The below is designed to enrich the 10 part series
Opening metaphor in Episode 1
In an account of a vivid waking dream by heretical scientific maverick Immanuel Velikovsky, he was brought a manuscript.
It was a self written manuscript on celestial mechanics by an unknown stranger. Upon reviewing the work Velikovsky almost immediately and distinctly got the impression he was dealing with a unique mathematical genius with an unparalleled grasp of the physics of motion.
Despite being so awestruck, he asked the stranger why he had not alluded in any way to the work of James Clerk Maxwell?
"Who is Maxwell?" Replied the stranger.
Surprised, Velikovsky answered "He formalised the work done by Faraday in his ground-breaking investigations in Electromagnetism"
The stranger looked no less confused and asked "And what is Electromagnetism?"
This startled Velikovsky who immediately had to ask "May I ask your name, sir?"
"The name is Newton" he answered.
"Sir Isaac Newton".
°•°
That is where the account ends, but the point made is striking in its revelation. In the 1660's there was almost no popular understanding of the force which powers every device, computer, motor, all technology and nearly every domestic, commercial or industrial piece of equipment that our advanced modern world can credit it's success to.
We formulated our entire understanding of celestial mechanics while transitioning from Newtons equations of motion and using Newtons telescopes and prisms to Einstein's field equations arising from his work in General Relativity. This was done with no appropriate period of (prudent) testing of the widely held thinking during the late 19th Century that the Electric Force may play an unheralded starring role in the fledgling discipline of Cosmology.
We leapfrogged EM Cosmological enquiries directly to nuclear assumptions, helped in no small way by Sir Arthur Eddington.
Without Eddington, the Manhattan Project research team lead by Oppenheimer would not even have noticed but Einstein's signature work would have surely withered on the vine before harvest. It has not been put to any real use since then in any engineering or navigation in space. It's main purpose appears to be the weekly baseless claims made by an establishment whose survival depends on it. It's not even used the GPS system, that, you will horrified to discover, is a widespread myth that even many university professors are not aware of.
The electric and magnetic cosmic phenomena are now being discovered everywhere our latest technology dares to look, which is further than ever before and in vivid new detail.
Velikovsky was ahead of his time in such thinking and dismissed as a pusher of pseudoscience. He has since been validated in dozens of claims but remains completely unacknowledged because many dozens more are in the process of being validated as the true role of electrodynamics in the morphology and macro scale functioning of the universe as charged particles and magnetic fields are revealed to be everywhere we look in the night sky. I still rate an early publication of Velikovsky's as the best broadstrokes assessment of general science I have ever come accross even though Velikovsky changed his own view on many points of contest later on. This is the proper way to do it but it turns out that he was one of the few to actually follow the evidence.
His work was so brilliant because of his intuitive grasp on where to question. His work still has a vast body of partially or completely unexplored thinking that is yet to be realised and history will be forced to reckon with his legacy once the current failed model of cosmology is finally put out to pasture.
By contrast I have chronicled every failure of the gravity-only big bang Lambda CDM Concordance Model. This patched up, inflation adjusted, Cosmological Crises causing, dark, disconnected, missing in matter, invisible and borderline supernatural playground for theoretical science fiction and mathemagicians is an endless series of assumptions, adjustments and dead ends. One of the most magical experiences any science fan can have is applying the Plasma and Electric Universe principles to that sorcery and then stand back and revel in the joy of those dead ends becoming new horizons.
Below I have arranged them all in context of the broader view of science in a way that Thomas Kuhn would surely better approve, according to the scientific method rather than consensus science decree, and always being mindful of the great guiding principle of true science, Occams Razor.
•••☆¤◇○●○◇¤☆•••
The list:
HERE are the background basics for introducing a new force in addition to gravity that in combination resolves most of the intractable logical conflicts faced in the current crises in cosmology.
