A declaration on "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors". File No. S7-10-22, 87 Fed. Reg. 21334 (April 11,2022)

 

Securities & Exchange Commission 

(Formalising the problem of bad science into the economic sector.)

https://www.sec.gov

In the link below you will find e very good and detailed comment and declaration on the following SEC Proposed Rule:

“The Enhancement and Standardization of
Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,”
File No. S7-10-22, 87 Fed. Reg. 21334 (April 11,2022)

"What about the thousands of pages in the IPCC reports? A second IPCC rule requires that everything in an IPCC published report must be consistent with what the governments agree to in the SPMs about CO2 and fossil fuels. Any drafts the independent scientists write are
rewritten as necessary to be consistent with the SPM. "

Here is the declaration:

https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf

It is a much needed overview from authors of pedigree exposing how fundamentally baseless the climate change movement (spawned from a re-branding of the global warming movement) actually is.

Authored By:

William Happer Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University

&

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus,Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Homepage

THE "SOLAR WIND" IS NOT A "WIND" ITS ELECTRIC CURRENT.

The quickest way to dispel the myth that there is no electrical current flowing in space is to point out that there are charged particles streaming into and out of the  sun. This discovery meant that moving charge (aka current) was indeed flowing in space starting right with our own star. That leads to other Birkeland currents in our ionosphere known as Aurora. This inconvenient fact was gotten around surprisingly easily.  The charge flows were given the collective term "Solar Wind" despite there being no wind in space and there already being a term existing for correct use of moving charged particles: Electric Current.

DONALD E. SCOTT: QUINTESSENCE OF SOLAR WINDS 

In 1962, the Mariner II space probe travelling toward Venus detected electrically charged particles moving through interplanetary space. Then the Ulysses solar probe, launched in 1990, discovered the solar wind came in two varieties—an irregular slow flow of 400 km/sec, and a fast one up to 800 km/sec. The slow solar wind typically comes from the Sun’s equatorially located 'streamer belt', while the fast type is from the relatively peaceful surface seen when looking down through coronal holes at the surface of the photosphere. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, details the intricacies of the dual nature of solar winds, and how his Electric Sun Model solves the mystery of the extreme temperature of the lower corona—which has baffled astrophysics for decades.

SOURCE MATERIAL Chapter 4: Origins and Properties of the Solar Winds "The Interconnected Cosmos" — a new book by Donald E. Scott Available now at StickmanOnStone.com https://www.stickmanonstone.com/shop/...Don Scott knows his electrical charge flow in space. His model for Birkeland Current offered a perfect explanation, exactly accurate and precise, for these currents and their associated magnetic fields to explain the galactic rotation curve (eliminating any need for dark matter). With no evidence for dark matter and no need in the first place we can regard dark matter as falsified. Find out in the below episode of TBP's Space News(subscribe HERE) to round off two episodes that single handedly overturn astrophysics as we know it. That means you will not hear about it unless you make it your business to find, and ask uncomfortable questions at every opportunity that presents itself.

DONALD E. SCOTT: DARK MATTER DEBUNKED 

It's time to put to bed the fairytale of Dark Matter. Something so dark and mysterious that it remains undetected after decades of searching with sophisticated instruments. In 2014, a vast network of plasma filaments—the Intergalactic Web—was discovered that connects many if not all the galaxies in the universe. Evidence shows stars are connected to their planets and to other stars, and all galaxies are connected. The more we carefully examine, we find the cosmos interconnected with plasma filaments—also known as Birkeland Currents. Author and electrical engineer Donald E. Scott, PhD, systematically debunks the theory, and most importantly, the rationale, for Dark Matter. SOURCE MATERIAL Chapter 10: Birkeland Currents Revisited and Analyzed Chapter 11: Extending the Bessel Function FAC Model "The Interconnected Cosmos" — a new book by Donald E. Scott Available now at StickmanOnStone.com https://www.stickmanonstone.com/shop/..

Logos

dwahts.blogspot.com and sensethecon.blogspot.com

Glenn

If there is a big lie accepted by the narratives framing our conventional wisdom, Im probably trying to get it talked about.

VISIT PROFILE

Archive

Labels

Report Abuse

Original memes to provoke thought on conventional wisdom in physics and cosmology

 

Here is a collection of original memes from this site designed to provoke a reaction or challenge conventions on popular themes in physics and cosmology. Where they were used previously and not branded I have now branded them.

