mina7601 Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 @UCyborg Great to see you back after approximately 3 months of your inactivity! How's life going? Many people in this forum miss you. Mainly, me, @XPerceniol, @msfntor and @AstroSkipper miss you here. I hope you're fine. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 20, 2022 Share Posted September 20, 2022 On 9/9/2022 at 8:34 PM, XPerceniol said: I feel bad even for little mise. "mise" ... I'm not sure what you mean about - explains, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) Send a message to your friends: "Oil & gas will not run out." Peter Clack @PeterDClack "Oil is the 2nd-most prevalent liquid on earth after water - not a 'fossil fuel', a term coined by J D Rockerfeller to create the idea of scarcity. Oil & gas will not run out." Here: https://twitter.com/PeterDClack/status/1572712155706978306 Peter Clack @PeterDClack "Climate is due to changes in earth's solar orbit not carbon dioxide, NASA said 3 yrs ago. Reports are finally coming to light that human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change. Most have been hidden from view by MSM & Big Tech. Now they are emerging." "Carbon dioxide maintains all life on earth, grows the food we eat & replenishes oxygen in the air we breathe. CO2 is in long-term decline. This is the crisis." "Carbon dioxide cannot warm the climate..." Peter Clack twitter account: https://twitter.com/PeterDClack Edited September 22, 2022 by msfntor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) Astronomy, Cosmology: send a message to your friends...: The Big Bang didn't happen What do the James Webb images really show? - by Eric J. Lerner, 11th August 2022 To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!” Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” [SUGGESTED READING: The Delusions of Cosmology By Bjørn Ekeberg] It is not too complicated to explain why these too small, too smooth, too old and too numerous galaxies are completely incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis. Let’s begin with “too small”. If the universe is expanding, a strange optical illusion must exist. Galaxies (or any other objects) in expanding space do not continue to look smaller and smaller with increasing distance. Beyond a certain point, they start looking larger and larger. (This is because their light is supposed to have left them when they were closer to us.) This is in sharp contrast to ordinary, non-expanding space, where objects look smaller in proportion to their distance. ___ Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, assuming that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance. ___ Smaller and smaller is exactly what the JWST images show. Even galaxies with greater luminosity and mass than our own Milky Way galaxy appear in these images to be two to three times smaller than in similar images observed with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the new galaxies have redshifts which are also two to three times greater. This is not at all what is expected with an expanding universe, but it is just exactly what I and my colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with redshift proportional to distance. Starting in 2014, we had already published results, based on HST images, that showed that galaxies with redshifts all the way up to 5 matched the expectations of non-expanding, ordinary space. So we were confident the JWST would show the same thing—which it already has, for galaxies having redshifts as high as 12. Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance. [SUGGESTED READING: Dark Matter Doesn't Exist By Pavel Kroupa] But from the standpoint of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis, these distant galaxies must be intrinsically extremely tiny to compensate for the hypothesized optical illusion—implausibly tiny. One galaxy noted in the papers, called GHz2, is far more luminous that the Milky Way, yet is calculated to be only 300 light years in radius—150 times smaller than the radius of our Milky Way. Its surface brightness—brightness per unit area-- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe. Its density (and that of several other galaxies in the new images) would be tens of thousands of times that of present-day galaxies. ___ Tiny and smooth galaxies mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang. ___ Big Bang theorists have known for years from the HST images that their assumptions necessitate the existence of these tiny, ultra-dense “Mighty Mouse” galaxies. JWST has made the problem far worse. The same theorists have speculated that the tiny galaxies grow up into present day galaxies by colliding with each other—merging to become more spread out. An analogy to this hypothetical merger process would be to imagine a magical toy car a centimeter long that nonetheless weighs as much as a SUV and grows up into a real SUV by colliding with many other toy cars. [VIDEO: Bang goes the Big Bang: With Roger Penrose, John Ellis and Laura Mersini-Houghton] But the JWST has shot through this far-out scenario as well. If you could believe the toy car story, you would at least expect some fender dents in the colliding cars. And Big Bang theorists did expect to see badly mangled galaxies scrambled by many collisions or mergers. What the JWST actually showed was overwhelmingly smooth disks and neat spiral forms, just as we see in today’s