I have taken links from
Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
To explain the Origin and make of our sun.
There are a number of links so I will add maybe one or two links per day or so, by the end of all the links maybe the puzzel will form an image.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Metic..18..209M
Solar abundances of the elements
QUOTE
Abstract
The isotopic compositions of noble gases in the solar wind show high enrichments of light isotopes. When corrected for mass fractionation all five noble gases there can be resolved in terms of the two primitive noble gas components that have been identified in planetary solids. Reasons are presented for assigning the fractionation to a solar process that selectively enriches lighter nuclei at the surface of the sun. When abundances of the elements at the sun's surface are corrected for this fractionation, it is shown that atomic abundances for major elements in the bulk sun are (in decreasing order): Fe, Ni, O, Si, S and Mg. Solar elements at about the 1 percent atomic abundance level include He, C, Ne, Ca and Cr. These results suggest that fusion of hydrogen is probably not the sun's primary energy source.
The isotopic compositions of noble gases in the solar wind show high enrichments of light isotopes. When corrected for mass fractionation all five noble gases there can be resolved in terms of the two primitive noble gas components that have been identified in planetary solids. Reasons are presented for assigning the fractionation to a solar process that selectively enriches lighter nuclei at the surface of the sun. When abundances of the elements at the sun's surface are corrected for this fractionation, it is shown that atomic abundances for major elements in the bulk sun are (in decreasing order): Fe, Ni, O, Si, S and Mg. Solar elements at about the 1 percent atomic abundance level include He, C, Ne, Ca and Cr. These results suggest that fusion of hydrogen is probably not the sun's primary energy source.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AAS...197.5609M
The Standard Solar Model versus Experimental Observations
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract The isotopic compositions of noble gases in the solar wind show high enrichments of light isotopes. When corrected for mass fractionation all five noble gases there can be resolved in terms of the two primitive noble gas components that have been identified in planetary solids. Reasons are presented for assigning the fractionation to a solar process that selectively enriches lighter nuclei at the surface of the sun. When abundances of the elements at the sun's surface are corrected for this fractionation, it is shown that atomic abundances for major elements in the bulk sun are (in decreasing order): Fe, Ni, O, Si, S and Mg. Solar elements at about the 1 percent atomic abundance level include He, C, Ne, Ca and Cr. These results suggest that fusion of hydrogen is probably not the sun's primary energy source. |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AAS...197.5609M
The Standard Solar Model versus Experimental Observations
Abstract
The standard solar model (ssm) assumes the that Sun formed as a homogeneous body, its interior consists mostly of hydrogen, and its radiant energy comes from H-fusion in its core. Two sets of measurements indicate the ssm is wrong: 1. Analyses of material in the planetary system show that - (a) Fe, O, Ni, Si, Mg, S and Ca have high nuclear stability and comprise 98+% of ordinary meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system; (
the cores of inner planets formed in a central region consisting mostly of heavy elements like Fe, Ni and S; © the outer planets formed mostly from elements like H, He and C; and (d) isotopic heterogeneities accompanied these chemical gradients in debris of the supernova that exploded here 5 billion years ago to produce the solar system (See Origin of the Elements at http://www.umr.edu/õm/). 2. Analyses of material coming from the Sun show that - (a) there are not enough neutrinos for H-fusion to be its main source of energy; ( light-weight isotopes (mass =L) of He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in the solar wind are enriched relative to heavy isotopes (mass = H) by a factor, f, where log f = 4.56 log [H/L] -- - Eq. (1); © solar flares by-pass 3.4 of these 9-stages of diffusion and deplete the light-weight isotopes of He, Ne, Mg and Ar by a factor, f*, where log f* = -1.7 log [H/L] --- Eq. (2); (d) proton-capture on N-14 increased N-15 in the solar wind over geologic time; and (e) solar flares dredge up nitrogen with less N-15 from this H-fusion reaction. Each observation above is unexplained by ssm. After correcting photospheric abundances for diffusion [Observation 2(], the most abundant elements in the bulk sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements that comprise ordinary meteorites [Observation 1(a)]. The probability that Eq. (1) would randomly select these elements from the photosphere, i.e., the likelihood for a meaningless agreement between observations 2( and 1(a), is < 2.0E(-33). Thus, ssm does not describe the Sun. Other stars are too distant for measurements to determine their origin/evolution. Kluwer Academic/Plenum will publish observations summarized here in Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System, organized by Glenn T. Seaborg and Oliver K. Manuel. Supported by the Foundation for Chemical Research, Inc.
Hello All
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PAN....69.1847M
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005nucl.th..11051M
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005nucl.th..11051M
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
Abstract
Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces. Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial Big Bang nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PAN....69.1847M
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
QUOTE
Abstract
The Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface. The Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. It consists mostly of iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon and sulfur made near the SN core, like the rocky planets and ordinary meteorites. H ions, generated by emission and decay of neutrons at the core, are accelerated upward by deep magnetic fields, thus acting as a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun. Neutron emission from the central neutron star triggers a series of reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, solar mass-fractionation, and an outpouring of the neutron decay product, H, in the solar wind. Mass fractionation appears to have operated in the parent star as well, and likely occurs in other stars.
The Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface. The Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. It consists mostly of iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon and sulfur made near the SN core, like the rocky planets and ordinary meteorites. H ions, generated by emission and decay of neutrons at the core, are accelerated upward by deep magnetic fields, thus acting as a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun. Neutron emission from the central neutron star triggers a series of reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, solar mass-fractionation, and an outpouring of the neutron decay product, H, in the solar wind. Mass fractionation appears to have operated in the parent star as well, and likely occurs in other stars.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005nucl.th..11051M
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract The Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface. The Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. It consists mostly of iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon and sulfur made near the SN core, like the rocky planets and ordinary meteorites. H ions, generated by emission and decay of neutrons at the core, are accelerated upward by deep magnetic fields, thus acting as a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun. Neutron emission from the central neutron star triggers a series of reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, solar mass-fractionation, and an outpouring of the neutron decay product, H, in the solar wind. Mass fractionation appears to have operated in the parent star as well, and likely occurs in other stars. |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005nucl.th..11051M
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
Abstract
Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces. Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial Big Bang nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.
So is all this some indication that the scientific community is starting to address the "Electric Sun" theories (or did I misread the abstracts)? I'm sure I've seen past posts here that weren't overly enthusiastic about those theories but from my admittedly layman's perspective the problems with the standard solar model are enough reason for me to be suspect of it. If (and I guess it's a real big if) any of what the plasma advocates are saying is true then don't we have to begin looking at an awful lot of how we thought our solar system came to be?
I'd love to see a good discussion of this here that didn't include a bunch of sophomoric defensiveness about whatever area the participants held near and dear. Is there anyone that can convince me in generally layman's terms (i.e ... without the math eh?) that proponents of plasma/electric theories are full of it? Or is this just a topic that EE's and physicists are bound to piss at each other about? Why is the corona so much hotter than the surface?
I'd be happy to not be drawn back to plasma websites but I can't find reasons not to. Anyone Anyone?
I'd love to see a good discussion of this here that didn't include a bunch of sophomoric defensiveness about whatever area the participants held near and dear. Is there anyone that can convince me in generally layman's terms (i.e ... without the math eh?) that proponents of plasma/electric theories are full of it? Or is this just a topic that EE's and physicists are bound to piss at each other about? Why is the corona so much hotter than the surface?
I'd be happy to not be drawn back to plasma websites but I can't find reasons not to. Anyone Anyone?
Hello Uaafanblog
You need to read links. Understanding the information is more important than the facts.
Some people get hooked on one theory and think that is it.
The minute they call it the standard model and think that they know the facts is the minute people stop learning.
I have posted many links, if you want more links just ask.
I'm off on holidays soon.
So if I do not post any, you'll understand.
You need to read links. Understanding the information is more important than the facts.
Some people get hooked on one theory and think that is it.
The minute they call it the standard model and think that they know the facts is the minute people stop learning.
I have posted many links, if you want more links just ask.
I'm off on holidays soon.
So if I do not post any, you'll understand.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 25 2007, 03:05 AM)
I'd love to see a good discussion of this here that didn't include a bunch of sophomoric defensiveness about whatever area the participants held near and dear. Is there anyone that can convince me in generally layman's terms (i.e ... without the math eh?) that proponents of plasma/electric theories are full of it? Or is this just a topic that EE's and physicists are bound to piss at each other about? Why is the corona so much hotter than the surface?
You won't mind if I stick around to defend the idea would you?
I'm not really sure why anyone would be drawn toward any other type of astronomy website anymore. Once one starts to see the universe through the "EU/Plasma Cosmology" mindset, it's probably impossible go back to the old way of visualizing the universe.
You won't mind if I stick around to defend the idea would you?
QUOTE
I'd be happy to not be drawn back to plasma websites but I can't find reasons not to. Anyone Anyone?
I'm not really sure why anyone would be drawn toward any other type of astronomy website anymore. Once one starts to see the universe through the "EU/Plasma Cosmology" mindset, it's probably impossible go back to the old way of visualizing the universe.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 25 2007, 06:09 AM)
Hello Uaafanblog
You need to read links. Understanding the information is more important than the facts.
My problem as a layman (i.e... no formal training at all) means that when I read things I have to be skeptical. My forays into reading about electro/plasma theories have left me in a skeptical state with regard to existing theory as well as being skeptical about electro/plasma. I have delved into the articles in the links you provided. My assumption based on the listed references in the documents is that they're peer reviewed and therefore valid in terms of acceptability to the the science community. This of course is from the perspective of someone with no formal training.
With that said I've pulled a single example of text (From This document on page 3) that I'd like to see critiqued and/or answered by standard model proponents:
See I have no real way of verifying this sort of thing for myself. The papers you've linked to are full of such text that a layman like me really isn't capable of analyzing. I could read and reread the papers until I memorized them but that wouldn't mean I've really learned anything valid since I have no method of determining their validity. So I'm not (and I am) questioning the veracity of the newer theory since the "accepted" theory has years of being accepted by the vast majority of science. Does that all make sense?
I guess what I'm saying to you (and anyone reading who is capable of discerning the science) is .... really? There are structures implied by seismology that mean the sun isn't primarily composed of Hydrogen and Helium? I've read a fair bit about electro/plasma theory (in "popular" websites) and while there are often some compelling claims I've often seen equally compelling refutations of some of those claims.
What I'd really like to see here is a list (not links to difficult to interpret papers) in clear language that describes the primary features (evidence) that electro/plasma adherents point to in order to prove their right. Then I'd like to see opponents of the theory express themselves in laymans terms as to where they're right. Am I expecting too much?
So here's where I'm at (with apologies for the vernacular): I'm excited at the prospect that plasma theory brings to our understanding of the universe but skeptical as to many of it's claims. As a layman, being able to participate in a discussion of these issues is exciting in and of itself. But I have to limit my involvement to a level that is appropriate for my education and potential to understand. So with all that ... someone PLEASE take up my challenge to explore these issues on this thread. I promise to ask lots of dumb questions and hopefully I'm smart enough to ask the right dumb questions.
You need to read links. Understanding the information is more important than the facts.
My problem as a layman (i.e... no formal training at all) means that when I read things I have to be skeptical. My forays into reading about electro/plasma theories have left me in a skeptical state with regard to existing theory as well as being skeptical about electro/plasma. I have delved into the articles in the links you provided. My assumption based on the listed references in the documents is that they're peer reviewed and therefore valid in terms of acceptability to the the science community. This of course is from the perspective of someone with no formal training.
With that said I've pulled a single example of text (From This document on page 3) that I'd like to see critiqued and/or answered by standard model proponents:
QUOTE
This effort to understand the nuclear cycle of the cosmos begins with our latest paper on the star next door. This paper [9] includes a few examples of the rigid, iron-rich structures that
Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun’s fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE
satellites. These satellite images of the Sun provide visual scientific evidence that falsifies the
popular belief that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of H and He, like the solar atmosphere
[17, 18]. Recent helioseismology data have now confirmed stratification at a relatively shallow
depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro) [19].
Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun’s fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE
satellites. These satellite images of the Sun provide visual scientific evidence that falsifies the
popular belief that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of H and He, like the solar atmosphere
[17, 18]. Recent helioseismology data have now confirmed stratification at a relatively shallow
depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro) [19].
See I have no real way of verifying this sort of thing for myself. The papers you've linked to are full of such text that a layman like me really isn't capable of analyzing. I could read and reread the papers until I memorized them but that wouldn't mean I've really learned anything valid since I have no method of determining their validity. So I'm not (and I am) questioning the veracity of the newer theory since the "accepted" theory has years of being accepted by the vast majority of science. Does that all make sense?
I guess what I'm saying to you (and anyone reading who is capable of discerning the science) is .... really? There are structures implied by seismology that mean the sun isn't primarily composed of Hydrogen and Helium? I've read a fair bit about electro/plasma theory (in "popular" websites) and while there are often some compelling claims I've often seen equally compelling refutations of some of those claims.
What I'd really like to see here is a list (not links to difficult to interpret papers) in clear language that describes the primary features (evidence) that electro/plasma adherents point to in order to prove their right. Then I'd like to see opponents of the theory express themselves in laymans terms as to where they're right. Am I expecting too much?
So here's where I'm at (with apologies for the vernacular): I'm excited at the prospect that plasma theory brings to our understanding of the universe but skeptical as to many of it's claims. As a layman, being able to participate in a discussion of these issues is exciting in and of itself. But I have to limit my involvement to a level that is appropriate for my education and potential to understand. So with all that ... someone PLEASE take up my challenge to explore these issues on this thread. I promise to ask lots of dumb questions and hopefully I'm smart enough to ask the right dumb questions.
research of Professor O.K. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, and Michael Mozina is excellent. There is replacement space coordinate only in the cosmogeological explanations From supernova to the spiral galaxy nucleus.
why??? after explosion of supermova we can see destroyed space clouds only. when star is moving through the space clouds the star is begining activation. it looks as the embryonic stars.
1. Evidence is here in the LINK http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/relea...9/release.shtml
The "jet" in our galaxy is remnant of collapsed star or died interstellar planet.
Embryonic Stars are to the galaxy active nucleus.
When remnant of died star or interstellar planetary mass object reach another star's planetary system, star is beginning capture the huge space clouds. There are almost all chemical elements (Light, heavy, super-heavy). This is reason of star activation. It is alike new Embryonic Stars. Dec. 1. 2007 is nearest date of activation L1157.
2. Evidence is here in the link
The “Tornado Jet” in our galaxy is remnant of died star or died interstellar planet hit to the star million and million years ago. Second reason is truer. When star captured Interstellar planetary mass object into convection streams are beginning enormous multi-stage nuclear reactions. Truly that is the reason of huge Axial eruption jet in the only one side of the star.
research conclusions ___with cosmogeological explanations.
TRUTH IS VICTORIOUS
research of Professor O.K. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, and Michael Mozina
“Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation”.CONCLUSIONS- ___with cosmogeological explanations
The most obvious, common sense conclusions with cosmogeological explanations to a seemingly complex set of observations made after B2FH [14] published their classical paper on element synthesis in stars [14].
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS-with cosmogeological explanations.
1. Decay Products of Short-lived izotophes.
Fresh debris from a SN (Supernova)explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system
___Fresh gaseous huge streams from a SGN (Spiral Galaxy Nucleus) surface explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system. (Huge unbelievable nuclear reactions into submerged huge SGN spot under huge convection streams of SGN).
2. Isotope Anomalies in Stone Meteorites
The axial SN explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in accretion disk
___The axial SGN surface explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, into red-hot huge gaseous proto-planetary parent bodies. Debris of exploded space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed stone meteorites later.
3. Isotope Anomalies in Iron Meteorites
Iron-rich SN debris directly formed iron meteorites and planetary cores
___Iron-rich SGN spots gaseous huge streams directly formed planets and Iron-rich planetary cores. Debris of exploded iron-rich space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed iron meteorites later.
4. Elements/Isotopes Were Linked Xe-1 in FeS, Xe-2 in Carbon Grains
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
5. Isotope Anomalies In Planets: Xe-1 in Sun, Mars; Xe-2 in Jupiter
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
6. Severely Mass-Fractionated Isotopes in Meteorites and Planets
Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the parent star of the SN
___Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the it’s parent star (SGN)
7. FUN (Fractionation + Nuclear) Effects Linked in Meteorites
The supernova made new isotopes in material that was mass fractionated
___The SGN into spots made new isotopes by nuclear synthesis reaction into proto-planetary material that was mass fractionated
8. Mirror-Image Isotope Anomalies
Unmixed products of the various nuclear reactions that collectively made “normal” isotope abundances
___Exploded SGN proto-planetary spot products by the various huge nuclear reactions, unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, made collectively “normal” isotope abundances into space-bodies later.
9. P-1 Planetary Gas Component Had Only “Normal” Xe-1, Kr-1 and Ar-1
This came from SN’s iron-rich interior that was depleted of light elements
___This came from SGN’s iron-rich spots interior that was depleted of light elements
10. P-2 Planetary Gas Component Had “Strange” Xe-2, Kr-2, Ar-2, Ne, He .
This came from the outer SN layers where light elements remained.
___This came from the outer SGN spots layers where light elements remained.
11. The Solar Surface Is Made Mostly of Light Elements.
Elements undergo multi-stage mass separation in the Sun.
___A lot of small parts of the main spots is spread into convection streams all over the Sun undergo multi-stage mass separation into the streams. (In the streams into separated spots masses are continuing nuclear syntheses reactions mainly by He-nucleuses, super heavy nucleuses are exploding later and light elements are spreading all over the Sun).
Video evidence-explosion into convection stream of multi-stage separated mini spot. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
12. Carbonaceous Meteorites Are Also Rich in Light Elements.
These came mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated parent star.
___These are part of exploded space-bodies. They were formed mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated exploded SGN spots.
13. Why Does O/C ≈ 2 at the Surface of the Sun and Similar Stars?
Multi-stage mass separation decreases O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
___Multi-stage mass separation of spots masses, nuclear syntheses and nuclear reactions into the convection streams are decreasing O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
14. What Are the Most Abundant Elements in the Solar System?
Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium and calcium
____Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium calcium and lead too. (Lead is into the metallic nucleus of planets as the main product of radioactive demolition).
15. What Causes the Solar Neutrino Deficit?
The number of neutrinos produced is the number detected. There is no deficit
16. What Is The Source of Solar Luminosity?
Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%
___Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%;
(Nuclear reactions of separated spots masses are into convection streams).
17. What Is the Source of Hydrogen in the Solar and Stellar Winds?
Neutron-decay and upward acceleration of H+ ions are by solar magnetic field.
___P.S. Formation of new erupted stars from our SGN is discovered, there is no suspect. The ten Hypervelocity stars (embryonic stars) are discovered formed by parent star in the centre of the spiral galaxy. It means our galaxy is young, it has no “black hole” in the centre, and it has parent star there, parent of all stars in the galaxy. Of course nearest stars to the nucleus are hypervelocity.Source of strange isotope abundances in the Solar wind are nuclear reactions into a lot of multi-stage mass separation mini-spots masses in the convection streams and huge nuclear reactions into main spots masses too. The solar surface is made mostly of light elements is evidence of huge nuclear syntheses reaction into main spots and separated mini-spots masses. Nuclear syntheses reactions into separated mini-spots masses are continuing into convection streams. Synthesis reactions of nucleuses are creating super-heavy nucleuses. They are exploding and Light Elements are left. He-nucleus is important in the nuclear syntheses reactions. He-nucleuses are main product of radioactive demolition too. The double destructive and creative feature of He-nucleuses must be easily understandable. Fe-nucleuses are important in the magnetic field of convection streams.
Detail explanations of many topics are in the theory. My Webpage
Truth easy to explain…
why??? after explosion of supermova we can see destroyed space clouds only. when star is moving through the space clouds the star is begining activation. it looks as the embryonic stars.
1. Evidence is here in the LINK http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/relea...9/release.shtml
The "jet" in our galaxy is remnant of collapsed star or died interstellar planet.
Embryonic Stars are to the galaxy active nucleus.
When remnant of died star or interstellar planetary mass object reach another star's planetary system, star is beginning capture the huge space clouds. There are almost all chemical elements (Light, heavy, super-heavy). This is reason of star activation. It is alike new Embryonic Stars. Dec. 1. 2007 is nearest date of activation L1157.
2. Evidence is here in the link
The “Tornado Jet” in our galaxy is remnant of died star or died interstellar planet hit to the star million and million years ago. Second reason is truer. When star captured Interstellar planetary mass object into convection streams are beginning enormous multi-stage nuclear reactions. Truly that is the reason of huge Axial eruption jet in the only one side of the star.
research conclusions ___with cosmogeological explanations.
TRUTH IS VICTORIOUS
research of Professor O.K. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, and Michael Mozina
“Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation”.CONCLUSIONS- ___with cosmogeological explanations
The most obvious, common sense conclusions with cosmogeological explanations to a seemingly complex set of observations made after B2FH [14] published their classical paper on element synthesis in stars [14].
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS-with cosmogeological explanations.
1. Decay Products of Short-lived izotophes.
Fresh debris from a SN (Supernova)explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system
___Fresh gaseous huge streams from a SGN (Spiral Galaxy Nucleus) surface explosion 5 Gy ago formed the entire solar system. (Huge unbelievable nuclear reactions into submerged huge SGN spot under huge convection streams of SGN).
2. Isotope Anomalies in Stone Meteorites
The axial SN explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in accretion disk
___The axial SGN surface explosion left isotopes, elements unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, into red-hot huge gaseous proto-planetary parent bodies. Debris of exploded space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed stone meteorites later.
3. Isotope Anomalies in Iron Meteorites
Iron-rich SN debris directly formed iron meteorites and planetary cores
___Iron-rich SGN spots gaseous huge streams directly formed planets and Iron-rich planetary cores. Debris of exploded iron-rich space-bodies (planets, natural moons, interstellar planets and interstellar planetary moons) geo-spheres formed iron meteorites later.
4. Elements/Isotopes Were Linked Xe-1 in FeS, Xe-2 in Carbon Grains
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
5. Isotope Anomalies In Planets: Xe-1 in Sun, Mars; Xe-2 in Jupiter
Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SN interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SN surface
___Xe-1 was made in iron-rich SGN spots interior, Xe-2 made near carbon-rich SGN spots surface
6. Severely Mass-Fractionated Isotopes in Meteorites and Planets
Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the parent star of the SN
___Multi-stage mass separation in the Sun and in the it’s parent star (SGN)
7. FUN (Fractionation + Nuclear) Effects Linked in Meteorites
The supernova made new isotopes in material that was mass fractionated
___The SGN into spots made new isotopes by nuclear synthesis reaction into proto-planetary material that was mass fractionated
8. Mirror-Image Isotope Anomalies
Unmixed products of the various nuclear reactions that collectively made “normal” isotope abundances
___Exploded SGN proto-planetary spot products by the various huge nuclear reactions, unmixed in solar parent accretion disk, made collectively “normal” isotope abundances into space-bodies later.
9. P-1 Planetary Gas Component Had Only “Normal” Xe-1, Kr-1 and Ar-1
This came from SN’s iron-rich interior that was depleted of light elements
___This came from SGN’s iron-rich spots interior that was depleted of light elements
10. P-2 Planetary Gas Component Had “Strange” Xe-2, Kr-2, Ar-2, Ne, He .
This came from the outer SN layers where light elements remained.
___This came from the outer SGN spots layers where light elements remained.
11. The Solar Surface Is Made Mostly of Light Elements.
Elements undergo multi-stage mass separation in the Sun.
___A lot of small parts of the main spots is spread into convection streams all over the Sun undergo multi-stage mass separation into the streams. (In the streams into separated spots masses are continuing nuclear syntheses reactions mainly by He-nucleuses, super heavy nucleuses are exploding later and light elements are spreading all over the Sun).
Video evidence-explosion into convection stream of multi-stage separated mini spot. http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Public/Gall...T171_000828.avi
12. Carbonaceous Meteorites Are Also Rich in Light Elements.
These came mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated parent star.
___These are part of exploded space-bodies. They were formed mostly from the surface of the mass-fractionated exploded SGN spots.
13. Why Does O/C ≈ 2 at the Surface of the Sun and Similar Stars?
Multi-stage mass separation decreases O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
___Multi-stage mass separation of spots masses, nuclear syntheses and nuclear reactions into the convection streams are decreasing O/C ≈ 10 to O/C ≈ 2 at solar surface.
14. What Are the Most Abundant Elements in the Solar System?
Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium and calcium
____Iron, oxygen, nickel, silicon, sulfur, magnesium calcium and lead too. (Lead is into the metallic nucleus of planets as the main product of radioactive demolition).
15. What Causes the Solar Neutrino Deficit?
The number of neutrinos produced is the number detected. There is no deficit
16. What Is The Source of Solar Luminosity?
Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%
___Neutron emission and decay generate >62%; H-fusion generates <38%;
(Nuclear reactions of separated spots masses are into convection streams).
17. What Is the Source of Hydrogen in the Solar and Stellar Winds?
Neutron-decay and upward acceleration of H+ ions are by solar magnetic field.
___P.S. Formation of new erupted stars from our SGN is discovered, there is no suspect. The ten Hypervelocity stars (embryonic stars) are discovered formed by parent star in the centre of the spiral galaxy. It means our galaxy is young, it has no “black hole” in the centre, and it has parent star there, parent of all stars in the galaxy. Of course nearest stars to the nucleus are hypervelocity.Source of strange isotope abundances in the Solar wind are nuclear reactions into a lot of multi-stage mass separation mini-spots masses in the convection streams and huge nuclear reactions into main spots masses too. The solar surface is made mostly of light elements is evidence of huge nuclear syntheses reaction into main spots and separated mini-spots masses. Nuclear syntheses reactions into separated mini-spots masses are continuing into convection streams. Synthesis reactions of nucleuses are creating super-heavy nucleuses. They are exploding and Light Elements are left. He-nucleus is important in the nuclear syntheses reactions. He-nucleuses are main product of radioactive demolition too. The double destructive and creative feature of He-nucleuses must be easily understandable. Fe-nucleuses are important in the magnetic field of convection streams.
Detail explanations of many topics are in the theory. My Webpage
Truth easy to explain…
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Dec 25 2007, 08:39 AM)
Truth easy to explain…
Then it would sure have been nice if you'd "easily" explained it here rather than spamming the thread with poorly formatted near gibberish. If this is the sort of junk that one side of the "argument" about the sun's origin is going to use then as a layman that just BEGGED for clearly worded lists of reasons from both sides I'd have to say the plasma side is very poorly represented. I have many questions about this area and theory and if your only answer is to read your webpage then you've completely lost a person who honestly came into this thread with an open mind hoping for rationally stated simple arguments regarding the subject.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
Then it would sure have been nice if you'd "easily" explained it here rather than spamming the thread with poorly formatted near gibberish. If this is the sort of junk that one side of the "argument" about the sun's origin is going to use then as a layman that just BEGGED for clearly worded lists of reasons from both sides I'd have to say the plasma side is very poorly represented. I have many questions about this area and theory and if your only answer is to read your webpage then you've completely lost a person who honestly came into this thread with an open mind hoping for rationally stated simple arguments regarding the subject.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
Good bye uaafanblog
Why you are running for. You are afraid to discuss topic of alternative cosmology.
Maybe you can lose your future wages, if someone will understand about the discussion.
(“The plasma side is very poorly represented”)--- Yes, That’s discussing. That is excellent topic and there are hidden almost all secrets of universe evolution.
Why you are running for. You are afraid to discuss topic of alternative cosmology.
Maybe you can lose your future wages, if someone will understand about the discussion.
(“The plasma side is very poorly represented”)--- Yes, That’s discussing. That is excellent topic and there are hidden almost all secrets of universe evolution.
Uaafanblog,
I understand your frustrations on the subject, as ever since my interest in cosmology has taken root, I've had a terrible time discerning fact from plausible from impossible. I find myself questioning assertions on both sides of the coin as well; the established theories may be stuck in somewhat of a rut, while the plasma/electric universe proponents don't have access to so much expensive scientific equipment. Their theories are simply dismissed as looney talk when some of them may hold water, or at least have offshoots or implications that may be true.
Don't think we have many certified PhD solar scientists patrolling this site, but since you seem like an articulate individual, I would recommend sending an email to helioseismologist Leif Svalgaard. I'm fairly sure he would give a lengthy, informative response to your inquiries. You might try linking him to the paper mentioning the iron composition 0.5% of the solar radius deep, not sure if he's seen that.
Although he would most likely defend conventional scientific points of view on solar physics and composition, it would be an interesting read nonetheless.
He's a very nice guy, check out his site at www.leif.org/research
His email is leif@leif.org
Good luck, I'd love to see any correspondence
I understand your frustrations on the subject, as ever since my interest in cosmology has taken root, I've had a terrible time discerning fact from plausible from impossible. I find myself questioning assertions on both sides of the coin as well; the established theories may be stuck in somewhat of a rut, while the plasma/electric universe proponents don't have access to so much expensive scientific equipment. Their theories are simply dismissed as looney talk when some of them may hold water, or at least have offshoots or implications that may be true.
Don't think we have many certified PhD solar scientists patrolling this site, but since you seem like an articulate individual, I would recommend sending an email to helioseismologist Leif Svalgaard. I'm fairly sure he would give a lengthy, informative response to your inquiries. You might try linking him to the paper mentioning the iron composition 0.5% of the solar radius deep, not sure if he's seen that.
Although he would most likely defend conventional scientific points of view on solar physics and composition, it would be an interesting read nonetheless.
He's a very nice guy, check out his site at www.leif.org/research
His email is leif@leif.org
Good luck, I'd love to see any correspondence
As far as the 'mysteriously' elevated temperature of the coronosphere goes, there's been some recent developments in the Hinode mission that may go someway to explaining this http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/dec/H...node_Waves.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/06dec_xrayjets.htm
basically, what the article says, is that Alfven waves are responsible for heating the coronosphere, something that's been theorized for some time, however, the difference is that this time, we have something in space that has the resolution, and the refresh rate to be able to observe them directly.
The key question has always been how are these Alfven waves produced, up until now it's been solar flares that have been thought to be the culprit, the problem with that is that solar flares are somewhat limited in distribution, and frequency, and theorists have been having trouble getting the frequency of the solar flares to match up with the observed amount of heating.
What this Hinode result has done, essentialy, is show that there are hundreds of x-ray jets that occur on the suns surface on a daily basis, the occur everywhere, over sunspots, in quiet regions, in the coronal holes even, and they occur all the time. The analogy that's given in the second article is a whip cracking - the sound we hear is the energy that the tip of the whip transfers to the atmosphere.
While know one is claiming that these xray jets fully account for the observed heating, they do play a very important role, and serves to demonstrate another point - that to dismiss a theory when we haven't observed the object being theorized about in any great detail (up until Hinode, the best reolution images we had of the sun could only resolve images thousands of kilometers across, so they missed these jets, Hinode picks up on features a little more then a hundred kilometers across) seems to me to be a bit short sighted.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/06dec_xrayjets.htm
basically, what the article says, is that Alfven waves are responsible for heating the coronosphere, something that's been theorized for some time, however, the difference is that this time, we have something in space that has the resolution, and the refresh rate to be able to observe them directly.
The key question has always been how are these Alfven waves produced, up until now it's been solar flares that have been thought to be the culprit, the problem with that is that solar flares are somewhat limited in distribution, and frequency, and theorists have been having trouble getting the frequency of the solar flares to match up with the observed amount of heating.
What this Hinode result has done, essentialy, is show that there are hundreds of x-ray jets that occur on the suns surface on a daily basis, the occur everywhere, over sunspots, in quiet regions, in the coronal holes even, and they occur all the time. The analogy that's given in the second article is a whip cracking - the sound we hear is the energy that the tip of the whip transfers to the atmosphere.
While know one is claiming that these xray jets fully account for the observed heating, they do play a very important role, and serves to demonstrate another point - that to dismiss a theory when we haven't observed the object being theorized about in any great detail (up until Hinode, the best reolution images we had of the sun could only resolve images thousands of kilometers across, so they missed these jets, Hinode picks up on features a little more then a hundred kilometers across) seems to me to be a bit short sighted.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 25 2007, 08:32 AM)
See I have no real way of verifying this sort of thing for myself. The papers you've linked to are full of such text that a layman like me really isn't capable of analyzing. I could read and reread the papers until I memorized them but that wouldn't mean I've really learned anything valid since I have no method of determining their validity. So I'm not (and I am) questioning the veracity of the newer theory since the "accepted" theory has years of being accepted by the vast majority of science. Does that all make sense?
Sure. Then again, I'm not quite sure that it's entirely accurate to suggest you can't "verify" some aspects of plasma physics. Some things you won't be able to directly measure yourself, but assuming there is some overlap of various sciences, we should be able to use various branches of science to build a cohesive case, one way or another.
Yes. Alexander Kosovichev has found physical evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that is located at .995R, or directly under the photosphere at 1R. At that physical location, there is a dramatic increase in sound speed. In a homogeneous hydrogen/helium atmosphere, where convection is supposed to occur at that location, we would not "predict" there to be a sound speed change at .995R. Now you might verify this statements or refute it by finding a "prediction" from standard theory that expected to find a 'stratification subsurface" (or something equivalent) at .995R. You won't find any predictions of such a thing in the standard solar model. Why not?
Now as a layman, you can still verify that elements tend to mass separate by density here on earth. In other words, the sky is less dense than the water, and th water is less dense than the crust of the planet. The core of the Earth is thought to contain a lot of iron, and not a lot of hydrogen in the core.
The four closest neighbors to the sun all have very high concentrations of heavy elements. Why would the sun's four closest neighbors be so radically different in composition than the sun? Why wouldn't you expect to see elements mass separate themselves on the sun?
Yes. Alexander Kosovichev has found physical evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that is located at .995R, or directly under the photosphere at 1R. At that physical location, there is a dramatic increase in sound speed. In a homogeneous hydrogen/helium atmosphere, where convection is supposed to occur at that location, we would not "predict" there to be a sound speed change at .995R. Now you might verify this statements or refute it by finding a "prediction" from standard theory that expected to find a 'stratification subsurface" (or something equivalent) at .995R. You won't find any predictions of such a thing in the standard solar model. Why not?
Now as a layman, you can still verify that elements tend to mass separate by density here on earth. In other words, the sky is less dense than the water, and th water is less dense than the crust of the planet. The core of the Earth is thought to contain a lot of iron, and not a lot of hydrogen in the core.
The four closest neighbors to the sun all have very high concentrations of heavy elements. Why would the sun's four closest neighbors be so radically different in composition than the sun? Why wouldn't you expect to see elements mass separate themselves on the sun?
I've read a fair bit about electro/plasma theory (in "popular" websites) and while there are often some compelling claims I've often seen equally compelling refutations of some of those claims.
Such as? I'm just curious what you find to be a "compelling" refutation of plasma cosmology/EU theory. I've certainly never heard one. I've seen compelling data to suggest currents through through our sun and solar system, starting with those million degree plasmas in the solar atmosphere, those gamma rays from the solar surface, those neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops, etc.
No, not at all. I will refrain from overwhelming you with papers, and I'll stick to some basic scientific data. There will be parts of my explanation that are better served by posting some quotes from Hannes Alven and a providing links to NASA websites so that you can verify parts of what I'm saying are true.
Let's start with some simple observations in Earth's atmosphere and see if we might apply them to the solar atmosphere. For instance, we can point the RHESSI space craft at the earth and see gamma-rays coming from that Earth's atmosphere. These are obviously very high energy events. We can trace these gamma ray emissions in the atmosphere of Earth to electrical discharges (lightening).
Now if we point that very same piece of equipment at the atmosphere of the sun, we also observe gamma rays. Is it logical to put two and two together here and note that these gamma ray events *could be* and logically might be related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere?
IMO plasma physics is the future. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation are utterly unfalsifiable and therefore the fall outside the realm of testable physics. If you think you have a tough time verifying that those are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, try verifying that inflaton fields exist in reality. Nothing like inflation exists in nature. No other scalar or vector field in nature will experience an exponential increase in volume without an equally significant decrease in density. Inflation is pure mythology. If you're biggest beef with plasma physics is that you can't easily verify it's tenets, try verifying that inflation has any effect on anything in a controlled laboratory test. I'll clue you in right now, you won't find any empirical data that inflation has any effect on reality from a controlled experiment on Earth.
Wouldn't that same criticism of plasma cosmology theory be equally applied (more so) to Lambda-CDM theory?
Sure. Then again, I'm not quite sure that it's entirely accurate to suggest you can't "verify" some aspects of plasma physics. Some things you won't be able to directly measure yourself, but assuming there is some overlap of various sciences, we should be able to use various branches of science to build a cohesive case, one way or another.
QUOTE
I guess what I'm saying to you (and anyone reading who is capable of discerning the science) is .... really? There are structures implied by seismology that mean the sun isn't primarily composed of Hydrogen and Helium?
Yes. Alexander Kosovichev has found physical evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that is located at .995R, or directly under the photosphere at 1R. At that physical location, there is a dramatic increase in sound speed. In a homogeneous hydrogen/helium atmosphere, where convection is supposed to occur at that location, we would not "predict" there to be a sound speed change at .995R. Now you might verify this statements or refute it by finding a "prediction" from standard theory that expected to find a 'stratification subsurface" (or something equivalent) at .995R. You won't find any predictions of such a thing in the standard solar model. Why not?
Now as a layman, you can still verify that elements tend to mass separate by density here on earth. In other words, the sky is less dense than the water, and th water is less dense than the crust of the planet. The core of the Earth is thought to contain a lot of iron, and not a lot of hydrogen in the core.
The four closest neighbors to the sun all have very high concentrations of heavy elements. Why would the sun's four closest neighbors be so radically different in composition than the sun? Why wouldn't you expect to see elements mass separate themselves on the sun?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I guess what I'm saying to you (and anyone reading who is capable of discerning the science) is .... really? There are structures implied by seismology that mean the sun isn't primarily composed of Hydrogen and Helium? |
Yes. Alexander Kosovichev has found physical evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that is located at .995R, or directly under the photosphere at 1R. At that physical location, there is a dramatic increase in sound speed. In a homogeneous hydrogen/helium atmosphere, where convection is supposed to occur at that location, we would not "predict" there to be a sound speed change at .995R. Now you might verify this statements or refute it by finding a "prediction" from standard theory that expected to find a 'stratification subsurface" (or something equivalent) at .995R. You won't find any predictions of such a thing in the standard solar model. Why not?
Now as a layman, you can still verify that elements tend to mass separate by density here on earth. In other words, the sky is less dense than the water, and th water is less dense than the crust of the planet. The core of the Earth is thought to contain a lot of iron, and not a lot of hydrogen in the core.
The four closest neighbors to the sun all have very high concentrations of heavy elements. Why would the sun's four closest neighbors be so radically different in composition than the sun? Why wouldn't you expect to see elements mass separate themselves on the sun?
I've read a fair bit about electro/plasma theory (in "popular" websites) and while there are often some compelling claims I've often seen equally compelling refutations of some of those claims.
Such as? I'm just curious what you find to be a "compelling" refutation of plasma cosmology/EU theory. I've certainly never heard one. I've seen compelling data to suggest currents through through our sun and solar system, starting with those million degree plasmas in the solar atmosphere, those gamma rays from the solar surface, those neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops, etc.
QUOTE
What I'd really like to see here is a list (not links to difficult to interpret papers) in clear language that describes the primary features (evidence) that electro/plasma adherents point to in order to prove their right. Then I'd like to see opponents of the theory express themselves in laymans terms as to where they're right. Am I expecting too much?
No, not at all. I will refrain from overwhelming you with papers, and I'll stick to some basic scientific data. There will be parts of my explanation that are better served by posting some quotes from Hannes Alven and a providing links to NASA websites so that you can verify parts of what I'm saying are true.
Let's start with some simple observations in Earth's atmosphere and see if we might apply them to the solar atmosphere. For instance, we can point the RHESSI space craft at the earth and see gamma-rays coming from that Earth's atmosphere. These are obviously very high energy events. We can trace these gamma ray emissions in the atmosphere of Earth to electrical discharges (lightening).
Now if we point that very same piece of equipment at the atmosphere of the sun, we also observe gamma rays. Is it logical to put two and two together here and note that these gamma ray events *could be* and logically might be related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere?
IMO plasma physics is the future. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation are utterly unfalsifiable and therefore the fall outside the realm of testable physics. If you think you have a tough time verifying that those are electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, try verifying that inflaton fields exist in reality. Nothing like inflation exists in nature. No other scalar or vector field in nature will experience an exponential increase in volume without an equally significant decrease in density. Inflation is pure mythology. If you're biggest beef with plasma physics is that you can't easily verify it's tenets, try verifying that inflation has any effect on anything in a controlled laboratory test. I'll clue you in right now, you won't find any empirical data that inflation has any effect on reality from a controlled experiment on Earth.
Wouldn't that same criticism of plasma cosmology theory be equally applied (more so) to Lambda-CDM theory?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 25 2007, 09:16 AM)
Then it would sure have been nice if you'd "easily" explained it here rather than spamming the thread with poorly formatted near gibberish. If this is the sort of junk that one side of the "argument" about the sun's origin is going to use then as a layman that just BEGGED for clearly worded lists of reasons from both sides I'd have to say the plasma side is very poorly represented. I have many questions about this area and theory and if your only answer is to read your webpage then you've completely lost a person who honestly came into this thread with an open mind hoping for rationally stated simple arguments regarding the subject.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
Well, lets start with some basics here. Most of the universe is made of plasma, so understanding the properties of plasma critical to understanding the properties of the universe. The first thing one should know about plasma is that it's an *excellent* conductor of electrical current. It's a far better conductor than copper or gold or anything solid. Plasma is composed of charged particles and therefore it's extremely sensitive to EM fields of all sorts. It is easily moved around by EM fields, and it has distinct "filamentary" behaviors when current is present. You can actually verify a lot of these statements by purchasing an inexpensive plasma ball. That particularly item will demonstrate many of the basic properties of plasma, particularly light plasma like you might find in the solar atmosphere.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
Well, lets start with some basics here. Most of the universe is made of plasma, so understanding the properties of plasma critical to understanding the properties of the universe. The first thing one should know about plasma is that it's an *excellent* conductor of electrical current. It's a far better conductor than copper or gold or anything solid. Plasma is composed of charged particles and therefore it's extremely sensitive to EM fields of all sorts. It is easily moved around by EM fields, and it has distinct "filamentary" behaviors when current is present. You can actually verify a lot of these statements by purchasing an inexpensive plasma ball. That particularly item will demonstrate many of the basic properties of plasma, particularly light plasma like you might find in the solar atmosphere.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 25 2007, 09:16 AM)
Then it would sure have been nice if you'd "easily" explained it here rather than spamming the thread with poorly formatted near gibberish. If this is the sort of junk that one side of the "argument" about the sun's origin is going to use then as a layman that just BEGGED for clearly worded lists of reasons from both sides I'd have to say the plasma side is very poorly represented. I have many questions about this area and theory and if your only answer is to read your webpage then you've completely lost a person who honestly came into this thread with an open mind hoping for rationally stated simple arguments regarding the subject.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
The other piece of background information you'll probably need here relates to MHD and the work of Hannes Alfven. Alfven was the mathematical father of MDH theory, plasma physics and plasma cosmology theory. Here's how Hannes Alfven described a "magnetic rope" as it relates to MHD theory".
From his book Cosmic Plasma:
Emphasis mine. Note here that he is describing the *current flow* inside the plasma that is driving these filamentary processes. An ordinary plasma ball will generate a similar moving filamentary shape inside the plasma. The current flow forms a flowing tornado like vortex inside the plasma. The magnetic fields that surround the current flow act to "pinch" the plasma into a tightening spiral. These filaments can attract one another due to the magnetic fields around the current flow. He even mentions Bennett, in reference to the Bennett pinch process that he is describing.
He's essentially describing a z-pinch in the plasma that is caused by current flows inside the plasma.
He goes on to describe the configuration of these magnetic ropes later in the book as well:
Emphasis mine. Note here that he is describing the *current flow* inside the plasma that is driving these filamentary processes. An ordinary plasma ball will generate a similar moving filamentary shape inside the plasma. The current flow forms a flowing tornado like vortex inside the plasma. The magnetic fields that surround the current flow act to "pinch" the plasma into a tightening spiral. These filaments can attract one another due to the magnetic fields around the current flow. He even mentions Bennett, in reference to the Bennett pinch process that he is describing.
He's essentially describing a z-pinch in the plasma that is caused by current flows inside the plasma.
He goes on to describe the configuration of these magnetic ropes later in the book as well:
11.43 . THEORY OF MAGNETIC ROPES
Marklund (1978) has analyzed the structure of filamentary currents, `magnetic ropes ' , collecting ionized gas from the surroundings (Fig . II .15) . He has calculated the resulting stationary state when the inward drift of ions and electrons towards the axis of a filament is matched by recombination and outward diffusion of the neutral gas . The equilibrium density of the ionized component normally has a maximum at the axis . however, under certain conditions the filament may be a cylindrical shell with an ion density minimum at the axis . Magnetic ropes have been observed by in situ measurements in the ionosphere of Venus (see III .53).
In the case of a partially ionized gas mixture, a temperature gradient will cause the radial transport to depend on the ionization potential, so that in general, the elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis . We may expect the elements to form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential.
Quite generally, it seems likely that for a rather wide range of parameters, a current through a partially ionized plasma is able to produce element separation (IV .3).
In other words, he is describing concentric tornado like vortexes, one inside the other, that form in the plasma. The current flow separates the elements in the plasma and the concentric vortexes are arranged by the ionization potential of each element that is flowing inside the plasma pinch.
There is an explicit understanding of current flow inside a Bennett pinch, or a "magnetic rope" according to Alfven. There should be no misunderstanding about the nature of a magnetic rope. It is a current carrying z-pinch plasma thread.
Now let's look at a recent NASA press release related to the THEMIS program:
Here we find verified confirmation from in-situ measurements of the presence of current carrying plasma filaments that transfer *huge* amounts of energy to the atmosphere of Earth.
Make no mistake here, we can verify that EU theory has merit via the halls of science and via other scientific fields. There is nothing about EU theory that is based on metaphysics unlike Lambda-CDM theory. There is a wealth of new information coming out related to the ring currents on Saturn and the "magnetic ropes" that connect objects in space. The universe is electric, and that electric signature is easily verified, from electrical discharges in our own atmosphere, to electrical discharges in the suns' atmosphere, to the presence of current flows between stars.
I suspected it was foolish to hope for something that would help me understand all this. Hopefully, my suspicions are not realized this quickly. It's Xmas ... someone give me the present of clearly stated discourse.
The other piece of background information you'll probably need here relates to MHD and the work of Hannes Alfven. Alfven was the mathematical father of MDH theory, plasma physics and plasma cosmology theory. Here's how Hannes Alfven described a "magnetic rope" as it relates to MHD theory".
From his book Cosmic Plasma:
QUOTE
However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.
