Cosmic Electromagnetism and Plasma Cosmology

[Native]

The video doesn't make the case that current cosmological models aren't working is my point.

Again; She doesn´t discuss MODELS but METHODS.

Vaguely flashing sensationalist pop magazine titles (note it doesn't show actual paper titles) is not a demonstration, especially when the context is obfuscated.

Once again you´re going after the messenger and misses the very message!

If the message seems vague to you, then consider how strong or vague self critical approaches you have to "your stuff" and when this is being criticized.

My concern for you is just and simply if you don´t apply some logical and obvious critiques, you´ll end up in the scientific squared black consensus dogmatic box together with millions of other "black box-ers" and never get out again in the open again.

 

[ecco]

Abstract:

While we may not think of science when we think about revolution, surprisingly, scientific progress is a far more revolutionary process than political change. Writer, poet and discourse analyst, Ghada Chehade, continues her exploration of Kuhn’s paradigm shift model and the present state of cosmology, looking at how the crisis in contemporary cosmology is leading us to a revolution, and paradigm shift. Examining the meaning of scientific revolution and drawing on her background in political science, Ghada considers the eventual fate of big bang cosmology as it pertains to both crisis and revolution.

In the latest post I´ve referred specifically o the Ghada Chehade video and its abstract:

Come on! Post just one sentence which shows you´ve listened to the posted video contents.

Why is this so difficult for you? You have stated the even the abstract contains actual science. I asked you to show it. You cannot.

Let's try. Is there any science supporting EM in...

While we may not think of science when we think about revolution, surprisingly, scientific progress is a far more revolutionary process than political change.​

No.
How about in...

Writer, poet and discourse analyst, Ghada Chehade, continues her exploration of Kuhn’s paradigm shift model and the present state of cosmology, looking at how the crisis in contemporary cosmology is leading us to a revolution, and paradigm shift.​

Still no science. Just more commentary. Let's try...

Examining the meaning of scientific revolution and drawing on her background in political science, Ghada considers the eventual fate of big bang cosmology as it pertains to both crisis and revolution.​

Nope. No science there either. Just another comment on Ghada's views.

So, there is no science in the abstract that you have repeatedly said I should read to understand the science of EM.

​

The videos: I previously skimmed through them. That's why I told you that there was no science supporting EM in it. Now I carefully watched the first two minutes of one. He talks about magnetic fields. No science supporting your EM.

I watched parts of the Ghada video. What do we hear?
Model Revolutions
Cosmologists are getting excited about...
The new model must be fundamentally different...
Alternative models...
The standard model is too complex...
Two different models...

NO SCIENCE - NONE


There, I did my part. Now do yours.

Show any science from the video that supports EM. Post the start and end times of the segment and write a brief synopsis of what you consider scientific evidence for EM.

You can't do that because there is none. Just as it is impossible for you EMers to produce a simulation of the motions of the planets in our solar system without using gravity. I've asked for that for over a year. I guess I'll have to wait another year for you to find any science supporting EM in your video.

 

[Native]

The videos: I previously skimmed through them. That's why I told you that there was no science supporting EM in it. Now I carefully watched the first two minutes of one. He talks about magnetic fields. No science supporting your EM.

I watched parts of the Ghada video. What do we hear?
Model Revolutions
Cosmologists are getting excited about...
The new model must be fundamentally different...
Alternative models...
The standard model is too complex...
Two different models...

NO SCIENCE - NONE

What´s the matter with your intellectual and logical skills?

I said earlier this very clearly:

If you have listened to this video, you would have known what it was/is all about, namely about how modern cosmological science works in general! It is a analytic ane critical video about "the system" and nothing else!

I in fact agree with you that the Ghada Cehade video isn´t about specific scientific issues but of how science in general works according to the scientific methods.

Please get the grip of what you read before you comment out in the blue"

 

[Meow Mix]

Again; She doesn´t discuss MODELS but METHODS.

She doesn't discuss methods though. There are no specifics discussed, just vagueness.

Once again you´re going after the messenger and misses the very message!

