Quantized redshift anomaly

Seems that Eric Lerner is a plasma astrophysicist. So you don't have to worry about ignoring plasma North. I have found that it is always best if the original sources are found. The ranting of Thomas Bearden about the missing Maxwell's equations, led him to many other , well, extraordinary claims. Most of science regard him as a crank. Here, in this country founded on free speech...I sure hope that he is wrong about the Russinas having EM military capability...I found the source of his claims in Thomas Kuhn's The <i>Structure of Scientific Revolutions.</i> Kuhn uses Maxwell's equations as an example in his book. Sems that Maxwell, as did everyone at that time, believed in a material Ether which supported the travel of electro-magnetic waves. So Maxwell included this term in his equations. However, the term made the equation very difficult to work with, it was composed of 20 quaternions. and the displacement currents were very tiny. Besides it could be said that magnetic wave gives rise to electro wave gives rise to magnetic wave and since the equations were derived from experimient, we could ignore the displacement currents and no one will be the wiser...And when Michelson and Morley showed that the Ether had no effect on light, and when Einstein didn't need Ether in his equations, the idea of Ether as something real died. Only to be replaced by a phethrica I don't know how to spell it North, a whole lot of Ether-substitutes which can be found all over the place. And because it is unlimited, there are unlimites ways it can be expressed. Plasma is just one of them.

Kuhn said that perhaps some day we will know what displacement currents are. Displacement curtrents are the currents occuring at the interface of all physical energy forms with the INSIDE.

Unfortunately science is not as simple as it is made out to be. Read this quote I found in the book --

The average scientist, not only te cosmologist, reads certain journals, attends certain conferences, meets with basicaly the same group of specialists year in and year out. Plams cosmology was developed not by astronomers or theretical cosmologists, but by plasma physicists, who publish in electrical engineering and related hournals, not in the magazines that most astronomers read.

To be sure, this is not entirely by choice. Alfven, as well as far lessor known plasma physicists, have repeatedly had their papers rejected by the astrophysicist journals because they contradict conventional wisdom. Again this is not a problem unique to cosmology. "When scientists are specialized," Alfven comments, "it's easy for orthodoxy to develop. THe same individuals who formulate orthodox theory enforce it by reviewing papers submitted to journals, and grant proposals as well. From this standpoint, I think the Catholic Chruch was too much blamed in the case of Galileo -- he was just a victim of peer review."

Well, peer review is not very scientific sounding to me. And instead of cultivating an atsmosphere of cooperation and collaboration, we have a virtual war going on in cosmology. But not only between science and religion, but between the scientists theemselves. And from I can see so far, our science is not a science of reason anymore, it is a science of strength. That is scary.

What about a journal of rejected articles? What if each journal had to publish the rejected papers with reasons? Well, why not?

Tommy

i was hopping for more depth of Cosmic Plasmas, not their history of acceptance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tommy

i was hoping for more depth of Cosmic Plasmas, not their history of acceptance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
North, I love history because it shows us how science really works. Someday what is going on in cosmology today will be in the history books too. Lerner hasn't got very far into plasma theory, right now we are with the Greeks and their water and Genesis with a face of the water and then there was light. And light made the day.

If you want to get deep into plasma, why not go deep into anything? It all works the same way. And there was light, and night and that made a day. The Chinese knew about this thousands of years ago...

There is something I call "Misplaced generality: especialy with system principles. Far too often a principle is found in some particular domain of science, say feedback, whereupon it's proponents generalize the principle such that everything is "feedback." It has to do with the philosophy part of it, only the philosophy part can be general, and philosophy as I define it is not about any particular. But, nevertheless, scientists tend to generalize their particulars.

So to name what we find inside space, would limit it to that name. It would not be correct to assume that the Inside is <u>only</u> that name we give it. Or that everything the inside is inside of, is that name we give it on the outside. Uhhh, Try naming energy and saying it is everything.

I like the plasma thing. And I am eager to learn more of it. But right now I can say that plasma is not everything. Even though everything is a form of plasma, plasma is not everything. And the same goes for the ZPE, ZPE, Fourth dimension, hyperspace, wuantum foam, quantum ground, quantum vacuum, Fifth dimension, Aether, Ether,
and the other myriad of names people have tacked on this not meant to be labeled canvasse beneath the painting of the cosmos.

This is what I meant by the word problem. By the use of our words we paint a picture out of those words, and the picture says what the words say, not what we are trying to put into words.

Want to go deeper into Plasma? Lerner doesn't get into it in technical sense yet. But didn't you catch my explanation? You should have. Recall that we can look at the interface between the outside and the inside. After all that is where atoms are existing. Recall the four equations of Maxwell. Keep in mind that Maxwell has described elecromagnetic forces with these equations. We know that they work. But Maxwell also formulated what he called the dispacement currents, in order to make his equations consistent. Remember that at that time the Ether was the favorite explanation of light travel. But, the history tells us, the Ether was rejected and so too was his displacement currents. They were simply ignored by the reviewers.. Where did I hear that before....

So maybe cosmic plasma is cosmic displacement currents?

That just popped out of my head, never thought of that before. Been wondering exactly what plasma is, parts of the atom, still physical. Parts of the atom are connected to the inside, so we would have to invent a plasma if we didn't have one.

Plasma has two complimentary states. One state is that state which we experience by it's effects on ordinary matter. The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.

So when we talk about plasma, are you talking about the electron? Or are you talking about something else, something that the electron derives its energy from? My thinking has it that plasma is a flow of ions, having to do with atomic processes. Some say that anomalous heat can be detected around Plasmas. It is this anomalous heat that is extra energy, sometimes called free energy.

Which is interesting because what if this anomalous heat is also produced in cosminc palsma? What if the center of a galaziy is producing this anomalous heat right now. Extra heat. Free heat.

This would mean the galaxies are expanding out, not in. The center is a White hole, not a black hole. Just what it looks like.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tommy

i was hoping for more depth of Cosmic Plasmas, not their history of acceptance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I didn't know they were accepted. [:0] I didn't know they even existed. So that there ae these accepted observations is new to me. []

What do I mean by traditional and cosmic? I used to be able to look up into the dark night sky and see the Milky way. It looks like a cloud getting in the way. That is cosmic. Technically, traditional means classical and that in turn means mechanical. The Big Bang is a mechanical explanation, how it would have to happen if it were mechanical. Traditional is what we tech our children.

I looked at all the pictures, even changed my screen size so I could see them in 3D. They don't look like they are being sucked in to me. I ran across The Electric Universe. The sun is a chathode...but would it be so constant? So back to "The Big Bang Never Happened" and guess what? Nicholus of Cusa, first to come up with an infinite Universe, just like it is. Nicholus is also spoken of by Bertalanffy especially Nicholus of Cusa's Coincidentia Oppositorum. Turns out that Leonardo de Vinci bought into Nicholus of Cusa's philosophy, and in turn Copernicus came up with his ideas after learning of the infinite and how it would work out from Nick.
Cool. See that is how real science works.

What do you know about displacement currents?

THE HISTORY is getting interesting. Seems that Da vinci observationalism got Copernicus going, and they along with Nichlus of Cusa infinity threaded its way through Bruno and the infinite, and got burned at the stake for his ideas that contradicted the teahings of the Chruch. So much for peer review...

Looks like there was a very intimate relationship between the Chruch and cosmology at the social level during that time.It was the cosmology that the chruch used to have its way.This remnds me so much of today, so much is riding on the Big Bang, that if it were declared falsified, thousands would be looking for new jobs

But anyway, then the telescope was invented and anyone could see the solar system. And that is how it all started.

How did the Big Bang start? I wonder...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tommy

i was hoping for more depth of Cosmic Plasmas, not their history of acceptance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">North, I love history because it shows us how science really works. Someday what is going on in cosmology today will be in the history books too. Lerner hasn't got very far into plasma theory, right now we are with the Greeks and their water and Genesis with a face of the water and then there was light. And light made the day.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

i'm not interested in the history of science right now. if history of science interests you, you are on the wrong site.

Lerner, i don't honestly care about Lerner or what he knows and doesn't know.

NO, we are not with the Greeks, we two thousand years after them!!

Genesis? so thats where your at. now i understand better.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you want to get deep into plasma, why not go deep into anything? It all works the same way. And there was light, and night and that made a day. The Chinese knew about this thousands of years ago...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

and if the tree is diseased, who and what will save the tree if the preservation of life is your goal, rather than just being an observer. depth and knowledge saves the tree from dying, not pasive(pure thought)observation. depth of understanding helps us to connect with Nature not disconnect. even if it may seem so.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is something I call "Misplaced generality: especialy with system principles. Far too often a principle is found in some particular domain of science, say feedback, whereupon it's proponents generalize the principle such that everything is "feedback." It has to do with the philosophy part of it, only the philosophy part can be general, and philosophy as I define it is not about any particular. But, nevertheless, scientists tend to generalize their particulars<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.

Philosophy is not about just one aspect or another, it is about flexibility of mind,the want to know,understanding limits, for the self as well as the universe, and discovery.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So to name what we find inside space, would limit it to that name. It would not be correct to assume that the Inside is <u>only</u> that name we give it. Or that everything the inside is inside of, is that name we give it on the outside. Uhhh, Try naming energy and saying it is everything<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.

names are important. for instance i want you to invent and build a simple bike, pedal or engine equipped. no form of communication is allowed and that includes body signals.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I like the plasma thing. And I am eager to learn more of it. But right now I can say that plasma is not everything. Even though everything is a form of plasma, plasma is not everything. And the same goes for the ZPE, ZPE, Fourth dimension, hyperspace, wuantum foam, quantum ground, quantum vacuum, Fifth dimension, Aether, Ether,
and the other myriad of names people have tacked on this not meant to be labeled canvasse beneath the painting of the cosmos.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

you take names far to seriously, language is communication so that people can understand each other. it is a form of order, from what would otherwise be disorder.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is what I meant by the word problem. By the use of our words we paint a picture out of those words, and the picture says what the words say, not what we are trying to put into words.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

and have we not questioned that picture? what ever it may be!! of course we have, all through history we have done so. especially in science.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Want to go deeper into Plasma? Lerner doesn't get into it in technical sense yet. But didn't you catch my explanation? You should have. Recall that we can look at the interface between the outside and the inside. After all that is where atoms are existing. Recall the four equations of Maxwell. Keep in mind that Maxwell has described elecromagnetic forces with these equations. We know that they work. But Maxwell also formulated what he called the dispacement currents, in order to make his equations consistent. Remember that at that time the Ether was the favorite explanation of light travel. But, the history tells us, the Ether was rejected and so too was his displacement currents. They were simply ignored by the reviewers.. Where did I hear that before....

So maybe cosmic plasma is cosmic displacement currents? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

new knowledge changes ideas, concepts. does'nt bother me i just enjoy the journey[].

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That just popped out of my head, never thought of that before. Been wondering exactly what plasma is, parts of the atom, still physical. Parts of the atom are connected to the inside, so we would have to invent a plasma if we didn't have one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

plasmas are a reality. we use deductive as well as inductive reasoning. plasma is but a name but it does not take away from the reality of the phenomenon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Plasma has two complimentary states. One state is that state which we experience by it's effects on ordinary matter. The other state is at the interface of outside/INSIDE. We know that energy moves across this interface, we don't know what it is on the other side. We know it as the electron on this side.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

way to simplistic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So when we talk about plasma, are you talking about the electron? Or are you talking about something else, something that the electron derives its energy from? My thinking has it that plasma is a flow of ions, having to do with atomic processes. Some say that anomalous heat can be detected around Plasmas. It is this anomalous heat that is extra energy, sometimes called free energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

investigate[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Which is interesting because what if this anomalous heat is also produced in cosminc palsma? What if the center of a galaziy is producing this anomalous heat right now. Extra heat. Free heat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

not surprised

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This would mean the galaxies are expanding out, not in. The center is a White hole, not a black hole. Just what it looks like.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

investigate[]


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">