to be true. It's worth letting go, the title of this thread is sincere.

If you have the time, perhaps you could explain the conception of time in the plasma cosmology or point me in the right direction?

I'm starting to get interested in genetics/biology and their relation to physics... perhaps it's possible to create a very similar self-replicating, complicating, pattern with smaller-scale base patterns or use them to modify modify specific genetic sequences, or even integrate them into a body in stages along its otherwise natural development. The goal I have in mind would be making connections/patterns like our brains have but more, since they are physically smaller. The intersection of physics and biology would be cool to learn about too. Maybe using a smaller scale would make them more susceptible to natural forces we experience here, and actually disruptive to cognition, unless other natural bio-magnetic fields can/would shield them.*shrug*

I've thought about going back to school for this stuff, but I'm not keen on getting forced into parroting paradigms which are most likely incorrect, or incomplete, and paying to have somebody dogmatically grade me on my "understanding" of those paradigms... would generally make learning more irritating and thus less productive.

They're going to have to work on the philosophy and teaching/learning/practice of physics a little in order not to deteriorate into raving messes... it's overdue, and better, anyway.

If you haven't looked into cold fusion, you might find the current developments interesting, but that's more likely related to resonances of electromagnetism, from what I can tell. In particular, a Russian scientist, Alexander Parkhomov, has been replicating a similar reaction to the one(s) in Rossi's e-cats with a lower but useful COP with the design influenced by the reactor used the Lugano test.

 

[Cornerstone]

Biology/physiology is an infinite realm... eek! Astrophysics/QM is much easier to understand. Electromagnetism does influence our entire being very strongly. I doubt any of it manefests as plasma though. Our energy seems to be organized in a different way. It is known that our physiology can affect plant life and other forms of life. What that energy is and what types of things we can do with it? -meh, not enough info to know. But I fancy there's something to "ch'i," or however you like to call it -a little something, at least. Not likely we'll fully understand "ch'i" anytime soon.

Holographic universe? Oh no. Nothing like that. That type of stuff was born of the faulty big bang theory. It's a poor attempt to reconcile QM with Relativity, through principals established in bbt. It's a clusterfuck of mathematical rehetoric that has minimal grasp of reality. They like using geometries with higher demensions because it makes it easier for them to manipulate the properties of lower dimensions. It's a dirty game. Nothing like that exists in the uinverse; it's not embodied in that fashion. There are only 3 diensions: the spatial ones we are familiar with. Not even time is described as a dimension in this model. This model changes virtually everything. As far as modern theories go: the equations have the right values in the wrong place and it is throwing everything off. This model represents putting the right values much closer to where they belong.

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!""Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

That little story is noteworthy here. Trying to piece this into your current understanding of the universe will not work. These models (current theories and the model presented here) mutually exclusive and tell very us very different things about the universe. If you are interested in learning about Plasma Cosmology, it is best if you are prepared to let go of many things modern science holds to be true. It's worth letting go, the title of this thread is sincere.

Physics really isn't my strong suit. Isn't there observable evidence for it until you reach that point where it has to be reduced to a singularity? So, it has some internal logic...oh, that's what you go on to say later, isn't it? You can can make any system unrelated to observable reality interally logical. Hmm...very interesting.

I have no stake in the BBT being true or not, I haven't given it much thought in a long time. I was thinking fractal, but that might mean the same thing.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm interested and I am googling so as to not type complete stupidness if I can. Holographic may have been the wrong word but does this discount the notion of the universe being fractal in arrangement? Again, geometry is a curiosity of mine but I don't know much about it to argue the point.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Rift Zone

What are your thoughts on the “Electric Universe Theory” or “Plasma Cosmology”??

Just curious, because it does support what you are talking about.

Why do you think it is not the foremost theory?

Taboos?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

 

[Rift Zone]

TIME:

If you have the time, perhaps you could explain the conception of time in the plasma cosmology or point me in the right direction?

Sure! I have a little essay on time that outlines the physics behind it. I'll paste it to the bottom of this reply. I think the essay does a fine job of describing time itself but it doesn't explain much pertaining to how time relates to the rest of theory. If you are interestd in digging deeper into it, feel free to ask away! I'm happy to share what I know.

