• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The upcoming technological singularity / 'Alternative' scientific theorization

The 'plasma cosmology' theories which claim that electromagnetism is important in the cosmological scale are thought to be crackpot theories by most physicists... I'd argue that because gravity is enough to explain the motions of celestial bodies satisfactorily, including electromagnetism in the picture is against the principle of Occam's razor...
 
^ exactly.

In reality, we need to consider all the.fundamental field forces to explain the world in a valid manner.

I used the same argument as you re:gravity explains celestial motion exceedingly well,and the only way to work electrodynamics into that is by.shoehorning it with very arbitrary constructs.

Similarly, gravity is the simplest and most consistent explanation for confinement necessary for stellar fusion.
 
^Do you have anything to add re. 'comets and their behavior?' I'm genuinely curious, since that stupid blog post is too silly for me to address directly, and, after all, physics is not my area of expertise.

Off the top of my head: Comet Holmes (2007?), for no apparent reason just decided to brighten by over a million fold and became visible to the naked eye, and a great coma of dust exploded from its core (supposedly).. whilst it was travelling away from the Sun. It's coma expanded to a diameter greater than that of the Sun. The actual diameter of the comet is just under 4km. Comets are supposedly icey-dust like balls of material that experience events when they come into the influence of the Sun, essentially. But this one was travelling well away from the Sun when this event happened for no apparent reason. It left the astronomy crowd shrugging its shoulders and it was passed off as a non-event, which is incredible really given what occured.

Comet Linear. Emitted X-Rays. A ball of ice-dust has no business emitting high energy x-rays in the standard gravity driven model.

NASA has one take on it:http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast23aug_1m/
Another: http://www.universetoday.com/21826/swift-detects-x-ray-emissions-from-comets/

Here's the opposing electrical idea: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040824comet-xrays.htm

==

Then there's also the probe that NASA crashed into a comet: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/details.php?id=5869#2

They did not predict such an energetic outburst, however the thunderbolts/electric universe team did. It takes a real stretch of the imagination to believe that flash is just ice and dust.. I mean come on, look at it! It's an immense electrical discharge, not an explosion of ice and dust.
 
The 'plasma cosmology' theories which claim that electromagnetism is important in the cosmological scale are thought to be crackpot theories by most physicists...

Mass agreement does not mean they're correct. When you look at what is presented by the standard model it's a fucking joke. All these hypothetical mathematical constructs like blackholes, dark matter, and other whimsical shite they've just pulled out of a hat to explain the HOLES in the overall theory. They need blackholes to explain the energetic events at the centres of galaxies, they need dark matter to explain the rotation of galaxies.. why?.. becaue gravity can NOT account for what is observed. So they just make fucking shit up to explain it, stuff that can never be proven. Black holes can not be created and tested, they can't even be observed.. no one will ever see one.. only the effects surrounding these hypothetical objects. Dark matter likewise will never be seen.. it falls outside the realm of testing.

THAT is the state of modern cosmology. It's a mathematicians fantasy land. It has no relation to reality. Just because they all agree they're correct does not mean they are. It's called dogma, belief, and INSTITUTIONAL BIAS. Money and influence also plays a massive role.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

rangrz said:
Similarly, gravity is the simplest and most consistent explanation for confinement necessary for stellar fusion.

Stellar fusion is a theory. It is the only mechanism capable of producing the observed results of the Suns output.. in a gravity driven model. At the time that was the only tool available, and it has persisted, but that does mean it is so. Again.. untested hypothesis.. no one can get to the centre of the Sun or actually observe (chief pillar of science) it occuring.. only the effects of it supposedly. Neutrino emission for example.

It's easy to believe the vast amount of hyperbole on solar theory, it all seems very fitting especially with no other real alternative. I understand why people do believe it (and the standard model). But there comes a point when observational evidence shows cracks in the current theory, when the current theory has to make shit up like dark matter etc to justify its position.. that is NOT what science is about. Science is about observation, not mathematics. Mathematics comes later, as a language to help explain.. it should never be used as the primary (see Tesla quote).