From the myth of Russia's payment default to the collapse (reset?) of the global financial system

.

How much of the bumbling, lying, stupidity, hypocrisy and projection that we are currently seeing from the increasingly aloof political class in the West is down to hubris and self delusions of a former time? That stuffed pig paraded as a rules based global power structure with the checks and balances we have been taught are inherent in our free society dont seem to be there do they. 

They confess all the time, by projection at other leaders. Apply thier accusations to them and it is enough to explain all the bizarre events happening because once you understand the scope to behave in such ways without any apparent oversight, exposure, headline grabbing scandal or consequences, then it makes sense to see that during the last dying kicks of a bloated  hegemony so thickly entrenched with the bureocratic infrastructure designed to rigidly maintain the status quo on on the Judeo Christian Anglo American Empire, the first secret empire. An empire of spin, deception and a bag of sweeties to lure you to the car where you may find a shovel, rope, a saw and cable ties. That empire has realised an information age it is now tasked with containing. Once free access to the the uncensored thoughts of others created an open source citizen journalism phenomenon to replace the consumers of corporate spin they preferred. That would mean honest debates on the issues would actually take place, issues would escape the fishbowl and debate would advance those issues instead of the the social engineering of "Divide and Rule" designed in order to sew division between by taking advantage of entrenched cultural, ethnic, religious  and ideological  flash points to the point of fear. In that climate the population votes or appeals to the power structure involved to please intervene to save one demographic from whichever other one has been engineered by social institutions and contemporary values (or actual people who "conspired" to manipulate puplic perceptions.) 

The stuffed pig presented as a rules based international order (they renamed "New World Order" on advice of think tanks) that is is the parade float (with their presstitutes, the PR Firms, er sorry I mean the mainstrean syndicated media conglomerates) riding along with them is facing the consequence of decades of blatant plunder and needs an enemy and an excuse to avoid ccountability.  Still, you would thinl they would put a bit more effort into it? How nuch idiocy is coming exactly from incompetence and how much is just them just rolling it until the great reset is hard to asses. Its even possible there is a faction with influence and persuasion that are actively designing the strategy best thought likely to collapse the current system.

If so,  it excuses no crime because current institutional and cultural values would ONLY be able to interpret such a mindset on terms of words such as: Treason, sabotage, ambush, undemocratic, State Capture etc. 

Legally cases could be shaped around conspiring to overthrow representative government, overthrowing transparency , (oversight) or removing remove accountability to voters for policy and taxpayers for failing to manage their taxation wich funds government for infrastructure, utilities and civil services and instead give to banks, the MIC and Wall Street. CRIMINAL mismanagement of public funding.

Is 6that the "Rules based" order they speak of?

 

Why is there no accountability? How did they become unelected bosses not civil servants to your constituency? And by contrast, what moral high ground allows them to point fingers at other leaders and suggest THEIR management of anything is no bad that THEY want to intervene on behalf of freedom and democracy? If this were so 2my are they not doing so on behalf of their own people? 

by Karine Bechet-Golovko.


While the United States did everything to prevent Russia from paying its debt, it sent the funds ... only foreign financial institutions received the American ban on returning them to creditors and crashed. Who is in default, the one who pays or the one who prevents payment? The United States has gone so far that even the French media cannot digest it. Because the question that now arises is that of the reliability of the United States as a financial partner: are they going to default on any country that is not sufficiently vassalized? These are mafia methods. And the current global financial system is only an instrument of this mafia, as he has just shown.




To cause Russia to default, the United States prohibited financial organizations from processing the payment made by Russia on time. Thus, the money is blocked, not transferred to creditors, and American agencies and media can finally talk about the effectiveness of their sanctions, which did not allow Russia to pay its debts.




Bloomberg had launched the movement:




The speech is laid, I quote Bloomberg:




"Russia has defaulted on its external sovereign obligations for the first time in a century, the culmination of ever-tougher Western sanctions that have closed payment channels to foreign creditors."




And the New York Times takes the same line, the official American line:




"Russia on Sunday missed a deadline to make bond payments, a move signaling its first default on international debt in more than a century, after Western sanctions thwarted government efforts to pay debts. foreign investors. The delay comes on top of efforts to insulate Moscow from global capital markets for years. About $100 million in dollar and euro-denominated interest payments failed to reach investors within a 30-day grace period after the May 27 deadline was missed. The grace period expired on Sunday evening."