I'm starting to get interested in genetics/biology and their relation to physics... perhaps it's possible to create a very similar self-replicating, complicating, pattern with smaller-scale base patterns or use them to modify modify specific genetic sequences, or even integrate them into a body in stages along its otherwise natural development. The goal I have in mind would be making connections/patterns like our brains have but more, since they are physically smaller. The intersection of physics and biology would be cool to learn about too. Maybe using a smaller scale would make them more susceptible to natural forces we experience here, and actually disruptive to cognition, unless other natural bio-magnetic fields can/would shield them.*shrug*

Perhaps it is possible! I wouldn't know much about it, however. This looks more like the realm of biology & organic/biochemistry. I'm not very strong in that realm. Your knowledge about all this is likely more comprehensive than mine.

If you haven't looked into cold fusion, you might find the current developments interesting, but that's more likely related to resonances of electromagnetism, from what I can tell. In particular, a Russian scientist, Alexander Parkhomov, has been replicating a similar reaction to the one(s) in Rossi's e-cats with a lower but useful COP with the design influenced by the reactor used the Lugano test.

My knowledge on nuclear physics/QM tells me cold fusion is not very lilely. It's a matter of getting enough energy in the system to overcome the strong force so that nucleosynthesis can occur. I don't see that happening, not with our current approaches, anyway. Perhaps is it an engineerng feat and we only have to coax it the right way. It might be possible to achieve, I suppose, but I still count it as unlikely: the environmental conditions are not right.


TIME

Solid matter is an illusion. At our scale, it's a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms, we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It's nothing like that! If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word, at a comfortable scale we would not see "things". We would see energy. Imagine the schematic for the propagation of light. They are transpose waveforms writhing through eternity... Imagine rather, that the waveform isn't going anywhere. It's sitting still, writhing. Particles are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many waveforms there, writhing. Please check out that spherical/circular/three band/"time-space travel thing that was popularized in the movie "Contact". Imagine that the structure of those bands are more like chain-lightning than actual bands. Since this is a transpose system, also imagine the bands shrink to nothing then back again. Now, are you familiar with how those things move? They are kind of weird. Reconcile those thoughts: the standing waveform and sphere in action. -That, roughly, is a particle. It is mostly open space. The structure of it dynamically exists throughout the volume.

And this is time: Imagine that mess again. Now imagine that mess isn't writhing or osculating, that photon isn't propagating, that you took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances would be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy's capacity to transmute, it's ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. Motion gives us time. It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.

Also: A quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. It's not a technical feat, its impossible. When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen. No rebuilding the universe unless you're here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there's nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe's constitutes are dynamic.

 

[Rift Zone]

Physics really isn't my strong suit. Isn't there observable evidence for it until you reach that point where it has to be reduced to a singularity? So, it has some internal logic...oh, that's what you go on to say later, isn't it? You can can make any system unrelated to observable reality interally logical. Hmm...very interesting.

I have no stake in the BBT being true or not, I haven't given it much thought in a long time. I was thinking fractal, but that might mean the same thing.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm interested and I am googling so as to not type complete stupidness if I can. Holographic may have been the wrong word but does this discount the notion of the universe being fractal in arrangement? Again, geometry is a curiosity of mine but I don't know much about it to argue the point.

You might have lost me there. If this doesn't address your question than you did lose me. Yes! Squishing protons and electrons into neutrons is accepted by all scientists. Being able to squish neutrons beyond their breaking point is also accepted by all. It's what happens next that seperates these theories. Modern theory says once you crunch neutrons beyond their breaking point and get the volume below schwartzchild radius then the whole system collapses into singularity and you get a black hole. This theory denies that claim, and goes to show why it cannot be accurate. Observationally: the size of the theoretical event horizon of a black hole is the same size as a neutron star of the same mass. Meaning: we can't tell the difference between them! They would look much the same from here.

If we get our equations right, then we can follow those equations to where they lead us and gain a wealth of information out of them. -antimatter was found that way, and later confirmed... Much of our knowlegde was found that way. The flip side is: if we get the right values in the wrong place then our equations are fucked, and where they lead us is fucked. Modern science is fucked in that regard. They ran with mathematical notions they should have left behind. All the work built from those errors are likewise, in error. And yes!!! The math doesn't care if any notion is actually well represented in physical reaity. The job of the mathematical model is only to be self-consistent We end up with mathematical fairy tales that have elements of truth within them then we take those mathematical structures and claim their entirety to be reality. -That is the exact nature of Big Bang Theory and more.