Emphasis mine. Note here that he is describing the *current flow* inside the plasma that is driving these filamentary processes. An ordinary plasma ball will generate a similar moving filamentary shape inside the plasma. The current flow forms a flowing tornado like vortex inside the plasma. The magnetic fields that surround the current flow act to "pinch" the plasma into a tightening spiral. These filaments can attract one another due to the magnetic fields around the current flow. He even mentions Bennett, in reference to the Bennett pinch process that he is describing.
He's essentially describing a z-pinch in the plasma that is caused by current flows inside the plasma.
He goes on to describe the configuration of these magnetic ropes later in the book as well:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities. |
Emphasis mine. Note here that he is describing the *current flow* inside the plasma that is driving these filamentary processes. An ordinary plasma ball will generate a similar moving filamentary shape inside the plasma. The current flow forms a flowing tornado like vortex inside the plasma. The magnetic fields that surround the current flow act to "pinch" the plasma into a tightening spiral. These filaments can attract one another due to the magnetic fields around the current flow. He even mentions Bennett, in reference to the Bennett pinch process that he is describing.
He's essentially describing a z-pinch in the plasma that is caused by current flows inside the plasma.
He goes on to describe the configuration of these magnetic ropes later in the book as well:
11.43 . THEORY OF MAGNETIC ROPES
Marklund (1978) has analyzed the structure of filamentary currents, `magnetic ropes ' , collecting ionized gas from the surroundings (Fig . II .15) . He has calculated the resulting stationary state when the inward drift of ions and electrons towards the axis of a filament is matched by recombination and outward diffusion of the neutral gas . The equilibrium density of the ionized component normally has a maximum at the axis . however, under certain conditions the filament may be a cylindrical shell with an ion density minimum at the axis . Magnetic ropes have been observed by in situ measurements in the ionosphere of Venus (see III .53).
In the case of a partially ionized gas mixture, a temperature gradient will cause the radial transport to depend on the ionization potential, so that in general, the elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis . We may expect the elements to form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential.
Quite generally, it seems likely that for a rather wide range of parameters, a current through a partially ionized plasma is able to produce element separation (IV .3).
In other words, he is describing concentric tornado like vortexes, one inside the other, that form in the plasma. The current flow separates the elements in the plasma and the concentric vortexes are arranged by the ionization potential of each element that is flowing inside the plasma pinch.
There is an explicit understanding of current flow inside a Bennett pinch, or a "magnetic rope" according to Alfven. There should be no misunderstanding about the nature of a magnetic rope. It is a current carrying z-pinch plasma thread.
Now let's look at a recent NASA press release related to the THEMIS program:
QUOTE
Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
Here we find verified confirmation from in-situ measurements of the presence of current carrying plasma filaments that transfer *huge* amounts of energy to the atmosphere of Earth.
Make no mistake here, we can verify that EU theory has merit via the halls of science and via other scientific fields. There is nothing about EU theory that is based on metaphysics unlike Lambda-CDM theory. There is a wealth of new information coming out related to the ring currents on Saturn and the "magnetic ropes" that connect objects in space. The universe is electric, and that electric signature is easily verified, from electrical discharges in our own atmosphere, to electrical discharges in the suns' atmosphere, to the presence of current flows between stars.
Hello All
Hello Michael
You hit the nail on the head.
The universe is mostly Plasma and knowing the properties of plasma will give us an inside understanding of the workings of the parts within the universe.
Thank you for responding to the above posts.
Hello Michael
You hit the nail on the head.
The universe is mostly Plasma and knowing the properties of plasma will give us an inside understanding of the workings of the parts within the universe.
Thank you for responding to the above posts.
Hello All
Two more links
Rather than me expressing my opinion, I'd rather post the links and for you to make your opinions. The chinese whisper stops.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.11379M
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10001M
Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10001M
Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
Abstract
The Iron Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova and now acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass. This process covers the solar surface with lightweight elements and with lighter isotopes of each element. Running difference images expose rigid, iron-rich structures below the fluid photosphere made of lightweight elements. The energy source for the Sun and ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of hydrogen into helium or heavier elements. Neutron-emission from the solar core and neutron-decay generate about sixty five percent of solar luminosity and H-fusion generates about thirty-five percent. The upward flow of H ions maintains mass-separation in the Sun. Only about one percent of this neutron decay product survives its upward journey to depart as solar-wind hydrogen.
The more I read the more I learn that I know very little.
Two more links
Rather than me expressing my opinion, I'd rather post the links and for you to make your opinions. The chinese whisper stops.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.11379M
The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation
QUOTE
Abstract
The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures.
The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10001M
Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures. |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10001M
Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun
Abstract
The Iron Sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova and now acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, as did the precursor star, separating ions by mass. This process covers the solar surface with lightweight elements and with lighter isotopes of each element. Running difference images expose rigid, iron-rich structures below the fluid photosphere made of lightweight elements. The energy source for the Sun and ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of hydrogen into helium or heavier elements. Neutron-emission from the solar core and neutron-decay generate about sixty five percent of solar luminosity and H-fusion generates about thirty-five percent. The upward flow of H ions maintains mass-separation in the Sun. Only about one percent of this neutron decay product survives its upward journey to depart as solar-wind hydrogen.
The more I read the more I learn that I know very little.
Hello All
Yaafanblog said
Thats great, any theory should withstand any critic.
Always question.
Hello Margianni
Keep reading.
Hay!!!!!! You want to hear something funny.
We have a dog and a rabbit that sleep together
and the cat will sometimes come and play.
Yaafanblog said
QUOTE
What I'd really like to see here is a list (not links to difficult to interpret papers) in clear language that describes the primary features (evidence) that electro/plasma adherents point to in order to prove their right. Then I'd like to see opponents of the theory express themselves in laymans terms as to where they're right. Am I expecting too much?
Thats great, any theory should withstand any critic.
Always question.
Hello Margianni
Keep reading.
Hay!!!!!! You want to hear something funny.
We have a dog and a rabbit that sleep together
and the cat will sometimes come and play.
Riiiiight.
So we'll just ignore the fact that the plasma cosmology theory can not account for flat galactic rotation curves, the distribution of mass in, for example, the bullet cluster, and as far as falsifiability of the λCDM model goes, there are in fact several planned projects in the next couple of years that are expected to be able to test predictions made by the λCDM model.
And here I thought people in this thread might actually be interested in a discussion. My mistake, feel free to keep talking amongst yourselves.
So we'll just ignore the fact that the plasma cosmology theory can not account for flat galactic rotation curves, the distribution of mass in, for example, the bullet cluster, and as far as falsifiability of the λCDM model goes, there are in fact several planned projects in the next couple of years that are expected to be able to test predictions made by the λCDM model.
And here I thought people in this thread might actually be interested in a discussion. My mistake, feel free to keep talking amongst yourselves.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 25 2007, 11:30 PM)
Riiiiight.
So we'll just ignore the fact that the plasma cosmology theory can not account for flat galactic rotation curves, the distribution of mass in, for example, the bullet cluster, and as far as falsifiability of the λCDM model goes, there are in fact several planned projects in the next couple of years that are expected to be able to test predictions made by the λCDM model.
And here I thought people in this thread might actually be interested in a discussion. My mistake, feel free to keep talking amongst yourselves.
The inability of newcomers to post links to a thread is rather limiting.
Put the standard http stuff in front of the line below:
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf
I take it that you've not read much of Alfven's work or the work of Anthony Peratt?
MOND theories can explain these events as well. What makes Lambda-CDM theory so special in this regard?
Standard theory can't explain those current ropes between the sun and the Earth, the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray Jets seen by Hinode etc. To suggest only one theory warrants further study is to turn science into religion.
So we'll just ignore the fact that the plasma cosmology theory can not account for flat galactic rotation curves, the distribution of mass in, for example, the bullet cluster, and as far as falsifiability of the λCDM model goes, there are in fact several planned projects in the next couple of years that are expected to be able to test predictions made by the λCDM model.
And here I thought people in this thread might actually be interested in a discussion. My mistake, feel free to keep talking amongst yourselves.
The inability of newcomers to post links to a thread is rather limiting.
Put the standard http stuff in front of the line below:
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf
I take it that you've not read much of Alfven's work or the work of Anthony Peratt?
MOND theories can explain these events as well. What makes Lambda-CDM theory so special in this regard?
Standard theory can't explain those current ropes between the sun and the Earth, the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray Jets seen by Hinode etc. To suggest only one theory warrants further study is to turn science into religion.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 12:58 PM)
The inability of newcomers to post links to a thread is rather limiting.
Put the standard http stuff in front of the line below:
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf
I take it that you've not read much of Alfven's work or the work of Anthony Peratt?
MOND theories can explain these events as well. What makes Lambda-CDM theory so special in this regard?
Standard theory can't explain those current ropes between the sun and the Earth, the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray Jets seen by Hinode etc. To suggest only one theory warrants further study is to turn science into religion.
What I have and haven't read would be your assumptiuon, and you'd be wrong.
MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass.
Not to mention the fact that there is less evidence for Alfvens Ambiplasmas then there is for dark energy. Then there's the issues around trying to explain the angular and power distributions in the Cosmic background radiation. Plasma cosmology can't.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes, in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted, but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
Put the standard http stuff in front of the line below:
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf
I take it that you've not read much of Alfven's work or the work of Anthony Peratt?
MOND theories can explain these events as well. What makes Lambda-CDM theory so special in this regard?
Standard theory can't explain those current ropes between the sun and the Earth, the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray Jets seen by Hinode etc. To suggest only one theory warrants further study is to turn science into religion.
What I have and haven't read would be your assumptiuon, and you'd be wrong.
MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass.
Not to mention the fact that there is less evidence for Alfvens Ambiplasmas then there is for dark energy. Then there's the issues around trying to explain the angular and power distributions in the Cosmic background radiation. Plasma cosmology can't.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes, in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted, but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 12:18 AM)
What I have and haven't read would be your assumptiuon, and you'd be wrong.
MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass.
Not to mention the fact that there is less evidence for Alfvens Ambiplasmas then there is for dark energy. Then there's the issues around trying to explain the angular and power distributions in the Cosmic background radiation. Plasma cosmology can't.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes, in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted, but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
Ok, let me step back, assume nothing about you, and ask a specific question. Have you read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, or "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Peratt?
You will have to add the appropriate http stuff.
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
You will have to add the appropriate http stuff.
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes,
He did explain them in some detail. He referred to them as Bennett pinches. He was quite specific about the fact that they carried electrical current.
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
Those jets in the photosphere were also predicted by Birkeland, but then he was the father of plasma cosmology/ electric universe theory. Even Alfven referred to his work. Those magnetic (current carrying) ropes were in fact "predicted by Kristian Birkeland, who also "predicted" ring currents around planets and thunderstorms on other planets. He was able to use electrical current to create auroras, rings and coronal loops in his terella experiments.
IMO EU theory is the wave of the future. It's not based on the metaphysics of "dark" things, or the supernatural metaphysical things like inflation. Rather it is based on things we can test in lab and things that we know exist in nature. Electricity, plasma and current filaments are known to exist in nature and they can be created in labs right here on earth.
springerlink.com/content/m630681632782587/
Ambiplasmas have been mathematically defined. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation have never been shown to actually exist in nature either by the way. If I have to choose between a theory with 1 metaphysical entity or 3 different forms of metaphysics, from an Occum's razor perspective, Lambda-CDM theory is toast.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
springerlink.com/content/m630681632782587/
Ambiplasmas have been mathematically defined. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation have never been shown to actually exist in nature either by the way. If I have to choose between a theory with 1 metaphysical entity or 3 different forms of metaphysics, from an Occum's razor perspective, Lambda-CDM theory is toast.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
If 12 months ago, I had said "We have no evidence to support the existence of microjets on the sun, or magnetic ropes connecting the earths magnetosphere to the solar wind" would you have abandoned plasma cosmology? Some how I doubt it. Just because we have yet to observe something directly, does not mean that it does not exist. By that logic, we should have abandoned the Germ theory of diseases, or Arrhenius should never have been given his PhD.
Well, how long do we need to wait around to find any dark matter or dark energy or inflation? How long is long enough? The other theories you mentioned were all falsifiable by conventional means. How would you propose we falsify inflation theory?
Dark matter has to be the biggest ruse I've seen in science. First it's "dark" because it doesn't emit matter, and now it can be found by locating stray gamma rays? How do we distinguish between gamma rays from SUSY interactions (which is purely a hypothetical/non standard variant of particle physics theory by the way) and the ordinary gamma rays that come from planetary atmospheres during lightening storms? This whole dark matter idea sounds like an extraordinary claim, and yet I see no extraordinary evidence to support the idea that your "missing mass" is located in some form of exotic matter. I'd be more inclined to think you completely underestimated the amount of *normal* mass in galaxy.
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
I notice you're carefully avoiding the Ambiplasma issue. Is there a reason for this?
I didn't avoid your direct question. I admit that matter/antimatter (combined) plasma has not been created in lab, but plasma and antimatter plasmas (positron plasmas) have been created in a lab. The only thing you could whine about is the fact it's not been shown to exist "yet", but Lambda-CDM requires three of them, two of which defy the laws of known physics, and the other is utterly unfalsifiable by any controlled test.
I did however notice that you avoided my question about the two books I mentioned. Cosmic Plasma is pretty much the plasma cosmology "holy book". If you haven't read it, you don't really have any business rejecting plasma cosmology theory out of hand. IMO Anthony Peratt is a better writer and moves at a more comfortable speed, but his books are no longer in print and they are difficult to find. Between the two of them, they modeled plasma on computers and put their mathematical theories to the test in labs. I've yet to see anyone provide a single controlled lab experiment that demonstrated the existence of inflation, or monopoles (that Guth's inflation theory presumably solved), dark energy or dark matter. In an Occum's razor argument, Lambda-CDM theory hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell of winning that comparison, evidence of Ambiplasma, or no evidence of Ambiplasma. That isn't even a requirement of EU theory in the first place. I have no idea what generates the current flow of the universe, I just know that currents flow through the universe and I can demonstrate it. It doesn't matter what creates them, I can still demonstrate that they exist in space.
I'm going to address this line in a separate response. I don't think that you understand that I am not personally proposing any sort of "big picture" scenario related to EU theory. I'm actually pretty open to an expanding universe, and maybe even a form of a "big bang" theory. EU theory makes *a lot* of testable predictions that can all be tested in a lab, some of which can even be tested with a $20.00 plasma ball. Inflation theory only made a few "predictions". Guth predicted a homogeneous layout of matter and the existence of few if any monopoles. We now know that the universe has large gaping holes in it, and predicting zero unicorns is not a legitimate scientific "prediction". Guth never demonstrated that monopoles exist in nature, so using inflation to predict few of them is like using inflation to predict zero elves. Inflation theory has already been falsified by the only possible logical method that is available to us here on Earth. When is the mainstream going to admit that inflation theory has been falsified?
Now be specific for me. How do I create a controlled scientific test to verify and/or falsify the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter" or "inflation"?
MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass.
Not to mention the fact that there is less evidence for Alfvens Ambiplasmas then there is for dark energy. Then there's the issues around trying to explain the angular and power distributions in the Cosmic background radiation. Plasma cosmology can't.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes, in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted, but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
Ok, let me step back, assume nothing about you, and ask a specific question. Have you read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, or "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Peratt?
QUOTE
MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass.
You will have to add the appropriate http stuff.
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MOND can not account for the observed distribution of mass/gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster. MOND isn't even a relativistic treatment. TeVeS is a better approximation, but even that has trouble with the observed distribution of mass. |
You will have to add the appropriate http stuff.
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
Standard Magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven worked on, and was famous for, can explain those magnetic ropes,
He did explain them in some detail. He referred to them as Bennett pinches. He was quite specific about the fact that they carried electrical current.
QUOTE
in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted,
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| in fact, I believe that there's a recent press release made by NASA talking about them that implied that they had been predicted, |
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
but not observed up until now, much like the micro jets in the suns photosphere.
Those jets in the photosphere were also predicted by Birkeland, but then he was the father of plasma cosmology/ electric universe theory. Even Alfven referred to his work. Those magnetic (current carrying) ropes were in fact "predicted by Kristian Birkeland, who also "predicted" ring currents around planets and thunderstorms on other planets. He was able to use electrical current to create auroras, rings and coronal loops in his terella experiments.
IMO EU theory is the wave of the future. It's not based on the metaphysics of "dark" things, or the supernatural metaphysical things like inflation. Rather it is based on things we can test in lab and things that we know exist in nature. Electricity, plasma and current filaments are known to exist in nature and they can be created in labs right here on earth.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 03:43 PM)
You will have to add the appropriate http stuff.
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
He did explain them in some detail. He referred to them as Bennett pinches. He was quite specific about the fact that they carried electrical current.
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
Those jets in the photosphere were also predicted by Birkeland, but then he was the father of plasma cosmology/ electric universe theory. Even Alfven referred to his work. Those magnetic (current carrying) ropes were in fact "predicted by Kristian Birkeland, who also "predicted" ring currents around planets and thunderstorms on other planets. He was able to use electrical current to create auroras, rings and coronal loops in his terella experiments.
IMO EU theory is the wave of the future. It's not based on the metaphysics of "dark" things, or the supernatural metaphysical things like inflation. Rather it is based on things we can test in lab and things that we know exist in nature. Electricity, plasma and current filaments are known to exist in nature and they can be created in labs right here on earth.
Obviously, in order to know, and understand the implications and predictions of the Ambiplasma enough to say "Ambiplasmas have not been observed" I have at least read some of Milgrams work.
MOND can not explain the observations of the Bullet Cluster. MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing, that is (one of) the reason(s) that TeVeS was developed in the first place. TeVeS can at least explain gravitational lensing.
More over (evidently) MOND and MOG are different theories, so your point is irrelevant/moot.
As far as producing a single gram of the stuff, we also can not produce a single gram of the stuff that makes up Neutron Stars. Do you doubt their existence?
If 12 months ago, I had said "We have no evidence to support the existence of microjets on the sun, or magnetic ropes connecting the earths magnetosphere to the solar wind" would you have abandoned plasma cosmology? Some how I doubt it. Just because we have yet to observe something directly, does not mean that it does not exist. By that logic, we should have abandoned the Germ theory of diseases, or Arrhenius should never have been given his PhD.
You do understand the inherrent hypocrisy of what you're saying don't you? "We should abandon this theory which I don't like, and don't think makes any testable predictions, for this theory which I do like which makes predictions that we can't test."
And of course, once again, we come back to the fact that in the very near future, the next generation of experiments are expected to uncover the existence of such things - for example, if the WIMP theory is correct, and the WIMP turns out to be the lightest SUSY particle, it's expected to decay, and produce a background of gamma radiation which GLAST is expected to be able to observe, if all of the above is true, then the theory, based on the mass and distribution of the particle makes very specific predictions about the distribution of gamma rays in the night sky. I believe there have also been some observations that have hinted at the existence of this background of gamma radiation.
I didn't say anything about who first predicted the existence of magnetic ropes. I commented that standard magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven did a lot of work on, was sufficient to explain them. I made no comment that implied who predicted them.
I notice you're carefully avoiding the Ambiplasma issue. Is there a reason for this?
space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
Evidently MOND theory can now explain both the lensing effects in the bullet cluster as well as the movement patterns in the outer part of the galaxy. Again, there is nothing particularly "special" about dark matter theories, other than the fact you can't produce a single gram of the stuff for us here on earth, or any controlled experiment that demonstrates it actually exists in nature.
He did explain them in some detail. He referred to them as Bennett pinches. He was quite specific about the fact that they carried electrical current.
By whom? Birkeland did in fact predict them 100 years ago. Do you mean Birkeland predicted them?
Those jets in the photosphere were also predicted by Birkeland, but then he was the father of plasma cosmology/ electric universe theory. Even Alfven referred to his work. Those magnetic (current carrying) ropes were in fact "predicted by Kristian Birkeland, who also "predicted" ring currents around planets and thunderstorms on other planets. He was able to use electrical current to create auroras, rings and coronal loops in his terella experiments.
IMO EU theory is the wave of the future. It's not based on the metaphysics of "dark" things, or the supernatural metaphysical things like inflation. Rather it is based on things we can test in lab and things that we know exist in nature. Electricity, plasma and current filaments are known to exist in nature and they can be created in labs right here on earth.
Obviously, in order to know, and understand the implications and predictions of the Ambiplasma enough to say "Ambiplasmas have not been observed" I have at least read some of Milgrams work.
MOND can not explain the observations of the Bullet Cluster. MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing, that is (one of) the reason(s) that TeVeS was developed in the first place. TeVeS can at least explain gravitational lensing.
More over (evidently) MOND and MOG are different theories, so your point is irrelevant/moot.
As far as producing a single gram of the stuff, we also can not produce a single gram of the stuff that makes up Neutron Stars. Do you doubt their existence?
If 12 months ago, I had said "We have no evidence to support the existence of microjets on the sun, or magnetic ropes connecting the earths magnetosphere to the solar wind" would you have abandoned plasma cosmology? Some how I doubt it. Just because we have yet to observe something directly, does not mean that it does not exist. By that logic, we should have abandoned the Germ theory of diseases, or Arrhenius should never have been given his PhD.
You do understand the inherrent hypocrisy of what you're saying don't you? "We should abandon this theory which I don't like, and don't think makes any testable predictions, for this theory which I do like which makes predictions that we can't test."
And of course, once again, we come back to the fact that in the very near future, the next generation of experiments are expected to uncover the existence of such things - for example, if the WIMP theory is correct, and the WIMP turns out to be the lightest SUSY particle, it's expected to decay, and produce a background of gamma radiation which GLAST is expected to be able to observe, if all of the above is true, then the theory, based on the mass and distribution of the particle makes very specific predictions about the distribution of gamma rays in the night sky. I believe there have also been some observations that have hinted at the existence of this background of gamma radiation.
I didn't say anything about who first predicted the existence of magnetic ropes. I commented that standard magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven did a lot of work on, was sufficient to explain them. I made no comment that implied who predicted them.
I notice you're carefully avoiding the Ambiplasma issue. Is there a reason for this?
QUOTE
Obviously, in order to know, and understand the implications and predictions of the Ambiplasma enough to say "Ambiplasmas have not been observed" I have at least read some of Milgrams work.
springerlink.com/content/m630681632782587/
Ambiplasmas have been mathematically defined. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation have never been shown to actually exist in nature either by the way. If I have to choose between a theory with 1 metaphysical entity or 3 different forms of metaphysics, from an Occum's razor perspective, Lambda-CDM theory is toast.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Obviously, in order to know, and understand the implications and predictions of the Ambiplasma enough to say "Ambiplasmas have not been observed" I have at least read some of Milgrams work. |
springerlink.com/content/m630681632782587/
Ambiplasmas have been mathematically defined. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation have never been shown to actually exist in nature either by the way. If I have to choose between a theory with 1 metaphysical entity or 3 different forms of metaphysics, from an Occum's razor perspective, Lambda-CDM theory is toast.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
If 12 months ago, I had said "We have no evidence to support the existence of microjets on the sun, or magnetic ropes connecting the earths magnetosphere to the solar wind" would you have abandoned plasma cosmology? Some how I doubt it. Just because we have yet to observe something directly, does not mean that it does not exist. By that logic, we should have abandoned the Germ theory of diseases, or Arrhenius should never have been given his PhD.
Well, how long do we need to wait around to find any dark matter or dark energy or inflation? How long is long enough? The other theories you mentioned were all falsifiable by conventional means. How would you propose we falsify inflation theory?
Dark matter has to be the biggest ruse I've seen in science. First it's "dark" because it doesn't emit matter, and now it can be found by locating stray gamma rays? How do we distinguish between gamma rays from SUSY interactions (which is purely a hypothetical/non standard variant of particle physics theory by the way) and the ordinary gamma rays that come from planetary atmospheres during lightening storms? This whole dark matter idea sounds like an extraordinary claim, and yet I see no extraordinary evidence to support the idea that your "missing mass" is located in some form of exotic matter. I'd be more inclined to think you completely underestimated the amount of *normal* mass in galaxy.
QUOTE
I didn't say anything about who first predicted the existence of magnetic ropes. I commented that standard magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven did a lot of work on, was sufficient to explain them. I made no comment that implied who predicted them.
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't say anything about who first predicted the existence of magnetic ropes. I commented that standard magnetohydrodynamics, which Alfven did a lot of work on, was sufficient to explain them. I made no comment that implied who predicted them. |
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
I notice you're carefully avoiding the Ambiplasma issue. Is there a reason for this?
I didn't avoid your direct question. I admit that matter/antimatter (combined) plasma has not been created in lab, but plasma and antimatter plasmas (positron plasmas) have been created in a lab. The only thing you could whine about is the fact it's not been shown to exist "yet", but Lambda-CDM requires three of them, two of which defy the laws of known physics, and the other is utterly unfalsifiable by any controlled test.
I did however notice that you avoided my question about the two books I mentioned. Cosmic Plasma is pretty much the plasma cosmology "holy book". If you haven't read it, you don't really have any business rejecting plasma cosmology theory out of hand. IMO Anthony Peratt is a better writer and moves at a more comfortable speed, but his books are no longer in print and they are difficult to find. Between the two of them, they modeled plasma on computers and put their mathematical theories to the test in labs. I've yet to see anyone provide a single controlled lab experiment that demonstrated the existence of inflation, or monopoles (that Guth's inflation theory presumably solved), dark energy or dark matter. In an Occum's razor argument, Lambda-CDM theory hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell of winning that comparison, evidence of Ambiplasma, or no evidence of Ambiplasma. That isn't even a requirement of EU theory in the first place. I have no idea what generates the current flow of the universe, I just know that currents flow through the universe and I can demonstrate it. It doesn't matter what creates them, I can still demonstrate that they exist in space.
QUOTE
You do understand the inherrent hypocrisy of what you're saying don't you? "We should abandon this theory which I don't like, and don't think makes any testable predictions, for this theory which I do like which makes predictions that we can't test."
I'm going to address this line in a separate response. I don't think that you understand that I am not personally proposing any sort of "big picture" scenario related to EU theory. I'm actually pretty open to an expanding universe, and maybe even a form of a "big bang" theory. EU theory makes *a lot* of testable predictions that can all be tested in a lab, some of which can even be tested with a $20.00 plasma ball. Inflation theory only made a few "predictions". Guth predicted a homogeneous layout of matter and the existence of few if any monopoles. We now know that the universe has large gaping holes in it, and predicting zero unicorns is not a legitimate scientific "prediction". Guth never demonstrated that monopoles exist in nature, so using inflation to predict few of them is like using inflation to predict zero elves. Inflation theory has already been falsified by the only possible logical method that is available to us here on Earth. When is the mainstream going to admit that inflation theory has been falsified?
Now be specific for me. How do I create a controlled scientific test to verify and/or falsify the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter" or "inflation"?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 04:53 PM)
Ambiplasmas have been mathematically defined. Dark energy, dark matter and inflation have never been shown to actually exist in nature either by the way. If I have to choose between a theory with 1 metaphysical entity or 3 different forms of metaphysics, from an Occum's razor perspective, Lambda-CDM theory is toast.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
Well, how long do we need to wait around to find any dark matter or dark energy or inflation? How long is long enough? The other theories you mentioned were all falsifiable by conventional means. How would you propose we falsify inflation theory?
Dark matter has to be the biggest ruse I've seen in science. First it's "dark" because it doesn't emit matter, and now it can be found by locating stray gamma rays? How do we distinguish between gamma rays from SUSY interactions (which is purely a hypothetical/non standard variant of particle physics theory by the way) and the ordinary gamma rays that come from planetary atmospheres during lightening storms? This whole dark matter idea sounds like an extraordinary claim, and yet I see no extraordinary evidence to support the idea that your "missing mass" is located in some form of exotic matter. I'd be more inclined to think you completely underestimated the amount of *normal* mass in galaxy.
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
I didn't avoid your direct question. I admit that matter/antimatter (combined) plasma has not been created in lab, but plasma and antimatter plasmas (positron plasmas) have been created in a lab. The only thing you could whine about is the fact it's not been shown to exist "yet", but Lambda-CDM requires three of them, two of which defy the laws of known physics, and the other is utterly unfalsifiable by any controlled test.
I did however notice that you avoided my question about the two books I mentioned. Cosmic Plasma is pretty much the plasma cosmology "holy book". If you haven't read it, you don't really have any business rejecting plasma cosmology theory out of hand. IMO Anthony Peratt is a better writer and moves at a more comfortable speed, but his books are no longer in print and they are difficult to find. Between the two of them, they modeled plasma on computers and put their mathematical theories to the test in labs. I've yet to see anyone provide a single controlled lab experiment that demonstrated the existence of inflation, or monopoles (that Guth's inflation theory presumably solved), dark energy or dark matter. In an Occum's razor argument, Lambda-CDM theory hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell of winning that comparison, evidence of Ambiplasma, or no evidence of Ambiplasma. That isn't even a requirement of EU theory in the first place. I have no idea what generates the current flow of the universe, I just know that currents flow through the universe and I can demonstrate it. It doesn't matter what creates them, I can still demonstrate that they exist in space.
You asked how much I knew about Plasma comology, I answered the question. And why would you assume that I have read so few books that I can recall the name of every book or paper that I have ever read? Hmmm...?
And Ambiplasmas are kind of a key prediction of plasma cosmology, in that it represents the explanation of plasma cosmology for the prevalence of matter over antimatter.
I'm sorry. WHERE did I comment on Birkelands work (As far as the magnetic ropes goes)? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't.
As far as inflation goes, there are ways of flasifying it (as I understand it) for example, there are certain predictions regarding the Cosmic microwave background that are mutually exclusive with some forms/interpretations of inflation. So, that would seem to kind of debunk your claims.
My point is that you're wrong, they aren't. Once again, we come back to the point that MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing around the sun, let alone galaxies. That's why TeVeS was developed, but TeVeS looses the simplicity that attracted people to MOND in the first place. All I have been able to ascertain about MOG, is that it's different from MOND, and if it can explain gravitational lensing AT ALL, it means that it's autimatically closer to TeVeS then MOND.
How long do we need to wait around to find Dark Energy, Matter, or inflation? How long is a piece of string? How long are we supposed to be waiting around for proof of the existence of Ambiplasmas? How do you propose we falsify the existence of Ambiplasmas? We haven't been able to make them in a lab yet, so should we apply your standards to Plasma Cosmology, and assume that because we haven't made them or found them yet, that they don't exist?
Plasma cosmology, as it stands, alone, can not explain the distribution of matter in the bullet cluster, it can only do that if you consider it in conjuctions with MOG, which is the ONLY alternative gravitational theory that, so far, appears to explain the bullet cluster data.
So you obviously haven't bothered reading about the theory that you're currently dismissing, otherwise you'd know that, as I said, the gamma ray signature is distinctive, as in, doesn't resemble other possible explanations. You're also missing another point, a misconception i've discussed with other people in the past. They're called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Not Non-Interacting Massive Particles. Sheesh. When did weakly and non come to mean the same thing. They interact weakly, which means they interact occasionaly. And, as I'm sure I've already said, the gamma rays are produced by the decay of the particles in question.
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, because I'm beginning to come to teh conclusion that you don't know as much about either plasma cosmology, or the λCDM model as you seem to be pretneding that you do.
EU theory is not predicated on the existence of Ambiplasmas by the way. It was simply a mechanism that was used to explain a "Big Picture" scenario, much like your ""singularity" thingy, or that inflation stuff.
Of course the only claim to fame that inflation ever offered us was recently falsified when they found a giant hole in the universe instead of a predicted homogeneous layout of matter as 'predicted" by inflation theory.
My point was that modified gravity theories are just as adept at explaining many aspects of lensing and movement *without* resorting to any metaphysical entities.
Well, how long do we need to wait around to find any dark matter or dark energy or inflation? How long is long enough? The other theories you mentioned were all falsifiable by conventional means. How would you propose we falsify inflation theory?
Dark matter has to be the biggest ruse I've seen in science. First it's "dark" because it doesn't emit matter, and now it can be found by locating stray gamma rays? How do we distinguish between gamma rays from SUSY interactions (which is purely a hypothetical/non standard variant of particle physics theory by the way) and the ordinary gamma rays that come from planetary atmospheres during lightening storms? This whole dark matter idea sounds like an extraordinary claim, and yet I see no extraordinary evidence to support the idea that your "missing mass" is located in some form of exotic matter. I'd be more inclined to think you completely underestimated the amount of *normal* mass in galaxy.
I'm simply noting that the father of MHD theory explained them as current carrying threads of plasma. What makes you think he was wrong in that assessment?
I didn't avoid your direct question. I admit that matter/antimatter (combined) plasma has not been created in lab, but plasma and antimatter plasmas (positron plasmas) have been created in a lab. The only thing you could whine about is the fact it's not been shown to exist "yet", but Lambda-CDM requires three of them, two of which defy the laws of known physics, and the other is utterly unfalsifiable by any controlled test.
I did however notice that you avoided my question about the two books I mentioned. Cosmic Plasma is pretty much the plasma cosmology "holy book". If you haven't read it, you don't really have any business rejecting plasma cosmology theory out of hand. IMO Anthony Peratt is a better writer and moves at a more comfortable speed, but his books are no longer in print and they are difficult to find. Between the two of them, they modeled plasma on computers and put their mathematical theories to the test in labs. I've yet to see anyone provide a single controlled lab experiment that demonstrated the existence of inflation, or monopoles (that Guth's inflation theory presumably solved), dark energy or dark matter. In an Occum's razor argument, Lambda-CDM theory hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell of winning that comparison, evidence of Ambiplasma, or no evidence of Ambiplasma. That isn't even a requirement of EU theory in the first place. I have no idea what generates the current flow of the universe, I just know that currents flow through the universe and I can demonstrate it. It doesn't matter what creates them, I can still demonstrate that they exist in space.
You asked how much I knew about Plasma comology, I answered the question. And why would you assume that I have read so few books that I can recall the name of every book or paper that I have ever read? Hmmm...?
And Ambiplasmas are kind of a key prediction of plasma cosmology, in that it represents the explanation of plasma cosmology for the prevalence of matter over antimatter.
I'm sorry. WHERE did I comment on Birkelands work (As far as the magnetic ropes goes)? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't.
As far as inflation goes, there are ways of flasifying it (as I understand it) for example, there are certain predictions regarding the Cosmic microwave background that are mutually exclusive with some forms/interpretations of inflation. So, that would seem to kind of debunk your claims.
My point is that you're wrong, they aren't. Once again, we come back to the point that MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing around the sun, let alone galaxies. That's why TeVeS was developed, but TeVeS looses the simplicity that attracted people to MOND in the first place. All I have been able to ascertain about MOG, is that it's different from MOND, and if it can explain gravitational lensing AT ALL, it means that it's autimatically closer to TeVeS then MOND.
How long do we need to wait around to find Dark Energy, Matter, or inflation? How long is a piece of string? How long are we supposed to be waiting around for proof of the existence of Ambiplasmas? How do you propose we falsify the existence of Ambiplasmas? We haven't been able to make them in a lab yet, so should we apply your standards to Plasma Cosmology, and assume that because we haven't made them or found them yet, that they don't exist?
Plasma cosmology, as it stands, alone, can not explain the distribution of matter in the bullet cluster, it can only do that if you consider it in conjuctions with MOG, which is the ONLY alternative gravitational theory that, so far, appears to explain the bullet cluster data.
So you obviously haven't bothered reading about the theory that you're currently dismissing, otherwise you'd know that, as I said, the gamma ray signature is distinctive, as in, doesn't resemble other possible explanations. You're also missing another point, a misconception i've discussed with other people in the past. They're called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Not Non-Interacting Massive Particles. Sheesh. When did weakly and non come to mean the same thing. They interact weakly, which means they interact occasionaly. And, as I'm sure I've already said, the gamma rays are produced by the decay of the particles in question.
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, because I'm beginning to come to teh conclusion that you don't know as much about either plasma cosmology, or the λCDM model as you seem to be pretneding that you do.
Hello All
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005LPI....36.1033M
Solar Abundance of Elements from Neutron-Capture Cross Sections
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph..1441M
Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph..1441M
Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
Abstract
Efforts to understand unusual weather or abrupt changes in climate have been plagued by deficiencies of the standard solar model (SSM). While it assumes that our primary source of energy began as a homogeneous ball of hydrogen (H) with a steady, well-behaved H-fusion reactor at its core, observations instead reveal a very heterogeneous, dynamic Sun. As examples, the upward acceleration and departure of H+ ions from the surface of the quiet Sun and abrupt climatic changes, including geomagnetic reversals and periodic magnetic storms that eject material from the solar surface are not explained by the SSM. The present magnetic fields are probably deep-seated remnants of very ancient origin. These could have been generated from two mechanisms. These are: a) Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich, zero-spin material into a rotating, superfluid, superconductor surrounding the solar core and/or superfluidity and quantized vortices in nucleon-paired Fermions at the core.
The standard sun model has been placed by many as the model with the facts and many scientists have assumed it to be the model supported by evidence.
In the last 20 years many would die by it. If you would have brought up a discussion they would pushed you aside.
The world has to be more scientific and less emotional over theories that were backed by Churches, politics and schools that supported the cash flow to keep the Standard models such as SSM and the BBT afloat.
Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven isn't just "a" book on plasma cosmology theory, it is "the" book on plasma cosmology theory written by the author of MHD theory, the guy they recognized with a Nobel prize. He also happens to be the same guy that wrote, mathematically framed, promoted and championed plasma cosmology theory. If you want to understand plasma cosmology theory, and the history of plasma cosmology theory, Alfven is your guy, and Cosmic Plasma is your book. His students (like Peratt) are also great teachers of plasma cosmology theory. If you aren't studying plasma cosmology theory from one of these guys, then you aren't getting anything first hand. I've yet to meet a critic of EU theory that has actually read Alfven's book. It's never happened. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven isn't just "a" book on plasma cosmology theory, it is "the" book on plasma cosmology theory written by the author of MHD theory, the guy they recognized with a Nobel prize. He also happens to be the same guy that wrote, mathematically framed, promoted and championed plasma cosmology theory. If you want to understand plasma cosmology theory, and the history of plasma cosmology theory, Alfven is your guy, and Cosmic Plasma is your book. His students (like Peratt) are also great teachers of plasma cosmology theory. If you aren't studying plasma cosmology theory from one of these guys, then you aren't getting anything first hand. I've yet to meet a critic of EU theory that has actually read Alfven's book. It's never happened. Coincidence? I doubt it.
And Ambiplasmas are kind of a key prediction of plasma cosmology, in that it represents the explanation of plasma cosmology for the prevalence of matter over antimatter.
You don't seem to understand. We only see a small sliver of this physical universe. We can't even see the whole thing to know if it's mostly made of matter or mostly made of antimatter. We could only "assume" that it was made of the things we can presently observe from our little mudball in spacetime.
There is no need in plasma cosmology theory for matter to be in greater abundance in the *whole* physical universe, only that matter dominates *our* little corner of physical reality.
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
As far as inflation goes, there are ways of flasifying it (as I understand it) for example, there are certain predictions regarding the Cosmic microwave background that are mutually exclusive with some forms/interpretations of inflation. So, that would seem to kind of debunk your claims.
The CMBR "predictions" were based on a homogeneous mass layout of matter. That isn't what we observe. The key "predictions" of inflation have been falsified. "Pretty close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. There is no other key prediction I'm aware of related to inflation that could be used to falsify it. You can't even name another vector or scalar field in nature that will exponentially increase in volume without a significant loss of density. The whole concept is pure mythology from start to finish.
But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
That's why TeVeS was developed, but TeVeS looses the simplicity that attracted people to MOND in the first place. All I have been able to ascertain about MOG, is that it's different from MOND, and if it can explain gravitational lensing AT ALL, it means that it's autimatically closer to TeVeS then MOND.
Like I said, I see nothing special about Lambda-CDM theory. For all I know your "missing mass" is due to the fact you grossly underestimate the amount of mass in a solar system. I have no evidence that any "missing mass" is contained in "dark matter", even if "missing mass" is a better explanation for lensing effects and rotational effects. In order to put faith in lambda-CDM theory, I have to put faith in not one, not two, but three completely different forms of metaphysics.
If I stop attempting to develop creation myths about how it all began and simply look at the facts based on what I can empirically observe, I see plenty of evidence to support electrical currents in spacetime. I see acceleration of solar wind particles that are EM related effects. I see large "magnetic ropes" flowing between objects in space. I see no evidence that any "missing mass" is due to "dark matter", or any evidence that the acceleration of matter is due to "dark energy", or that singularities go "boom" one day because of inflation.
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
How do you propose we falsify the existence of Ambiplasmas? We haven't been able to make them in a lab yet, so should we apply your standards to Plasma Cosmology, and assume that because we haven't made them or found them yet, that they don't exist?
Um, frankly until someone demonstrates their existence in a lab, that *is* what I assume.
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
So you obviously haven't bothered reading about the theory that you're currently dismissing, otherwise you'd know that, as I said, the gamma ray signature is distinctive, as in, doesn't resemble other possible explanations.
Exactly how are these gamma rays "different" from ordinary gamma rays we might observe in Rhessi images?
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
Sure it can. The EM field that permeates are region of visible space increased somewhere in the process.
I know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven. I know that I can defend plasma cosmology theory in a variety of ways. I know three things about current theory that are relevant. You can't produce a single controlled test to verify that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single test that SUSY particles actually exist in nature, that they interact, or that they emit x-rays. You can't show us any controlled test to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on nature.
I can demonstrate all the key tenets of plasmas cosmology theory with an ordinary $20 plasma ball from Walmart. I can control the flow of electricity and show you that the filaments in the plasma will stop flowing when I turn it off. I can turn it back on again and show you the filaments that from in the plasma.
I know for a fact that you can't demonstrate that inflation, dark energy or dark matter have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment here on earth. That's enough for me. I don't have to know how the whole universe works. I don't have to believe in magic dark energies only because I can't currently explain something with the known forces of nature. I don't have to believe in inflation only because some folks like to believe in creation stories. I know for a fact that you can't even demonstrate that all matter was once condensed to a single point. The whole Lambda-CDM theory is mythos that can never be falsified by any logical method. Nobody has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, so how can it ever be disproven? In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Got a gram of dark matter?
Birkeland had ground based measurement to support his viewpoint and he did not propose the existence of a new form of matter or energy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Birkeland had ground based measurement to support his viewpoint and he did not propose the existence of a new form of matter or energy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
And hmmm, let me see, Dark Matter was first theorized in (or about) 1975, which means we should wait at least another 33 years (2040) before we discard the idea.
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
Given that Alan Guth's negative energy field was actually largely disproven/discarded, we should (IMO) use 1998 as the start date, as that was the first time that the phrase "Dark Energy" was used, and the origin of the current 'form' of dark energy. Which means that given that we're coming up on 2008 now, means that we should give it another 55 years before we discard it.
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
Or maybe we should apply the hundred odd years it's taken to confirm the existence of the micro jet, or magnetic ropes?
Why should we do that? We already just got 2 more (on top of Birkeland other key prediction) confirmation of his *working lab model*. You don't have a working lab model. See the difference between these two ideas? One man put in sweat equity, built a lab model based on known forces of nature, and experimented with them in controlled conditions and took images of his work. The other guy sat at a desk with a pencil and paper, let his imagination run amuck and never lifted a finger to build a model or see if it worked.
No, that point your ignoring is that Birkeland had a working model and did not propose new forces of nature in his "explanation" of nature. You have no working models of inflation, no working models of dark energy, and no working models of dark matter. All you have a vague, unfalsifiable ideas. You're ignoring the obvious here. Birkeland *worked* on his model *in a lab* until he could demonstrate that observation in nature could be simulated in his controlled laboratory experiments with electricity.
I don't put any faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. Likewise I don't put any faith in dark energy or dark matter or inflation. It's nothing personal, I just require that my scientific beliefs be based on empirical data and controlled scientific testing.
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005LPI....36.1033M
Solar Abundance of Elements from Neutron-Capture Cross Sections
QUOTE
Abstract
Excess light s-products in the photosphere (A = 25-207) confirm the solar mass separation recorded by excess light isotopes in the solar wind (A = 3-136). Both measurements show that major elements in the Sun and rocky planets are Fe, O, Ni, Si & S.
Excess light s-products in the photosphere (A = 25-207) confirm the solar mass separation recorded by excess light isotopes in the solar wind (A = 3-136). Both measurements show that major elements in the Sun and rocky planets are Fe, O, Ni, Si & S.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph..1441M
Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract Excess light s-products in the photosphere (A = 25-207) confirm the solar mass separation recorded by excess light isotopes in the solar wind (A = 3-136). Both measurements show that major elements in the Sun and rocky planets are Fe, O, Ni, Si & S. |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph..1441M
Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
Abstract
Efforts to understand unusual weather or abrupt changes in climate have been plagued by deficiencies of the standard solar model (SSM). While it assumes that our primary source of energy began as a homogeneous ball of hydrogen (H) with a steady, well-behaved H-fusion reactor at its core, observations instead reveal a very heterogeneous, dynamic Sun. As examples, the upward acceleration and departure of H+ ions from the surface of the quiet Sun and abrupt climatic changes, including geomagnetic reversals and periodic magnetic storms that eject material from the solar surface are not explained by the SSM. The present magnetic fields are probably deep-seated remnants of very ancient origin. These could have been generated from two mechanisms. These are: a) Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich, zero-spin material into a rotating, superfluid, superconductor surrounding the solar core and/or
superfluidity and quantized vortices in nucleon-paired Fermions at the core.The standard sun model has been placed by many as the model with the facts and many scientists have assumed it to be the model supported by evidence.
In the last 20 years many would die by it. If you would have brought up a discussion they would pushed you aside.
The world has to be more scientific and less emotional over theories that were backed by Churches, politics and schools that supported the cash flow to keep the Standard models such as SSM and the BBT afloat.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 05:01 PM)
I'm going to address this line in a separate response. I don't think that you understand that I am not personally proposing any sort of "big picture" scenario related to EU theory. I'm actually pretty open to an expanding universe, and maybe even a form of a "big bang" theory. EU theory makes *a lot* of testable predictions that can all be tested in a lab, some of which can even be tested with a $20.00 plasma ball. Inflation theory only made a few "predictions". Guth predicted a homogeneous layout of matter and the existence of few if any monopoles. We now know that the universe has large gaping holes in it, and predicting zero unicorns is not a legitimate scientific "prediction". Guth never demonstrated that monopoles exist in nature, so using inflation to predict few of them is like using inflation to predict zero elves. Inflation theory has already been falsified by the only possible logical method that is available to us here on Earth. When is the mainstream going to admit that inflation theory has been falsified?
Now be specific for me. How do I create a controlled scientific test to verify and/or falsify the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter" or "inflation"?
And in spite of the huge gaping holes, the universe is, over all, homogenous, what's your point?
By what you're saying the Sloan Great Wall some how violates the λCDM model.
Then there's the fact that the current generation of numerical predictions based on λCDM models match, to a reasonable degree.
I was never just talking about the lack of monopoles.
And as far as testing directly for Dark Matter, and Dark Energy goes? Well, as I have already explained, three times now, there's the proposed test with GLAST which will falsify at least some forms of dark matter.