Electricity should be considered in space properly. It's influence is quite obvious when you set aside your gravity indoctrination. Unfortunately astronomers don't know jack shit about electricity. They never trained in electrical engineering or plasma physics.

Black holes and dark matter are the prime examples that show modern cosmology is failing. It is going to be revised/updated in the next 100 years.. I am willing to bet on that. As these old dinosaur white men in the business get shunted aside and a new generation takes over the role of electricity will be more thoroughly considered.

Also: Ball Lightning on earth. Standard physics has no business explaining long lasting balls of plasma on earth under normal conditions. It's a phenomina that deserves proper investigation but has been almost completely buried because they simply can not explain what is observed. It's clearly an electrical phenomia, obviously. I mean go to the Wiki page and just read the titles of the proposed explanations.. it's like a contents page from a bad science fiction magazine.. absolutely pathetic. Nearly all of them stem from the gravity driven cosmological belief.. none of them even entertain the idea that some other electrical interaction might be involved! Tesla could create them in his lab. Why no one pays attention to this, again, is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Fusion at the sun is tested. How? Nuclear weapons also use inertial confinement to fuse deuterium/tritium. Sure, they use the pressure of the fission explosion to initiate the.fusion, but that's irrelevant. Because the theorys of gravity we're testing here (general relativity) also say no frame of reference is privileged, and that acceleration from gravity is not distinguished from other accelerations. Ergo, that the acceleration from the fission bomb triggers fusion is a valid test of gravitational driven fusion in terms of the formalisms of general relativity. The theory PREDICTS that a priori, it's not.shoehorned in ad hoc.

Astrophysicists are highly trained in magnetohydrodynamics (plasma physics) because stellar phenomenon requires this, since they are huge balls of plasma and all. But huge things have huge masses and thus huge gravity, and that needs to considered too.

General relativity has been confirmed on every single test of it so far. Yes, it has some limiting issues on the Planck scale, but it's otherwise solid, all of the phenomenon attributed to gravity are implied by this well tested theory. None of them are implied by maxwells equations, anything else in classic electrodynamics or by QED. Speaking of which, QEDs predictions are exexperimentally tested to 7 places in a billion for accuracy, so it's a damn good theory of electromagnetic interaction.

Also you use the term "standard model" a lot and then say it's all hung up on gravity. The Standard Model ignores gravity all together and has nothing to with cosmology. It's a particle physics ( that is, it deals with vanishingly small distances/sizes over trillionenths of a second, not the entire universe over billions of years) model that is formulated in terms of operators on quantitized gauge fields in a infinite dimensional vector space. (That is, essentially algebraic) and deals 3/4 of the fundamental forces. Strong, Weak, and.electromagnetic. But not gravity! (frankly, gravity IS utterly irrelevant in particle physics and can be safely ignored)

Gravity is in G.R. a theory formed as a metric tensor value defining the curvature of a Riemann surface in a 4-manifold. (differential geometry/calculus)

The two are rather different and somewhat unrelated, so I'm not sure how you got the Standard Model as a theory of gravity or cosmology.
 
Last edited:
The fusion in a nuclear weapon lasts a fraction of a second, whereas the Sun is a sustained reaction. Like the Tokamak and its fusion, demonstrating it for a fraction of a second or so isn't really a valid comparison to what (supposedly) happens in the Suns interior that we can't observe directly. Again it's easy to see why it makes sense, but I take issue with the fact that it isn't directly observed but postulated first then "proven" using other means.

When I say standard model I should probably use a different term because of the particle physics thing, my bad.
 
It is a valid test tho. Fusion in a nuke would continue for as long as fuel was available (Sun has lots of H) and confinement was maintained (which where gravity comes in)

Now, since you're on about observing the core of the sun directly, how can you say it's.electromagnetic in nature without this observation?
 
General relativity has been confirmed on every single test of it so far. Yes, it has some limiting issues on the Planck scale, but it's otherwise solid, all of the phenomenon attributed to gravity are implied by this well tested theory.

