Let's take a detailed look at kovil's lengthy post.
kovil wrote:In the beginning, Astrophysicists and Cosmologists did not study electrical engineering, so electrical ideas did not cross their minds when pondering what is going on in our galaxy and between galaxies.
I think there is a name for this elementary logical flaw; whatever its name, can't you see how the second proposition does not follow from the first?
Plasma was not well understood by the cosmological community at that time either. Subsequent to the first half of the 20th century new instruments and new investigations have brought plasma and electrical effects into the scope of interstellar investigations and astrophysics.
Now we are involved in multi-discipline wide investigations to understand why and what and how the universe really works and behaves.
Indeed.
There are
nearly 3,000 papers in the ADS database with the term "MHD"* in the title; and over 10,000 with it as a keyword.
It certainly seems that the astrophysics community has been quite vigorous in its application of Alfvén's work!
The Truth will not be discovered by ignoring scientific input from the other sciences. If Neried, Cosmo and Astro wish to ignore electrical engineering's input, they do so at their own risk and it matters not to me if they go down with the 'ship of established state and church' on the subject of defending the BBT against all odds. It will be to their own demise and ignorance.
Why should it be "electrical engineering's input"?
What is in "electrical engineering" that isn't already in Maxwell's equations?
Isn't Alfvén's work a far more consistent, reliable, fundamental base to work from?
I do hope you will answer these questions kovil.
Space exploration is a subject that will be best served by results, and the knowledge of the truth will yield the superior results. So unless the Church and Establishment are trying to control public knowledge to keep the People from being a competitive force in business or trade, the truth will be known soon. If there is some conspiracy to keep the truth from being known about the galaxy and outer space, then we are entering into a 'dark ages' of a sort. Ultimately the truth will be known, and my money is on the fact that electrical forces play an equal if not dominant role in interstellar activities.
How, other than by applying the scientific method appropriate to astronomy, do you suggest that the role of "electrical forces" in "interstellar activities" be investigated?
Not every mysterious crater on Earth is made by 'electrical machining', and this tout by some of the electrical websites throws a poor light on the good ideas they do have. Overall they are on the right track tho, and it would be good to look for evidence. What would thunderbolt scarring look like and what evidence would remain? How much current could be absorbed or held in capacitance by a planet and how far would a potential differential be able to transit to achieve equilibrium? I have some questions about this aspect. Comets do likely have both electrical and solar heating/boiling going on simultaneously, and this confuses the issue of what is happening, it is not entirely one or the other.
Arp's DVD about Redshift from the Thunderbolts.com website has a very interesting idea at the end. Halton Arp and Janet Narlikar have an idea that the ejection material from active galactic nuclei (AGN) which create the quasi-stellar radio sources (QSR) straddling the AGN; the material stream coming from the AGN is 'new matter'.
It is, indeed, an interesting idea.
However, it is also one that is quite inconsistent with the huge amount of high quality astronomical observations that are available to you, kovil, for free.
Take lensed quasars, as just one example: can you account for them, using the Arp-Narlikar variable mass hypothesis (VMH)?
or even Arp's empirical relationship, as presented in "NGC 520 chain of quasars" (Arp, H. 1974 A.J. 79, 923)?
I'm serious kovil; if you think you can defend these ideas, please do so.
Oh, and if you can't, would you be kind enough to say so?
It is pure wavefunctions that as they 'age' become in communication with the universe as they emit photons from interaction with any interstellar medium (ISM) that they encounter subsequent to ejection from the AGN, as the pure wavefunctions become matter, protons and electrons. As John Dobson describes, Time comes into this universe through the Inertia/Momentum component of matter. As the material wavefunction ejecta from the AGN ages it gains momentum/inertia by communicating via the photons it emits, and it learns of the rest of the matter in the universe and in so doing becomes subject to a changing 'rest mass' by its learning from communication via photons. As the 'new matter' ages, its rest mass increases, until it comes into ballance with the agreed upon rest mass that is universal. However 'rest mass' is a highly locally dependent number, and it is not the same in all locations. In the center of the AGN it is a different number than it is in lower density environments. This is why the redshift numbers differ for the structures near an AGN, and why the redshift numbers fall off as the spun off structures from the AGN move further away and age longer and communicate longer with their surroundings.
