Plasmas Rule All

[Aireal]

cwes99_03

 

An interesting take on the subject, but for a few points. You are correct that "95% of the projects out there are designed to study something that may show an agreement to the Big Bang Theory" and with good reason, it needs all the support it can get. However that does not mean 95% of the funding should go there as well. More than 5% of the work is not in support of the big bang, but is ignored unless it has practical applications.

 

You made referance to the redshift and made the same assumption that most do, that it is related sololy to the doppler effect. It should be noted that Hubble, who discovered the red shift and supposed founder of expansion of the universe went to his grave imploring others not to assume that the red shift was due completly to the doppler effect, and that all velocities dervived from it should be refered to as apperent velocities. No one listened to Hubble then, or now. The "apparent" expansion of the universe devived from this redshift is the main basies for the Big Bang Theory, yet this "apparent" expansion could be off by a huge factor. The list of other factors that could contribute to the redshift are too long to discuss here, if you wish go to this site http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ and type redshift into the site search bar and you will be flooded with this information.

 

Earlier in this thread I gave a link that shows why 95% of all funding is in support of the big bang theory. Peer review and other forms of censorship in scientific publicacations insures that work that does not support the big bang never gets published in the first place, gets shoved into obscurity if it does, and will never recieve funding. Supporters of the big bang are at the top of the scientific funding food chain, and they intend to keep it that way. The link I gave was written by Noble Laureate, physicist Brian Josephson on the subject of censorship which he was recived from the Physics Preprint Archive. Look it up some time.

 

Now I do not know enough to comment on Plasma theory, or EU, but I have ran into a number of other theories just as sound if not more so than the big bang model, but given the current state of affairs, they will never recieve funding reguardless of how well founded they are. I am a supporter of the Wave Structure of Matter theory which has been around a long time and the work of physicist Dr. Milo Wolf. His work has been neglected by the mainstream, though it is much better supported than the big bang is. Given Milo's age, he will probably never see any results from his life of work, despite a large grass roots support for his work in the last few years. He is not alone, other reseachers have reached the same conclusion that he did, only to be ignored by the rest of the mainstream physics community. The amount of study, work, and support from the obserable facts have little or nothing to do with it, if it goes against the big bang model. The whole thing reminds me of when a flat earth was the mainstream belief, and those who went against by suggesting the earth was round, where put down by any means possible.

 

So in closing I would say that supporters of plasma theory and many other theories have a lot to complain about the lack of funding. If Noble Laureate's are the victim of censorship by peer review when their work goes against the mainstream, how much harder will it be for those without such credentals to get their work published and funded.

[cwes99_03]

cwes99_03

 

An interesting take on the subject, but for a few points. You are correct that "95% of the projects out there are designed to study something that may show an agreement to the Big Bang Theory" and with good reason, it needs all the support it can get. However that does not mean 95% of the funding should go there as well. More than 5% of the work is not in support of the big bang, but is ignored unless it has practical applications.

 

I will reread the rest here in a minute but would you plesae consider reviewing this first part.

 

I would also like to make a revising statement.

Funding should go to projects with merit. Merit is determined by boards and peers. This should be done without bias. Just like on this site, some threads are moved to strange claims, it is because they lack merit, and that is determined ultimately by mods and admins, but partly by the everyday user who reads it and determines that the foundation or otherwise is lacking.

 

After a consideration of merit is made then funds should be divied up based both upon merit as well as need and numbers. Thus if 95% of the projects are in support of the Big Bang and all projects have equal needs and merit, then 95% of the funds should go to those projects.

 

Not all projects have the same merit, nor do they all have the same financial needs. Additional thought may be given towards studies that have huge implications, particularly if they are of high merit.

 

I don't believe conspiracies without a great amount of proof, and I hear about conspiracies all the time. Largely conspiracies are the children of those who get left out and don't have all the information on why. I should know I am a middle child :cup: .

[Aireal]

cwes99_03

 

Let me make a revision also, as when I reread my post, it sounded a little harsh.

 

I do not believe that there are any conspiracies afoot to suppress anti big bang views. Rather I think it is a result of basic human nature which adversly affects the peer review process.