If the message seems vague to you, then consider how strong or vague self critical approaches you have to "your stuff" and when this is being criticized.

My concern for you is just and simply if you don´t apply some logical and obvious critiques, you´ll end up in the scientific squared black consensus dogmatic box together with millions of other "black box-ers" and never get out again in the open again.

The message is vague. Compare it to the series I've posted with examples and explanations. I have withheld derivations to keep it at a certain level for laypersons, but I would also answer any questions about derivations anyone had in the comments.

This video offers no specifics, no explanations, no quantification. It isn't even clear what "crisis" the video claims exists.

 

[ecco]

Anton,
This 90 degree bending pattern is also significant for barred galaxies at large.

IMO it derives from a FORMATIVE OUTGOING MOTION from a rotating galactic center, out in the bars where the gaseous arms are spread out, much like as water droplets from a two armed rotating garden sprinkler.

Hence, the "invisible thing which bended this structure" is the very rotating motion in electromagnetic currents and its perpendicular field (the galactic disks).

Cosmic Electromagnetic Web with luminous strings and centers of formation.

"Gravity" is basically unexplained as a force, but is excludingly assumed to work as the basic force in Standard Cosmology. Because of the lack of a strict scientific dynamic description, this gravity assumption has caused lots of further ad hoc assumptions in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

IMO, it´s the electromagnetic force which binds atoms together to create masses and motions of all kinds and sizes in micro- and macrocosm, and the feeling of weight on the Earth derives from "orbital pressures in general" and not from strong dwarfs sitting in the Earth, pulling at everything.

I´m convinced the idea of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology fairly soon will replace the old Newtonian ideas, of course not without protests and ridiculing name giving from some persons who uncritically just follow some consensus ideas even long after it´s dogmas de facto have broken down.

Well, enjoy and give your fair and factual thoughts of this OP.

All the above is from the first post of this thread where, once again, you are pushing the silly concept of EM.

In subsequent posts, you posted an abstract and another video in support of your silly concept of EM.

Abstract:
While we may not think of science when we think about revolution, surprisingly, scientific progress is a far more revolutionary process than political change. Writer, poet and discourse analyst, Ghada Chehade, continues her exploration of Kuhn’s paradigm shift model and the present state of cosmology, looking at how the crisis in contemporary cosmology is leading us to a revolution, and paradigm shift. Examining the meaning of scientific revolution and drawing on her background in political science, Ghada considers the eventual fate of big bang cosmology as it pertains to both crisis and revolution.

Video by Gahda Chelade

My initial OP post is qualified to follow the paradigm function shift and conclusions in this video.

When I (and others) pointed out that neither the video nor the abstract contained any science whatsoever, you accused me of not reading the abstract and not watching the video. I reprinted the abstract, segment by segment, and showed there was no science in any of it. I challenged you to show where there was.

You ducked and dogged and...

...then you accused me of not watching the video. I, (and others) watched it. There was no science there either. I challenged you to show any science in the video. You didn't because you couldn't because there was none.

Now you duck and dodge some more and say...

What´s the matter with your intellectual and logical skills?
I in fact agree with you that the Ghada Cehade video isn´t about specific scientific issues but of how science in general works according to the scientific methods. Please get the grip of what you read before you comment out in the blue"

You blah, blah, blah in your opening about the glories of EM. You present videos and abstracts to support the nonsense. And then when it's shown that you have nothing, you duck and dodge and try to pretend that you weren't trying to post any scientific basis for your EM nonsense. Then why bother starting another thread on EM? Why bother putting up commentary and abstracts and videos to lend scientific support when nothing does?

You criticize my intellectual and logical skills and tell me to get a grip. What does it say about the intellectual and logical skills of someone who starts a thread about one of his favorite subjects knowing that people will see through his ruse and demonstrate, once again, that he has nothing to support his bluster?

But, being caught with nothing won't stop you from doing it all over again next month or the month thereafter. Maybe you keep hoping for a new, gullible audience. You won't find that here on RF. People will always see that you cannot scientifically support EM any more than the flat earthers can scientifically support their nonsense. Perhaps you and the Thunderbolts could join forces with the flat-earthers and see what you can come up with.

Bye for now.

 

[Native]

She doesn't discuss methods though. There are no specifics discussed, just vagueness.

You have to differ between scientific and philosophical approaches here.

For instants, when she examine how often astrophysicist and cosmologists express their surprises about new discoveries, this exponential increasing graph is a sign of lesser and lesser cosmological understanding.

Compare it to the series I've posted with examples and explanations.

And? I admit you to have made a huge work - but do you really take it all as stringent cosmology without vague and weak issues at all?

If so, I´m afraid you are fooling yourself - after having been fooled in your University lectures.

This video offers no specifics, no explanations, no quantification. It isn't even clear what "crisis" the video claims exists.

Again, the video is a PHILOSOPHICAL and CRITICAL overview which describes how scientists react on surprising observations = things which wasn´t predicted and expected. This is the CLEAR MESSAGE which you have to let get through your dogmatic University filters.

Dear Meow Mix,
If you have some studying time left over, I´ll recommend you to take a course in Natural Philosophy and History of Logics. Two subjects which are absent in modern cosmology.

 

[Native]

All the above is from the first post of this thread where, once again, you are pushing the silly concept of EM.

In subsequent posts, you posted an abstract and another video in support of your silly concept of EM.

When I (and others) pointed out that neither the video nor the abstract contained any science whatsoever, you accused me of not reading the abstract and not watching the video. I reprinted the abstract, segment by segment, and showed there was no science in any of it. I challenged you to show where there was.

You ducked and dogged and...

...then you accused me of not watching the video. I, (and others) watched it. There was no science there either. I challenged you to show any science in the video. You didn't because you couldn't because there was none.

Now you duck and dodge some more and say...

You blah, blah, blah in your opening about the glories of EM. You present videos and abstracts to support the nonsense. And then when it's shown that you have nothing, you duck and dodge and try to pretend that you weren't trying to post any scientific basis for your EM nonsense. Then why bother starting another thread on EM? Why bother putting up commentary and abstracts and videos to lend scientific support when nothing does?

You criticize my intellectual and logical skills and tell me to get a grip. What does it say about the intellectual and logical skills of someone who starts a thread about one of his favorite subjects knowing that people will see through his ruse and demonstrate, once again, that he has nothing to support his bluster?

But, being caught with nothing won't stop you from doing it all over again next month or the month thereafter. Maybe you keep hoping for a new, gullible audience. You won't find that here on RF. People will always see that you cannot scientifically support EM any more than the flat earthers can scientifically support their nonsense. Perhaps you and the Thunderbolts could join forces with the flat-earthers and see what you can come up with.

Bye for now.

once again, you are pushing the silly concept of EM.

And once again you´re exposing your lack of insight in all four fundamental forces.

If gravity is the only thing which counts for you, so be it.

And if you cannot connect the electromagnetic qualities in an atom with the entire amount of electromagnetic atoms in an Electric Universe, so be it too.

But don´t use your ignorance to insult persons who obviously have a broader cosmological insight than you.

 

[Native]

Subject: Understanding Plasma Cosmology and Electromagnetic Double Layers.

Video abstract:
When we examine space there are many phenomena that are hard to explain using the concept of magnto-hydrodynamics and I have recently covered the many flaws with this model. It works well in approximating in some scenarios but by no means can be used in all cases. Hannes Alfven was one of the pioneers in developing this approach but realized later on that this approximation was limiting our ability to understand what was actually going on. He had studied plasmas in the laboratory for years and saw that much of astronomy was simply ignoring how plasma actually behave. One of these was the double layer. He felt it was so fundamentally important that it should be considered a celestial object in its own right. Due to this, I want to cover this in three parts. In the first, we will examine the general properties of double layers. In part 2 we will look at laboratory experiments and finally, we will examine examples of cosmic double layers.

Part 2

 

[Native]

Subject: A New Structured Atom Model (SAM)

Video abstract:
A Simple Rule Creates SELF ORGANISING Atoms and Explains WHY some Elements are NOT Stable Welcome to a brand new series. In this series we will explore the finer details of the Structured Atomic Model and use it to explain why certain nuclear reactions may occur and not others. Why certain elements are more stable than others. We will start by examining some of the basic rules regarding this model. If you have not seen the first 3 episodes of the Atom series then it is important that you start there as this sets the groundwork for what will be explained in this series. In the first episode we will explore the concept of spherical densest packing and use it to explain why certain structures are stable and some not and how this concept matches what we see in nature.

And:

 

[ecco]

If gravity is the only thing which counts for you, so be it.

Please show where I said that "gravity is the only thing which counts" for me. Please show where I ignored the other forces.

Oh, you can't because I never said nor implied that.

Do you really need to make up strawmen of my views to attack? How sad. But, when ya go nuttin' - ya got nuttin'.

But don´t use your ignorance to insult persons who obviously have a broader cosmological insight than you.

Wow. You get insulted by my ignorance? That's cool!

More seriously, If you believe substituting your woo for accepted knowledge of the universe can be interpreted as you having "a broader cosmological insight" than me, well, that's your prerogative.

 

[ecco]

Subject: A New Structured Atom Model (SAM)

At this point, it looks like you are posting for an audience of one - you.

 

[Native]

ecco said: ↑
All the above is from the first post of this thread where, once again, you are pushing the silly concept of EM.

Please show where I said that "gravity is the only thing which counts" for me. Please show where I ignored the other forces.

By ignoring an Electric Universe in general you simply ignores 3/4 parts of the fundamental forces and even the strongest ones.

At this point, it looks like you are posting for an audience of one - you.

So what are you doing in this OP thread at all? Just showing off you ignorance and your lack of will to learn something new?

 

[gnostic]

With regarding to this chart of the Fundamental Forces, posted at the OP:

Does anyone think that the illustration of the Weak interaction to be incorrect?

It is my understanding of the radioactive decay can occur when high energy particle impact unstable atom (eg splitting atom via smashing) or via high enough heat or decay can occur naturally because of the unstable atom over period of time.

And that all radioactive decays due to weak nuclear force.

The problem I have with this illustration about weak force, is that it say "neutrino interaction induces beta decay", but my understanding is that beta decay is one that emit neutrino or anti-neutrino, as well as (respectively) positron or electron emission.

Is that illustration incorrect?

 

[Native]

The problem I have with this illustration . . .

I have several problems with this scientific division of EM in general. The "decay-thing" is IMO a simple transformation of EM energy.

 

[Native]

Subject: What is the Fifth Force?

Theoretical Physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, discusses fundamental forces and whether a "fifth force" can be found.

Abstract:
Why do we see so many headlines that say physicists may have discovered a fifth force? What's so special about the fifth force? What is it and what can we do with it?

0:00 Intro
0:28 The four known forces
4:35 The fifth force
----------------
“Light” is logically connected to the electromagnetic force and “Standard Cosmology”, whatever that is, has light to contain “photon particles”. They don´t connect light to the general cosmic observations of electromagnetism and the three E&M fundamental forces. But electromagnetic currents isn´t just light, but lots of other EM frequencies too.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Excerpt:
“The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies (the spectrum) of electromagnetic radiation and their respective wavelengths and photon energies.

The electromagnetic spectrum covers electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from below one hertz to above 1025 hertz, corresponding to wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atomic nucleus. This frequency range is divided into separate bands, and the electromagnetic waves within each frequency band are called by different names; beginning at the low frequency (long wavelength) end of the spectrum these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays at the high-frequency (short wavelength) end.

The electromagnetic waves in each of these bands have different characteristics, such as how they are produced, how they interact with matter, and their practical applications. The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length.[4] Gamma rays, X-rays, and high ultraviolet are classified as ionizing radiation as their photons have enough energy to ionize atoms, causing chemical reactions”.
--------------------
From this description, it is obvious and evidently that the EM force works in different frequencies and wavelengths; with different charges; with different ranges and with two polarities in all 4 elementary plasmatic states, hence the very EM is basically ONE Universal Force and not three forces. It all just depends on actual charges and polarities.