There's also the LHC, of which I have heard it stated many times, that it is expected to be able to probe (some of) the energy realms where Dark Matter and Dark Energy are thought to become observable.
Again, we come back to the basic premise of "Should we have discarded Alven, or Bikelands work just because we couldn't observe things they had predicted?"
Or equally "Should we have discarded the atomic theory of solids because we hadn't observed them directly?" Actually, even with the Atomic force microscope, we still haven't observed them directly, we have only inferred their existence through numerous lines of evidence.
Now be specific for me. How do I create a controlled scientific test to verify and/or falsify the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter" or "inflation"?
And in spite of the huge gaping holes, the universe is, over all, homogenous, what's your point?
By what you're saying the Sloan Great Wall some how violates the λCDM model.
Then there's the fact that the current generation of numerical predictions based on λCDM models match, to a reasonable degree.
I was never just talking about the lack of monopoles.
And as far as testing directly for Dark Matter, and Dark Energy goes? Well, as I have already explained, three times now, there's the proposed test with GLAST which will falsify at least some forms of dark matter.
There's also the LHC, of which I have heard it stated many times, that it is expected to be able to probe (some of) the energy realms where Dark Matter and Dark Energy are thought to become observable.
Again, we come back to the basic premise of "Should we have discarded Alven, or Bikelands work just because we couldn't observe things they had predicted?"
Or equally "Should we have discarded the atomic theory of solids because we hadn't observed them directly?" Actually, even with the Atomic force microscope, we still haven't observed them directly, we have only inferred their existence through numerous lines of evidence.
Hello Trippy
You said
Please explain what you understand of expansion of the universe. Actual expansion or a time/space expansion.
Mate scratch your head as much as you want. Michael is giving you cutting edge information. Its up to you to try to understand by doing some research.
You said
QUOTE
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, because I'm beginning to come to teh conclusion that you don't know as much about either plasma cosmology, or the λCDM model as you seem to be pretneding that you do.
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, because I'm beginning to come to teh conclusion that you don't know as much about either plasma cosmology, or the λCDM model as you seem to be pretneding that you do.
Please explain what you understand of expansion of the universe. Actual expansion or a time/space expansion.
Mate scratch your head as much as you want. Michael is giving you cutting edge information. Its up to you to try to understand by doing some research.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 26 2007, 05:42 PM)
Hello Trippy
You said
Please explain what you understand of expansion of the universe. Actual expansion or a time/space expansion.
Mate scratch your head as much as you want. Michael is giving you cutting edge information. Its up to you to try to understand by doing some research.
Irrelevant.
And why would you ASSume that I haven't done any research? Because I disagree with you? That's an awfully religous ASSumption you're making there.
You said
Please explain what you understand of expansion of the universe. Actual expansion or a time/space expansion.
Mate scratch your head as much as you want. Michael is giving you cutting edge information. Its up to you to try to understand by doing some research.
Irrelevant.
And why would you ASSume that I haven't done any research? Because I disagree with you? That's an awfully religous ASSumption you're making there.
Maybe one of you "Enlightened Geniuses" can explain something to me about plasma cosmology.
Where are all the explosions?
Hannes Alfven himself suggests that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could well be made up of antimatter, we'd have no way of telling, because "There is plenty of room for a number of Leidenfrost layers between our sun and alpha centauri." And it has been suggested that the same argument can be applied for galaxies.
So where are all the titanic explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge - something that we have observed happens at a range of scales.
More to the point, where are the even larger explosions as antimatter galaxies merger with koinomatter galaxies?
There are none.
So, are we expected to believe that somehow, miracuoulsy, only koinomatter stars and galaxies merge with koinomatter stars and galaxies, and only antimatter galaxies merge with antimatter galaxies?
Or should we dread the day when an antimatter neutron star penetrates our solar system, and plunges through our koinomatter sun? (A scenario considered possible by astrophysicists).
Where are all the explosions?
Hannes Alfven himself suggests that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could well be made up of antimatter, we'd have no way of telling, because "There is plenty of room for a number of Leidenfrost layers between our sun and alpha centauri." And it has been suggested that the same argument can be applied for galaxies.
So where are all the titanic explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge - something that we have observed happens at a range of scales.
More to the point, where are the even larger explosions as antimatter galaxies merger with koinomatter galaxies?
There are none.
So, are we expected to believe that somehow, miracuoulsy, only koinomatter stars and galaxies merge with koinomatter stars and galaxies, and only antimatter galaxies merge with antimatter galaxies?
Or should we dread the day when an antimatter neutron star penetrates our solar system, and plunges through our koinomatter sun? (A scenario considered possible by astrophysicists).
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 04:53 PM)
Well, how long do we need to wait around to find any dark matter or dark energy or inflation? How long is long enough?
I wish I could say I was sorry for laughing, but...
How long should we wait? Hmmm, let me see, it took 65 years for Birkeland currents to be confirmed, so, common sense would seem to suggest that we should wait at least that long with dark matter.
And hmmm, let me see, Dark Matter was first theorized in (or about) 1975, which means we should wait at least another 33 years (2040) before we discard the idea.
Unless you're going to suggest that we apply a double standard here, and that Dark Matter shouldn't be given the same opportunities to be proven that the Birkeland Currents were?
Given that Alan Guth's negative energy field was actually largely disproven/discarded, we should (IMO) use 1998 as the start date, as that was the first time that the phrase "Dark Energy" was used, and the origin of the current 'form' of dark energy. Which means that given that we're coming up on 2008 now, means that we should give it another 55 years before we discard it.
Again, unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should apply a double standard.
Or maybe we should apply the hundred odd years it's taken to confirm the existence of the micro jet, or magnetic ropes?
That's the point you're bltantly ignoring.
I wish I could say I was sorry for laughing, but... How long should we wait? Hmmm, let me see, it took 65 years for Birkeland currents to be confirmed, so, common sense would seem to suggest that we should wait at least that long with dark matter.
And hmmm, let me see, Dark Matter was first theorized in (or about) 1975, which means we should wait at least another 33 years (2040) before we discard the idea.
Unless you're going to suggest that we apply a double standard here, and that Dark Matter shouldn't be given the same opportunities to be proven that the Birkeland Currents were?
Given that Alan Guth's negative energy field was actually largely disproven/discarded, we should (IMO) use 1998 as the start date, as that was the first time that the phrase "Dark Energy" was used, and the origin of the current 'form' of dark energy. Which means that given that we're coming up on 2008 now, means that we should give it another 55 years before we discard it.
Again, unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should apply a double standard.
Or maybe we should apply the hundred odd years it's taken to confirm the existence of the micro jet, or magnetic ropes?
That's the point you're bltantly ignoring.
Hello Trippy
Mate, think what you like. Nobody is going to change your attitude.
Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz
and a Happy New Year to one and all.
Mate, think what you like. Nobody is going to change your attitude.
Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz
and a Happy New Year to one and all.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 26 2007, 08:11 PM)
Hello Trippy
Mate, think what you like. Nobody is going to change your attitude.
Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz
and a Happy New Year to one and all.
So what?
because I'm questioning your assumptions and double standards, suddenly i'm the one with the attitude problem?
Sheesh, where the heck do you get off making these assumptions.
Mate.
I would have though the fact that I am able to quote Hannes Alfven directly kind of implied that I had done some research and reading.
Arrogant jack###.
What is it? Because I don't agree with you, or because I think the theory is incorrect of inaccurate, I automatically can not have done any reading of the theory?
Geez. Get a grip. And you have the nerve to complain about my attitude.
I'm not the one claiming that we should discard a theory that's only been floating around for as little as ten years, for one that's taken 65-100 years to have parts of it verified?
Talk about hypocrisy.
Mate, think what you like. Nobody is going to change your attitude.
Greetings from the land of ozzzzzz
and a Happy New Year to one and all.
So what?
because I'm questioning your assumptions and double standards, suddenly i'm the one with the attitude problem?
Sheesh, where the heck do you get off making these assumptions.
Mate.
I would have though the fact that I am able to quote Hannes Alfven directly kind of implied that I had done some research and reading.
Arrogant jack###.
What is it? Because I don't agree with you, or because I think the theory is incorrect of inaccurate, I automatically can not have done any reading of the theory?
Geez. Get a grip. And you have the nerve to complain about my attitude.
I'm not the one claiming that we should discard a theory that's only been floating around for as little as ten years, for one that's taken 65-100 years to have parts of it verified?
Talk about hypocrisy.
QUOTE
You asked how much I knew about Plasma comology, I answered the question. And why would you assume that I have read so few books that I can recall the name of every book or paper that I have ever read? Hmmm...?
Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven isn't just "a" book on plasma cosmology theory, it is "the" book on plasma cosmology theory written by the author of MHD theory, the guy they recognized with a Nobel prize. He also happens to be the same guy that wrote, mathematically framed, promoted and championed plasma cosmology theory. If you want to understand plasma cosmology theory, and the history of plasma cosmology theory, Alfven is your guy, and Cosmic Plasma is your book. His students (like Peratt) are also great teachers of plasma cosmology theory. If you aren't studying plasma cosmology theory from one of these guys, then you aren't getting anything first hand. I've yet to meet a critic of EU theory that has actually read Alfven's book. It's never happened. Coincidence? I doubt it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You asked how much I knew about Plasma comology, I answered the question. And why would you assume that I have read so few books that I can recall the name of every book or paper that I have ever read? Hmmm...? |
Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven isn't just "a" book on plasma cosmology theory, it is "the" book on plasma cosmology theory written by the author of MHD theory, the guy they recognized with a Nobel prize. He also happens to be the same guy that wrote, mathematically framed, promoted and championed plasma cosmology theory. If you want to understand plasma cosmology theory, and the history of plasma cosmology theory, Alfven is your guy, and Cosmic Plasma is your book. His students (like Peratt) are also great teachers of plasma cosmology theory. If you aren't studying plasma cosmology theory from one of these guys, then you aren't getting anything first hand. I've yet to meet a critic of EU theory that has actually read Alfven's book. It's never happened. Coincidence? I doubt it.
And Ambiplasmas are kind of a key prediction of plasma cosmology, in that it represents the explanation of plasma cosmology for the prevalence of matter over antimatter.
You don't seem to understand. We only see a small sliver of this physical universe. We can't even see the whole thing to know if it's mostly made of matter or mostly made of antimatter. We could only "assume" that it was made of the things we can presently observe from our little mudball in spacetime.
There is no need in plasma cosmology theory for matter to be in greater abundance in the *whole* physical universe, only that matter dominates *our* little corner of physical reality.
QUOTE
I'm sorry. WHERE did I comment on Birkelands work (As far as the magnetic ropes goes)? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't.
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm sorry. WHERE did I comment on Birkelands work (As far as the magnetic ropes goes)? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't. |
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
As far as inflation goes, there are ways of flasifying it (as I understand it) for example, there are certain predictions regarding the Cosmic microwave background that are mutually exclusive with some forms/interpretations of inflation. So, that would seem to kind of debunk your claims.
The CMBR "predictions" were based on a homogeneous mass layout of matter. That isn't what we observe. The key "predictions" of inflation have been falsified. "Pretty close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
There is no other key prediction I'm aware of related to inflation that could be used to falsify it. You can't even name another vector or scalar field in nature that will exponentially increase in volume without a significant loss of density. The whole concept is pure mythology from start to finish.QUOTE
My point is that you're wrong, they aren't. Once again, we come back to the point that MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing around the sun, let alone galaxies.
But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My point is that you're wrong, they aren't. Once again, we come back to the point that MOND can not even explain gravitational lensing around the sun, let alone galaxies. |
But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
That's why TeVeS was developed, but TeVeS looses the simplicity that attracted people to MOND in the first place. All I have been able to ascertain about MOG, is that it's different from MOND, and if it can explain gravitational lensing AT ALL, it means that it's autimatically closer to TeVeS then MOND.
Like I said, I see nothing special about Lambda-CDM theory. For all I know your "missing mass" is due to the fact you grossly underestimate the amount of mass in a solar system. I have no evidence that any "missing mass" is contained in "dark matter", even if "missing mass" is a better explanation for lensing effects and rotational effects. In order to put faith in lambda-CDM theory, I have to put faith in not one, not two, but three completely different forms of metaphysics.
If I stop attempting to develop creation myths about how it all began and simply look at the facts based on what I can empirically observe, I see plenty of evidence to support electrical currents in spacetime. I see acceleration of solar wind particles that are EM related effects. I see large "magnetic ropes" flowing between objects in space. I see no evidence that any "missing mass" is due to "dark matter", or any evidence that the acceleration of matter is due to "dark energy", or that singularities go "boom" one day because of inflation.
QUOTE
How long do we need to wait around to find Dark Energy, Matter, or inflation? How long is a piece of string? How long are we supposed to be waiting around for proof of the existence of Ambiplasmas?
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How long do we need to wait around to find Dark Energy, Matter, or inflation? How long is a piece of string? How long are we supposed to be waiting around for proof of the existence of Ambiplasmas? |
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
How do you propose we falsify the existence of Ambiplasmas? We haven't been able to make them in a lab yet, so should we apply your standards to Plasma Cosmology, and assume that because we haven't made them or found them yet, that they don't exist?
Um, frankly until someone demonstrates their existence in a lab, that *is* what I assume.
QUOTE
Plasma cosmology, as it stands, alone, can not explain the distribution of matter in the bullet cluster,
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Plasma cosmology, as it stands, alone, can not explain the distribution of matter in the bullet cluster, |
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
So you obviously haven't bothered reading about the theory that you're currently dismissing, otherwise you'd know that, as I said, the gamma ray signature is distinctive, as in, doesn't resemble other possible explanations.
Exactly how are these gamma rays "different" from ordinary gamma rays we might observe in Rhessi images?
QUOTE
You're also missing another point, a misconception i've discussed with other people in the past. They're called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Not Non-Interacting Massive Particles. Sheesh. When did weakly and non come to mean the same thing. They interact weakly, which means they interact occasionaly. And, as I'm sure I've already said, the gamma rays are produced by the decay of the particles in question.
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're also missing another point, a misconception i've discussed with other people in the past. They're called Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Not Non-Interacting Massive Particles. Sheesh. When did weakly and non come to mean the same thing. They interact weakly, which means they interact occasionaly. And, as I'm sure I've already said, the gamma rays are produced by the decay of the particles in question. |
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
Sure it can. The EM field that permeates are region of visible space increased somewhere in the process.
QUOTE
I'm sitting here, scratching my head, because I'm beginning to come to teh conclusion that you don't know as much about either plasma cosmology, or the λCDM model as you seem to be pretneding that you do.
I know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven. I know that I can defend plasma cosmology theory in a variety of ways. I know three things about current theory that are relevant. You can't produce a single controlled test to verify that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single test that SUSY particles actually exist in nature, that they interact, or that they emit x-rays. You can't show us any controlled test to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on nature.
I can demonstrate all the key tenets of plasmas cosmology theory with an ordinary $20 plasma ball from Walmart. I can control the flow of electricity and show you that the filaments in the plasma will stop flowing when I turn it off. I can turn it back on again and show you the filaments that from in the plasma.
I know for a fact that you can't demonstrate that inflation, dark energy or dark matter have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment here on earth. That's enough for me. I don't have to know how the whole universe works. I don't have to believe in magic dark energies only because I can't currently explain something with the known forces of nature. I don't have to believe in inflation only because some folks like to believe in creation stories. I know for a fact that you can't even demonstrate that all matter was once condensed to a single point. The whole Lambda-CDM theory is mythos that can never be falsified by any logical method. Nobody has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, so how can it ever be disproven? In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Got a gram of dark matter?
QUOTE
How long should we wait? Hmmm, let me see, it took 65 years for Birkeland currents to be confirmed, so, common sense would seem to suggest that we should wait at least that long with dark matter.
Birkeland had ground based measurement to support his viewpoint and he did not propose the existence of a new form of matter or energy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How long should we wait? Hmmm, let me see, it took 65 years for Birkeland currents to be confirmed, so, common sense would seem to suggest that we should wait at least that long with dark matter. |
Birkeland had ground based measurement to support his viewpoint and he did not propose the existence of a new form of matter or energy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
And hmmm, let me see, Dark Matter was first theorized in (or about) 1975, which means we should wait at least another 33 years (2040) before we discard the idea.
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
QUOTE
Unless you're going to suggest that we apply a double standard here, and that Dark Matter shouldn't be given the same opportunities to be proven that the Birkeland Currents were?
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unless you're going to suggest that we apply a double standard here, and that Dark Matter shouldn't be given the same opportunities to be proven that the Birkeland Currents were? |
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
Given that Alan Guth's negative energy field was actually largely disproven/discarded, we should (IMO) use 1998 as the start date, as that was the first time that the phrase "Dark Energy" was used, and the origin of the current 'form' of dark energy. Which means that given that we're coming up on 2008 now, means that we should give it another 55 years before we discard it.
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
QUOTE
Again, unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should apply a double standard.
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should apply a double standard. |
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
Or maybe we should apply the hundred odd years it's taken to confirm the existence of the micro jet, or magnetic ropes?
Why should we do that? We already just got 2 more (on top of Birkeland other key prediction) confirmation of his *working lab model*. You don't have a working lab model. See the difference between these two ideas? One man put in sweat equity, built a lab model based on known forces of nature, and experimented with them in controlled conditions and took images of his work. The other guy sat at a desk with a pencil and paper, let his imagination run amuck and never lifted a finger to build a model or see if it worked.
QUOTE
That's the point you're bltantly ignoring.
No, that point your ignoring is that Birkeland had a working model and did not propose new forces of nature in his "explanation" of nature. You have no working models of inflation, no working models of dark energy, and no working models of dark matter. All you have a vague, unfalsifiable ideas. You're ignoring the obvious here. Birkeland *worked* on his model *in a lab* until he could demonstrate that observation in nature could be simulated in his controlled laboratory experiments with electricity.
I don't put any faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. Likewise I don't put any faith in dark energy or dark matter or inflation. It's nothing personal, I just require that my scientific beliefs be based on empirical data and controlled scientific testing.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 08:29 PM)
Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven isn't just "a" book on plasma cosmology theory, it is "the" book on plasma cosmology theory written by the author of MHD theory, the guy they recognized with a Nobel prize. He also happens to be the same guy that wrote, mathematically framed, promoted and championed plasma cosmology theory. If you want to understand plasma cosmology theory, and the history of plasma cosmology theory, Alfven is your guy, and Cosmic Plasma is your book. His students (like Peratt) are also great teachers of plasma cosmology theory. If you aren't studying plasma cosmology theory from one of these guys, then you aren't getting anything first hand. I've yet to meet a critic of EU theory that has actually read Alfven's book. It's never happened. Coincidence? I doubt it.
You don't seem to understand. We only see a small sliver of this physical universe. We can't even see the whole thing to know if it's mostly made of matter or mostly made of antimatter. We could only "assume" that it was made of the things we can presently observe from our little mudball in spacetime.
There is no need in plasma cosmology theory for matter to be in greater abundance in the *whole* physical universe, only that matter dominates *our* little corner of physical reality.
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
The CMBR "predictions" were based on a homogeneous mass layout of matter. That isn't what we observe. The key "predictions" of inflation have been falsified. "Pretty close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. There is no other key prediction I'm aware of related to inflation that could be used to falsify it. You can't even name another vector or scalar field in nature that will exponentially increase in volume without a significant loss of density. The whole concept is pure mythology from start to finish.
But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
Like I said, I see nothing special about Lambda-CDM theory. For all I know your "missing mass" is due to the fact you grossly underestimate the amount of mass in a solar system. I have no evidence that any "missing mass" is contained in "dark matter", even if "missing mass" is a better explanation for lensing effects and rotational effects. In order to put faith in lambda-CDM theory, I have to put faith in not one, not two, but three completely different forms of metaphysics.
If I stop attempting to develop creation myths about how it all began and simply look at the facts based on what I can empirically observe, I see plenty of evidence to support electrical currents in spacetime. I see acceleration of solar wind particles that are EM related effects. I see large "magnetic ropes" flowing between objects in space. I see no evidence that any "missing mass" is due to "dark matter", or any evidence that the acceleration of matter is due to "dark energy", or that singularities go "boom" one day because of inflation.
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
Um, frankly until someone demonstrates their existence in a lab, that *is* what I assume.
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
Exactly how are these gamma rays "different" from ordinary gamma rays we might observe in Rhessi images?
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
Sure it can. The EM field that permeates are region of visible space increased somewhere in the process.
I know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven. I know that I can defend plasma cosmology theory in a variety of ways. I know three things about current theory that are relevant. You can't produce a single controlled test to verify that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single test that SUSY particles actually exist in nature, that they interact, or that they emit x-rays. You can't show us any controlled test to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on nature.
I can demonstrate all the key tenets of plasmas cosmology theory with an ordinary $20 plasma ball from Walmart. I can control the flow of electricity and show you that the filaments in the plasma will stop flowing when I turn it off. I can turn it back on again and show you the filaments that from in the plasma.
I know for a fact that you can't demonstrate that inflation, dark energy or dark matter have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment here on earth. That's enough for me. I don't have to know how the whole universe works. I don't have to believe in magic dark energies only because I can't currently explain something with the known forces of nature. I don't have to believe in inflation only because some folks like to believe in creation stories. I know for a fact that you can't even demonstrate that all matter was once condensed to a single point. The whole Lambda-CDM theory is mythos that can never be falsified by any logical method. Nobody has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, so how can it ever be disproven? In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Got a gram of dark matter?
Most of this post is just funny. And it's just going back over stuff that I've already tried to address
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
So here we have you resorting back to the "our bubble of koinomatter that makes up our metgalaxy is larger then the observable universe" argument. You know, to me that sounds a bit like what you object to over dark matter.
So rather then believeing that there may be a particle, which theories predict, which may be able to be observed if certain of its properties fall within certain ranges, that may make up a large proportion of the universe, you'd much rather invoke the idea that we conveniently live in a bubble of koinomatter, the dimensions of which are larger then the visible universe, thus making it largely unfalsifiable?
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
Basically, what your saying, is that the universe is not homogenous, even though our observations tell us it is (at large scales) interesting.
I think that what's even funnier is the fact that you claim that measurements of the CMBR contradict inflation, and yet, the information I'm sitting here looking at, says that it confirms predictions made by inflation to 2 standard deviations.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
Whoops, looks like it's not me that hasn't been doing their research. Oh dear.
Hmmm. Let me see, where have I ever siad that an Ambiplasma was neccessary for the flow of currents through space. Oooooh, right! That's right... I DIDN'T. All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
And again, with that ridiculous "You can't produce a gram of the stuff therefore it doesn't exist" I can't produce a gram of neutronium either, but are you going to suggest that Neutron stars aren't made of neutrons? No?
Should they have assumed that because they had not detected Neutrons directly, that they didn't exist? Or Positrons for that matter.
See, you keep applying these double standards.
How do you know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" Oh right, I forgot, If I had read it, I couldn't possibly disagree with it. You know, there's another book that's supposed to be like that... The Bible.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that the physics you can demonstrate with a plasma ball is scalable to the size of the observable universe.
Oh that's right, you can't, because that's an assumption, one that has not yet been verified.
You can't demonstrate these magical ambiplasmas. You can't demonstrate these bubbles of koinomatter, and antimatter. You can't demonstrate that the bubbles of koinomatter and antimatter are any size over any other size. You can't demonstrate that these Leidenfrost layers are present and seperating matter from antimatter.
Hmmm. Something smells fishy to me.
Got a gram of Ambiplasma?
Perhaps you can explain something else to me.
If the sun is some sort of neutron star with a luminous atmosphere, how is it that the sun only has a mass of 1 solar mass, when the chandrasekhar limit is 1.38 solar masses, which means that the sun should have a mass greater then this - the mass of the underlying neutron star, plus the mass of the overlying atmosphere.
Smells like more magic and faith to me.
You don't seem to understand. We only see a small sliver of this physical universe. We can't even see the whole thing to know if it's mostly made of matter or mostly made of antimatter. We could only "assume" that it was made of the things we can presently observe from our little mudball in spacetime.
There is no need in plasma cosmology theory for matter to be in greater abundance in the *whole* physical universe, only that matter dominates *our* little corner of physical reality.
Well, he was the first guy I know of that proposed and predicted the existence of an electrical connection between the two objects. He was also the first guy to propose the existence of "jets".
The CMBR "predictions" were based on a homogeneous mass layout of matter. That isn't what we observe. The key "predictions" of inflation have been falsified. "Pretty close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
There is no other key prediction I'm aware of related to inflation that could be used to falsify it. You can't even name another vector or scalar field in nature that will exponentially increase in volume without a significant loss of density. The whole concept is pure mythology from start to finish.But it's ok that standard solar theory can't even explain a million degree coronal loop let alone x-ray jets?
Like I said, I see nothing special about Lambda-CDM theory. For all I know your "missing mass" is due to the fact you grossly underestimate the amount of mass in a solar system. I have no evidence that any "missing mass" is contained in "dark matter", even if "missing mass" is a better explanation for lensing effects and rotational effects. In order to put faith in lambda-CDM theory, I have to put faith in not one, not two, but three completely different forms of metaphysics.
If I stop attempting to develop creation myths about how it all began and simply look at the facts based on what I can empirically observe, I see plenty of evidence to support electrical currents in spacetime. I see acceleration of solar wind particles that are EM related effects. I see large "magnetic ropes" flowing between objects in space. I see no evidence that any "missing mass" is due to "dark matter", or any evidence that the acceleration of matter is due to "dark energy", or that singularities go "boom" one day because of inflation.
How do you know which we'll find evidence for first, and how do you know you're right? How do you know that ambiplasma is required for current to flow between objects in space? You're trying to put two ideas together (the existence of ambiplasma) and electron flow, that are not directly related. There is no requirement of ambiplasma in some plasma cosmology variations. I've never seen any, so I don't put much faith in the concept personally. That isn't how I "practice" plasma cosmology theory in the first place. I'm looking for real empirical evidence of current flow, nothing more. If you need mythos and legends about the early universe, that's your business. I'm only interested in answering the question: does electricity flow through our solar system and this galaxy (or other) galaxies or other objects I can observe. I don't need to put faith in any "big picture" concepts about how it all began. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and that's just fine by me.
Um, frankly until someone demonstrates their existence in a lab, that *is* what I assume.
Neither can you without claiming 'darkmatterdidit", yet you can't provide a single gram of the stuff, let alone demonstrate is more abundant that normal matter.
Exactly how are these gamma rays "different" from ordinary gamma rays we might observe in Rhessi images?
Suppose I came to you and claimed that unicorns were "weakly" interactive and sometimes produced gamma rays with a unique signature? How would you react? that's the same reaction I have when you posit unevidenced particles that decay in unevidenced ways. It's pure speculation that such particles exist, and pure speculation they interact, and pure speculation that they emit gamma rays. As far as I can tell, it's all speculative at best. All I know is you can't find enough matter to explain what you see. For all I know that missing mass is due to the fact you underestimate the mass of stars and solar systems, sometimes by orders of magnitude because you believe that stars are made of hydrogen and helium when they are mostly made of iron and nickel. I certainly see no evidence that missing mass comes from "weakly interacting, gamma ray emitting, lab shy particles".
Sure it can. The EM field that permeates are region of visible space increased somewhere in the process.
I know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven. I know that I can defend plasma cosmology theory in a variety of ways. I know three things about current theory that are relevant. You can't produce a single controlled test to verify that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't produce a single test that SUSY particles actually exist in nature, that they interact, or that they emit x-rays. You can't show us any controlled test to demonstrate that dark energy has any effect on nature.
I can demonstrate all the key tenets of plasmas cosmology theory with an ordinary $20 plasma ball from Walmart. I can control the flow of electricity and show you that the filaments in the plasma will stop flowing when I turn it off. I can turn it back on again and show you the filaments that from in the plasma.
I know for a fact that you can't demonstrate that inflation, dark energy or dark matter have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment here on earth. That's enough for me. I don't have to know how the whole universe works. I don't have to believe in magic dark energies only because I can't currently explain something with the known forces of nature. I don't have to believe in inflation only because some folks like to believe in creation stories. I know for a fact that you can't even demonstrate that all matter was once condensed to a single point. The whole Lambda-CDM theory is mythos that can never be falsified by any logical method. Nobody has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, so how can it ever be disproven? In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Got a gram of dark matter?
Most of this post is just funny. And it's just going back over stuff that I've already tried to address
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
So here we have you resorting back to the "our bubble of koinomatter that makes up our metgalaxy is larger then the observable universe" argument. You know, to me that sounds a bit like what you object to over dark matter.
So rather then believeing that there may be a particle, which theories predict, which may be able to be observed if certain of its properties fall within certain ranges, that may make up a large proportion of the universe, you'd much rather invoke the idea that we conveniently live in a bubble of koinomatter, the dimensions of which are larger then the visible universe, thus making it largely unfalsifiable?
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
Basically, what your saying, is that the universe is not homogenous, even though our observations tell us it is (at large scales) interesting.
I think that what's even funnier is the fact that you claim that measurements of the CMBR contradict inflation, and yet, the information I'm sitting here looking at, says that it confirms predictions made by inflation to 2 standard deviations.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
QUOTE
The power-law ΛCDM model fits not only the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) first year data, but also a wide range of astronomical data (Bennett et al. 2003;
Spergel et al. 2003). In this model, the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic
on large scales. It is composed of ordinary matter, radiation, and dark matter and has a
cosmological constant. The primordial fluctuations in this model are adiabatic, nearly scaleinvariant
Gaussian random fluctuations (Komatsu et al. 2003). Six cosmological parameters
(the density of matter, the density of atoms, the expansion rate of the universe, the amplitude
of the primordial fluctuations, their scale dependence and the optical depth of the universe)
are enough to predict not only the statistical properties of the microwave sky, measured by
WMAP at several hundred thousand points on the sky, but also the large-scale distribution
of matter and galaxies, mapped by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the 2dF Galaxy
Redshift Survey (2dFGRS).
(WMAP) first year data, but also a wide range of astronomical data (Bennett et al. 2003;
Spergel et al. 2003). In this model, the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic
on large scales. It is composed of ordinary matter, radiation, and dark matter and has a
cosmological constant. The primordial fluctuations in this model are adiabatic, nearly scaleinvariant
Gaussian random fluctuations (Komatsu et al. 2003). Six cosmological parameters
(the density of matter, the density of atoms, the expansion rate of the universe, the amplitude
of the primordial fluctuations, their scale dependence and the optical depth of the universe)
are enough to predict not only the statistical properties of the microwave sky, measured by
WMAP at several hundred thousand points on the sky, but also the large-scale distribution
of matter and galaxies, mapped by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the 2dF Galaxy
Redshift Survey (2dFGRS).
Whoops, looks like it's not me that hasn't been doing their research. Oh dear.
Hmmm. Let me see, where have I ever siad that an Ambiplasma was neccessary for the flow of currents through space. Oooooh, right! That's right... I DIDN'T. All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
And again, with that ridiculous "You can't produce a gram of the stuff therefore it doesn't exist" I can't produce a gram of neutronium either, but are you going to suggest that Neutron stars aren't made of neutrons? No?
Should they have assumed that because they had not detected Neutrons directly, that they didn't exist? Or Positrons for that matter.
See, you keep applying these double standards.
How do you know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" Oh right, I forgot, If I had read it, I couldn't possibly disagree with it. You know, there's another book that's supposed to be like that... The Bible.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that the physics you can demonstrate with a plasma ball is scalable to the size of the observable universe.
Oh that's right, you can't, because that's an assumption, one that has not yet been verified.
You can't demonstrate these magical ambiplasmas. You can't demonstrate these bubbles of koinomatter, and antimatter. You can't demonstrate that the bubbles of koinomatter and antimatter are any size over any other size. You can't demonstrate that these Leidenfrost layers are present and seperating matter from antimatter.
Hmmm. Something smells fishy to me.
Got a gram of Ambiplasma?
Perhaps you can explain something else to me.
If the sun is some sort of neutron star with a luminous atmosphere, how is it that the sun only has a mass of 1 solar mass, when the chandrasekhar limit is 1.38 solar masses, which means that the sun should have a mass greater then this - the mass of the underlying neutron star, plus the mass of the overlying atmosphere.
Smells like more magic and faith to me.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 08:55 PM)
Birkeland had ground based measurement to support his viewpoint and he did not propose the existence of a new form of matter or energy. You're comparing apples to oranges.
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
Why should we do that? We already just got 2 more (on top of Birkeland other key prediction) confirmation of his *working lab model*. You don't have a working lab model. See the difference between these two ideas? One man put in sweat equity, built a lab model based on known forces of nature, and experimented with them in controlled conditions and took images of his work. The other guy sat at a desk with a pencil and paper, let his imagination run amuck and never lifted a finger to build a model or see if it worked.
No, that point your ignoring is that Birkeland had a working model and did not propose new forces of nature in his "explanation" of nature. You have no working models of inflation, no working models of dark energy, and no working models of dark matter. All you have a vague, unfalsifiable ideas. You're ignoring the obvious here. Birkeland *worked* on his model *in a lab* until he could demonstrate that observation in nature could be simulated in his controlled laboratory experiments with electricity.
I don't put any faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. Likewise I don't put any faith in dark energy or dark matter or inflation. It's nothing personal, I just require that my scientific beliefs be based on empirical data and controlled scientific testing.
No, actually, Zwicky was the first to notice the missing mass problem, based on a virial theorem to the coma cluster of galaxies.
Between 1933, and 1970 there was NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE that the light to mass ratio was anything other then one, that did not happen until the 1970's when Vera Rubin discovered the problem of the flat galactic rotation curves.
You understand the crucial difference there? Zwicky noticed that galaxies in a cluster were moving faster then they should, something that can (potentially) be explained with normal matter. It wasn't until Vera Rubin in 1975 that it was suspected that upwards of 50% of a galaxies mass was contained in a halo around the galaxy composed of "Relatively dark matter" hence, the idea was theorised in 1975, not 1933.
And once again, your own arguments defeat you. The theories that talk about dark matter, and dark energy also say that we don't yet have the tools to observe them. Saying that we should discard a theory because we don't have the tools to observe it's predictions is just ridiculous. It's like saying that we should disregard magnetohydronamics because we can't build plasma globes (or batteries, or whatever, take your pick).
But, I guess you can't see the inherrent contradictions in your own words.
By your logic we should have disregarded Relativity because in 1908 we had no way of measuring frame dragging or time dilation.
Get it?
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
Why should we do that? We already just got 2 more (on top of Birkeland other key prediction) confirmation of his *working lab model*. You don't have a working lab model. See the difference between these two ideas? One man put in sweat equity, built a lab model based on known forces of nature, and experimented with them in controlled conditions and took images of his work. The other guy sat at a desk with a pencil and paper, let his imagination run amuck and never lifted a finger to build a model or see if it worked.
No, that point your ignoring is that Birkeland had a working model and did not propose new forces of nature in his "explanation" of nature. You have no working models of inflation, no working models of dark energy, and no working models of dark matter. All you have a vague, unfalsifiable ideas. You're ignoring the obvious here. Birkeland *worked* on his model *in a lab* until he could demonstrate that observation in nature could be simulated in his controlled laboratory experiments with electricity.
I don't put any faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. Likewise I don't put any faith in dark energy or dark matter or inflation. It's nothing personal, I just require that my scientific beliefs be based on empirical data and controlled scientific testing.
No, actually, Zwicky was the first to notice the missing mass problem, based on a virial theorem to the coma cluster of galaxies.
Between 1933, and 1970 there was NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE that the light to mass ratio was anything other then one, that did not happen until the 1970's when Vera Rubin discovered the problem of the flat galactic rotation curves.
You understand the crucial difference there? Zwicky noticed that galaxies in a cluster were moving faster then they should, something that can (potentially) be explained with normal matter. It wasn't until Vera Rubin in 1975 that it was suspected that upwards of 50% of a galaxies mass was contained in a halo around the galaxy composed of "Relatively dark matter" hence, the idea was theorised in 1975, not 1933.
And once again, your own arguments defeat you. The theories that talk about dark matter, and dark energy also say that we don't yet have the tools to observe them. Saying that we should discard a theory because we don't have the tools to observe it's predictions is just ridiculous. It's like saying that we should disregard magnetohydronamics because we can't build plasma globes (or batteries, or whatever, take your pick).
But, I guess you can't see the inherrent contradictions in your own words.
By your logic we should have disregarded Relativity because in 1908 we had no way of measuring frame dragging or time dilation.
Get it?
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 08:40 AM)
No, actually, Zwicky was the first to notice the missing mass problem, based on a virial theorem to the coma cluster of galaxies.
Between 1933, and 1970 there was NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE that the light to mass ratio was anything other then one, that did not happen until the 1970's when Vera Rubin discovered the problem of the flat galactic rotation curves.
You understand the crucial difference there? Zwicky noticed that galaxies in a cluster were moving faster then they should, something that can (potentially) be explained with normal matter. It wasn't until Vera Rubin in 1975 that it was suspected that upwards of 50% of a galaxies mass was contained in a halo around the galaxy composed of "Relatively dark matter" hence, the idea was theorised in 1975, not 1933.
And once again, your own arguments defeat you. The theories that talk about dark matter, and dark energy also say that we don't yet have the tools to observe them. Saying that we should discard a theory because we don't have the tools to observe it's predictions is just ridiculous. It's like saying that we should disregard magnetohydronamics because we can't build plasma globes (or batteries, or whatever, take your pick).
But, I guess you can't see the inherrent contradictions in your own words.
By your logic we should have disregarded Relativity because in 1908 we had no way of measuring frame dragging or time dilation.
Get it?
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arbitrarily picking dates, I'm insisting that we apply the rules of science to astronomy. Unlike Guth, Birkeland posited no new forces of nature to explain nature. He used known forces of nature to posit explanations for observations he made of nature. He built working laboratory models to demonstrate the usefulness of his models and to make "predictions" based on known conditions that he simulated in his lab.
Guth simply looked up at the clouds one day and dreamed up a math formula about a mythical thing that he called "inflation". He didn't actually do any sweat equity lab work on this idea mind you, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature. Never mind the fact that no known vector or scalar field in known to exist in nature acted like "inflation". Inflation was the ultimate "free lunch" (Guth actually called it that). Since he did no actual lab work, he never justified this idea one iota, or tested it, or demonstrated that inflation even exists in nature.
There is no "double standard" on my part. I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence.
What you don't seem to "get" is that in the scientific method, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the claim. Guth made an extraordinary claim which he never demonstrated with empirical data from any controlled experiment.
Birkeland made no extraordinary claims. He only made "ordinary"" claims about "ordinary" and known forces of nature. He didn't daydream up inflation faeries in his head. He sat down and built a model of his ideas and fired it up. He took images in his lab that simulated the rings of planets, the auroras of planets and the coronal loops and x-ray jets of the sun. That's real science. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are pseudoscience. At very best case, you only have evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating (like solar wind particles), and that you can't find the "missing mass" you're looking for in galaxy lensing studies. You certainly can't demonstrate that dark energy or dark matter have anything at all to do with these *uncontrolled* observations.
The only double standard here is being applied by you and you alone. You want me to give you unlimited amounts of time to study your missing mass problem and your acceleration problem while you stuff metaphysics down my children's throat in school.
Meanwhile you won't open up your mind or the classroom to plasma physics, and the basic concepts behind plasma cosmology theory only because you've never seen ambiplasma. Talk about double standards. I'm not even asking you to stop teaching my children about dark evil energies, all I'm asking you to do is open up the classroom to other ideas and give them some alternative ideas to think about.
Between 1933, and 1970 there was NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE that the light to mass ratio was anything other then one, that did not happen until the 1970's when Vera Rubin discovered the problem of the flat galactic rotation curves.
You understand the crucial difference there? Zwicky noticed that galaxies in a cluster were moving faster then they should, something that can (potentially) be explained with normal matter. It wasn't until Vera Rubin in 1975 that it was suspected that upwards of 50% of a galaxies mass was contained in a halo around the galaxy composed of "Relatively dark matter" hence, the idea was theorised in 1975, not 1933.
And once again, your own arguments defeat you. The theories that talk about dark matter, and dark energy also say that we don't yet have the tools to observe them. Saying that we should discard a theory because we don't have the tools to observe it's predictions is just ridiculous. It's like saying that we should disregard magnetohydronamics because we can't build plasma globes (or batteries, or whatever, take your pick).
But, I guess you can't see the inherrent contradictions in your own words.
By your logic we should have disregarded Relativity because in 1908 we had no way of measuring frame dragging or time dilation.
Get it?
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arbitrarily picking dates, I'm insisting that we apply the rules of science to astronomy. Unlike Guth, Birkeland posited no new forces of nature to explain nature. He used known forces of nature to posit explanations for observations he made of nature. He built working laboratory models to demonstrate the usefulness of his models and to make "predictions" based on known conditions that he simulated in his lab.
Guth simply looked up at the clouds one day and dreamed up a math formula about a mythical thing that he called "inflation". He didn't actually do any sweat equity lab work on this idea mind you, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature. Never mind the fact that no known vector or scalar field in known to exist in nature acted like "inflation". Inflation was the ultimate "free lunch" (Guth actually called it that). Since he did no actual lab work, he never justified this idea one iota, or tested it, or demonstrated that inflation even exists in nature.
There is no "double standard" on my part. I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence.
What you don't seem to "get" is that in the scientific method, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the claim. Guth made an extraordinary claim which he never demonstrated with empirical data from any controlled experiment.
Birkeland made no extraordinary claims. He only made "ordinary"" claims about "ordinary" and known forces of nature. He didn't daydream up inflation faeries in his head. He sat down and built a model of his ideas and fired it up. He took images in his lab that simulated the rings of planets, the auroras of planets and the coronal loops and x-ray jets of the sun. That's real science. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are pseudoscience. At very best case, you only have evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating (like solar wind particles), and that you can't find the "missing mass" you're looking for in galaxy lensing studies. You certainly can't demonstrate that dark energy or dark matter have anything at all to do with these *uncontrolled* observations.
The only double standard here is being applied by you and you alone. You want me to give you unlimited amounts of time to study your missing mass problem and your acceleration problem while you stuff metaphysics down my children's throat in school.
Meanwhile you won't open up your mind or the classroom to plasma physics, and the basic concepts behind plasma cosmology theory only because you've never seen ambiplasma. Talk about double standards. I'm not even asking you to stop teaching my children about dark evil energies, all I'm asking you to do is open up the classroom to other ideas and give them some alternative ideas to think about.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 08:24 AM)
Most of this post is just funny. And it's just going back over stuff that I've already tried to address
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
So here we have you resorting back to the "our bubble of koinomatter that makes up our metgalaxy is larger then the observable universe" argument. You know, to me that sounds a bit like what you object to over dark matter.
So rather then believeing that there may be a particle, which theories predict, which may be able to be observed if certain of its properties fall within certain ranges, that may make up a large proportion of the universe, you'd much rather invoke the idea that we conveniently live in a bubble of koinomatter, the dimensions of which are larger then the visible universe, thus making it largely unfalsifiable?
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
Basically, what your saying, is that the universe is not homogenous, even though our observations tell us it is (at large scales) interesting.
I think that what's even funnier is the fact that you claim that measurements of the CMBR contradict inflation, and yet, the information I'm sitting here looking at, says that it confirms predictions made by inflation to 2 standard deviations.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
Whoops, looks like it's not me that hasn't been doing their research. Oh dear.
Hmmm. Let me see, where have I ever siad that an Ambiplasma was neccessary for the flow of currents through space. Oooooh, right! That's right... I DIDN'T. All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
And again, with that ridiculous "You can't produce a gram of the stuff therefore it doesn't exist" I can't produce a gram of neutronium either, but are you going to suggest that Neutron stars aren't made of neutrons? No?
Should they have assumed that because they had not detected Neutrons directly, that they didn't exist? Or Positrons for that matter.
See, you keep applying these double standards.
How do you know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" Oh right, I forgot, If I had read it, I couldn't possibly disagree with it. You know, there's another book that's supposed to be like that... The Bible.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that the physics you can demonstrate with a plasma ball is scalable to the size of the observable universe.
Oh that's right, you can't, because that's an assumption, one that has not yet been verified.
You can't demonstrate these magical ambiplasmas. You can't demonstrate these bubbles of koinomatter, and antimatter. You can't demonstrate that the bubbles of koinomatter and antimatter are any size over any other size. You can't demonstrate that these Leidenfrost layers are present and seperating matter from antimatter.
Hmmm. Something smells fishy to me.
Got a gram of Ambiplasma?
Perhaps you can explain something else to me.
If the sun is some sort of neutron star with a luminous atmosphere, how is it that the sun only has a mass of 1 solar mass, when the chandrasekhar limit is 1.38 solar masses, which means that the sun should have a mass greater then this - the mass of the underlying neutron star, plus the mass of the overlying atmosphere.
Smells like more magic and faith to me.
That isn't the case at all. I have pointed you to evidence about magnetic current carrying ropes between the Sun and the Earth. You never acknowledged it. I have pointed you to evidence of solar wind that actually *accelerates* as it leaves the solar surface because of it's electromagnetic attraction to the heliosphere. I have mentioned that million degree corona as a perfect example of where electrical discharges in plasma are occurring. You have completely failed to acknowledge any of these things. Instead you insist that I play by your rules, based on your faith in metaphysics and your basics assumptions about the universe. I asked you point blank if you read Cosmic Plasma or not and you hemmed and hawed and made it clear you had not read the book. If you had read the book you would realize that Alfven build his case on observations *inside* the solar system, not based on his beliefs in any exotic forms of plasma.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
That isn't the case at all. I have pointed you to evidence about magnetic current carrying ropes between the Sun and the Earth. You never acknowledged it. I have pointed you to evidence of solar wind that actually *accelerates* as it leaves the solar surface because of it's electromagnetic attraction to the heliosphere. I have mentioned that million degree corona as a perfect example of where electrical discharges in plasma are occurring. You have completely failed to acknowledge any of these things. Instead you insist that I play by your rules, based on your faith in metaphysics and your basics assumptions about the universe. I asked you point blank if you read Cosmic Plasma or not and you hemmed and hawed and made it clear you had not read the book. If you had read the book you would realize that Alfven build his case on observations *inside* the solar system, not based on his beliefs in any exotic forms of plasma.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
It may appear unfalsifiable to you only because you insist on looking at some big picture concept of the universe. You insist that ambiplasma must be shown to exist as a requirement for electrons to flow between objects in space. I put no such requirement on the flow of electrons between objects in space because I know that no such requirement does exist. I am only looking at what I can observe inside and outside this solar system. I'm not trying to prove any big picture concepts, so I don't even care if ambiplasma exists. It's no skin off my nose or my belief systems if ambiplasma exists or it doesn't exist. Either way is fine by me. Plasma cosmology theory is not predicated on the existence of ambiplasma. That is a non sequitor.
yada.yada.yada.xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
You and I are having a hard time communicating. I think that is because you have a strong desire to see a "big picture" viewpoint and you want to understand how the whole thing works at once. I don't care about the big picture. I can't even see the whole big picture and I know that. All I can work with is what I can observe. I can observe magnetic current carry ropes between the Sun and the Earth. I can see ring currents around Saturn. I can observe lightening in the atmosphere of Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Earth. I can see evidence of current flows between other objects in space. These "little picture" observations make it very clear to me that we live inside an electric universe. I don't know how the whole thing is wired together yet, and I haven't personally mapped out all the current flows between objects, but I know that the tenets of plasma cosmology theory are correct because I can see that they are correct in the "little picture" observations. I don't necessarily agree with everything Alfven proposed related to "big picture" options, mostly because I haven't even made up my own mind yet. All I can say for sure is that plasma makes up most of the universe, it's an excellent conductor of electromagnetic current, and it's carrying electromagnetic current between objects.