galaxies. The data in the “Panic!” article showed that smooth spiral galaxies were about “10 times” as numerous as what theory had predicted and that this “would challenge our ideas about mergers being a very common process”. In plain language, this data utterly destroys the merger theory. With few or no mergers, there is no way tiny galaxies could grow to be a hundred times bigger. Therefore, they were not tiny to begin with, and thus the optical illusion predicted from the expanding universe hypothesis does not exist. But no illusion means no expansion: the illusion is an unavoidable prediction from expansion. Thus, the panic among Big Bang supporters. Tiny and smooth galaxies mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang. ___ Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur. ___ Too old and too many galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older, cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur. Just as there must be no galaxies older than the Big Bang, if the Big Bang hypothesis were valid, so theorists expected that as the JWST looked out further in space and back in time, there would be fewer and fewer galaxies and eventually none—a Dark Age in the cosmos. But a paper to be published in Nature demonstrates that galaxies as massive as the Milky Way are common even a few hundred million years after the hypothesized Bang. The authors state that the new images show that there are at least 100,000 times as many galaxies as theorists predicted at redshifts more than 10. There is no way that so many large galaxies can be generated in so little time, so again-- no Big Bang. ... ... ___ SUGGESTED READING: Cosmology in crisis By Bjørn Ekeberg ___ Comment by: Roy Lofquist -12 August 2022 Summary: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right. In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. This time dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar, indicating that the reduction in velocity is cumulative. The observed effect is isotropic. The interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum. READ MORE here: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215 Institute of Art and Ideas IAI.tv/articles: https://iai.tv/articles Edited September 22, 2022 by msfntor Comment added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 22, 2022 Share Posted September 22, 2022 (edited) The Delusions of Cosmology The metaphysical assumptions behind the science by Bjørn Ekeberg - 1st June 2022 The idea that the universe started with a Big Bang is a key tenet of the standard model of cosmology. But that model is a lot less scientific than it’s taken to be. To begin with, we can never have direct evidence of the Big Bang itself, and so if we are to accept it, it must be as a metaphysical, not a scientific hypothesis. Furthermore, the standard model of cosmology has had to adapt to a number of observational discrepancies, postulating entities like dark matter and dark energy for which there is no direct evidence. To add to the above, another central assumption, the cosmological principle, stating that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere, is also under scrutiny. The universe might turn out to be a lot stranger than we think, or could possibly imagine, argues Bjørn Ekeberg. ... ... Comments section here: Roy Lofquist10 June 2022 @Bud Rapanault "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ~ Max Planck Unfortunately that no longer applies. The cult of the "Big Bang" has become a multi-billion dollar a year rice bowl that will sustain the myths in perpetuity. Fortunately, cosmology is of little consequence. Bud Rapanault9 June 2022 "From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios." This gets the chronological and logical development of the Big Bang model wrong. First came General Relativity in 1915, followed by Friedmann's 1921 solutions to the GR field equations for a universal metric, now called the FLRW metric. Assuming a universal metric as Friedmann did was inherently at odds with GR which does not have a universal frame; what makes GR a relativistic theory is precisely its lack of a universal frame. Nonetheless, Friedmann's oxymoronic results had three possible solutions, an expanding, collapsing, or unstable static "universe". In the late 1920s Hubble published his observations of a redshift correlated with distance. That correlation was widely treated as the consequence of a recessional velocity, an assumption that Hubble himself never fully accepted. The recessional velocity interpretation was then treated as evidence for Friedmann's expanding universe model and the rest has been a slog, relentless and irrational, to the current reality-challenged standard model of cosmology, which describes a "universe" that looks nothing like the Cosmos we observe. To the extent there is a crisis in cosmology, it is not because of the so-called Hubble tension involving a discrepancy between two different measurements of the Hubble constant. There is a crisis because the scientific academy in its current state is incapable of reconsidering the standard model's foundational assumptions, which are: 1) it is possible to model the vast cosmos we observe as a singular coherent, simultaneous entity and 2) the cause of the cosmological redshift is some form of recessional velocity. Both of those assumptions are almost certainly wrong. Modern cosmology will remain in