For its part, the French media have a more nuanced discourse, insisting more on the fact that Russia has paid and that the payments have been blocked, like BFM which, contrary to its habit, widely disseminates the Russian position on the question:




"The international payment and clearing systems obtained the funds on time and in full and had the legal and financial means to transfer the funds in question to the final recipients", denounced the Russian Ministry of Finance.




Le Figaro even titles that Russia has been pushed into an artificial default, echoing the position of the Russian Ministry of Finance:




Moody's agency, the voice of its master, insists on default - whatever the reasons, the creditors have not received the funds, so there is default. And since Russia plans to pay the rest in roubles, there will still be a default. Behind the excess of formalism, we feel the ideological line: there can be no life outside the global world, Russia having emerged from globalization, cannot exist, it must therefore be decreed in default.




For its part, the position of the Russian Ministry of Finance is very clear, it is based on the notion of default of payment:




"According to the issuance documentation for the issuances shown, the fact of default is the debtor's failure to pay, however payment was made in advance - May 20, 2022. In this case, the non- receipt of the money by the investors did not occur as a result of default in payment, but due to third parties, which is not expressly provided for in the issue documentation as an event of default and must be considered within the framework of the general rules of law governing the terms of the issue, taking into account all the circumstances and the good faith of the acts of the parties”.




In other words, Russia cannot be held responsible for acts committed by financial structures not under its jurisdiction. Thus, Russia is not in a situation comparable to that of 1918: it has the means to pay, despite Western sanctions and it has paid. It is the globalized financial system, which has just collapsed before our eyes, because it is no longer able to guarantee the rights of creditors.




The question that begins to arise is ultimately that of the reliability of the Americans and their pocket financial structures, which can be launched against any country, from the moment it is not sufficiently submissive. The western "partners" of the United States, namely its satellite countries (from the American point of view), should seriously ask themselves the question: do they really need this? What happens with Russia can happen with any of them, if the circumstances demand it. That is, if the global Atlanticist interest is at stake. 

"Spacetime" is pseudoscience

FOREWORD 

This post is directed at those behind the public understanding of science,. That includes much of the science press and others who make the claims I'm criticizing.  So its all in the way its presented to the public and how the public ends up perceiving the message. It's prudent to keep matters logically consistent and observe the correct place of a law and the place of a theory to explain a law rather than replace it. Handling things as such means "Spacetime" as a fabric is not by necessity pseudoscience and anyone has a right to propose anything within reason in this regard.

My case is made to address the disingenuous representation of the principles associated with General Relativity by the consensus science establishment to the public. It's the public whose funding permits the Sci-fi establishment to expand on the key perversions of the standard model and obscene engineering projects, telescopes and probes which support it (thanks to an outstanding crop of engineers at JPL). In other words, this is yet another arrow at where the rot is established, most notably the standard cosmological model aka the LAMBDA CDM CONCORDANCE MODEL. 

So, because of that,  its necessary in my opinion for these things to be unpacked by us all, far more often, for the broader reputation of science. It's worth reinforcing the notion of science as belonging to everyone and as a stand-alone entity from the scientific establishment, institutions, industries, think tanks, ideologies and infamous lobby groups such as profit driven pharmaceutical industry. Science is a research tool, a method used in nearly all industries and enterprises, it's not an industry in and of itself, so it follows that no special club speaks on its behalf and no specific claim by anyone has dominion over accountability or oversight of any industry that deems any such criticism "anti science" .

SPACETIME IS PSEUDOSCIENCE 

 

Einstein's general theory of relativity was famously summed up in just 12 words by the physicist John Wheeler:

 “Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve”

But this nonchalant assessment of a speculative construction draws no apparent scrutiny to precisely which mechanism should be put forward to explain how matter and "spacetime" each could possibly "tell" the other how to do anything... especially by making this assertion without a shred of evidence coming to the light of day to support the existence of this imagined spawn of space-time called "Spacetime". As it turns out, the problems are only just beginning for this limelight loving little flight of fancy.

For starters the only cited property of this elusive piece of guesswork parading as science doesn't actually exist either! (For those who dont know, that property is geometry).