URL's below each item in case of dead links.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/06/charge-flow-as-electric-current-basics.html?m=1
1) HERE is why there is no dark matter and why their was never any need for it.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/04/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html?m=1
2) As you can see HERE we have zero evidence for which part of the sun facilitates fusion, the nature of the fusion reactions and the stellar dynamics that set up such conditions. Our hundred year old model simply reverse engineers the outcome, and after a century no observations made of our sun support the model. Not a single one.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/01/assumptions-in-science-2-thermonuclear.html?m=1
3A) Did you know we already falsified the notion that cosmological redshift is commensurate with recessional velocity at 1:1 ratio? Yup, and you can find the evidence posted online at Caltech for 30 years and in thousands of published papers. Yet Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Laurence Krause, Brian Greene and every Caltech professor still teach the 13.8 Billion year old universe big bang.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/09/assumptions-in-science-3-redshift.html?m=1
3B) The other body of evidence for the inflationary expansion of the universe uses anisotropy map profiles to model microwave backgrounds, peers through galactic centers using utterly ridiculous and impossible signal to noise ratio filters and completely misrepresents data from the PLANCK, WMAP, COBE and other satellites showing that the 2.7 Kelvin microwave background simply and principally comes from water in atmosphere (water absorbes and emits microwaves excellently ). It also ignores the signals which according to the experimentally well established laws of plasma physics must be produced by EM dynamics present in local ionized plasma of the interstellar medium. This includes stars, plasma magnetic entities (plasmoids) of all varieties, the double layers of cosmic filaments and the IGW and Cosmic Webb and even to some extent the vanishingly sparse intergalactic medium to some extent. Almost unbelievably, the telescope used by Penzias and Wilson was nearby a vast body of water. We call it "The Ocean". They discovered nothing of any use whatsoever. One has to laugh when recalling the first thought about the background signal they detected. They figured maybe it was caused by BIRD DROPPINGS on the dish! Put your hand in a microwave oven to test how good a receiver of microwaves water is. We know all good receivers are emitters, and that the signal was tiny, how can it be that this is never mentioned in any documentary you have ever watched?
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-cosmic-microwave-background.html?m=1
4) This is one people struggle with. But only for a while because of the adjustment shock. The most widespread myth in science could possibly be that we have evidence for black holes that stands up to scrutiny. Some still think the mathematical theory that is the only evidence still standing that can be cited is valid and we now know it is junk. Many believe we actually have a picture of a black hole. Well, turns out that was all bullshit and CGI and there is a much better fit for the composite of 63000 synthetic images paraded as a pic of a black hole! What is the real EVIDENCE? We have bright X Ray sources we interpret as black holes. X Ray sources of plasma magnetic entities which explain galactic rotation, cosmic jets, solve the rotation curve problem, solve the "Dark Matter" mystery and much more.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/10/assumptions-in-science-4-black-holes-do.html?m=1
6) The big joke of all time involving unimaginable hubris. When we decided gravity alone drive's galactic rotation of complex spiral armed systems. These are systems with no common mechanics or structure similarity to orbital stellar systems. As it turned out, when we measured the movement of the stars themselves we discovered we were completely out. We contrasted those movements against archived data and still we were out. Way out I must add.
Oops.
So what, we were not correct you may be thinking? We just need to come up with another mechanism that drives galactic rotation. Nope. Not cosmologists, they thought something more along the lines of: "We can't be wrong, it must be gravity, the matter from which the gravity is emanating must surely be there but just invisible. It must be there invisibly and in addition somehow not interacting with visable matter (OR ITSELF) in any way other than gravitationally."
Well, guess what? We now can easily predict the relative velocity of any star and rotation curve of any galaxy when the magnetic fields we measure tracking the spiral ionized plasma arms are factored in, and it's spot on. So actually there is no mystery. Nothing is unexplained. Nothing ever needed to be dark or invisable or forcing conclusions that we have lost 96% of the universe. Then why the hell have 99% of people not heard this?