Fractal universe? You'll have explain what you mean by that a litlte better. You definitely lost me on that one.

I love geek'n out on science. You may ask me what you wish! I'll be happy to share my thoughts on it.

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone

What are your thoughts on the “Electric Universe Theory” or “Plasma Cosmology”??

Just curious, because it does support what you are talking about.

Why do you think it is not the foremost theory?

Taboos?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

The "Electric Universe Theory", popularized by the ThunderBolts Project is not worth a shit. Those guys are quacks. I check them out on occasion to see what they're up to but all things considered: they don't know what they're talking about.

Plasma Cosmology is much closer to truth. Anthony Peratt is the world's leadng authoirty on Plasma cosmology, and we don't always agree. The Alfven/Klein model is not too bad but we don't always agree either. I'm currently the only one on the planet who professes: the universe burns neutrons. The above definition of time is likewise unique. There are many teachings unique to this model of the universe. I'm afraid I'm the only authority on this verson of plasma cosmology. So to answer your question: some things the plasma cosmology camp says will support this; on other points, we will disagree.

taboos? not in science! nothing gets left alone.

 

[Skarekrow]

The "Electric Universe Theory", popularized by the ThunderBolts Project is not worth a shit. Those guys are quacks. I check them out on occasion to see what they're up to but all things considered: they don't know what they're talking about.

Plasma Cosmology is much closer to truth. Anthony Peratt is the world's leadng authoirty on Plasma cosmology, and we don't always agree. The Alfven/Klein model is not too bad but we don't always agree either. I'm currently the only one on the planet who professes: the universe burns neutrons. The above definition of time is likewise unique. There are many teachings unique to this model of the universe. I'm afraid I'm the only authority on this verson of plasma cosmology. So to answer your question: some things the plasma cosmology camp says will support this; on other points, we will disagree.

taboos? not in science! nothing gets left alone.

Interesting…thank you for your response…I had recently posted a video about the EU theory on my thread that I found interesting.
I don’t necessarily adhere to that model, but he made some good points about certain aspects of our Universe that just seem to be dismissed and ignored.

The information on the Birkeland currents were especially interesting to me.
Also…the fact that NASA expected Voyager to be blown away once it was outside the influence and protection by the sun from solar winds, and it did not…was particularly curious too.
They basically stated - We don’t know why it didn’t. *shrug*
Hahaha.

 

[Rift Zone]

Interesting…thank you for your response…I had recently posted a video about the EU theory on my thread that I found interesting.
I don’t necessarily adhere to that model, but he made some good points about certain aspects of our Universe that just seem to be dismissed and ignored.

The information on the Birkeland currents were especially interesting to me.
Also…the fact that NASA expected Voyager to be blown away once it was outside the influence and protection by the sun from solar winds, and it did not…was particularly curious too.
They basically stated - We don’t know why it didn’t. *shrug*
Hahaha.

You are very welcome!

You are also very right!!!! The ThunderBolts Project/Electric Universe people make some really excellent points about modern theory. Their critique of Big Bang Theory is often very good and very accurate. I would pay attention to what they have to say about that. I call them quacks only because their own explainations (theories) of natural processes are in error. They seem to take the plasma cosmology route but are still making assumptions they should not be making.

Hannes Alfven rules! His work, along with Birkeland and others provided the foundation for the model presented here. The problem is plasma physicists can only publish in plasma physics journals -even if their work applies to astrophysics. And astrophysics at large pays little attention to plasma physics. Those two camps need to talk to eachother. The model proposed here represents a merging of those fields. Solar wind does produce an influence on things in space but the density of the flow is not that great, thus the affect is not that great.

 

[Skarekrow]

You are very welcome!

You are also very right!!!! The ThunderBolts Project/Electric Universe people make some really excellent points about modern theory. Their critique of Big Bang Theory is often very good and very accurate. I would pay attention to what they have to say about that. I call them quacks only because their own explainations (theories) of natural processes are in error. They seem to take the plasma cosmology route but are still making assumptions they should not be making.