"Geometry" is not a thing. As a word, sure, we can say that its a Noun, but beyond that we are dealing with a CONCEPT.  The geometry of any physically real (or represented) object can shown because it consists of measurements, variables and relationships between them. The common term for such an organised system of interrealshionships is "mathematics" (also a concept by the way just in case anybody so far is unclear).

We can quantify, assess, predict and relate the geometry of something real to something else, or simply imagine they were for purposes such as setting tests featuring problems that require solving as if they were real. For the imagined mathematics problems the real objects, the Matter, first had to exist before we could imagine it in principle.  But now those imagined variables may be arbitrary but because we understand that they are representative of a known material physics, and we know matter exists in space with measurable dimensions, we can usefully work out the meaning and application of how those dimensions relate to each other through the angles that must by necessity arise as a logical consequence of three dimensional space. That is to say:

Every physically real material object (with material properties that can be measured directly) must exist with spatial volume always and only in three spatial dimensions. 

The above may sound like common sense, and I put forward that it sounds as such simply because it IS COMMON SENSE. Contrast that with a prevalent view held by many in that wretched branch of theoretical physics known as String Theory, which is based on the fundamentally nonsense concept of ONE Dimensional strings.....

They postulate that reality is a two dimensional hologram projected onto the surface of a three dimensional sphere. Thats right, hologram. Projected. Yup, the surface of a three dimensional sphere....

Well, that's nonsense too, right off the bat. Nothing real is two dimensional, it's imaginary or conceptual to work in 2D..

Its really that ludicrous.  The lunatics are running the asylum's. 

Two dimensions or "2D" is purely conceptual and four spacial dimensions "4D" is such a nonsense concept it cannot even be imagined and no fourth dimension of space can possibly exist in reality or even be imagined to fold three dimensional space towards.

The often cited analogy, "flatland" is used to persuade us of the false equivalence of taking a conceptual 2D paradigm we imagine a living being would experience if sentient in 2D, (which is not possible and wouldn't be equivalent if it were) and projecting that into reality as if evidencing (in principal) our expected failing to imagine a fourth spatial dimension as if it exists or could theoretically exist (nothing can exist in principle if we cannot imagine and explain that principle to someone we are asking to imagine it...what is it they are imagining?) 

This is not a small obstacle when translating reality into a construct which is not even conceptually able to be described by those putting it forward. This is an exercise more in idiocy than deception. Either way it fails to make any sort of coherent case, let alone offer evidence.

What of "Strong Theoretical Evidence? Can mathematics be evidence or is the concept of any sort of "hypothetical evidence" an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms such as "Military Intelligence"

Well it's time for you to decide that for yourself. It's time to look at the history and "thinking" of the ideas in theoretical physics that has lead to a landscape of utter nonsense and regression in big budget areas of scientific research. Nothing useful in any way has come from the space sciences, CERN, GR or Quantum Mechanics in 50 years and the wastefulness in money, minds, resources and time cant be quantified without the immediate urge to vomit.  Pop culture in edgy science consists of a litany of savants or disfunctional polymaths without any real grounding in rationality but through nepotism and a flair for adopting a patronizing tone of voice they don't seem in any way aware of their farce or appropriately embarrassed by the damage that has been done to society as a whole.

Simply put, it's either theoretical (explanation of how) or its hypothetical (using a set of circumstances we could methodically envisage are reasonably likely to be in play given findings). It can also be evidence of part of or all of either of those. So not even contradiction by adopting a polar  position of "one or the other" but one thing is for certain. We cannot use either whats put forward as hypothesis or theory in place of evidence called for by the scientific method ie observations or measurements or at minimum the test of time. This is  obvious of course, but I have to qualify how prosaic my position is.

The central problem of multiple spacial dimensions.

Mathematics, in this case geometry (and a special mention to the entire String Theory movement is probably deserved) uses dimensions as degrees of freedom. Thats all. No reason I can think of is inherent to their being equivalent (beyond the use of the word "Dimension") to suggest any connection whatsoever exists between them and the spacial dimensions of volume in three dimensional space (LxBxH) or to the plotting framework that becomes manifest when we plot on X, Y and Z axes, ie potentially all of the universe.

Below: If this is sounding a bit bonkers to you, then welcome to the club. If you don't believe me then hear it from the horses mouth. Here is the official story on higher dimensional space, along with the timeline, backstory and main thinkers. Grab a cup of coffee, I hope you enjoy comedy?

So we have the been proposed the idea of magic beans by some. And they are using their mathemagical sorcery to take aim at the big questions. 

Such as?

It's proposed that through the only cited property of "spacetime the fabric", (geometry) that gravity is manifested.  It's not just some neat idea someone got one evening tripping on LSD. This is said to be the best science we have available to us, rumored by testimony of swarms of eyewitness know-it-alls' to being very "well tested"...

....despite being simultaneously materially undetected, immeasurable and also unfalsifiable.

So I think its fair to say "worst science we have" is another way of putting it. Or perhaps "idea for a far-out sci-fi movie" would be a bit better. But that is just trying to be polite. I'm sure anyone reading this understands that really these are all just euphemisms for "Tripping Balls". That's not something the sugar dusted, leather bound, lab coat wearing (in their avatars) puff pastry's who secure annual R&D or grant funding for their musings are used to hearing. They are only used to receiving  praise. This needs to change and it needs to change fast. I'll suggest why I say this.

Too much time has been wasted "showing respect" to the "qualified experts doing their best with the available science". That is just something that is said. There is no evidence of that, everything points towards the opposite being true. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that massive sums of public funding are being assigned to R&D and grant funding or projects that lead nowhere and achieve nothing more that permit treading intellectual water with positions trusted to those demonstrating no concrete progress regarding investigation of promising leads or any move away from the garbage  which is constantly and consistently lauded as our best thinking whereas what has been shown is only that these abstract pontifications are nothing more than time wasting distractions. Accountability needs to come and SOON.

But let's focus and be serious with the issue at hand here for a second.  If the current crop of Nobel Prize winners isn't knowingly creating a meaningless career and sabotaging the progress of humankind, then what is their goal because in that case I'm just not seeing it?

Is it really their goal tp make tangible progress? If so then I have news for them, after all these decades, this is not a good sign.

And lets face it, a physically real manifold phenomenon is about as likely as a sack of wet mice uniting the four heavyweight boxing title belts....with the Buddhist Philosophy... and then sharing their story with the world through interpretive dance.

Despite this weakness, in broader pop culture its regularly and seriously put forward as scientifically rigorous to view gravity acting on the property we call mass and producing a mutually attractive "force" (lets call it that since ultimately that's what it amounts to and other word services this need in available language). By way of mechanism this is said to be a consequence of the interaction between matter and "Spacetime" geometry. Exactly how is not apparently important because what's important is that Einstein dreamed it up. As everyone knows, Einstein is proved right every other Tuesday and twice on leap years. 

So it turns out the same fabric of the universe which we will never test sense, test of falsify, now turns out to be MORE fundamental than the observed force most commonly, or rather exclusively, experienced.

Forces: They have things in common

The FORCE of gravity has always been universally observed, directly measurable to all, and utterly without a single recorded instance in all of history where any actual physically real thing escaped its real influence, even for a nanosecond. 

Now THAT is what we can with confidence and credibility asses as "well tested" by everyone.

As we all know, and it bears repeating:

No evidence can be gathered together to support spacetime as a physical fabric, and no means can be devised to test its workings or properties, and its one proposed property, it's geometry can not be explained as possessing means to influence anything, no mechanism is even so much as put forward as a possibility.  

But it's more certain that gravity is a consequence of that than being a force which I can measure in my bathroom in within 10 seconds....

The problems compound for the theories these principles are part of, such as GR

I'm not aware of any engineering based on GR, not even GPS which is a widely spread myth. The world runs on electricity, software and technology, industry or engineering based on Maxwell, Edison, Tesla, Faraday, Newton etc.

So "well speculated" is actually what they mean.

Now as I keep saying,  it is often stated that gravity is caused by the geometry of spacetime. However, nobody puts forward a mechanism by which geometry (a concept) influences matter or inertia absent of a force to drive it. In order to state anything as if backed by science we need evidence. We have evidence (direct evidence) that gravity is a force, it's called MUTUAL ATTRACTION and its directly measurable to us on a massive body as weight in lbs. or kg or whatever you prefer, which is an interpretation of n/m of force.

Challenge: 

I would appeal to anyone claiming that "Spacetime" the fabric, whose geometry "tells matter how to move" to please propose what evidence there is to top the direct evidence we have for gravity being a force? Please propose by what means we can falsify the hypothesis that the geometry of spacetime causes gravity...

... and also give their weight in degrees of curvature?

Also, please propose a testable means to establish geometry being able to exert influence over matter/mass/inertia?

It should noted that I am not in any way stating that I have any reason to take issue with the recent repackaged explanation of "Spacetime" this simple four coordinate system comprising three spatial dimensions and time. This recent incarnation seeks to simply claim ownership of "Space" and "time" for purposes explained as equivalent to rendezvous at a place in time, a prosaic concept that certainly was not invented by Albert Einstein and even more certainly did not require any unusual  levels of genius to be conceived. Moreover, this obviously doesn't explain gravity in any novel way (or in any way whatsoever mind you). What it does do is dodge all the associated dead ends inherent in the suggestion that a hypothetical model lacking any testable mechanism in terms of the known laws of physics thus far proposed to facilitate any real world influence to suggest its existence as a physically real and fundamental aspect of the nature. 

I propose that spacetime as a physical fabric does not satisfy these three basic criteria required to fulfil the basic scrutiny. I mention scrutiny as outlined by the scientific method for physics or the requirements of a good theory in theoretical physics since Spacetime is part of a theory, the theory of GR. 

If the criteria of theoretical physics is strived for then, since the theory of relativity admits its status as correctly seeking an explanation of a law. If you think about it then that is a tacit admission that gravity is a force which as a word has a dictionary definition that practically defines mutual attraction and the meaning of words backed by direct evidence MUST be seen as the gold standard and cannot be usurped by "theoretical evidence" which is almost by definition oxymoronic.

So as anyone can see, this case makes itself. It is self evident.

     You can find the site homepage HERE        

Assumptions in science 12) Lensing in deep space is gravitational?

Lensing in space is for the most part optical, in the corona of stars a little but it the plasma environments of galaxies.... ALOT! In other word it is quite patently obvious that the overwhelming cause is refraction, even for the unknown lensing we see. This is after all what ALWAYS causes lensing. The liklihood gravity is causing this phenomenon is remote to say the least and it completely ignores well established basics of optics and selectively ignores the basic laws of physics in instances that are not suitable. There are cases below worry elaboration, and many examples put forward as lensing have other solutions such as the galaxies spawned by parent galaxies evidenced so thoroughly by the work of Halton Arp.

 

But generally where there is lensing, what I'm suggesting is not really a controversial view and such a statement can be easily shown to be true. Its only with cosmology that entire other laws of physics are built apon theoretical laws of physics. Ironic that the refraction lense of a telescope first put an end to the endless speculation of epicycles in the earth centered centered model of the solar system with Copernicus and Galileo.  

 

I find it beyond ironic that not so long ago we first started hypothesizing that lensing in the cosmos would be presupposed to be gravitational in nature. We were, after all (before radio telescopes), peering into the sky with two kinds of telescopes. Reflecting telescopes and REFRACTING telescopes

.

 

The interstellar and intergalactic medium is apparently very empty when thought of as matter subject to mutual gravitational attraction. However its not empty when (in absence of competing forces) considered in terms of being subject to weak electromagnetic forces per unit area that turn out relatively powerful vs gravitation from matter densities at magnitudes above our solar system. The medium consists almost entirely of plasma that is at minimum 1% ionised, usually much much more. That is to say in the vast emptiness, wherever there are small concentrations of matter, its that matter which consists of mostly ionised plasma (99.99% of the universe), principally hydrogen but also helium and (although much smaller by compisition) a variety of other gases.

 

These are not inert noble gases, they are ionised to some or other extent by the harsh radiation, cosmic rays and generally ionisation inducing conditions in deep space. This has a consequence because any charge movement generates a magnetic field that in the microgravity of space forms a self contained plasma magnetic entity. It's worth repeating: The morphology of these plasmas is well known to be organised, ie they are self contained by virtue of their own magnetic fields. This is an inescapable consequence of their ionization which by definition facilitates the movement of charge. It may as well be said.

 

Moving charge goes by another term: Electric current.

 

 

Electric current produces magnetic fields, and these fields are proven in laboratories, fission reactors, tokomacs and fusion research facilities to produce plasma formations such as pinches from instabilities, twin helix "magnetic flux ropes" (known as Birkeland Currents in plasma cosmology). They also produce double layers, plasmoids and counter rotating spheres.