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/12/assumptions-in-science-6-gravity-drives.html?m=1
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-solar-wind-is-not-wind-its-electric.html
7) The insane myth of the charge neutral universe. We cannot know if the universe has an overall charge or if that question even makes sense or has relevance. All we know is what is obvious. Charge neutrality is not a natural state the universe is heading for, it is the direction sought by any charge imbalance waiting to be neutralized. But it does not remain that way. These eternally moving little pockets of potential create the whole universe, they are the opportunity life exploits to exist in the first place, and guess What? So does the universe.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/02/assumptions-in-science-7-charge-neutral.html?m=1
8A) We have the entire "dirty snowball" model of comets, their assumed impacts as well as those of asteroids and meteors totally wrong
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2020/03/assumptions-in-science-8-we-face-real.html?m=1
8B) It cannot be stressed enough that a crater is NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT. observing an actual impact is. The striking reality is that not one single witness has ever before observed a crater caused by impact. Many thousands have witnessed outbursts with the exploded material falling to earth at freefall velocity. Could it be that s reason exists for this being the standard process and not just wildly unlikely probability due to chance? Craters are caused by dozens of possible things. How many are impact Craters? According to the evidence, a surprisingly small percentage, if any at all.
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2022/11/assumptions-in-science-8b-we-face.html?m=1
9) Its not a matter of debate, the largest terrasaurs could not have flown with today's gravity, they could never have flown if they were half the size, not even close. The largest saurropods could never have walked, in fact they could never even have survived a day if suspended weightless in amniotic fluid every other hour. Their size is such a problem that there is no concievable means blood could be pumped to the head because biological material cannot withstand that required pressure, and neither could a GAZPROM pipeline. The notion that the cardiac output required by the largest ever discovered dinosaurs, inceasing exponentially by the square cube law, ie several thousand percent greater than today's warm blooded mammals, or greater even than a small battleship diesel engine, is ludicrous. Systolic pressure in arteries and veins, peristaltic digestion of cycles like carboniferous era huge fibrous plants in intestines kilometers long, the mechanics of daily locomotion on cartilage are all impossible for an animal 15 times the size of a bull African Elephant. A giraffe is close to the absolute biological limit for pumping blood uphill, you cannot extend that neck 25%, so how can you make it six times longer? Any scientist who has looked into it knows this, so why dont we hear about it?
And importantly, did you ever wonder why are there bigger sea creatures today than there were 200 million years ago, but we are so much smaller with our terrestrial animals?
...and
General Problems with the peer review process and scientific publishing journals. Sourced from open source journalists at The Corbett Report and New World Next Week:
The Center for Open Science led a team of 240 volunteer researchers in a quest to reproduce the results of 100 psychological experiments. These experiments had all been published in three of the most prestigious psychology journals. The results of this attempt to replicate these experiments, published in 2015 in a paper on “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” were abysmal. Only 39 of the experimental results could be reproduced.
Worse yet for those who would defend institutional science from its critics, these results are not confined to the realm of psychology. In 2011, Nature published a paper showing that researchers were only able to reproduce between 20 and 25 per cent of 67 published preclinical drug studies. They published another paper the next year with an even worse result: researchers could only reproduce six of a total of 53 “landmark” cancer studies. That’s a reproducibility rate of 11%.
These studies alone are persuasive, but the cherry on top came in May 2016 when Nature published the results of a survey of over 1,500 scientists finding fully 70% of them had tried and failed to reproduce published experimental results at some point. The poll covered researchers from a range of disciplines, from physicists and chemists to earth and environmental scientists to medical researchers and assorted others.
Others publish in pay-to-play journals that will publish anything for a small fee. And others simply fudge their data until they get a result that will grab headlines and earn a spot in a high-profile journal.
.jpg)
Click HERE for the homepage of Do We Already Have The Solutions?
¤▪•○●□■□○•▪¤
