Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
In part one of this presentation, physicist Wal Thornhill began his analysis
of the recent award of the Nobel Prize in Physics to scientists for their contributions to
the so-called "detection of gravitational waves." While science media has shown exactly
zero skepticicsm, of the gravitational
waves pronouncements, Thornhill discussed some of the foundational
mathematical problems that preclude the claimed detection of "two black
holes colliding and producing ripples in the fabric of space-time." Today,
Thornhill explores another fundamental cosmological question, and that is
the existence of the required medium for the communication of
electromagnetic waves in the "vacuum of space".
A medium, called the ether. Wal Thornhill: Physics used to be called Natural Philosophy
in more scientifically productive centuries. So-called "modern science"
is largerly bootstrapped techology
built on scientific principles that were around before Einstein. Einstein himself warned that pure
mathematics can not claim to be natural or philosophical and at the end of his life expressed
grave doubts that his work would endure. Meanwhile his devotees
raised him to sainthood, ingnored his caution
and became mesmerized by the computer screens and chalkboards covered with inscrutable
math symbols. Einstein was a dreamer who largerly originated this
century old mathematical mess by imagining perception
is reality. That's like saying of someone who is moving away
from you that their space is shrinking and their watch is ticking more slowly. But
relativity theory allows the departing person to say the same of you.
Einstein, with his theory of relativity, removed absolute standards by making
length and time rubbery and a matter of arbitrary choice of
moving frames of reference, which cannot be equivalent if
we are to define energy and mass. Another
fundamental error of Einstein's has prevented
a more mundane explanation for the chirp signals from LIGO.
Einstein discarded the medium for the transmission of waves in a vacuum
-- called the aether -- which is essential for Maxwell's theory
of electromagnetism and to explain the dielectric properties of the vacuum.
It's impossible to wave nothing!
Light must have an electrically polarizable medium,
an aether. Having a universal medium discards
Einstein's principle of the equivalence of inertial frames of reference and the
constancy of the speed of light. Why is this important? Because the huge LIGO vacuum chambers
are full of aether and the design assumes the speed of light to be a
universal constant!
Let's look at LIGO.
Weiss devised the approach to gravitational-wave detection
in 1967, during lesson planning for a relativity course he was teaching at MIT. And
I quote, "You'd... make a right triangle of objects, floating freely in a
vacuum," Weiss told his students, according to a
2000 interview. "And we'd send light beams between them and then be able to
figure out, 'What does the gravitational wave do to the time it takes light to go
between those things?" Gravitational waves due to merging black holes
definitely don't exist. Natural philosophy (physics)
suggests simply that a disturbance traveling through
the aether inside the 4 kilometer LIGO arms
may be one way to produce a 'chirp' signal in the LIGO system. This raises
serious questions for the future of science and the usefulness of
prize giving as a motivator. Weiss and Thorne
are two of three physicists known as the troika -- the founders of LIGO's giant
twin detectors in Livingston, Louisiana and in Hanford, Washington.
The third troika member, Ronald Drever,
died on 7th March this year. Before Drever's passing
in March, the troika won the $3-million
Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics; the $500,000
Gruber Foundation Cosmology
Prize; the 1.2-million Shaw Prize
in Astronomy; and the $1-million Kavli Prize in Astrophysics. These
and other Nobel Prize winners of the past have seriously warped our sense of reality.
The public will
have spent $1.1 billion
providing super-expensive gadgets
to detect the grin of the Cosmic
Cheshire Cat, to mathematical gamers posing as physicists.
Like the scientists wasting billions of euros
on the Large Hadron Collider to find the imaginary Higgs Boson,
they had to find something to save their credibility.
Government funded, institutionalized BIG SCIENCE is not working in the 21st
century! The rewards, the lack of critical
scrutiny (trust us we're the experts),
and suppression of dissenting voices have
to be seriously investigated because we are about to waste a great deal more money.
It is reported that the European Space Agency is planning a multibillion-dollar probe to be launched
in about 17 years that would look for gravitational waves from space.
Weiss hopes astronomers will learn more about nuclear physics, states of matter, how
heavy elements are made and detect information from,
and I quote, "...the very moment when the universe came out of nothingness...