I think if you stepped back for a moment and tried to look at the problem from my perspective, and looked at that accelerating solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and those magnetic ropes between the sun and the Earth, I think you would have to agree that the universe may be carrying a lot of electrical current.
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
So here we have you resorting back to the "our bubble of koinomatter that makes up our metgalaxy is larger then the observable universe" argument. You know, to me that sounds a bit like what you object to over dark matter.
So rather then believeing that there may be a particle, which theories predict, which may be able to be observed if certain of its properties fall within certain ranges, that may make up a large proportion of the universe, you'd much rather invoke the idea that we conveniently live in a bubble of koinomatter, the dimensions of which are larger then the visible universe, thus making it largely unfalsifiable?
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
Basically, what your saying, is that the universe is not homogenous, even though our observations tell us it is (at large scales) interesting.
I think that what's even funnier is the fact that you claim that measurements of the CMBR contradict inflation, and yet, the information I'm sitting here looking at, says that it confirms predictions made by inflation to 2 standard deviations.
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
Whoops, looks like it's not me that hasn't been doing their research. Oh dear.
Hmmm. Let me see, where have I ever siad that an Ambiplasma was neccessary for the flow of currents through space. Oooooh, right! That's right... I DIDN'T. All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
And again, with that ridiculous "You can't produce a gram of the stuff therefore it doesn't exist" I can't produce a gram of neutronium either, but are you going to suggest that Neutron stars aren't made of neutrons? No?
Should they have assumed that because they had not detected Neutrons directly, that they didn't exist? Or Positrons for that matter.
See, you keep applying these double standards.
How do you know that only one of us has read "Cosmic Plasma" Oh right, I forgot, If I had read it, I couldn't possibly disagree with it. You know, there's another book that's supposed to be like that... The Bible.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that the physics you can demonstrate with a plasma ball is scalable to the size of the observable universe.
Oh that's right, you can't, because that's an assumption, one that has not yet been verified.
You can't demonstrate these magical ambiplasmas. You can't demonstrate these bubbles of koinomatter, and antimatter. You can't demonstrate that the bubbles of koinomatter and antimatter are any size over any other size. You can't demonstrate that these Leidenfrost layers are present and seperating matter from antimatter.
Hmmm. Something smells fishy to me.
Got a gram of Ambiplasma?
Perhaps you can explain something else to me.
If the sun is some sort of neutron star with a luminous atmosphere, how is it that the sun only has a mass of 1 solar mass, when the chandrasekhar limit is 1.38 solar masses, which means that the sun should have a mass greater then this - the mass of the underlying neutron star, plus the mass of the overlying atmosphere.
Smells like more magic and faith to me.
QUOTE
Most of this post is just funny. And it's just going back over stuff that I've already tried to address
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read.
That isn't the case at all. I have pointed you to evidence about magnetic current carrying ropes between the Sun and the Earth. You never acknowledged it. I have pointed you to evidence of solar wind that actually *accelerates* as it leaves the solar surface because of it's electromagnetic attraction to the heliosphere. I have mentioned that million degree corona as a perfect example of where electrical discharges in plasma are occurring. You have completely failed to acknowledge any of these things. Instead you insist that I play by your rules, based on your faith in metaphysics and your basics assumptions about the universe. I asked you point blank if you read Cosmic Plasma or not and you hemmed and hawed and made it clear you had not read the book. If you had read the book you would realize that Alfven build his case on observations *inside* the solar system, not based on his beliefs in any exotic forms of plasma.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most of this post is just funny. And it's just going back over stuff that I've already tried to address Apparently my initial impression was correct, and nobody in this thread is actually interested in adressing any of the shortcomings of plasma cosmology. Instead, you insist on making unfounded assumptions about what I have and haven't read. |
That isn't the case at all. I have pointed you to evidence about magnetic current carrying ropes between the Sun and the Earth. You never acknowledged it. I have pointed you to evidence of solar wind that actually *accelerates* as it leaves the solar surface because of it's electromagnetic attraction to the heliosphere. I have mentioned that million degree corona as a perfect example of where electrical discharges in plasma are occurring. You have completely failed to acknowledge any of these things. Instead you insist that I play by your rules, based on your faith in metaphysics and your basics assumptions about the universe. I asked you point blank if you read Cosmic Plasma or not and you hemmed and hawed and made it clear you had not read the book. If you had read the book you would realize that Alfven build his case on observations *inside* the solar system, not based on his beliefs in any exotic forms of plasma.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
I smell a double standard. You're trading a theory you claim is unflasifiable (even though I have attempted to demonstrate to you how this is untrue) for another one that appears unfalsifiable.
It may appear unfalsifiable to you only because you insist on looking at some big picture concept of the universe. You insist that ambiplasma must be shown to exist as a requirement for electrons to flow between objects in space. I put no such requirement on the flow of electrons between objects in space because I know that no such requirement does exist. I am only looking at what I can observe inside and outside this solar system. I'm not trying to prove any big picture concepts, so I don't even care if ambiplasma exists. It's no skin off my nose or my belief systems if ambiplasma exists or it doesn't exist. Either way is fine by me. Plasma cosmology theory is not predicated on the existence of ambiplasma. That is a non sequitor.
yada.yada.yada.xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
QUOTE
How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc. |
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
All I have said, repeatedly, is that it was one of Alfevns predictions, because it is the ONLY WAY that plasma cosmology can account for the preponderance of koinomatter in the observable universe, and that's assuming that we don't go against one of Alfvens assumptions about the nature of the universe around is (which comes back to what I said earlier about galactic and stellar mergers).
You and I are having a hard time communicating. I think that is because you have a strong desire to see a "big picture" viewpoint and you want to understand how the whole thing works at once. I don't care about the big picture. I can't even see the whole big picture and I know that. All I can work with is what I can observe. I can observe magnetic current carry ropes between the Sun and the Earth. I can see ring currents around Saturn. I can observe lightening in the atmosphere of Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Earth. I can see evidence of current flows between other objects in space. These "little picture" observations make it very clear to me that we live inside an electric universe. I don't know how the whole thing is wired together yet, and I haven't personally mapped out all the current flows between objects, but I know that the tenets of plasma cosmology theory are correct because I can see that they are correct in the "little picture" observations. I don't necessarily agree with everything Alfven proposed related to "big picture" options, mostly because I haven't even made up my own mind yet. All I can say for sure is that plasma makes up most of the universe, it's an excellent conductor of electromagnetic current, and it's carrying electromagnetic current between objects.
I think if you stepped back for a moment and tried to look at the problem from my perspective, and looked at that accelerating solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and those magnetic ropes between the sun and the Earth, I think you would have to agree that the universe may be carrying a lot of electrical current.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 10:12 PM)
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arbitrarily picking dates, I'm insisting that we apply the rules of science to astronomy. Unlike Guth, Birkeland posited no new forces of nature to explain nature. He used known forces of nature to posit explanations for observations he made of nature. He built working laboratory models to demonstrate the usefulness of his models and to make "predictions" based on known conditions that he simulated in his lab.
Guth simply looked up at the clouds one day and dreamed up a math formula about a mythical thing that he called "inflation". He didn't actually do any sweat equity lab work on this idea mind you, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature. Never mind the fact that no known vector or scalar field in known to exist in nature acted like "inflation". Inflation was the ultimate "free lunch" (Guth actually called it that). Since he did no actual lab work, he never justified this idea one iota, or tested it, or demonstrated that inflation even exists in nature.
There is no "double standard" on my part. I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence.
What you don't seem to "get" is that in the scientific method, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the claim. Guth made an extraordinary claim which he never demonstrated with empirical data from any controlled experiment.
Birkeland made no extraordinary claims. He only made "ordinary"" claims about "ordinary" and known forces of nature. He didn't daydream up inflation faeries in his head. He sat down and built a model of his ideas and fired it up. He took images in his lab that simulated the rings of planets, the auroras of planets and the coronal loops and x-ray jets of the sun. That's real science. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are pseudoscience. At very best case, you only have evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating (like solar wind particles), and that you can't find the "missing mass" you're looking for in galaxy lensing studies. You certainly can't demonstrate that dark energy or dark matter have anything at all to do with these *uncontrolled* observations.
The only double standard here is being applied by you and you alone. You want me to give you unlimited amounts of time to study your missing mass problem and your acceleration problem while you stuff metaphysics down my children's throat in school.
Meanwhile you won't open up your mind or the classroom to plasma physics, and the basic concepts behind plasma cosmology theory only because you've never seen ambiplasma. Talk about double standards. I'm not even asking you to stop teaching my children about dark evil energies, all I'm asking you to do is open up the classroom to other ideas and give them some alternative ideas to think about.
Perhaps the biggest load of bull you have posted on this thread so far.
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed atoms directly, but we theorized their existence based on sketchy evidence, and went looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed delectricity, or Germs directly. But we theorized their existence and went looking for them.
Do you get my point now?
You sound just like the people who said "But we have no evidence for germs, so why should we look for them."
Of for that matter, the people who failed Arrhenius on his PhD not once, but twice, because he dared to hypothesize that table salt, when dissolved into water, seperated into positively charge particles and negatively charged particles.
Do you get it now?
You're saying that we shouldn't go looking for something that we think exists, but haven't seen yet, because we haven't seen it yet.
Man, if COlumbus had applied that logic...
You get it yet?
And you accuse me of having a closed mind. Your accusing me of having a closed mind, when you refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we haven't exactly observed everything the universe has to offer.
Or are you so conceited that you genuinely believe the universe has no further capability to surprise us?
And where have I asked for unlimited amounts of time... Oh wait, that's right. I haven't. Oh dear. All i've suggested is that you give λCDM the same chance that you've given Plasma Cosmology. That is, that you wait until we have all the tools to make the observations required before you make your judgements.
Moreover, that you do what you claim I haven't done, and do some more reading about the predictions of the λCDM model (the WMAP website is a good place to start).
Sheesh. And you complain about me being a narrowminded hypocrit - I at least am willing to accept the possibility that the λCDM model is wrong. Are you prepared to accept the possibility that it's right?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when GLAST is launched, it could see exactly the angular distribution and power spectrum of the gamma rays predicted?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when the LHC is fired up, we might be able to observe these particles directly and you could have your 'gram of dark matter'.
My money is on you're not, and you wont.
Guth simply looked up at the clouds one day and dreamed up a math formula about a mythical thing that he called "inflation". He didn't actually do any sweat equity lab work on this idea mind you, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature. Never mind the fact that no known vector or scalar field in known to exist in nature acted like "inflation". Inflation was the ultimate "free lunch" (Guth actually called it that). Since he did no actual lab work, he never justified this idea one iota, or tested it, or demonstrated that inflation even exists in nature.
There is no "double standard" on my part. I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence.
What you don't seem to "get" is that in the scientific method, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the claim. Guth made an extraordinary claim which he never demonstrated with empirical data from any controlled experiment.
Birkeland made no extraordinary claims. He only made "ordinary"" claims about "ordinary" and known forces of nature. He didn't daydream up inflation faeries in his head. He sat down and built a model of his ideas and fired it up. He took images in his lab that simulated the rings of planets, the auroras of planets and the coronal loops and x-ray jets of the sun. That's real science. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are pseudoscience. At very best case, you only have evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating (like solar wind particles), and that you can't find the "missing mass" you're looking for in galaxy lensing studies. You certainly can't demonstrate that dark energy or dark matter have anything at all to do with these *uncontrolled* observations.
The only double standard here is being applied by you and you alone. You want me to give you unlimited amounts of time to study your missing mass problem and your acceleration problem while you stuff metaphysics down my children's throat in school.
Meanwhile you won't open up your mind or the classroom to plasma physics, and the basic concepts behind plasma cosmology theory only because you've never seen ambiplasma. Talk about double standards. I'm not even asking you to stop teaching my children about dark evil energies, all I'm asking you to do is open up the classroom to other ideas and give them some alternative ideas to think about.
Perhaps the biggest load of bull you have posted on this thread so far.
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed atoms directly, but we theorized their existence based on sketchy evidence, and went looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed delectricity, or Germs directly. But we theorized their existence and went looking for them.
Do you get my point now?
You sound just like the people who said "But we have no evidence for germs, so why should we look for them."
Of for that matter, the people who failed Arrhenius on his PhD not once, but twice, because he dared to hypothesize that table salt, when dissolved into water, seperated into positively charge particles and negatively charged particles.
Do you get it now?
You're saying that we shouldn't go looking for something that we think exists, but haven't seen yet, because we haven't seen it yet.
Man, if COlumbus had applied that logic...
You get it yet?
And you accuse me of having a closed mind. Your accusing me of having a closed mind, when you refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we haven't exactly observed everything the universe has to offer.
Or are you so conceited that you genuinely believe the universe has no further capability to surprise us?
And where have I asked for unlimited amounts of time... Oh wait, that's right. I haven't. Oh dear. All i've suggested is that you give λCDM the same chance that you've given Plasma Cosmology. That is, that you wait until we have all the tools to make the observations required before you make your judgements.
Moreover, that you do what you claim I haven't done, and do some more reading about the predictions of the λCDM model (the WMAP website is a good place to start).
Sheesh. And you complain about me being a narrowminded hypocrit - I at least am willing to accept the possibility that the λCDM model is wrong. Are you prepared to accept the possibility that it's right?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when GLAST is launched, it could see exactly the angular distribution and power spectrum of the gamma rays predicted?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when the LHC is fired up, we might be able to observe these particles directly and you could have your 'gram of dark matter'.
My money is on you're not, and you wont.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 10:36 PM)
That isn't the case at all. I have pointed you to evidence about magnetic current carrying ropes between the Sun and the Earth. You never acknowledged it. I have pointed you to evidence of solar wind that actually *accelerates* as it leaves the solar surface because of it's electromagnetic attraction to the heliosphere. I have mentioned that million degree corona as a perfect example of where electrical discharges in plasma are occurring. You have completely failed to acknowledge any of these things. Instead you insist that I play by your rules, based on your faith in metaphysics and your basics assumptions about the universe. I asked you point blank if you read Cosmic Plasma or not and you hemmed and hawed and made it clear you had not read the book. If you had read the book you would realize that Alfven build his case on observations *inside* the solar system, not based on his beliefs in any exotic forms of plasma.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
It may appear unfalsifiable to you only because you insist on looking at some big picture concept of the universe. You insist that ambiplasma must be shown to exist as a requirement for electrons to flow between objects in space. I put no such requirement on the flow of electrons between objects in space because I know that no such requirement does exist. I am only looking at what I can observe inside and outside this solar system. I'm not trying to prove any big picture concepts, so I don't even care if ambiplasma exists. It's no skin off my nose or my belief systems if ambiplasma exists or it doesn't exist. Either way is fine by me. Plasma cosmology theory is not predicated on the existence of ambiplasma. That is a non sequitor.
yada.yada.yada.xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
You and I are having a hard time communicating. I think that is because you have a strong desire to see a "big picture" viewpoint and you want to understand how the whole thing works at once. I don't care about the big picture. I can't even see the whole big picture and I know that. All I can work with is what I can observe. I can observe magnetic current carry ropes between the Sun and the Earth. I can see ring currents around Saturn. I can observe lightening in the atmosphere of Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Earth. I can see evidence of current flows between other objects in space. These "little picture" observations make it very clear to me that we live inside an electric universe. I don't know how the whole thing is wired together yet, and I haven't personally mapped out all the current flows between objects, but I know that the tenets of plasma cosmology theory are correct because I can see that they are correct in the "little picture" observations. I don't necessarily agree with everything Alfven proposed related to "big picture" options, mostly because I haven't even made up my own mind yet. All I can say for sure is that plasma makes up most of the universe, it's an excellent conductor of electromagnetic current, and it's carrying electromagnetic current between objects.
I think if you stepped back for a moment and tried to look at the problem from my perspective, and looked at that accelerating solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and those magnetic ropes between the sun and the Earth, I think you would have to agree that the universe may be carrying a lot of electrical current.
I have never denied in any of my posts, that these exist, in fact, the fact that they have only been recently demonstrated that they exist, in spite of the fact that their existence has been theorized for at least 65 years.
Sheesh.
I just don't happen to see this as a problem.
I don't think that we have seen everything the universe has to offer - i'm not that conceited.
I am of the opinion yet that if we haven't observed a mechanism, it's because we don't neccessarily have the technology to observe a mechanism. You know, like those preciouse magnetic ropes you keep blithering about.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas. For example, the existence of Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are Hannes Alfvens own explanation for what he calls the 'de Vaucouleurs' limit. It's part of Alfvens own Fireworks model.
You do know about it right? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about the vailidity of ambiplasmas. In fact in section 13 of "On Heirachichal Cosmology" he specifically addresses the stability of ambiclouds.
So much for me not knowing what i'm talking about.
I have also not denied that there is evidence that electric currents flow in space.
Obviously if I've read Alfvens work, and Perrats work, and others work, then I have at least considered the possibility. A point that you blatantly refuse to aknowledge, because of this pseudo religous fervour that you have towards Alfvens work - even though you pick and choose which consequences of Alfvens work you address.
This thread is getting ridiculous.
You have also failed to acknowledge that *every* theory has "shortcomings" and problems, and your beliefs are no different. I've pointed out that you can't demonstrate that your "missing mass" has anything whatsoever to do with SUSY particles, weakly interacting particles or gamma rays. For all you know your "dark matter" is mostly made of MACHOS that our technology is simply too primitive to observe.
What you have never done is acknowledge that there is evidence that electrical currents flow between objects in space, or that all theories have problems and shortcomings. I"m not even asking you to choose between one theory, I'm simply asking you to open your mind to *several* theories, including EU theories.
It may appear unfalsifiable to you only because you insist on looking at some big picture concept of the universe. You insist that ambiplasma must be shown to exist as a requirement for electrons to flow between objects in space. I put no such requirement on the flow of electrons between objects in space because I know that no such requirement does exist. I am only looking at what I can observe inside and outside this solar system. I'm not trying to prove any big picture concepts, so I don't even care if ambiplasma exists. It's no skin off my nose or my belief systems if ambiplasma exists or it doesn't exist. Either way is fine by me. Plasma cosmology theory is not predicated on the existence of ambiplasma. That is a non sequitor.
yada.yada.yada.xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
Oh what a difference six months can make eh? Homework requires constant effort in this industry.
You and I are having a hard time communicating. I think that is because you have a strong desire to see a "big picture" viewpoint and you want to understand how the whole thing works at once. I don't care about the big picture. I can't even see the whole big picture and I know that. All I can work with is what I can observe. I can observe magnetic current carry ropes between the Sun and the Earth. I can see ring currents around Saturn. I can observe lightening in the atmosphere of Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Earth. I can see evidence of current flows between other objects in space. These "little picture" observations make it very clear to me that we live inside an electric universe. I don't know how the whole thing is wired together yet, and I haven't personally mapped out all the current flows between objects, but I know that the tenets of plasma cosmology theory are correct because I can see that they are correct in the "little picture" observations. I don't necessarily agree with everything Alfven proposed related to "big picture" options, mostly because I haven't even made up my own mind yet. All I can say for sure is that plasma makes up most of the universe, it's an excellent conductor of electromagnetic current, and it's carrying electromagnetic current between objects.
I think if you stepped back for a moment and tried to look at the problem from my perspective, and looked at that accelerating solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and those magnetic ropes between the sun and the Earth, I think you would have to agree that the universe may be carrying a lot of electrical current.
I have never denied in any of my posts, that these exist, in fact, the fact that they have only been recently demonstrated that they exist, in spite of the fact that their existence has been theorized for at least 65 years.
Sheesh.
I just don't happen to see this as a problem.
I don't think that we have seen everything the universe has to offer - i'm not that conceited.
I am of the opinion yet that if we haven't observed a mechanism, it's because we don't neccessarily have the technology to observe a mechanism. You know, like those preciouse magnetic ropes you keep blithering about.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas. For example, the existence of Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are Hannes Alfvens own explanation for what he calls the 'de Vaucouleurs' limit. It's part of Alfvens own Fireworks model.
You do know about it right? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about the vailidity of ambiplasmas. In fact in section 13 of "On Heirachichal Cosmology" he specifically addresses the stability of ambiclouds.
So much for me not knowing what i'm talking about.
I have also not denied that there is evidence that electric currents flow in space.
Obviously if I've read Alfvens work, and Perrats work, and others work, then I have at least considered the possibility. A point that you blatantly refuse to aknowledge, because of this pseudo religous fervour that you have towards Alfvens work - even though you pick and choose which consequences of Alfvens work you address.
This thread is getting ridiculous.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 10:36 PM)
Plasma cosmology theory is not predicated on the existence of ambiplasma. That is a non sequitor.
Uh, yeah, it kind of is actually, Alfven himself, and Alfven and Klein both considered that the idea of the universe being exclusively koinomatter was in error, and as I have pointed out, repeatedly, the use of ambiplasma and leidenfrost layers is the only way that Plasma cosmology can account for the fact that we observe only koinomatter.
Big Bang Theory: There was a CPT violation in the early universe, that lead to the production of a predominance of koinomatter over antimatter.
Plasma Cosmology: All of the antimatter is still there, we're just seperated from it at some scale by a series of leidenfrost layers.
Again, I remind you that Hannes Alfven supported Kleins view that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could be made of anti matter, because there's ample space between here and there for the appropriate leidenfrost layers. And he says so in 'on heirachichal cosmology' but then you knew that having read Alfvens work.
SO apparently, it's not the non sequitor that you would have us believe that it is.
Uh, yeah, it kind of is actually, Alfven himself, and Alfven and Klein both considered that the idea of the universe being exclusively koinomatter was in error, and as I have pointed out, repeatedly, the use of ambiplasma and leidenfrost layers is the only way that Plasma cosmology can account for the fact that we observe only koinomatter.
Big Bang Theory: There was a CPT violation in the early universe, that lead to the production of a predominance of koinomatter over antimatter.
Plasma Cosmology: All of the antimatter is still there, we're just seperated from it at some scale by a series of leidenfrost layers.
Again, I remind you that Hannes Alfven supported Kleins view that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could be made of anti matter, because there's ample space between here and there for the appropriate leidenfrost layers. And he says so in 'on heirachichal cosmology' but then you knew that having read Alfvens work.
SO apparently, it's not the non sequitor that you would have us believe that it is.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 09:57 AM)
I have never denied in any of my posts, that these exist, in fact, the fact that they have only been recently demonstrated that they exist, in spite of the fact that their existence has been theorized for at least 65 years.
Sheesh.
I just don't happen to see this as a problem.
I don't think that we have seen everything the universe has to offer - i'm not that conceited.
I am of the opinion yet that if we haven't observed a mechanism, it's because we don't neccessarily have the technology to observe a mechanism. You know, like those preciouse magnetic ropes you keep blithering about.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas. For example, the existence of Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are Hannes Alfvens own explanation for what he calls the 'de Vaucouleurs' limit. It's part of Alfvens own Fireworks model.
You do know about it right? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about the vailidity of ambiplasmas. In fact in section 13 of "On Heirachichal Cosmology" he specifically addresses the stability of ambiclouds.
So much for me not knowing what i'm talking about.
I have also not denied that there is evidence that electric currents flow in space.
Obviously if I've read Alfvens work, and Perrats work, and others work, then I have at least considered the possibility. A point that you blatantly refuse to aknowledge, because of this pseudo religous fervour that you have towards Alfvens work - even though you pick and choose which consequences of Alfvens work you address.
This thread is getting ridiculous.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the first person to "predict" these "new discoveries" was Kristian Birkeland based on his lab simulations over 100 years ago.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the first person to "predict" these "new discoveries" was Kristian Birkeland based on his lab simulations over 100 years ago.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas.
Here is where you and I seem to be having a tough time communicating. Plasma cosmology is *not*, I repeat *not*, dependent upon the existence of ambiplasma. Alfven doesn't even mention the idea in the book "Cosmic Plasma" until page 98 of his book and spends exactly 4 total pages on the concept. There is no requirement that abmiplasma be present in the universe for current to flow between objects in the universe. It's simply a "maybe it happened this way" big picture concept. As I said I'm not even personally interested in "big picture" concepts because 9 times out of 10, there is absolutely no empirical support for big picture ideas just as there is no support for inflation or ambiplasma. I therefore put no faith in these ideas. I'm not applying a double standard, I'm applying an empirical evidence standard and I'm applying it even to plasma cosmology theory.
The problem in your rejection of EU theory based on a lack of ambiplasma verification is that fact that I can demonstrate to you that electrons flow between objects made of normal matter without the need for any antimatter at all. Birkeland didn't need any antimatter or ambiplasma to create his *working* electrical model of the solar system. He didn't need any amount of antimatter to create ring currents around his terella. He didn't require abmiplasma to create aurora around his terella. He didn't require ambiplasma to predict current flows between objects in space. Some aspects of EU theory can be verified *without* any need for ambiplasma, and someone (like me) can have faith in plasma cosmology theory and put no faith in the existence of ambiplasma.
As far as I can tell, your only real scientific "beef" with plasma cosmology theory relates to a "big picture" concept that is not even required to create working models of current flow between objects in space. What is most perplexing about your objection from my perspective is that you are rejecting one theory because you can't easily verify *one* concept it mentions (in passing), but rather you're entirely comfortable putting accepting the validity of another theory that requires faith in three different things you can't empirically demonstrate. There is at least a three to one advantage of Plasma cosmology theory (including an ambiplasma version) over Lambda-CDM theory as it relates to relying upon premises that cannot be verified in a lab. At best case, your preferred theory is three times more scientifically offensive in that respect. IMO it is therefore irrational for you IMO to exclude EU theory on only that single objection to a single aspect of Alfen's personal view on plasma cosmology theory.
As I have pointed out to you, plasma physics begins at the atomic level. No antimatter is required for plasmas to create current threads and cellular structures in space. It is entirely possible that the "current flows" of the universe have absolutely nothing at all to do with ambiplasmas, or antimatter. Plasma cosmology is not rigid and dogmatic like Lambda-CDM theory. One can subscribe to the idea of an electric universe theory *without* putting any faith whatsoever in ambiplasma. I am living proof of the validity of that statement. I have no faith in ambiplasma just as I have no faith in dark things. Until I see them demonstrated in controlled laboratory conditions, I have no particular need for these things. I am only interested in what I can empirically demonstrate through science. While it's possible that the existence of ambiplasma might one day be verified by controlled experimentation, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on other aspects of EU theory that *can* be demonstrated and *have* been demonstrated based on in-situ measurements from space.
Somehow you have it stuck in your head that Plasma Cosmology can be only be valid and can only be considered "viable' if ambiplasma exists, but that is simply not so. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma to make his model work. He didn't need ambiplasma to duplicate what we find in nature. Currents flow in plasma and current flow between objects without ambiplasma. There is no one to one correlation between the existence of ambiplasma, and the validity of Birkeland's work. Birkelands work and his predictions are valid regardless of what Alfven thought about abmiplasma.
The part I'm most mystified by however is the fact that you can't begin to demonstrate that inflation even exists in nature, but we can certainly demonstrate that antimatter exists in reality. The only thing we can't demonstrate (yet) is that matter and antimatter will form some sort of exotic plasma that includes both matter and antimatter. I'm personally not even sure that this is possible, and I am personally skeptical of that particular idea, but as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the validity of plasma cosmology theory whether matter and antimatter can coexist in a single plasma.
Compare and contrast that now with Lambda-CDM theory. Without inflation, you're BB party goes absolutely nowhere. Without dark energy, your gravitational theories can't explain something as simple as the acceleration of local spacetime. Without dark matter, your "predictions about the movements of mass in galaxies fails to match observation. There is not just one unfounded assertion in Lambda-CDM theory but three of them! In an Occum's razer argument, plasma cosmology theory wins that debate hands down.
All I'm asking is that you consider the usefulness of EU theory very carefully in light of all the recent observations that have confirmed the model that Birkeland first proposed. He propose a universe filled with flying ions of all kinds. He was right and his work has been demonstrated to be correct already on many different levels. He predicted ring currents around planets and simulated them in his lab. We know that planets can produce ring currents now. He predicted that auroras were caused by current flows between the sun and Earth and that has also been verified by recent observations. I simply believe that EU theory should be taught in school along side of other kinds of theories so that students can choose for themselves what makes sense to them. You're trying to choose one single idea to teach to them based on a subject series of subjective choices you make about which ideas to put faith in, and which ones to reject with a handwave.
Sheesh.
I just don't happen to see this as a problem.
I don't think that we have seen everything the universe has to offer - i'm not that conceited.
I am of the opinion yet that if we haven't observed a mechanism, it's because we don't neccessarily have the technology to observe a mechanism. You know, like those preciouse magnetic ropes you keep blithering about.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas. For example, the existence of Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are Hannes Alfvens own explanation for what he calls the 'de Vaucouleurs' limit. It's part of Alfvens own Fireworks model.
You do know about it right? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about the vailidity of ambiplasmas. In fact in section 13 of "On Heirachichal Cosmology" he specifically addresses the stability of ambiclouds.
So much for me not knowing what i'm talking about.
I have also not denied that there is evidence that electric currents flow in space.
Obviously if I've read Alfvens work, and Perrats work, and others work, then I have at least considered the possibility. A point that you blatantly refuse to aknowledge, because of this pseudo religous fervour that you have towards Alfvens work - even though you pick and choose which consequences of Alfvens work you address.
This thread is getting ridiculous.
QUOTE
I have never denied in any of my posts, that these exist, in fact, the fact that they have only been recently demonstrated that they exist, in spite of the fact that their existence has been theorized for at least 65 years.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the first person to "predict" these "new discoveries" was Kristian Birkeland based on his lab simulations over 100 years ago.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have never denied in any of my posts, that these exist, in fact, the fact that they have only been recently demonstrated that they exist, in spite of the fact that their existence has been theorized for at least 65 years. Sheesh. |
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the first person to "predict" these "new discoveries" was Kristian Birkeland based on his lab simulations over 100 years ago.
I notice that you still refuse to aknowledge the fact that Plasma cosmology is reliant on Ambiplasmas.
Here is where you and I seem to be having a tough time communicating. Plasma cosmology is *not*, I repeat *not*, dependent upon the existence of ambiplasma. Alfven doesn't even mention the idea in the book "Cosmic Plasma" until page 98 of his book and spends exactly 4 total pages on the concept. There is no requirement that abmiplasma be present in the universe for current to flow between objects in the universe. It's simply a "maybe it happened this way" big picture concept. As I said I'm not even personally interested in "big picture" concepts because 9 times out of 10, there is absolutely no empirical support for big picture ideas just as there is no support for inflation or ambiplasma. I therefore put no faith in these ideas. I'm not applying a double standard, I'm applying an empirical evidence standard and I'm applying it even to plasma cosmology theory.
The problem in your rejection of EU theory based on a lack of ambiplasma verification is that fact that I can demonstrate to you that electrons flow between objects made of normal matter without the need for any antimatter at all. Birkeland didn't need any antimatter or ambiplasma to create his *working* electrical model of the solar system. He didn't need any amount of antimatter to create ring currents around his terella. He didn't require abmiplasma to create aurora around his terella. He didn't require ambiplasma to predict current flows between objects in space. Some aspects of EU theory can be verified *without* any need for ambiplasma, and someone (like me) can have faith in plasma cosmology theory and put no faith in the existence of ambiplasma.
As far as I can tell, your only real scientific "beef" with plasma cosmology theory relates to a "big picture" concept that is not even required to create working models of current flow between objects in space. What is most perplexing about your objection from my perspective is that you are rejecting one theory because you can't easily verify *one* concept it mentions (in passing), but rather you're entirely comfortable putting accepting the validity of another theory that requires faith in three different things you can't empirically demonstrate. There is at least a three to one advantage of Plasma cosmology theory (including an ambiplasma version) over Lambda-CDM theory as it relates to relying upon premises that cannot be verified in a lab. At best case, your preferred theory is three times more scientifically offensive in that respect. IMO it is therefore irrational for you IMO to exclude EU theory on only that single objection to a single aspect of Alfen's personal view on plasma cosmology theory.
As I have pointed out to you, plasma physics begins at the atomic level. No antimatter is required for plasmas to create current threads and cellular structures in space. It is entirely possible that the "current flows" of the universe have absolutely nothing at all to do with ambiplasmas, or antimatter. Plasma cosmology is not rigid and dogmatic like Lambda-CDM theory. One can subscribe to the idea of an electric universe theory *without* putting any faith whatsoever in ambiplasma. I am living proof of the validity of that statement. I have no faith in ambiplasma just as I have no faith in dark things. Until I see them demonstrated in controlled laboratory conditions, I have no particular need for these things. I am only interested in what I can empirically demonstrate through science. While it's possible that the existence of ambiplasma might one day be verified by controlled experimentation, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on other aspects of EU theory that *can* be demonstrated and *have* been demonstrated based on in-situ measurements from space.
Somehow you have it stuck in your head that Plasma Cosmology can be only be valid and can only be considered "viable' if ambiplasma exists, but that is simply not so. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma to make his model work. He didn't need ambiplasma to duplicate what we find in nature. Currents flow in plasma and current flow between objects without ambiplasma. There is no one to one correlation between the existence of ambiplasma, and the validity of Birkeland's work. Birkelands work and his predictions are valid regardless of what Alfven thought about abmiplasma.
The part I'm most mystified by however is the fact that you can't begin to demonstrate that inflation even exists in nature, but we can certainly demonstrate that antimatter exists in reality. The only thing we can't demonstrate (yet) is that matter and antimatter will form some sort of exotic plasma that includes both matter and antimatter. I'm personally not even sure that this is possible, and I am personally skeptical of that particular idea, but as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the validity of plasma cosmology theory whether matter and antimatter can coexist in a single plasma.
Compare and contrast that now with Lambda-CDM theory. Without inflation, you're BB party goes absolutely nowhere. Without dark energy, your gravitational theories can't explain something as simple as the acceleration of local spacetime. Without dark matter, your "predictions about the movements of mass in galaxies fails to match observation. There is not just one unfounded assertion in Lambda-CDM theory but three of them! In an Occum's razer argument, plasma cosmology theory wins that debate hands down.
All I'm asking is that you consider the usefulness of EU theory very carefully in light of all the recent observations that have confirmed the model that Birkeland first proposed. He propose a universe filled with flying ions of all kinds. He was right and his work has been demonstrated to be correct already on many different levels. He predicted ring currents around planets and simulated them in his lab. We know that planets can produce ring currents now. He predicted that auroras were caused by current flows between the sun and Earth and that has also been verified by recent observations. I simply believe that EU theory should be taught in school along side of other kinds of theories so that students can choose for themselves what makes sense to them. You're trying to choose one single idea to teach to them based on a subject series of subjective choices you make about which ideas to put faith in, and which ones to reject with a handwave.
Cosmology isn't exactly my forte, but in reading through this thread I noticed a few things that I felt the need to address.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+)
Guth simply looked up at the clouds one day and dreamed up a math formula about a mythical thing that he called "inflation". He didn't actually do any sweat equity lab work on this idea mind you, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature. Never mind the fact that no known vector or scalar field in known to exist in nature acted like "inflation". Inflation was the ultimate "free lunch" (Guth actually called it that). Since he did no actual lab work, he never justified this idea one iota, or tested it, or demonstrated that inflation even exists in nature.
You could make almost the same claim about Einstein and Relativity. He had no proof, no "sweat equity" in lab work, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature.
He was right.
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
That's not exactly correct in the context in which it was said. I believe Trippy's explained it already, I just want to add my voice to his.
and
and
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
and
This is simple. Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity. Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light, model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
Now, using the ratio gained from the first modeling, insert the presence of dark matter into the second cluster. Predict, observe, note the lack of discrepancies.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
You could make almost the same claim about Einstein and Relativity. He had no proof, no "sweat equity" in lab work, he simply tinkered around with some math formulas on paper and claimed to have unlocked the secrets of nature.
He was right.
QUOTE
I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence.
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I put no faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen any. I also put no faith in inflation, dark energy, dark matter, Guth's mythical monopole problem, etc. I believe and insist in empirical evidence. |
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
No, dark matter was theorized much sooner than you realize. In 1933, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky first proposed the idea. By your logic, time is up on that one.
That's not exactly correct in the context in which it was said. I believe Trippy's explained it already, I just want to add my voice to his.
QUOTE
There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab?
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no double standard. Birkeland proposed no new forms of mass or energy. He had *measurements* and *working models* to support his theories. Got a working model of dark matter for me to play with in a lab? |
and
Again, unless you can do with "dark energy" what Birkeland did with a "electricity" and model it in a lab, I'm not waiting 10 seconds. I'll discard it right now, just like I discard the need to explain anything with ambiplasma without seeing some.
and
QUOTE
There can be no "double standard" since you have no working model of dark energy, dark matter or inflation.
This is simple. Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity. Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light, model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
Now, using the ratio gained from the first modeling, insert the presence of dark matter into the second cluster. Predict, observe, note the lack of discrepancies.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 10:55 AM)
Uh, yeah, it kind of is actually, Alfven himself, and Alfven and Klein both considered that the idea of the universe being exclusively koinomatter was in error, and as I have pointed out, repeatedly, the use of ambiplasma and leidenfrost layers is the only way that Plasma cosmology can account for the fact that we observe only koinomatter.
Big Bang Theory: There was a CPT violation in the early universe, that lead to the production of a predominance of koinomatter over antimatter.
Plasma Cosmology: All of the antimatter is still there, we're just seperated from it at some scale by a series of leidenfrost layers.
Again, I remind you that Hannes Alfven supported Kleins view that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could be made of anti matter, because there's ample space between here and there for the appropriate leidenfrost layers. And he says so in 'on heirachichal cosmology' but then you knew that having read Alfvens work.
SO apparently, it's not the non sequitor that you would have us believe that it is.
No, it's absolutely not reliant upon the existence of ambiplasma. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma in his lab did he? Were his terrelas powered by antimatter?
No, it's absolutely not reliant upon the existence of ambiplasma. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma in his lab did he? Were his terrelas powered by antimatter?
Alfven himself, and Alfven and Klein both considered that the idea of the universe being exclusively koinomatter was in error,
And Alfven may be wrong about that single point, and he could still be right other aspects of EU theory. Again, plasma cosmology is not rigid and dogmatic. It began with the work of Kristian Birkeland. Hannes Alfven simply attempted to give a larger picture of the universe that fit with Birkeland's model, whereas Birkeland was preoccupied about what occurs in solar systems. Birkelands work and his models required zero ambiplasma. I am even willing to concede that Alfven could be wrong about that single point. but then every theory *could be* wrong on some point or another. That does not invalidate the entire theory.
You can't physically or empirically demonstrate a word of that statement! You're the one using a blatant double standard here. Your own model won't hold up to the same scrutiny you put on Alfven's statements. I'm applying my standard exactly the same way as it relates to both theories. I put no value on ALfven's faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen evidence that it actually exists in nature. I put no value on inflation for exactly the same reason. I put no faith that 'missing mass' is related to "dark matter" for exactly the same reason. I have applied this empirical standard to all theories equally, whereas you do not apply the same standard equally, or you would also toss out Lamba-CDM theory.
Big Bang Theory: There was a CPT violation in the early universe, that lead to the production of a predominance of koinomatter over antimatter.
Plasma Cosmology: All of the antimatter is still there, we're just seperated from it at some scale by a series of leidenfrost layers.
Again, I remind you that Hannes Alfven supported Kleins view that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could be made of anti matter, because there's ample space between here and there for the appropriate leidenfrost layers. And he says so in 'on heirachichal cosmology' but then you knew that having read Alfvens work.
SO apparently, it's not the non sequitor that you would have us believe that it is.
QUOTE
Uh, yeah, it kind of is actually,
No, it's absolutely not reliant upon the existence of ambiplasma. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma in his lab did he? Were his terrelas powered by antimatter?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Uh, yeah, it kind of is actually, |
No, it's absolutely not reliant upon the existence of ambiplasma. Birkeland didn't use any ambiplasma in his lab did he? Were his terrelas powered by antimatter?
Alfven himself, and Alfven and Klein both considered that the idea of the universe being exclusively koinomatter was in error,
And Alfven may be wrong about that single point, and he could still be right other aspects of EU theory. Again, plasma cosmology is not rigid and dogmatic. It began with the work of Kristian Birkeland. Hannes Alfven simply attempted to give a larger picture of the universe that fit with Birkeland's model, whereas Birkeland was preoccupied about what occurs in solar systems. Birkelands work and his models required zero ambiplasma. I am even willing to concede that Alfven could be wrong about that single point. but then every theory *could be* wrong on some point or another. That does not invalidate the entire theory.
QUOTE
Big Bang Theory: There was a CPT violation in the early universe, that lead to the production of a predominance of koinomatter over antimatter.
You can't physically or empirically demonstrate a word of that statement! You're the one using a blatant double standard here. Your own model won't hold up to the same scrutiny you put on Alfven's statements. I'm applying my standard exactly the same way as it relates to both theories. I put no value on ALfven's faith in ambiplasma because I've never seen evidence that it actually exists in nature. I put no value on inflation for exactly the same reason. I put no faith that 'missing mass' is related to "dark matter" for exactly the same reason. I have applied this empirical standard to all theories equally, whereas you do not apply the same standard equally, or you would also toss out Lamba-CDM theory.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 26 2007, 05:00 PM)
Cosmology isn't exactly my forte, but in reading through this thread I noticed a few things that I felt the need to address.
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
That's not exactly correct in the context in which it was said. I believe Trippy's explained it already, I just want to add my voice to his.
and
and
This is simple. Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity. Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light, model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
Now, using the ratio gained from the first modeling, insert the presence of dark matter into the second cluster. Predict, observe, note the lack of discrepancies.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
Your point about GR is valid to a point, but Einstein could demonstrate that gravity exists.
You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation.
You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation.
and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter.
There is exactly zero evidence for "dark matter". At best case you have evidence that there is "missing mass" somewhere, but you have no idea whether your galactic mass estimation process is even valid. You could easily have a theoretical problem with the way you estimate the mass of a galaxy that has nothing whatseover to do with wih "dark matter".
There is no evidence that any of the "missing mass" you observe is in any way related to non baryonic 'dark matter' rather than just "normal" matter. In fact, nobody on the planet can demonstrate that SUSY particle theory has scientific merit. The whole dark matter theory/hypothesis is based on a non standard particle physics theory that cannot be empirically demonstrated in the first place!
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
This is simple.
Not from millions or billions of light years away, no, it's not simple. It's very difficult in fact.
Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place?
Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place?
Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
So all that tells us is that your modeling technique is primitive and inaccurate.
A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element?
A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element?
model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
The discrepancies are simply evidence that your estimation method is flawed. Now what?
First of all, you didn't make any "predictions" about "dark matter". You postidicted an ad-hoc "missing mass" fudge factor that seems to better fit with real life observation somehow. You don't know why it fits or how it fits now, you only verified the fact you grossly underestimated the mass of the galaxies and you're attempting to figure out how much "missing mass" you really need to make things work right. You never demonstrated that any of that missing mass has anything at all to do with "dark matter". You have predictions about the amount of "missing mass" that you sprinkled liberally into your model. You have no predictions about "dark matter" from such observations.
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter. Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
That's not exactly correct in the context in which it was said. I believe Trippy's explained it already, I just want to add my voice to his.
and
and
This is simple. Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity. Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light, model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
Now, using the ratio gained from the first modeling, insert the presence of dark matter into the second cluster. Predict, observe, note the lack of discrepancies.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
Your point about GR is valid to a point, but Einstein could demonstrate that gravity exists.
QUOTE
I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc...
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence,
I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence,
You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've never seen an electron. Nor a positron, nor a proton or neutron etc, etc, etc... I've only seen evidence to suggest their presence, |
You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation.
and I know that at some point in time, that evidence was not nearly as strong as is the evidence for dark matter.
There is exactly zero evidence for "dark matter". At best case you have evidence that there is "missing mass" somewhere, but you have no idea whether your galactic mass estimation process is even valid. You could easily have a theoretical problem with the way you estimate the mass of a galaxy that has nothing whatseover to do with wih "dark matter".
There is no evidence that any of the "missing mass" you observe is in any way related to non baryonic 'dark matter' rather than just "normal" matter. In fact, nobody on the planet can demonstrate that SUSY particle theory has scientific merit. The whole dark matter theory/hypothesis is based on a non standard particle physics theory that cannot be empirically demonstrated in the first place!
QUOTE
Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still.
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Over time, it got stronger, just like evidence for dark matter continues to accumulate, albeit at a slower rate, but still. |
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
This is simple.
Not from millions or billions of light years away, no, it's not simple. It's very difficult in fact.
QUOTE
Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity.
Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Model 2 galactic clusters using relativity. |
Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place?
Make predictions about the motion of galaxies and stars within them. Observe these two galactic clusters. Note the discrepancies.
So all that tells us is that your modeling technique is primitive and inaccurate.
QUOTE
Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light,
A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now add in a form of matter that does not emit or reflect light, |
A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element?
model one of those clusters using this assumption, deduce the ratio of normal to dark matter. Observe this cluster. Note the lack of discrepancies.
The discrepancies are simply evidence that your estimation method is flawed. Now what?
QUOTE
Now, using the ratio gained from the first modeling, insert the presence of dark matter into the second cluster. Predict, observe, note the lack of discrepancies.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
Voila - a model of dark matter. Or more to the point, a cosmological model that includes dark matter, and makes testable predictions which are in agreement with observational evidence, which is a far more useful thing than just a model of dark matter.
First of all, you didn't make any "predictions" about "dark matter". You postidicted an ad-hoc "missing mass" fudge factor that seems to better fit with real life observation somehow. You don't know why it fits or how it fits now, you only verified the fact you grossly underestimated the mass of the galaxies and you're attempting to figure out how much "missing mass" you really need to make things work right. You never demonstrated that any of that missing mass has anything at all to do with "dark matter". You have predictions about the amount of "missing mass" that you sprinkled liberally into your model. You have no predictions about "dark matter" from such observations.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 09:37 AM)
Perhaps the biggest load of bull you have posted on this thread so far.
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed atoms directly, but we theorized their existence based on sketchy evidence, and went looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed delectricity, or Germs directly. But we theorized their existence and went looking for them.
Do you get my point now?
You sound just like the people who said "But we have no evidence for germs, so why should we look for them."
Of for that matter, the people who failed Arrhenius on his PhD not once, but twice, because he dared to hypothesize that table salt, when dissolved into water, seperated into positively charge particles and negatively charged particles.
Do you get it now?