crisis, an inert unscientific discipline, until such time as those assumptions are openly reconsidered and alternative models based on reasonable counter-assumptions are granted access to research funding currently reserved for polishing the chrome on the rusting hulk of the BB model, such as dark matter searches, etc. The closed, guild-like grip that BB theorists hold over funding and publication needs to be broken if cosmology is to be a science rather than a crude and primitive belief system. Mike Pollock3 June 2022 Edwin Hubble discovered the galaxies expanding, not the universe. The scientific community states that he discovered the expanding universe when, as is stated in the article, he wanted nothing to do with the assumption. Recently, I've seen Wikipedia erase this fact from Hubbles page when it once was clearly stated. I found this extremely irritating and more of an attempt to keep the Big Bang theory alive forever. The Big Bang was simply our universe turning itself into a gargantuan particle collider no different than any of the ones here on Earth. They create quark plasma shrapnel and our universe created quark plasma shrapnel as the galaxies. That is where they got their energy and why they are expanding. The two objects contained the mass of the observable galaxies. There is no other feasible explanation. Black holes are made of quark plasma. This plasma is optically invisible and can make shapes. Our galaxy was spinning and created a spiral galaxy. If the shrapnel wasn't spinning or spinning very little, an elliptical or irregular galaxy was formed. Gravity is created by energy manipulating space just like Einstein suggested. Unfortunately, one of the biggest flaws of the Big Bang theory is that a cloud of gas and dust must create its own gravity to become a star. This puts the emphasis on normal matter to create all the gravity ignoring dark matter altogether. The reality is that the collision created the energy, not gravity. Energy creates gravity, gravity doesn't create energy. The Big Bang theory systematically ignores 95% of our universe. It is the reason the Theory of Everything hasn't been discovered and never will because this theory is currently an utter fact. Quark plasma creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself from the outside of the mass inward. Dark matter is made of extremely pressurized Tau neutrinos. When the Big Bang happened, the pressure and friction from the event separated the quarks. It is the pressure and density of space itself that keeps the quarks apart indefinitely. As the cold dark matter of space comes into the reaction to disrupt the quarks, the strong force between the quarks and neutrinos throws the neutrinos out of the reaction as electron neutrino gamma rays. That is why they are optically invisible. These outgoing particles push out on the natural pressure of space causing gravitational lensing. Space uses its natural pressure to push through the outgoing matter and reacts with normal matter to create the force of gravity. The neutrinos and quarks start turning the kinetic energy black hole into potential energy by creating neutrons on the surface. Supernovae simply do not exist. The mass turns into a neutron star but they are merely a thin layer on the surface of the black hole. The neutrons break down to the first hydrogen atoms. The constantly forming neutrons then fuse with the hydrogen to form the first helium atoms using the beta minus decay reaction. This is the one, and only fusion our universe produces. This is why fusion has never created a net gain of energy and never will. The mass continues creating heavier elements making the mass darker until a surface forms and the light is extinguished. This is when the atmosphere is allowed to develop. Eventually, the hydrocarbons and the quark plasma heat underneath the surface behind creating water for hundreds of millions of years in the exact same fashion as a catalytic converter creates water in a car. That is where all the water came from. Our planet created every bit of it. This is the Theory of Everything. There is no other way our universe could produce what we see. I have followed every, single law in the book. This article states, perfectly, how our current theories are simply fantasies that have been made realities by one ad-hoc theory after another. Literally, nothing is understood about our universe. Please interview me. This theory took me 20 years to develop. I can answer all the questions that never get answered. My explanation is the whole point of this article. It is amazing that someone is actually questioning the Big Bang theory so thoroughly. Conventionalism makes this never happen. Everything known are facts when they are only terrible theories. Science should have listened to Edwin Hubble, not Georges Lamaitre. Joe Bakhos3 June 2022 I've recently put forward a modified gravity hypothesis that explains galactic rotation rates and also cosmological expansion without the need of dark matter or dark energy. This hypothesis also includes an adaptation of general relativity that explains time dilation and energy increase at relativistic velocities and within a gravity well, while retaining Euclidean space. Part of this hypothesis includes the idea that higher concentrations of neutrinos may inhibit other quantum processes. A copy may be found by going to the vixra site and searching for Bakhos. The title is "Chasing