Something interesting came to my mind about the Planck scale... Suppose there is some fundamental minimum unit of length. Then the Fourier modes of any field could not have an arbitrarily large frequency. This would result in a large but finite ground state energy for a quantized field, eliminating the 'zero point energy' problem in QFT...
 
Now, since you're on about observing the core of the sun directly, how can you say it's.electromagnetic in nature without this observation?

One of the greatest observational features of the Sun is its corona, which is easily explained in an EM model.. coronas are a common feature of electrical systems. It clearly points to an electrical system. When using a gravity based fusion solar theory they have been unable to explain sufficiently the mechanism behind the corona because the corona reaches millions of degrees whilst the Suns surface is mere thousands.. and if the Sun is hottest in its core then there's a major problem of explaining how that heat is transfered to the corona way above the Sun's surface. Once again they resort to science fiction like theories to explain it and invoke "magnetic reconnection" ideas without having the faintest idea of how plasma works and behaves.

"Many coronal heating theories have been proposed,[21] but two theories have remained as the most likely candidates, wave heating and magnetic reconnection (or nanoflares).[22] Through most of the past 50 years, neither theory has been able to account for the extreme coronal temperatures." - Wiki, on the Coronal heating problem
 
Something interesting came to my mind about the Planck scale... Suppose there is some fundamental minimum unit of length. Then the Fourier modes of any field could not have an arbitrarily large frequency. This would result in a large but finite ground state energy for a quantized field, eliminating the 'zero point energy' problem in QFT...

Good point! The various brane theories posit a minimum length on the order of a Planck length, in terms of the length of a string, which should solve that issue.

SS: As I said before, stellar models currently use all 4 forced. Gravity overcomes the.electrostatic Columb barrier between protons, which then bind together via the strong interaction, and some which undergoing flavor changing to neutrons via the weak force.

No one denies electromagnetic forces in stellar models. You seem to be denying gravity however.
 
Also without fusion in stars driven by gravity, how do you explain helium flash novas? How do you explain the heavy elements that comprise the very earth we live on?
How do you explain the spectral lines of short lived nuclides like technetium-99 in stars that are billions of years old, except by ongoing neutron capture, which implies fusion in the star.
 
how do you explain helium flash novas? How do you explain the heavy elements that comprise the very earth we live on?
How do you explain the spectral lines of short lived nuclides

oreillycantexplain1.jpg
 
No one denies electromagnetic forces in stellar models. You seem to be denying gravity however.

No, I don't believe I said gravity wasn't part of the picture. What I did insinuate was that the mathematical gravity based model of cosmology is majorly flawed, and that EM in space has not been given the proper consideration that it should have. Gravity is there.. but the reliance on it to explain every single fucking thing in the cosmos is just plain stupid. I mean blackholes and the big bang are just absolutely nonsense theories, yet they underpin the entire enterprise!
 
Also without fusion in stars driven by gravity, how do you explain helium flash novas? How do you explain the heavy elements that comprise the very earth we live on?
How do you explain the spectral lines of short lived nuclides like technetium-99 in stars that are billions of years old, except by ongoing neutron capture, which implies fusion in the star.

Well if you can't see beyond gravity as an answer to these problems then you're never going to encounter an alternative explanation. Just because it seems to fit right now for you doesn't mean that is how it is. I get that you love your technical scientific tidbits, that's great, but don't negate the possibility of another explanation.

You remind me of a close friend who's big on Biology/genetics.. refuses to even entertain other ideas besides mainstream Darwinism despite the fact that it is still only a theory and not the be all end all. You understand what I'm saying? :/
 
