QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 2 2008, 07:04 PM)
Once again you're twisting my words out of context.
I said relativity had been confirmed in the laboratory, and it was relativity that implied the existence of some form of dark matter (and dark energy).
GR theory in no way "implies" anything other than "missing mass" and "acceleration". Please demonstrate that non-baryonic mass and "dark energy' exist in nature empirically before pointing to the sky and claiming "dark matter did it" or "dark energy did it".
Birkeland could explain how he controlled the flow of electrons and how that flow of electrons and these magnetic fields affected his experiments. He could turn off the electron flow and watch the show come to an end. He could play with various voltage, various amperages, various magnetic field strength configurations, etc. At no time did he point to the sky and claim "electrons did it" without also demonstrating that electrons exist and that they can have the affect on nature that he is claiming.
Birkeland's brand of science is what real science is all about. That is what we should be teaching in school, not your metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I'm not asking for anything other than parity in the classroom, nothing more, nothing less. You are welcome to cling to your metaphysics if it floats your boat, just give my children some real science in the curriculum and I"m sure they'll figure it out for themselves. If you won't grant me that much, then it's not me that is the hypocrite with the closed mind. To find that person, all you have to do is look in the mirror and ask yourself which one of us is preventing real "physical" (not metaphysical) science from entering the classroom.
I said relativity had been confirmed in the laboratory, and it was relativity that implied the existence of some form of dark matter (and dark energy).
GR theory in no way "implies" anything other than "missing mass" and "acceleration". Please demonstrate that non-baryonic mass and "dark energy' exist in nature empirically before pointing to the sky and claiming "dark matter did it" or "dark energy did it".
Birkeland could explain how he controlled the flow of electrons and how that flow of electrons and these magnetic fields affected his experiments. He could turn off the electron flow and watch the show come to an end. He could play with various voltage, various amperages, various magnetic field strength configurations, etc. At no time did he point to the sky and claim "electrons did it" without also demonstrating that electrons exist and that they can have the affect on nature that he is claiming.
Birkeland's brand of science is what real science is all about. That is what we should be teaching in school, not your metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I'm not asking for anything other than parity in the classroom, nothing more, nothing less. You are welcome to cling to your metaphysics if it floats your boat, just give my children some real science in the curriculum and I"m sure they'll figure it out for themselves. If you won't grant me that much, then it's not me that is the hypocrite with the closed mind. To find that person, all you have to do is look in the mirror and ask yourself which one of us is preventing real "physical" (not metaphysical) science from entering the classroom.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 07:02 AM)
In other words you do not have the scientific tools or any empirical, controlled scientific evidence, to actually qualify your theory in any rational or empirical way. I simply have to have "faith" that (insert metaphysical entity of choice here) exist in nature and has some effect on nature because your math formula says so?
In the scientific method, the onus of responsibility always falls to the individual making the claim. That is due to the fact that nobody can demonstrate a negative.
If you believe that "inflationelvesdidit", then you are scientifically obligated to demonstrate that "inflationelves" actually exist in nature, and has your claimed effect on nature. I don't have to accept your statement as fact just because you say it is so.
Birkeland easily demonstrated that electrons exist in nature, and have an observable effect on nature in controlled scientific tests. You don't have the first clue how to even setup a "control mechanism" to regulate the amount of inflation, dark energy or dark matter in any experiment so there is no possible way that any controlled experiment could be created to qualify your claim in the first place. All three of your metaphysical friends are based on faith in dogma, not based on empirical physical evidence from controlled scientific tests.
Lambda-CDM theory is a metaphysical mess. It requires faith in no less than three different forms of metaphysics to prop it up. To teach Birkeland's brand of Electromagnetic Cosmology theory, we need to put *no* faith whatsoever in any form of metaphysics. Even if we went all the way to Alfven's view of 'big picture" issues, there is only one entity (ambiplasma) that has not been empirically demonstrated, but in theory at least it *could* be demonstrated in some distant future, just like your *three* forms of metaphysics.
Now if we take an Occum's razor approach to this problem, Alfven's single unproven idea is still much simpler than your requirement for three unproven entities.
All I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, and I'm only asking that *Birkelands* brand of EU theory is presented to students in the classroom, and it requires no faith in ambiplasma. Since I am not asking you to abandon your faith in your favorite brand of metaphysics, it is ludicrous of you to keep talking about *my* hypocrisy. The only hypocrite is you and your behaviors demonstrate this point. I'm only asking for parity in the classroom, and you refuse to allow it, or acknowledge the fact that this is not hypocritical behavior on my part. It is scientifically unjustifiable to be excluding Birkeland's EU theories from the classroom, when we already know for a fact that some parts of his ideas have already been verified by in situ measurements from space. You won't allow for parity, and you won't acknowledge the validity of his work. Meanwhile you peddle bizarre forms of metaphysics that you can't possibly begin to justify in a lab like Birkeland did with his theories. The mere mention of these points seems to "frustrate" you and send you into a childish "tizzy" tantrum, followed by a long stream of insults and ad hominems.
Once again, you're deliberately twisting my words out of context.
You do realize of course that every objection you have had, technically, falls under the category of a Negative Proof Fallacy?
No, in other words we do not yet have access to the realms of energy, or equipment with the sensitivity to prove or disprove various forms of dark matter or dark energy, just like we don't yet have access to the energy realm of the Higgs Boson (although the RHIC has touched on the lower end of this with some potentially promising results). Tell me, do you also think we should abandon the standard model, and the search for the Higgs Boson.
And once again with the inflammatory remarks, and you wonder why i've been insulting you.
We've been over this how many times already? Occasionally people are forced to theorize the existence of something new. Albert Einstein did it, Svante Arrhenius did it, and without Svante Arrhenius's work Birkelands work would probably have been next to impossible (Mostly because he would have had to hypothesize the existence of a new form of matter), but that's right,I forgot, in your narrow minded zeal, you're not interested in anything that happened before Birkelands proposals.
More inflammatory comments. More ignoring of facts that have been pointed out. Nothing of scientific merit.
More inflammatory comments. Birkeland was able to do this because of work that had been done earlier, which posited the existence of a new form of matter (Arhenius, Maxwell, etc). And you claim to know what can and can't be done with λCDM theory, when you can't even get your objections to it straight. Get a visit from the cosmic knoledge fish? I've already outlined the emperical evidence that supports the assertions of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. You choose not to accept the emperical evidence, and resort to inflammatory comments.
Moreover confining experiments to an earthbound laboratory is narrow minded (you get to be inflammatory, I get to be insulting, although, it's a statement of fact).
Let's follow the scientific method shall we?
Characterization: There is an unexplained anomaly in the rotation curves of galaxies.
Hypothesis: There is more mass present in the galaxies we are observing then there is luminous matter, this matter must be non luminous.
Predictions: There should be further evidence for this in gravitational lensing, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, the motions of clusters and super clusters, the structure of the universe, the motion of satelite galaxies around the milkyway, the existence of galaxies composed almost esclusively of darkmatter (+Specific predictions based on the specific kind of dark matter being dealt with).
Experiments: Numerous observations of galactic rotation curves, and the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and super clusters (etc etc) (+LHC, GLAST, Planck etc).
So, where, precisely has the λCDM model abadoned the scientific method?
Oh wait, that's right, it hasn't.
More pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo mixed in with inflammatory comments, misconceptions, and ignoring of what's already been said (for example 6-18 months haedly qualifies as 'some distant future').
Occams razor (learn to spell it) isn't always applicable in a scientific setting, at some stage, someone had to propose a new form of matter to make Birkelands work possible. A fact you keep blatantly ignoring.
This entire paragraph is a long conglomeration of misconceptions and borderline ad hominems, not to mention it ignores points that have been addressed multiple times already.
The fact that you repeatedly suggest or imply that the λCDM theory is untenable because we can not (yet) produce dark matter or dark energy in a lab is what makes you a hypocrite. At some point, nearly every scientific theory has had to rely on suppositions that were unprovable at the time, but were later proven when more advanced equipment became accessible.
This is why I will always be more open minded then you.
I am willing to accept the fact that maybe the Universe has more to offer then we've observed.
I am willing to accept the fact that λCDM may be wrong, and there may be a more accurate model.
I am even willing to accept the fact that this might be some variation of Plasma Cosmology.
HOWEVER After having considered the various papers, I have come to the considered conclusion that, at this time, the λCDM theory has the most merit.
As I have stated repeatedly, but you have not once addressed. I'm prepared to accept that the λCDM model may be wrong, are you prepared to accept that it may be right?
And for the record, you're wrong. What was (and is) frustrating me is your hypocrisy (although we've established that you don't see it as such, and will/can never see it as such).
It has nothing to do with your churlish points and inflammatory remarks.
What frustrates me is the fact that you consider λCDM to be some how less then Plasma Cosmology because we're only just now developing the tools to meet precisely the criteria that you demand of it (among other things). So your pathetic ad hominems and inflammatory remarks in your closing paragraph are largely meaningless.
In the scientific method, the onus of responsibility always falls to the individual making the claim. That is due to the fact that nobody can demonstrate a negative.
If you believe that "inflationelvesdidit", then you are scientifically obligated to demonstrate that "inflationelves" actually exist in nature, and has your claimed effect on nature. I don't have to accept your statement as fact just because you say it is so.
Birkeland easily demonstrated that electrons exist in nature, and have an observable effect on nature in controlled scientific tests. You don't have the first clue how to even setup a "control mechanism" to regulate the amount of inflation, dark energy or dark matter in any experiment so there is no possible way that any controlled experiment could be created to qualify your claim in the first place. All three of your metaphysical friends are based on faith in dogma, not based on empirical physical evidence from controlled scientific tests.
Lambda-CDM theory is a metaphysical mess. It requires faith in no less than three different forms of metaphysics to prop it up. To teach Birkeland's brand of Electromagnetic Cosmology theory, we need to put *no* faith whatsoever in any form of metaphysics. Even if we went all the way to Alfven's view of 'big picture" issues, there is only one entity (ambiplasma) that has not been empirically demonstrated, but in theory at least it *could* be demonstrated in some distant future, just like your *three* forms of metaphysics.
Now if we take an Occum's razor approach to this problem, Alfven's single unproven idea is still much simpler than your requirement for three unproven entities.
All I'm asking for is parity in the classroom, and I'm only asking that *Birkelands* brand of EU theory is presented to students in the classroom, and it requires no faith in ambiplasma. Since I am not asking you to abandon your faith in your favorite brand of metaphysics, it is ludicrous of you to keep talking about *my* hypocrisy. The only hypocrite is you and your behaviors demonstrate this point. I'm only asking for parity in the classroom, and you refuse to allow it, or acknowledge the fact that this is not hypocritical behavior on my part. It is scientifically unjustifiable to be excluding Birkeland's EU theories from the classroom, when we already know for a fact that some parts of his ideas have already been verified by in situ measurements from space. You won't allow for parity, and you won't acknowledge the validity of his work. Meanwhile you peddle bizarre forms of metaphysics that you can't possibly begin to justify in a lab like Birkeland did with his theories. The mere mention of these points seems to "frustrate" you and send you into a childish "tizzy" tantrum, followed by a long stream of insults and ad hominems.
Once again, you're deliberately twisting my words out of context.
You do realize of course that every objection you have had, technically, falls under the category of a Negative Proof Fallacy?
No, in other words we do not yet have access to the realms of energy, or equipment with the sensitivity to prove or disprove various forms of dark matter or dark energy, just like we don't yet have access to the energy realm of the Higgs Boson (although the RHIC has touched on the lower end of this with some potentially promising results). Tell me, do you also think we should abandon the standard model, and the search for the Higgs Boson.
And once again with the inflammatory remarks, and you wonder why i've been insulting you.
We've been over this how many times already? Occasionally people are forced to theorize the existence of something new. Albert Einstein did it, Svante Arrhenius did it, and without Svante Arrhenius's work Birkelands work would probably have been next to impossible (Mostly because he would have had to hypothesize the existence of a new form of matter), but that's right,I forgot, in your narrow minded zeal, you're not interested in anything that happened before Birkelands proposals.
More inflammatory comments. More ignoring of facts that have been pointed out. Nothing of scientific merit.
More inflammatory comments. Birkeland was able to do this because of work that had been done earlier, which posited the existence of a new form of matter (Arhenius, Maxwell, etc). And you claim to know what can and can't be done with λCDM theory, when you can't even get your objections to it straight. Get a visit from the cosmic knoledge fish? I've already outlined the emperical evidence that supports the assertions of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. You choose not to accept the emperical evidence, and resort to inflammatory comments.
Moreover confining experiments to an earthbound laboratory is narrow minded (you get to be inflammatory, I get to be insulting, although, it's a statement of fact).
Let's follow the scientific method shall we?
Characterization: There is an unexplained anomaly in the rotation curves of galaxies.
Hypothesis: There is more mass present in the galaxies we are observing then there is luminous matter, this matter must be non luminous.
Predictions: There should be further evidence for this in gravitational lensing, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, the motions of clusters and super clusters, the structure of the universe, the motion of satelite galaxies around the milkyway, the existence of galaxies composed almost esclusively of darkmatter (+Specific predictions based on the specific kind of dark matter being dealt with).
Experiments: Numerous observations of galactic rotation curves, and the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and super clusters (etc etc) (+LHC, GLAST, Planck etc).
So, where, precisely has the λCDM model abadoned the scientific method?
Oh wait, that's right, it hasn't.
More pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo mixed in with inflammatory comments, misconceptions, and ignoring of what's already been said (for example 6-18 months haedly qualifies as 'some distant future').
Occams razor (learn to spell it) isn't always applicable in a scientific setting, at some stage, someone had to propose a new form of matter to make Birkelands work possible. A fact you keep blatantly ignoring.
This entire paragraph is a long conglomeration of misconceptions and borderline ad hominems, not to mention it ignores points that have been addressed multiple times already.
The fact that you repeatedly suggest or imply that the λCDM theory is untenable because we can not (yet) produce dark matter or dark energy in a lab is what makes you a hypocrite. At some point, nearly every scientific theory has had to rely on suppositions that were unprovable at the time, but were later proven when more advanced equipment became accessible.
This is why I will always be more open minded then you.
I am willing to accept the fact that maybe the Universe has more to offer then we've observed.
I am willing to accept the fact that λCDM may be wrong, and there may be a more accurate model.
I am even willing to accept the fact that this might be some variation of Plasma Cosmology.
HOWEVER After having considered the various papers, I have come to the considered conclusion that, at this time, the λCDM theory has the most merit.
As I have stated repeatedly, but you have not once addressed. I'm prepared to accept that the λCDM model may be wrong, are you prepared to accept that it may be right?
And for the record, you're wrong. What was (and is) frustrating me is your hypocrisy (although we've established that you don't see it as such, and will/can never see it as such).
It has nothing to do with your churlish points and inflammatory remarks.
What frustrates me is the fact that you consider λCDM to be some how less then Plasma Cosmology because we're only just now developing the tools to meet precisely the criteria that you demand of it (among other things). So your pathetic ad hominems and inflammatory remarks in your closing paragraph are largely meaningless.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 08:38 AM)
GR theory in no way "implies" anything other than "missing mass" and "acceleration". Please demonstrate that non-baryonic mass and "dark energy' exist in nature empirically before pointing to the sky and claiming "dark matter did it" or "dark energy did it".
Again. Try to get your facts straight before you open your mouth. Dark Matter includes MACHOs - Massive COmpact Halo Objects. Dark Matter includes a portion of Baryonic dark matter.
Dark Matter is the all inclusive term for Baryonic (for example Rydberg matter, and MACHOs) and non-baryonic (Hot, cold, and warm dark matter).
I'm going to ignore the rest of that post as it consists either of irrelevant statements or thinly veiled inflammatory remarks.
Again. Try to get your facts straight before you open your mouth. Dark Matter includes MACHOs - Massive COmpact Halo Objects. Dark Matter includes a portion of Baryonic dark matter.
Dark Matter is the all inclusive term for Baryonic (for example Rydberg matter, and MACHOs) and non-baryonic (Hot, cold, and warm dark matter).
I'm going to ignore the rest of that post as it consists either of irrelevant statements or thinly veiled inflammatory remarks.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 2 2008, 08:05 PM)
Once again, you're deliberately twisting my words out of context.
You do realize of course that every objection you have had, technically, falls under the category of a Negative Proof Fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Oh the irony of that statement!
* "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
* "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
You never empirically demonstrated anything! According to you, I'm just supposed to accept that your (metaphysical friend of choice) exists in nature and has the effect that you claim it has on nature, only because I can't "prove" that it does not exist. Your whole case, and everything you've said about not having the technology to produce any evidence to empirically demonstrate your case, is all based on a negative proof fallacy. I cannot ever hope to produce empirical evidence that your supernatural inflation thingy doesn't exist, or that your dark energy friends don't exist. You are supposed to demonstrate that they "do" exist. Hoy Vey!
The fact you cannot demonstrate that they do exist is not my fault, and in no way should your ignorance be used to keep perfectly good physical science out of the classroom! Grrr!
You never empirically demonstrated anything! According to you, I'm just supposed to accept that your (metaphysical friend of choice) exists in nature and has the effect that you claim it has on nature, only because I can't "prove" that it does not exist. Your whole case, and everything you've said about not having the technology to produce any evidence to empirically demonstrate your case, is all based on a negative proof fallacy. I cannot ever hope to produce empirical evidence that your supernatural inflation thingy doesn't exist, or that your dark energy friends don't exist. You are supposed to demonstrate that they "do" exist. Hoy Vey!
The fact you cannot demonstrate that they do exist is not my fault, and in no way should your ignorance be used to keep perfectly good physical science out of the classroom! Grrr!
No, in other words we do not yet have access to the realms of energy, or equipment with the sensitivity to prove or disprove various forms of dark matter or dark energy, just like we don't yet have access to the energy realm of the Higgs Boson (although the RHIC has touched on the lower end of this with some potentially promising results). Tell me, do you also think we should abandon the standard model, and the search for the Higgs Boson.
Here you rely upon the very same fallacy that you just accused me of.
You swear at me in four consecutive sentences and expect me to make no inflammatory remarks about your attitude? You're absolutely amazing.
You swear at me in four consecutive sentences and expect me to make no inflammatory remarks about your attitude? You're absolutely amazing.
We've been over this how many times already? Occasionally people are forced to theorize the existence of something new. Albert Einstein did it, Svante Arrhenius did it, and without Svante Arrhenius's work Birkelands work would probably have been next to impossible (Mostly because he would have had to hypothesize the existence of a new form of matter), but that's right,I forgot, in your narrow minded zeal, you're not interested in anything that happened before Birkelands proposals.
I'm interested in why you would exclude a perfectly good set of scientifically grounded proposals from the classroom, when none of those proposals requires faith in *anything new* at all!
Sometimes the scientific method itself requires a leap of faith, if only faith in an idea so that it can be tested. It's one thing to have faith in something we can have some hope of empirically testing, but how in the world would you suggest that we "test" you theory about dark energy in controlled scientific conditions?
If I were asking you to utterly abandon your personal faith in metaphysics, all your huffing and puffing might make some sense. As it is, I'm perfectly willing to allow you to keep your faith, I'm just asking for parity in the classroom curriculum. It's like you're stuck in a personal feedback loop and you refuse to hear me.
The papers you outlined do nothing to empirically demonstrate anything. The simply point to the sky and claim "metaphysicalitemofchoicedidit". Empirical evidence requires a control mechanism. You can't just point at distant observations in space and claim that you've got empirical evidence of elves in those distant observations. You have to first empirically demonstrate that elves exist in nature and can do what you claim it can do to matter. If you can't do that, then some distant observation isn't "empirical" evidence of anything.
The papers you outlined do nothing to empirically demonstrate anything. The simply point to the sky and claim "metaphysicalitemofchoicedidit". Empirical evidence requires a control mechanism. You can't just point at distant observations in space and claim that you've got empirical evidence of elves in those distant observations. You have to first empirically demonstrate that elves exist in nature and can do what you claim it can do to matter. If you can't do that, then some distant observation isn't "empirical" evidence of anything.
Let's follow the scientific method shall we?
Oh that's rich coming from you.
It abandoned the scientific method the moment it proposed non bayronic forms of mass to explain that missing matter. Missing mass is not evidence of "non-baryonic" mass, anymore than an unidentified object in the sky necessarily comes from another planet.
It abandoned the scientific method the moment it proposed non bayronic forms of mass to explain that missing matter. Missing mass is not evidence of "non-baryonic" mass, anymore than an unidentified object in the sky necessarily comes from another planet.
Oh wait, that's right, it hasn't.
When I was in school standard theory had not deviated at all from the scientific method because any "missing mass" was typically associated with "MACHO" oriented ideas. Today however, we have non-baryonic mass making up 80 percent of the missing mass, and no one bothered to demonstrate such a thing exists in nature.