We expect surprises," he said. "There
has to be surprises." The real surprise, is how any one can
claim to be a physicist and say, "...the universe came out of nothingness." That isn't physics!
One of the dissenting voices, Dr. Harold Aspden, an outstanding
British theoretical physicist, electrical
engineer and inventor wrote, "Until the scientific world recovers its
good sense and takes another look at the mysteries of our cosmos with
the aether in mind and Einstein ignored, we really have no
hope of inspiring future science students and gaining a better understanding of the
phenomena which dominate, indeed constitute, our very existence." The galling thing is
that the Electric Universe already has a real model of how gravity
works and it answers simply most of the
real questions. We are now testing some of these models experimentally. Perversely,
it is found that government funding hinders innovation because
research is concentrated on the current preoccupations of those who direct
research grants. We rely not
on the government but on benefactors and public donations.
It's the Renaissance model of doing
science. Research has found that science seems to follow the innovation,
not the other way around. The practical tinkerers find something, then
science is employed to work out why what they've
found works. The innovative Thunderbolts Project is an outstanding example of this approach
with the distinguishing feature of having a coherent cosmology
to direct the tinkerers. What hope is there for the future? History shows
that paradigm shifts come from individuals, often from
outside the affected discipline. Today those
in organizations that have access to science journals and the media
and who have the most to lose from a paradigm shift suppress such claims
or attempt to assimilate the ideas surreptitiously.
Nobel prizes have notoriously been
awarded to those 'insiders' who develop an 'outsiders' idea.
How can we find these innovators outside the academic system? Chris Reeve suggests
in his online Controversies of Science, which I highly
recommend, "This is a world where we are dependent upon the experts for any announcement of our new paradigm.
Yet the experts are the very people who stand to lose the most by such an announcement." He then
asked the question, "What would a paradigm change actually look like?... " and
Chris answers, "The correct answer is that, assuming
you're not an actual academic there's no real guarantee that you'd actually see
our new paradigm emerging at all... if there was some exciting new scientific era
just around the corner, we'd never
know it." This, of course, applies to the Electric Universe
paradigm. Chris then offers a solution
through, "a science futures market
where people can wager bets on well-crafted, specific, time-limited scientific predictions.
Science futures markets have the potential
to expose scientific dogma that's become embedded within science journalism.
They can help us to identify impending paradigm
changes, as they reward those who are paying attention sufficiently
to understand that the data is deviating from the carefully-managed
message we get from mainstream science."
I wish such a market had been around decades ago, given the success of the many
unique specific predictions of the Electric Universe when measured against
the continual surprises for big bang cosmology! Instead of cramming heads with 'facts'
we need documentation of science controversies, past and present, to be
accessible to the public and teachers so that students can be trained in critical thinking.
So-called "evidence based science" can then be seen to be special pleading. One scientist's fact can be
another's fiction. That's the basis of debunking. Learning this
together with the ideas, context and personalities
involved in earlier science debates allows one to see what
persuaded crucial verdicts in the past and to realize how often those decisions had little to do with
the science and more to do with beliefs, politics and influence.
Understanding those debates is also perhaps the best way
to inspire anyone to participate in science
criticism and discovery. There's so much
data and so little understanding of that data.
We must stop funding and rewarding the religious belief expressed by
Galileo that mathematics is the language of God, that the mathematical mind can deduce
the true laws of nature, that the mathematical mind alone would lead to true knowledge of reality. Until we do,
science remains a religious belief system.
For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe
stay tuned to
Thunderbolts.info
For more infomation >> Họa Giang Hồ | Những Bản Nhạc Điện Tử Gây Nghiện Hay Nhat Mọi Thời Đại | BOONG - Duration: 44:12. 
For more infomation >> Maid Mama Channel Intro - Duration: 0:35. 
For more infomation >> Thiết kế thi công phòng karaoke tại Bắc Cạn 0984 158 658 - Duration: 1:27. 
For more infomation >> 【ゴルフライブ】ミスショットしたらバーがあなたを救う【ゴルフライブ】 - Duration: 2:22. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét