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 skepticism
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 anyone 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 whatpersuaded 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