Hannes Alfven rules! His work, along with Birkeland and others provided the foundation for the model presented here. The problem is plasma physicists can only publish in plasma physics journals -even if their work applies to astrophysics. And astrophysics at large pays little attention to plasma physics. Those two camps need to talk to eachother. The model proposed here represents a merging of those fields. Solar wind does produce an influence on things in space but the density of the flow is not that great, thus the affect is not that great.

Thanks again for the detailed response!

It’s a subject that I have been looking into lately, so I appreciate the info.
I will continue to study up on it and also compare your own theory.
Thanks!

 

[Rift Zone]

Thanks again for the detailed response!

It’s a subject that I have been looking into lately, so I appreciate the info.
I will continue to study up on it and also compare your own theory.
Thanks!

Mind if I share a bit of philosophy with you? Pertaining to your approach to research?

Scientific theories are composed of roughly 2 elements: solid, observable, empirical fact & human translation of that data. The model I have presented to you amounts to a different translation. If you are familiar with modern theory, you might see this model is both more comprehensive and aligns with observation better. "Aligns with observation better" is the only property that determines truth. It is a fact: big bang theory cannot possibly be correct! As soon as we establish plasma physics math is a necessity when describing the universe BBT is definitively refuted. =what they have to say about the universe doesn't matter anymore, it's invalid, inaccurate, and you should not be paying attention to it. Their entire translation was in error from the start. The only things they have to contribute to science is the raw impirical data they gained along the way. Their entire mathematical structure is faulty. It does not align with the universe. This model aligns with the universe. Everything it says, you can see for yourself! It speaks well for: this model knows what it's talking about, that it does represent truth. Furthermore, it is more comprehensive! This model more throughly explains naturally phenomena.

What is time within current theory? A dimension? Lovely, WTF does that mean? Exactly how is it embodied in the universe? There is no elaboration. This model tells you exactly what time is, and where it manefests within the universe. It is more complete. -and it aligns with the universe perfectly. Those are very significant factors pertainting to the value of a theory. That inherent motion of energy I described, that has a speed limit set on how fast that can go. Photons are the same way. Everything is composed of energy. The structure of particles and photons is not a wave or a particle. It is energy. The dynamic structure of that energy moves in a wave-like fashion. -perfect reconciliation with QM wave probility, but replaces standard model. Check this out: the inherent internal motion of energy defines external factors. The inherent dynamic nature of the photon defines speed of light. Applied to particles, it re-explains time dilation. Like QM, it takes the best of Relativity and translates it differently.

You have not seen my model yet. This is still just a few brush strokes on a canvas. If you want to learn about the universe, I volunteer to be your tutor, if you'll have me. My first suggestion would be that you start with this Plasma Cosmology model. Conventional human traslation will only corrupt your understanding. <--I am prepared to demonstrate that to be true. If you premit it, you will find this translation will remain invaribly more comprehensive and align with the universe better. I can point to the universe and show you why this theory fits better, every time... Not to mention it is self comsistent! This translation of known QM and Relativity physics talk to another. -again, more comprehensive. Um, this theory denies most of what modern physics says; I do srongly suggest you start here... Again, they will only lead you astray. I'm not going to show anyone my homework: I will keep the equations to myself till publication. But if you want to learn about the universe, I'll teach you.

 

[Skarekrow]

Mind if I share a bit of philosophy with you? Pertaining to your approach to research?

Scientific theories are composed of roughly 2 elements: solid, observable, empirical fact & human translation of that data. The model I have presented to you amounts to a different translation. If you are familiar with modern theory, you might see this model is both more comprehensive and aligns with observation better. "Aligns with observation better" is the only property that determines truth. It is a fact: big bang theory cannot possibly be correct! As soon as we establish plasma physics math is a necessity when describing the universe BBT is definitively refuted. =what they have to say about the universe doesn't matter anymore, it's invalid, inaccurate, and you should not be paying attention to it. Their entire translation was in error from the start. The only things they have to contribute to science is the raw impirical data they gained along the way. Their entire mathematical structure is faulty. It does not align with the universe. This model aligns with the universe. Everything it says, you can see for yourself! It speaks well for: this model knows what it's talking about, that it does represent truth. Furthermore, it is more comprehensive! This model more throughly explains naturally phenomena.