You're saying that we shouldn't go looking for something that we think exists, but haven't seen yet, because we haven't seen it yet.
Man, if COlumbus had applied that logic...
You get it yet?
And you accuse me of having a closed mind. Your accusing me of having a closed mind, when you refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we haven't exactly observed everything the universe has to offer.
Or are you so conceited that you genuinely believe the universe has no further capability to surprise us?
And where have I asked for unlimited amounts of time... Oh wait, that's right. I haven't. Oh dear. All i've suggested is that you give λCDM the same chance that you've given Plasma Cosmology. That is, that you wait until we have all the tools to make the observations required before you make your judgements.
Moreover, that you do what you claim I haven't done, and do some more reading about the predictions of the λCDM model (the WMAP website is a good place to start).
Sheesh. And you complain about me being a narrowminded hypocrit - I at least am willing to accept the possibility that the λCDM model is wrong. Are you prepared to accept the possibility that it's right?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when GLAST is launched, it could see exactly the angular distribution and power spectrum of the gamma rays predicted?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when the LHC is fired up, we might be able to observe these particles directly and you could have your 'gram of dark matter'.
My money is on you're not, and you wont.
You know, when you use words like "bull" and hypocrisy in your statements, you immediately interject "shock value" comments into what could otherwise be a very enjoyable conversation. You might try toning that down a bit. I'm not your enemy, I'm simply a skeptic of standard theory with data to support my own beliefs about plasma physics and how it relates to solar system activity and cosmology in general.
I have applied the same standard equally, not only to standard theory, but also to plasma cosmology theory. I reject ambiplasma concepts for exactly the same reason I reject inflation and dark energy. There is no double standard in the way I'm constructing my scientific theories. I respect the fact you think that I'm somehow applying a different standard to plasma cosmology theory than I apply to other theories, but that is not so, as my rejection of ambiplasma demonstrates.
You know, when you use words like "bull" and hypocrisy in your statements, you immediately interject "shock value" comments into what could otherwise be a very enjoyable conversation. You might try toning that down a bit. I'm not your enemy, I'm simply a skeptic of standard theory with data to support my own beliefs about plasma physics and how it relates to solar system activity and cosmology in general.
I have applied the same standard equally, not only to standard theory, but also to plasma cosmology theory. I reject ambiplasma concepts for exactly the same reason I reject inflation and dark energy. There is no double standard in the way I'm constructing my scientific theories. I respect the fact you think that I'm somehow applying a different standard to plasma cosmology theory than I apply to other theories, but that is not so, as my rejection of ambiplasma demonstrates.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
No, that is a strawman of what I said. If we can observe the effects of something unknown in *controlled experimentation*, then sure we should theorize something to explain that phenomenon, even if it's "new". That is distinctly different from pointing to the sky and claiming that some new force of nature is responsible for that observation.
Do you see the difference?
I have no problem with Alfven positing ambiplasma theory because technically it is possible, and it can theoretically be tested in controlled experiments, provided we can learn to work with antimatter in some volume. The cost to experiment with antimatter would be staggering however and therefore I'm not holding my breath waiting for an outcome to that question.
I have a big problem with Guth claiming that inflation exists however. How does he know that? What controlled experiment might we do here on Earth to verify that inflation exists? Alfven didn't create a new type of matter in his head that could not be verified. He claimed that two types of known matter might coexist together in plasma form. I can however test the idea that matter and antimatter exist in reality. Alfven's suggestion is not "unfalsifiable", whereas Guth's proclamation cannot be falsified, even when we find holes in it's key prediction.
Missing mass does not equate to "dark matter" anymore than an unidentified object in the sky is necessarily from another planet. I might agree with you that we cannot identify that object in the sky, but I won't automatically assume it's from another planet. The claim about non-baryonic forms of dark matter being responsible for this "missing mass" is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary support.
Do you get my point now?
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed atoms directly, but we theorized their existence based on sketchy evidence, and went looking for it.
There was a time when we hadn't observed delectricity, or Germs directly. But we theorized their existence and went looking for them.
Do you get my point now?
You sound just like the people who said "But we have no evidence for germs, so why should we look for them."
Of for that matter, the people who failed Arrhenius on his PhD not once, but twice, because he dared to hypothesize that table salt, when dissolved into water, seperated into positively charge particles and negatively charged particles.
Do you get it now?
You're saying that we shouldn't go looking for something that we think exists, but haven't seen yet, because we haven't seen it yet.
Man, if COlumbus had applied that logic...
You get it yet?
And you accuse me of having a closed mind. Your accusing me of having a closed mind, when you refuse to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, we haven't exactly observed everything the universe has to offer.
Or are you so conceited that you genuinely believe the universe has no further capability to surprise us?
And where have I asked for unlimited amounts of time... Oh wait, that's right. I haven't. Oh dear. All i've suggested is that you give λCDM the same chance that you've given Plasma Cosmology. That is, that you wait until we have all the tools to make the observations required before you make your judgements.
Moreover, that you do what you claim I haven't done, and do some more reading about the predictions of the λCDM model (the WMAP website is a good place to start).
Sheesh. And you complain about me being a narrowminded hypocrit - I at least am willing to accept the possibility that the λCDM model is wrong. Are you prepared to accept the possibility that it's right?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when GLAST is launched, it could see exactly the angular distribution and power spectrum of the gamma rays predicted?
Are you prepared for the possibility that when the LHC is fired up, we might be able to observe these particles directly and you could have your 'gram of dark matter'.
My money is on you're not, and you wont.
QUOTE
Perhaps the biggest load of bull you have posted on this thread so far.
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering.
You know, when you use words like "bull" and hypocrisy in your statements, you immediately interject "shock value" comments into what could otherwise be a very enjoyable conversation. You might try toning that down a bit. I'm not your enemy, I'm simply a skeptic of standard theory with data to support my own beliefs about plasma physics and how it relates to solar system activity and cosmology in general.
I have applied the same standard equally, not only to standard theory, but also to plasma cosmology theory. I reject ambiplasma concepts for exactly the same reason I reject inflation and dark energy. There is no double standard in the way I'm constructing my scientific theories. I respect the fact you think that I'm somehow applying a different standard to plasma cosmology theory than I apply to other theories, but that is not so, as my rejection of ambiplasma demonstrates.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps the biggest load of bull you have posted on this thread so far. You can't even see your own double standards. The hypocrisy being promulgated on this thread is staggering. |
You know, when you use words like "bull" and hypocrisy in your statements, you immediately interject "shock value" comments into what could otherwise be a very enjoyable conversation. You might try toning that down a bit. I'm not your enemy, I'm simply a skeptic of standard theory with data to support my own beliefs about plasma physics and how it relates to solar system activity and cosmology in general.
I have applied the same standard equally, not only to standard theory, but also to plasma cosmology theory. I reject ambiplasma concepts for exactly the same reason I reject inflation and dark energy. There is no double standard in the way I'm constructing my scientific theories. I respect the fact you think that I'm somehow applying a different standard to plasma cosmology theory than I apply to other theories, but that is not so, as my rejection of ambiplasma demonstrates.
You're saying that because we have yet to observe something directly, that we shouldn't theorize it's existence, and we shouldn't go looking for it.
No, that is a strawman of what I said. If we can observe the effects of something unknown in *controlled experimentation*, then sure we should theorize something to explain that phenomenon, even if it's "new". That is distinctly different from pointing to the sky and claiming that some new force of nature is responsible for that observation.
Do you see the difference?
I have no problem with Alfven positing ambiplasma theory because technically it is possible, and it can theoretically be tested in controlled experiments, provided we can learn to work with antimatter in some volume. The cost to experiment with antimatter would be staggering however and therefore I'm not holding my breath waiting for an outcome to that question.
I have a big problem with Guth claiming that inflation exists however. How does he know that? What controlled experiment might we do here on Earth to verify that inflation exists? Alfven didn't create a new type of matter in his head that could not be verified. He claimed that two types of known matter might coexist together in plasma form. I can however test the idea that matter and antimatter exist in reality. Alfven's suggestion is not "unfalsifiable", whereas Guth's proclamation cannot be falsified, even when we find holes in it's key prediction.
Missing mass does not equate to "dark matter" anymore than an unidentified object in the sky is necessarily from another planet. I might agree with you that we cannot identify that object in the sky, but I won't automatically assume it's from another planet. The claim about non-baryonic forms of dark matter being responsible for this "missing mass" is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary support.
Do you get my point now?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 26 2007, 12:38 PM)
Your point about GR is valid to a point, but Einstein could demonstrate that gravity exists.
Einstein wasn't arguing for the existence of gravity. He was arguing about the nature of gravity. Proving that it existed was irrelevant to his work (beyond the obvious.)
Do you think that every single electron, photon, neutron etc, etc... in every single particle accelerator behaved the exact same way under the exact same conditions?
There is such a thing as Chaos Theory (accounting for conditions) and Quantum Mechanics (accounting for behavior.)
So much for the idea that *control* somehow makes experimentation better than observation.
Do you think that every single electron, photon, neutron etc, etc... in every single particle accelerator behaved the exact same way under the exact same conditions?
There is such a thing as Chaos Theory (accounting for conditions) and Quantum Mechanics (accounting for behavior.)
So much for the idea that *control* somehow makes experimentation better than observation.
There is exactly zero evidence for "dark matter". At best case you have evidence that there is "missing mass" somewhere, but you have no idea whether your galactic mass estimation process is even valid. You could easily have a theoretical problem with the way you estimate the mass of a galaxy that has nothing whatsoever to do with with "dark matter".
Circumstantial evidence is..... Evidence.
Of course, I could take your tact and argue that there is exactly no evidence to suggest a lack of dark matter.
That doesn't amount to evidence against the presence of dark matter. The simple fact that whatever mass is obviously present is not observable makes it dark, and the fact that it has appreciable mass makes it matter. Dark matter exists. What it is made up is the only real question. Unless of course, relativity isn't as good an approximation as we've come to believe so far. But then, to prove that, you'd need an equally valid theory that makes the same predictions on smaller scales as relativity, but different ones on larger scales. Quite a task, there... I'll tell you what. Formulate such a theory, show it to be mathematically valid and confirm it to at least the same degree of accuracy as relativity, and I'll buy it. Until then, Occam's razor rules, and the simplest explanation is that there is mass there we can't see.
That doesn't amount to evidence against the presence of dark matter. The simple fact that whatever mass is obviously present is not observable makes it dark, and the fact that it has appreciable mass makes it matter. Dark matter exists. What it is made up is the only real question. Unless of course, relativity isn't as good an approximation as we've come to believe so far. But then, to prove that, you'd need an equally valid theory that makes the same predictions on smaller scales as relativity, but different ones on larger scales. Quite a task, there... I'll tell you what. Formulate such a theory, show it to be mathematically valid and confirm it to at least the same degree of accuracy as relativity, and I'll buy it. Until then, Occam's razor rules, and the simplest explanation is that there is mass there we can't see.
Not from millions or billions of light years away, no, it's not simple. It's very difficult in fact.
So difficult, in fact, that it was possible to do so with 1930's era technology, and 1930's era understanding of physics.....
Wow, that's tough.
You don't pay much attention, do you? To answer your question (assuming the mass you're referring to is the mass of dark matter) "from comparing the model of the second cluster with observations of the second cluster." and then you can go on to a third, and fourth.... Second answer is (assuming the mass you're referring to is the observed mass) "Because we haven't had any reason to doubt it."
You don't pay much attention, do you? To answer your question (assuming the mass you're referring to is the mass of dark matter) "from comparing the model of the second cluster with observations of the second cluster." and then you can go on to a third, and fourth.... Second answer is (assuming the mass you're referring to is the observed mass) "Because we haven't had any reason to doubt it."
So all that tells us is that your modeling technique is primitive and inaccurate.
Inaccurate, yes, but I would hardly describe relativity as "primitive." If it was primitive, kids would be taught it in elementary school, rather than having to wait until college.
Of course, it's only inaccurate if dark matter doesn't exist. If dark matter DOES exist, then this theory with amazingly accurate predictive power is as accurate as we have been led to believe by all the other evidence thus far. And that makes sense.
I don't, but then, I don't see a lot of physicists working on that model, either. I do tend to trust the popular consensus among the members of the scientific community. It has a habit of being right.
I don't, but then, I don't see a lot of physicists working on that model, either. I do tend to trust the popular consensus among the members of the scientific community. It has a habit of being right.
The discrepancies are simply evidence that your estimation method is flawed. Now what?
You don't believe in dark matter because you've never seen it, but you specifically disbelieve it because something suggests it might not be there.... That's hypocritical. The discrepancies are evidence that there is something wrong with your model. Whether it's because your model is lacking mass or lacking the proper equations is in question. Relativity provided the equations, which we know to be accurate in many other systems. Therefore, Occam's razor comes into play. It is simpler (and therefore: more likely) to assume that there is missing mass than to assume that relativity is wrong.
How utterly unscientific of me. It's like me seeing a wedding band on some stranger's finger and assuming he's married. There I go, leaping to conclusions again...
How utterly unscientific of me. It's like me seeing a wedding band on some stranger's finger and assuming he's married. There I go, leaping to conclusions again...
You don't know why it fits or how it fits now, you only verified the fact you grossly underestimated the mass of the galaxies and you're attempting to figure out how much "missing mass" you really need to make things work right.
And doing a damn good job of it, so far.
Well, if it's massive and it's dark, odds are: It's dark matter.
Well, if it's massive and it's dark, odds are: It's dark matter.
You have predictions about the amount of "missing mass" that you sprinkled liberally into your model.
You derive a ratio from a model of one cluster, then apply that ratio to another cluster, and wind up with a model that closely resembles the second cluster. That's scientifically valid.
Yes, we do. The predictions are that galactic clusters with the derived ratio of dark matter will behave in a certain way. Funny enough, they behave in that exact way. Not only does it make predictions, it makes accurate predictions. What more could you possibly want?
Einstein wasn't arguing for the existence of gravity. He was arguing about the nature of gravity. Proving that it existed was irrelevant to his work (beyond the obvious.)
QUOTE
You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation.
Do you think that every single electron, photon, neutron etc, etc... in every single particle accelerator behaved the exact same way under the exact same conditions?
There is such a thing as Chaos Theory (accounting for conditions) and Quantum Mechanics (accounting for behavior.)
So much for the idea that *control* somehow makes experimentation better than observation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You see evidence that is based on *controlled experimentation* to suggest that they exist. Note the control aspect of the experimentation. |
Do you think that every single electron, photon, neutron etc, etc... in every single particle accelerator behaved the exact same way under the exact same conditions?
There is such a thing as Chaos Theory (accounting for conditions) and Quantum Mechanics (accounting for behavior.)
So much for the idea that *control* somehow makes experimentation better than observation.
There is exactly zero evidence for "dark matter". At best case you have evidence that there is "missing mass" somewhere, but you have no idea whether your galactic mass estimation process is even valid. You could easily have a theoretical problem with the way you estimate the mass of a galaxy that has nothing whatsoever to do with with "dark matter".
Circumstantial evidence is..... Evidence.
Of course, I could take your tact and argue that there is exactly no evidence to suggest a lack of dark matter.
QUOTE
There is no evidence that any of the "missing mass" you observe is in any way related to non baryonic 'dark matter' rather than just "normal" matter. In fact, nobody on the planet can demonstrate that SUSY particle theory has scientific merit. The whole dark matter theory/hypothesis is based on a non standard particle physics theory that cannot be empirically demonstrated in the first place!
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation".
That doesn't amount to evidence against the presence of dark matter. The simple fact that whatever mass is obviously present is not observable makes it dark, and the fact that it has appreciable mass makes it matter. Dark matter exists. What it is made up is the only real question. Unless of course, relativity isn't as good an approximation as we've come to believe so far. But then, to prove that, you'd need an equally valid theory that makes the same predictions on smaller scales as relativity, but different ones on larger scales. Quite a task, there... I'll tell you what. Formulate such a theory, show it to be mathematically valid and confirm it to at least the same degree of accuracy as relativity, and I'll buy it. Until then, Occam's razor rules, and the simplest explanation is that there is mass there we can't see.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no evidence that any of the "missing mass" you observe is in any way related to non baryonic 'dark matter' rather than just "normal" matter. In fact, nobody on the planet can demonstrate that SUSY particle theory has scientific merit. The whole dark matter theory/hypothesis is based on a non standard particle physics theory that cannot be empirically demonstrated in the first place! The only evidence that one might get by pointing to the sky is that one can't account for the mass we observe using you current method of mass calculation that is being used to compute the mass of galaxies. That's it. To demonstrate that any missing mass exists in the form of "dark matter", one must demonstrate that dark matter exists in nature in *controlled experimentation*. Let's go back now and note that you believe in protons based on what we learned in *controlled experimentation* and SUSY theory has not been validated by *controlled experimentation* and empirical evidence based on "controlled experimentation". |
That doesn't amount to evidence against the presence of dark matter. The simple fact that whatever mass is obviously present is not observable makes it dark, and the fact that it has appreciable mass makes it matter. Dark matter exists. What it is made up is the only real question. Unless of course, relativity isn't as good an approximation as we've come to believe so far. But then, to prove that, you'd need an equally valid theory that makes the same predictions on smaller scales as relativity, but different ones on larger scales. Quite a task, there... I'll tell you what. Formulate such a theory, show it to be mathematically valid and confirm it to at least the same degree of accuracy as relativity, and I'll buy it. Until then, Occam's razor rules, and the simplest explanation is that there is mass there we can't see.
Not from millions or billions of light years away, no, it's not simple. It's very difficult in fact.
So difficult, in fact, that it was possible to do so with 1930's era technology, and 1930's era understanding of physics.....
Wow, that's tough.
QUOTE
Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place?
You don't pay much attention, do you? To answer your question (assuming the mass you're referring to is the mass of dark matter) "from comparing the model of the second cluster with observations of the second cluster." and then you can go on to a third, and fourth.... Second answer is (assuming the mass you're referring to is the observed mass) "Because we haven't had any reason to doubt it."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your model will undoubtedly include a number of "assumptions" you can't easily validate. How do you know your mass estimation technique is accurate in the first place? |
You don't pay much attention, do you? To answer your question (assuming the mass you're referring to is the mass of dark matter) "from comparing the model of the second cluster with observations of the second cluster." and then you can go on to a third, and fourth.... Second answer is (assuming the mass you're referring to is the observed mass) "Because we haven't had any reason to doubt it."
So all that tells us is that your modeling technique is primitive and inaccurate.
Inaccurate, yes, but I would hardly describe relativity as "primitive." If it was primitive, kids would be taught it in elementary school, rather than having to wait until college.
Of course, it's only inaccurate if dark matter doesn't exist. If dark matter DOES exist, then this theory with amazingly accurate predictive power is as accurate as we have been led to believe by all the other evidence thus far. And that makes sense.
QUOTE
A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element?
I don't, but then, I don't see a lot of physicists working on that model, either. I do tend to trust the popular consensus among the members of the scientific community. It has a habit of being right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A mass separated solar model would fit that description just fine without the need for any exotic forms of mass. How do you know that stars are not mass separated by the element? |
I don't, but then, I don't see a lot of physicists working on that model, either. I do tend to trust the popular consensus among the members of the scientific community. It has a habit of being right.
The discrepancies are simply evidence that your estimation method is flawed. Now what?
You don't believe in dark matter because you've never seen it, but you specifically disbelieve it because something suggests it might not be there.... That's hypocritical. The discrepancies are evidence that there is something wrong with your model. Whether it's because your model is lacking mass or lacking the proper equations is in question. Relativity provided the equations, which we know to be accurate in many other systems. Therefore, Occam's razor comes into play. It is simpler (and therefore: more likely) to assume that there is missing mass than to assume that relativity is wrong.
QUOTE
First of all, you didn't make any "predictions" about "dark matter". You postidicted an ad-hoc "missing mass" fudge factor that seems to better fit with real life observation somehow.
How utterly unscientific of me. It's like me seeing a wedding band on some stranger's finger and assuming he's married. There I go, leaping to conclusions again...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First of all, you didn't make any "predictions" about "dark matter". You postidicted an ad-hoc "missing mass" fudge factor that seems to better fit with real life observation somehow. |
How utterly unscientific of me. It's like me seeing a wedding band on some stranger's finger and assuming he's married. There I go, leaping to conclusions again...
You don't know why it fits or how it fits now, you only verified the fact you grossly underestimated the mass of the galaxies and you're attempting to figure out how much "missing mass" you really need to make things work right.
And doing a damn good job of it, so far.
QUOTE
You never demonstrated that any of that missing mass has anything at all to do with "dark matter".
Well, if it's massive and it's dark, odds are: It's dark matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You never demonstrated that any of that missing mass has anything at all to do with "dark matter". |
Well, if it's massive and it's dark, odds are: It's dark matter.
You have predictions about the amount of "missing mass" that you sprinkled liberally into your model.
You derive a ratio from a model of one cluster, then apply that ratio to another cluster, and wind up with a model that closely resembles the second cluster. That's scientifically valid.
QUOTE
You have no predictions about "dark matter" from such observations.
Yes, we do. The predictions are that galactic clusters with the derived ratio of dark matter will behave in a certain way. Funny enough, they behave in that exact way. Not only does it make predictions, it makes accurate predictions. What more could you possibly want?
Thanks so far for the discussion. There's a lot in it that is "over my head" but that's my problem. I have questions (perhaps too simplistic but here goes) (and I plan to reread all of it ... except the finger-pointing stuff):
EU theory isn't trying to "override" what we know about gravity is it? If it isn't then why does it matter that it can't explain "lensing"?
If stars are primarily nickel and iron then does that begin to explain the missing mass?
Is there some correlation that we can assume between fusing lighter elements into heavier elements and those heavier elements interacting in systems as we already know they will. In other words, Stars begin as fusion reactions and evolve into a electo/magnetic system? Is that any sort of explanation that could help explain the apparent (at least to me) crossover in the two theories?
Is it useful to limit the discussion to Sol and not worry about how it extrapolates to the whole universe (at least for the sake of edifying the ignorant ... i.e... me)?
Thanks again ... for now that's the best I can do in terms of furthering the discussion. But I'll keep trying.
EU theory isn't trying to "override" what we know about gravity is it? If it isn't then why does it matter that it can't explain "lensing"?
If stars are primarily nickel and iron then does that begin to explain the missing mass?
Is there some correlation that we can assume between fusing lighter elements into heavier elements and those heavier elements interacting in systems as we already know they will. In other words, Stars begin as fusion reactions and evolve into a electo/magnetic system? Is that any sort of explanation that could help explain the apparent (at least to me) crossover in the two theories?
Is it useful to limit the discussion to Sol and not worry about how it extrapolates to the whole universe (at least for the sake of edifying the ignorant ... i.e... me)?
Thanks again ... for now that's the best I can do in terms of furthering the discussion. But I'll keep trying.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 24 2007, 06:30 AM)
Hello All
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PAN....69.1847M
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
After looking at the running difference images I do not see evidence for the rigid iron structure. I would like to hear answers to the following:
1. How does the claim that the features show a 27.3 day rotation rate square with the fact that only 5 days of running difference images are presented? Where is the data showing the same structure after 27.3 days, or 54.6 days, or 81.9 days? What has Mozina done to differentiate rigid rotation from non-rigid rotation?
2. Why does Mozina think that 171 or 195 Å filter images are the best way to show a rigid surface below the photosphere when 171 and 195 Å filter image are most sensitive to ionized iron in the corona, well above the photosphere? Why does he think iron in one phase (plasma) would be a good marker for the location of iron in another phase (solid)?
3. Why does Mozina think running differences are the best way to show these structures? An argument a little more substantive than "I can see finer details" would be appreciated, as a running difference image-- being composed of a mix of two images -- can often add "details" that are illusory and can also wipe out real details.
4. Why does Mozina think raw images show finer details and not just additional noise?
5. What are the features that are purportedly rigidly rotating? They are not identified in any of the images. It can't possibly be everything in the images, because some features are ephemeral plasma in the corona which show movement towards or away from other features.
6. Why are the images such low resolution? Wouldn't more accurate rotation rates come from higher resolution images?
This I would like to know.
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PAN....69.1847M
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
After looking at the running difference images I do not see evidence for the rigid iron structure. I would like to hear answers to the following:
1. How does the claim that the features show a 27.3 day rotation rate square with the fact that only 5 days of running difference images are presented? Where is the data showing the same structure after 27.3 days, or 54.6 days, or 81.9 days? What has Mozina done to differentiate rigid rotation from non-rigid rotation?
2. Why does Mozina think that 171 or 195 Å filter images are the best way to show a rigid surface below the photosphere when 171 and 195 Å filter image are most sensitive to ionized iron in the corona, well above the photosphere? Why does he think iron in one phase (plasma) would be a good marker for the location of iron in another phase (solid)?
3. Why does Mozina think running differences are the best way to show these structures? An argument a little more substantive than "I can see finer details" would be appreciated, as a running difference image-- being composed of a mix of two images -- can often add "details" that are illusory and can also wipe out real details.
4. Why does Mozina think raw images show finer details and not just additional noise?
5. What are the features that are purportedly rigidly rotating? They are not identified in any of the images. It can't possibly be everything in the images, because some features are ephemeral plasma in the corona which show movement towards or away from other features.
6. Why are the images such low resolution? Wouldn't more accurate rotation rates come from higher resolution images?
This I would like to know.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 25 2007, 11:30 PM)
So we'll just ignore the fact that the plasma cosmology theory can not account for flat galactic rotation curves, the distribution of mass in, for example, the bullet cluster
I believe that Plasma Universe proponents do indeed make a good effort at simulating galaxy rotation curves. See the peer-reviewed paper:
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
I believe that Plasma Universe proponents do indeed make a good effort at simulating galaxy rotation curves. See the peer-reviewed paper:
- A. Peratt, "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), PS-14, 763–778 (1986).
Full text (PDF) - Description at plasma-universe.com
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
Mozina.
You're the one that keeps focussing on Ambiplasmas, not me. Personally, I'm getting the distinct impression that YOU need to go away and read more of Alfvens work, because Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are a lot more important to it then your leading anyone to believe. Moreover, once again we come back to the fact that they are the only way plasma cosmology can explain the (assumed) preponderence of koinomatter over antimatter in the observable universe.
I have raised a number of other points that you have simply glossed over - for example the observed distribution of mass in the bullet cluster which plasma cosmology can not explain. Only by introducing NEW and UN PROVEN physics can plasma cosmology explain the distribution of mass in the bullet cluster. MOG is new and unproven. MOND can not explain gravitational lensing at all, introduces new physics, and as far as I know is unprovable. TeVeS is an attempt at a relativistic treatment of MOND, AFAIK, it can not explain the distribution of mass in the Bullet cluster.
So, once again, we come back to the fact that, as I have tried to point out earlier. Plasma cosmology, on it's own, can not explain the observed distribution of mass within the bullet cluster, and needs to borrow new and unproven physics to be able to do so without invoking dark matter.
For you to assume that Ambiplasmas are my only beef with plasma cosmology is wrong, and somewhat misleading of you.
Oh, and for the record? The composition of the sun makes no change to its mass.
And once again, we come back to one of the basic freaking points that I have been trying to make, and it's the point that makes me user words such as 'hypocrisy' and that is this:
You keep saying that Birkeland did his work a hundred years ago.
Fine. You've waited 100 years to confirm the predictions of one scientest, who had the tools to conduct experiments into what he was investigating in a 'controled and repeatable' fashion.
BUT
At the same time, you're also arguing that we should dismiss another theory, which has equal validity, that has, in parts, only been in it's current form for as little as ten years, and that we're only now just beginning to develop the tools requires to investigate it - because of the lack of verifiable results.
And you can't see the double standard inherint in this?
You can't see the double standard in the fact that you want us to abandon a theory that has only been in its current form for ten years, but can account for observations, and that we don't have the tools to confirm or deny yet, for one that's taken up to a hundred years to confirm, and the tools for which to investigate it have been around for longer then that, and can not, on its own, account for observations?
Amazing.
And no, it's not a strawman argument. And it relates to all the comments that Myself, and BDW have made regarding atoms, subatomic particles, even christopher columbus.
And yet, you, apparently, are unable to see the double standard in what you're saying.
By what you're saying, we should never develop new theories unless we have the tools to investigate them there and then.
You're aware, of course, that Newton had to develop a new tool to investigate Gravity.
Heck, in Voltaires time, electricity was pretty much a new force of nature. Where would your PLasma Cosmology have been then if someone had said to him "No, you're not allowed to invoke a new force of nature to explain this. You're only allowed to explain this within the realms of what we already know."
You're the one that keeps focussing on Ambiplasmas, not me. Personally, I'm getting the distinct impression that YOU need to go away and read more of Alfvens work, because Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are a lot more important to it then your leading anyone to believe. Moreover, once again we come back to the fact that they are the only way plasma cosmology can explain the (assumed) preponderence of koinomatter over antimatter in the observable universe.
I have raised a number of other points that you have simply glossed over - for example the observed distribution of mass in the bullet cluster which plasma cosmology can not explain. Only by introducing NEW and UN PROVEN physics can plasma cosmology explain the distribution of mass in the bullet cluster. MOG is new and unproven. MOND can not explain gravitational lensing at all, introduces new physics, and as far as I know is unprovable. TeVeS is an attempt at a relativistic treatment of MOND, AFAIK, it can not explain the distribution of mass in the Bullet cluster.
So, once again, we come back to the fact that, as I have tried to point out earlier. Plasma cosmology, on it's own, can not explain the observed distribution of mass within the bullet cluster, and needs to borrow new and unproven physics to be able to do so without invoking dark matter.
For you to assume that Ambiplasmas are my only beef with plasma cosmology is wrong, and somewhat misleading of you.
Oh, and for the record? The composition of the sun makes no change to its mass.
And once again, we come back to one of the basic freaking points that I have been trying to make, and it's the point that makes me user words such as 'hypocrisy' and that is this:
You keep saying that Birkeland did his work a hundred years ago.
Fine. You've waited 100 years to confirm the predictions of one scientest, who had the tools to conduct experiments into what he was investigating in a 'controled and repeatable' fashion.
BUT
At the same time, you're also arguing that we should dismiss another theory, which has equal validity, that has, in parts, only been in it's current form for as little as ten years, and that we're only now just beginning to develop the tools requires to investigate it - because of the lack of verifiable results.
And you can't see the double standard inherint in this?
You can't see the double standard in the fact that you want us to abandon a theory that has only been in its current form for ten years, but can account for observations, and that we don't have the tools to confirm or deny yet, for one that's taken up to a hundred years to confirm, and the tools for which to investigate it have been around for longer then that, and can not, on its own, account for observations?
Amazing.
And no, it's not a strawman argument. And it relates to all the comments that Myself, and BDW have made regarding atoms, subatomic particles, even christopher columbus.
And yet, you, apparently, are unable to see the double standard in what you're saying.
By what you're saying, we should never develop new theories unless we have the tools to investigate them there and then.
You're aware, of course, that Newton had to develop a new tool to investigate Gravity.
Heck, in Voltaires time, electricity was pretty much a new force of nature. Where would your PLasma Cosmology have been then if someone had said to him "No, you're not allowed to invoke a new force of nature to explain this. You're only allowed to explain this within the realms of what we already know."
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 04:24 AM)
Plasma cosmology, as it stands, alone, can not explain the distribution of matter in the bullet cluster, it can only do that if you consider it in conjuctions with MOG, which is the ONLY alternative gravitational theory that, so far, appears to explain the bullet cluster data.
Do you have a citation for this, I'd be interested in reading it. I wasn't aware that the Plasma Universe has investigated this.
Do you have a citation for this, I'd be interested in reading it. I wasn't aware that the Plasma Universe has investigated this.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 04:24 AM)
Besides, how does Plasma Cosmology account for apparently changing rates of expansion over the history of the universe. Oh yeah, that's right. It can't can it.
I believe that the Plasma Universe is agnostic on an expanding universe, rather than "it can't" explain it.
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
I believe that the Plasma Universe is agnostic on an expanding universe, rather than "it can't" explain it.
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 05:21 AM)
Maybe one of you "Enlightened Geniuses" can explain something to me about plasma cosmology.
Where are all the explosions?
Hannes Alfven himself suggests that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could well be made up of antimatter, we'd have no way of telling, because "There is plenty of room for a number of Leidenfrost layers between our sun and alpha centauri." And it has been suggested that the same argument can be applied for galaxies.
So where are all the titanic explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge - something that we have observed happens at a range of scales.
Sorry, I'm not an "Enlightened Genius", but I'll speculate on this. I thought that Alfvén suggested that the Leidenfrost layers kept matter and anti-matter separated, preventing such explosions. See:
Where are all the explosions?
Hannes Alfven himself suggests that for all we know, Alpha Centauri could well be made up of antimatter, we'd have no way of telling, because "There is plenty of room for a number of Leidenfrost layers between our sun and alpha centauri." And it has been suggested that the same argument can be applied for galaxies.
So where are all the titanic explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge - something that we have observed happens at a range of scales.
Sorry, I'm not an "Enlightened Genius", but I'll speculate on this. I thought that Alfvén suggested that the Leidenfrost layers kept matter and anti-matter separated, preventing such explosions. See:
- Annihilation model of quasi-stellar objects, Alfven, H. Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 64, no. 2, Aug. 1979, p. 401-419
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 10:43 PM)
Oh, and for the record? The composition of the sun makes no change to its mass.
Apologies for asking ... but how do we calculate the mass of a particular star?
Is it just Newton? I understand how that applies in our solar system but if we're looking at a red giant >500 light years distant how do we do it? What gravitational references do we have to plug into the equation? In such cases, are we just estimating based on observable volume? Do we just use binary stars as a baseline? Does the spectra of the star come into play? Isn't the whole function of a star to convert mass into energy and in doing so doesn't it slowly change it's mass?
Are those questions too babe-in-the-woods? I did "look it up" before I asked, but it isn't clear to me.
Apologies for asking ... but how do we calculate the mass of a particular star?
Is it just Newton? I understand how that applies in our solar system but if we're looking at a red giant >500 light years distant how do we do it? What gravitational references do we have to plug into the equation? In such cases, are we just estimating based on observable volume? Do we just use binary stars as a baseline? Does the spectra of the star come into play? Isn't the whole function of a star to convert mass into energy and in doing so doesn't it slowly change it's mass?
Are those questions too babe-in-the-woods? I did "look it up" before I asked, but it isn't clear to me.
QUOTE (iantresman+Dec 27 2007, 11:59 AM)
Sorry, I'm not an "Enlightened Genius", but I'll speculate on this. I thought that Alfvén suggested that the Leidenfrost layers kept matter and anti-matter separated, preventing such explosions. See:
Oh dear.
You loose.
Taking quotes out of context and pretnding I said something I didn't, that's just cheating.
Come off it.
I was talking about stellar mergers, and galactic mergers. get it straight.
I'm well aware of what Alfven had to say about Leidenfrost layers.
Sheesh, get a grip.
Read my post again, then try again, and this time try and be honest.
What I said was that if our own galaxy consists of stars made of kionomatter, and stars made of antimatter seperated by leidenfrost layers, then when two stars merge, or even when two galaxies merge, then sometimes there are going to be mergers between stars, or galaxies made up of koinomatter and antimatter.
No number of Leidenfrost layers is going to stop the explosion generated by an antimatter white dwarf colliding with and passing through our koinomatter G-7 yellow dwarf sun.
Also, even Alfven himself aknowledges that Leidenfrost layers are leaky.
- Annihilation model of quasi-stellar objects, Alfven, H. Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 64, no. 2, Aug. 1979, p. 401-419
Oh dear.
You loose.
Taking quotes out of context and pretnding I said something I didn't, that's just cheating.
Come off it.
I was talking about stellar mergers, and galactic mergers. get it straight.
I'm well aware of what Alfven had to say about Leidenfrost layers.
Sheesh, get a grip.
Read my post again, then try again, and this time try and be honest.
What I said was that if our own galaxy consists of stars made of kionomatter, and stars made of antimatter seperated by leidenfrost layers, then when two stars merge, or even when two galaxies merge, then sometimes there are going to be mergers between stars, or galaxies made up of koinomatter and antimatter.
No number of Leidenfrost layers is going to stop the explosion generated by an antimatter white dwarf colliding with and passing through our koinomatter G-7 yellow dwarf sun.
Also, even Alfven himself aknowledges that Leidenfrost layers are leaky.
QUOTE (iantresman+Dec 27 2007, 11:45 AM)
Do you have a citation for this, I'd be interested in reading it. I wasn't aware that the Plasma Universe has investigated this.
I believe that the Plasma Universe is agnostic on an expanding universe, rather than "it can't" explain it.
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
1. I didn't say Plasma Universe. I said Plasma Cosmology. I wasn't referring to you or your website, I was referring to the theory as a whole.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how Plasma Cosmology plans on concentrating the majority of the mass in the space between the seperated clusters, in the region where the multi million degree plasmas aren't. That's the point you're missing, we observe the mass to be distributed differently from the mass we can actually observe at the various wavelengths, and the mass is concentrated in a different location from the plasma clouds.
And again, you're twisting my words, and quoting me out of context, or you're just not reading what I'm saying.
What I said was that Plasma Cosmology can not explain the observed changes in the expansion rate.
IN fact, from what I remember, the Fireworks model was Alfvens attempt at explaining an expanding universe, and the fireworks model relies on the existence of Ambiplasmas.
I believe that the Plasma Universe is agnostic on an expanding universe, rather than "it can't" explain it.
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com
1. I didn't say Plasma Universe. I said Plasma Cosmology. I wasn't referring to you or your website, I was referring to the theory as a whole.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how Plasma Cosmology plans on concentrating the majority of the mass in the space between the seperated clusters, in the region where the multi million degree plasmas aren't. That's the point you're missing, we observe the mass to be distributed differently from the mass we can actually observe at the various wavelengths, and the mass is concentrated in a different location from the plasma clouds.
And again, you're twisting my words, and quoting me out of context, or you're just not reading what I'm saying.
What I said was that Plasma Cosmology can not explain the observed changes in the expansion rate.
IN fact, from what I remember, the Fireworks model was Alfvens attempt at explaining an expanding universe, and the fireworks model relies on the existence of Ambiplasmas.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 27 2007, 12:11 PM)
Apologies for asking ... but how do we calculate the mass of a particular star?
Is it just Newton? I understand how that applies in our solar system but if we're looking at a red giant >500 light years distant how do we do it? What gravitational references do we have to plug into the equation? In such cases, are we just estimating based on observable volume? Do we just use binary stars as a baseline? Does the spectra of the star come into play? Isn't the whole function of a star to convert mass into energy and in doing so doesn't it slowly change it's mass?
Are those questions too babe-in-the-woods? I did "look it up" before I asked, but it isn't clear to me.
Okay, bare in mind that this is based on what I can remember.
But as far as I know, there's a couple of ways of measuring the mass of a star.
The easiest is when it has a binary partner, all we need to do is measure the motions of the objects in the system, and that information alone will give us the masses of the objects in the system (remember that the acceleration of the gravitated object is dependent only upon the mass of the gravitating object).
Aside from that, the other method that I know of, that has been confirmed using the above method, is by measuring the stars temperature. This can be done directly by looking at the stars spectrum. But you need to take actual size into account as well - for example, a red giant of one solar mass is going to have a cooler surface, and thus colour, then a star the size of our sun with one solar mass, however, the red giant is going to have a higher luminosity (which we can also measure).
Because, basically, temperature of a star, and mass of a star are directly related, and we know these methods work because there are plenty of close stars, and close binary pairs that we can use to test these ideas.
I believe also that given the current generation of planet hunting technology, we're probably at the state where we can directly measure the mass of the star by measuring the gravitational red shifting of the stars light as it is emitted from the surface.
Is it just Newton? I understand how that applies in our solar system but if we're looking at a red giant >500 light years distant how do we do it? What gravitational references do we have to plug into the equation? In such cases, are we just estimating based on observable volume? Do we just use binary stars as a baseline? Does the spectra of the star come into play? Isn't the whole function of a star to convert mass into energy and in doing so doesn't it slowly change it's mass?
Are those questions too babe-in-the-woods? I did "look it up" before I asked, but it isn't clear to me.
Okay, bare in mind that this is based on what I can remember.
But as far as I know, there's a couple of ways of measuring the mass of a star.
The easiest is when it has a binary partner, all we need to do is measure the motions of the objects in the system, and that information alone will give us the masses of the objects in the system (remember that the acceleration of the gravitated object is dependent only upon the mass of the gravitating object).
Aside from that, the other method that I know of, that has been confirmed using the above method, is by measuring the stars temperature. This can be done directly by looking at the stars spectrum. But you need to take actual size into account as well - for example, a red giant of one solar mass is going to have a cooler surface, and thus colour, then a star the size of our sun with one solar mass, however, the red giant is going to have a higher luminosity (which we can also measure).
Because, basically, temperature of a star, and mass of a star are directly related, and we know these methods work because there are plenty of close stars, and close binary pairs that we can use to test these ideas.
I believe also that given the current generation of planet hunting technology, we're probably at the state where we can directly measure the mass of the star by measuring the gravitational red shifting of the stars light as it is emitted from the surface.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 12:14 AM)
...
I believe also that given the current generation of planet hunting technology, we're probably at the state where we can directly measure the mass of the star by measuring the gravitational red shifting of the stars light as it is emitted from the surface.
Trip: (if I may call you that)
Thanks for answer. And again for participating in the discussion. It's been excellent so far and I hope it continues(perhaps not perfect with some of the mischaracterizations -- internet forums seem to virally create mischaracterization dont they? ... probably a quantum thing somehow I'd imagine ... darn that Heisenberg!!).
So I hate to burden you (naturally anyone else is more than welcome to jump in) but, I've been doing more reading this afternoon/evening (Alaska time) and I've run across something that is tends to make an impression upon a pliable (easy to convince perhaps?) mind like mine. Maybe I'm somewhat tired so forgive any blatant stumble I make here.
It's a bit of a redshift connundrum I suppose. Specifically, it is Halton Arp's assertion that NGC 4319 and Markanian 205 (two objects with radically different redshift values) are actually proximal to each other. I'm aware that this single example is dismissed by many astronomers as just a chance alignment and that the two objects are vastly separated. Arp though contends that redshift is not just a result of velocity but of the "inherent" or natural (my word) property of the body being measured and he apparently had lots of other examples as well. I guess it is intuitively compelling that different objects would have different inherent observable spectral values and therefore skew our redshift calculations. Is there something I'm missing?
This is a link to the single recent article I found a reference for from Geoffrey Burbridge called "Noncosmological Redshift". I confess I haven't read it since I'm overly tired but didn't want to leave it out of this post.
Are there some properties of redshift measurements that I can look to in order to discount examples like Arp is making? As a novice (and ignoramous) with regard to this subject I can't help but be swayed by what Edwin Hubble's assistant is asserting here. And the nature of it (if true) certainly seems to call into question so many of the things I've always known to be "true" about the Universe.
And yes I realize (so I'm apologizing again ... for like the 3rd time in this thread) that this question is a bit of a tangent after I earlier expressed a desire to keep the discussion about Sol and leave out the rest of the Universe. And if this isn't up your alley please feel free to ignore it and perhaps someone else can enlighten me.
I believe also that given the current generation of planet hunting technology, we're probably at the state where we can directly measure the mass of the star by measuring the gravitational red shifting of the stars light as it is emitted from the surface.
Trip: (if I may call you that)
Thanks for answer. And again for participating in the discussion. It's been excellent so far and I hope it continues(perhaps not perfect with some of the mischaracterizations -- internet forums seem to virally create mischaracterization dont they? ... probably a quantum thing somehow I'd imagine ... darn that Heisenberg!!).
So I hate to burden you (naturally anyone else is more than welcome to jump in) but, I've been doing more reading this afternoon/evening (Alaska time) and I've run across something that is tends to make an impression upon a pliable (easy to convince perhaps?) mind like mine. Maybe I'm somewhat tired so forgive any blatant stumble I make here.
It's a bit of a redshift connundrum I suppose. Specifically, it is Halton Arp's assertion that NGC 4319 and Markanian 205 (two objects with radically different redshift values) are actually proximal to each other. I'm aware that this single example is dismissed by many astronomers as just a chance alignment and that the two objects are vastly separated. Arp though contends that redshift is not just a result of velocity but of the "inherent" or natural (my word) property of the body being measured and he apparently had lots of other examples as well. I guess it is intuitively compelling that different objects would have different inherent observable spectral values and therefore skew our redshift calculations. Is there something I'm missing?
This is a link to the single recent article I found a reference for from Geoffrey Burbridge called "Noncosmological Redshift". I confess I haven't read it since I'm overly tired but didn't want to leave it out of this post.
Are there some properties of redshift measurements that I can look to in order to discount examples like Arp is making? As a novice (and ignoramous) with regard to this subject I can't help but be swayed by what Edwin Hubble's assistant is asserting here. And the nature of it (if true) certainly seems to call into question so many of the things I've always known to be "true" about the Universe.
And yes I realize (so I'm apologizing again ... for like the 3rd time in this thread) that this question is a bit of a tangent after I earlier expressed a desire to keep the discussion about Sol and leave out the rest of the Universe. And if this isn't up your alley please feel free to ignore it and perhaps someone else can enlighten me.
Hello All
Many talk about the unkown missing so called dark matter.
One should research degerated matter cosmology and maybe find the answer.
As for measurements: These links are interesting
I had them in my computer
Here are a few.
http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=262
Measuring the
Mass of Stars
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/mass.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s2.htm
Stellar Evolution
This is based on the SSM, not that I agree with it.
But it does indicate the issue that the mass of the star is related to the phase or evolution of the star.
Some stars have very little luminosity becasue of their extreme dense core.
Nice movie
http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/astro_de...vol/evol_3.html
Life cycle of stars
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...tars/lifecycle/
The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...M&keytype=3Dref
Calculating The Mass Of Horizontal-Branch Stars With Hipparcos Klaas S. de Boer, Michael Geffert, Hans-Joachim Tucholke, Jelena H.K. Schmidt
This is based on the SSM, not that I agree with it.
But it does indicate the issue that the mass of the star is related to the phase or evolution of the star.
Some stars have very little luminosity becasue of their extreme dense core.
Nice movie
http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/astro_de...vol/evol_3.html
Life cycle of stars
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...tars/lifecycle/
The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...M&keytype=3Dref
Calculating The Mass Of Horizontal-Branch Stars With Hipparcos Klaas S. de Boer, Michael Geffert, Hans-Joachim Tucholke, Jelena H.K. Schmidt
Abstract: Horizontal-branch stars in globular clusters turned out to have a mass of '0.4 M fi , which followed from T eff and log g (as derived from photometry, Balmer line spectroscopy plus Balmer profile models), the luminosity of these stars from UV + visual spectrophotometry, and the distance to the globular cluster. Such a mass value is in contradiction with values from the theory of evolution of stars. Hipparcos parallaxes to a few field-HB stars have been used to do the same analysis.