 

It would be hard for anyone who has spent their life trying to prove a theory, not to become attached to that theory. At times that attachment to a theory borders on religious devotion. A researcher I know devised a simple experiment to support W.S.M. theory. I mentioned it to some other scientists when a related topic came up. The responce was not what I expected. The calm and polite group of scientists transformed into a raving mob, with cries of Bull, Hogwash, Utter Nonsence, Impossible, ect. All objectivity went clean out the window. Although it was a simple experiment that any of them could easily reproduce, no one offered to check his findings, review the experiment, or even look at his paper. Now picture one of these men sitting on a review board and this researcher submitting his findings for publication. I would expect his chances are slim to none of getting published, much less recieving funding for advanced research.

 

In a perfect world, the peer review process would be based solely on the merits of the work. However scientists are human also, so personal views and feelings affect this process. As 95% of the mainstream scientists are supporters of the big bang theory, it makes it hard to get an objective review from this process when one's work shows fault with the big bang.

 

So we end up with cases like Dr. Milo Wolf who has been denied publication in mainstream journals for most of his life. Other scientists, unaware of his work, keep repeating it and reaching the same conclusions, only to be refused publication like he was. These scientists may find each other by chance, but that is about the only way they will become aware of each others work.

 

The result is that for almost 30 years, a number of scientists have been redoing the same basic research, unaware that such work has already been done. No advance work is done because no one knows of the basic work already done in that area. This does not help the advancement of science. At the least such work should be published in professional journals so a proper review of the work can be done, as long as the math is sound and proper scientific procedure has been followed, rather than letting such decisions rest in the hands of a few anonymous members sitting on review boards.

[cwes99_03]

Much better. I agree with what I read as I just skimmed your latest post.

 

Thus these people who cannot get published in mainstream journals, can publish themselves on the web, and particularly on sites such as Hypography. They have the ability to come and present their research, even as a full paper, and let their peers here review their work. If it survives such a process, perhaps influential members may be able to help in finding journals willing to review the work again, or benefactors who'd be willing to help fund further research.

 

Meantime, most old school researchers poured their whole life and personal funds into their research with little or no aid. While this made for slow growth, they still were able to find great success.

[Aireal]

cwes99_03

 

Forums like Hypography were not an option when Milo first developed his theory many years ago, however I have been using this method to try and attact some attention to his work. Given his advanced age, 88, and poor health, he is not very active anymore. A web based grass roots support started about 5 or 6 years ago to advance his work, they even have their own sites and forums. The only problem is that this grass roots movement does not have anyone with his knowledge of physics to support his theory on other forums for him. I do my best, but I am not up to the task. I have spent a number of sleepless nights trying to bring myself up to speed since I learned of his work. Alas it is not easy teaching oneself quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the math needed to do so.

 

I have made a poor attempt to create a basic model of the atom based on his work, and posted it as a paper on this site at http://hypography.com/forums/science-papers/8055-w-s-m-expanded.html

 

It has links to his paper and one of the W.S.M. web sites. I hope I did not make any grave errors in the process. I need to study quantum field theory some more to determine the accuracy of my model in detail. His paper is short, but requires an advanced knowledge of physics to understand it completly.

 

So you are correct. The internet is the only viable option for those who ideas are outside the mainstream. But the internet is still young, perhapes in the future there will be sites devoted to pure scientific research where open peer review will be the norm. Let us hope so, for I think it would best in the best interest of the advancement of science.

[cwes99_03]

If I may, and while it may have already been done, please fill my request.

 

I would like you to give me some key words to search the topic and its availability on the web. I have several friends at Harvard who are studying Astrophysics as well as friends in the community here in Central Illinois. I'll get some background on their thoughts and possibly look into the matter further in my limited spare time. I'm always happy to exercise my mind.

[erich]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/edsumm/e060831-08.html

 

As we get more observations of GRBs and X-ray flashes like these our understanding of Stellar and Black hole evolution should get nailed down.

As these results filter in it will be interesting to see how EU theory holds up.

 

Also hopefully the next generation of particle accelerators should bring even more grist for this Plasma based mill.

 

Erich J. Knight

[Jay-qu]

I am unsure as to why, but I have never heard of any of this plasma deal before.. I am unsure as to what you mean by saying rule all :embarass:

[erich]

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/default.htm

[Jay-qu]

I would rather more than just links in this thread - discussion is what a forum is all about. Also I know how to use google just fine if need be. (which I did :))

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

The Big Bang has been hit on the head by hundreds of cosmologists.

 

There are varies papers that will be printed soon. So we shall have to wait for these papers, to see what evidence they have to show us.

 

Every evidence that I have read supporting the Big Bang cannot be supported.

Yes! it is presented in such a way that it over comes you. But they use comments and make believe maths to make the model work.

 

 

So! the question is how on earth did it ever become our standard model throughout the world in schools and where ever.

 

Have we been taken for a ride?

Is this the crank theory of the 20th century.

[erich]

I have read that Black holes could be the most efficient generators in the universe , is that what this study is getting at?:

 

Here's the free paper:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131

 

Lots of interesting comments here:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/8/4/4887

 

 

Erich

[cwes99_03]

Hello All

 

The Big Bang has been hit on the head by hundreds of cosmologists.

 

There are varies papers that will be printed soon. So we shall have to wait for these papers, to see what evidence they have to show us.

 

Every evidence that I have read supporting the Big Bang cannot be supported.

Yes! it is presented in such a way that it over comes you. But they use comments and make believe maths to make the model work.

 

 

So! the question is how on earth did it ever become our standard model throughout the world in schools and where ever.

 

Have we been taken for a ride?

Is this the crank theory of the 20th century.

 

Sorry, Harry, I don't know your qualifications, but I really don't believe that hundreds of people (which I believe to be the extent of the number who probably truly understand the evidence that you speak of) could all be deluded into believing the math works when it truly can't. If it can't then I'm sure that mathematicians world wide would have already caught on to that. If you say they have but are being silenced then I return to the earlier comment that I don't believe too many conspiracy theories.

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

 

Although I do not support the big bang, I agree with cwes99_o3 in that there is no big bang conspiracy, and the math, though convuluted, is sound enough to lend support to the big bang.

 

If the universe is expanding, then some form of the big bang will remain as a viable theory. For me at least, herein lies the crux of the problem. Hubble discovered the red shift which lead to the belief in an expanding universe by relating the red shift to the doppler effect. Hubble did not completly agree with this view, and said that the observed velocities should be refered to as "apperant velocities" because other factors could contribute to the red shift. Observation has proved his caution, our sun and other large objects cause a slight red shift in the light that passes near them just to list one other cause.

 

I have never seen where this has been taken into account by big bang theoriests. Nor have I heard of research being done on the various factors that could affect the red shift. Such basic things must be answered before a accurate theory can emerge. If the big bang does take this into account, as some have suggested, I have never seen this in print, and will remain unconvinced untill then.

 

How the red shift is treated is one of the acid tests I use to judge any cosmology theory. I will support any theory as a viable theory if it addresses this issue at the start to determine rate of expansion, if any.

[cwes99_03]

I'm sure that others have discussed red shift and what not on this site, but may we again briefly.

 

1) Red shift is seen in a full spectrum view all around the earth. This was interpretted to mean that all things are moving away from earth with some velocity (and that velocity varies depending upon what object you are looking at).

2) I do not believe I have ever heard anyone say whether a thought experiment (or a long term study of the stars) has been accomplished to show whether, since the light from some of those redshifted objects is thousands of years old, the highest red-shift objects are actually accelerating in a direction away or towards the earth. If this were done then within about a year or so of studying the background I would imagine that based on current theory we could create a pretty accurate vector map (at least with regards to the radial component of motion) of the universe based upon current red-shift theory.

If this vector mapping were to show any kind of reliable pattern that pointed to a big bang, then that lends pretty heavy credence toward the two theories (Big Bang and red-shift/universe expansion).

[Aireal]

Some vector mapping has been done, which lead to a version of the big bang that expands and collaspes in phases, but never reaches singliarty. Their research showed that although the vectors tend to converge, they do not all converge to a single point. I do not know how extensive their mapping was, nor can I remember the exact name given to that version of the big bang.

 

I would like to know if the folks here on the plasma thread have any information that relates to the red shift. I thought it might be relevent as our sun red shifts light that passes by it. What is their explaination for this effect?

[cwes99_03]

I thought it might be relevent as our sun red shifts light that passes by it.

What? Care to explain that?