Using MACHO theory to explain missing mass is not a deviation from the standard scientific method because standard matter is known to exist in nature. WIMP theory on the other hand is a deviation from the standard scientific method because it is not known to exist in nature, so it can't possible be shown to have any effect on distant objects in the sky.
Grr. No it does not, because I'm not asking you to remove you metaphysics from the classroom, I'm simply asking you to include some perfectly scientific alternatives. You keep ignoring that point entirely.
Grr. No it does not, because I'm not asking you to remove you metaphysics from the classroom, I'm simply asking you to include some perfectly scientific alternatives. You keep ignoring that point entirely.
At some point, nearly every scientific theory has had to rely on suppositions that were unprovable at the time, but were later proven when more advanced equipment became accessible.
That's fine. I'm not asking you to abandon your faith. What part about me allowing you enjoy your personal faith in metaphysics do you find confusing?
I'm only asking for parity in the classroom, remember?
Pfft. You went ballistic the moment someone asked you to look at the universe a little differently. You swore at me. You got all uptight about it and you refuse to listen to the fact that I am perfectly willing to allow you to keep your own personal faith in the metaphysical constructs of your choice. I only asked you for parity in the class.
Pfft. You went ballistic the moment someone asked you to look at the universe a little differently. You swore at me. You got all uptight about it and you refuse to listen to the fact that I am perfectly willing to allow you to keep your own personal faith in the metaphysical constructs of your choice. I only asked you for parity in the class.
I am willing to accept the fact that maybe the Universe has more to offer then we've observed.
Then why would you exclude Birkeland's cosmology theories from being included in the classroom curriculum?
So what's wrong with having MANY models presented in the classroom?
So what's wrong with having MANY models presented in the classroom?
I am even willing to accept the fact that this might be some variation of Plasma Cosmology.
Great!
That is your personal choice, but my children should not be limited to other information only because of your subjective choices. You certainly cannot demonstrate that your ideas have more objective scientific merit than the plasma cosmology theories that Birkeland advocated.
That is your personal choice, but my children should not be limited to other information only because of your subjective choices. You certainly cannot demonstrate that your ideas have more objective scientific merit than the plasma cosmology theories that Birkeland advocated.
As I have stated repeatedly, but you have not once addressed. I'm prepared to accept that the λCDM model may be wrong, are you prepared to accept that it may be right?
Sure. I'd say there is a less than 1/10th of one percent chance that you will empirically demonstrate that all three of you metaphysical friends have some effect on nature and that things went down pretty much like you imagine. Then again, I'm not holding my breath that you'll ever provide empirical evidence that dark energy has any effect on matter, so I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for confirmation of your theory of choice. I am simply asking that other theories be given serious consideration, classroom time, funding opportunities and publishing opportunities. That's all I'm asking for.
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
So your pathetic ad hominems and inflammatory remarks in your closing paragraph are largely meaningless.
I'll admit I've made some inflammatory statements (like Gumby), once you started swearing and acting like a little high school student. If and when you'd like to have a "stress free', cheap shot free discussion, you let me know. Until then I'll show you the same disrespect you spew at me simply because I put my faith in real physical science, rather than pseudo-science based on ideas and concepts that are utterly unfalsifiable in any controlled experiment on Earth.
Oh for goodness sake. You can't provide a shred of empirical evidence that these things actually exist in nature. You somehow seem to think I'm obligated to accept your statements of faith only because I should take pity on you because you don't have the ability to empirically demonstrate your ideas! It's a circular feedback look at best, and a logical fallacy any way you look at it. There is no empirical evidence from controlled experimentation that these things actually exist in nature.
Birkeland was able to demonstrate his points based on standard scientific methods involving standard scientific tests.
The worst part of this discussion is the "shock value" nonsense you're peddling about me being a hypocrite only because I want Birkeland's theories and Alfven's theories added to the school curriculum. That is utter nonsense. I guess you figure if you say it enough times, someone might believe you. I can't be a hypocrite for wanting *equality*! Get over yourself. I didn't ask you to give up your faith in metaphysics. I asked you to accept the fact that other theories should also be included in the curriculum, nothing more, nothing less.
You are the one that employing a double standard. You think nothing of expecting me to put faith in three different forms of metaphysics, but somehow we should exclude Alfven's theories because they include *one* idea that lacks empirical support. That behavior my friend is pure hypocrisy.
I had hoped that we could tone down the rhetoric, but you keeps hiding behind false accusations and you keep ignoring the fact that I'm only asking for equality. It's like talking to a brick wall with a bad attitude. What's the point?
What's it going to take for you to accept that plasma cosmology theory warrants further consideration?
You do realize of course that every objection you have had, technically, falls under the category of a Negative Proof Fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Oh the irony of that statement!
QUOTE
* "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
* "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
You never empirically demonstrated anything! According to you, I'm just supposed to accept that your (metaphysical friend of choice) exists in nature and has the effect that you claim it has on nature, only because I can't "prove" that it does not exist. Your whole case, and everything you've said about not having the technology to produce any evidence to empirically demonstrate your case, is all based on a negative proof fallacy. I cannot ever hope to produce empirical evidence that your supernatural inflation thingy doesn't exist, or that your dark energy friends don't exist. You are supposed to demonstrate that they "do" exist. Hoy Vey!
The fact you cannot demonstrate that they do exist is not my fault, and in no way should your ignorance be used to keep perfectly good physical science out of the classroom! Grrr!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
* "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form: * "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist". |
You never empirically demonstrated anything! According to you, I'm just supposed to accept that your (metaphysical friend of choice) exists in nature and has the effect that you claim it has on nature, only because I can't "prove" that it does not exist. Your whole case, and everything you've said about not having the technology to produce any evidence to empirically demonstrate your case, is all based on a negative proof fallacy. I cannot ever hope to produce empirical evidence that your supernatural inflation thingy doesn't exist, or that your dark energy friends don't exist. You are supposed to demonstrate that they "do" exist. Hoy Vey!
The fact you cannot demonstrate that they do exist is not my fault, and in no way should your ignorance be used to keep perfectly good physical science out of the classroom! Grrr!
No, in other words we do not yet have access to the realms of energy, or equipment with the sensitivity to prove or disprove various forms of dark matter or dark energy, just like we don't yet have access to the energy realm of the Higgs Boson (although the RHIC has touched on the lower end of this with some potentially promising results). Tell me, do you also think we should abandon the standard model, and the search for the Higgs Boson.
Here you rely upon the very same fallacy that you just accused me of.
QUOTE
And once again with the inflammatory remarks, and you wonder why i've been insulting you.
You swear at me in four consecutive sentences and expect me to make no inflammatory remarks about your attitude? You're absolutely amazing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And once again with the inflammatory remarks, and you wonder why i've been insulting you. |
You swear at me in four consecutive sentences and expect me to make no inflammatory remarks about your attitude? You're absolutely amazing.
We've been over this how many times already? Occasionally people are forced to theorize the existence of something new. Albert Einstein did it, Svante Arrhenius did it, and without Svante Arrhenius's work Birkelands work would probably have been next to impossible (Mostly because he would have had to hypothesize the existence of a new form of matter), but that's right,I forgot, in your narrow minded zeal, you're not interested in anything that happened before Birkelands proposals.
I'm interested in why you would exclude a perfectly good set of scientifically grounded proposals from the classroom, when none of those proposals requires faith in *anything new* at all!
Sometimes the scientific method itself requires a leap of faith, if only faith in an idea so that it can be tested. It's one thing to have faith in something we can have some hope of empirically testing, but how in the world would you suggest that we "test" you theory about dark energy in controlled scientific conditions?
If I were asking you to utterly abandon your personal faith in metaphysics, all your huffing and puffing might make some sense. As it is, I'm perfectly willing to allow you to keep your faith, I'm just asking for parity in the classroom curriculum. It's like you're stuck in a personal feedback loop and you refuse to hear me.
QUOTE
Get a visit from the cosmic knoledge fish? I've already outlined the emperical evidence that supports the assertions of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. You choose not to accept the emperical evidence, and resort to inflammatory comments.
The papers you outlined do nothing to empirically demonstrate anything. The simply point to the sky and claim "metaphysicalitemofchoicedidit". Empirical evidence requires a control mechanism. You can't just point at distant observations in space and claim that you've got empirical evidence of elves in those distant observations. You have to first empirically demonstrate that elves exist in nature and can do what you claim it can do to matter. If you can't do that, then some distant observation isn't "empirical" evidence of anything.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Get a visit from the cosmic knoledge fish? I've already outlined the emperical evidence that supports the assertions of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. You choose not to accept the emperical evidence, and resort to inflammatory comments. |
The papers you outlined do nothing to empirically demonstrate anything. The simply point to the sky and claim "metaphysicalitemofchoicedidit". Empirical evidence requires a control mechanism. You can't just point at distant observations in space and claim that you've got empirical evidence of elves in those distant observations. You have to first empirically demonstrate that elves exist in nature and can do what you claim it can do to matter. If you can't do that, then some distant observation isn't "empirical" evidence of anything.
Let's follow the scientific method shall we?
Oh that's rich coming from you.
QUOTE
Characterization: There is an unexplained anomaly in the rotation curves of galaxies.
Hypothesis: There is more mass present in the galaxies we are observing then there is luminous matter, this matter must be non luminous.
Predictions: There should be further evidence for this in gravitational lensing, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, the motions of clusters and super clusters, the structure of the universe, the motion of satelite galaxies around the milkyway, the existence of galaxies composed almost esclusively of darkmatter (+Specific predictions based on the specific kind of dark matter being dealt with).
Experiments: Numerous observations of galactic rotation curves, and the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and super clusters (etc etc) (+LHC, GLAST, Planck etc).
So, where, precisely has the λCDM model abadoned the scientific method?
Hypothesis: There is more mass present in the galaxies we are observing then there is luminous matter, this matter must be non luminous.
Predictions: There should be further evidence for this in gravitational lensing, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, the motions of clusters and super clusters, the structure of the universe, the motion of satelite galaxies around the milkyway, the existence of galaxies composed almost esclusively of darkmatter (+Specific predictions based on the specific kind of dark matter being dealt with).
Experiments: Numerous observations of galactic rotation curves, and the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and super clusters (etc etc) (+LHC, GLAST, Planck etc).
So, where, precisely has the λCDM model abadoned the scientific method?
It abandoned the scientific method the moment it proposed non bayronic forms of mass to explain that missing matter. Missing mass is not evidence of "non-baryonic" mass, anymore than an unidentified object in the sky necessarily comes from another planet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Characterization: There is an unexplained anomaly in the rotation curves of galaxies. Hypothesis: There is more mass present in the galaxies we are observing then there is luminous matter, this matter must be non luminous. Predictions: There should be further evidence for this in gravitational lensing, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, the motions of clusters and super clusters, the structure of the universe, the motion of satelite galaxies around the milkyway, the existence of galaxies composed almost esclusively of darkmatter (+Specific predictions based on the specific kind of dark matter being dealt with). Experiments: Numerous observations of galactic rotation curves, and the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and super clusters (etc etc) (+LHC, GLAST, Planck etc). So, where, precisely has the λCDM model abadoned the scientific method? |
It abandoned the scientific method the moment it proposed non bayronic forms of mass to explain that missing matter. Missing mass is not evidence of "non-baryonic" mass, anymore than an unidentified object in the sky necessarily comes from another planet.
Oh wait, that's right, it hasn't.
When I was in school standard theory had not deviated at all from the scientific method because any "missing mass" was typically associated with "MACHO" oriented ideas. Today however, we have non-baryonic mass making up 80 percent of the missing mass, and no one bothered to demonstrate such a thing exists in nature.
Using MACHO theory to explain missing mass is not a deviation from the standard scientific method because standard matter is known to exist in nature. WIMP theory on the other hand is a deviation from the standard scientific method because it is not known to exist in nature, so it can't possible be shown to have any effect on distant objects in the sky.
QUOTE
The fact that you repeatedly suggest or imply that the λCDM theory is untenable because we can not (yet) produce dark matter or dark energy in a lab is what makes you a hypocrite.
Grr. No it does not, because I'm not asking you to remove you metaphysics from the classroom, I'm simply asking you to include some perfectly scientific alternatives. You keep ignoring that point entirely.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that you repeatedly suggest or imply that the λCDM theory is untenable because we can not (yet) produce dark matter or dark energy in a lab is what makes you a hypocrite. |
Grr. No it does not, because I'm not asking you to remove you metaphysics from the classroom, I'm simply asking you to include some perfectly scientific alternatives. You keep ignoring that point entirely.
At some point, nearly every scientific theory has had to rely on suppositions that were unprovable at the time, but were later proven when more advanced equipment became accessible.
That's fine. I'm not asking you to abandon your faith. What part about me allowing you enjoy your personal faith in metaphysics do you find confusing?
I'm only asking for parity in the classroom, remember?
QUOTE
This is why I will always be more open minded then you.
Pfft. You went ballistic the moment someone asked you to look at the universe a little differently. You swore at me. You got all uptight about it and you refuse to listen to the fact that I am perfectly willing to allow you to keep your own personal faith in the metaphysical constructs of your choice. I only asked you for parity in the class.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is why I will always be more open minded then you. |
Pfft. You went ballistic the moment someone asked you to look at the universe a little differently. You swore at me. You got all uptight about it and you refuse to listen to the fact that I am perfectly willing to allow you to keep your own personal faith in the metaphysical constructs of your choice. I only asked you for parity in the class.
I am willing to accept the fact that maybe the Universe has more to offer then we've observed.
Then why would you exclude Birkeland's cosmology theories from being included in the classroom curriculum?
QUOTE
I am willing to accept the fact that λCDM may be wrong, and there may be a more accurate model.
So what's wrong with having MANY models presented in the classroom?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am willing to accept the fact that λCDM may be wrong, and there may be a more accurate model. |
So what's wrong with having MANY models presented in the classroom?
I am even willing to accept the fact that this might be some variation of Plasma Cosmology.
Great!
QUOTE
HOWEVER After having considered the various papers, I have come to the considered conclusion that, at this time, the λCDM theory has the most merit.
That is your personal choice, but my children should not be limited to other information only because of your subjective choices. You certainly cannot demonstrate that your ideas have more objective scientific merit than the plasma cosmology theories that Birkeland advocated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HOWEVER After having considered the various papers, I have come to the considered conclusion that, at this time, the λCDM theory has the most merit. |
That is your personal choice, but my children should not be limited to other information only because of your subjective choices. You certainly cannot demonstrate that your ideas have more objective scientific merit than the plasma cosmology theories that Birkeland advocated.
As I have stated repeatedly, but you have not once addressed. I'm prepared to accept that the λCDM model may be wrong, are you prepared to accept that it may be right?
Sure. I'd say there is a less than 1/10th of one percent chance that you will empirically demonstrate that all three of you metaphysical friends have some effect on nature and that things went down pretty much like you imagine. Then again, I'm not holding my breath that you'll ever provide empirical evidence that dark energy has any effect on matter, so I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for confirmation of your theory of choice. I am simply asking that other theories be given serious consideration, classroom time, funding opportunities and publishing opportunities. That's all I'm asking for.
QUOTE
What frustrates me is the fact that you consider λCDM to be some how less then Plasma Cosmology because we're only just now developing the tools to meet precisely the criteria that you demand of it (among other things).
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What frustrates me is the fact that you consider λCDM to be some how less then Plasma Cosmology because we're only just now developing the tools to meet precisely the criteria that you demand of it (among other things). |
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
So your pathetic ad hominems and inflammatory remarks in your closing paragraph are largely meaningless.
I'll admit I've made some inflammatory statements (like Gumby), once you started swearing and acting like a little high school student. If and when you'd like to have a "stress free', cheap shot free discussion, you let me know. Until then I'll show you the same disrespect you spew at me simply because I put my faith in real physical science, rather than pseudo-science based on ideas and concepts that are utterly unfalsifiable in any controlled experiment on Earth.
Right...
So I'm not supposed to find the continual comparisons that you've been making, right from your first post, between λCDM, religion and superstition inflammatory?
Riiiiight... Tell me when the real world gets back in touch with you.
And did you actually read the wikipedia link?
This, specifically, is the fallacy that I was referring to that you have been perpetuating (even in spite of the fact that I have mentioned on several occasions the efforts being made to test λCDM, efforts which you have repeatedly and continually denied the validity of).
So I'm not supposed to find the continual comparisons that you've been making, right from your first post, between λCDM, religion and superstition inflammatory?
Riiiiight... Tell me when the real world gets back in touch with you.
And did you actually read the wikipedia link?
QUOTE
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".
This, specifically, is the fallacy that I was referring to that you have been perpetuating (even in spite of the fact that I have mentioned on several occasions the efforts being made to test λCDM, efforts which you have repeatedly and continually denied the validity of).
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 10:21 AM)
You never empirically demonstrated anything! According to you, I'm just supposed to accept that your (metaphysical friend of choice) exists in nature and has the effect that you claim it has on nature, only because I can't "prove" that it does not exist. Your whole case, and everything you've said about not having the technology to produce any evidence to empirically demonstrate your case, is all based on a negative proof fallacy. I cannot ever hope to produce empirical evidence that your supernatural inflation thingy doesn't exist, or that your dark energy friends don't exist. You are supposed to demonstrate that they "do" exist. Hoy Vey!
Utter Bull.
I have said nothing of the sort.
You claim that λCDM is akin to saying "elves did it" because we can not produce dark matter, or dark energy in a laboratory, or can not address your misconceptions about scalar fields, magnetic monopoles and inflation.
I claim that this situation is only because we do not have the technology to do so yet, and that this is exactly analagous to many other situations in history, which you claim is irrelevant.
I point out to you that this represents a hypocrisy, which you don't like and claim is an ad-hominem attack, even though I can show it to be a factual and justifiable statement.
I have demonstrated, to the best of my ability, that these things do exist, I have shown you evidence that suggests that these things are real, and you choose to plug your ears, close your eyes and hope that they go away before GLAST is launched, the Planck explorer is launched, the LHC is completed, or any one of a number of things happens.
Sometimes proving new ideas requires the development of new technologies.
It's that simple, if you can't handle that, well...
Not my problem.
Utter Bull.
I have said nothing of the sort.
You claim that λCDM is akin to saying "elves did it" because we can not produce dark matter, or dark energy in a laboratory, or can not address your misconceptions about scalar fields, magnetic monopoles and inflation.
I claim that this situation is only because we do not have the technology to do so yet, and that this is exactly analagous to many other situations in history, which you claim is irrelevant.
I point out to you that this represents a hypocrisy, which you don't like and claim is an ad-hominem attack, even though I can show it to be a factual and justifiable statement.
I have demonstrated, to the best of my ability, that these things do exist, I have shown you evidence that suggests that these things are real, and you choose to plug your ears, close your eyes and hope that they go away before GLAST is launched, the Planck explorer is launched, the LHC is completed, or any one of a number of things happens.
Sometimes proving new ideas requires the development of new technologies.
It's that simple, if you can't handle that, well...
Not my problem.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 10:21 AM)
Here you rely upon the very same fallacy that you just accused me of.
Pfft, no I don't.
I'm pointing out another example of how ridiculous your stance is.
We can't see it yet, so we shouldn't go looking for it.
And you still can't see the idiocy of what you're saying yet.
Pfft, no I don't.
I'm pointing out another example of how ridiculous your stance is.
We can't see it yet, so we shouldn't go looking for it.
And you still can't see the idiocy of what you're saying yet.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 10:21 AM)
The papers you outlined do nothing to empirically demonstrate anything. The simply point to the sky and claim "metaphysicalitemofchoicedidit". Empirical evidence requires a control mechanism. You can't just point at distant observations in space and claim that you've got empirical evidence of elves in those distant observations. You have to first empirically demonstrate that elves exist in nature and can do what you claim it can do to matter. If you can't do that, then some distant observation isn't "empirical" evidence of anything.
Try taking your fingers out of your ears, and removing the blindfold then.
Try taking your fingers out of your ears, and removing the blindfold then.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 3 2008, 10:21 AM)
Sure. I'd say there is a less than 1/10th of one percent chance that you will empirically demonstrate that all three of you metaphysical friends have some effect on nature and that things went down pretty much like you imagine. Then again, I'm not holding my breath that you'll ever provide empirical evidence that dark energy has any effect on matter, so I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for confirmation of your theory of choice. I am simply asking that other theories be given serious consideration, classroom time, funding opportunities and publishing opportunities. That's all I'm asking for.
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
I'll admit I've made some inflammatory statements (like Gumby), once you started swearing and acting like a little high school student. If and when you'd like to have a "stress free', cheap shot free discussion, you let me know. Until then I'll show you the same disrespect you spew at me simply because I put my faith in real physical science, rather than pseudo-science based on ideas and concepts that are utterly unfalsifiable in any controlled experiment on Earth.
So...