Deriving the Galactic Mass from the Rotation Curve
http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm
Calculating mass
http://35.9.68.172/courses/2005fall/AST207/11-11.pdf
A mass estimate for a sample of nearby stars
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php...dc05fe2f918880a
FUSE Observations Strengthen White Dwarf Theory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50125084745.htm
Newtons Law for calaculating mass
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/iroussev/L...05_110f2007.pdf
Phase Transitions in Neutron Stars and Maximum Masses
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/312321
Newtons Law for calaculating mass
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/iroussev/L...05_110f2007.pdf
Phase Transitions in Neutron Stars and Maximum Masses
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/312321
ABSTRACTUsing the most recent realistic effective interactions for nuclear matter with a smooth extrapolation to high densities including causality, we constrain the equation of state and calculate maximum masses of rotating neutron stars. First- and second-order phase transitions to, e.g., quark matter at high densities are included. If neutron star masses of 2.3 M from quasi-periodic oscillations in low-mass X-ray binaries are confirmed, a soft equation of state as well as strong phase transitions can be excluded in neutron star cores.
Many talk about the unkown missing so called dark matter.
One should research degerated matter cosmology and maybe find the answer.
As for measurements: These links are interesting
I had them in my computer
Here are a few.
http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=262
Measuring the
Mass of Stars
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/mass.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s2.htm
Stellar Evolution
QUOTE
Stars shine because of nuclear fusion reactions in their core. The more luminous they are, the more reactions are taking place in their cores. Massive stars live shorter lives than the common small stars because even though they have a larger amount of hydrogen for nuclear reactions, their rate of consuming their fuel is very much greater. The massive stars are analogous to the big, gas-guzzling automobiles with big gas tanks of a few decades ago and the small stars are analogous to the small economy automobiles of today that are frugal with their gasoline.
This is based on the SSM, not that I agree with it.
But it does indicate the issue that the mass of the star is related to the phase or evolution of the star.
Some stars have very little luminosity becasue of their extreme dense core.
Nice movie
http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/astro_de...vol/evol_3.html
Life cycle of stars
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...tars/lifecycle/
The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...M&keytype=3Dref
Calculating The Mass Of Horizontal-Branch Stars With Hipparcos Klaas S. de Boer, Michael Geffert, Hans-Joachim Tucholke, Jelena H.K. Schmidt
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Stars shine because of nuclear fusion reactions in their core. The more luminous they are, the more reactions are taking place in their cores. Massive stars live shorter lives than the common small stars because even though they have a larger amount of hydrogen for nuclear reactions, their rate of consuming their fuel is very much greater. The massive stars are analogous to the big, gas-guzzling automobiles with big gas tanks of a few decades ago and the small stars are analogous to the small economy automobiles of today that are frugal with their gasoline. |
This is based on the SSM, not that I agree with it.
But it does indicate the issue that the mass of the star is related to the phase or evolution of the star.
Some stars have very little luminosity becasue of their extreme dense core.
Nice movie
http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/astro_de...vol/evol_3.html
Life cycle of stars
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...tars/lifecycle/
The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...M&keytype=3Dref
Calculating The Mass Of Horizontal-Branch Stars With Hipparcos Klaas S. de Boer, Michael Geffert, Hans-Joachim Tucholke, Jelena H.K. Schmidt
Abstract: Horizontal-branch stars in globular clusters turned out to have a mass of '0.4 M fi , which followed from T eff and log g (as derived from photometry, Balmer line spectroscopy plus Balmer profile models), the luminosity of these stars from UV + visual spectrophotometry, and the distance to the globular cluster. Such a mass value is in contradiction with values from the theory of evolution of stars. Hipparcos parallaxes to a few field-HB stars have been used to do the same analysis.
Deriving the Galactic Mass from the Rotation Curve
http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm
Calculating mass
http://35.9.68.172/courses/2005fall/AST207/11-11.pdf
A mass estimate for a sample of nearby stars
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php...dc05fe2f918880a
FUSE Observations Strengthen White Dwarf Theory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50125084745.htm
QUOTE
The FUSE result is important because Sirius B is one of the few stars that astronomers have to test their ideas on the relationship between mass and radius for white dwarf stars. White dwarf stars are small but astonishingly dense stars. Sirius B is the size of the Earth and as massive as the sun.
Newtons Law for calaculating mass
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/iroussev/L...05_110f2007.pdf
Phase Transitions in Neutron Stars and Maximum Masses
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/312321
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The FUSE result is important because Sirius B is one of the few stars that astronomers have to test their ideas on the relationship between mass and radius for white dwarf stars. White dwarf stars are small but astonishingly dense stars. Sirius B is the size of the Earth and as massive as the sun. |
Newtons Law for calaculating mass
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/iroussev/L...05_110f2007.pdf
Phase Transitions in Neutron Stars and Maximum Masses
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/312321
ABSTRACTUsing the most recent realistic effective interactions for nuclear matter with a smooth extrapolation to high densities including causality, we constrain the equation of state and calculate maximum masses of rotating neutron stars. First- and second-order phase transitions to, e.g., quark matter at high densities are included. If neutron star masses of 2.3 M from quasi-periodic oscillations in low-mass X-ray binaries are confirmed, a soft equation of state as well as strong phase transitions can be excluded in neutron star cores.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 27 2007, 07:44 PM)
Trip: (if I may call you that)
Thanks for answer. And again for participating in the discussion. I think from your point of view that you'd like to see the EU proponents provide more compelling evidence for some of the perceived claims. So I hate to burden you (naturally anyone else is more than welcome to jump in) I've been doing more reading this afternoon/evening (Alaska time) and I've run across something that is tends to have a lot of weight to a pliable (easy to convince perhaps?) mind like mine. Maybe I'm a bit tired so forgive any blatant stumble I make here.
It's a bit of a redshift connundrum I suppose. Specifically, it is Halton Arp's assertion that NGC 4319 and Markanian 205 (two objects with radically different redshift values) are actually proximal to each other. I'm aware that this single example is dismissed by many astronomers as just a chance alignment and that the two objects. Arp though contends that redshift is not just a result of velocity but of the "inherent" or natural (my word) property of the body being measured and he apparently had lots of other examples as well. I guess it is intuitively compelling that different objects would have different inherent observable spectral values and therefore skew our redshift calculations. Is there something I'm missing? Does mainstream astronomy discount inherent redshift?
This is a link to the single recent article I found a reference for from Geoffrey Burbridge called "Noncosmological Redshift". I confess I haven't read it since I'm overly tired but didn't want to leave it out of this post.
Are there some properties of redshift measurements that I can look to in order to discount examples like Arp is making? As a novice (and ignoramous) with regard to this subject I can't help but be swayed by what Edwin Hubble's assistant is asserting here. And the nature of it (if true) certainly seems to call into question so many of the things I've always known to be "true" about the Universe.
And yes I realize (so I'm apologizing again ... for like the 3rd time in this thread) that this question is a bit of a tangent after I earlier expressed a desire to keep the discussion about Sol and leave out the rest of the Universe.
Feel free to call me Trip, it's a valid abbreviation of my logon, and not one that I object to.
As far as NGC4319 and Mrk205 goes...
I had never actually come across this system before now, but I'm a relatively quick learner, and I came across this paper which seems to resolve the issue:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...3d6e3bdf3c21424
Basically, from what I can tell, this paper describes how Bachall et al measured the spectrum of Mrk 205, and found that it shows absorption features where the light passes through the arm of NGC 4319 which indicates that MRK 205 lies behind NGC 4319 - if they were at the same distance, it couldn't lie behind it for the light to be absorbed, and so there would be no absorption features.
For example, in the Spectrum of MRK205, there is a strong doublet in the UV range representing absorption by MgII, this is accompanied by a weaker doublet that is shifted relative to it (by cz=1361 km/s) that no other equivalent feature in the night sky displays.
So, basically, the mystery would seem to be resolved. The fact that NGC 4319 is absorbing light emitted by MRK 205 tells us that NGC 4319 lies between us and MRK 205, and the difference in wavelengths of the absorption features is completely consistent with the cosmological interpretation of redshift.
Does that help?
Thanks for answer. And again for participating in the discussion. I think from your point of view that you'd like to see the EU proponents provide more compelling evidence for some of the perceived claims. So I hate to burden you (naturally anyone else is more than welcome to jump in) I've been doing more reading this afternoon/evening (Alaska time) and I've run across something that is tends to have a lot of weight to a pliable (easy to convince perhaps?) mind like mine. Maybe I'm a bit tired so forgive any blatant stumble I make here.
It's a bit of a redshift connundrum I suppose. Specifically, it is Halton Arp's assertion that NGC 4319 and Markanian 205 (two objects with radically different redshift values) are actually proximal to each other. I'm aware that this single example is dismissed by many astronomers as just a chance alignment and that the two objects. Arp though contends that redshift is not just a result of velocity but of the "inherent" or natural (my word) property of the body being measured and he apparently had lots of other examples as well. I guess it is intuitively compelling that different objects would have different inherent observable spectral values and therefore skew our redshift calculations. Is there something I'm missing? Does mainstream astronomy discount inherent redshift?
This is a link to the single recent article I found a reference for from Geoffrey Burbridge called "Noncosmological Redshift". I confess I haven't read it since I'm overly tired but didn't want to leave it out of this post.
Are there some properties of redshift measurements that I can look to in order to discount examples like Arp is making? As a novice (and ignoramous) with regard to this subject I can't help but be swayed by what Edwin Hubble's assistant is asserting here. And the nature of it (if true) certainly seems to call into question so many of the things I've always known to be "true" about the Universe.
And yes I realize (so I'm apologizing again ... for like the 3rd time in this thread) that this question is a bit of a tangent after I earlier expressed a desire to keep the discussion about Sol and leave out the rest of the Universe.
Feel free to call me Trip, it's a valid abbreviation of my logon, and not one that I object to.
As far as NGC4319 and Mrk205 goes...
I had never actually come across this system before now, but I'm a relatively quick learner, and I came across this paper which seems to resolve the issue:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...3d6e3bdf3c21424
Basically, from what I can tell, this paper describes how Bachall et al measured the spectrum of Mrk 205, and found that it shows absorption features where the light passes through the arm of NGC 4319 which indicates that MRK 205 lies behind NGC 4319 - if they were at the same distance, it couldn't lie behind it for the light to be absorbed, and so there would be no absorption features.
For example, in the Spectrum of MRK205, there is a strong doublet in the UV range representing absorption by MgII, this is accompanied by a weaker doublet that is shifted relative to it (by cz=1361 km/s) that no other equivalent feature in the night sky displays.
So, basically, the mystery would seem to be resolved. The fact that NGC 4319 is absorbing light emitted by MRK 205 tells us that NGC 4319 lies between us and MRK 205, and the difference in wavelengths of the absorption features is completely consistent with the cosmological interpretation of redshift.
Does that help?
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 11:57 PM)
Oh dear.
You loose.
Taking quotes out of context and pretnding I said something I didn't, that's just cheating.
Come off it.
I was talking about stellar mergers, and galactic mergers. get it straight.
I'm well aware of what Alfven had to say about Leidenfrost layers.
Sheesh, get a grip.
Read my post again, then try again, and this time try and be honest.
Accusations of cheating and dishonesty in your very first reply to me! I think that is a record, and somewhat disheartening.
You loose.
Taking quotes out of context and pretnding I said something I didn't, that's just cheating.
Come off it.
I was talking about stellar mergers, and galactic mergers. get it straight.
I'm well aware of what Alfven had to say about Leidenfrost layers.
Sheesh, get a grip.
Read my post again, then try again, and this time try and be honest.
Accusations of cheating and dishonesty in your very first reply to me! I think that is a record, and somewhat disheartening.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 11:57 PM)
Oh dear.What I said was that if our own galaxy consists of stars made of kionomatter, and stars made of antimatter seperated by leidenfrost layers, then when two stars merge, or even when two galaxies merge, then sometimes there are going to be mergers between stars, or galaxies made up of koinomatter and antimatter.
No number of Leidenfrost layers is going to stop the explosion generated by an antimatter white dwarf colliding with and passing through our koinomatter G-7 yellow dwarf sun.
Also, even Alfven himself aknowledges that Leidenfrost layers are leaky.
Indeed, and I asked whether Leidenfrost layers would stop such an explosion. If you do not think so, then say so, and why. I don't know the answer, because I have no observational evidence on matter-antimatter Leidenfrost layers, and how they behave under such circumstances, if they exist.
The paper I cited, "Annihilation model of quasi-stellar objects", Alfven, H. Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 64, no. 2, Aug. 1979, p. 401-419, includes a section on "Stellar collisions" which attempts to describe "the collision between two stars of opposite kinds of matter", and you did mention "explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge"
No number of Leidenfrost layers is going to stop the explosion generated by an antimatter white dwarf colliding with and passing through our koinomatter G-7 yellow dwarf sun.
Also, even Alfven himself aknowledges that Leidenfrost layers are leaky.
Indeed, and I asked whether Leidenfrost layers would stop such an explosion. If you do not think so, then say so, and why. I don't know the answer, because I have no observational evidence on matter-antimatter Leidenfrost layers, and how they behave under such circumstances, if they exist.
The paper I cited, "Annihilation model of quasi-stellar objects", Alfven, H. Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 64, no. 2, Aug. 1979, p. 401-419, includes a section on "Stellar collisions" which attempts to describe "the collision between two stars of opposite kinds of matter", and you did mention "explosions as Antimatter stars and Koinomatter stars collide and merge"
Hello All
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.12349M
Live Fe-60 in the Early Solar System
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11658M
The Structure of the Solar Core
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11658M
The Structure of the Solar Core
Abstract
Data from the Galileo mission to Jupiter and the Apollo mission to the Moon show isotopically distinct types of xenon in Jupiter and in the Sun and evidence of a mass separation process that selectively moves lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element to the solar surface. Understanding the source of solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and mono-isotopic H-1 pouring from the solar surface depends on measurements of anti-neutrinos coming from neutron decay in the Sun and on the development of a better theoretical basis for the empirical evidence of a.) Repulsive interactions between like nucleons; b.) Clustering of nucleons; and c.) Neutron penetration of the gravitational barrier surrounding a neutron star.
If you cannot open the pdf file let me know and i will direct you to another.
Two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.12349M
Live Fe-60 in the Early Solar System
QUOTE
Abstract
The latest finding by Hester et al. supports the view of ". . . iron cores of the inner planets, iron meteorites, and the core of the sun as likely condensation products from the supernova core." [Science 195, 209 (14 January 1977)]
The latest finding by Hester et al. supports the view of ". . . iron cores of the inner planets, iron meteorites, and the core of the sun as likely condensation products from the supernova core." [Science 195, 209 (14 January 1977)]
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11658M
The Structure of the Solar Core
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract The latest finding by Hester et al. supports the view of ". . . iron cores of the inner planets, iron meteorites, and the core of the sun as likely condensation products from the supernova core." [Science 195, 209 (14 January 1977)] |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11658M
The Structure of the Solar Core
Abstract
Data from the Galileo mission to Jupiter and the Apollo mission to the Moon show isotopically distinct types of xenon in Jupiter and in the Sun and evidence of a mass separation process that selectively moves lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element to the solar surface. Understanding the source of solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and mono-isotopic H-1 pouring from the solar surface depends on measurements of anti-neutrinos coming from neutron decay in the Sun and on the development of a better theoretical basis for the empirical evidence of a.) Repulsive interactions between like nucleons; b.) Clustering of nucleons; and c.) Neutron penetration of the gravitational barrier surrounding a neutron star.
If you cannot open the pdf file let me know and i will direct you to another.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 12:04 AM)
1. I didn't say Plasma Universe. I said Plasma Cosmology. I wasn't referring to you or your website, I was referring to the theory as a whole.
I'm using "Plasma Universe" as a more generic description, or superset of "Plasma Cosmology". I've also seen it described as "'Plasma Cosmology', the study of the plasma universe" Just to confuse matters, I believe that Plasma Cosmology is not necessarily the same as the Klein-Alfvén cosmology which features ambiplasma.
The Web site is about the Plasma Universe (and hence Plasma Cosmology).
I'm using "Plasma Universe" as a more generic description, or superset of "Plasma Cosmology". I've also seen it described as "'Plasma Cosmology', the study of the plasma universe" Just to confuse matters, I believe that Plasma Cosmology is not necessarily the same as the Klein-Alfvén cosmology which features ambiplasma.
The Web site is about the Plasma Universe (and hence Plasma Cosmology).
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 12:04 AM)
Perhaps you'd care to explain how Plasma Cosmology plans on concentrating the majority of the mass in the space between the seperated clusters, in the region where the multi million degree plasmas aren't. That's the point you're missing, we observe the mass to be distributed differently from the mass we can actually observe at the various wavelengths, and the mass is concentrated in a different location from the plasma clouds.
Sorry, I don't know how Plasma Cosmology views this.
Sorry, I don't know how Plasma Cosmology views this.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 12:04 AM)
And again, you're twisting my words, and quoting me out of context, or you're just not reading what I'm saying.
What I said was that Plasma Cosmology can not explain the observed changes in the expansion rate.
And I asked for a citation so that I can read what Plasma Cosmology has to say about this. I do not know whether Plasma Cosmology does not, or can not explain what you described.
What I said was that Plasma Cosmology can not explain the observed changes in the expansion rate.
And I asked for a citation so that I can read what Plasma Cosmology has to say about this. I do not know whether Plasma Cosmology does not, or can not explain what you described.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 07:42 AM)
Feel free to call me Trip, it's a valid abbreviation of my logon, and not one that I object to.
As far as NGC4319 and Mrk205 goes...
I had never actually come across this system before now, but I'm a relatively quick learner, and I came across this paper which seems to resolve the issue:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...3d6e3bdf3c21424
Basically, from what I can tell, this paper describes how Bachall et al measured the spectrum of Mrk 205, and found that it shows absorption features where the light passes through the arm of NGC 4319 which indicates that MRK 205 lies behind NGC 4319 - if they were at the same distance, it couldn't lie behind it for the light to be absorbed, and so there would be no absorption features.
For example, in the Spectrum of MRK205, there is a strong doublet in the UV range representing absorption by MgII, this is accompanied by a weaker doublet that is shifted relative to it (by cz=1361 km/s) that no other equivalent feature in the night sky displays.
So, basically, the mystery would seem to be resolved. The fact that NGC 4319 is absorbing light emitted by MRK 205 tells us that NGC 4319 lies between us and MRK 205, and the difference in wavelengths of the absorption features is completely consistent with the cosmological interpretation of redshift.
Does that help?
Trip,
Yes it does help very much. I'd read a brief paragraph on an STSCI webpage that mentioned absorption as the issue in the case of those two objects. I'd assume the paper you reference was the basis for that mention. Since I hadn't actually read the paper that I had linked to (Noncosmological Redshift) I also went back and read it.
It seems to be somewhat of a refutation (though the references aren't clear to me) of the conclusions of the STSCI paper you reference. It seems to use some of the other galaxy/QSO associations to make it's case about "inherent redshift" values without directly taking on the absorption issues.
Others,
So here's where I am on this and I'd call it being not a happy camper.
1. Prior to 1987 Arp finds a number of examples of seemingly close associations between relatively nearby galaxies and what were assumed to be distant QSO's.
2. In 1994 STSCI takes his most prominent example and refutes it.
3. In 2001 Burridge says "can't we all get along?" by making the case that there are still plenty of other good examples.
It is becoming clear to this reader that there is a pissing contest between two groups here. One perhaps large and powerful (and capable of shutting out dissent) and the other (smaller group) perhaps tilting at windmills. In the very short time that this has become a fascination for me I think it is all pretty ugly. I'd classify it as a black eye on the science of astronomy (though I don't really have a sense of how big that black eye is in relative terms). Nevertheless, I'm disappointed. Burridge seems to be taking the high road and I'm sensing that STSCI's 1994 work had an agenda behind it and was "clever". And the connotation of "clever" I'm using here isn't it's most positive.
I suppose I would also admit that I "wanted" Arp to be right (it seemed like a pretty exciting observation). I understand that in some sense all this is "how science works" but when one group has access to the tools and the other doesn't then how do "Standard" ideas ever really become challenged?
Is there anyone on the board that is familiar with this issue? Can you straighten me out? Any perspective at all is appreciated as I'm not "turned on" at this point.
Trolling:
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
As far as NGC4319 and Mrk205 goes...
I had never actually come across this system before now, but I'm a relatively quick learner, and I came across this paper which seems to resolve the issue:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...3d6e3bdf3c21424
Basically, from what I can tell, this paper describes how Bachall et al measured the spectrum of Mrk 205, and found that it shows absorption features where the light passes through the arm of NGC 4319 which indicates that MRK 205 lies behind NGC 4319 - if they were at the same distance, it couldn't lie behind it for the light to be absorbed, and so there would be no absorption features.
For example, in the Spectrum of MRK205, there is a strong doublet in the UV range representing absorption by MgII, this is accompanied by a weaker doublet that is shifted relative to it (by cz=1361 km/s) that no other equivalent feature in the night sky displays.
So, basically, the mystery would seem to be resolved. The fact that NGC 4319 is absorbing light emitted by MRK 205 tells us that NGC 4319 lies between us and MRK 205, and the difference in wavelengths of the absorption features is completely consistent with the cosmological interpretation of redshift.
Does that help?
Trip,
Yes it does help very much. I'd read a brief paragraph on an STSCI webpage that mentioned absorption as the issue in the case of those two objects. I'd assume the paper you reference was the basis for that mention. Since I hadn't actually read the paper that I had linked to (Noncosmological Redshift) I also went back and read it.
It seems to be somewhat of a refutation (though the references aren't clear to me) of the conclusions of the STSCI paper you reference. It seems to use some of the other galaxy/QSO associations to make it's case about "inherent redshift" values without directly taking on the absorption issues.
Others,
So here's where I am on this and I'd call it being not a happy camper.
1. Prior to 1987 Arp finds a number of examples of seemingly close associations between relatively nearby galaxies and what were assumed to be distant QSO's.
2. In 1994 STSCI takes his most prominent example and refutes it.
3. In 2001 Burridge says "can't we all get along?" by making the case that there are still plenty of other good examples.
It is becoming clear to this reader that there is a pissing contest between two groups here. One perhaps large and powerful (and capable of shutting out dissent) and the other (smaller group) perhaps tilting at windmills. In the very short time that this has become a fascination for me I think it is all pretty ugly. I'd classify it as a black eye on the science of astronomy (though I don't really have a sense of how big that black eye is in relative terms). Nevertheless, I'm disappointed. Burridge seems to be taking the high road and I'm sensing that STSCI's 1994 work had an agenda behind it and was "clever". And the connotation of "clever" I'm using here isn't it's most positive.
I suppose I would also admit that I "wanted" Arp to be right (it seemed like a pretty exciting observation). I understand that in some sense all this is "how science works" but when one group has access to the tools and the other doesn't then how do "Standard" ideas ever really become challenged?
Is there anyone on the board that is familiar with this issue? Can you straighten me out? Any perspective at all is appreciated as I'm not "turned on" at this point.
Trolling:
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
Harry,
Thanks for all the links. Is it possible that you can present a summarization of what you feel are the most significant ones? That's a lot of reading even for someone like me that is "all jazzed" about the topic and I'd guess that few other readers here would be taking the time to make a study of them.
Thanks for all the links. Is it possible that you can present a summarization of what you feel are the most significant ones? That's a lot of reading even for someone like me that is "all jazzed" about the topic and I'd guess that few other readers here would be taking the time to make a study of them.
Sorry my friends, I don’t have any time to discuss the fairy-tales, I’m working. This explanation is for open minds only. I will continue. There are very many topics in the link about star formation.
NASA coin has second cosmogeological side too.
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...=Star_Formation
Dark Globule in IC 1396 (explanation of NASA)
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope image of a glowing stellar nursery provides a spectacular contrast to the opaque cloud seen in visible light. The Elephant's Trunk Nebula is an elongated dark globule within the emission nebula IC 1396 in the constellation of Cepheus. Located at a distance of 2,450 light-years, the globule is a condensation of dense gas that is barely surviving the strong ionizing radiation from a nearby massive star. The globule is being compressed by the surrounding ionized gas. The dark globule is seen in silhouette at visible-light wavelengths, backlit by the illumination of a bright star located to the left of the field of view.
The Spitzer Space Telescope pierces through the obscuration to reveal the birth of new protostars, or embryonic stars, and previously unseen young stars. The infrared image, which transforms the dark cloud into a 'flying dragon,' was obtained by Spitzer's infrared array camera. The image is a four-color composite of invisible light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange) and 8.0 microns (red). The filamentary appearance of the globule results from the sculpting effects of competing physical processes. The winds from a massive star, located to the left of the image, produce a dense circular rim comprising the 'head' of the globule and a swept-back tail of gas.
A pair of young stars (LkHa 349 and LkHa 349c) that formed from the dense gas has cleared a spherical cavity within the globule head. While one of these stars is significantly fainter than the other in the visible-light image, they are of comparable brightness in the infrared Spitzer image. This implies the presence of a thick and dusty disc around LkHa 349c. Such circumstellar discs are the precursors of planetary systems. They are much thicker in the early stages of stellar formation when the placental planet-forming material (gas and dust) is still present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark Globule in IC 1396 (cosmogeological explamation)
the few small constellations has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar, multi stage separated remnants of ancient giant star by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Stars are sucking material from the remnants.
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope image of glowing activated stars provides a spectacular contrast to the opaque cloud seen in visible light. The Elephant's Trunk Nebula is an elongated dark globule within the emission nebula IC 1396 in the constellation of Cepheus. Located at a distance of 2,450 light-years, the globule is a multi-stage separated dense gas that is barely surviving the strong ionizing radiation from nearby stars. The globule is demolished by gravitation of nearest stars. The dark globule is seen in silhouette at visible-light wavelengths, backlit by the illumination of a bright stars located to the left of the field of view and to the visible surface.
The Spitzer Space Telescope pierces through the obscuration to reveal activation feeding stars, and previously unseen glowing stars. The infrared image, which transforms the dark cloud into a 'flying dragon,' was obtained by Spitzer's infrared array camera. The image is a four-color composite of invisible light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange) and 8.0 microns (red). The filamentary appearance of the globule results from the sculpting effects of competing physical processes. The feeding of a massive star, located to the left of the image, produces a dense circular stream is gravitating from 'head' of the globule (thick back tail of gas). One of the stars made enormous hole into 'head', another star is making huge ‘rim’ to the visible surface of the 'head' (small red spot with white dot in the centre). A pair of glowing stars (LkHa 349 and LkHa 349c) that feeding the dense gas has cleared a spherical cavity in the globule head. Glowing and activation of the stars within globule is closely connected to the gravitated remnants of space clouds. Enormous mass of light, heavy and super-heavy elements are creating additional spot masses on the stars. (It is the clue of glowing and activation). Truth is easy to explain.
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2003-06a
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2003-06b
NASA coin has second cosmogeological side too.
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...=Star_Formation
Dark Globule in IC 1396 (explanation of NASA)
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope image of a glowing stellar nursery provides a spectacular contrast to the opaque cloud seen in visible light. The Elephant's Trunk Nebula is an elongated dark globule within the emission nebula IC 1396 in the constellation of Cepheus. Located at a distance of 2,450 light-years, the globule is a condensation of dense gas that is barely surviving the strong ionizing radiation from a nearby massive star. The globule is being compressed by the surrounding ionized gas. The dark globule is seen in silhouette at visible-light wavelengths, backlit by the illumination of a bright star located to the left of the field of view.
The Spitzer Space Telescope pierces through the obscuration to reveal the birth of new protostars, or embryonic stars, and previously unseen young stars. The infrared image, which transforms the dark cloud into a 'flying dragon,' was obtained by Spitzer's infrared array camera. The image is a four-color composite of invisible light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange) and 8.0 microns (red). The filamentary appearance of the globule results from the sculpting effects of competing physical processes. The winds from a massive star, located to the left of the image, produce a dense circular rim comprising the 'head' of the globule and a swept-back tail of gas.
A pair of young stars (LkHa 349 and LkHa 349c) that formed from the dense gas has cleared a spherical cavity within the globule head. While one of these stars is significantly fainter than the other in the visible-light image, they are of comparable brightness in the infrared Spitzer image. This implies the presence of a thick and dusty disc around LkHa 349c. Such circumstellar discs are the precursors of planetary systems. They are much thicker in the early stages of stellar formation when the placental planet-forming material (gas and dust) is still present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark Globule in IC 1396 (cosmogeological explamation)
the few small constellations has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar, multi stage separated remnants of ancient giant star by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Stars are sucking material from the remnants.
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope image of glowing activated stars provides a spectacular contrast to the opaque cloud seen in visible light. The Elephant's Trunk Nebula is an elongated dark globule within the emission nebula IC 1396 in the constellation of Cepheus. Located at a distance of 2,450 light-years, the globule is a multi-stage separated dense gas that is barely surviving the strong ionizing radiation from nearby stars. The globule is demolished by gravitation of nearest stars. The dark globule is seen in silhouette at visible-light wavelengths, backlit by the illumination of a bright stars located to the left of the field of view and to the visible surface.
The Spitzer Space Telescope pierces through the obscuration to reveal activation feeding stars, and previously unseen glowing stars. The infrared image, which transforms the dark cloud into a 'flying dragon,' was obtained by Spitzer's infrared array camera. The image is a four-color composite of invisible light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange) and 8.0 microns (red). The filamentary appearance of the globule results from the sculpting effects of competing physical processes. The feeding of a massive star, located to the left of the image, produces a dense circular stream is gravitating from 'head' of the globule (thick back tail of gas). One of the stars made enormous hole into 'head', another star is making huge ‘rim’ to the visible surface of the 'head' (small red spot with white dot in the centre). A pair of glowing stars (LkHa 349 and LkHa 349c) that feeding the dense gas has cleared a spherical cavity in the globule head. Glowing and activation of the stars within globule is closely connected to the gravitated remnants of space clouds. Enormous mass of light, heavy and super-heavy elements are creating additional spot masses on the stars. (It is the clue of glowing and activation). Truth is easy to explain.
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2003-06a
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2003-06b
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 28 2007, 08:13 AM)
Trip,
Yes it does help very much. I'd read a brief paragraph on an STSCI webpage that mentioned absorption as the issue in the case of those two objects. I'd assume the paper you reference was the basis for that mention. Since I hadn't actually read the paper that I had linked to (Noncosmological Redshift) I also went back and read it.
It seems to be somewhat of a refutation (though the references aren't clear to me) of the conclusions of the STSCI paper you reference. It seems to use some of the other galaxy/QSO associations to make it's case about "inherent redshift" values without directly taking on the absorption issues.
Others,
So here's where I am on this and I'd call it being not a happy camper.
1. Prior to 1987 Arp finds a number of examples of seemingly close associations between relatively nearby galaxies and what were assumed to be distant QSO's.
2. In 1994 STSCI takes his most prominent example and refutes it.
3. In 2001 Burridge says "can't we all get along?" by making the case that there are still plenty of other good examples.
It is becoming clear to this reader that there is a pissing contest between two groups here. One perhaps large and powerful (and capable of shutting out dissent) and the other (smaller group) perhaps tilting at windmills. In the very short time that this has become a fascination for me I think it is all pretty ugly. I'd classify it as a black eye on the science of astronomy (though I don't really have a sense of how big that black eye is in relative terms). Nevertheless, I'm disappointed. Burridge seems to be taking the high road and I'm sensing that STSCI's 1994 work had an agenda behind it and was "clever". And the connotation of "clever" I'm using here isn't it's most positive.
I suppose I would also admit that I "wanted" Arp to be right (it seemed like a pretty exciting observation). I understand that in some sense all this is "how science works" but when one group has access to the tools and the other doesn't then how do "Standard" ideas ever really become challenged?
Is there anyone on the board that is familiar with this issue? Can you straighten me out? Any perspective at all is appreciated as I'm not "turned on" at this point.
Trolling:
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
Well, unless someone comes up with a list of specific examples, I can't really do anything - mostly because, generally speaking, I'm too lazy to go looking for such a list myself (and I don't mind admitting it).
The way I see it, you've got two choice.
You can accept the results found by the paper I linked, and apply it to all of them, and assume they are all the same thing (roughly equivalent to assuming that plasma physics that applies in a laboratory applies at hubble distances).
Or.
You can assume that some how NGC 4139 and MRK 205 are a special case that some how differ from the rest of Arps examples, and demand that a survey of similar experiments is done for each and every one of Arps examples, assuming that if the results come back the same, then it to is some how a special case, in the hopes that you might find one example that was actually what Arp thought it was.
Occams razor seems to suggest that the first approach is the correct approach, and logic suggests that given the workload of the STSCI that the second is unlikely to happen any time soon - unless perhaps someone makes it their PhD thesis to individually refute each and every example on Arps list (and then there may be cases where that's not possible, purely and simply because it may be impossible to establish a continuum of background light due to the degree of obscurement).
Yes it does help very much. I'd read a brief paragraph on an STSCI webpage that mentioned absorption as the issue in the case of those two objects. I'd assume the paper you reference was the basis for that mention. Since I hadn't actually read the paper that I had linked to (Noncosmological Redshift) I also went back and read it.
It seems to be somewhat of a refutation (though the references aren't clear to me) of the conclusions of the STSCI paper you reference. It seems to use some of the other galaxy/QSO associations to make it's case about "inherent redshift" values without directly taking on the absorption issues.
Others,
So here's where I am on this and I'd call it being not a happy camper.
1. Prior to 1987 Arp finds a number of examples of seemingly close associations between relatively nearby galaxies and what were assumed to be distant QSO's.
2. In 1994 STSCI takes his most prominent example and refutes it.
3. In 2001 Burridge says "can't we all get along?" by making the case that there are still plenty of other good examples.
It is becoming clear to this reader that there is a pissing contest between two groups here. One perhaps large and powerful (and capable of shutting out dissent) and the other (smaller group) perhaps tilting at windmills. In the very short time that this has become a fascination for me I think it is all pretty ugly. I'd classify it as a black eye on the science of astronomy (though I don't really have a sense of how big that black eye is in relative terms). Nevertheless, I'm disappointed. Burridge seems to be taking the high road and I'm sensing that STSCI's 1994 work had an agenda behind it and was "clever". And the connotation of "clever" I'm using here isn't it's most positive.
I suppose I would also admit that I "wanted" Arp to be right (it seemed like a pretty exciting observation). I understand that in some sense all this is "how science works" but when one group has access to the tools and the other doesn't then how do "Standard" ideas ever really become challenged?
Is there anyone on the board that is familiar with this issue? Can you straighten me out? Any perspective at all is appreciated as I'm not "turned on" at this point.
Trolling:
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
Well, unless someone comes up with a list of specific examples, I can't really do anything - mostly because, generally speaking, I'm too lazy to go looking for such a list myself (and I don't mind admitting it).
The way I see it, you've got two choice.
You can accept the results found by the paper I linked, and apply it to all of them, and assume they are all the same thing (roughly equivalent to assuming that plasma physics that applies in a laboratory applies at hubble distances).
Or.
You can assume that some how NGC 4139 and MRK 205 are a special case that some how differ from the rest of Arps examples, and demand that a survey of similar experiments is done for each and every one of Arps examples, assuming that if the results come back the same, then it to is some how a special case, in the hopes that you might find one example that was actually what Arp thought it was.
Occams razor seems to suggest that the first approach is the correct approach, and logic suggests that given the workload of the STSCI that the second is unlikely to happen any time soon - unless perhaps someone makes it their PhD thesis to individually refute each and every example on Arps list (and then there may be cases where that's not possible, purely and simply because it may be impossible to establish a continuum of background light due to the degree of obscurement).
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 10:13 PM)
Well, unless someone comes up with a list of specific examples, I can't really do anything - mostly because, generally speaking, I'm too lazy to go looking for such a list myself (and I don't mind admitting it).
The way I see it, you've got two choice.
You can accept the results found by the paper I linked, and apply it to all of them, and assume they are all the same thing (roughly equivalent to assuming that plasma physics that applies in a laboratory applies at hubble distances).
Or.
You can assume that some how NGC 4139 and MRK 205 are a special case that some how differ from the rest of Arps examples, and demand that a survey of similar experiments is done for each and every one of Arps examples, assuming that if the results come back the same, then it to is some how a special case, in the hopes that you might find one example that was actually what Arp thought it was.
Occams razor seems to suggest that the first approach is the correct approach, and logic suggests that given the workload of the STSCI that the second is unlikely to happen any time soon - unless perhaps someone makes it their PhD thesis to individually refute each and every example on Arps list (and then there may be cases where that's not possible, purely and simply because it may be impossible to establish a continuum of background light due to the degree of obscurement).
Trip:
Without a doubt you are correct.
At this point, I'm quite nonplussed with my own abilities to discern "truth". It's a factor of my ignorance no doubt. But there is a third option you didn't cover. I think it is one that a certain segment of us interested but ignorant folks might fall prey to. And that is to just decide for ourselves based on the what we read. I'm straining at this point not to do so. But my tendency now seems to be to think that the Universe is infinite, had no beginning that we can possibly discern and that we are inaccurately measuring distances. In addition, I suspect there is an electirical/plasma component that current cosmology is greatly underestimating.
I won't however join the fringe and start making loon-webpages espousing such things and spamming forums. I will continue to be interested and read everything that I can in an effort to reach some sort of quiescence. I uncomfortable now with everything I've always thought was established and which was taught to me. It is an unexpected state of mind for me. I guess I foolishly expected to find something definitive, but when long-time professionals are pissing back and forth I know now my horridly acute lack education relegates me to distant observer status. In truth I probably have no real business being in this thread but I thought very highly of my own ability to act as some sort of conduit for the discussion.
In any case you've been very helpful. I'll continue to peruse the links provided here and hope that Harry and others provide summaries as possible. Unless someone has a question for me I'll be lurking as opposed to participating. Thanks.
The way I see it, you've got two choice.
You can accept the results found by the paper I linked, and apply it to all of them, and assume they are all the same thing (roughly equivalent to assuming that plasma physics that applies in a laboratory applies at hubble distances).
Or.
You can assume that some how NGC 4139 and MRK 205 are a special case that some how differ from the rest of Arps examples, and demand that a survey of similar experiments is done for each and every one of Arps examples, assuming that if the results come back the same, then it to is some how a special case, in the hopes that you might find one example that was actually what Arp thought it was.
Occams razor seems to suggest that the first approach is the correct approach, and logic suggests that given the workload of the STSCI that the second is unlikely to happen any time soon - unless perhaps someone makes it their PhD thesis to individually refute each and every example on Arps list (and then there may be cases where that's not possible, purely and simply because it may be impossible to establish a continuum of background light due to the degree of obscurement).
Trip:
Without a doubt you are correct.
At this point, I'm quite nonplussed with my own abilities to discern "truth". It's a factor of my ignorance no doubt. But there is a third option you didn't cover. I think it is one that a certain segment of us interested but ignorant folks might fall prey to. And that is to just decide for ourselves based on the what we read. I'm straining at this point not to do so. But my tendency now seems to be to think that the Universe is infinite, had no beginning that we can possibly discern and that we are inaccurately measuring distances. In addition, I suspect there is an electirical/plasma component that current cosmology is greatly underestimating.
I won't however join the fringe and start making loon-webpages espousing such things and spamming forums. I will continue to be interested and read everything that I can in an effort to reach some sort of quiescence. I uncomfortable now with everything I've always thought was established and which was taught to me. It is an unexpected state of mind for me. I guess I foolishly expected to find something definitive, but when long-time professionals are pissing back and forth I know now my horridly acute lack education relegates me to distant observer status. In truth I probably have no real business being in this thread but I thought very highly of my own ability to act as some sort of conduit for the discussion.
In any case you've been very helpful. I'll continue to peruse the links provided here and hope that Harry and others provide summaries as possible. Unless someone has a question for me I'll be lurking as opposed to participating. Thanks.
I’m continuing publication for open minds, because young generation of scientists has to know truth how stars are forming in the universe.
LETTER N 2
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2005-23b
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-23b1.jpg
What is this???
Is this a remnant of exploded star?
Is this a remnant of exploded interstellar planetary mass object?
Is this a remnant of black hole?
They are main catastrophes in the spiral galaxy.
First and second are so small for the event.
There are discovered few black holes moving across the galaxy plate. It means, there are a lot of black holes orbiting our galaxy. Could ever a black hole moving across the plane hit a star or anther black hole?
-Of course!
Small amount of stars could survive catastrophes of another galaxies. Remnant of the stars are traveling in the space and sometimes are perturbing gravitational order of another galaxies.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2001/blackhole/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1541964.stm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ole_010913.html
Heic0211a-Black hole hurtling across the plane of the Milky Way
Heic0211b-Black hole hurtling across the plane of the Milky Way
Heic0211c-Hubble Space Telescope image shows the Year 2001 observation of the black hole system GRO J1655-40 in the constellation of Scorpius
Spitzer’s image IRAC vividly shows that, what is inside multi stage separated neutron clouds.
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-23a1.jpg
Yes. You can see excellent image of very dangerous catastrophe made by black hole.
Towering Infernos (explanation of NASA)
This majestic false-color image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows the "mountains" where stars are born. Dubbed "Mountains of Creation" by Spitzer scientists, these towering pillars of cool gas and dust are illuminated at their tips with light from warm, embryonic stars.
The new infrared picture is reminiscent of Hubble's iconic visible-light image of the Eagle Nebula (inset), which also features a star-forming region, or nebula, that is being sculpted into pillars by radiation and winds from hot, massive stars. The pillars in the Spitzer image are part of a region called W5, in the Cassiopeia constellation 7,000 light-years away and 50 light-years across. They are more than 10 times in the size of those in the Eagle Nebula (shown to scale here).
The Spitzer's view differs from Hubble's because infrared light penetrates dust, whereas visible light is blocked by it. In the Spitzer image, hundreds of forming stars (white/yellow) can seen for the first time inside the central pillar, and dozens inside the tall pillar to the left. Scientists believe these star clusters were triggered into existence by radiation and winds from an "initiator" star more than 10 times the mass of our Sun. This star is not pictured, but the finger-like pillars "point" toward its location above the image frame.
The Spitzer picture also reveals stars (blue) a bit older than the ones in the pillar tips in the evacuated areas between the clouds. Scientists believe these stars were born around the same time as the massive initiator star not pictured. A third group of young stars occupies the bright area below the central pillar. It is not known whether these stars formed in a related or separate event. Some of the blue dots are foreground stars that are not members of this nebula.
The red color in the Spitzer image represents organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These building blocks of life are often found in star-forming clouds of gas and dust. Like small dust grains, they are heated by the light from the young stars, and then emit energy in infrared wavelengths.
This image was taken by the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) on Spitzer. It is a 4-color composite of infrared light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange), and 8.0 microns (red).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The towering neutron nebula. (cosmogeological explanation)
This majestic false-color image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows the "Neutron Mountains" where stars are feeding. Dubbed "Mountains of Creation" by Spitzer scientists, these towering pillars of cool neutrons and protons mixtures are illuminated at their tips with light from warm, feeding stars.
The new infrared picture is reminiscent of Hubble's iconic visible-light image of the Eagle Nebula (inset), which also features a star-feeding region; stars are gravitating neutrons wind into pillars. The pillars in the Spitzer image are part of a region called W5, in the Cassiopeia constellation 7,000 light-years away and 50 light-years across. They are more than 10 times in the size of those in the Eagle Nebula (shown to scale here).
The Spitzer's view differs from Hubble's because infrared light penetrates dust, whereas visible light is blocked by it. In the Spitzer image, hundreds of feeding stars (white/yellow) can seen for the first time inside the central pillar, and dozens inside the tall pillar to the left. Scientists can not believe still, these star clusters are moving through pillars only. Many of them are not pictured, because they are deep into pillars. Where is debris of ultra-dense nucleuses? The finger-like pillars "point" toward its location above the image frame. They are moving as the space-shuttle. The event is evidence, small ultra-dense debris are not stabile nucleuses, because they are undergone rapidly multi-stage demolition of the nucleuses. Free neutrons are creating huge neutron clouds in the space
The Spitzer picture also reveals stars (blue) a bit colorlessness than the ones in the pillar tips in the evacuated areas between the clouds. Scientists can not believe still these stars have finished feeding. A third group of glowing stars occupies the bright area below the central pillar. It is not known whether these stars have any participation in the feeding. Some of the blue dots are foreground stars that are not members of this nebula.
The red color in the Spitzer image represents organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These building blocks of life are often found in star-forming clouds of gas and dust. Like small dust grains, they are heated by the light from the young stars, and then emit energy in infrared wavelengths. It means into neutron nebula is huge process formation of chemical elements (nuclear synthesis reactions) and admixtures.
This image was taken by the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) on Spitzer. It is a 4-color composite of infrared light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange), and 8.0 microns (red).
Truth is easy to explain.
Truth is victorious!
LETTER N 2
http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2005-23b
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-23b1.jpg
What is this???
Is this a remnant of exploded star?
Is this a remnant of exploded interstellar planetary mass object?
Is this a remnant of black hole?
They are main catastrophes in the spiral galaxy.
First and second are so small for the event.
There are discovered few black holes moving across the galaxy plate. It means, there are a lot of black holes orbiting our galaxy. Could ever a black hole moving across the plane hit a star or anther black hole?
-Of course!
Small amount of stars could survive catastrophes of another galaxies. Remnant of the stars are traveling in the space and sometimes are perturbing gravitational order of another galaxies.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2001/blackhole/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1541964.stm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ole_010913.html
Heic0211a-Black hole hurtling across the plane of the Milky Way
Heic0211b-Black hole hurtling across the plane of the Milky Way
Heic0211c-Hubble Space Telescope image shows the Year 2001 observation of the black hole system GRO J1655-40 in the constellation of Scorpius
Spitzer’s image IRAC vividly shows that, what is inside multi stage separated neutron clouds.
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-23a1.jpg
Yes. You can see excellent image of very dangerous catastrophe made by black hole.
Towering Infernos (explanation of NASA)
This majestic false-color image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows the "mountains" where stars are born. Dubbed "Mountains of Creation" by Spitzer scientists, these towering pillars of cool gas and dust are illuminated at their tips with light from warm, embryonic stars.
The new infrared picture is reminiscent of Hubble's iconic visible-light image of the Eagle Nebula (inset), which also features a star-forming region, or nebula, that is being sculpted into pillars by radiation and winds from hot, massive stars. The pillars in the Spitzer image are part of a region called W5, in the Cassiopeia constellation 7,000 light-years away and 50 light-years across. They are more than 10 times in the size of those in the Eagle Nebula (shown to scale here).
The Spitzer's view differs from Hubble's because infrared light penetrates dust, whereas visible light is blocked by it. In the Spitzer image, hundreds of forming stars (white/yellow) can seen for the first time inside the central pillar, and dozens inside the tall pillar to the left. Scientists believe these star clusters were triggered into existence by radiation and winds from an "initiator" star more than 10 times the mass of our Sun. This star is not pictured, but the finger-like pillars "point" toward its location above the image frame.
The Spitzer picture also reveals stars (blue) a bit older than the ones in the pillar tips in the evacuated areas between the clouds. Scientists believe these stars were born around the same time as the massive initiator star not pictured. A third group of young stars occupies the bright area below the central pillar. It is not known whether these stars formed in a related or separate event. Some of the blue dots are foreground stars that are not members of this nebula.