I'm studying biology and genetics too. I wouldn't entertain other theories than Darwinism because there is sooooooooo much evidence for it, both observational and experimental. If another theory came up that accounted for all that evidence I would adopt it of course, but it still wouldn't negate Darwin's theory, merely add on to it. That's sort of the point of science, to build on ideas that have already been presented that explain natural phenomena. The closest we can come to any sort of "truth" is through experiment and observation. As a scientist in training, I am skeptical of any ideas that lack proper evidence to back them up. Even if someone believes they have an insight into how something works, i'll dismiss it as a theory if it can't backed up by empirical evidence. As for physics, it's not my field but I know a few physicists and they can't even explain gravity in any sort of meaningful way. It's really still a mystery to modern science and why we don't have a unified field theory. General relativity and newtonian mechanics explain it pretty well and make fairly accurate predictions, and so does string/M theory, but the first two don't integrate well with quantum theory and as for string theory, even though it converges with quantum at lower energy levels, there is no apparent 'evidence' other than the absence of evidence against it as the higher energy levels are not practically testable. And if a hypothesis isn't testable it's not science. Unless you want to define science more instrumentally, in which case modern physics is by far the most precise and comprehensive. Electromagnetism alone as an explanation for fusion doesn't make sense in that case. For example, a proton has a positive charge, as does a nucleus. In terms of electromagnetism, they would repel each other and never fuse because of their Coulomb barrier. You have to take into account the weak and strong forces *as well* as gravity. Gravity provides the confinement for the particles to overcome the Coulomb barrier and come within the range of the strong force to bind the particles together. And yes these are "just theories" and not the be all and end all, that would be a unified field theory :)
 
tumblr_m9t31sX4ER1qgcra2o1_500.gif


You remind me of a close friend who's big on Biology/genetics.. refuses to even entertain other ideas besides mainstream Darwinism despite the fact that it is still only a theory and not the be all end all. You understand what I'm saying? :/

Scientific illiteracy alert!
 
Hmmm when it comes to evolution on the macro scale I don't buy the offered theory, but on the micro scale I do think it works. What is responsible for more long term evolution and emergence of physical forms, I don't know.. but random mutation and survival of the fittest just doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion. Nor does Darwinism tackle the problem of increasing complexity, the impulse behind organic life, or how it really started with any decent explanation. Taken to its extreme you get people like Richard Dawkins *ugh*

As for EM fusion, Z-Pinch? The electric sun model supposes that fusion is taking place on the surface of the Sun/in it's atmosphere and not in the core. This solves the problem of coronal heating that the gravity fusion model can not solve without resorting to nonsense science fiction ideas.
 
Scientific illiteracy alert!

Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory, not a be all end all fact. That is the first thing we were taught and made crystal clear when studying biology at University. He made valid observations and there is truth in the theory, but it is not complete. What's the rush to believe its got all the angles covered? This is the same mistake every religious theory made.

It can account for small micro changes but not macro scale changes, especially with regards to form and function. Then there's the problem of increasing complexity and the impulse in life itself.. you can not divorce that from matter unless you enjoy being an ignorant fucktard, which sadly seems to be the majority of science minded people. Shows you how effective education is at putting the blinders on people.
 
Your criticisms don't fall on "Darwinism" but on the "Modern Synthesis".
 
Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory, not a be all end all fact. That is the first thing we were taught and made crystal clear when studying biology at University.

Whatever commentary (illuminating or otherwise) you have to offer on the subject of the relative explanatory power of macroevolution by Darwinian selection is drenched in your unintentionally comical rhetoric and semantic equivocation, both of which send up billowing red flags to anyone with a scintilla of formal scientific training, like, for instance, an introductory course on 'biology at University.' According to this excellent article on the subject, a scientific theory can be defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Furthermore,
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

If your contention is that the scientific theories propounded in Darwin's 1859 masterpiece, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, do not satisfactorily address the lion's share of heretofore unsolved mysteries in the sprawling scientific enterprise known as biology, then, well, I suppose I'll have to agree - but such an argument is about as tautological as you can get. Neo-Darwinism represents a single body of well-tested theories, not the biological equivalent of a unified field theory, and, to my knowledge, no mainstream scientist could claim otherwise in good faith. At any rate, abiogenesis is basically a separate topic that requires extensive collaboration with other scientific disciplines, viz. chemistry, physics, etc. (if that's what you were trying to drum up).

Then there's the problem of increasing complexity and the impulse in life itself.. you can not divorce that from matter unless you enjoy being an ignorant fucktard, which sadly seems to be the majority of science minded people.

What does this even mean?
 
Top