Once again, we're back to you holding me personally responsible for your countries education system.
I don't know what the state of the education system in your country is like, but in my country, there's enough to teach in highschool physics and without introdcuing every 'alternative' theory of physics into the curriculum.
Besides, it's not like the information is not available. You obviously managed to find it. I obviously managed to find it.
Go figure.
No. I think the Lambda-Gumby thing is inferior to plasma cosmology theory because it relies upon three different forms of metaphysics. Period. It would be less inferior if it relied upon only two of them. It would be even better if it only required faith in one metaphysical construct too, but even still it would be inferior to Birkeland's brand of plasma cosmology theory because his brand of PC theory required no faith in any undemonstrated entities of any sort. That is why I think PC is a superior theory.
I'll admit I've made some inflammatory statements (like Gumby), once you started swearing and acting like a little high school student. If and when you'd like to have a "stress free', cheap shot free discussion, you let me know. Until then I'll show you the same disrespect you spew at me simply because I put my faith in real physical science, rather than pseudo-science based on ideas and concepts that are utterly unfalsifiable in any controlled experiment on Earth.
So...
Once again, we're back to you holding me personally responsible for your countries education system.
I don't know what the state of the education system in your country is like, but in my country, there's enough to teach in highschool physics and without introdcuing every 'alternative' theory of physics into the curriculum.
Besides, it's not like the information is not available. You obviously managed to find it. I obviously managed to find it.
Go figure.
QUOTE
Utter Bull.
I have said nothing of the sort.
I have said nothing of the sort.
Oh for goodness sake. You can't provide a shred of empirical evidence that these things actually exist in nature. You somehow seem to think I'm obligated to accept your statements of faith only because I should take pity on you because you don't have the ability to empirically demonstrate your ideas! It's a circular feedback look at best, and a logical fallacy any way you look at it. There is no empirical evidence from controlled experimentation that these things actually exist in nature.
Birkeland was able to demonstrate his points based on standard scientific methods involving standard scientific tests.
The worst part of this discussion is the "shock value" nonsense you're peddling about me being a hypocrite only because I want Birkeland's theories and Alfven's theories added to the school curriculum. That is utter nonsense. I guess you figure if you say it enough times, someone might believe you. I can't be a hypocrite for wanting *equality*! Get over yourself. I didn't ask you to give up your faith in metaphysics. I asked you to accept the fact that other theories should also be included in the curriculum, nothing more, nothing less.
You are the one that employing a double standard. You think nothing of expecting me to put faith in three different forms of metaphysics, but somehow we should exclude Alfven's theories because they include *one* idea that lacks empirical support. That behavior my friend is pure hypocrisy.
I had hoped that we could tone down the rhetoric, but you keeps hiding behind false accusations and you keep ignoring the fact that I'm only asking for equality. It's like talking to a brick wall with a bad attitude. What's the point?
What's it going to take for you to accept that plasma cosmology theory warrants further consideration?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 3 2008, 12:12 AM)
Pfft, no I don't.
I'm pointing out another example of how ridiculous your stance is.
We can't see it yet, so we shouldn't go looking for it.
And you still can't see the idiocy of what you're saying yet.
There is no empirical, controlled scientific evidence that your metaphysical friends have any effect on reality as we understand it. You somehow think I'm obligated to let you teach your dogma only because you don't have access to the the technology that is supposedly necessary to demonstrate your case.
Imagine now if the roles were reversed here and Alfven's plasma cosmology idea were 'popular' at this point in time. Now suppose I claimed that you had to accept ambiplasma theories because I didn't have the technology to demonstrate my case. I also refused to give you ideas consideration only because my theory happens to be popular and your theory is not popular. How would you react?
I'm pointing out another example of how ridiculous your stance is.
We can't see it yet, so we shouldn't go looking for it.
And you still can't see the idiocy of what you're saying yet.
There is no empirical, controlled scientific evidence that your metaphysical friends have any effect on reality as we understand it. You somehow think I'm obligated to let you teach your dogma only because you don't have access to the the technology that is supposedly necessary to demonstrate your case.
Imagine now if the roles were reversed here and Alfven's plasma cosmology idea were 'popular' at this point in time. Now suppose I claimed that you had to accept ambiplasma theories because I didn't have the technology to demonstrate my case. I also refused to give you ideas consideration only because my theory happens to be popular and your theory is not popular. How would you react?
Hello, Michael Mozina.
Have a good year!
I’ve edited whole excellent research of the century by Professor Oliver’s team.
“Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation”
We are near to the excellent event; I’m waiting revolution in the Astronomy…
I want to send you edited full research (attach file).
I’m waiting your questions in the thread.
I’m ready discussing the research to Professor Oliver.
Send my your E-mail. kmargi@mail.ru
Have a good year!
I’ve edited whole excellent research of the century by Professor Oliver’s team.
“Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation”
We are near to the excellent event; I’m waiting revolution in the Astronomy…
I want to send you edited full research (attach file).
I’m waiting your questions in the thread.
I’m ready discussing the research to Professor Oliver.
Send my your E-mail. kmargi@mail.ru
Gumby...
YET.
You sound just like Einsteins detractors when he bought out Relativity.
I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space".
You want to talk aboput Metaphysical friends?
Let's talk about Ambiplasma. (You don't believe in Ambiplasma? I don't believe in exotic artifacts).
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri.
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidedence to prove that there are electrical currents flowing between here and Andromeda, or for that matter the LMC, the SMC, or any of the milkways satelite galaxies.
Let's talk about the fact that there is no obvious, straight forward mechanism that comes close to explaining the apparent mass distribution in the bullet cluster, and the closest I have seen ANY plasma cosmology advocate come to doing so, has to assume that the arcing we see (of background galaxies) is not gravitational in origin, and assume that Halton Arps work is correct (the whole thing about aphrodite spring forth fully fledged from the head of Zeus... Oops... I mean lesser galaxies being ejected from larger galaxies - sounds kind of Olympian, or shoud I say Vellikoskian to me) in spite of the fact that his assertions about the most well known example having been shown to be completely in error.
Wait a minute... I can see what he means about the gas clouds in the Bullet Cluster, but... Wait a minute... Where is the larger galaxy the lesser galaxies are supposed to have sprung fully fledged from? Sounds like Hocus Pocus to me.
So yes, let's talk about metaphysics and imaginary friends for a while shall we?
And while we're talking about shock value, you don't think that YOUR continual refferences, from the start of this discussion, comparing λCDM model to religion and superstition, your continual refferences to elves, count as shock value?
No, I imagine you probably don't. I'll start aiming above the belt when you do.
You sound just like Einsteins detractors when he bought out Relativity.
I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space".
You want to talk aboput Metaphysical friends?
Let's talk about Ambiplasma. (You don't believe in Ambiplasma? I don't believe in exotic artifacts).
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri.
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidedence to prove that there are electrical currents flowing between here and Andromeda, or for that matter the LMC, the SMC, or any of the milkways satelite galaxies.
Let's talk about the fact that there is no obvious, straight forward mechanism that comes close to explaining the apparent mass distribution in the bullet cluster, and the closest I have seen ANY plasma cosmology advocate come to doing so, has to assume that the arcing we see (of background galaxies) is not gravitational in origin, and assume that Halton Arps work is correct (the whole thing about aphrodite spring forth fully fledged from the head of Zeus... Oops... I mean lesser galaxies being ejected from larger galaxies - sounds kind of Olympian, or shoud I say Vellikoskian to me) in spite of the fact that his assertions about the most well known example having been shown to be completely in error.
Wait a minute... I can see what he means about the gas clouds in the Bullet Cluster, but... Wait a minute... Where is the larger galaxy the lesser galaxies are supposed to have sprung fully fledged from? Sounds like Hocus Pocus to me.
So yes, let's talk about metaphysics and imaginary friends for a while shall we?
And while we're talking about shock value, you don't think that YOUR continual refferences, from the start of this discussion, comparing λCDM model to religion and superstition, your continual refferences to elves, count as shock value?
No, I imagine you probably don't. I'll start aiming above the belt when you do.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 06:19 AM)
I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space".
Are we talking about Svante Arrhenius, (1859 – 1927) and his paper:
So you might be right that Birkeland was inspired by Arrhenius, but it does appear that Arrhenius himself favoured light pressure, and I can find no mention of Arrhenius considering space being filled with ions.
Are we talking about Svante Arrhenius, (1859 – 1927) and his paper:
- Svante Arrhenius, 1884, "Recherches sur la conductivité galvanique des électrolytes", doctoral dissertation, Stockholm, Royal publishing house, P.A. Norstedt & söner, 89 pages.
So you might be right that Birkeland was inspired by Arrhenius, but it does appear that Arrhenius himself favoured light pressure, and I can find no mention of Arrhenius considering space being filled with ions.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 06:19 AM)
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri.
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidedence to prove that there are electrical currents flowing between here and Andromeda, or for that matter the LMC, the SMC, or any of the milkways satelite galaxies.
Evidence does not prove, it is merely consistent with a theory, or if it is inconsistent, then it disproves it.
But there is observational evidence that is consistent with the more general idea that there are electric currents in space (see link for peer-reviewed papers), which of course, does not prove your statements.
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidedence to prove that there are electrical currents flowing between here and Andromeda, or for that matter the LMC, the SMC, or any of the milkways satelite galaxies.
Evidence does not prove, it is merely consistent with a theory, or if it is inconsistent, then it disproves it.
But there is observational evidence that is consistent with the more general idea that there are electric currents in space (see link for peer-reviewed papers), which of course, does not prove your statements.
Hello, Michael Mozina I've sent the version.
My version - http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original - http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Isoto...inOperation.pdf
It is revolution in the Astronomy and great sensation of XXl century.
My version - http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original - http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Isoto...inOperation.pdf
It is revolution in the Astronomy and great sensation of XXl century.
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 6 2008, 12:11 AM)
Are we talking about Svante Arrhenius, (1859 – 1927) and his paper:
So you might be right that Birkeland was inspired by Arrhenius, but it does appear that Arrhenius himself favoured light pressure, and I can find no mention of Arrhenius considering space being filled with ions.
Submitted in 1884?
Yeah, that would be the one that I'm referring to.
Cute. I was unaware that Arrhenius addressed Sunspots, or Aurora, but your missing my point.
Up until that point (and perhaps for a time after) AFAIK, the leading theory at the time was, I believe, that expressed by Faraday, that Ions were produced in the process of electrolysis, it was Arrhenius that first proposed the existence of free Ions in solution.
Without the concept of free ions in solution, or the concept of the existence of free ions, you can not have the idea of a plasma or free ions "flying about in space".
This is the point that I was trying to make (and have tried to make).
- Svante Arrhenius, 1884, "Recherches sur la conductivité galvanique des électrolytes", doctoral dissertation, Stockholm, Royal publishing house, P.A. Norstedt & söner, 89 pages.
So you might be right that Birkeland was inspired by Arrhenius, but it does appear that Arrhenius himself favoured light pressure, and I can find no mention of Arrhenius considering space being filled with ions.
Submitted in 1884?
Yeah, that would be the one that I'm referring to.
Cute. I was unaware that Arrhenius addressed Sunspots, or Aurora, but your missing my point.
Up until that point (and perhaps for a time after) AFAIK, the leading theory at the time was, I believe, that expressed by Faraday, that Ions were produced in the process of electrolysis, it was Arrhenius that first proposed the existence of free Ions in solution.
Without the concept of free ions in solution, or the concept of the existence of free ions, you can not have the idea of a plasma or free ions "flying about in space".
This is the point that I was trying to make (and have tried to make).
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 6 2008, 12:20 AM)
Evidence does not prove, it is merely consistent with a theory, or if it is inconsistent, then it disproves it.
But there is observational evidence that is consistent with the more general idea that there are electric currents in space (see link for peer-reviewed papers), which of course, does not prove your statements.
I'm well aware of both of these points, however, again, you seem to have slightly missed my point.
My point was the fact that, on several occasions mention has been made of the lack of direct proof of dark matter - in spite of the fact that I have mentioned, several times that AFAIK such proof is expected to be found in the next 12-18 months when various projects come online that actually have the capability to look for it (GLAST, Planck, LHC).
My point is that while there is evidence of currents in space, there is no evidence of any of the specific points I referred to, all of which would seem to be neccessary, especially when you take into account the fact that any alternative to dark matter has to be able to explain the motion of the SMC, the LMC, the Sagittarius Dawrf Galaxy, the Canis Major Dawrf galaxy, the Virgo Stellar Stream, etc, etc, as well as the way the Milky Way interacts with andromeda. If the illusions of dark matter is created by electric currents and magnetic fields, then all of these things must be connected to the Milk Way by some sort of electric currents, in which case there must be evidence and observations that support these assertions.
It's been claimed (repeatedly) that I'm putting my faith in invisible friends (which I expect to see in the next 12-18 months all things going well) however, plasma cosmology requires making one huge assumption. It requires faith in the validity of what Alfven refers to as the triple jump. It requires faith in the assumption that what we can do in the lab is scalable over 10 orders of magnitude, and that we can anticipate the physics of million+ kelvin plasmas.
Tell me, how, precisely, do you go about simulating the combined power output of five hundred and eighty billion suns in a laboratory?
But there is observational evidence that is consistent with the more general idea that there are electric currents in space (see link for peer-reviewed papers), which of course, does not prove your statements.
I'm well aware of both of these points, however, again, you seem to have slightly missed my point.
My point was the fact that, on several occasions mention has been made of the lack of direct proof of dark matter - in spite of the fact that I have mentioned, several times that AFAIK such proof is expected to be found in the next 12-18 months when various projects come online that actually have the capability to look for it (GLAST, Planck, LHC).
My point is that while there is evidence of currents in space, there is no evidence of any of the specific points I referred to, all of which would seem to be neccessary, especially when you take into account the fact that any alternative to dark matter has to be able to explain the motion of the SMC, the LMC, the Sagittarius Dawrf Galaxy, the Canis Major Dawrf galaxy, the Virgo Stellar Stream, etc, etc, as well as the way the Milky Way interacts with andromeda. If the illusions of dark matter is created by electric currents and magnetic fields, then all of these things must be connected to the Milk Way by some sort of electric currents, in which case there must be evidence and observations that support these assertions.
It's been claimed (repeatedly) that I'm putting my faith in invisible friends (which I expect to see in the next 12-18 months all things going well) however, plasma cosmology requires making one huge assumption. It requires faith in the validity of what Alfven refers to as the triple jump. It requires faith in the assumption that what we can do in the lab is scalable over 10 orders of magnitude, and that we can anticipate the physics of million+ kelvin plasmas.
Tell me, how, precisely, do you go about simulating the combined power output of five hundred and eighty billion suns in a laboratory?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 02:24 PM)
Without the concept of free ions in solution, or the concept of the existence of free ions, you can not have the idea of a plasma or free ions "flying about in space".
This is the point that I was trying to make (and have tried to make).
Of course. Wasn't it Newton who said that "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".
But I also like Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote: "Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail".
Or as Adlai Stevenson said: "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions".
Unfortunately science does not progress via clever quotes.
This is the point that I was trying to make (and have tried to make).
Of course. Wasn't it Newton who said that "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".
But I also like Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote: "Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail".
Or as Adlai Stevenson said: "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions".
Unfortunately science does not progress via clever quotes.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 02:46 PM)
I'm well aware of both of these points, however, again, you seem to have slightly missed my point.
My point was the fact that, on several occasions mention has been made of the lack of direct proof of dark matter - in spite of the fact that I have mentioned, several times that AFAIK such proof is expected to be found in the next 12-18 months when various projects come online that actually have the capability to look for it (GLAST, Planck, LHC).
I don't think you will find proof, only evidence consistent with the theory, which is not a bad thing, but certainly not a proof.
My point was the fact that, on several occasions mention has been made of the lack of direct proof of dark matter - in spite of the fact that I have mentioned, several times that AFAIK such proof is expected to be found in the next 12-18 months when various projects come online that actually have the capability to look for it (GLAST, Planck, LHC).
I don't think you will find proof, only evidence consistent with the theory, which is not a bad thing, but certainly not a proof.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 02:46 PM)
My point is that while there is evidence of currents in space, there is no evidence of any of the specific points I referred to, all of which would seem to be neccessary, especially when you take into account the fact that any alternative to dark matter has to be able to explain the motion of the SMC, the LMC, the Sagittarius Dawrf Galaxy, the Canis Major Dawrf galaxy, the Virgo Stellar Stream, etc, etc, as well as the way the Milky Way interacts with andromeda. If the illusions of dark matter is created by electric currents and magnetic fields, then all of these things must be connected to the Milk Way by some sort of electric currents, in which case there must be evidence and observations that support these assertions.
Agreed.
Let's talk about the fact that we have precisely *lots* of evidence that electrical currents flow between and through objects in our solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
Let's talk about the fact that we have precisely *lots* of evidence that electrical currents flow between and through objects in our solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
"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.
And what did THEMIS find?
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
And while we're talking about shock value, you don't think that YOUR continual refferences, from the start of this discussion, comparing λCDM model to religion and superstition, your continual refferences to elves, count as shock value?
Once you started swearing at me, and acting like a two year old, the gloves came off. Anytime you're willing to have a mature scientific discussion about EU theory, you let me know. Until they you've got exactly as much empirical evidence to support the concept of inflation as you have to support magic elves pushing the universe apart. In other words you have exactly *nothing* to support the idea. If your dogma can't take some open and honest criticism, maybe you should consider toning down your rhetoric.
People who live in glass houses...
I can certainly relate.
I can certainly relate.
First off. What's this obsession you have with electrical currents within the solar system? It's irritating.
Um, since our solar system is the only place I can unequivocally provide you with in situ measurements that support EU theory, where else would you suggest I start?
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I can handle the heat just fine. Evidently you can't handle the current flow that generates the heat.
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
I find this, in light of your comments about toning down my rhetoric, and you claiming your just responding in kind to be hypocritical at best.
Since nearly day one, you've resorted to personal ah homenems and (false) accusations of hypocrisy on my part. Any inflammatory comments on my part were a direct result of your unethical approach to debate. The moment you began debating these ideas is the moment you began attacking me personally. That's not science, that's juvenile behavior. I've openly admitted to being a part of the problem at this point, but it takes two to tango. I'm willing to try to tone it down, but you are not. You keep tossing in one of your shock value comments (hypocrite) and you keep flaming away. It's childish behavior.
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
People in glass houses indeed.
People in glass houses shouldn't walk around naked.
As it relates to our basic scientific disagreement, it's you that are naked. I can show you plenty of evidence that electricity and the flow of electrons has a definite and dramatic affect on objects in space. You keep flaming away, but at the core of our disagreement, you have no logical defense. EU theory is at least as worthy of being taught in the classroom as any current astronomical theory. Lambda-CDM theory is not scientifically superior to EU theory.
It's not my fault that you get upset at the thought of teaching EU theory along side of Lambda-CDM theory, or that you get upset about the fact that there are three different forms of metaphysics embedded into Lambda-CDM theory. I'm not the first guy to notice that there is a problem with Lambda-CDM theory.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Why are you blaming me personally for pointing out to you that Lambda-CMD theory is based on metaphysical ideas? Why can't you just say, "Well ya, I hear you"? Why do you have to get upset over me telling the truth?
Those "measurable properties" you're talking about come in the form of current carrying "ropes" of plasma where the electrical flow runs parallel to the magnetic fields. One ends up with a "Birkland current", that can be observed on truly massive scales:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
Those "measurable properties" you're talking about come in the form of current carrying "ropes" of plasma where the electrical flow runs parallel to the magnetic fields. One ends up with a "Birkland current", that can be observed on truly massive scales:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
I've been over this already. I've explained why I said what I said. My comments about hypocrisy are completely justifiable. You were espousing a double standard, I have outlined this double standard, you have refused to aknowledge it as such.
This statement bugs me because you refuse to embrace reality. I never asked you to give up your faith in metaphysics (yes it is metaphysics). I simply noted that Lambda-CDM theory was full of these non physically defined (metaphysical) entities. It is therefore irrational for you to claim that EU theory is not as viable as Lambda-CDM theory only because there is no evidence for ambiplasma. As I have stated now several times, Birkelands ideas required no faith in ambiplasma and I put no faith in that concept. Ambiplasma is not even a "metaphysical" idea in the sense that it's "parts" have been well defined. It is however lacking in empirical support which is why I don't put any faith in that idea either. Since I don't need to have faith in ambiplasmas to explain the ongoing electrical interactions in our solar system and our universe, your accusation is totally and completely baseless. I'm not even insisting that you give up your faith in non empirically demonstrated ideas, I simply pointed out that you can't "grade" Lamba-CMD theory as being superior to EU theory simply because ambiplasmas have not been demonstrated.
The "hypocrisy" accusation is false, it's a personal attack, and it's a shock value comment that has no place in a scientific discussion. Your debate methods are not ethical.