The red color in the Spitzer image represents organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These building blocks of life are often found in star-forming clouds of gas and dust. Like small dust grains, they are heated by the light from the young stars, and then emit energy in infrared wavelengths.
This image was taken by the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) on Spitzer. It is a 4-color composite of infrared light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange), and 8.0 microns (red).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The towering neutron nebula. (cosmogeological explanation)
This majestic false-color image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows the "Neutron Mountains" where stars are feeding. Dubbed "Mountains of Creation" by Spitzer scientists, these towering pillars of cool neutrons and protons mixtures are illuminated at their tips with light from warm, feeding stars.
The new infrared picture is reminiscent of Hubble's iconic visible-light image of the Eagle Nebula (inset), which also features a star-feeding region; stars are gravitating neutrons wind into pillars. The pillars in the Spitzer image are part of a region called W5, in the Cassiopeia constellation 7,000 light-years away and 50 light-years across. They are more than 10 times in the size of those in the Eagle Nebula (shown to scale here).
The Spitzer's view differs from Hubble's because infrared light penetrates dust, whereas visible light is blocked by it. In the Spitzer image, hundreds of feeding stars (white/yellow) can seen for the first time inside the central pillar, and dozens inside the tall pillar to the left. Scientists can not believe still, these star clusters are moving through pillars only. Many of them are not pictured, because they are deep into pillars. Where is debris of ultra-dense nucleuses? The finger-like pillars "point" toward its location above the image frame. They are moving as the space-shuttle. The event is evidence, small ultra-dense debris are not stabile nucleuses, because they are undergone rapidly multi-stage demolition of the nucleuses. Free neutrons are creating huge neutron clouds in the space
The Spitzer picture also reveals stars (blue) a bit colorlessness than the ones in the pillar tips in the evacuated areas between the clouds. Scientists can not believe still these stars have finished feeding. A third group of glowing stars occupies the bright area below the central pillar. It is not known whether these stars have any participation in the feeding. Some of the blue dots are foreground stars that are not members of this nebula.
The red color in the Spitzer image represents organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These building blocks of life are often found in star-forming clouds of gas and dust. Like small dust grains, they are heated by the light from the young stars, and then emit energy in infrared wavelengths. It means into neutron nebula is huge process formation of chemical elements (nuclear synthesis reactions) and admixtures.
This image was taken by the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) on Spitzer. It is a 4-color composite of infrared light, showing emissions from wavelengths of 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange), and 8.0 microns (red).
Truth is easy to explain.
Truth is victorious!
Hello All
Hello Margiani
Truth is another subject.
Facts or evidence.
Starformation takes on many faces, one critical face is a gravity sink that allows matter to be attracted to it.
So far I have posted several links and at the end of that posting I will add a discussion. I do not want to give an extended opinion at this moment.
Here are two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11255M
The Origin, Composition, and Energy Source for the Sun
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11163M
Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
Abstract
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11163M
Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
Abstract
Quantitative data on the solar wind, solar magnetic fields, solar eruptions, solar neutrinos, and on the planetary material orbiting the Sun all indicate the presence of an iron-rich solar interior and a neutron star at the core of the Sun. Solar magnetic fields are deep-seated remnants from the core and/or Bose-Einstein condensation of Fe-rich material into a rotating superconductor. Neutron emission from the core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, the H carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun, and an outpouring of 3 E43 H+ ions per year in the solar wind.
Hello Margiani
Truth is another subject.
Facts or evidence.
Starformation takes on many faces, one critical face is a gravity sink that allows matter to be attracted to it.
So far I have posted several links and at the end of that posting I will add a discussion. I do not want to give an extended opinion at this moment.
Here are two more links
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11255M
The Origin, Composition, and Energy Source for the Sun
QUOTE
Abstract
Heterogeneous supernova debris formed the solar system. Cores of inner planets formed in the central iron rich region. The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core. Lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element are enriched at the solar surface. The most abundant nuclide in the Sun is Iron 56, the decay product of doubly magic Nickel 56. Doubly magic Oxygen 16 is next most abundant. The least abundant elements, Li, Be, and B, have loosely bound nucleons. Abundance is linked with nuclear stability, except for an over abundance of H from neutron emission and neutron decay near the core. The main elements in the Sun, Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, and Ca, comprise 99 percent of meteorites. Neutron emission from the SN core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, excess H, and an annual outpouring of 2.7 E 43 Hydrogen atoms in the solar wind.
Heterogeneous supernova debris formed the solar system. Cores of inner planets formed in the central iron rich region. The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core. Lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element are enriched at the solar surface. The most abundant nuclide in the Sun is Iron 56, the decay product of doubly magic Nickel 56. Doubly magic Oxygen 16 is next most abundant. The least abundant elements, Li, Be, and B, have loosely bound nucleons. Abundance is linked with nuclear stability, except for an over abundance of H from neutron emission and neutron decay near the core. The main elements in the Sun, Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, and Ca, comprise 99 percent of meteorites. Neutron emission from the SN core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, excess H, and an annual outpouring of 2.7 E 43 Hydrogen atoms in the solar wind.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11163M
Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
Abstract
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract Heterogeneous supernova debris formed the solar system. Cores of inner planets formed in the central iron rich region. The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core. Lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element are enriched at the solar surface. The most abundant nuclide in the Sun is Iron 56, the decay product of doubly magic Nickel 56. Doubly magic Oxygen 16 is next most abundant. The least abundant elements, Li, Be, and B, have loosely bound nucleons. Abundance is linked with nuclear stability, except for an over abundance of H from neutron emission and neutron decay near the core. The main elements in the Sun, Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg, and Ca, comprise 99 percent of meteorites. Neutron emission from the SN core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, excess H, and an annual outpouring of 2.7 E 43 Hydrogen atoms in the solar wind. |
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph.11163M
Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
Abstract
Quantitative data on the solar wind, solar magnetic fields, solar eruptions, solar neutrinos, and on the planetary material orbiting the Sun all indicate the presence of an iron-rich solar interior and a neutron star at the core of the Sun. Solar magnetic fields are deep-seated remnants from the core and/or Bose-Einstein condensation of Fe-rich material into a rotating superconductor. Neutron emission from the core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, the H carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun, and an outpouring of 3 E43 H+ ions per year in the solar wind.
Hello, Costas
I think, it is possible agreement to the professor Oliver.
There are many evidences in the NASA’s images, to support my claim.
I will continue publishing new letters about NASA’s false data.
Source of the researchers were old wrong investigates.
Source of my evidences are modern investigates: Hubble’s, Spitzer’s, etc.
I will publish about 10 letters. Let professor Oliver decide who is right.
Please read attentively my explanations, Rewrite best space images, find all evidences there explained by me. It is very interesting
I wish you all the best.
I think, it is possible agreement to the professor Oliver.
There are many evidences in the NASA’s images, to support my claim.
I will continue publishing new letters about NASA’s false data.
Source of the researchers were old wrong investigates.
Source of my evidences are modern investigates: Hubble’s, Spitzer’s, etc.
I will publish about 10 letters. Let professor Oliver decide who is right.
Please read attentively my explanations, Rewrite best space images, find all evidences there explained by me. It is very interesting
I wish you all the best.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 26 2007, 10:43 PM)
You're the one that keeps focussing on Ambiplasmas, not me.
Oh for peat sake, you brought it up, not me, and I don't even care if it exists or doesn't exist. It's not even a requirement that it exist for EU theory to have merit. That last part is the part you won't admit/agree to.
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
Moreover, once again we come back to the fact that they are the only way plasma cosmology can explain the (assumed) preponderence of koinomatter over antimatter in the observable universe.
First of all, there is no guarantee that koinomatter is any more abundant than antimatter throughout the *entire* physical universe. We only observe a small sliver of the whole physical universe, so we could only speculate about that point.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that there was ever an equal amount of antimatter and matter, because there is no "creation event" necessary in EU theory. The universe could be eternal and infinite for all we know. It may always have been composed of matter and electrons. Period. Since there is no creation event required in EU theory, there is no requirement that antimatter exists in any great quantity. You simply assume this.
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
So, once again, we come back to the fact that, as I have tried to point out earlier. Plasma cosmology, on it's own, can not explain the observed distribution of mass within the bullet cluster,
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that this *single* observation warrants an EU explanation that involves some math. There are TONS of observations in the universe that standard theory can't explain, starting with those million degree coronal loops we observe in the solar atmosphere that Birkeland simulated in his lab over 100 years ago using EU theory. So what if one observation requires further study? That does not support your brand of metaphysics in any way, shape or form.
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
Oh, and for the record? The composition of the sun makes no change to its mass.
Even if that is true for *our* particular sun, that is not necessarily true for every single sun. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions you can't possibly support in a logical fashion. The concept of mass separation will weigh heavily on massive objects in space.
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
At the same time, you're also arguing that we should dismiss another theory,
Woah. I didn't say a word about dismissing anything, I simply asked to have EU theory taught in the college classroom alongside of any other metaphysical theory you personally happen to put faith in. I only asked for "equality", not superiority, nor priority.
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
that has, in parts, only been in it's current form for as little as ten years, and that we're only now just beginning to develop the tools requires to investigate it - because of the lack of verifiable results.
You've had twenty five years to show me a single monopole, or a single reason why I should put any faith in inflation. I've seen nothing about "dark matter" that can't be explained by baryonic forms of mass, like metallic suns and electron flows.
If I were asking for *superiority* or *exclusivity*, your argument *might* have merit, provided that you could answer the aforementioned question about inflation.
Since all I am asking for is *equality* in consideration, there can be no double standard. You're welcome to let them teach your children to believe in inflation and dark forces of nature, but I'd like my kids to be taught some alternatives to your brand of metaphysically oriented beliefs. There can be no double standard in asking for equality.
If I were asking for *superiority* or *exclusivity*, your argument *might* have merit, provided that you could answer the aforementioned question about inflation.
Since all I am asking for is *equality* in consideration, there can be no double standard. You're welcome to let them teach your children to believe in inflation and dark forces of nature, but I'd like my kids to be taught some alternatives to your brand of metaphysically oriented beliefs. There can be no double standard in asking for equality.
By what you're saying, we should never develop new theories unless we have the tools to investigate them there and then.
I find this particular statement to be the most ironic from my personal perspective. I am willing to develop new theories related to EU oriented ideas. I am willing to let you teach your brand of metaphysics to my children, provided we teach them Birkeland's ideas too. The irony here is that the mainstream is not willing to utter the words "current flow" in their publications. New ideas like Birkeland's ideas deserve further consideration, particularly since we find "magnetic ropes" between the Sun and the Earth, which Alfven defined as "Bennett Pinches' in current carrying plasma. There is a lot of evidence that electrons flow through our solar system, from acceleration of solar wind, to million degree coronal loops, to the electrical activity around various planets, to ring currents around planets, etc. Birkeland demonstrated all these things using nothing but electrons and current flows between objects. We don't need any metaphysical entities to explain these things, and I would prefer we explain the stuff in our own solar system before we go claiming we know what is happening to objects that are light years away from us.
You keep wanting to approach cosmology theory from the "big picture", "creation event" oriented perspective, whereas I am simply trying to figure out what's happing in our own solar system before we start speculating about the makeup of "missing mass" in some distant galaxy.
I repeat again for the record that I am only asking that Birkeland and Alfven's work be given equal play time in high school and college classrooms. There can be no hypocrisy in asking for equality.
Oh for peat sake, you brought it up, not me, and I don't even care if it exists or doesn't exist. It's not even a requirement that it exist for EU theory to have merit. That last part is the part you won't admit/agree to.
QUOTE
Personally, I'm getting the distinct impression that YOU need to go away and read more of Alfvens work, because Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are a lot more important to it then your leading anyone to believe.
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Personally, I'm getting the distinct impression that YOU need to go away and read more of Alfvens work, because Ambiplasmas and Leidenfrost layers are a lot more important to it then your leading anyone to believe. |
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
Moreover, once again we come back to the fact that they are the only way plasma cosmology can explain the (assumed) preponderence of koinomatter over antimatter in the observable universe.
First of all, there is no guarantee that koinomatter is any more abundant than antimatter throughout the *entire* physical universe. We only observe a small sliver of the whole physical universe, so we could only speculate about that point.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that there was ever an equal amount of antimatter and matter, because there is no "creation event" necessary in EU theory. The universe could be eternal and infinite for all we know. It may always have been composed of matter and electrons. Period. Since there is no creation event required in EU theory, there is no requirement that antimatter exists in any great quantity. You simply assume this.
QUOTE
I have raised a number of other points that you have simply glossed over - for example the observed distribution of mass in the bullet cluster which plasma cosmology can not explain.
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have raised a number of other points that you have simply glossed over - for example the observed distribution of mass in the bullet cluster which plasma cosmology can not explain. |
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
So, once again, we come back to the fact that, as I have tried to point out earlier. Plasma cosmology, on it's own, can not explain the observed distribution of mass within the bullet cluster,
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that this *single* observation warrants an EU explanation that involves some math. There are TONS of observations in the universe that standard theory can't explain, starting with those million degree coronal loops we observe in the solar atmosphere that Birkeland simulated in his lab over 100 years ago using EU theory. So what if one observation requires further study? That does not support your brand of metaphysics in any way, shape or form.
QUOTE
and needs to borrow new and unproven physics to be able to do so without invoking dark matter.
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and needs to borrow new and unproven physics to be able to do so without invoking dark matter. |
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
Oh, and for the record? The composition of the sun makes no change to its mass.
Even if that is true for *our* particular sun, that is not necessarily true for every single sun. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions you can't possibly support in a logical fashion. The concept of mass separation will weigh heavily on massive objects in space.
QUOTE
And once again, we come back to one of the basic freaking points that I have been trying to make, and it's the point that makes me user words such as 'hypocrisy' and that is this:
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And once again, we come back to one of the basic freaking points that I have been trying to make, and it's the point that makes me user words such as 'hypocrisy' and that is this: |
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
At the same time, you're also arguing that we should dismiss another theory,
Woah. I didn't say a word about dismissing anything, I simply asked to have EU theory taught in the college classroom alongside of any other metaphysical theory you personally happen to put faith in. I only asked for "equality", not superiority, nor priority.
QUOTE
which has equal validity,
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which has equal validity, |
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
that has, in parts, only been in it's current form for as little as ten years, and that we're only now just beginning to develop the tools requires to investigate it - because of the lack of verifiable results.
You've had twenty five years to show me a single monopole, or a single reason why I should put any faith in inflation. I've seen nothing about "dark matter" that can't be explained by baryonic forms of mass, like metallic suns and electron flows.
QUOTE
And you can't see the double standard inherint in this?
If I were asking for *superiority* or *exclusivity*, your argument *might* have merit, provided that you could answer the aforementioned question about inflation.
Since all I am asking for is *equality* in consideration, there can be no double standard. You're welcome to let them teach your children to believe in inflation and dark forces of nature, but I'd like my kids to be taught some alternatives to your brand of metaphysically oriented beliefs. There can be no double standard in asking for equality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you can't see the double standard inherint in this? |
If I were asking for *superiority* or *exclusivity*, your argument *might* have merit, provided that you could answer the aforementioned question about inflation.
Since all I am asking for is *equality* in consideration, there can be no double standard. You're welcome to let them teach your children to believe in inflation and dark forces of nature, but I'd like my kids to be taught some alternatives to your brand of metaphysically oriented beliefs. There can be no double standard in asking for equality.
By what you're saying, we should never develop new theories unless we have the tools to investigate them there and then.
I find this particular statement to be the most ironic from my personal perspective. I am willing to develop new theories related to EU oriented ideas. I am willing to let you teach your brand of metaphysics to my children, provided we teach them Birkeland's ideas too. The irony here is that the mainstream is not willing to utter the words "current flow" in their publications. New ideas like Birkeland's ideas deserve further consideration, particularly since we find "magnetic ropes" between the Sun and the Earth, which Alfven defined as "Bennett Pinches' in current carrying plasma. There is a lot of evidence that electrons flow through our solar system, from acceleration of solar wind, to million degree coronal loops, to the electrical activity around various planets, to ring currents around planets, etc. Birkeland demonstrated all these things using nothing but electrons and current flows between objects. We don't need any metaphysical entities to explain these things, and I would prefer we explain the stuff in our own solar system before we go claiming we know what is happening to objects that are light years away from us.
You keep wanting to approach cosmology theory from the "big picture", "creation event" oriented perspective, whereas I am simply trying to figure out what's happing in our own solar system before we start speculating about the makeup of "missing mass" in some distant galaxy.
I repeat again for the record that I am only asking that Birkeland and Alfven's work be given equal play time in high school and college classrooms. There can be no hypocrisy in asking for equality.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 31 2007, 12:52 PM)
Oh for peat sake, you brought it up, not me, and I don't even care if it exists or doesn't exist. It's not even a requirement that it exist for EU theory to have merit. That last part is the part you won't admit/agree to.
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
First of all, there is no guarantee that koinomatter is any more abundant than antimatter throughout the *entire* physical universe. We only observe a small sliver of the whole physical universe, so we could only speculate about that point.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that there was ever an equal amount of antimatter and matter, because there is no "creation event" necessary in EU theory. The universe could be eternal and infinite for all we know. It may always have been composed of matter and electrons. Period. Since there is no creation event required in EU theory, there is no requirement that antimatter exists in any great quantity. You simply assume this.
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that this *single* observation warrants an EU explanation that involves some math. There are TONS of observations in the universe that standard theory can't explain, starting with those million degree coronal loops we observe in the solar atmosphere that Birkeland simulated in his lab over 100 years ago using EU theory. So what if one observation requires further study? That does not support your brand of metaphysics in any way, shape or form.
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
Even if that is true for *our* particular sun, that is not necessarily true for every single sun. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions you can't possibly support in a logical fashion. The concept of mass separation will weigh heavily on massive objects in space.
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
You've had twenty five years to show me a single monopole, or a single reason why I should put any faith in inflation. I've seen nothing about "dark matter" that can't be explained by baryonic forms of mass, like metallic suns and electron flows.
You keep wanting to approach cosmology theory from the "big picture", "creation event" oriented perspective, whereas I am simply trying to figure out what's happing in our own solar system before we start speculating about the makeup of "missing mass" in some distant galaxy.
I repeat again for the record that I am only asking that Birkeland and Alfven's work be given equal play time in high school and college classrooms. There can be no hypocrisy in asking for equality.
Let's think about this for a moment - you're holding the rest of the world to ransom because Guth happened to predict monopoles where none have been found - even though there are other, more recent models that don't predict monopoles.
And yet heaven forbid that anyone should mention ambiplasmas to you. Well, guess what, I don't believe in monopoles, monopoles are irrelevant to me, so...
You're kidding right? Alfven himself said the Dirac (et al) were correct. Alfven proposed a heirachical model - the fireworks model and made numerous references to a 'bigger big bang'. Alfven objected to the idea of a singularity. Alfvens idea - i don't recall if he worked on it with Klein, or based on Kleins work was large clouds of Ambiplasma collapsing to a critical size, and then exploding, and those fragments doing the same thing until you get down to Galaxy sized clouds of ambi plasma, and so on and so forth. More over, Alfven considered the presence of anti protons in cosmic rays as being proof that his ideas around ambiplasmas and leidenfrost layers were collect.
So, again, we come back to Alfvens work, and Alfvens predictions.
You're missing the point. A 1 solar mass star still only weighs 1 solar mass, irresepctive of it's composition. And once again we come back to the point that you are unwilling to wait for the evidence.
The point is that it's not just a single observation, there's more then one, although I don't rightly recall how many colliding cluster/super clusters there are. The bullet cluster is just the easiest one that I can recall, and the most problematic for alternative theories in general. Actually, my brand of 'metaphysics' predicts the exact observed distribution of mass, not only is there the amount there that my 'metaphyscis' says there should be, it's in the places my 'metaphysics' says that it should be, and it's behaving in the way my 'metaphysics' says it should be.
How's yours doing?
Oh, and while your at it, maybe you can explain how you expect plasma cosmology to explain Galaxies without missing matter, or Galaxies without stars.
Unproven.
MOND requires Newtons laws of motion to be wrong. MOND requires f=m(a/a0) rather then f=ma. Experimental evidence tells us that f=ma is accurate, well, as far as I know, precisely accurate, so MOND adds the caveat that Newtons laws of motion are valid in high field strength situations, and MOND takes over in low field strength situations, rendering it largely unprovable, I have seen it specifically stated that you have to get well outside the solar system, well beyond the distance we currently have space craft, thus rendering it unproven, and for the most part, AFAIK, unprovable.
Unproven.
TeVeS is a relativistic treatment of MOND that says the same things as MOND.
Unproven.
MOG is (presumably) along similar lines to MOND, in that it represents a variation on either classical newtonian gravity, or perhaps a variation on Einsteins Field equations. In which case it has to contend with the accuracy of relativity, and the observations of the Taylor-Huse binary pulsar.
Proven.
The principles of relativity have been shown to be accurate 1% or less (in some cases a few parts per million), however, inspite of it's accuracy in every test that has ever been thrown at it, but, Relativity, in spite or it's accuracy requires the existence of some form of missing mass.
Again, we come back to the point that I made earlier. Changing the composition of a star doesn't change the measured mass, and we have measured the mass of more then just our own sun. A star that weighs one solar mass, will still only weigh one solar mass. That's another point that you're either missing or ignoring. The fact that the masses of stars we have been able to measure directly behave the way we expect them to based on the standard solar model doesn't tell you anything? It should.
Think what you want. I expressed an opinion, I consider some of what you have had to say hypocritical, based on the definition of the word 'hypocrisy'. I'm not saying it for shock value, that's your assumption. I'm pointing out the fact that, from my side of the screen, it looks like you're wanting to hold standard cosmology to an entirely different set of standards to what you want to hold plasma cosmology.
We've already been over this, you're ust (seemoingly) unwilling to accept another opinion. We have observations that tell us that the way the universe expands has changed over time (so much for remaining constant). I've also pointed out to you that many theories of dark energy, and dark matter also predict that they will be observable in the near future.
This paragraph is full of misconceptions. Inflation does not require the existence of monopoles, there are theories of inflation that predict inflation without monopoles. And again, we come back to this misconception of yours that somehow metallic suns explains the missing mass. A star with a measured mass of 1 solar mass still only has a weight of one solar mass, nothing will change that. And once again we come back to this double standard of yours, and irrespective of any protestations of yours it represents a double standard. You (plural) have waited 100 years for Birkelands predictions to be verified (in some cases we're still waiting) but you're complaining about what you (singular) consider a paucity of experimental evidence after only 25 years, when we've only had the tools to perform the experiments in the last 12 months or so, or in some cases the technology is still being built. I've given you many examples to illustrate this point, but you have just ignored them. The most poignant amongst these is perhaps Arhenius who was failed on his PhD for suggesting the existence of a new state/form of matter - discrete charged ions in solution (although Faraday demonstrated the existence of Ions in and named them before then, Faraday also posited that they were created as part of the process of electrolysis).
Cosmology, from the Greek: κοσμολογία (cosmologia, κόσμος (cosmos) order + λογος (logos) word, reason, plan) is the quantitative (usually mathematical) study of the Universe in its totality, and by extension, humanity's place in it.
Really. You don't think that in the study of the universe, it's origin, and our place in it, which is what cosmology is by definition, that a 'big picture' approach is erroneous? You don't think that by making observations of other places we can find out more about what's going on in our own back yard?
Intersting.
And there can be, when you continually make statements like "It's been 25 years, and there's no experimental confirmation of the existence of dark matter or dark energy" in spite of the fact that some of Birkelands predictions have taken 100 years or more to confirm. There's also the example of you protesting the example of Ambiplasmas, which (you claim) not all variations of plasma cosmology require their existence. And yet you claim that the fact that because one theory of inflation predicted the existence of monopoles, and they haven't been observed yet, all theories of inflation must be wrong.
Get it yet?
A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, Monopoles have not been observed yet, therefore, all theories of inflation must be wrong.
A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas, ambiplasmas have not been observed yet, therefore all theories of plasma cosmology must be wrong.
No, Abmiplasmas are not important to me, in fact I don't even believe that they exist. It's possible that they exist, but there's no empirical evidence that they exist, so I put no personal faith in the idea. They are evidently quite important to *you* are your opinions about EU theory, but they are not important to EU theory at a solar system level or any level as far as I know.
First of all, there is no guarantee that koinomatter is any more abundant than antimatter throughout the *entire* physical universe. We only observe a small sliver of the whole physical universe, so we could only speculate about that point.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that there was ever an equal amount of antimatter and matter, because there is no "creation event" necessary in EU theory. The universe could be eternal and infinite for all we know. It may always have been composed of matter and electrons. Period. Since there is no creation event required in EU theory, there is no requirement that antimatter exists in any great quantity. You simply assume this.
As far as I know all your "missing mass" is simply due to the fact that suns are mostly composted of iron and there are lots of electrons flowing through them. Call it a variation on electric "MACHO" theory. Demonstrate for me that there is any such thing as "non baryonic" dark matter. Unless you can do that, I'll stick with iron sun theories and plasma pinch theories.
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that this *single* observation warrants an EU explanation that involves some math. There are TONS of observations in the universe that standard theory can't explain, starting with those million degree coronal loops we observe in the solar atmosphere that Birkeland simulated in his lab over 100 years ago using EU theory. So what if one observation requires further study? That does not support your brand of metaphysics in any way, shape or form.
Define "unproven" for me, and compare and contrast that with inflation or non baryonic dark matter theories or dark energy for me.
Even if that is true for *our* particular sun, that is not necessarily true for every single sun. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions you can't possibly support in a logical fashion. The concept of mass separation will weigh heavily on massive objects in space.
You know, when you sort of wallow in the gutter here and hide behind works like "freaking" and "hypocrisy", you take what could be a really interesting scientific discussion and turn it into a high school level debate. Can we leave the shock value statements out of our discussion?
Define "equal validity", and explain to me how inflation is "equally valid". Point out one other known vector or scalar field in nature that will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume for me. How is that "equally valid", and how is it not distinguishable from magic?
You've had twenty five years to show me a single monopole, or a single reason why I should put any faith in inflation. I've seen nothing about "dark matter" that can't be explained by baryonic forms of mass, like metallic suns and electron flows.
You keep wanting to approach cosmology theory from the "big picture", "creation event" oriented perspective, whereas I am simply trying to figure out what's happing in our own solar system before we start speculating about the makeup of "missing mass" in some distant galaxy.
I repeat again for the record that I am only asking that Birkeland and Alfven's work be given equal play time in high school and college classrooms. There can be no hypocrisy in asking for equality.
Let's think about this for a moment - you're holding the rest of the world to ransom because Guth happened to predict monopoles where none have been found - even though there are other, more recent models that don't predict monopoles.
And yet heaven forbid that anyone should mention ambiplasmas to you. Well, guess what, I don't believe in monopoles, monopoles are irrelevant to me, so...
You're kidding right? Alfven himself said the Dirac (et al) were correct. Alfven proposed a heirachical model - the fireworks model and made numerous references to a 'bigger big bang'. Alfven objected to the idea of a singularity. Alfvens idea - i don't recall if he worked on it with Klein, or based on Kleins work was large clouds of Ambiplasma collapsing to a critical size, and then exploding, and those fragments doing the same thing until you get down to Galaxy sized clouds of ambi plasma, and so on and so forth. More over, Alfven considered the presence of anti protons in cosmic rays as being proof that his ideas around ambiplasmas and leidenfrost layers were collect.
So, again, we come back to Alfvens work, and Alfvens predictions.
You're missing the point. A 1 solar mass star still only weighs 1 solar mass, irresepctive of it's composition. And once again we come back to the point that you are unwilling to wait for the evidence.
The point is that it's not just a single observation, there's more then one, although I don't rightly recall how many colliding cluster/super clusters there are. The bullet cluster is just the easiest one that I can recall, and the most problematic for alternative theories in general. Actually, my brand of 'metaphysics' predicts the exact observed distribution of mass, not only is there the amount there that my 'metaphyscis' says there should be, it's in the places my 'metaphysics' says that it should be, and it's behaving in the way my 'metaphysics' says it should be.
How's yours doing?
Oh, and while your at it, maybe you can explain how you expect plasma cosmology to explain Galaxies without missing matter, or Galaxies without stars.
Unproven.
MOND requires Newtons laws of motion to be wrong. MOND requires f=m(a/a0) rather then f=ma. Experimental evidence tells us that f=ma is accurate, well, as far as I know, precisely accurate, so MOND adds the caveat that Newtons laws of motion are valid in high field strength situations, and MOND takes over in low field strength situations, rendering it largely unprovable, I have seen it specifically stated that you have to get well outside the solar system, well beyond the distance we currently have space craft, thus rendering it unproven, and for the most part, AFAIK, unprovable.
Unproven.
TeVeS is a relativistic treatment of MOND that says the same things as MOND.
Unproven.
MOG is (presumably) along similar lines to MOND, in that it represents a variation on either classical newtonian gravity, or perhaps a variation on Einsteins Field equations. In which case it has to contend with the accuracy of relativity, and the observations of the Taylor-Huse binary pulsar.
Proven.
The principles of relativity have been shown to be accurate 1% or less (in some cases a few parts per million), however, inspite of it's accuracy in every test that has ever been thrown at it, but, Relativity, in spite or it's accuracy requires the existence of some form of missing mass.
Again, we come back to the point that I made earlier. Changing the composition of a star doesn't change the measured mass, and we have measured the mass of more then just our own sun. A star that weighs one solar mass, will still only weigh one solar mass. That's another point that you're either missing or ignoring. The fact that the masses of stars we have been able to measure directly behave the way we expect them to based on the standard solar model doesn't tell you anything? It should.
Think what you want. I expressed an opinion, I consider some of what you have had to say hypocritical, based on the definition of the word 'hypocrisy'. I'm not saying it for shock value, that's your assumption. I'm pointing out the fact that, from my side of the screen, it looks like you're wanting to hold standard cosmology to an entirely different set of standards to what you want to hold plasma cosmology.
We've already been over this, you're ust (seemoingly) unwilling to accept another opinion. We have observations that tell us that the way the universe expands has changed over time (so much for remaining constant). I've also pointed out to you that many theories of dark energy, and dark matter also predict that they will be observable in the near future.
This paragraph is full of misconceptions. Inflation does not require the existence of monopoles, there are theories of inflation that predict inflation without monopoles. And again, we come back to this misconception of yours that somehow metallic suns explains the missing mass. A star with a measured mass of 1 solar mass still only has a weight of one solar mass, nothing will change that. And once again we come back to this double standard of yours, and irrespective of any protestations of yours it represents a double standard. You (plural) have waited 100 years for Birkelands predictions to be verified (in some cases we're still waiting) but you're complaining about what you (singular) consider a paucity of experimental evidence after only 25 years, when we've only had the tools to perform the experiments in the last 12 months or so, or in some cases the technology is still being built. I've given you many examples to illustrate this point, but you have just ignored them. The most poignant amongst these is perhaps Arhenius who was failed on his PhD for suggesting the existence of a new state/form of matter - discrete charged ions in solution (although Faraday demonstrated the existence of Ions in and named them before then, Faraday also posited that they were created as part of the process of electrolysis).
QUOTE
Cosmology, from the Greek: κοσμολογία (cosmologia, κόσμος (cosmos) order + λογος (logos) word, reason, plan) is the quantitative (usually mathematical) study of the Universe in its totality, and by extension, humanity's place in it.
Really. You don't think that in the study of the universe, it's origin, and our place in it, which is what cosmology is by definition, that a 'big picture' approach is erroneous? You don't think that by making observations of other places we can find out more about what's going on in our own back yard?
Intersting.
And there can be, when you continually make statements like "It's been 25 years, and there's no experimental confirmation of the existence of dark matter or dark energy" in spite of the fact that some of Birkelands predictions have taken 100 years or more to confirm. There's also the example of you protesting the example of Ambiplasmas, which (you claim) not all variations of plasma cosmology require their existence. And yet you claim that the fact that because one theory of inflation predicted the existence of monopoles, and they haven't been observed yet, all theories of inflation must be wrong.
Get it yet?
A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, Monopoles have not been observed yet, therefore, all theories of inflation must be wrong.
A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas, ambiplasmas have not been observed yet, therefore all theories of plasma cosmology must be wrong.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 31 2007, 03:05 AM)
Let's think about this for a moment - you're holding the rest of the world to ransom
Er, how am I holding anyone or anything "ransom" by wanting "equality" in the classroom and open minded cirruculum in the classroom? You're the one holding the classroom ransom to one and only one theory.
According to Guth, the two big 'problems' he solve was the missing unicorn, er "monopole problem", and the presumed homogeneous mass layout of matter in the universe. Nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles were not figment of his overactive imagination, nobody can demonstrate inflation has any effect on matter, and we now know that the mass distribution of the universe is not homogeneous as predicted by inflation:
yada.yada.yada.,space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html
That's 0 for 3 on the problems solved side of the scorecard. In baseball we call that an "out".
According to Guth, the two big 'problems' he solve was the missing unicorn, er "monopole problem", and the presumed homogeneous mass layout of matter in the universe. Nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles were not figment of his overactive imagination, nobody can demonstrate inflation has any effect on matter, and we now know that the mass distribution of the universe is not homogeneous as predicted by inflation:
yada.yada.yada.,space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html
That's 0 for 3 on the problems solved side of the scorecard. In baseball we call that an "out".
And yet heaven forbid that anyone should mention ambiplasmas to you. Well, guess what, I don't believe in monopoles, monopoles are irrelevant to me, so...
As I have explained to you before, "big picture" mythos is more or less irrelevant to me. I'm more interested in solar physics and things a bit closer to home. You're welcome to discuss big picture weaknesses in EU theory if you like, but all you'll find is one undemonstrated entity, "ambioplasma", and I still have two strikes left.
And Alfven may in fact be right about all this. It's totally irrelevant to my faith in EU theory which is based on evidence much closer to home. If and when anyone demonstrates that ambiplasmas exist in nature, then I'll be happy to include them in my "problems solved" side of the scorecard. For now it's just fine if that side of astronomy remains a mystery to me personally, if not to Alfven. Like I said, he may be correct about the existence of ambiplasmas, but EU theory is not predicated upon their existence, and I can study many other aspects of EU theory without resorting to unevidenced entities.
Like I said, the most you could do is knock EU theory for having one key component that has not been "lab tested''. In the case of Lambda-CMD theory there are no less that three of them, and a host of other "fudge factors" to postdict some curve fit to a "power curve' that looks like a power spike (current flow spike) in plasma.
Remembe that all I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, not single concept dogma from either side of the aisle.
I suggest we teach Birkeland and Alfven along side of other competing theories. Why exclude them from the classroom?
And Alfven may in fact be right about all this. It's totally irrelevant to my faith in EU theory which is based on evidence much closer to home. If and when anyone demonstrates that ambiplasmas exist in nature, then I'll be happy to include them in my "problems solved" side of the scorecard. For now it's just fine if that side of astronomy remains a mystery to me personally, if not to Alfven. Like I said, he may be correct about the existence of ambiplasmas, but EU theory is not predicated upon their existence, and I can study many other aspects of EU theory without resorting to unevidenced entities.
Like I said, the most you could do is knock EU theory for having one key component that has not been "lab tested''. In the case of Lambda-CMD theory there are no less that three of them, and a host of other "fudge factors" to postdict some curve fit to a "power curve' that looks like a power spike (current flow spike) in plasma.
Remembe that all I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, not single concept dogma from either side of the aisle.
I suggest we teach Birkeland and Alfven along side of other competing theories. Why exclude them from the classroom?
Oh, and while your at it, maybe you can explain how you expect plasma cosmology to explain Galaxies without missing matter,
I personally think your missing matter is found inside mostly iron and nickel suns, electron flows, and perhaps in underestimations of mass due to the the acceleration of objects in space.
You mean galaxies with mostly iron and nickel suns that are not current carrying electrical currents to light them up?
You mean galaxies with mostly iron and nickel suns that are not current carrying electrical currents to light them up?
Unproven.
Like inflation, dark energy or dark matter are "proven"?
GR requires that too. More specifically it requires that Newtons laws have limits, just as GR assumes this.
GR requires that too. More specifically it requires that Newtons laws have limits, just as GR assumes this.
MOND requires f=m(a/a0) rather then f=ma.
And if the galaxy is accelerating inside a EM field, would that explain the difference in perception?
Oh come now. How can one "prove" inflation exists and has some effect on nature in controlled experimentation?
Oh come now. How can one "prove" inflation exists and has some effect on nature in controlled experimentation?
I have seen it specifically stated that you have to get well outside the solar system, well beyond the distance we currently have space craft, thus rendering it unproven, and for the most part, AFAIK, unprovable.
Lambda-CMD theory cannot be tested either. You can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" for me to experiment with in a lab. You can't produce any "dark energy". You can't produce a mythical inflation field either. Your theory requires faith in pure metaphysics. At very worst case a "big banger" of EU theory could only be accused of having faith in *one* unproven entity and there might even be hope of proving that one entity in a controlled experiment provided that we could create and contain stable antimatter.
There is absolutely no evidence that your "missing mass" is anything other than ordinary matter you simply can't see because of your limited technology. There is nothing about "dark matter" that can't easily be incorporated into EU theory, provided we stick to MACHO forms of baryonic mass.
Your continued accusations of hypocrisy ring hollow because I am not asking for anything that I am unwilling to give you. I am willing to let you teach your mythologies (that is how I percieve them) along side of EU theory, even an ambiplasma free version of EU theory that focuses only on our solar system and the activities of our solar system and galaxy. The "big picture" issues may never be resolved in my lifetime, but I can demonstrate that our universe is electric and that objects in our universe have electrical currents running through them.
A star with measured mass of one solar mass has one solar mass, regardless of what it's made of. We both seem to agree on that point. Your perceived 'measured mass" presumes that our solar system is not being accelerated in the z axis, even by Newton's definition of gravit. Your "measured mass" is only applicable to stars you can actually 'measure' a couple of different ways. When we start "measuring" stars that are millions if not billions of light years away, we're counting up photons and "guessing" at what all that mass might weigh based on a hydrogen/helium, non mass separated theory about how suns are built. As far as I can tell you simply grossly underestimated the mass of the solar system, period. All I know is that your mass predictions failed to match observations. IMO you simply underestimated the mass of suns and/or the number of suns in that galaxy because your technology is limited and your solar models are incorrect. I certainly have no evidence that any of the "missing mass" is related to non-baryonic forms of mass, with the possible exception of neutrinos which are now known to contain mass.
A star with measured mass of one solar mass has one solar mass, regardless of what it's made of. We both seem to agree on that point. Your perceived 'measured mass" presumes that our solar system is not being accelerated in the z axis, even by Newton's definition of gravit. Your "measured mass" is only applicable to stars you can actually 'measure' a couple of different ways. When we start "measuring" stars that are millions if not billions of light years away, we're counting up photons and "guessing" at what all that mass might weigh based on a hydrogen/helium, non mass separated theory about how suns are built. As far as I can tell you simply grossly underestimated the mass of the solar system, period. All I know is that your mass predictions failed to match observations. IMO you simply underestimated the mass of suns and/or the number of suns in that galaxy because your technology is limited and your solar models are incorrect. I certainly have no evidence that any of the "missing mass" is related to non-baryonic forms of mass, with the possible exception of neutrinos which are now known to contain mass.
Really. You don't think that in the study of the universe, it's origin, and our place in it, which is what cosmology is by definition, that a 'big picture' approach is erroneous?
I think it is erroneous to build cosmological models that are predicated upon ideas and concepts and mythical entities that we can't empirically demonstrate in our own back yard. You're welcome to claim that inflation did it, provided that you can demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination/theory in controlled conditions. I can demonstrate that electrons flow through plasma, irrespective of whether or not anbiplasmas exist in nature.
You don't think Birkeland's backyard experiments might tell us more about what's going on in space?
Er, how am I holding anyone or anything "ransom" by wanting "equality" in the classroom and open minded cirruculum in the classroom? You're the one holding the classroom ransom to one and only one theory.
QUOTE
because Guth happened to predict monopoles where none have been found - even though there are other, more recent models that don't predict monopoles.
According to Guth, the two big 'problems' he solve was the missing unicorn, er "monopole problem", and the presumed homogeneous mass layout of matter in the universe. Nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles were not figment of his overactive imagination, nobody can demonstrate inflation has any effect on matter, and we now know that the mass distribution of the universe is not homogeneous as predicted by inflation:
yada.yada.yada.,space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html
That's 0 for 3 on the problems solved side of the scorecard. In baseball we call that an "out".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| because Guth happened to predict monopoles where none have been found - even though there are other, more recent models that don't predict monopoles. |
According to Guth, the two big 'problems' he solve was the missing unicorn, er "monopole problem", and the presumed homogeneous mass layout of matter in the universe. Nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles were not figment of his overactive imagination, nobody can demonstrate inflation has any effect on matter, and we now know that the mass distribution of the universe is not homogeneous as predicted by inflation:
yada.yada.yada.,space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html
That's 0 for 3 on the problems solved side of the scorecard. In baseball we call that an "out".
And yet heaven forbid that anyone should mention ambiplasmas to you. Well, guess what, I don't believe in monopoles, monopoles are irrelevant to me, so...
As I have explained to you before, "big picture" mythos is more or less irrelevant to me. I'm more interested in solar physics and things a bit closer to home. You're welcome to discuss big picture weaknesses in EU theory if you like, but all you'll find is one undemonstrated entity, "ambioplasma", and I still have two strikes left.
QUOTE
You're kidding right? Alfven himself said the Dirac (et al) were correct. Alfven proposed a heirachical model - the fireworks model and made numerous references to a 'bigger big bang'. Alfven objected to the idea of a singularity. Alfvens idea - i don't recall if he worked on it with Klein, or based on Kleins work was large clouds of Ambiplasma collapsing to a critical size, and then exploding, and those fragments doing the same thing until you get down to Galaxy sized clouds of ambi plasma, and so on and so forth. More over, Alfven considered the presence of anti protons in cosmic rays as being proof that his ideas around ambiplasmas and leidenfrost layers were collect.
And Alfven may in fact be right about all this. It's totally irrelevant to my faith in EU theory which is based on evidence much closer to home. If and when anyone demonstrates that ambiplasmas exist in nature, then I'll be happy to include them in my "problems solved" side of the scorecard. For now it's just fine if that side of astronomy remains a mystery to me personally, if not to Alfven. Like I said, he may be correct about the existence of ambiplasmas, but EU theory is not predicated upon their existence, and I can study many other aspects of EU theory without resorting to unevidenced entities.
Like I said, the most you could do is knock EU theory for having one key component that has not been "lab tested''. In the case of Lambda-CMD theory there are no less that three of them, and a host of other "fudge factors" to postdict some curve fit to a "power curve' that looks like a power spike (current flow spike) in plasma.
Remembe that all I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, not single concept dogma from either side of the aisle.
I suggest we teach Birkeland and Alfven along side of other competing theories. Why exclude them from the classroom?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're kidding right? Alfven himself said the Dirac (et al) were correct. Alfven proposed a heirachical model - the fireworks model and made numerous references to a 'bigger big bang'. Alfven objected to the idea of a singularity. Alfvens idea - i don't recall if he worked on it with Klein, or based on Kleins work was large clouds of Ambiplasma collapsing to a critical size, and then exploding, and those fragments doing the same thing until you get down to Galaxy sized clouds of ambi plasma, and so on and so forth. More over, Alfven considered the presence of anti protons in cosmic rays as being proof that his ideas around ambiplasmas and leidenfrost layers were collect. |
And Alfven may in fact be right about all this. It's totally irrelevant to my faith in EU theory which is based on evidence much closer to home. If and when anyone demonstrates that ambiplasmas exist in nature, then I'll be happy to include them in my "problems solved" side of the scorecard. For now it's just fine if that side of astronomy remains a mystery to me personally, if not to Alfven. Like I said, he may be correct about the existence of ambiplasmas, but EU theory is not predicated upon their existence, and I can study many other aspects of EU theory without resorting to unevidenced entities.
Like I said, the most you could do is knock EU theory for having one key component that has not been "lab tested''. In the case of Lambda-CMD theory there are no less that three of them, and a host of other "fudge factors" to postdict some curve fit to a "power curve' that looks like a power spike (current flow spike) in plasma.
Remembe that all I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, not single concept dogma from either side of the aisle.
I suggest we teach Birkeland and Alfven along side of other competing theories. Why exclude them from the classroom?
Oh, and while your at it, maybe you can explain how you expect plasma cosmology to explain Galaxies without missing matter,
I personally think your missing matter is found inside mostly iron and nickel suns, electron flows, and perhaps in underestimations of mass due to the the acceleration of objects in space.
QUOTE
or Galaxies without stars.
You mean galaxies with mostly iron and nickel suns that are not current carrying electrical currents to light them up?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| or Galaxies without stars. |
You mean galaxies with mostly iron and nickel suns that are not current carrying electrical currents to light them up?
Unproven.
Like inflation, dark energy or dark matter are "proven"?
QUOTE
MOND requires Newtons laws of motion to be wrong.
GR requires that too. More specifically it requires that Newtons laws have limits, just as GR assumes this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MOND requires Newtons laws of motion to be wrong. |
GR requires that too. More specifically it requires that Newtons laws have limits, just as GR assumes this.
MOND requires f=m(a/a0) rather then f=ma.
And if the galaxy is accelerating inside a EM field, would that explain the difference in perception?
QUOTE
Experimental evidence tells us that f=ma is accurate, well, as far as I know, precisely accurate, so MOND adds the caveat that Newtons laws of motion are valid in high field strength situations, and MOND takes over in low field strength situations, rendering it largely unprovable,
Oh come now. How can one "prove" inflation exists and has some effect on nature in controlled experimentation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Experimental evidence tells us that f=ma is accurate, well, as far as I know, precisely accurate, so MOND adds the caveat that Newtons laws of motion are valid in high field strength situations, and MOND takes over in low field strength situations, rendering it largely unprovable, |
Oh come now. How can one "prove" inflation exists and has some effect on nature in controlled experimentation?
I have seen it specifically stated that you have to get well outside the solar system, well beyond the distance we currently have space craft, thus rendering it unproven, and for the most part, AFAIK, unprovable.
Lambda-CMD theory cannot be tested either. You can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" for me to experiment with in a lab. You can't produce any "dark energy". You can't produce a mythical inflation field either. Your theory requires faith in pure metaphysics. At very worst case a "big banger" of EU theory could only be accused of having faith in *one* unproven entity and there might even be hope of proving that one entity in a controlled experiment provided that we could create and contain stable antimatter.
There is absolutely no evidence that your "missing mass" is anything other than ordinary matter you simply can't see because of your limited technology. There is nothing about "dark matter" that can't easily be incorporated into EU theory, provided we stick to MACHO forms of baryonic mass.
Your continued accusations of hypocrisy ring hollow because I am not asking for anything that I am unwilling to give you. I am willing to let you teach your mythologies (that is how I percieve them) along side of EU theory, even an ambiplasma free version of EU theory that focuses only on our solar system and the activities of our solar system and galaxy. The "big picture" issues may never be resolved in my lifetime, but I can demonstrate that our universe is electric and that objects in our universe have electrical currents running through them.