Oumuamua" Roy Lofquist2 June 2022 Summary: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. Dear Sirs, When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right. In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. The dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar. The observed effect is isotropic. The conventional explanation is that the dispersion measure is the “integrated column density of free electrons between an observer and a pulsar”. The mechanism matters not. What matters is that the interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum. Regards, Roy Lofquist Ocoee, Florida Here: https://iai.tv/articles/the-delusions-of-metaphysics-auid-2145 Edited September 23, 2022 by msfntor link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 16 hours ago, msfntor said: The Delusions of Cosmology ... The universe might turn out to be a lot stranger than we think, or could possibly imagine, argues Bjørn Ekeberg. Read more here: We usually talk about the Standard Model of particle physics, but you also talk of a standard model of cosmology, and how it’s also on shaky foundations. What do you see as the key tenets of cosmology’s standard model? The standard model of cosmology (sometimes called the Concordance or Lambda-CDM model) resembles a game of Jenga, with building blocks stacked on top of each other. At the bottom is an evolutionary model of General Relativity in which space expands with time, based on the hypothesis that the universe originated in a 'Big Bang' - along with a few simplifying assumptions. Two key interpretations were hailed as evidence for this theory: the redshift of galaxies was taken to mean that space is expanding, and the so-called cosmic microwave background was interpreted as residue from the Big Bang. With these core building blocks, this theoretical framework became the first established 'scientific cosmology' in the 1960s. The core tenets of standard cosmology are that the universe has a finite origin in time - and more fundamentally, that the mathematical laws deduced from our own galaxy apply universally, that we can know the entire universe with certainty. It's a very bold project painting a grand picture that many observations contradict. And so new blocks were added on top to account for discrepancies between theory and observations. Dark matter was invented as an explanation for why our observations of galaxies didn't fit our mathematical model. Inflation was invented as an explanation for how the universe possibly could have gone from nothing to the kind of structure we observe today. Dark Energy was invented to account for ostensible acceleration of space, and so on. Today there are challenges to some of these upper blocks but very few scientists want to question the blocks below. In my understanding, this reluctance is not based on these blocks being proven beyond doubt but because if they were to be in doubt, the entire Jenga tower of standard cosmology would fall apart. ___ Dark matter was invented in response to the problem that observations of galaxies didn't match theoretical predictions. But after 50 years of research there is still no direct evidence of it. ___ What’s your main reservation when it comes to the existence of dark matter and the belief of many physicists that it makes up 85% of our universe? Dark matter was invented in response to the problem that observations of galaxies didn't match theoretical predictions. At a stroke, it solved the discrepancy and offered a very simple physical explanation to grasp. But after 50 years of research there is still no direct evidence of it. While it's not my role to judge the scientific merit of the theory, my reservation is that this belief that dark matter or something like it "must exist" is really a belief in the universalized theoretical model we use to understand the cosmos in the first place. It looks suspiciously like the epicycles that astronomers in ancient times postulated to make sense of planetary movements within the geocentric model. If we were to abandon the idea of dark matter as having no evidential basis, would other parts of our cosmological model fall apart, and if so, do we have an alternative model that could replace it? I use the Jenga metaphor for this reason - to suggest dark matter is not a core tenet of the standard model but rather an added block on top. It is potentially replaceable without threatening the blocks underneath. Dark matter now faces a serious challenger in the so-called MOND theory (modified Newtonian dynamics), which may well eclipse it by doing a better job of matching theoretical predictions with observations. But this would not constitute a radical shift. Basically, it would replace a simple physical explanation with a complicated mathematical description, which has taken decades to develop. In a way, MOND looks more like an evolution than a revolution. That said, its key idea, that gravity does not work the same way everywhere in the universe, does have interesting implications for the model as a whole. It's another simplifying assumption of the original framework that is called into question. ___ You can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics; to think cosmology is pure science is delusional. ___ One of the striking claims that you’ve made is that the Big Bang is a metaphysical hypothesis, rather than a claim based on astronomical observation. What do you mean