How does that recuse your behaviors towards me?
How does that recuse your behaviors towards me?
Did it occur to you that maybe it's your continual use of the word 'Metaphysics' that I object to (as much as anything else you've said) I've detailed some of the other reasons why I object to what you've said (your continual comparisons to religon and superstition) - mostly because at no point have you stated that you weren't using it as a perjurative.
There is nothing 'physically defined" in "dark energy". There is nothing physically defined in "inflation". These are therefore "metaphysical" ideas that have no physical model. What else would you have me call them when I can't possible begin to test for such in any controlled "physical" experiment? As far as I know I simply have to "have faith" in these ideas. "Faith" by way is a part of science. Dogma isn't. It's dogma when you only teach one brand of metaphysics and then try to exclude a perfectly *physical* theory like EU theory from entering the classroom. Because I tend to be a "show me" sort of individual that puts a large emphasis on empirical data and controlled testing methods of classical science, I have the same feelings about you stuffing Lambda-CMD metaphysics in the curriculum as I you might have if I tried to stuff young earth creationism into the curriculum. These ideas cannot possibly be demonstrated with empirical scientific evidence, which is exactly why I react toward each of these ideas in exactly the same way. That might irk you personally, but I did not attack YOU (by calling you a hypocrite for instance), I only scientifically attacked the metaphysical aspects of Lambda-CDM theory in the same way the authors of that petition attacked these ideas. Such scientific skepticism of scientific ideas is distinctly different from attacking you personally. You simply chose to take it personally and you chose to attack me personally by labeling me in ways that are utterly irrational and utterly wrong. All I asked for was "equal time" in the classroom. I didn't once ask you to give up your faith (and yes it's faith) in things that you cannot empirically demonstrate.
Well, that's certainly a good thing.
Well, that's certainly a good thing.
and as far as schools go, I've been over that already as well. Aside from the workload most teachers face (and I say that as someone who has trained as a teacher) where do you draw the line?
I personally draw the line at hard cold empirical supporting evidence. If you have some scientific evidence to support the idea, it's worth mentioning. If not, it's not worth mentioning in the classroom.
Is there empirical scientific supporting evidence to support a hollow earth theory?
Is there empirical scientific supporting evidence to support a hollow earth theory?
flat earth theory, young earth creationism,
That's just a silly comparison and it's more than a little demeaning to be comparing Birkeland's idea to 'flat earth' concepts. But of course you meant no offense and you would never bait me in any way.....
IMO, these theories are every bit as viable as Lambda-CDM theory. Why not at least mention these ideas too?
IMO, these theories are every bit as viable as Lambda-CDM theory. Why not at least mention these ideas too?
, and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on...
It seems to me that you're resorting to a "smear by association" tactics. The fact a specific theory isn't "popular" is not a legitimate reason to exclude a theory from scientific consideration. The fact a theory isn't popular doesn't mean you can automatically compare it to ideas that have been falsified by scientific evidence. MOND theory has not been falsified, and it is a legitimate scientific theory that has enjoy *MORE* scientific support than EU theory, and these ideas are published in mainstream journals. It is therefore utterly irrational for you to be comparing MOND theories with flat earth theories.
Maybe you're not paying close attention here, but I never asked you to include any of my work in high school. I asked you to include *Birkleland's* work and Birkeland's theories in the classroom. This issue has nothing to do with me or my theories.
Maybe you're not paying close attention here, but I never asked you to include any of my work in high school. I asked you to include *Birkleland's* work and Birkeland's theories in the classroom. This issue has nothing to do with me or my theories.
Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics.
I'm already doing that.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
What by the way is the problem with the publication "IEEE transactions in plasma physics"? You mean to tell me that you have some problem with plasma physics now?
Yes, and so do Lambda-CDM proponents according to their claims. When we look at the so called evidence, what we quickly discover is that the one thing they all have in common is none of these theories, including yours, can bring a shred of empirical evidence to the table from controlled scientific experimentation to support any of these claims. IMO Lambda-CDM theory is in exactly the same boat as everything on your list. Inflation? Show me some sort of inflation in a lab. Dark energy? Show me some empirical evidence from controlled testing that DE isn't a fudge factor of cosmic proportions. Non baryonic forms of dark matter? I hear they taste lovely in the Spring, but alas I can never seem to find any to see of that is true or false.
Plasma physics (and EU/plasma cosmology theory that is based on plasma physics) requires no faith in any metaphysical entities of any kind. Period. IMO that puts EU theory in a whole different league than your favorite theory of choice.
Yes, and so do Lambda-CDM proponents according to their claims. When we look at the so called evidence, what we quickly discover is that the one thing they all have in common is none of these theories, including yours, can bring a shred of empirical evidence to the table from controlled scientific experimentation to support any of these claims. IMO Lambda-CDM theory is in exactly the same boat as everything on your list. Inflation? Show me some sort of inflation in a lab. Dark energy? Show me some empirical evidence from controlled testing that DE isn't a fudge factor of cosmic proportions. Non baryonic forms of dark matter? I hear they taste lovely in the Spring, but alas I can never seem to find any to see of that is true or false.
Plasma physics (and EU/plasma cosmology theory that is based on plasma physics) requires no faith in any metaphysical entities of any kind. Period. IMO that puts EU theory in a whole different league than your favorite theory of choice.
In admitting one alternative theory, you have to admit them all.
No you don't. You only have to admit the ones that can bring actual empirical evidence to the table to support their views that can hold up to scrutiny and that can be repeated in lab. Ironically that blows your inflation beliefs out of the classroom, but hey, I'll let you keep it in there anyway. All I'm asking for is equal time for theories that can bring empirical evidence to the table to offset the metaphysical ideas that are currently "vogue".
Neither one of these ideas is provable or disprovable. How would I go about falsifying inflation? Non-baryonic forms of "dark matter"? Dark energy? Come on. Your statement is completely subjective. You could never objectively demonstrate that Lambda-CDM is any more or less provable that any MOG oriented theory.
Creationist to Trippy: Just because we can't empirically demonstrate creationism today, doesn't mean we can't demonstrate it at some future point in time!
Flat Earther to Trippy: Hey, that applies to my theory too Trippy! If you get to do that, then I get to put my dogma into the classroom too! None of us know what the future might bring, so if you get to do that, then I can too.
Creationist to Trippy: Just because we can't empirically demonstrate creationism today, doesn't mean we can't demonstrate it at some future point in time!
Flat Earther to Trippy: Hey, that applies to my theory too Trippy! If you get to do that, then I get to put my dogma into the classroom too! None of us know what the future might bring, so if you get to do that, then I can too.
So once again, you're guilty of doing the same exact thing you're lambasting me for doing.
Gah, you are impossible and you are in pure denial. *I* am not the one that is trying to stuff metaphysics down your children's throat. I am not trying to exclude your metaphysical theory from the classroom. I am not trying to get anything other than a fair shake for your children and mine, so they can make educated decisions and make an educated choice as to where to put their faith. The only hypocrite here is you. You insist on stuffing metaphysics down my children's throat just like a creationist, and you refuse to even allow me to introduce some *real* science from *real experiments* into the classroom. It's absurd. You're stuffing metaphysical dogma into the curriculum and you refuse to allow for other options to be discussed in the classroom. That my friend is blatant hypocrisy. What is worse is the fact you continue to falsely accuse me of applying a double standard, when I have patiently and carefully explained to you that I personally reject *all* forms of metaphysics, including ambiplasma! You are quite a trip.
Agreed.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 5 2008, 02:46 PM)
It's been claimed (repeatedly) that I'm putting my faith in invisible friends (which I expect to see in the next 12-18 months all things going well) however, plasma cosmology requires making one huge assumption. It requires faith in the validity of what Alfven refers to as the triple jump. It requires faith in the assumption that what we can do in the lab is scalable over 10 orders of magnitude, and that we can anticipate the physics of million+ kelvin plasmas.
Tell me, how, precisely, do you go about simulating the combined power output of five hundred and eighty billion suns in a laboratory?
I think there is a difference between "belief" in dark matter and "belief" in Alfvén's "triple jump" (extrapolation of plasma properties from the laboratory to magnetospheric scales to galactic scales), in that Alfvén and others have already shown empirically that many plasmas characteristics and phenomena scale over (I think) 14 orders of magnitude, whereas there is no empirical data on "dark matter".
Can we assume that the force of gravity is also consistent over as many orders of magnitude? Intuitively I would think so, but intuition is not very scientific.
Tell me, how, precisely, do you go about simulating the combined power output of five hundred and eighty billion suns in a laboratory?
I think there is a difference between "belief" in dark matter and "belief" in Alfvén's "triple jump" (extrapolation of plasma properties from the laboratory to magnetospheric scales to galactic scales), in that Alfvén and others have already shown empirically that many plasmas characteristics and phenomena scale over (I think) 14 orders of magnitude, whereas there is no empirical data on "dark matter".
Can we assume that the force of gravity is also consistent over as many orders of magnitude? Intuitively I would think so, but intuition is not very scientific.
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 6 2008, 05:56 AM)
I think there is a difference between "belief" in dark matter and "belief" in Alfvén's "triple jump" (extrapolation of plasma properties from the laboratory to magnetospheric scales to galactic scales), in that Alfvén and others have already shown empirically that many plasmas characteristics and phenomena scale over (I think) 14 orders of magnitude, whereas there is no empirical data on "dark matter".
I don't know, I guess that's a function of how you interprete the data isn't it?
I look around me and see plenty of emperical data supporting the idea of dark matter, I've even named some of it.
I don't know, I guess that's a function of how you interprete the data isn't it?
I look around me and see plenty of emperical data supporting the idea of dark matter, I've even named some of it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 06:30 AM)
I don't know, I guess that's a function of how you interprete the data isn't it?
I look around me and see plenty of empirical data supporting the idea of dark matter, I've even named some of it.
We have to clearly divide the observation from the hypothesis. There is no argument, for example, that there are flat galaxy rotation curves.
The hypothesis is that it is due to "dark matter" or perhaps electromagnetic forces. The flat rotation curves are consistent with both hypotheses.
Additionally scientists can perform test in the laboratory to see whether electromagnetic forces are consistent with the theory, which you can't do with dark matter. In this sense, there is no empirical data on dark matter; the empirical data is on flat galactic rotation curves.
I look around me and see plenty of empirical data supporting the idea of dark matter, I've even named some of it.
We have to clearly divide the observation from the hypothesis. There is no argument, for example, that there are flat galaxy rotation curves.
The hypothesis is that it is due to "dark matter" or perhaps electromagnetic forces. The flat rotation curves are consistent with both hypotheses.
Additionally scientists can perform test in the laboratory to see whether electromagnetic forces are consistent with the theory, which you can't do with dark matter. In this sense, there is no empirical data on dark matter; the empirical data is on flat galactic rotation curves.
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 6 2008, 10:48 PM)
We have to clearly divide the observation from the hypothesis. There is no argument, for example, that there are flat galaxy rotation curves.
The hypothesis is that it is due to "dark matter" or perhaps electromagnetic forces. The flat rotation curves are consistent with both hypotheses.
Additionally scientists can perform test in the laboratory to see whether electromagnetic forces are consistent with the theory, which you can't do with dark matter. In this sense, there is no empirical data on dark matter; the empirical data is on flat galactic rotation curves.
1) In all of Alfvens work that I have read, I can not recall having seen reference to laboratory experiments demonstrating this consistency. I have seen others do some calculations on computers, then point at the sky and say "look they're the same" but I fail to see how this is any different to what people claim is being done with dark matter.
2) YET. I can not show that YET. As I have been trying to point out to others on this thread - it is not unusual for science to make a prediction, then have to develop new tools or methods to confirm that prediction.
3) Flat rotation curves are not the only thing that the Dark Matter hypothesis relies upon, they were simply the first thing to be noted.
The hypothesis is that it is due to "dark matter" or perhaps electromagnetic forces. The flat rotation curves are consistent with both hypotheses.
Additionally scientists can perform test in the laboratory to see whether electromagnetic forces are consistent with the theory, which you can't do with dark matter. In this sense, there is no empirical data on dark matter; the empirical data is on flat galactic rotation curves.
1) In all of Alfvens work that I have read, I can not recall having seen reference to laboratory experiments demonstrating this consistency. I have seen others do some calculations on computers, then point at the sky and say "look they're the same" but I fail to see how this is any different to what people claim is being done with dark matter.
2) YET. I can not show that YET. As I have been trying to point out to others on this thread - it is not unusual for science to make a prediction, then have to develop new tools or methods to confirm that prediction.
3) Flat rotation curves are not the only thing that the Dark Matter hypothesis relies upon, they were simply the first thing to be noted.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 10:07 AM)
1) In all of Alfvens work that I have read, I can not recall having seen reference to laboratory experiments demonstrating this consistency. I have seen others do some calculations on computers, then point at the sky and say "look they're the same" but I fail to see how this is any different to what people claim is being done with dark matter.
2) YET. I can not show that YET. As I have been trying to point out to others on this thread - it is not unusual for science to make a prediction, then have to develop new tools or methods to confirm that prediction.
3) Flat rotation curves are not the only thing that the Dark Matter hypothesis relies upon, they were simply the first thing to be noted.
Sorry, my explanation is a little ambiguous. I suggested electromagnetism as an alternative hypothesis to dark matter. And then additionally, that electromagnetism could be tested. I am also not aware that Alfvén performed any laboratory test on plasmas and electromagnetism to see whether they were specifically consistent with dark matter.
However, laboratory tests of the behaviour of electromagnetism forces on plasmas, did allow Winston H. Bostick to test plasmoids in the laboratory, to compare their behavior to galaxies. See:
2) YET. I can not show that YET. As I have been trying to point out to others on this thread - it is not unusual for science to make a prediction, then have to develop new tools or methods to confirm that prediction.
3) Flat rotation curves are not the only thing that the Dark Matter hypothesis relies upon, they were simply the first thing to be noted.
Sorry, my explanation is a little ambiguous. I suggested electromagnetism as an alternative hypothesis to dark matter. And then additionally, that electromagnetism could be tested. I am also not aware that Alfvén performed any laboratory test on plasmas and electromagnetism to see whether they were specifically consistent with dark matter.
However, laboratory tests of the behaviour of electromagnetism forces on plasmas, did allow Winston H. Bostick to test plasmoids in the laboratory, to compare their behavior to galaxies. See:
- Bostick, Winston H., "Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory" Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 8. (Other references available)
- Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" [i]IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science[i] (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Available in full here
QUOTE
YET.
You sound just like Einsteins detractors when he bought out Relativity.
I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space".
You want to talk aboput Metaphysical friends?
Let's talk about Ambiplasma. (You don't believe in Ambiplasma? I don't believe in exotic artifacts).
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri.
You sound just like Einsteins detractors when he bought out Relativity.
I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space".
You want to talk aboput Metaphysical friends?
Let's talk about Ambiplasma. (You don't believe in Ambiplasma? I don't believe in exotic artifacts).
Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri.
Let's talk about the fact that we have precisely *lots* of evidence that electrical currents flow between and through objects in our solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YET. You sound just like Einsteins detractors when he bought out Relativity. I'll bet Arrhenius faced a similar attitude when he submitted his PhD thesis, without which, Birkeland wouldn't have been able to conceive the notion of "All kinds of ions flying about in space". You want to talk aboput Metaphysical friends? Let's talk about Ambiplasma. (You don't believe in Ambiplasma? I don't believe in exotic artifacts). Let's talk about the fact that you have precisely zero evidence to prove that there are electrical currents between here and Alphacentauri. |
Let's talk about the fact that we have precisely *lots* of evidence that electrical currents flow between and through objects in our solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
"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.
And what did THEMIS find?
QUOTE
"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."
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "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." |
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
And while we're talking about shock value, you don't think that YOUR continual refferences, from the start of this discussion, comparing λCDM model to religion and superstition, your continual refferences to elves, count as shock value?
Once you started swearing at me, and acting like a two year old, the gloves came off. Anytime you're willing to have a mature scientific discussion about EU theory, you let me know. Until they you've got exactly as much empirical evidence to support the concept of inflation as you have to support magic elves pushing the universe apart. In other words you have exactly *nothing* to support the idea. If your dogma can't take some open and honest criticism, maybe you should consider toning down your rhetoric.
People who live in glass houses...
QUOTE (iantresman+Jan 7 2008, 03:22 AM)
Sorry, my explanation is a little ambiguous. I suggested electromagnetism as an alternative hypothesis to dark matter. And then additionally, that electromagnetism could be tested. I am also not aware that Alfvén performed any laboratory test on plasmas and electromagnetism to see whether they were specifically consistent with dark matter.
However, laboratory tests of the behaviour of electromagnetism forces on plasmas, did allow Winston H. Bostick to test plasmoids in the laboratory, to compare their behavior to galaxies. See:
It might have been Perrats work that I was thinking of.
The whole thing with Magentic fields and current sheets leading to grand design spirals with characteristic patterns of radiowave emissions, which they claimed to have detected. I think we're talking about the same thing - I lack the time to dig the paper out of my hard drive at the moment to double check.
I would however like to correct your last sentence.
You said "Unfortunately we do not have the same luxury to be able to test dark matter in the same way in the laboratory."
That sentence, as it stands is incorrect, and youd read "Unfortunately we do not yet have the same luxury to be able to test some theories of dark matter in the same way in the laboratory."
And then remind you that it is only the WIMP theory of Dark matter that remains elusive for the time being, the MACHO theory, and IIRC WIDGET theory rely on ordinary baryonic matter, which we can test plenty in the laboratory, we can even test Bose-Einstein condensates (Yet another theory that posited the existence of a new state of matter that was not verified or verifiable when it was first proposed).
However, laboratory tests of the behaviour of electromagnetism forces on plasmas, did allow Winston H. Bostick to test plasmoids in the laboratory, to compare their behavior to galaxies. See:
- Bostick, Winston H., "Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory" Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 8. (Other references available)
- Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" [i]IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science[i] (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Available in full here
It might have been Perrats work that I was thinking of.
The whole thing with Magentic fields and current sheets leading to grand design spirals with characteristic patterns of radiowave emissions, which they claimed to have detected. I think we're talking about the same thing - I lack the time to dig the paper out of my hard drive at the moment to double check.
I would however like to correct your last sentence.
You said "Unfortunately we do not have the same luxury to be able to test dark matter in the same way in the laboratory."
That sentence, as it stands is incorrect, and youd read "Unfortunately we do not yet have the same luxury to be able to test some theories of dark matter in the same way in the laboratory."
And then remind you that it is only the WIMP theory of Dark matter that remains elusive for the time being, the MACHO theory, and IIRC WIDGET theory rely on ordinary baryonic matter, which we can test plenty in the laboratory, we can even test Bose-Einstein condensates (Yet another theory that posited the existence of a new state of matter that was not verified or verifiable when it was first proposed).
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 7 2008, 07:24 AM)
Let's talk about the fact that we have precisely *lots* of evidence that electrical currents flow between and through objects in our solar system:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
And what did THEMIS find?
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
Once you started swearing at me, and acting like a two year old, the gloves came off. Anytime you're willing to have a mature scientific discussion about EU theory, you let me know. Until they you've got exactly as much empirical evidence to support the concept of inflation as you have to support magic elves pushing the universe apart. In other words you have exactly *nothing* to support the idea. If your dogma can't take some open and honest criticism, maybe you should consider toning down your rhetoric.
People who live in glass houses...
I'm actually very rapidly loosing any interest in addressing anything said by you.
First off. What's this obsession you have with electrical currents within the solar system? It's irritating.
It's irritating, because nowhere have I actually denied that these things exist, in fact, on the contrary, I've made several references to those very same findings that you're now claiming I'm ignoring.
If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. You have yet to admit any culpability for anything you have said. I've already explained to you that I found your continual references comparing λCDM to elves during the posts when I was still trying to be polite, and before I started swearing irritating.
I find this, in light of your comments about toning down my rhetoric, and you claiming your just responding in kind to be hypocritical at best.
You're allowed to respond in kind but i'm not?
People in glass houses indeed.
People in glass houses shouldn't walk around naked.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0708...wed_saturn.html
Ring "currents" around planets? How does that happen in a non-electric universe? Oh but wait, it gets more interesting:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/a...ern_lights.html
Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.
And what did THEMIS find?
Are you just going to ignore that information or what?
Once you started swearing at me, and acting like a two year old, the gloves came off. Anytime you're willing to have a mature scientific discussion about EU theory, you let me know. Until they you've got exactly as much empirical evidence to support the concept of inflation as you have to support magic elves pushing the universe apart. In other words you have exactly *nothing* to support the idea. If your dogma can't take some open and honest criticism, maybe you should consider toning down your rhetoric.
People who live in glass houses...
I'm actually very rapidly loosing any interest in addressing anything said by you.
First off. What's this obsession you have with electrical currents within the solar system? It's irritating.
It's irritating, because nowhere have I actually denied that these things exist, in fact, on the contrary, I've made several references to those very same findings that you're now claiming I'm ignoring.
If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. You have yet to admit any culpability for anything you have said. I've already explained to you that I found your continual references comparing λCDM to elves during the posts when I was still trying to be polite, and before I started swearing irritating.
I find this, in light of your comments about toning down my rhetoric, and you claiming your just responding in kind to be hypocritical at best.
You're allowed to respond in kind but i'm not?
People in glass houses indeed.
People in glass houses shouldn't walk around naked.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 09:01 PM)
And then remind you that it is only the WIMP theory of Dark matter that remains elusive for the time being, the MACHO theory, and IIRC WIDGET theory rely on ordinary baryonic matter, which we can test plenty in the laboratory, we can even test Bose-Einstein condensates (Yet another theory that posited the existence of a new state of matter that was not verified or verifiable when it was first proposed).
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
QUOTE
I'm actually very rapidly loosing any interest in addressing anything said by you.
I can certainly relate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm actually very rapidly loosing any interest in addressing anything said by you. |
I can certainly relate.
First off. What's this obsession you have with electrical currents within the solar system? It's irritating.
Um, since our solar system is the only place I can unequivocally provide you with in situ measurements that support EU theory, where else would you suggest I start?
QUOTE
It's irritating, because nowhere have I actually denied that these things exist, in fact, on the contrary, I've made several references to those very same findings that you're now claiming I'm ignoring.
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's irritating, because nowhere have I actually denied that these things exist, in fact, on the contrary, I've made several references to those very same findings that you're now claiming I'm ignoring. |
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I can handle the heat just fine. Evidently you can't handle the current flow that generates the heat.
QUOTE
You have yet to admit any culpability for anything you have said. I've already explained to you that I found your continual references comparing λCDM to elves during the posts when I was still trying to be polite, and before I started swearing irritating.
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have yet to admit any culpability for anything you have said. I've already explained to you that I found your continual references comparing λCDM to elves during the posts when I was still trying to be polite, and before I started swearing irritating. |
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
I find this, in light of your comments about toning down my rhetoric, and you claiming your just responding in kind to be hypocritical at best.
Since nearly day one, you've resorted to personal ah homenems and (false) accusations of hypocrisy on my part. Any inflammatory comments on my part were a direct result of your unethical approach to debate. The moment you began debating these ideas is the moment you began attacking me personally. That's not science, that's juvenile behavior. I've openly admitted to being a part of the problem at this point, but it takes two to tango. I'm willing to try to tone it down, but you are not. You keep tossing in one of your shock value comments (hypocrite) and you keep flaming away. It's childish behavior.
QUOTE
You're allowed to respond in kind but i'm not?
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're allowed to respond in kind but i'm not? |
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
People in glass houses indeed.
People in glass houses shouldn't walk around naked.
As it relates to our basic scientific disagreement, it's you that are naked. I can show you plenty of evidence that electricity and the flow of electrons has a definite and dramatic affect on objects in space. You keep flaming away, but at the core of our disagreement, you have no logical defense. EU theory is at least as worthy of being taught in the classroom as any current astronomical theory. Lambda-CDM theory is not scientifically superior to EU theory.
It's not my fault that you get upset at the thought of teaching EU theory along side of Lambda-CDM theory, or that you get upset about the fact that there are three different forms of metaphysics embedded into Lambda-CDM theory. I'm not the first guy to notice that there is a problem with Lambda-CDM theory.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Why are you blaming me personally for pointing out to you that Lambda-CMD theory is based on metaphysical ideas? Why can't you just say, "Well ya, I hear you"? Why do you have to get upset over me telling the truth?
Hello Michael Mozina I’ve signed there…
http://www.health-freedom.info/bbnh/index.htm#Independent
My version of the sensational research "Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation"
now is available for everyone. Please send to your friends.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Dear readers Please Rewrite and send to your friends
My version- http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original- http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Isoto...inOperation.pdf
http://www.health-freedom.info/bbnh/index.htm#Independent
My version of the sensational research "Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation"
now is available for everyone. Please send to your friends.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Dear readers Please Rewrite and send to your friends
My version- http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
original- http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Isoto...inOperation.pdf
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 7 2008, 04:36 PM)
Um, since our solar system is the only place I can unequivocally provide you with in situ measurements that support EU theory, where else would you suggest I start?
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
I can handle the heat just fine. Evidently you can't handle the current flow that generates the heat.
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
Since nearly day one, you've resorted to personal ah homenems and (false) accusations of hypocrisy on my part. Any inflammatory comments on my part were a direct result of your unethical approach to debate. The moment you began debating these ideas is the moment you began attacking me personally. That's not science, that's juvenile behavior. I've openly admitted to being a part of the problem at this point, but it takes two to tango. I'm willing to try to tone it down, but you are not. You keep tossing in one of your shock value comments (hypocrite) and you keep flaming away. It's childish behavior.
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
As it relates to our basic scientific disagreement, it's you that are naked. I can show you plenty of evidence that electricity and the flow of electrons has a definite and dramatic affect on objects in space. You keep flaming away, but at the core of our disagreement, you have no logical defense. EU theory is at least as worthy of being taught in the classroom as any current astronomical theory. Lambda-CDM theory is not scientifically superior to EU theory.
It's not my fault that you get upset at the thought of teaching EU theory along side of Lambda-CDM theory, or that you get upset about the fact that there are three different forms of metaphysics embedded into Lambda-CDM theory. I'm not the first guy to notice that there is a problem with Lambda-CDM theory.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Why are you blaming me personally for pointing out to you that Lambda-CMD theory is based on metaphysical ideas? Why can't you just say, "Well ya, I hear you"? Why do you have to get upset over me telling the truth?
I've been over this. Besides, last time I checked Currents flowing through space in the presence of a b-field had characteristic, measurable properties, so measurable in fact that mainstream science has been able to measure the magnetic fields in LMC's.
I've been over this already as well.
Bull.
I've been over this already as well, and I can see by one of your comments that you've almost understood the point that I was trying to make (I bolded it for you), but you've got it turned around.
I've been over this already. I've explained why I said what I said. My comments about hypocrisy are completely justifiable. You were espousing a double standard, I have outlined this double standard, you have refused to aknowledge it as such.
I do, even in this thread I have. Have I, or have I not just finished having a perfectly civil conversation with iantresman?
Do you take every humerous metaphor literally? I try and interject a little humor and levity into the situation, and you turn it into a personal attack.
Did it occur to you that maybe it's your continual use of the word 'Metaphysics' that I object to (as much as anything else you've said) I've detailed some of the other reasons why I object to what you've said (your continual comparisons to religon and superstition) - mostly because at no point have you stated that you weren't using it as a perjurative.
Nowhere have I claimed that everybody agrees with the λCDM theory, and as far as schools go, I've been over that already as well. Aside from the workload most teachers face (and I say that as someone who has trained as a teacher) where do you draw the line? Where do you say this alternative theory is fine, but that one isn't. If we teach Plasma Cosmology in highschool, then we also have to teach the Hollow Earth theory, flat earth theory, young earth creationism, MOND, MOG, intelligent design, and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on...
You want to get your theories taught in highschool. Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics.
Then why are you so darn reluctant to accept that there is an electrical current running through objects in space? What's with that bad attitude and irritation? Can't you just say "Oh, I guess Birkeland's theories do deserve to be taught in school"? What's the big deal? What's with the chants of "hypocrisy"?
I can handle the heat just fine. Evidently you can't handle the current flow that generates the heat.
You gave me some song and dance about why EU theory was inferior to standard theory based on some "ambiplasma" argument. I simply pointed out to you that Lambda-CDM theory includes not one, not two, but three different forms of metaphysical constructs that have never empirically been demonstrated to exist in nature and you went ballistic. If your ambiplasma criticism has any merit at all, then so does my criticism of Lambda-CDM theory. Why get all uptight and attached to Lambda-CDM theory? It's not like I was attacking you personally. I was simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.
Since nearly day one, you've resorted to personal ah homenems and (false) accusations of hypocrisy on my part. Any inflammatory comments on my part were a direct result of your unethical approach to debate. The moment you began debating these ideas is the moment you began attacking me personally. That's not science, that's juvenile behavior. I've openly admitted to being a part of the problem at this point, but it takes two to tango. I'm willing to try to tone it down, but you are not. You keep tossing in one of your shock value comments (hypocrite) and you keep flaming away. It's childish behavior.
You're also allowed to just agree to tone things down a few notches. Why don't you every just choose to say "ok""?
As it relates to our basic scientific disagreement, it's you that are naked. I can show you plenty of evidence that electricity and the flow of electrons has a definite and dramatic affect on objects in space. You keep flaming away, but at the core of our disagreement, you have no logical defense. EU theory is at least as worthy of being taught in the classroom as any current astronomical theory. Lambda-CDM theory is not scientifically superior to EU theory.
It's not my fault that you get upset at the thought of teaching EU theory along side of Lambda-CDM theory, or that you get upset about the fact that there are three different forms of metaphysics embedded into Lambda-CDM theory. I'm not the first guy to notice that there is a problem with Lambda-CDM theory.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Why are you blaming me personally for pointing out to you that Lambda-CMD theory is based on metaphysical ideas? Why can't you just say, "Well ya, I hear you"? Why do you have to get upset over me telling the truth?
I've been over this. Besides, last time I checked Currents flowing through space in the presence of a b-field had characteristic, measurable properties, so measurable in fact that mainstream science has been able to measure the magnetic fields in LMC's.
I've been over this already as well.
Bull.
I've been over this already as well, and I can see by one of your comments that you've almost understood the point that I was trying to make (I bolded it for you), but you've got it turned around.
I've been over this already. I've explained why I said what I said. My comments about hypocrisy are completely justifiable. You were espousing a double standard, I have outlined this double standard, you have refused to aknowledge it as such.
I do, even in this thread I have. Have I, or have I not just finished having a perfectly civil conversation with iantresman?
Do you take every humerous metaphor literally? I try and interject a little humor and levity into the situation, and you turn it into a personal attack.
Did it occur to you that maybe it's your continual use of the word 'Metaphysics' that I object to (as much as anything else you've said) I've detailed some of the other reasons why I object to what you've said (your continual comparisons to religon and superstition) - mostly because at no point have you stated that you weren't using it as a perjurative.
Nowhere have I claimed that everybody agrees with the λCDM theory, and as far as schools go, I've been over that already as well. Aside from the workload most teachers face (and I say that as someone who has trained as a teacher) where do you draw the line? Where do you say this alternative theory is fine, but that one isn't. If we teach Plasma Cosmology in highschool, then we also have to teach the Hollow Earth theory, flat earth theory, young earth creationism, MOND, MOG, intelligent design, and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on...
You want to get your theories taught in highschool. Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics.
QUOTE
I've been over this. Besides, last time I checked Currents flowing through space in the presence of a b-field had characteristic, measurable properties, so measurable in fact that mainstream science has been able to measure the magnetic fields in LMC's.
Those "measurable properties" you're talking about come in the form of current carrying "ropes" of plasma where the electrical flow runs parallel to the magnetic fields. One ends up with a "Birkland current", that can be observed on truly massive scales:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've been over this. Besides, last time I checked Currents flowing through space in the presence of a b-field had characteristic, measurable properties, so measurable in fact that mainstream science has been able to measure the magnetic fields in LMC's. |
Those "measurable properties" you're talking about come in the form of current carrying "ropes" of plasma where the electrical flow runs parallel to the magnetic fields. One ends up with a "Birkland current", that can be observed on truly massive scales:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
I've been over this already. I've explained why I said what I said. My comments about hypocrisy are completely justifiable. You were espousing a double standard, I have outlined this double standard, you have refused to aknowledge it as such.
This statement bugs me because you refuse to embrace reality. I never asked you to give up your faith in metaphysics (yes it is metaphysics). I simply noted that Lambda-CDM theory was full of these non physically defined (metaphysical) entities. It is therefore irrational for you to claim that EU theory is not as viable as Lambda-CDM theory only because there is no evidence for ambiplasma. As I have stated now several times, Birkelands ideas required no faith in ambiplasma and I put no faith in that concept. Ambiplasma is not even a "metaphysical" idea in the sense that it's "parts" have been well defined. It is however lacking in empirical support which is why I don't put any faith in that idea either. Since I don't need to have faith in ambiplasmas to explain the ongoing electrical interactions in our solar system and our universe, your accusation is totally and completely baseless. I'm not even insisting that you give up your faith in non empirically demonstrated ideas, I simply pointed out that you can't "grade" Lamba-CMD theory as being superior to EU theory simply because ambiplasmas have not been demonstrated.
The "hypocrisy" accusation is false, it's a personal attack, and it's a shock value comment that has no place in a scientific discussion. Your debate methods are not ethical.
QUOTE
I do, even in this thread I have. Have I, or have I not just finished having a perfectly civil conversation with iantresman?
How does that recuse your behaviors towards me?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do, even in this thread I have. Have I, or have I not just finished having a perfectly civil conversation with iantresman? |
How does that recuse your behaviors towards me?
Did it occur to you that maybe it's your continual use of the word 'Metaphysics' that I object to (as much as anything else you've said) I've detailed some of the other reasons why I object to what you've said (your continual comparisons to religon and superstition) - mostly because at no point have you stated that you weren't using it as a perjurative.
There is nothing 'physically defined" in "dark energy". There is nothing physically defined in "inflation". These are therefore "metaphysical" ideas that have no physical model. What else would you have me call them when I can't possible begin to test for such in any controlled "physical" experiment? As far as I know I simply have to "have faith" in these ideas. "Faith" by way is a part of science. Dogma isn't. It's dogma when you only teach one brand of metaphysics and then try to exclude a perfectly *physical* theory like EU theory from entering the classroom. Because I tend to be a "show me" sort of individual that puts a large emphasis on empirical data and controlled testing methods of classical science, I have the same feelings about you stuffing Lambda-CMD metaphysics in the curriculum as I you might have if I tried to stuff young earth creationism into the curriculum. These ideas cannot possibly be demonstrated with empirical scientific evidence, which is exactly why I react toward each of these ideas in exactly the same way. That might irk you personally, but I did not attack YOU (by calling you a hypocrite for instance), I only scientifically attacked the metaphysical aspects of Lambda-CDM theory in the same way the authors of that petition attacked these ideas. Such scientific skepticism of scientific ideas is distinctly different from attacking you personally. You simply chose to take it personally and you chose to attack me personally by labeling me in ways that are utterly irrational and utterly wrong. All I asked for was "equal time" in the classroom. I didn't once ask you to give up your faith (and yes it's faith) in things that you cannot empirically demonstrate.
QUOTE
Nowhere have I claimed that everybody agrees with the λCDM theory,
Well, that's certainly a good thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nowhere have I claimed that everybody agrees with the λCDM theory, |
Well, that's certainly a good thing.
and as far as schools go, I've been over that already as well. Aside from the workload most teachers face (and I say that as someone who has trained as a teacher) where do you draw the line?
I personally draw the line at hard cold empirical supporting evidence. If you have some scientific evidence to support the idea, it's worth mentioning. If not, it's not worth mentioning in the classroom.
QUOTE
Where do you say this alternative theory is fine, but that one isn't. If we teach Plasma Cosmology in highschool, then we also have to teach the Hollow Earth theory,
Is there empirical scientific supporting evidence to support a hollow earth theory?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where do you say this alternative theory is fine, but that one isn't. If we teach Plasma Cosmology in highschool, then we also have to teach the Hollow Earth theory, |
Is there empirical scientific supporting evidence to support a hollow earth theory?
flat earth theory, young earth creationism,
That's just a silly comparison and it's more than a little demeaning to be comparing Birkeland's idea to 'flat earth' concepts. But of course you meant no offense and you would never bait me in any way.....
QUOTE
MOND, MOG,
IMO, these theories are every bit as viable as Lambda-CDM theory. Why not at least mention these ideas too?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MOND, MOG, |
IMO, these theories are every bit as viable as Lambda-CDM theory. Why not at least mention these ideas too?
, and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on...
It seems to me that you're resorting to a "smear by association" tactics. The fact a specific theory isn't "popular" is not a legitimate reason to exclude a theory from scientific consideration. The fact a theory isn't popular doesn't mean you can automatically compare it to ideas that have been falsified by scientific evidence. MOND theory has not been falsified, and it is a legitimate scientific theory that has enjoy *MORE* scientific support than EU theory, and these ideas are published in mainstream journals. It is therefore utterly irrational for you to be comparing MOND theories with flat earth theories.
QUOTE
You want to get your theories taught in highschool.
Maybe you're not paying close attention here, but I never asked you to include any of my work in high school. I asked you to include *Birkleland's* work and Birkeland's theories in the classroom. This issue has nothing to do with me or my theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want to get your theories taught in highschool. |
Maybe you're not paying close attention here, but I never asked you to include any of my work in high school. I asked you to include *Birkleland's* work and Birkeland's theories in the classroom. This issue has nothing to do with me or my theories.
Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics.
I'm already doing that.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
What by the way is the problem with the publication "IEEE transactions in plasma physics"? You mean to tell me that you have some problem with plasma physics now?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
Those "measurable properties" you're talking about come in the form of current carrying "ropes" of plasma where the electrical flow runs parallel to the magnetic fields. One ends up with a "Birkland current", that can be observed on truly massive scales:
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
Congratulations.
You know how to use the internet, and you found the exact article I was thinking of when I made that part of the post.
What now?
it still isn't evidence consistent with the idea of current flow between here and alpha centauri.
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between here and Andromeda.
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between the local group and the virgo supercluster.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
That coiling effect is a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma.
Congratulations.
You know how to use the internet, and you found the exact article I was thinking of when I made that part of the post.
What now?
it still isn't evidence consistent with the idea of current flow between here and alpha centauri.
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between here and Andromeda.
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between the local group and the virgo supercluster.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
This statement bugs me because you refuse to embrace reality. I never asked you to give up your faith in metaphysics (yes it is metaphysics). I simply noted that Lambda-CDM theory was full of these non physically defined (metaphysical) entities. It is therefore irrational for you to claim that EU theory is not as viable as Lambda-CDM theory only because there is no evidence for ambiplasma. As I have stated now several times, Birkelands ideas required no faith in ambiplasma and I put no faith in that concept. Ambiplasma is not even a "metaphysical" idea in the sense that it's "parts" have been well defined. It is however lacking in empirical support which is why I don't put any faith in that idea either. Since I don't need to have faith in ambiplasmas to explain the ongoing electrical interactions in our solar system and our universe, your accusation is totally and completely baseless. I'm not even insisting that you give up your faith in non empirically demonstrated ideas, I simply pointed out that you can't "grade" Lamba-CMD theory as being superior to EU theory simply because ambiplasmas have not been demonstrated.
The "hypocrisy" accusation is false, it's a personal attack, and it's a shock value comment that has no place in a scientific discussion. Your debate methods are not ethical.
Here we go again.
Once more around the Mullberry bush shall we.
Me: "Your statements are hypocritical"
You: "No they aren't."
Me: "Yes they are, they're hypocritical because you we were willing to wait for one theory that has, in places, taken over one hundred years to verify, but you claim that another must be in error because it remains unproven after 20-30 years."
You: "But Birkelands theories were demonstrable with lab based experiments, and you can't point to a gram of dark matter."
Me: "Yes, but without prior theories which required the positing of new forms of matter (ions, Plasma) Birkeland would not have been able to envisage 'electrons and ions of all kinds flying about in space, he had the tools to demonstrate his ideas, we don't, however, we will in the next 12-18 months, and a list of observational evidence consistent with the λCDM theories."
You: "Why should I have to wait? That's not how science works, you don't make predictions that you can't back up with laboratory experiments."
Me: "Here's an extensive list of examples over the last three hundred years which are directly comparable - people proving new, unproven/unprovable things, and then the tools being developed to try and disprove their assertions."
You: "I don't care what happened before Birkeland."
Me: "Your statements are hypocritical."
That's the point that you've missed. I don't refer to your statements as being hypocritical because I'm trying to generate shock value, or any of that bull.
I refer to them as being hypocritical, because I regard them as being a genuine hypocrisy for the reasons I have already tried to outline I believe three, maybe four times now, and they're reasons that you still have not seemingly managed to grasp.
The "hypocrisy" accusation is false, it's a personal attack, and it's a shock value comment that has no place in a scientific discussion. Your debate methods are not ethical.
Here we go again.
Once more around the Mullberry bush shall we.
Me: "Your statements are hypocritical"
You: "No they aren't."
Me: "Yes they are, they're hypocritical because you we were willing to wait for one theory that has, in places, taken over one hundred years to verify, but you claim that another must be in error because it remains unproven after 20-30 years."
You: "But Birkelands theories were demonstrable with lab based experiments, and you can't point to a gram of dark matter."
Me: "Yes, but without prior theories which required the positing of new forms of matter (ions, Plasma) Birkeland would not have been able to envisage 'electrons and ions of all kinds flying about in space, he had the tools to demonstrate his ideas, we don't, however, we will in the next 12-18 months, and a list of observational evidence consistent with the λCDM theories."
You: "Why should I have to wait? That's not how science works, you don't make predictions that you can't back up with laboratory experiments."
Me: "Here's an extensive list of examples over the last three hundred years which are directly comparable - people proving new, unproven/unprovable things, and then the tools being developed to try and disprove their assertions."
You: "I don't care what happened before Birkeland."
Me: "Your statements are hypocritical."
That's the point that you've missed. I don't refer to your statements as being hypocritical because I'm trying to generate shock value, or any of that bull.
I refer to them as being hypocritical, because I regard them as being a genuine hypocrisy for the reasons I have already tried to outline I believe three, maybe four times now, and they're reasons that you still have not seemingly managed to grasp.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
There is nothing 'physically defined" in "dark energy". There is nothing physically defined in "inflation". These are therefore "metaphysical" ideas that have no physical model. What else would you have me call them when I can't possible begin to test for such in any controlled "physical" experiment? As far as I know I simply have to "have faith" in these ideas. "Faith" by way is a part of science. Dogma isn't. It's dogma when you only teach one brand of metaphysics and then try to exclude a perfectly *physical* theory like EU theory from entering the classroom. Because I tend to be a "show me" sort of individual that puts a large emphasis on empirical data and controlled testing methods of classical science, I have the same feelings about you stuffing Lambda-CMD metaphysics in the curriculum as I you might have if I tried to stuff young earth creationism into the curriculum. These ideas cannot possibly be demonstrated with empirical scientific evidence, which is exactly why I react toward each of these ideas in exactly the same way. That might irk you personally, but I did not attack YOU (by calling you a hypocrite for instance), I only scientifically attacked the metaphysical aspects of Lambda-CDM theory in the same way the authors of that petition attacked these ideas. Such scientific skepticism of scientific ideas is distinctly different from attacking you personally. You simply chose to take it personally and you chose to attack me personally by labeling me in ways that are utterly irrational and utterly wrong. All I asked for was "equal time" in the classroom. I didn't once ask you to give up your faith (and yes it's faith) in things that you cannot empirically demonstrate.
Emperically demonstrate YET.
How many times am I going to have to correct you on this simple thing?
I've already outlined (many times) why I used the word hypocrisy.
And what you're proposing is a second hypocrisy (in a way) it would be engendering another double standard.
Moreover, your imposing things upon me that I did not actually say.
I refered to the idea representing a hypocrisy, you personalized this and assumed I was calling you a hypocrite.
My original statement was "You don't even understand the inherrent hypocrisy of what you're saying do you?"
I thought that was pretty clear that I was addressing the idea rather then referring to the person - or do you think that a person that has a stupid idea must be stupid?
And if you don't believe me, use your browser to do a search for the word 'hypocrite' you'll find that you used it 3 or 4 times before I directly called you a hypocrite.
So once again, you're guilty of doing the same exact thing you're lambasting me for doing.
And as far as Dark energy goes...
Does anybody else on this thread want to have a go at explaining why Photons that pass through voids lose more energy then photons that don't? It's part of the reason the void you keep referring back to was found in the first place.
Emperically demonstrate YET.
How many times am I going to have to correct you on this simple thing?
I've already outlined (many times) why I used the word hypocrisy.
And what you're proposing is a second hypocrisy (in a way) it would be engendering another double standard.
Moreover, your imposing things upon me that I did not actually say.
I refered to the idea representing a hypocrisy, you personalized this and assumed I was calling you a hypocrite.
My original statement was "You don't even understand the inherrent hypocrisy of what you're saying do you?"
I thought that was pretty clear that I was addressing the idea rather then referring to the person - or do you think that a person that has a stupid idea must be stupid?
And if you don't believe me, use your browser to do a search for the word 'hypocrite' you'll find that you used it 3 or 4 times before I directly called you a hypocrite.
So once again, you're guilty of doing the same exact thing you're lambasting me for doing.
And as far as Dark energy goes...
Does anybody else on this thread want to have a go at explaining why Photons that pass through voids lose more energy then photons that don't? It's part of the reason the void you keep referring back to was found in the first place.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
That's just a silly comparison and it's more than a little demeaning to be comparing Birkeland's idea to 'flat earth' concepts. But of course you meant no offense and you would never bait me in any way.....
It seems to me that you're resorting to a "smear by association" tactics. The fact a specific theory isn't "popular" is not a legitimate reason to exclude a theory from scientific consideration. The fact a theory isn't popular doesn't mean you can automatically compare it to ideas that have been falsified by scientific evidence. MOND theory has not been falsified, and it is a legitimate scientific theory that has enjoy *MORE* scientific support than EU theory, and these ideas are published in mainstream journals. It is therefore utterly irrational for you to be comparing MOND theories with flat earth theories.
Again, you're failing to grasp my point.
The Flat Earth Society, proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory, Young Creationists, advocates of Intelligent Design, all maintain they have evidence to support their theories.
But that wasn't my point.
In admitting one alternative theory, you have to admit them all.
As far as MOND and MOG go? I don't know enough about MOG to comment on it accurately, but MOND is actually LESS provable/disprovable then λCDM is.
It seems to me that you're resorting to a "smear by association" tactics. The fact a specific theory isn't "popular" is not a legitimate reason to exclude a theory from scientific consideration. The fact a theory isn't popular doesn't mean you can automatically compare it to ideas that have been falsified by scientific evidence. MOND theory has not been falsified, and it is a legitimate scientific theory that has enjoy *MORE* scientific support than EU theory, and these ideas are published in mainstream journals. It is therefore utterly irrational for you to be comparing MOND theories with flat earth theories.
Again, you're failing to grasp my point.
The Flat Earth Society, proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory, Young Creationists, advocates of Intelligent Design, all maintain they have evidence to support their theories.
But that wasn't my point.
In admitting one alternative theory, you have to admit them all.
As far as MOND and MOG go? I don't know enough about MOG to comment on it accurately, but MOND is actually LESS provable/disprovable then λCDM is.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
Maybe you're not paying close attention here, but I never asked you to include any of my work in high school. I asked you to include *Birkleland's* work and Birkeland's theories in the classroom. This issue has nothing to do with me or my theories.
Actually, it's you that isn't paying close attention.
You has two forms.
Plural, and singular. The english language used to differentiate between the two of them, and although I usually specify when I mean plural, I don't always remember to do so.
In this case, I meant plural you, or meant you as a generic, rather then specific to you personally.
But I would have thought that that was clear from the context of the statement, however, apparently I was mistaken.
Actually, it's you that isn't paying close attention.
You has two forms.
Plural, and singular. The english language used to differentiate between the two of them, and although I usually specify when I mean plural, I don't always remember to do so.
In this case, I meant plural you, or meant you as a generic, rather then specific to you personally.
But I would have thought that that was clear from the context of the statement, however, apparently I was mistaken.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 09:44 AM)
What by the way is the problem with the publication "IEEE transactions in plasma physics"? You mean to tell me that you have some problem with plasma physics now?
I'm sorry.
Did I miss a post that I made where I stated that I had a problem with the journal, or plasma physics in general?
Once again, your misrepresenting my statements, twisting them out of context, and putting words in my mouth.
And to think, moments ago (metaphoricaly) you were complaining about my debating ethics.
I'm sorry.
Did I miss a post that I made where I stated that I had a problem with the journal, or plasma physics in general?
Once again, your misrepresenting my statements, twisting them out of context, and putting words in my mouth.
And to think, moments ago (metaphoricaly) you were complaining about my debating ethics.
QUOTE
Again, you're failing to grasp my point.
The Flat Earth Society, proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory, Young Creationists, advocates of Intelligent Design, all maintain they have evidence to support their theories.
The Flat Earth Society, proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory, Young Creationists, advocates of Intelligent Design, all maintain they have evidence to support their theories.
Yes, and so do Lambda-CDM proponents according to their claims. When we look at the so called evidence, what we quickly discover is that the one thing they all have in common is none of these theories, including yours, can bring a shred of empirical evidence to the table from controlled scientific experimentation to support any of these claims. IMO Lambda-CDM theory is in exactly the same boat as everything on your list. Inflation? Show me some sort of inflation in a lab. Dark energy? Show me some empirical evidence from controlled testing that DE isn't a fudge factor of cosmic proportions. Non baryonic forms of dark matter? I hear they taste lovely in the Spring, but alas I can never seem to find any to see of that is true or false.
Plasma physics (and EU/plasma cosmology theory that is based on plasma physics) requires no faith in any metaphysical entities of any kind. Period. IMO that puts EU theory in a whole different league than your favorite theory of choice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, you're failing to grasp my point. The Flat Earth Society, proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory, Young Creationists, advocates of Intelligent Design, all maintain they have evidence to support their theories. |
Yes, and so do Lambda-CDM proponents according to their claims. When we look at the so called evidence, what we quickly discover is that the one thing they all have in common is none of these theories, including yours, can bring a shred of empirical evidence to the table from controlled scientific experimentation to support any of these claims. IMO Lambda-CDM theory is in exactly the same boat as everything on your list. Inflation? Show me some sort of inflation in a lab. Dark energy? Show me some empirical evidence from controlled testing that DE isn't a fudge factor of cosmic proportions. Non baryonic forms of dark matter? I hear they taste lovely in the Spring, but alas I can never seem to find any to see of that is true or false.
Plasma physics (and EU/plasma cosmology theory that is based on plasma physics) requires no faith in any metaphysical entities of any kind. Period. IMO that puts EU theory in a whole different league than your favorite theory of choice.
In admitting one alternative theory, you have to admit them all.
No you don't. You only have to admit the ones that can bring actual empirical evidence to the table to support their views that can hold up to scrutiny and that can be repeated in lab. Ironically that blows your inflation beliefs out of the classroom, but hey, I'll let you keep it in there anyway. All I'm asking for is equal time for theories that can bring empirical evidence to the table to offset the metaphysical ideas that are currently "vogue".
QUOTE
As far as MOND and MOG go? I don't know enough about MOG to comment on it accurately, but MOND is actually LESS provable/disprovable then λCDM is.
Neither one of these ideas is provable or disprovable. How would I go about falsifying inflation? Non-baryonic forms of "dark matter"? Dark energy? Come on. Your statement is completely subjective. You could never objectively demonstrate that Lambda-CDM is any more or less provable that any MOG oriented theory.
QUOTE
Emperically demonstrate YET.
Creationist to Trippy: Just because we can't empirically demonstrate creationism today, doesn't mean we can't demonstrate it at some future point in time!
Flat Earther to Trippy: Hey, that applies to my theory too Trippy! If you get to do that, then I get to put my dogma into the classroom too! None of us know what the future might bring, so if you get to do that, then I can too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Emperically demonstrate YET. |
Creationist to Trippy: Just because we can't empirically demonstrate creationism today, doesn't mean we can't demonstrate it at some future point in time!
Flat Earther to Trippy: Hey, that applies to my theory too Trippy! If you get to do that, then I get to put my dogma into the classroom too! None of us know what the future might bring, so if you get to do that, then I can too.
So once again, you're guilty of doing the same exact thing you're lambasting me for doing.
Gah, you are impossible and you are in pure denial. *I* am not the one that is trying to stuff metaphysics down your children's throat. I am not trying to exclude your metaphysical theory from the classroom. I am not trying to get anything other than a fair shake for your children and mine, so they can make educated decisions and make an educated choice as to where to put their faith. The only hypocrite here is you. You insist on stuffing metaphysics down my children's throat just like a creationist, and you refuse to even allow me to introduce some *real* science from *real experiments* into the classroom. It's absurd. You're stuffing metaphysical dogma into the curriculum and you refuse to allow for other options to be discussed in the classroom. That my friend is blatant hypocrisy. What is worse is the fact you continue to falsely accuse me of applying a double standard, when I have patiently and carefully explained to you that I personally reject *all* forms of metaphysics, including ambiplasma! You are quite a trip.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 7 2008, 09:14 PM)
Congratulations.
You know how to use the internet, and you found the exact article I was thinking of when I made that part of the post.
What now?
Er, this link is posted on my website and it's been there for years now. FYI, I learned how to use the internet before browsers had even been invented. Your condescending attitude is getting old. I provided you with evidence both inside and outside of our solar system that demonstrates the existence of Birkeland currents running through objects in space and you act like it means absolutely "nothing". That's a problem because denial is always a problem.
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between here and Andromeda.
What in the world makes you think that there *has to be* a current flow *between* any two particular objects? They could all be conductors of large scale currents and still not be connected directly to one another. How will we ever find out if we never bother looking for them and we never teaching our children about the electrical nature of our own solar system? You are unbelievable!
The only way we will ever know the answer to such questions is to spend some time and money finding out. As long as we (meaning you) refuse to even discuss EU theory in the classroom, we may never know if they are directly connected by electrical currents or they are not. Ignorance might be bliss as far as you approach that question, but not from my perspective.
You know how to use the internet, and you found the exact article I was thinking of when I made that part of the post.
What now?
Er, this link is posted on my website and it's been there for years now. FYI, I learned how to use the internet before browsers had even been invented. Your condescending attitude is getting old. I provided you with evidence both inside and outside of our solar system that demonstrates the existence of Birkeland currents running through objects in space and you act like it means absolutely "nothing". That's a problem because denial is always a problem.
QUOTE
it still isn't evidence consistent with the idea of current flow between here and alpha centauri.
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it still isn't evidence consistent with the idea of current flow between here and alpha centauri. |
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between here and Andromeda.
What in the world makes you think that there *has to be* a current flow *between* any two particular objects? They could all be conductors of large scale currents and still not be connected directly to one another. How will we ever find out if we never bother looking for them and we never teaching our children about the electrical nature of our own solar system? You are unbelievable!
QUOTE
it still isn't evidence consistent with current flow between the local group and the virgo supercluster.
The only way we will ever know the answer to such questions is to spend some time and money finding out. As long as we (meaning you) refuse to even discuss EU theory in the classroom, we may never know if they are directly connected by electrical currents or they are not. Ignorance might be bliss as far as you approach that question, but not from my perspective.
This is ad hominem.
Not only are you a hyporcite, you're a flaming idiot as well.
This is not.
I have stated repeatedly that there is emperical evidence, aside from flat galactic rotation curves, that support the idea of λCDM, and inflation.
I have stated repeatedly that there is expected to be direct confirmation of the various aspects of these ideas, and that the only reason you don't have them yet is because we're only just beginning to develop the technology.
YOUR comparison of λCDM to Flat Earth Theories, and Young Earth Creationism is deceitful and misleading at best. Especially given that we already posess the technology to prove/disprove both of these ideas.
And you're still missing the point.
The hypocrisy arises from the fact that you've waited over a hundred years for some aspects of plasma cosmology to performed, but after 30 years, with some success following other predictions of the theories, we're only just now, with the development of the LHC, developing the technology to potentially explore these ideas more fully.
I have answered each, and every one of your criticisms of λCDM, and you have avoided each and every one of my criticisms of Plasma Cosmology, choosing instead to focus solely on what you consider to be personal attacks made by me. Moreover, you have demonstrably twisted my words to do so.
And you accuse me of dragging down the quality of the debate?
Not only are you a hyporcite, you're a flaming idiot as well.
This is not.
I have stated repeatedly that there is emperical evidence, aside from flat galactic rotation curves, that support the idea of λCDM, and inflation.
I have stated repeatedly that there is expected to be direct confirmation of the various aspects of these ideas, and that the only reason you don't have them yet is because we're only just beginning to develop the technology.
YOUR comparison of λCDM to Flat Earth Theories, and Young Earth Creationism is deceitful and misleading at best. Especially given that we already posess the technology to prove/disprove both of these ideas.
And you're still missing the point.
The hypocrisy arises from the fact that you've waited over a hundred years for some aspects of plasma cosmology to performed, but after 30 years, with some success following other predictions of the theories, we're only just now, with the development of the LHC, developing the technology to potentially explore these ideas more fully.
I have answered each, and every one of your criticisms of λCDM, and you have avoided each and every one of my criticisms of Plasma Cosmology, choosing instead to focus solely on what you consider to be personal attacks made by me. Moreover, you have demonstrably twisted my words to do so.
And you accuse me of dragging down the quality of the debate?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 7 2008, 10:06 PM)
I'm sorry.
Did I miss a post that I made where I stated that I had a problem with the journal, or plasma physics in general?
Did you?
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
Once again, your misrepresenting my statements, twisting them out of context, and putting words in my mouth.
And to think, moments ago (metaphoricaly) you were complaining about my debating ethics.
You seem to think only the IEEE published this sort of material, and you acted as though the material had to be published in something OTHER THAN the IEEE journal. What's the deal with that? Your ignoring that data from the Journal of Fusion Energy just as surely as you ignore what you read in IEEE.
Did I miss a post that I made where I stated that I had a problem with the journal, or plasma physics in general?
Did you?
QUOTE
Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics.
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Work harder to get them accepted in the mainstream. Get them published in journals OTHER then IEEE transactions in plasma physics. |
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
Once again, your misrepresenting my statements, twisting them out of context, and putting words in my mouth.
And to think, moments ago (metaphoricaly) you were complaining about my debating ethics.
You seem to think only the IEEE published this sort of material, and you acted as though the material had to be published in something OTHER THAN the IEEE journal. What's the deal with that? Your ignoring that data from the Journal of Fusion Energy just as surely as you ignore what you read in IEEE.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:21 PM)
Er, this link is posted on my website and it's been there for years now. FYI, I learned how to use the internet before browsers had even been invented. Your condescending attitude is getting old. I provided you with evidence both inside and outside of our solar system that demonstrates the existence of Birkeland currents running through objects in space and you act like it means absolutely "nothing". That's a problem because denial is always a problem.
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
What in the world makes you think that there *has to be* a current flow *between* any two particular objects? They could all be conductors of large scale currents and still not be connected directly to one another. How will we ever find out if we never bother looking for them and we never teaching our children about the electrical nature of our own solar system? You are unbelievable!
The only way we will ever know the answer to such questions is to spend some time and money finding out. As long as we (meaning you) refuse to even discuss EU theory in the classroom, we may never know if they are directly connected by electrical currents or they are not. Ignorance might be bliss as far as you approach that question, but not from my perspective.
What precisely is your point? Because you are blatantly missing mine, or denying it. More over, you are, once again, twisting what I say way out of context, and making statements that are blatantly untrue.
What I said was that currents had been detected in LMC's (large Molecular clouds), so why hadn't they been detected in a list of specific circumstances.
Try and get your facts straight, you make it hard to discuss/argue anything, when you start arguing against things I didn't actually say, or imply.
My point was that IF Plasma Cosmology is supposed to supplant λCDM theory then it needs to be able to explain all of these things (although, dark matter has little to do with current flow between here and Alpha Centauri, it does relate back to Alfvens triple jump - if there's no connecting currents between stars, then how can a theory of currents and fields explain the motion of stars within a galaxy?)
Oh wait... What you're saying is that there's no evidence because nobodies looked for it. But if my not having been able to look for dak matter directly (because of a lack of appropriate tools) is no excuse, then why should I settle for this same excuse from you (in spite of the fact that the technology to look for your fairies exists)?
There is evidence of current flows between the photosphere and the heliosphere. There is evidence that the heliosphere itself has a teardrop shape, suggesting that it too is buffeted by interstellar winds. There is evidence that electricity flows between fields of stars, and there are plasma bridges between various galaxies that tend to be aligned in in row of interconnected filaments. Whether currents flow between Alpha Centauri and here may never be known if people like you get their way!
What in the world makes you think that there *has to be* a current flow *between* any two particular objects? They could all be conductors of large scale currents and still not be connected directly to one another. How will we ever find out if we never bother looking for them and we never teaching our children about the electrical nature of our own solar system? You are unbelievable!
The only way we will ever know the answer to such questions is to spend some time and money finding out. As long as we (meaning you) refuse to even discuss EU theory in the classroom, we may never know if they are directly connected by electrical currents or they are not. Ignorance might be bliss as far as you approach that question, but not from my perspective.
What precisely is your point? Because you are blatantly missing mine, or denying it. More over, you are, once again, twisting what I say way out of context, and making statements that are blatantly untrue.
What I said was that currents had been detected in LMC's (large Molecular clouds), so why hadn't they been detected in a list of specific circumstances.
Try and get your facts straight, you make it hard to discuss/argue anything, when you start arguing against things I didn't actually say, or imply.