When Sabine Hossenfelder and lots of scientists are looking for “a fifth force”, the real problem is that science has divided the basic EM force into the three consensus EM forces. But the problem is also that they have “gravity” to be a special force, despite no one can explain it at all.

When science is looking for a Theory of Everything, it is this unexplained “gravity” which is in the way for all attempts to find a TOE and consensus science must deal with a solution for this serious problem.

The attractive polarity in the EM can logically replace the attractive part of “gravity” when it comes to all kinds of formation in the entire electromagnetic spectrum - but when it comes to the part of “gravitational celestial motions”, this needs alternate explanations, also because this idea is contradicted on the galactic realms.

Prediction:
Stars and planets are formed by the general swirling EM force as described above with the “electromagnetic spectrum”.

When a star has gained “a critical formation weight” the actual EM force at play cannot hold it anymore, and it is centrifugally slung away from the location of formation in a pattern just like the observation of the galactic rotation curve shows.

In this explanation, “gravity” plays no role at all and other Earth based gravitational perceptions simply derives from celestial planetary motions with different orbital velocity resistance pressures on different sizes of planets.

My conclusion:
There is no “fifth force” - or "a gravity force" as different EM frequency forces governs it all.

 

[ecco]

My conclusion:
There is no “fifth force” - or "a gravity force" as different EM frequency forces governs it all.

Is that your conclusion or is your whole post a cut and paste from some unspecified source?

What scientific credentials do you have, and what detailed information regarding the muons do you have that makes you believe you know more than the scientists who made the discovery.

 

[Native]

. . . or is your whole post a cut and paste from some unspecified source?

"Some unspecified sources"? Didn´t you watch the video or checked the posted link at all?

What scientific credentials do you have . . .

So you think "personal autoritative scientific credentials" are needed before you believe in something?

What about letting the factual critical and logical arguments themselves govern what you are to believe?

 

[ecco]

Is that your conclusion or is your whole post a cut and paste from some unspecified source?

"Some unspecified sources"? Didn´t you watch the video or checked the posted link at all?

I was referring to the 600 word wall you posted. The one starting with...

"Abstract:
Why do we see so many headlines that say physicists may have discovered a fifth force? What's so special about the fifth force? What is it and what can we do with it?"​

and ending with...

"My conclusion:
There is no “fifth force” - or "a gravity force" as different EM frequency forces governs it all."
​

So you didn't write it, it was just another cut and paste. From someone. Did you even bother to read it? Do you understand it/ Do you agree with every word of it?

 

[ecco]

What scientific credentials do you have, and what detailed information regarding the muons do you have that makes you believe you know more than the scientists who made the discovery.

So you think "personal autoritative scientific credentials" are needed before you believe in something?

What about letting the factual critical and logical arguments themselves govern what you are to believe?

So, you have no scientific credentials. That's OK. I don't either.

The difference is that you think "factual critical and logical arguments" from people on the fringes are more persuasive than research from thousands of degreed physicists.



ETA: I looked at your video but I have absolutely no idea why you posted it. Maybe you could explain how the video supports your EMuberalles world view.

 

[Native]

I was referring to the 600 word wall you posted.

If it is your specific interest just to count words and sentences in a post, so be it. But dont bother my Op´s with your statistics.

So you didn't write it, it was just another cut and paste.

I guess you´ve heard of the method of politely underling a subject with relevant web links?

Did you even bother to read it? Do you understand it/

Did you and do you?

The difference is that you think "factual critical and logical arguments" from people on the fringes are more persuasive than research from thousands of degreed physicists.

How can you tell as you admittedly have no scientific credentials?

ETA: I looked at your video but I have absolutely no idea why you posted it. Maybe you could explain how the video supports your EM uberalles world view.

Well, if you can´t grasp the OP contents of a video which deals with fundamental forces in general and whether there is a fifth force and what my opinion of this is, I really can´t help you spelling trough the contents.

Maybe you should have your focus on the contents instead of counting he numbers of words, and try to get the meaning of my arguments.