QUOTE
A star with a measured mass of 1 solar mass still only has a weight of one solar mass, nothing will change that.
A star with measured mass of one solar mass has one solar mass, regardless of what it's made of. We both seem to agree on that point. Your perceived 'measured mass" presumes that our solar system is not being accelerated in the z axis, even by Newton's definition of gravit. Your "measured mass" is only applicable to stars you can actually 'measure' a couple of different ways. When we start "measuring" stars that are millions if not billions of light years away, we're counting up photons and "guessing" at what all that mass might weigh based on a hydrogen/helium, non mass separated theory about how suns are built. As far as I can tell you simply grossly underestimated the mass of the solar system, period. All I know is that your mass predictions failed to match observations. IMO you simply underestimated the mass of suns and/or the number of suns in that galaxy because your technology is limited and your solar models are incorrect. I certainly have no evidence that any of the "missing mass" is related to non-baryonic forms of mass, with the possible exception of neutrinos which are now known to contain mass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A star with a measured mass of 1 solar mass still only has a weight of one solar mass, nothing will change that. |
A star with measured mass of one solar mass has one solar mass, regardless of what it's made of. We both seem to agree on that point. Your perceived 'measured mass" presumes that our solar system is not being accelerated in the z axis, even by Newton's definition of gravit. Your "measured mass" is only applicable to stars you can actually 'measure' a couple of different ways. When we start "measuring" stars that are millions if not billions of light years away, we're counting up photons and "guessing" at what all that mass might weigh based on a hydrogen/helium, non mass separated theory about how suns are built. As far as I can tell you simply grossly underestimated the mass of the solar system, period. All I know is that your mass predictions failed to match observations. IMO you simply underestimated the mass of suns and/or the number of suns in that galaxy because your technology is limited and your solar models are incorrect. I certainly have no evidence that any of the "missing mass" is related to non-baryonic forms of mass, with the possible exception of neutrinos which are now known to contain mass.
Really. You don't think that in the study of the universe, it's origin, and our place in it, which is what cosmology is by definition, that a 'big picture' approach is erroneous?
I think it is erroneous to build cosmological models that are predicated upon ideas and concepts and mythical entities that we can't empirically demonstrate in our own back yard. You're welcome to claim that inflation did it, provided that you can demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination/theory in controlled conditions. I can demonstrate that electrons flow through plasma, irrespective of whether or not anbiplasmas exist in nature.
QUOTE
You don't think that by making observations of other places we can find out more about what's going on in our own back yard?
You don't think Birkeland's backyard experiments might tell us more about what's going on in space?
One more point:
I don't mind waiting for Birkeland's model to be validated because I've seen for myself that it works in a lab, and the images he created in his experiments resemble real objects and real energy flows in space.
I object to waiting for any evidence of inflation, because I have never seen any evidence of inflation in any controlled experiment on earth, and the onus of responsibility always falls to the one making the claim. Birkeland demonstrated that his theories worked in accounting for real life observations of planetary rings, planetary auroras, and solar activity as well. Guth never demonstrated anything. He dreamed up this concept of a "free lunch" and sold the preposterous idea to a gullible astronomy community who has since developed elaborate theories about something that has never been demonstrated to have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment. Do you see that difference?
I don't mind waiting for Birkeland's model to be validated because I've seen for myself that it works in a lab, and the images he created in his experiments resemble real objects and real energy flows in space.
I object to waiting for any evidence of inflation, because I have never seen any evidence of inflation in any controlled experiment on earth, and the onus of responsibility always falls to the one making the claim. Birkeland demonstrated that his theories worked in accounting for real life observations of planetary rings, planetary auroras, and solar activity as well. Guth never demonstrated anything. He dreamed up this concept of a "free lunch" and sold the preposterous idea to a gullible astronomy community who has since developed elaborate theories about something that has never been demonstrated to have any effect on nature in any controlled experiment. Do you see that difference?
Excuse my frustration but for ##### sake.
Here we ####### go again.
Are you actually ####### bothering to read my ####### posts and putting the effort into trying to understand?
Because it sure as #### doesn't look like it from here.
"Because a theory of inflation predicts monopoles we should abandon all theories of inflation."
Now I'm going to apply YOUR logic to PLasma cosmology.
"Because a theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon all theories of plasma cosmology."
Get it yet?
And once more around the blcok with this one:
"Because we can not demonstrate the existence of darm matter in the laboratory we should abandon it, even though there is plenty of emperical evidence for it's existence, and even though the only reason we haven't done this is because we DON'T YET HAVE THE TOOLS."
You still can't wrap you ####### tiny mind around this concept yet can you?
Should Columbus have abandoned his search for the Americas because he couldn't prove they were there?
Should Clyde Tombaugh have abandoned his search for PLuto even though he couldn't prove it was there (In spite of the emperical evidence to the contrary)?
Should Svante Arrhenius have abandoned his PhD because he was unable to proove the existence of charged ions in solution (without which, Birkeland probably wouldn't have been able to develop his theories).
Should Birkeland have abandoned his theories because he couldn't proove the existence of flowing currents in outer space (in spite of the fact that he had emperical evidence to suggest it was possible, and happening).
Should Chucky D have abandoned the theory of evolution just because he lacked the tools to do the genome research to prove it's validity, in spite of any emperical evidence he had to suggest otherwise?
Should Albert Einstein have abandoned Relativity because he lacked the tools to proove frame dragging?
The answer to all of these is "No, of course not."
The next question is "Should we abandon the λCDM model because we lack the tools to prove the existence of dark matter, or dark energy"? The answer to that can ONLY be "No, of course not".
Unless you're going to apply a double standard.
Oh, and as for that hole in the universe disproving inflation. That's beyond laughable.
You do actually understand what the words "Random distribution" and "Homogenous at large scales" mean don't you?
Here we ####### go again.
Are you actually ####### bothering to read my ####### posts and putting the effort into trying to understand?
Because it sure as #### doesn't look like it from here.
"Because a theory of inflation predicts monopoles we should abandon all theories of inflation."
Now I'm going to apply YOUR logic to PLasma cosmology.
"Because a theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon all theories of plasma cosmology."
Get it yet?
And once more around the blcok with this one:
"Because we can not demonstrate the existence of darm matter in the laboratory we should abandon it, even though there is plenty of emperical evidence for it's existence, and even though the only reason we haven't done this is because we DON'T YET HAVE THE TOOLS."
You still can't wrap you ####### tiny mind around this concept yet can you?
Should Columbus have abandoned his search for the Americas because he couldn't prove they were there?
Should Clyde Tombaugh have abandoned his search for PLuto even though he couldn't prove it was there (In spite of the emperical evidence to the contrary)?
Should Svante Arrhenius have abandoned his PhD because he was unable to proove the existence of charged ions in solution (without which, Birkeland probably wouldn't have been able to develop his theories).
Should Birkeland have abandoned his theories because he couldn't proove the existence of flowing currents in outer space (in spite of the fact that he had emperical evidence to suggest it was possible, and happening).
Should Chucky D have abandoned the theory of evolution just because he lacked the tools to do the genome research to prove it's validity, in spite of any emperical evidence he had to suggest otherwise?
Should Albert Einstein have abandoned Relativity because he lacked the tools to proove frame dragging?
The answer to all of these is "No, of course not."
The next question is "Should we abandon the λCDM model because we lack the tools to prove the existence of dark matter, or dark energy"? The answer to that can ONLY be "No, of course not".
Unless you're going to apply a double standard.
Oh, and as for that hole in the universe disproving inflation. That's beyond laughable.
You do actually understand what the words "Random distribution" and "Homogenous at large scales" mean don't you?
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 31 2007, 04:39 AM)
Excuse my frustration but for ##### sake.
Here we ####### go again.
Are you actually ####### bothering to read my ####### posts and putting the effort into trying to understand?
Because it sure as #### doesn't look like it from here.
I often wonder the same thing about your responses by the way, but I refrain from attempting to bully you by brute force. I don't excuse your frustration, or at least not your way of dealing with it. I find that one typically behaves this way when they can't scientifically justify their position. Your real frustration is that Birkeland was right and somewhere down inside there you know it too. You are frustrated at the wrong guy IMO.
This is called a strawman. It should read: Because there is no empirical evidence to support the idea of inflation in any controlled scientific test, and because if failed it's two key predictions, I personally put no faith in inflation." See the difference between these two statements? I never said you should abandon your faith in inflation, I said I see no point in personally putting *my* faith in inflation and I want Birkeland's work taught along side your metaphysical dogma.
This is called a strawman. It should read: Because there is no empirical evidence to support the idea of inflation in any controlled scientific test, and because if failed it's two key predictions, I personally put no faith in inflation." See the difference between these two statements? I never said you should abandon your faith in inflation, I said I see no point in personally putting *my* faith in inflation and I want Birkeland's work taught along side your metaphysical dogma.
"Because we can not demonstrate the existence of darm matter in the laboratory we should abandon it, even though there is plenty of emperical evidence for it's existence, and even though the only reason we haven't done this is because we DON'T YET HAVE THE TOOLS."
In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Birkeland had no problem validating his model using TOOLS THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM. He didn't rely upon metaphysics in his models, only known forces of nature. If you don't have the tools to demonstrate your point, then your theory cannot be consider more viable than the one Birkeland put forth.
Ah, now you're resorting to blatant ad hominenem (tiny mind). I smell fear now. That's usually the last sign that someone's got no scientific argument to work with, thus they resort to the oldest and most childish trick in the book. Are you in high school or are you just rude naturally? Do you really think personal insults is winning you any points with me or with your audience? I sort of doubt it. It makes you look desperate IMO.
Ah, now you're resorting to blatant ad hominenem (tiny mind). I smell fear now. That's usually the last sign that someone's got no scientific argument to work with, thus they resort to the oldest and most childish trick in the book. Are you in high school or are you just rude naturally? Do you really think personal insults is winning you any points with me or with your audience? I sort of doubt it. It makes you look desperate IMO.
The next question is "Should we abandon the λCDM model because we lack the tools to prove the existence of dark matter, or dark energy"? The answer to that can ONLY be "No, of course not".
Now of course I never asked you to "abandon" anything. I asked for parity in the classroom when it comes to EU theory. Do you understand this distinction? I have to ask this because I've stated it several times now and you keep asserting some notion about me insisting that you abandon your faith in metaphysics. Are you even listening to my responses?
Gah! If I *was* suggesting that you abandon your precious faith in metaphysical dogma this might be a meaningful argument. As it stands, it seems like you simply aren't reading my posts or comprehending the meaning of the term "equality" or "parity". Do you understand the difference between me asking for equal time in the classroom and asking you to abandon you faith in metaphysical buddies, yes or no?
Here we ####### go again.
Are you actually ####### bothering to read my ####### posts and putting the effort into trying to understand?
Because it sure as #### doesn't look like it from here.
I often wonder the same thing about your responses by the way, but I refrain from attempting to bully you by brute force. I don't excuse your frustration, or at least not your way of dealing with it. I find that one typically behaves this way when they can't scientifically justify their position. Your real frustration is that Birkeland was right and somewhere down inside there you know it too. You are frustrated at the wrong guy IMO.
QUOTE
"Because a theory of inflation predicts monopoles we should abandon all theories of inflation."
This is called a strawman. It should read: Because there is no empirical evidence to support the idea of inflation in any controlled scientific test, and because if failed it's two key predictions, I personally put no faith in inflation." See the difference between these two statements? I never said you should abandon your faith in inflation, I said I see no point in personally putting *my* faith in inflation and I want Birkeland's work taught along side your metaphysical dogma.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Because a theory of inflation predicts monopoles we should abandon all theories of inflation." |
This is called a strawman. It should read: Because there is no empirical evidence to support the idea of inflation in any controlled scientific test, and because if failed it's two key predictions, I personally put no faith in inflation." See the difference between these two statements? I never said you should abandon your faith in inflation, I said I see no point in personally putting *my* faith in inflation and I want Birkeland's work taught along side your metaphysical dogma.
"Because we can not demonstrate the existence of darm matter in the laboratory we should abandon it, even though there is plenty of emperical evidence for it's existence, and even though the only reason we haven't done this is because we DON'T YET HAVE THE TOOLS."
In science, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. Birkeland had no problem validating his model using TOOLS THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM. He didn't rely upon metaphysics in his models, only known forces of nature. If you don't have the tools to demonstrate your point, then your theory cannot be consider more viable than the one Birkeland put forth.
QUOTE
You still can't wrap you ####### tiny mind around this concept yet can you?
Ah, now you're resorting to blatant ad hominenem (tiny mind). I smell fear now. That's usually the last sign that someone's got no scientific argument to work with, thus they resort to the oldest and most childish trick in the book. Are you in high school or are you just rude naturally? Do you really think personal insults is winning you any points with me or with your audience? I sort of doubt it. It makes you look desperate IMO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You still can't wrap you ####### tiny mind around this concept yet can you? |
Ah, now you're resorting to blatant ad hominenem (tiny mind). I smell fear now. That's usually the last sign that someone's got no scientific argument to work with, thus they resort to the oldest and most childish trick in the book. Are you in high school or are you just rude naturally? Do you really think personal insults is winning you any points with me or with your audience? I sort of doubt it. It makes you look desperate IMO.
The next question is "Should we abandon the λCDM model because we lack the tools to prove the existence of dark matter, or dark energy"? The answer to that can ONLY be "No, of course not".
Now of course I never asked you to "abandon" anything. I asked for parity in the classroom when it comes to EU theory. Do you understand this distinction? I have to ask this because I've stated it several times now and you keep asserting some notion about me insisting that you abandon your faith in metaphysics. Are you even listening to my responses?
QUOTE
Unless you're going to apply a double standard.
Gah! If I *was* suggesting that you abandon your precious faith in metaphysical dogma this might be a meaningful argument. As it stands, it seems like you simply aren't reading my posts or comprehending the meaning of the term "equality" or "parity". Do you understand the difference between me asking for equal time in the classroom and asking you to abandon you faith in metaphysical buddies, yes or no?
Hello Michael
Don't take the bait.
Trippy has more fun putting people down and allowing himself to think that he is right.
As for trippy
Google for
Degenerate matter cosmology.
Try to understand some of the basics.
Don't take the bait.
Trippy has more fun putting people down and allowing himself to think that he is right.
As for trippy
Google for
Degenerate matter cosmology.
Try to understand some of the basics.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Dec 31 2007, 06:03 PM)
Ah, now you're resorting to blatant ad hominenem (tiny mind). I smell fear now. That's usually the last sign that someone's got no scientific argument to work with...
This is just blatant crazy talk. You're the one clinging to a metaphysical dogma. I'll bet that one hundred years ago, you would have just as vehemently opposed Birkelands work because he was unable to offer any proof that currents flow in space.
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
And as far as the lack of scientific arguments goes? I've presented you with a host of reasons and arguments as to why your position on the λCDM model is potentialy erroneous, and you have not aknowledged the validity of a single freaking one of them.
And you wonder why i'm getting frustrated.
I've pointed out to you that claiming that Because A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, we should abandon them all is the same as saying that because A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon them all.
I've given you a list of reasons that we haven't observed dark matter yet - cheif amongst them we don't have the tools, and tried to point out to you that, from time to time, theories have to wait for a number of years before receiving verification, just as some of Birkelands ideas have taken over a hundred years to verify.
I've tried to point out to you that the existence of a large hole in the universe does not preclude homogeneity, and you ignored this point, continuing to bang away on the ridiculous idea that some how the existence of the hole means that the λCDM model must be wrong.
I have answered each and every one of your statements, both with valid scientific explanations, and by pointing out the double standards inherrent in your words, and yet you continue with this unshakable dogmatic almost pseudo religous zeal over plasma cosmology.
As I've already said. I'm willing to accept that my ideas might be wrong. Are you?
And here I thought that the participants of this thread actually had an interest in discussing things. You're the one dragging the tone of the thread down, not me.
Unless all of a sudden me illustrating hypocrisies stated on this thread with valid examples is some how me being unreasonable.
This is just blatant crazy talk. You're the one clinging to a metaphysical dogma. I'll bet that one hundred years ago, you would have just as vehemently opposed Birkelands work because he was unable to offer any proof that currents flow in space.
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
And as far as the lack of scientific arguments goes? I've presented you with a host of reasons and arguments as to why your position on the λCDM model is potentialy erroneous, and you have not aknowledged the validity of a single freaking one of them.
And you wonder why i'm getting frustrated.
I've pointed out to you that claiming that Because A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, we should abandon them all is the same as saying that because A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon them all.
I've given you a list of reasons that we haven't observed dark matter yet - cheif amongst them we don't have the tools, and tried to point out to you that, from time to time, theories have to wait for a number of years before receiving verification, just as some of Birkelands ideas have taken over a hundred years to verify.
I've tried to point out to you that the existence of a large hole in the universe does not preclude homogeneity, and you ignored this point, continuing to bang away on the ridiculous idea that some how the existence of the hole means that the λCDM model must be wrong.
I have answered each and every one of your statements, both with valid scientific explanations, and by pointing out the double standards inherrent in your words, and yet you continue with this unshakable dogmatic almost pseudo religous zeal over plasma cosmology.
As I've already said. I'm willing to accept that my ideas might be wrong. Are you?
And here I thought that the participants of this thread actually had an interest in discussing things. You're the one dragging the tone of the thread down, not me.
Unless all of a sudden me illustrating hypocrisies stated on this thread with valid examples is some how me being unreasonable.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 31 2007, 07:39 PM)
Hello Michael
Don't take the bait.
Trippy has more fun putting people down and allowing himself to think that he is right.
As for trippy
Google for
Degenerate matter cosmology.
Try to understand some of the basics.
This just goes beyond fricking hilarious.
First off, you don't know me at all, so any #### you spout about me is completely irrelevant. The only one here who's deluded is you.
And as far as Cosmic degenerate matter goes....
You're pointing me in the direction of an explanation of non-baryonic, non luminous matter as the missing mass of the universe to some how prove that I'm wrong on what I've been saying about the λCDM model?
Come again?
How does that work, precisely?
I was already aware of the idea of WIDGETs as an alternative to WIMPs, just that the last I heard (which was not that long ago) WIMPs were the most strongly favoured model, and out of the possible candidates, the lightest SUZY partner was the most promising candidates.
Or did you ignore everything I've said about GLAST and the cosmic gamma ray background?
Don't take the bait.
Trippy has more fun putting people down and allowing himself to think that he is right.
As for trippy
Google for
Degenerate matter cosmology.
Try to understand some of the basics.
This just goes beyond fricking hilarious.
First off, you don't know me at all, so any #### you spout about me is completely irrelevant. The only one here who's deluded is you.
And as far as Cosmic degenerate matter goes....
You're pointing me in the direction of an explanation of non-baryonic, non luminous matter as the missing mass of the universe to some how prove that I'm wrong on what I've been saying about the λCDM model?
Come again?
How does that work, precisely?
I was already aware of the idea of WIDGETs as an alternative to WIMPs, just that the last I heard (which was not that long ago) WIMPs were the most strongly favoured model, and out of the possible candidates, the lightest SUZY partner was the most promising candidates.
Or did you ignore everything I've said about GLAST and the cosmic gamma ray background?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 1 2008, 10:31 AM)
You still can't wrap you ####### tiny mind around this concept yet can you? [..]
This is just blatant crazy talk. [..]
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
No, these are ad hominems at best, a personal attack at worse. I shall spare you the patronizing description, but it is quite unnecessary, rude, and not a constructive discussion.
This is just blatant crazy talk. [..]
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
No, these are ad hominems at best, a personal attack at worse. I shall spare you the patronizing description, but it is quite unnecessary, rude, and not a constructive discussion.
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 2 2008, 05:30 AM)
No, these are ad hominems at best, a personal attack at worse. I shall spare you the patronizing description, but it is quite unnecessary, rude, and not a constructive discussion.
Actually, the last two were responses to comments made by other posters, so... *Shrugs*
Actually, the last two were responses to comments made by other posters, so... *Shrugs*
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 27 2007, 07:13 PM)
Trolling:
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
Spectral lines are so specific to the atoms and molecules that create them that they can be used to identify the source of the spectral lines. Sodium atoms, for example, create two strong lines in the yellow part of the spectrum (so long as the sodium is at rest with respect to the observer)-- the so-called sodium doublet. If two galaxies appearing together along one's line of sight show the sodium doublet in two completely different parts of the spectrum, and you are not willing to postulate the radial velocity of one is not significantly different compared to the other, then you are inherently suggesting that the laws of physics are different in one galaxy than the other, and that a sodium atom is not the same as a sodium atom in the other, which becomes even harder to swallow if you're going to argue that the galaxies really are right next to each other. It is not intuitively beautiful, it is akin to postulating the existence of elves to explain the disappearance of socks from your laundry. Trolling indeed.
Arp's "inherent redshift" is intuitively beautiful and it seems to me that rejecting it is a sign of small-mindedness.
Spectral lines are so specific to the atoms and molecules that create them that they can be used to identify the source of the spectral lines. Sodium atoms, for example, create two strong lines in the yellow part of the spectrum (so long as the sodium is at rest with respect to the observer)-- the so-called sodium doublet. If two galaxies appearing together along one's line of sight show the sodium doublet in two completely different parts of the spectrum, and you are not willing to postulate the radial velocity of one is not significantly different compared to the other, then you are inherently suggesting that the laws of physics are different in one galaxy than the other, and that a sodium atom is not the same as a sodium atom in the other, which becomes even harder to swallow if you're going to argue that the galaxies really are right next to each other. It is not intuitively beautiful, it is akin to postulating the existence of elves to explain the disappearance of socks from your laundry. Trolling indeed.
While we're at it.
Perhaps one of the proponents of Plasma Cosmology in this thread will care to explain how Plasma Cosmology accounts for the abundance of Deuterium in the universe?
Perhaps one of the proponents of Plasma Cosmology in this thread will care to explain how Plasma Cosmology accounts for the abundance of Deuterium in the universe?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 1 2008, 10:31 AM)
This is just blatant crazy talk. You're the one clinging to a metaphysical dogma.
You are either not listening or not comprehending what you read. Name one metaphysical dogma I put any faith in.
No, because he could prove that electricity affected objects in controlled conditions, whereas you can't produce a single controlled experiment to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.
No, because he could prove that electricity affected objects in controlled conditions, whereas you can't produce a single controlled experiment to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
At this point I have to ask how you are are. You act like you're maybe in High School, are even your early 20's, but nobody with any maturity attacks individuals and people the way you do. Birkeland's theories are not "bs", only your closed minded attitude is "bs".
I'm pointed out to you repeatedly that you can't produce any empirical evidence to support any of you beloved faith in inflation, dark energy or dark matter. You keep ignoring that point entirely. Why? Show me on controlled experiment like Birkeland's experiments where inflation did anything to anything else.
I'm pointed out to you repeatedly that you can't produce any empirical evidence to support any of you beloved faith in inflation, dark energy or dark matter. You keep ignoring that point entirely. Why? Show me on controlled experiment like Birkeland's experiments where inflation did anything to anything else.
And you wonder why i'm getting frustrated.
Your frustration is no excuse for you childish behaviors and rude attitude. Get over yourself.
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
all is the same as saying that because A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon them all.
My brand of plasma cosmology does not predict any such thing. As I stated, even still, that would only be "strike one" vs you three strikes, inflation, dark energy and dark matter.
It's one thing to wait 100 years to verify a theory about a known force of nature like electricity. It's quite another to wait 100 years to wait for verification of invisible elves. I've never seen any empirical evidence that your magic elves have any effect on nature, but I've seen plenty of evidence to support the fact that electricity exists and has an effect on nature. See the difference?
It's one thing to wait 100 years to verify a theory about a known force of nature like electricity. It's quite another to wait 100 years to wait for verification of invisible elves. I've never seen any empirical evidence that your magic elves have any effect on nature, but I've seen plenty of evidence to support the fact that electricity exists and has an effect on nature. See the difference?
I've tried to point out to you that the existence of a large hole in the universe does not preclude homogeneity, and you ignored this point, continuing to bang away on the ridiculous idea that some how the existence of the hole means that the λCDM model must be wrong.
You've "alledged" this to be the case, but you never showed me any Lambda-Cdm theories that predicted a hole this size, and if the universe isn't homogenous in any significant way, nothing about your inflation dogma makes any sense at all.
My "zeal" is for truth. I'm not the one peddling dogma about invisible forces you can't seem to produce or empirically support in a lab.
My "zeal" is for truth. I'm not the one peddling dogma about invisible forces you can't seem to produce or empirically support in a lab.
As I've already said. I'm willing to accept that my ideas might be wrong. Are you?
Which aspect of my ideas do you figure might be wrong and why? Sure, I'm open, but you'd have to show me some real empirical evidence to make me believe you.
You've adding nothing useful in a scientific sense to this discussion. All you've added were insults and ad homenems to the discussion.
Yawn.
Talk about pots and kettles. Sheesh, you certainly picked an appropriate handle.
Talk about pots and kettles. Sheesh, you certainly picked an appropriate handle.
Electricity was not always available in a lab, neither were plasma or ions. At some point, someone had to propose the existence of a new form of matter that they were unable to demonstrate directly. This is (for eample) one of the reasons why I keep referring back to Svante Arrhenius.
Plasma cosmology theory didn't even exist before Birkeland's work in a lab. It is based upon empirical evidence. He created aurora and planetary ring currents and fast moving jets and coronal loops in his lab, and he "predicted" these things from his experiments. He didn't just do a Guth routine and make stuff up in his head.
So what? I'm only interested in what took place after 1908 and Kristian Birkeland.
So what? I'm only interested in what took place after 1908 and Kristian Birkeland.
And why do you keep focussing on Guth, when Inflation was first given it's modern form by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt? ]I think the greatest Irony of this point is that it wasn't Guth that proposed the Scalar feild you keep blithering on about, but it was Linde, Albrecht, and Steinhardt (independently) Guths idea had little to do with Scalar fields, but invoked false vacuums. Sheesh, and you complain about me not understanding what i'm talking about.
Oh for heaven sake. Not once did you address my actual criticism. You can't demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of their and your collective imagination. You've no empirical support for that idea in any controlled lab test. Period. It's pure metaphysical dogma with a nifty $20 math formula and everything.
More childish nonsense from your ego. Feel better about yourself somehow now? Do you need an ego fix in every post, or can some of our exchanges reach a more mature level once in a while?
More childish nonsense from your ego. Feel better about yourself somehow now? Do you need an ego fix in every post, or can some of our exchanges reach a more mature level once in a while?
Maybe we haven't observed it yet because WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS
Ya, and maybe we can't find magic elves because we don't have the tools! Give me a break. In science, the onus of responsibility always falls to the individual that makes the claim. You never once demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, and no controlled test on earth can demonstrate that inflation has any effect whatsoever on nature. It's pure metaphysical dogma, and "supernatural" dogma to boot. No other known scalar or vector field in nature acts like inflation. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" metaphysical entity.
If you don't have the tools to demonstrate your beliefs, then your beliefs are a statement of faith, not scientific fact. Birkeland demonstrated that his beliefs were based upon scientific fact. I have faith in his ideas because I can test them. I can't test your inflation thing because nobody has ever empirically demonstrated that it exists. For all I know, it's pure metaphysical mythology.
This conversation is going nowhere because you aren't interested in learning anything, or studying the work of Birkeland or Bruce or Alfven. You're only interested in a cheap ego fix at someone's expense.
It is handy to have an open mind when it comes to science.
You are either not listening or not comprehending what you read. Name one metaphysical dogma I put any faith in.
QUOTE
I'll bet that one hundred years ago, you would have just as vehemently opposed Birkelands work because he was unable to offer any proof that currents flow in space.
No, because he could prove that electricity affected objects in controlled conditions, whereas you can't produce a single controlled experiment to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll bet that one hundred years ago, you would have just as vehemently opposed Birkelands work because he was unable to offer any proof that currents flow in space. |
No, because he could prove that electricity affected objects in controlled conditions, whereas you can't produce a single controlled experiment to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.
Fear? I'm surprised you can smell anything over the Bull#### spewing from your mouth.
At this point I have to ask how you are are. You act like you're maybe in High School, are even your early 20's, but nobody with any maturity attacks individuals and people the way you do. Birkeland's theories are not "bs", only your closed minded attitude is "bs".
QUOTE
And as far as the lack of scientific arguments goes? I've presented you with a host of reasons and arguments as to why your position on the λCDM model is potentialy erroneous, and you have not aknowledged the validity of a single freaking one of them.
I'm pointed out to you repeatedly that you can't produce any empirical evidence to support any of you beloved faith in inflation, dark energy or dark matter. You keep ignoring that point entirely. Why? Show me on controlled experiment like Birkeland's experiments where inflation did anything to anything else.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And as far as the lack of scientific arguments goes? I've presented you with a host of reasons and arguments as to why your position on the λCDM model is potentialy erroneous, and you have not aknowledged the validity of a single freaking one of them. |
I'm pointed out to you repeatedly that you can't produce any empirical evidence to support any of you beloved faith in inflation, dark energy or dark matter. You keep ignoring that point entirely. Why? Show me on controlled experiment like Birkeland's experiments where inflation did anything to anything else.
And you wonder why i'm getting frustrated.
Your frustration is no excuse for you childish behaviors and rude attitude. Get over yourself.
QUOTE
I've pointed out to you that claiming that Because A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, we should abandon them
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've pointed out to you that claiming that Because A theory of inflation predicts monopoles, we should abandon them |
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
all is the same as saying that because A theory of plasma cosmology predicts ambiplasmas we should abandon them all.
My brand of plasma cosmology does not predict any such thing. As I stated, even still, that would only be "strike one" vs you three strikes, inflation, dark energy and dark matter.
QUOTE
I've given you a list of reasons that we haven't observed dark matter yet - cheif amongst them we don't have the tools, and tried to point out to you that, from time to time, theories have to wait for a number of years before receiving verification, just as some of Birkelands ideas have taken over a hundred years to verify.
It's one thing to wait 100 years to verify a theory about a known force of nature like electricity. It's quite another to wait 100 years to wait for verification of invisible elves. I've never seen any empirical evidence that your magic elves have any effect on nature, but I've seen plenty of evidence to support the fact that electricity exists and has an effect on nature. See the difference?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've given you a list of reasons that we haven't observed dark matter yet - cheif amongst them we don't have the tools, and tried to point out to you that, from time to time, theories have to wait for a number of years before receiving verification, just as some of Birkelands ideas have taken over a hundred years to verify. |
It's one thing to wait 100 years to verify a theory about a known force of nature like electricity. It's quite another to wait 100 years to wait for verification of invisible elves. I've never seen any empirical evidence that your magic elves have any effect on nature, but I've seen plenty of evidence to support the fact that electricity exists and has an effect on nature. See the difference?
I've tried to point out to you that the existence of a large hole in the universe does not preclude homogeneity, and you ignored this point, continuing to bang away on the ridiculous idea that some how the existence of the hole means that the λCDM model must be wrong.
You've "alledged" this to be the case, but you never showed me any Lambda-Cdm theories that predicted a hole this size, and if the universe isn't homogenous in any significant way, nothing about your inflation dogma makes any sense at all.
QUOTE
I have answered each and every one of your statements, both with valid scientific explanations, and by pointing out the double standards inherrent in your words, and yet you continue with this unshakable dogmatic almost pseudo religous zeal over plasma cosmology.
My "zeal" is for truth. I'm not the one peddling dogma about invisible forces you can't seem to produce or empirically support in a lab.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have answered each and every one of your statements, both with valid scientific explanations, and by pointing out the double standards inherrent in your words, and yet you continue with this unshakable dogmatic almost pseudo religous zeal over plasma cosmology. |
My "zeal" is for truth. I'm not the one peddling dogma about invisible forces you can't seem to produce or empirically support in a lab.
As I've already said. I'm willing to accept that my ideas might be wrong. Are you?
Which aspect of my ideas do you figure might be wrong and why? Sure, I'm open, but you'd have to show me some real empirical evidence to make me believe you.
QUOTE
And here I thought that the participants of this thread actually had an interest in discussing things. You're the one dragging the tone of the thread down, not me.
You've adding nothing useful in a scientific sense to this discussion. All you've added were insults and ad homenems to the discussion.
Yawn.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 2 2008, 04:39 PM)
No, because he could prove that electricity affected objects in controlled conditions, whereas you can't produce a single controlled experiment to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination.
Seeing as how you're apparently either not comprehending my points or ignoring them, I'm going to do a bunch of seperate smaller posts, maybe it'll make it easier to follow.
Electricity was not always available in a lab, neither were plasma or ions. At some point, someone had to propose the existence of a new form of matter that they were unable to demonstrate directly. This is (for eample) one of the reasons why I keep referring back to Svante Arrhenius.
There was no way, in his time, to demonstrate that seperate positive and negatively charged ions existed in solution. There was no way to prove that that idea was any more correct then perhaps the competing idea at the time - that the ions were produced by the process of electrolysis.
And why do you keep focussing on Guth, when Inflation was first given it's modern form by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt? I think the greatest Irony of this point is that it wasn't Guth that proposed the Scalar feild you keep blithering on about, but it was Linde, Albrecht, and Steinhardt (independently) Guths idea had little to do with Scalar fields, but invoked false vacuums. Sheesh, and you complain about me not understanding what i'm talking about.
And once again. I'd say read my lips, as a figure of speach, but you understand what I mean.
Maybe we haven't observed it yet because WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS
We also didn't have the tools to observe the effects of relativity directly (or any of the other numerous examples that I've pointed out, but you have blatantly ignored).
Seeing as how you're apparently either not comprehending my points or ignoring them, I'm going to do a bunch of seperate smaller posts, maybe it'll make it easier to follow.
Electricity was not always available in a lab, neither were plasma or ions. At some point, someone had to propose the existence of a new form of matter that they were unable to demonstrate directly. This is (for eample) one of the reasons why I keep referring back to Svante Arrhenius.
There was no way, in his time, to demonstrate that seperate positive and negatively charged ions existed in solution. There was no way to prove that that idea was any more correct then perhaps the competing idea at the time - that the ions were produced by the process of electrolysis.
And why do you keep focussing on Guth, when Inflation was first given it's modern form by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt? I think the greatest Irony of this point is that it wasn't Guth that proposed the Scalar feild you keep blithering on about, but it was Linde, Albrecht, and Steinhardt (independently) Guths idea had little to do with Scalar fields, but invoked false vacuums. Sheesh, and you complain about me not understanding what i'm talking about.
And once again. I'd say read my lips, as a figure of speach, but you understand what I mean.
Maybe we haven't observed it yet because WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS
We also didn't have the tools to observe the effects of relativity directly (or any of the other numerous examples that I've pointed out, but you have blatantly ignored).
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 2 2008, 04:39 PM)
At this point I have to ask how you are are. You act like you're maybe in High School, are even your early 20's, but nobody with any maturity attacks individuals and people the way you do. Birkeland's theories are not "bs", only your closed minded attitude is "bs".
1) My age is none of your buisiness.
2) I have not said that Birkelands theories were BS, only that most of the tripe you have been spouting is.
And as for maturity? So quick to judge, and you claim I'm narrow minded? HAH!
Go away, do some research into medical conditions that affect peoples ability to effectively control their anger, and try again.
And my close minded attitude? First you have to prove I've been close minded about anything.
The fact that I know about Plasma cosmology at all tends to negate that, as does my making statements like "I'm prepared to accept that my theories could be wrong, are you willing to accept they could be shown to be right?"
1) My age is none of your buisiness.
2) I have not said that Birkelands theories were BS, only that most of the tripe you have been spouting is.
And as for maturity? So quick to judge, and you claim I'm narrow minded? HAH!
Go away, do some research into medical conditions that affect peoples ability to effectively control their anger, and try again.
And my close minded attitude? First you have to prove I've been close minded about anything.
The fact that I know about Plasma cosmology at all tends to negate that, as does my making statements like "I'm prepared to accept that my theories could be wrong, are you willing to accept they could be shown to be right?"
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 2 2008, 04:39 PM)
I'm pointed out to you repeatedly that you can't produce any empirical evidence to support any of you beloved faith in inflation, dark energy or dark matter. You keep ignoring that point entirely. Why? Show me on controlled experiment like Birkeland's experiments where inflation did anything to anything else.
And I have pointed out to you repeatedly that we don't yet HAVE THE TOOLS to do such things in a laboratory, but that some of them are expected to be completed (assuming idiots like Ubavontnuba don't get their way) in the next 6-18 months, I've even given you two eamples of such tools (GLAST and LHC).
As for my 'beloved faith' that's one of the things that you keep blithering on about that really really quite severly ##### me off, and I find highly provoking (and it's a phrase you've been using since day one).
I have taken NOTHING on faith. I have read up on Plasma Cosmology, among other things, I have examined and weighed the evidence, and come to the conclusion that, for the most part, the λCDM model is the most accurate representation of reality.
And yet, you seem to be ASSuming that because I consider the λCDM model to be the most accurate, that I must have my eyes closed and be taking everything on faith. You can't understand how I might view this as a repeated ad-hominem attack?
And you're calling me narrow minded?
Mr Pot, Mr Kettle is on the phone, he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
And I have pointed out to you repeatedly that we don't yet HAVE THE TOOLS to do such things in a laboratory, but that some of them are expected to be completed (assuming idiots like Ubavontnuba don't get their way) in the next 6-18 months, I've even given you two eamples of such tools (GLAST and LHC).
As for my 'beloved faith' that's one of the things that you keep blithering on about that really really quite severly ##### me off, and I find highly provoking (and it's a phrase you've been using since day one).
I have taken NOTHING on faith. I have read up on Plasma Cosmology, among other things, I have examined and weighed the evidence, and come to the conclusion that, for the most part, the λCDM model is the most accurate representation of reality.
And yet, you seem to be ASSuming that because I consider the λCDM model to be the most accurate, that I must have my eyes closed and be taking everything on faith. You can't understand how I might view this as a repeated ad-hominem attack?
And you're calling me narrow minded?
Mr Pot, Mr Kettle is on the phone, he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 2 2008, 04:39 PM)
Your frustration is no excuse for you childish behaviors and rude attitude. Get over yourself.
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
Actually, you need to get over yourself, especially in light of the fact that it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you have not got your facts anywhere near straight.
First of all, strictly speaking Inflation was developed to explain the observed homogeneity of the universe.
So lets get that striaght. We observe the universe to be homgenous, and then come up with the idea of inflation to explain why that should be so.
Second, AFAI can recall, Magnetic monopoles have nothing to do with Guths inflation, something that doing a little light reading has recently reminded me of. The problem with Guths theory of inflation is that the universe did not reheat the way we expected it to based on observations we had made.
The Magnetic monopole problem arises from the idea of having a very hot very dense early universe without inflation.
Get that? Magnetic monopoles are not a problem with inflation. Theories of inflation are an explanation for their observed absence (of course, the existence of Magnetic Monopoles under such conditions in the first place is strongly dependent on the specifics of the Grand Unified Theory that are being addressed, I believe that there are some that predict that even without inflation they still wouldn't occur).
You got it?
And once again, you're blatantly ignoring things that I have posted. Or did you miss the point where I mentioned the observations made by WMAP?
Specifically: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
These results tell us that the Universe is flat, Homogenous, and isotropic to 1 part in 10,000 - inspite of the existence of the big hole that you keep mentioning.
So much for strike one.
The simplest models of inflation predict a spectral power index of 0.92-0.98, WMAP tells us that it can be measured as 0.95, which is different from 1 by 2 standard deviations. So much for no testable predictions.
Oh, and for the record, when the Planck satelite is launched, it's thought that it may be able to measure the effects of gravitational radiation created by inflation. So once again, you're wrong.
Nope. You missed it again. I said there was no evidence that inflation has any effect on reality. Get it?
Actually, you need to get over yourself, especially in light of the fact that it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you have not got your facts anywhere near straight.
First of all, strictly speaking Inflation was developed to explain the observed homogeneity of the universe.
So lets get that striaght. We observe the universe to be homgenous, and then come up with the idea of inflation to explain why that should be so.
Second, AFAI can recall, Magnetic monopoles have nothing to do with Guths inflation, something that doing a little light reading has recently reminded me of. The problem with Guths theory of inflation is that the universe did not reheat the way we expected it to based on observations we had made.
The Magnetic monopole problem arises from the idea of having a very hot very dense early universe without inflation.
Get that? Magnetic monopoles are not a problem with inflation. Theories of inflation are an explanation for their observed absence (of course, the existence of Magnetic Monopoles under such conditions in the first place is strongly dependent on the specifics of the Grand Unified Theory that are being addressed, I believe that there are some that predict that even without inflation they still wouldn't occur).
You got it?
And once again, you're blatantly ignoring things that I have posted. Or did you miss the point where I mentioned the observations made by WMAP?
Specifically: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr...p_3yr_param.pdf
These results tell us that the Universe is flat, Homogenous, and isotropic to 1 part in 10,000 - inspite of the existence of the big hole that you keep mentioning.
So much for strike one.
The simplest models of inflation predict a spectral power index of 0.92-0.98, WMAP tells us that it can be measured as 0.95, which is different from 1 by 2 standard deviations. So much for no testable predictions.
Oh, and for the record, when the Planck satelite is launched, it's thought that it may be able to measure the effects of gravitational radiation created by inflation. So once again, you're wrong.
QUOTE
Seeing as how you're apparently either not comprehending my points or ignoring them, I'm going to do a bunch of seperate smaller posts, maybe it'll make it easier to follow.
Talk about pots and kettles. Sheesh, you certainly picked an appropriate handle.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Seeing as how you're apparently either not comprehending my points or ignoring them, I'm going to do a bunch of seperate smaller posts, maybe it'll make it easier to follow. |
Talk about pots and kettles. Sheesh, you certainly picked an appropriate handle.
Electricity was not always available in a lab, neither were plasma or ions. At some point, someone had to propose the existence of a new form of matter that they were unable to demonstrate directly. This is (for eample) one of the reasons why I keep referring back to Svante Arrhenius.
Plasma cosmology theory didn't even exist before Birkeland's work in a lab. It is based upon empirical evidence. He created aurora and planetary ring currents and fast moving jets and coronal loops in his lab, and he "predicted" these things from his experiments. He didn't just do a Guth routine and make stuff up in his head.
QUOTE
There was no way, in his time, to demonstrate that seperate positive and negatively charged ions existed in solution. There was no way to prove that that idea was any more correct then perhaps the competing idea at the time - that the ions were produced by the process of electrolysis.
So what? I'm only interested in what took place after 1908 and Kristian Birkeland.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There was no way, in his time, to demonstrate that seperate positive and negatively charged ions existed in solution. There was no way to prove that that idea was any more correct then perhaps the competing idea at the time - that the ions were produced by the process of electrolysis. |
So what? I'm only interested in what took place after 1908 and Kristian Birkeland.
And why do you keep focussing on Guth, when Inflation was first given it's modern form by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt? ]I think the greatest Irony of this point is that it wasn't Guth that proposed the Scalar feild you keep blithering on about, but it was Linde, Albrecht, and Steinhardt (independently) Guths idea had little to do with Scalar fields, but invoked false vacuums. Sheesh, and you complain about me not understanding what i'm talking about.
Oh for heaven sake. Not once did you address my actual criticism. You can't demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of their and your collective imagination. You've no empirical support for that idea in any controlled lab test. Period. It's pure metaphysical dogma with a nifty $20 math formula and everything.
QUOTE
And once again. I'd say read my lips, as a figure of speach, but you understand what I mean.
More childish nonsense from your ego. Feel better about yourself somehow now? Do you need an ego fix in every post, or can some of our exchanges reach a more mature level once in a while?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And once again. I'd say read my lips, as a figure of speach, but you understand what I mean. |
More childish nonsense from your ego. Feel better about yourself somehow now? Do you need an ego fix in every post, or can some of our exchanges reach a more mature level once in a while?
Maybe we haven't observed it yet because WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS
Ya, and maybe we can't find magic elves because we don't have the tools! Give me a break. In science, the onus of responsibility always falls to the individual that makes the claim. You never once demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, and no controlled test on earth can demonstrate that inflation has any effect whatsoever on nature. It's pure metaphysical dogma, and "supernatural" dogma to boot. No other known scalar or vector field in nature acts like inflation. Inflation is literally a "supernatural" metaphysical entity.
QUOTE
We also didn't have the tools to observe the effects of relativity directly (or any of the other numerous examples that I've pointed out, but you have blatantly ignored).
If you don't have the tools to demonstrate your beliefs, then your beliefs are a statement of faith, not scientific fact. Birkeland demonstrated that his beliefs were based upon scientific fact. I have faith in his ideas because I can test them. I can't test your inflation thing because nobody has ever empirically demonstrated that it exists. For all I know, it's pure metaphysical mythology.
This conversation is going nowhere because you aren't interested in learning anything, or studying the work of Birkeland or Bruce or Alfven. You're only interested in a cheap ego fix at someone's expense.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 2 2008, 04:39 PM)
My brand of plasma cosmology does not predict any such thing. As I stated, even still, that would only be "strike one" vs you three strikes, inflation, dark energy and dark matter.
Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what aspects of what theories we like, and suit us?
Cool.
That must be really handy... Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Hmmm.
Inflation, I've already addressed (a little) The Sloan Digital All Sky Survey has a few (positive) things to say about that, including how homogenous and isotropic the universe is, that do nothing but suport inflation.
So we're back down to two strikes.
And then there's these links
http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/~rjs/QSO_Survey/
http://www.aao.gov.au/2df/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html
http://supernova.lbl.gov/
All of which deal with Hi-Z surveys to measure/search for the effects of Dark energy. So it looks like we're back down to one strike.
And then, oh look, there's all the evidence that supports the assertions that relativity is correct, and Dark Matter (of some form) does exist, ranging from flat galactic rotation curves, to anomalous galactic velocities in clusters and super clusters, to the mass distribution in the bullet cluster, to the existence of galaxies apparently made entirely of molecular hydrogen clouds and dark matter, to the existence of galaxies apparently lacking dark matter.
Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what aspects of what theories we like, and suit us?
Cool.
That must be really handy... Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Hmmm.
Inflation, I've already addressed (a little) The Sloan Digital All Sky Survey has a few (positive) things to say about that, including how homogenous and isotropic the universe is, that do nothing but suport inflation.
So we're back down to two strikes.
And then there's these links
http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/~rjs/QSO_Survey/
http://www.aao.gov.au/2df/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html
http://supernova.lbl.gov/
All of which deal with Hi-Z surveys to measure/search for the effects of Dark energy. So it looks like we're back down to one strike.
And then, oh look, there's all the evidence that supports the assertions that relativity is correct, and Dark Matter (of some form) does exist, ranging from flat galactic rotation curves, to anomalous galactic velocities in clusters and super clusters, to the mass distribution in the bullet cluster, to the existence of galaxies apparently made entirely of molecular hydrogen clouds and dark matter, to the existence of galaxies apparently lacking dark matter.
QUOTE
Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what aspects of what theories we like, and suit us?
Cool.
That must be really handy...
Cool.
That must be really handy...
It is handy to have an open mind when it comes to science.
QUOTE (->