My point was that IF Plasma Cosmology is supposed to supplant λCDM theory then it needs to be able to explain all of these things (although, dark matter has little to do with current flow between here and Alpha Centauri, it does relate back to Alfvens triple jump - if there's no connecting currents between stars, then how can a theory of currents and fields explain the motion of stars within a galaxy?)
Oh wait... What you're saying is that there's no evidence because nobodies looked for it. But if my not having been able to look for dak matter directly (because of a lack of appropriate tools) is no excuse, then why should I settle for this same excuse from you (in spite of the fact that the technology to look for your fairies exists)?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:30 PM)
Did you?
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
You seem to think only the IEEE published this sort of material, and you acted as though the material had to be published in something OTHER THAN the IEEE journal. What's the deal with that? Your ignoring that data from the Journal of Fusion Energy just as surely as you ignore what you read in IEEE.
Once again, you're both distorting my words, and missing my point.
My point was this: If you want to talk about a theory of COSMOLOGY with COSMOLOGISTS then maybe you should try and get published in a journal on COSMOLOGY.
But wait, then it comes back to this whole popularity contest/persecution complex thing you've got going.
What's with the OTHER THAN comment? Is there some reason the mainstream can't be educated directly from that particular journal? I've been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. Does that count? What exactly is it going to take to get EU theory accepted in the classroom anyway?
You seem to think only the IEEE published this sort of material, and you acted as though the material had to be published in something OTHER THAN the IEEE journal. What's the deal with that? Your ignoring that data from the Journal of Fusion Energy just as surely as you ignore what you read in IEEE.
Once again, you're both distorting my words, and missing my point.
My point was this: If you want to talk about a theory of COSMOLOGY with COSMOLOGISTS then maybe you should try and get published in a journal on COSMOLOGY.
But wait, then it comes back to this whole popularity contest/persecution complex thing you've got going.
I notice no Plasma Cosmologist every mentions the fact that Immanuel Velikovsky shared Birkelands views (or similar views).
Kind of funny really given that what I've seen mentioned of Halton Arps work reminded me of something Velikosky or Von Daniken might write.
Kind of funny really given that what I've seen mentioned of Halton Arps work reminded me of something Velikosky or Von Daniken might write.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 12:22 AM)
Not only are you a hyporcite, you're a flaming idiot as well.
Yawn. I suppose I could point out here that it takes one to know one. What's wrong? You don't like your nasty attitude being reflected right back at you by any chance?
Peratt's paper did not require any "dark matter" to explain those rotation characteristics, nor does MOND theory. The rotational patterns of galaxies only demonstrates that your method of determining the mass inside of a galaxy is woefully inaccurate, bordering on down right useless since it's off by almost a whole order of magnitude! All this observation demonstrates is that your mass calculations theories are problematic at best case.
Peratt's paper did not require any "dark matter" to explain those rotation characteristics, nor does MOND theory. The rotational patterns of galaxies only demonstrates that your method of determining the mass inside of a galaxy is woefully inaccurate, bordering on down right useless since it's off by almost a whole order of magnitude! All this observation demonstrates is that your mass calculations theories are problematic at best case.
that support the idea of λCDM, and inflation.
Nothing empirical supports inflation, and nothing supports "dark energy". These are dogmas you believe in because someone told you that they exist. They don't exist. There is no more evidence to support DE or inflation are real than there is to support creationism. You can't point to uncontrolled observations and claim "mydogmathingdidiit" without demonstrating that your dogmathingy exists in nature. Show me some controlled test that demonstrates inflation isn't a figment of your imagination.
But being the true hypocrite you are, you refuse to allow EU theory that same luxury. Go figure.
But being the true hypocrite you are, you refuse to allow EU theory that same luxury. Go figure.
YOUR comparison of λCDM to Flat Earth Theories, and Young Earth Creationism is deceitful and misleading at best. Especially given that we already posess the technology to prove/disprove both of these ideas.
I showed you the hole in the universe that disproved your inflation thingy too, but you just ignored it.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
But the dogma lives on......
Because ignorant people like you *assume* we should find electron flows between any two random objects in space and that somehow I am personally obligated to demonstrate that EVERYTHING is directly wired to EVERYTHING else before you'll lift a finger to educate anyone to EU theory. No public money is currently earmarked specifically to support EU theory, and we'll probably never know those answers one way or the other as long as ignorant people like you are in charge of the funding.
Fortunately that THEMIS data is blowing away all doubts about the electrical nature of physical reality. Sooner or later you guys will wake up and smell the coffee. It's only a matter of time. The technology is advancing to the point that we can see current flows in between distant objects in space.
Because ignorant people like you *assume* we should find electron flows between any two random objects in space and that somehow I am personally obligated to demonstrate that EVERYTHING is directly wired to EVERYTHING else before you'll lift a finger to educate anyone to EU theory. No public money is currently earmarked specifically to support EU theory, and we'll probably never know those answers one way or the other as long as ignorant people like you are in charge of the funding.
Fortunately that THEMIS data is blowing away all doubts about the electrical nature of physical reality. Sooner or later you guys will wake up and smell the coffee. It's only a matter of time. The technology is advancing to the point that we can see current flows in between distant objects in space.
My point was that IF Plasma Cosmology is supposed to supplant λCDM theory
BZZZZZZT. I didn't ask that any theory "supplant" any other theory. That's your strawman, not mine. I just asked for parity in the classroom, remember?
Why? You can't do it without evoking metaphysical constructs! Your theory doesn't win by default only because it's "popular".
Why? You can't do it without evoking metaphysical constructs! Your theory doesn't win by default only because it's "popular".
(although, dark matter has little to do with current flow between here and Alpha Centauri, it does relate back to Alfvens triple jump - if there's no connecting currents between stars, then how can a theory of currents and fields explain the motion of stars within a galaxy?)
Did you not read that paper by Peratt?
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/download...I.annotated.pdf
Um no, I said it may be that currents exist between particular objects but there is no guarantee that electrical currents directly flow between any two given objects in space. You just *assumed* they should be directly wired together and you ran with it. I don't know if they are there or they are not there. I need money and public help to find out.
Um no, I said it may be that currents exist between particular objects but there is no guarantee that electrical currents directly flow between any two given objects in space. You just *assumed* they should be directly wired together and you ran with it. I don't know if they are there or they are not there. I need money and public help to find out.
But if my not having been able to look for dak matter directly (because of a lack of appropriate tools) is no excuse, then why should I settle for this same excuse from you (in spite of the fact that the technology to look for your fairies exists)?
You really need to work on analogies. You're terrible at it. Electron flows are not like fairies, because electricity is known to exist and we can "test" it in controlled experiments. Whether or no electrons flow between two given objects cannot be known without looking and testing to see if they exist, but electrons flowing through plasma leave specific tell-tale signatures, like Birkeland current filaments, so we can indeed "look" for them to figure it out. Compare and contrast that now with inflation, or dark energy which are evidently extremely shy around the laboratory and have never been shown to have any effect on nature or plasma, much like your faeries have never been shown to have any effect on nature. Sheesh. Talk about irony.
Is that supposed to be one of those "smear by association" games? I'm sure there are a lot of creationists that believe in BB theory too. What's your point with that comment, and how is that an ethical debate tactic?
Yawn. I suppose I could point out here that it takes one to know one. What's wrong? You don't like your nasty attitude being reflected right back at you by any chance?
QUOTE
I have stated repeatedly that there is emperical evidence, aside from flat galactic rotation curves,
Peratt's paper did not require any "dark matter" to explain those rotation characteristics, nor does MOND theory. The rotational patterns of galaxies only demonstrates that your method of determining the mass inside of a galaxy is woefully inaccurate, bordering on down right useless since it's off by almost a whole order of magnitude! All this observation demonstrates is that your mass calculations theories are problematic at best case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have stated repeatedly that there is emperical evidence, aside from flat galactic rotation curves, |
Peratt's paper did not require any "dark matter" to explain those rotation characteristics, nor does MOND theory. The rotational patterns of galaxies only demonstrates that your method of determining the mass inside of a galaxy is woefully inaccurate, bordering on down right useless since it's off by almost a whole order of magnitude! All this observation demonstrates is that your mass calculations theories are problematic at best case.
that support the idea of λCDM, and inflation.
Nothing empirical supports inflation, and nothing supports "dark energy". These are dogmas you believe in because someone told you that they exist. They don't exist. There is no more evidence to support DE or inflation are real than there is to support creationism. You can't point to uncontrolled observations and claim "mydogmathingdidiit" without demonstrating that your dogmathingy exists in nature. Show me some controlled test that demonstrates inflation isn't a figment of your imagination.
QUOTE
I have stated repeatedly that there is expected to be direct confirmation of the various aspects of these ideas, and that the only reason you don't have them yet is because we're only just beginning to develop the technology.
But being the true hypocrite you are, you refuse to allow EU theory that same luxury. Go figure.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have stated repeatedly that there is expected to be direct confirmation of the various aspects of these ideas, and that the only reason you don't have them yet is because we're only just beginning to develop the technology. |
But being the true hypocrite you are, you refuse to allow EU theory that same luxury. Go figure.
YOUR comparison of λCDM to Flat Earth Theories, and Young Earth Creationism is deceitful and misleading at best. Especially given that we already posess the technology to prove/disprove both of these ideas.
I showed you the hole in the universe that disproved your inflation thingy too, but you just ignored it.
http://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.
But the dogma lives on......
QUOTE
What I said was that currents had been detected in LMC's (large Molecular clouds), so why hadn't they been detected in a list of specific circumstances.
Because ignorant people like you *assume* we should find electron flows between any two random objects in space and that somehow I am personally obligated to demonstrate that EVERYTHING is directly wired to EVERYTHING else before you'll lift a finger to educate anyone to EU theory. No public money is currently earmarked specifically to support EU theory, and we'll probably never know those answers one way or the other as long as ignorant people like you are in charge of the funding.
Fortunately that THEMIS data is blowing away all doubts about the electrical nature of physical reality. Sooner or later you guys will wake up and smell the coffee. It's only a matter of time. The technology is advancing to the point that we can see current flows in between distant objects in space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I said was that currents had been detected in LMC's (large Molecular clouds), so why hadn't they been detected in a list of specific circumstances. |
Because ignorant people like you *assume* we should find electron flows between any two random objects in space and that somehow I am personally obligated to demonstrate that EVERYTHING is directly wired to EVERYTHING else before you'll lift a finger to educate anyone to EU theory. No public money is currently earmarked specifically to support EU theory, and we'll probably never know those answers one way or the other as long as ignorant people like you are in charge of the funding.
Fortunately that THEMIS data is blowing away all doubts about the electrical nature of physical reality. Sooner or later you guys will wake up and smell the coffee. It's only a matter of time. The technology is advancing to the point that we can see current flows in between distant objects in space.
My point was that IF Plasma Cosmology is supposed to supplant λCDM theory
BZZZZZZT. I didn't ask that any theory "supplant" any other theory. That's your strawman, not mine. I just asked for parity in the classroom, remember?
QUOTE
then it needs to be able to explain all of these things
Why? You can't do it without evoking metaphysical constructs! Your theory doesn't win by default only because it's "popular".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| then it needs to be able to explain all of these things |
Why? You can't do it without evoking metaphysical constructs! Your theory doesn't win by default only because it's "popular".
(although, dark matter has little to do with current flow between here and Alpha Centauri, it does relate back to Alfvens triple jump - if there's no connecting currents between stars, then how can a theory of currents and fields explain the motion of stars within a galaxy?)
Did you not read that paper by Peratt?
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/download...I.annotated.pdf
QUOTE
Oh wait... What you're saying is that there's no evidence because nobodies looked for it.
Um no, I said it may be that currents exist between particular objects but there is no guarantee that electrical currents directly flow between any two given objects in space. You just *assumed* they should be directly wired together and you ran with it. I don't know if they are there or they are not there. I need money and public help to find out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh wait... What you're saying is that there's no evidence because nobodies looked for it. |
Um no, I said it may be that currents exist between particular objects but there is no guarantee that electrical currents directly flow between any two given objects in space. You just *assumed* they should be directly wired together and you ran with it. I don't know if they are there or they are not there. I need money and public help to find out.
But if my not having been able to look for dak matter directly (because of a lack of appropriate tools) is no excuse, then why should I settle for this same excuse from you (in spite of the fact that the technology to look for your fairies exists)?
You really need to work on analogies. You're terrible at it. Electron flows are not like fairies, because electricity is known to exist and we can "test" it in controlled experiments. Whether or no electrons flow between two given objects cannot be known without looking and testing to see if they exist, but electrons flowing through plasma leave specific tell-tale signatures, like Birkeland current filaments, so we can indeed "look" for them to figure it out. Compare and contrast that now with inflation, or dark energy which are evidently extremely shy around the laboratory and have never been shown to have any effect on nature or plasma, much like your faeries have never been shown to have any effect on nature. Sheesh. Talk about irony.
QUOTE
I notice no Plasma Cosmologist every mentions the fact that Immanuel Velikovsky shared Birkelands views (or similar views).
Is that supposed to be one of those "smear by association" games? I'm sure there are a lot of creationists that believe in BB theory too. What's your point with that comment, and how is that an ethical debate tactic?
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
You can also think of this structure as a giant scale Birkeland current running through plasma.
QUOTE
"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
You can also think of this structure as a giant scale Birkeland current running through plasma.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:57 PM)
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/ma...linky-in-space/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
You can also think of this structure as a giant scale Birkeland current running through plasma.
What, precisely, is your point here?
Repeating something that I haven't disputed somehow makes it more true?
Repeating something that I brought up some how makes it more true?
Apparently my point is going right over your head.
Once again.
My point is that we can detect electric currents in outer space by the synchrotron radiation they emit, and we can detect these things in Large Molecular Clouds, in fact, we have detected them, as you yourself are so eagre to point out.
This being the case, why have we not detected them between our solar system and any other location, our galaxy and any other galaxy, or our group of galaxies and any other group of galaxies.
According to plasma cosmology they're there, but why can't you show me a picture of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
You can also think of this structure as a giant scale Birkeland current running through plasma.
What, precisely, is your point here?
Repeating something that I haven't disputed somehow makes it more true?
Repeating something that I brought up some how makes it more true?
Apparently my point is going right over your head.
Once again.
My point is that we can detect electric currents in outer space by the synchrotron radiation they emit, and we can detect these things in Large Molecular Clouds, in fact, we have detected them, as you yourself are so eagre to point out.
This being the case, why have we not detected them between our solar system and any other location, our galaxy and any other galaxy, or our group of galaxies and any other group of galaxies.
According to plasma cosmology they're there, but why can't you show me a picture of them?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
Because ignorant people like you *assume* we should find electron flows between any two random objects in space and that somehow I am personally obligated to demonstrate that EVERYTHING is directly wired to EVERYTHING else before you'll lift a finger to educate anyone to EU theory. No public money is currently earmarked specifically to support EU theory, and we'll probably never know those answers one way or the other as long as ignorant people like you are in charge of the funding.
Ignorant? Now who's indulging in Ad hominems. And it's not me making the assumption, it's plasma cosmology making the prediction, remember?
Ignorant? Now who's indulging in Ad hominems. And it's not me making the assumption, it's plasma cosmology making the prediction, remember?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
Fortunately that THEMIS data is blowing away all doubts about the electrical nature of physical reality. Sooner or later you guys will wake up and smell the coffee. It's only a matter of time. The technology is advancing to the point that we can see current flows in between distant objects in space.
Oh, so now you're saying we haven't observed it yet because we don't have the technology? Seems to me I've heard that somewhere before... If only I could remember where....
Oh, so now you're saying we haven't observed it yet because we don't have the technology? Seems to me I've heard that somewhere before... If only I could remember where....
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
BZZZZZZT. I didn't ask that any theory "supplant" any other theory. That's your strawman, not mine. I just asked for parity in the classroom, remember?
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. It's not a strawman, it's a valid statement. The idea behind Plasma Cosmology (or should I say the appeal behind it) is that it does away with darkmatter, therefore, if Plasma cosmology is correct, and λCDM is incorrect, the plasma cosmology must eventually supplant λCDM, hence my comment.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. It's not a strawman, it's a valid statement. The idea behind Plasma Cosmology (or should I say the appeal behind it) is that it does away with darkmatter, therefore, if Plasma cosmology is correct, and λCDM is incorrect, the plasma cosmology must eventually supplant λCDM, hence my comment.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
Why? You can't do it without evoking metaphysical constructs! Your theory doesn't win by default only because it's "popular".
Metaphysical in your book, that's your word. Everybody else who considers the ideas to be correct, considers them to be... Aww to #### with it, I've aleady explained this to you enough times.
Metaphysical in your book, that's your word. Everybody else who considers the ideas to be correct, considers them to be... Aww to #### with it, I've aleady explained this to you enough times.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
Did you not read that paper by Peratt?
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/download...I.annotated.pdf
OBVIOUSLY (to anyone that actually reads what I say) I've read that paper by Peratt, or are you ignoring the fact that I've made several references to pages 62-71, and the isophote maps on pages 63 & 64. Yet more proof that you're ignoring and distorting what I say.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/download...I.annotated.pdf
OBVIOUSLY (to anyone that actually reads what I say) I've read that paper by Peratt, or are you ignoring the fact that I've made several references to pages 62-71, and the isophote maps on pages 63 & 64. Yet more proof that you're ignoring and distorting what I say.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
Um no, I said it may be that currents exist between particular objects but there is no guarantee that electrical currents directly flow between any two given objects in space. You just *assumed* they should be directly wired together and you ran with it. I don't know if they are there or they are not there. I need money and public help to find out.
No, as I have already explained, your theory predicts that these currents should be there, but you have not produced any evidence to show that they are.
No, as I have already explained, your theory predicts that these currents should be there, but you have not produced any evidence to show that they are.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:06 PM)
You really need to work on analogies. You're terrible at it. Electron flows are not like fairies, because electricity is known to exist and we can "test" it in controlled experiments. Whether or no electrons flow between two given objects cannot be known without looking and testing to see if they exist, but electrons flowing through plasma leave specific tell-tale signatures, like Birkeland current filaments, so we can indeed "look" for them to figure it out. Compare and contrast that now with inflation, or dark energy which are evidently extremely shy around the laboratory and have never been shown to have any effect on nature or plasma, much like your faeries have never been shown to have any effect on nature. Sheesh. Talk about irony.
So then why aren't those signatures there?
And here we go again, with your misconceptions around dark energy and inflation.
So then why aren't those signatures there?
And here we go again, with your misconceptions around dark energy and inflation.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
Yawn. I suppose I could point out here that it takes one to know one. What's wrong? You don't like your nasty attitude being reflected right back at you by any chance?
I could ask the same thing of you.
I could ask the same thing of you.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
Peratt's paper did not require any "dark matter" to explain those rotation characteristics, nor does MOND theory. The rotational patterns of galaxies only demonstrates that your method of determining the mass inside of a galaxy is woefully inaccurate, bordering on down right useless since it's off by almost a whole order of magnitude! All this observation demonstrates is that your mass calculations theories are problematic at best case.
MOND theory is, now that I think about it, demonstrably wrong, because MOND can not explain or predict gravitational lensing, and observation that has been made many times over the last hundred years. And I didn't say it exclusively supported dark matter, if I had said that, your strawmen might have some validity, but I didn't, I only said that the observations were consistent with the dark matter hypothesis. Again, you're making up arguments based on things that I haven't actually said.
MOND theory is, now that I think about it, demonstrably wrong, because MOND can not explain or predict gravitational lensing, and observation that has been made many times over the last hundred years. And I didn't say it exclusively supported dark matter, if I had said that, your strawmen might have some validity, but I didn't, I only said that the observations were consistent with the dark matter hypothesis. Again, you're making up arguments based on things that I haven't actually said.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
Nothing empirical supports inflation, and nothing supports "dark energy". These are dogmas you believe in because someone told you that they exist. They don't exist. There is no more evidence to support DE or inflation are real than there is to support creationism. You can't point to uncontrolled observations and claim "mydogmathingdidiit" without demonstrating that your dogmathingy exists in nature. Show me some controlled test that demonstrates inflation isn't a figment of your imagination.
BZZZZZZZT! Wrong. The homogeneity of the universe supports inflation. The fact that Photons passing through voids loose more energy then those not passing through voids supports dark energy.
Neither of which I have seen Plasma Cosmology deal with.
BZZZZZZZT! Wrong. The homogeneity of the universe supports inflation. The fact that Photons passing through voids loose more energy then those not passing through voids supports dark energy.
Neither of which I have seen Plasma Cosmology deal with.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
But being the true hypocrite you are, you refuse to allow EU theory that same luxury. Go figure.
Bull. I refuse no such thing, even if I did have access to some resource.
Is that supposed to be one of those "smear by association" games? I'm sure there are a lot of creationists that believe in BB theory too. What's your point with that comment, and how is that an ethical debate tactic?
Believe what you want, you will anyway.