by ‘metaphysical hypothesis’ here, that it’s not possible to test empirically? From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios. When this in turn could yield models that conformed to observations, it was seen to validate the original premise. This was repeated and became an integral assumption built into the framework. The 'Big Bang' also carried a powerful analogy with nuclear physics, the image of a cosmic explosion. It seemed to make sense to a certain generation and it was a very compelling narrative for many reasons - the ultimate origin story. We have since been scouring the skies for signs that we infer as proof of this cosmic origin. But this is retroactive reasoning - there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang because it lies beyond the horizon of the observable. So as a grounding assumption that can never itself be verified, it's a metaphysical hypothesis in this precise sense. Of course, you can imagine an alternate premise, that the universe is infinite in time, and this is metaphysical too. My point is you can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics; to think cosmology is pure science is delusional. [SUGGESTED READING: The Philosophical Problems of Cosmology By George Ellis] What about Hubble’s observation that the universe is expanding, that galaxies are moving away from each other, does that not count as empirical evidence of them being crunched up, all close together, in the past? Yes, this was the inference made. But note that Hubble didn't observe expansion, he observed a redshift that was interpreted as expansion - and he didn't himself believe this interpretation. ... ... by Bjørn Ekeberg - so the whole article here: https://iai.tv/articles/the-delusions-of-metaphysics-auid-2145 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 (edited) Censored Papers That Refute The Big Bang Hypothesis These are the papers that the cosmology censors don’t want anyone to read: The first one predicts what the new JWST telescope will find—further refuting the Big Bang, expanding universe, hypothesis. The second paper shows, with the latest data, how large-scale structures could not have formed in the time since the hypothesized Big Bang—and how they really formed from plasma filamentation. The third paper summarizes the evidence against the Big Bang hypothesis, which is contradicted by at least 16 independent sets of data and supported by only one. It also shows how a universe without a Big Bang evolved into the one that we currently observe. ... PDFs here: https://www.lppfusion.com/censored-papers-that-refute-the-big-bang-hypothesis/ Physicists and Astronomers from Ten Countries Protest arXiv’s Censorship of Papers Refuting the Big Bang Hypothesis Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from ten countries have signed a petition protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang Hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv. Run by Cornell University, arXiv is supposed to provide an open public forum for researchers to exchange pre-publication papers, without peer-review. But during June, 2022, arXiv rejected for publication on the website three papers by Dr. Riccardo Scarpa, Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, and Eric J. Lerner, LPPFusion, Inc. which are critical of the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis: “Will LCDM cosmology survive the James Webb Space Telescope?” , “Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory”, and “The Big Bang Never Happened—A Reassessment of the Galactic Origin of Light Elements (GOLE) Hypothesis and its Implications”. ... Here: https://www.lppfusion.com/scientists-protest-censorship-in-cosmology/ Edited September 23, 2022 by msfntor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 "Plasma is the dominant form of matter in the universe, with more than 99.99% of the matter in the universe being plasmas." Cosmic Connection From the discovery of the fusion process itself, the effort to control fusion energy has been tied to the study of astronomical phenomena on all scales in the universe, from our Earth’s aurora to superclusters of galaxies that contain hundreds of trillions of stars. The fusion process was discovered by Han Bethe and others through their research on the origin of the energy of the Sun and other stars. Later, as researchers learned about plasmas, the electrically conducting state of matter where fusion reactions take place, they could compare what they observed in the laboratory with what could be observed in space. Plasma is the dominant form of matter in the universe, with more than 99.99% of the matter in the universe being plasmas. Hannes Alfven, the founder of modern plasma physics, discovered fundamental processes in plasmas in space and then applied them to technology on earth—and vice versa, for example using technical problems in the transmission of electricity in Sweden to describe solar flares. The discovery by Alfven and his colleague Carl-Gunner Falthammar of the basic role played by filaments of current in the cosmos in the formation of structure from stars up to galaxies laid the basis for understanding filamentation in the plasma focus device. Similarly, LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric Lerner’s research in the 1980’s using the formation of plasmoid in the DPF as a model for understanding quasars led to the formulation of a quantitative