What is time within current theory? A dimension? Lovely, WTF does that mean? Exactly how is it embodied in the universe? There is no elaboration. This model tells you exactly what time is, and where it manefests within the universe. It is more complete. -and it aligns with the universe perfectly. Those are very significant factors pertainting to the value of a theory. That inherent motion of energy I described, that has a speed limit set on how fast that can go. Photons are the same way. Everything is composed of energy. The structure of particles and photons is not a wave or a particle. It is energy. The dynamic structure of that energy moves in a wave-like fashion. -perfect reconciliation with QM wave probility, but replaces standard model. Check this out: the inherent internal motion of energy defines external factors. The inherent dynamic nature of the photon defines speed of light. Applied to particles, it re-explains time dilation. Like QM, it takes the best of Relativity and translates it differently.

You have not seen my model yet. This is still just a few brush strokes on a canvas. If you want to learn about the universe, I volunteer to be your tutor, if you'll have me. My first suggestion would be that you start with this Plasma Cosmology model. Conventional human traslation will only corrupt your understanding. <--I am prepared to demonstrate that to be true. If you premit it, you will find this translation will remain invaribly more comprehensive and align with the universe better. I can point to the universe and show you why this theory fits better, every time... Not to mention it is self comsistent! This translation of known QM and Relativity physics talk to another. -again, more comprehensive. Um, this theory denies most of what modern physics says; I do srongly suggest you start here... Again, they will only lead you astray. I'm not going to show anyone my homework: I will keep the equations to myself till publication. But if you want to learn about the universe, I'll teach you.

I like your thoughts and ideas.
I tend to think of time as our own construct to explain the constants of change that we can perceive.

I thank you for the offer to teach me about it more, and I would like to learn more about your theories and ideas, though I am pretty bullheaded about what I already believe to be “some truths” about the universe and our consciousness in general.
I am willing to learn what you have to say, so long as you don’t get offended if I agree to disagree with you.

I am open and receptive to many ideas from many different areas of expertise not dispensing with spirituality or science.
Thanks again for such a detailed and thought out response.

 

[Rift Zone]

I like your thoughts and ideas.
I tend to think of time as our own construct to explain the constants of change that we can perceive.

Our minds are not hardwired to the universe. We make a resonable copy of reality/a model of it in our minds. In that way, you are exactly right, it is a construct we use psychologically. How time manefests in the universe is a slightly different translation.

I thank you for the offer to teach me about it more, and I would like to learn more about your theories and ideas, though I am pretty bullheaded about what I already believe to be “some truths” about the universe and our consciousness in general.
I am willing to learn what you have to say, so long as you don’t get offended if I agree to disagree with you.

I am open and receptive to many ideas from many different areas of expertise not dispensing with spirituality or science.
Thanks again for such a detailed and thought out response.

Not aligning with the teachings of modern science means I'm at odds with virtually everyone. It's nothing new. No worries. As long as you're receptive to looking into the properties of the universe to see why those "truths" may not be so accurate, this should go spectacularly.

 

[Skarekrow]

Our minds are not hardwired to the universe. We make a resonable copy of reality/a model of it in our minds. In that way, you are exactly right, it is a construct we use psychologically. How time manefests in the universe is a slightly different translation.

Not aligning with the teachings of modern science means I'm at odds with virtually everyone. It's nothing new. No worries. As long as you're receptive to looking into the properties of the universe to see why those "truths" may not be so accurate, this should go spectacularly.

Already Sir. I have to disagree with humility.

I do believe that our minds are hardwired in a sense.
People at places like the PEARS lab at Princeton and those who have continued with the Global Consciousness Project have shown (certainly not beyond a doubt but with more proof than a good deal of theories that are generally accepted) that our minds do interact with our world and universe and there is such a thing as a “Global Consciousness”.

I have seen personally, as have other witnesses that there are anomalies that can exist in our own space/time such as “ghosts” not necessarily of the deceased kind…but I am a big proponent of our minds and brains working in tandem yet as separate entities.
PSI has been proven and buried by our own government and others…this is fairly well documented, and yet dismissed because it is taboo and forces people to rethink what they have been taught to be the “truth”.

What say you Sir? ;-)