Has this idea of John Dobson been published, in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal? If so, please provide a reference.
This idea flies in the face of BBT and like minded theories. I'm not certain if to call BBT et al, 'creationist' or 'evolutionary'. But they are definitely not 'steady state' which is what this idea of Arp's is suggesting; that the universe does not have a beginning nor an end, and it is creating new matter from AGN ejecta, and this can create new galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
I'm not completely sold on Arp's ideas, but I am completely sold on investigating more into his ideas and think the established astronomical community that is denying him funding and observatory time is doing so at its own peril of ignoring the truth and of being in denial and sticking to their historical position of theory out of fear or wanting some kind of control over the sciences for some reason to which I am not yet privy.
I don't know about 'denying', but if the quality of the papers he would produce from observations he would make by being given time on the VLT (say) is no better than his recent papers, then I'd say the TACs (telescope allocation committees) made the right decisions.
Of course, if you'd like to present a case that his recent papers are,
pace Nereid, of high quality ...
Or maybe your intention is even more radical ... we give equal time to all ideas, no matter how silly, nor how thoroughly they have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of good experiments and observations?
- - - -
To go a few steps further: The ejected material, pure wave-function essences from the AGN, (the ejecta is so energetic it is too ‘active’ to be matter yet, it is beyond being confined into electrons and protons), this will become protons and electrons; and then by emitting photons from interactions with each other and/or the ISM, the emitted photons bring awareness of the rest of the universe to this ‘new matter’. As it cools more, it can become ionized atoms (ions have one or more electrons missing) and then atoms with no electrons missing; tho at this stage only hydrogen would be forming most likely, as heavier atoms need stars in which to form (or so we presently think).
As John Dobson claims, “There are no photons ! There isn’t anything be-bopping all over the place from
every-possible-here to every-possible-there. If there was, space-time would be so full of ‘photons’ you couldn’t make your way across the room. Let alone see stars light years away.”
So if there are no photons, what is truly happening? What is truly happening is, light is awareness. Light is how awareness is communicated within space-time. ‘Photons’ are simply a metaphor for us to talk about a very difficult concept, and giving that concept a name and ‘particle’, it helps most of us to gain some kind of conception. Like electrons and protons are a concept. They are really only a pure wave-function, but it helps to conceptualize something solid. It helps to feel we have something solid underfoot to stand upon. We are all actually just an awareness inside of our own head, and our sensory input that is transmitted in electrical impulses through the nerves creates all we hear, see, touch, smell and taste; and That we call our experience of the outside world, but after a while we take it for granted and start to believe that it is ‘real’ !
Light transmits awareness at the ‘ratio of space to time’, and that ratio is the ‘speed of light’. It is a ratio of ‘distance to time passed’, (at the speed of light that is). Thusly one ‘light year’ is the distance light travels in one year, and that is the ‘ratio that space has to time’ in the arena of awareness transmitted by light.
As Dobson says, “Between the emission event (a photon being emitted for whatever reason) , and the absorption event (when the photon is absorbed by whatever, like your eye when you see something) there is no ‘thing’ that traverses the distance. It is an awareness that is transmitted, and that awareness transmits at the ‘ratio of space to time’ or the ‘speed of light’, which ever way you prefer to speak of it or think of it.”
In this way the universe is aware of itself, in this way we are a part of the universe and we have our awareness of the universe.
Has Dobson shown that this idea is consistent with the relevant good experimental and observational results?
If so, please give us a reference, or references, so we may check for ourselves.
Arp’s idea is very new, and almost ‘religious’ in a way, and threatens to overthrow established religion and state, and these are likely the reasons it is being so irrationally opposed by the established science power structure establishment. Anyone that power structure can cajole, threaten, arm-twist, reward with funding or observatory time or position of prestige, to defend its position of ideology and squash any and all opposing theories, it is doing so daily.
Actually, as I said above, the reason why his ideas don't get much airtime is that they are inconsistent (no conspiracy involved).
But, perhaps you can do a better job than Arp and his supporters of presenting a consistent case ...
I look forward to such a presentation, from you, with considerable interest.
*
MHD stands for magneto-hydrodynamics, one aspect of plasma physics, for which Alfvén got his Nobel.