theory of the functioning of the DPF. This theory in turn predicted that the plasma focus could be used for pB11 fusion. ... Here: https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/ Sun flares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 9 hours ago, msfntor said: "Plasma is the dominant form of matter in the universe, with more than 99.99% of the matter in the universe being plasmas." Cosmic Connection From the discovery of the fusion process itself, the effort to control fusion energy has been tied to the study of astronomical phenomena on all scales in the universe, from our Earth’s aurora to superclusters of galaxies that contain hundreds of trillions of stars. The fusion process was discovered by Han Bethe and others through their research on the origin of the energy of the Sun and other stars. Later, as researchers learned about plasmas, the electrically conducting state of matter where fusion reactions take place, they could compare what they observed in the laboratory with what could be observed in space. Plasma is the dominant form of matter in the universe, with more than 99.99% of the matter in the universe being plasmas. Hannes Alfven, the founder of modern plasma physics, discovered fundamental processes in plasmas in space and then applied them to technology on earth—and vice versa, for example using technical problems in the transmission of electricity in Sweden to describe solar flares. The discovery by Alfven and his colleague Carl-Gunner Falthammar of the basic role played by filaments of current in the cosmos in the formation of structure from stars up to galaxies laid the basis for understanding filamentation in the plasma focus device. Similarly, LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric Lerner’s research in the 1980’s using the formation of plasmoid in the DPF as a model for understanding quasars led to the formulation of a quantitative theory of the functioning of the DPF. This theory in turn predicted that the plasma focus could be used for pB11 fusion. ... Here: https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/ Sun flares I definitely feel, although not speaking religion, we are all meeting here for a reason and there are no accidents. https://www.learning-mind.com/cosmic-connections/ Quote Everything is connected, so there is no such thing as a chance meeting. The people in your life are not there by chance but because of cosmic connections. The universe is as complex and interconnected as a spider’s web. Everything that happens affects everything else. While this can be a scary prospect, but it can also be inspiring. It means that everything in our lives is a result of cosmic connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 Spiritually speaking, of course, meaning we are not just skin an bones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 Quote Cosmic connections are those people who come into our lives to help us develop and grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 (edited) Ok, those were quotes, but just from me personally, its very hard sometimes to recognize light from dark energy because the dark energy is inviting and enticing and fools us to weaken and remove love and replace it with hate and anger, which 'in turn' caves in on itself. Some people weren't so luck and ended their own lives (which is what dark energy is hoping for so you see no hope). Also, sometimes, what appears to be good is wolf in sheep's clothing. Sadly when one cannot tell anymore between the two, best to remove and cut ties with all and the good people will return, and if not, this was "meant to be". That being said, I would not repeat or go back to as that is the past and its dangerous to become wistful. We aren't supposed to miss our past because it is gone. Sorry guys, I realize I am making little sense, not that I ever made much sense to begin with. Hope you can see where I'm coming from, at lease. Sometimes, people are meant to enter our lives only for a short periods (of time) and we desire to hang on too long and miss out on new connections even if that is mean to better appreciate our own company. I'm closed off and reclusive so I'm no person to speak. I don't know, better to guard ourselves and never allow anybody in or continually be hurt by people. I don't know anymore, but I'm not in shape to be with others and require peace and quiet that others don't have that luxury and life is hectic - boring can be ok. This is not the problem for me, being "social" isn't all its cracked up to be and trust me I wouldn't want anybody knocking at my door. Editing..... I'm so lucky for the people that have entered my life because it was to teach me, but I still question it, but here I sit at 50 when I shouldn't be here, so my "gut feelings" haven't let me astray. Edited September 23, 2022 by XPerceniol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 Enough about me, I'm getting better. How is everyone doing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted September 23, 2022 Author Share Posted September 23, 2022 https://www.almanac.com/content/first-day-fall-autumnal-equinox Its starting to look this way and I LOVE it so much 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mina7601 Posted September 24, 2022 Share Posted September 24, 2022 50 minutes ago, XPerceniol said: How is everyone doing? I'm doing great. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now