The magnetic fields are now discovered wherever we look in the cosmos by interpreting polarised light. The other consequence is the extensive cosmic filaments now known to connect all galaxies as the IGW (or Intergalactic Web) and to scale right up to the largest structure so far discernible which is known as the "Cosmic Web"

Gravity does not form filaments. It forms spheres. It does not form rotational structures either unless an unlikely contrived angular momentum figure is precisely and fortuitously present inherent to matter in these systems. This is so unlikely it strains credulity.

Another consequence that isnt mentioned much is that the plasma is organised into discrete and well defined areas of different density and composition. The composition of the gasses ionised in the plasma further impacts on the density creating zones of significant difference in density in a process called Markland Convection.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to pass from a region of one density to another without experiencing refraction. In other words there HAS TO BE lensing that is optical in nature happening all over the universe. And there is. We know its optical since there is a prisming of light into its spectrum in all lensing observed to date. How interesting since gravitationally lensed light was predicted to lens light evenly accross the spectrum, and this has not been observed at the time of my writing this.

Even more interestingly, no lensing is routinely observed around supposed supermassive objects on a regular basis. Sagittarius A is a good example. Now, I thought (that for the hypothesis of lensing being caused by gravity to be upheld) it means it should always be observed that gravity will consistently affect light accordingly when those conditions of strong enough gravitation are observed. That is how science works. Violate the rule once and its called falsification.

But the consequences are more severe. As put forward, gravitational lensing should be found everywhere, in varying degrees commensurate with the strength of gravitational fields of massive objects. If gravity does not ALWAYS cause lensing (in gravitational fields of suitable strength) then straightaway the hypothesis of lensing being gravitational in cause is falsafied. As it stands the objects with the highest gravitational fields have no relationship directly proportional to the lensing discovered which is as arbitrary as it is isolated. Differences in plasma densities cannot be accurately ascertained since most of exists in what is known as "dark mode" (when current flow and density is too weak or dispersed to luminate or warm the plasma to "glow" or "arc" mode). It would be invisable, and as such the cases of lensing would be expected to mostly show up unpredicted in seemingly arbitrary and isolated cases.

Sagittarius A, no gravitational lensing for 14 years under close scrutiny.

Optical lensing on the other hand would only happen when conditions call for it. The inconsistencies we observe would not just be explainable, they would be required and predicted. This unforgivable oversight should demand immediate scrutiny.

Lensing and the CMB.

Richard Lieu and Jonathan Mittaz,[ii] physicists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, were unable to locate gravitational lensing in the CMB. This is where one would expect to find it as it is supposedly the most distant light source in the Cosmos according to BBT. They concluded that isothermal sphere profiles and the NFW were not accurate descriptions of clusters, unless important elements of physics, responsible for shaping zero-curvature space, are absent in the standard cosmological model.[iii] They state: “When all the effects are accrued, it is difficult to understand how WMAP could reveal no evidence whatsoever of lensing by groups and clusters.”[iv]

... read more HERE

Or find more about problems with the conclusions drawn about the CMB in general my earlier post HERE

In correct optical lens theory, all gravitational lenses are concave lenses.

The mistake made by Einstein and Lord Eddington was that they misunderstood gravitational lenses to be convex lenses in the first place.

My conclusion is the following:

"Gravitational lenses are biconcave asymptotic lenses, and Einstein rings do not form. And gravitational lenses only form blurred images.

In this case, an electromagnetic lens is more likely, since the electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. A gravitational field that is 39 orders of magnitude weaker has almost no ability to bend light rays.

This means that Lord Eddington's prediction that light rays would bend due to a gravitational field is invalid, since light rays would be scattered in a gravitational field and would not form an image.

However, such a phenomenon is actually hypothetical, and as Dr. Dowdye pointed out and as observed by the Japanese artificial satellite Akatsuki, light rays are observed to be refracted by the atmospheric medium or diffraction by the edge of the atmosphere layers, or the edge of a rocky surface.

The reason is that light rays hardly ever slow down, whether by gravitational lensing or electromagnetic lensing."

 

So really there is no evidence to speak of which shows us that any lensing observed so far is gravitational.

That assumption ignores well established principles of plasma physics and to conclude as much could be described (in the most conservative way) as "hasty"

I would describe it in a less conservative way.....

For the Homepage of this site click HERE