I was just making the comment that Vellikovsky was a proponent of plasma cosmology, he even advocated something along the lines of the eletric diffuser theory for the sun.
I also find myself wondering if that's why Plasma Cosmology gets such a hard time in the mainstream.
Bull. I refuse no such thing, even if I did have access to some resource.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
I showed you the hole in the universe that disproved your inflation thingy too, but you just ignored it.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
But the dogma lives on......
No I didn't, I addressed it, each and every time you bought it up. I pointed out to you that statistically, clusters happen. I pointed out to you that in spite of the hole, the universe is still homogenous and isotropic to 1 part in 10,000. And now I'm going to point out to you that less probable things happen on a daily, weekly, or even second by second basis - take the mechanism that gives solid glass it's green colour when viewed in bulk.
I'm going to also point out to you something that you're ignoring, citing from your own reference.
So your own source states that their analysis is/is potentialy flawed.
So you're citing a flawed analysis, and claiming that it disproves anything? Riiiiiiiiiight.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
But the dogma lives on......
No I didn't, I addressed it, each and every time you bought it up. I pointed out to you that statistically, clusters happen. I pointed out to you that in spite of the hole, the universe is still homogenous and isotropic to 1 part in 10,000. And now I'm going to point out to you that less probable things happen on a daily, weekly, or even second by second basis - take the mechanism that gives solid glass it's green colour when viewed in bulk.
I'm going to also point out to you something that you're ignoring, citing from your own reference.
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.
So your own source states that their analysis is/is potentialy flawed.
So you're citing a flawed analysis, and claiming that it disproves anything? Riiiiiiiiiight.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 02:09 PM)
Is that supposed to be one of those "smear by association" games? I'm sure there are a lot of creationists that believe in BB theory too. What's your point with that comment, and how is that an ethical debate tactic?
Believe what you want, you will anyway.
I was just making the comment that Vellikovsky was a proponent of plasma cosmology, he even advocated something along the lines of the eletric diffuser theory for the sun.
I also find myself wondering if that's why Plasma Cosmology gets such a hard time in the mainstream.
The main point, for the record, with the Bullet cluster, is that the distribution of the mass, as measured by gravitational lensing, is not the same as where we see the visible mass concentrated in the x-ray images taken by Chandra.
This is also the reason why the bullet cluster is considered proof of dark matter.
We can see that the three different components are behaving differently. We can see that because, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, by people on this thread, plasmas carry currents, and interact electromagnetically, the plasmas are concentrated in the middle, between the two clusters, but gravitational lensing data tells us that the majority of the mass is observed elsewhere.
Chandra Xray image:
Lensing Mass density contours (more useful then the fuzzy blue blob everyone keeps complaining about).
This is also the reason why the bullet cluster is considered proof of dark matter.
We can see that the three different components are behaving differently. We can see that because, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, by people on this thread, plasmas carry currents, and interact electromagnetically, the plasmas are concentrated in the middle, between the two clusters, but gravitational lensing data tells us that the majority of the mass is observed elsewhere.
Chandra Xray image:
Lensing Mass density contours (more useful then the fuzzy blue blob everyone keeps complaining about).
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 03:06 AM)
]What, precisely, is your point here?
My point is that there are plenty of obvious examples of electrical currents running through the plasmas of spacetime that confirm the validity of EU theory. There is therefore ample evidence of the validity of EU theory which *predicted* that electrical currents will be seen running through the plasmas as spacetime. Indeed, when we look at the universe, we find lots of examples of this electrical behavior in plasma, and we know from lab tests that plasma is nearly a perfect conductor of electrical current. We have lots of examples of currents running through objects in space, and the ability for plasmas to carry currents has been well documented, both on Earth, and from observations from space.
I'm trying to get you to note that there are clear and obvious examples of EU theory "predictions" matching direct observations, including "magnetic ropes" between the sun and the earth, Birkeland currents in nebulas, planetary rings and ring currents, etc.
I'm trying to get you to note that there are clear and obvious examples of EU theory "predictions" matching direct observations, including "magnetic ropes" between the sun and the earth, Birkeland currents in nebulas, planetary rings and ring currents, etc.
My point is that we can detect electric currents in outer space by the synchrotron radiation they emit, and we can detect these things in Large Molecular Clouds, in fact, we have detected them, as you yourself are so eagre to point out.
I'm only eager to point them out in the same way that Birkeland would be eager to find such evidence to support his theories via modern technologies, and he would be eager to show you where his "predictions" could be verified with direct scientific observations of electrical currents (and their corresponding magnetic fields) in space.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0704/30plasma/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l80w8h1101346286/
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/downloads...verse_Guide.pdf
This being the case, why have we not detected them between our solar system and any other location, our galaxy and any other galaxy, or our group of galaxies and any other group of galaxies.
According to plasma cosmology they're there, but why can't you show me a picture of them?
The only thing that the bullet cluster data "proves" is that your mass calculations for computing the amount of mass in a galaxy are grossly flawed, so much so that you need a fudge factor that is many times greater than your measured mass! All this data demonstrates is that the bulk of the "missing mass" (that you grossly underestimated to begin with) typically passes through "missing mass" in other galaxies without interacting all that significantly. That's hardly surprising considering the distances between stars. You *presume* that you can measure mass with x-rays do you? How?
While conveniently ignoring the fact your beloved Lamdba-thingy was blown out of the water?
While conveniently ignoring the fact your beloved Lamdba-thingy was blown out of the water?
So your own source states that their analysis is/is potentialy flawed.
They simply noted that these new observations and calculations are treading in uncharted territory. So what? That's true of most papers and most new observations!
This is sort of behavior is typical of your "style". At no time did the author(s) claim that their analysis was flawed or anything of the sort They simply noted that nobody ever expected to find a hole this size in the universe so it is statistically complicated to deal with this hole, and their calculation is *potentially* limited as a result. At no time did they claim it *was* flawed in any way. You asserted something they did not say, and stuffed words in their mouth, just like you stuff words in my mouth, all the while ignoring the underlying message of the paragraph.
Let's look at the cold hard facts for a second. The odds of current theories surviving this gaping "hole" they found are statistically close to zero. You'll need a completely new Gumby model that can accommodate giant gaping holes in what was supposed to be a homogeneous layout of matter. Inflation failed it only key prediction. Period.
You're in pure denial of the statistical evidence, just like any creationist denies evidence that is contrary to their opinions.. You're now looking for any sort of loophole to save your beloved dogma, just like any creationist ignores the evidence that their theory has been falsified by direct empirical evidence. It's a "fundy" behavior, and it's called "denial".
For the record, they never claimed that their methods *were* flawed, you simply *assumed* that they were flawed because they were honest enough to note that modeling holes of this size is very complicated and it is new and uncharted territory. It is new territory because according to Lambda predictions, no one expected to find giant holes of this size in the physical universe. Ooops! They didn't even have to even give us a disclaimer, they were simply honest about it, unlike your bullet cluster folks that boldly proclaimed they have found "proof" of "dark matter" when in fact al they found "proof" of is that your mass calculation methods are utterly useless.
More denial on your part. You're just expecting me to electrically link *very specific* objects on command as though I can just wave my hand make it so. That kind of thing takes time, effort and *education*. You won't even do the education part, let alone the sweat equity part.
The only thing that the bullet cluster data "proves" is that your mass calculations for computing the amount of mass in a galaxy are grossly flawed...
I'm going to give you the opportunity to think about this one very carefully.
Are you saying that Birkeland, and Alfven were wrong? That the whole of plasma phsycis is based on an erroneous assumption somewhere?
That Plasma doesn't make up 95% of the mass of the super clusters?
That Plasma doesn't behave in a manner similar to a viscous fluid when it encounters itself?
That in such a collision, Plasma dosen't experience a drag force as cloud encounters cloud?
Or are you saying that relativity is wrong?
Think about what you're saying, just for a moment.
My point is that there are plenty of obvious examples of electrical currents running through the plasmas of spacetime that confirm the validity of EU theory. There is therefore ample evidence of the validity of EU theory which *predicted* that electrical currents will be seen running through the plasmas as spacetime. Indeed, when we look at the universe, we find lots of examples of this electrical behavior in plasma, and we know from lab tests that plasma is nearly a perfect conductor of electrical current. We have lots of examples of currents running through objects in space, and the ability for plasmas to carry currents has been well documented, both on Earth, and from observations from space.
QUOTE
Repeating something that I haven't disputed somehow makes it more true.
I'm trying to get you to note that there are clear and obvious examples of EU theory "predictions" matching direct observations, including "magnetic ropes" between the sun and the earth, Birkeland currents in nebulas, planetary rings and ring currents, etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Repeating something that I haven't disputed somehow makes it more true. |
I'm trying to get you to note that there are clear and obvious examples of EU theory "predictions" matching direct observations, including "magnetic ropes" between the sun and the earth, Birkeland currents in nebulas, planetary rings and ring currents, etc.
My point is that we can detect electric currents in outer space by the synchrotron radiation they emit, and we can detect these things in Large Molecular Clouds, in fact, we have detected them, as you yourself are so eagre to point out.
I'm only eager to point them out in the same way that Birkeland would be eager to find such evidence to support his theories via modern technologies, and he would be eager to show you where his "predictions" could be verified with direct scientific observations of electrical currents (and their corresponding magnetic fields) in space.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0704/30plasma/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l80w8h1101346286/
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/downloads...verse_Guide.pdf
QUOTE
Looking out to 100 million light-years, we begin to see how these galaxies are constructed to form our Universe. Galaxies do not appear to be haphazardly placed in the Universe. They are organized into clusters and superclusters. The Milky Way is in the Local Group, and the Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster. Galaxies also form in filaments, connecting galaxy clusters with strands of galaxies. Large voids occupy space like the inside of a bubble, where space is relatively empty. The clusters, superclusters, and filaments of galaxies are collectively referred to as the “large-scale structure” of the Universe, and astronomers have spent much of the past three decades coming to understand it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Looking out to 100 million light-years, we begin to see how these galaxies are constructed to form our Universe. Galaxies do not appear to be haphazardly placed in the Universe. They are organized into clusters and superclusters. The Milky Way is in the Local Group, and the Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster. Galaxies also form in filaments, connecting galaxy clusters with strands of galaxies. Large voids occupy space like the inside of a bubble, where space is relatively empty. The clusters, superclusters, and filaments of galaxies are collectively referred to as the “large-scale structure” of the Universe, and astronomers have spent much of the past three decades coming to understand it. |
This being the case, why have we not detected them between our solar system and any other location, our galaxy and any other galaxy, or our group of galaxies and any other group of galaxies.
According to plasma cosmology they're there, but why can't you show me a picture of them?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 03:22 AM)
Metaphysical in your book, that's your word. Everybody else who considers the ideas to be correct, considers them to be... Aww to #### with it, I've aleady explained this to you enough times.
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The difference between "dogma" and scientific fact is that scientific fact involves scientific testing and empirical evidence from controlled scientific tests. That fact that you and some other folks consider the idea to be correct is not empirical evidence that these things exist in nature. That's the part you won't deal with. You have no empirical evidence to support you "faith" in inflation, you just believe that inflation had some role in astronomy because that's what you were told. Nobody ever showed you an empirical test that demonstrated that inflation had some effect on nature. You just *assume* that it does! You can't produce any inflation, or control inflation like Birkeland produced and controlled electrons in his experiments. You just assume that inflation exists/existed and has some effect on matter. You can't show me any quantity of the stuff, or produce any inflation for me to study in a lab. It's pure metaphysical dogma.
I never asked you to replace one theory with another, I asked you to *include* EU theory in the curriculum. The appealing features of various theories are irrelevant. If I had *insisted* that you *replace* Lambda-Gumby theory with EU theory, then your statement would be accurate. Since I did no such thing, your statement is falsse and misleading. I never asked you to give up you faith in metaphysics, I simply asked you to include some other options in the curriculum. Do you see that distinction, yes or no?
You keep ignoring the fact that EU theory *and* MOND theory can explain galactic movement patterns without resorting to *any* kind of "dark matter", or more accurately they explain these movement patterns without any "missing mass".
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The difference between "dogma" and scientific fact is that scientific fact involves scientific testing and empirical evidence from controlled scientific tests. That fact that you and some other folks consider the idea to be correct is not empirical evidence that these things exist in nature. That's the part you won't deal with. You have no empirical evidence to support you "faith" in inflation, you just believe that inflation had some role in astronomy because that's what you were told. Nobody ever showed you an empirical test that demonstrated that inflation had some effect on nature. You just *assume* that it does! You can't produce any inflation, or control inflation like Birkeland produced and controlled electrons in his experiments. You just assume that inflation exists/existed and has some effect on matter. You can't show me any quantity of the stuff, or produce any inflation for me to study in a lab. It's pure metaphysical dogma.
QUOTE
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. It's not a strawman, it's a valid statement. The idea behind Plasma Cosmology (or should I say the appeal behind it) is that it does away with darkmatter, therefore, if Plasma cosmology is correct, and λCDM is incorrect, the plasma cosmology must eventually supplant λCDM, hence my comment.
I never asked you to replace one theory with another, I asked you to *include* EU theory in the curriculum. The appealing features of various theories are irrelevant. If I had *insisted* that you *replace* Lambda-Gumby theory with EU theory, then your statement would be accurate. Since I did no such thing, your statement is falsse and misleading. I never asked you to give up you faith in metaphysics, I simply asked you to include some other options in the curriculum. Do you see that distinction, yes or no?
You keep ignoring the fact that EU theory *and* MOND theory can explain galactic movement patterns without resorting to *any* kind of "dark matter", or more accurately they explain these movement patterns without any "missing mass".
QUOTE
The main point, for the record, with the Bullet cluster, is that the distribution of the mass, as measured by gravitational lensing, is not the same as where we see the visible mass concentrated in the x-ray images taken by Chandra.
The only thing that the bullet cluster data "proves" is that your mass calculations for computing the amount of mass in a galaxy are grossly flawed, so much so that you need a fudge factor that is many times greater than your measured mass! All this data demonstrates is that the bulk of the "missing mass" (that you grossly underestimated to begin with) typically passes through "missing mass" in other galaxies without interacting all that significantly. That's hardly surprising considering the distances between stars. You *presume* that you can measure mass with x-rays do you? How?
QUOTE
I'm going to also point out to you something that you're ignoring, citing from your own reference.
While conveniently ignoring the fact your beloved Lamdba-thingy was blown out of the water?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm going to also point out to you something that you're ignoring, citing from your own reference. |
While conveniently ignoring the fact your beloved Lamdba-thingy was blown out of the water?
So your own source states that their analysis is/is potentialy flawed.
They simply noted that these new observations and calculations are treading in uncharted territory. So what? That's true of most papers and most new observations!
QUOTE
So you're citing a flawed analysis, and claiming that it disproves anything? Riiiiiiiiiight.
This is sort of behavior is typical of your "style". At no time did the author(s) claim that their analysis was flawed or anything of the sort They simply noted that nobody ever expected to find a hole this size in the universe so it is statistically complicated to deal with this hole, and their calculation is *potentially* limited as a result. At no time did they claim it *was* flawed in any way. You asserted something they did not say, and stuffed words in their mouth, just like you stuff words in my mouth, all the while ignoring the underlying message of the paragraph.
Let's look at the cold hard facts for a second. The odds of current theories surviving this gaping "hole" they found are statistically close to zero. You'll need a completely new Gumby model that can accommodate giant gaping holes in what was supposed to be a homogeneous layout of matter. Inflation failed it only key prediction. Period.
You're in pure denial of the statistical evidence, just like any creationist denies evidence that is contrary to their opinions.. You're now looking for any sort of loophole to save your beloved dogma, just like any creationist ignores the evidence that their theory has been falsified by direct empirical evidence. It's a "fundy" behavior, and it's called "denial".
For the record, they never claimed that their methods *were* flawed, you simply *assumed* that they were flawed because they were honest enough to note that modeling holes of this size is very complicated and it is new and uncharted territory. It is new territory because according to Lambda predictions, no one expected to find giant holes of this size in the physical universe. Ooops! They didn't even have to even give us a disclaimer, they were simply honest about it, unlike your bullet cluster folks that boldly proclaimed they have found "proof" of "dark matter" when in fact al they found "proof" of is that your mass calculation methods are utterly useless.
QUOTE
No, as I have already explained, your theory predicts that these currents should be there, but you have not produced any evidence to show that they are.
More denial on your part. You're just expecting me to electrically link *very specific* objects on command as though I can just wave my hand make it so. That kind of thing takes time, effort and *education*. You won't even do the education part, let alone the sweat equity part.
Ok OK OKAY ... Trip and M&M (if I may call you that):
I've been following this discussion since it's inception. There are many commendable points made by both of you fine fellows. As it seems likely to continue (despite each of your protestations that you're tired of it) please allow me to suggest a couple of things.
Agree that neither of the theories as presented are currently "provable". They're not. Agree to it and stop bashing the other guy with the fact that his assertions aren't "provable".
Agree that the Trip's assertions are the currently accepted best science. They are.
Agree that "currently accepted best science" doesn't mean "right". It doesn't.
Stop calling the "currently accepted best science" "metaphysics". It makes me smile but it's sorta insulting isn't it? I know that is why it is being used but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
Agree that the properties asserted by EU and it's offshoots and/or derivations are deserving of study. I'm not saying stick it in high school science texts at this point but a serious discussion study of some of it's postulations at the University level (phys 101) seems to be called for (IMHO).
And agree (in the spirit of the above) that there are scientists who act protectively regarding their "field" of expertise out of fear. Even as a NOOB I've seen evidence of that in just the few weeks/months I've been reading about this subject. And yes ... it's ok for scientists to open the door carefully since there are plenty of crackpots knocking at it. But let's not allow those crackpots to keep the door closed to theories that have basis. EU is obviously very incomplete and until that door opens a bit it is likely to stay incomplete. I'd suspect that at some point in the future we'd see an improved "currently accepted best science" if they loosen the knobs a bit.
Oh and ... keep calling each other names if you want. It's obvious that neither of you are stupid or idiotic but the name calling is entertaining. If I can further that some; you might try some of the below suggestions as you feel they are appropriate (they're just better reading than "*****" or "idiot").
--- fatuous neanderthal
--- undiscerning falsehood-spewing twit
--- empty-headed bimbo
--- licentiously-leaning dogma-worshipping slut
--- dirty little wiper of other peoples bottoms (<--- I stole that one)
--- spittoon residue
--- vile spewer of tripe
--- miserable trailer-park raised obtuse crap-throwing monkey
--- George Bush-clone (<--- short version of all of the above)
Now go pos rep me or get me a beer. It's up to you.
EDIT: M O R O N is ******'d out here? LOL
I've been following this discussion since it's inception. There are many commendable points made by both of you fine fellows. As it seems likely to continue (despite each of your protestations that you're tired of it) please allow me to suggest a couple of things.
Agree that neither of the theories as presented are currently "provable". They're not. Agree to it and stop bashing the other guy with the fact that his assertions aren't "provable".
Agree that the Trip's assertions are the currently accepted best science. They are.
Agree that "currently accepted best science" doesn't mean "right". It doesn't.
Stop calling the "currently accepted best science" "metaphysics". It makes me smile but it's sorta insulting isn't it? I know that is why it is being used but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
Agree that the properties asserted by EU and it's offshoots and/or derivations are deserving of study. I'm not saying stick it in high school science texts at this point but a serious discussion study of some of it's postulations at the University level (phys 101) seems to be called for (IMHO).
And agree (in the spirit of the above) that there are scientists who act protectively regarding their "field" of expertise out of fear. Even as a NOOB I've seen evidence of that in just the few weeks/months I've been reading about this subject. And yes ... it's ok for scientists to open the door carefully since there are plenty of crackpots knocking at it. But let's not allow those crackpots to keep the door closed to theories that have basis. EU is obviously very incomplete and until that door opens a bit it is likely to stay incomplete. I'd suspect that at some point in the future we'd see an improved "currently accepted best science" if they loosen the knobs a bit.
Oh and ... keep calling each other names if you want. It's obvious that neither of you are stupid or idiotic but the name calling is entertaining. If I can further that some; you might try some of the below suggestions as you feel they are appropriate (they're just better reading than "*****" or "idiot").
--- fatuous neanderthal
--- undiscerning falsehood-spewing twit
--- empty-headed bimbo
--- licentiously-leaning dogma-worshipping slut
--- dirty little wiper of other peoples bottoms (<--- I stole that one)
--- spittoon residue
--- vile spewer of tripe
--- miserable trailer-park raised obtuse crap-throwing monkey
--- George Bush-clone (<--- short version of all of the above)
Now go pos rep me or get me a beer. It's up to you.
EDIT: M O R O N is ******'d out here? LOL
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jan 8 2008, 08:50 PM)
Ok OK OKAY ... Trip and M&M (if I may call you that):
I've been following this discussion since it's inception. There are many commendable points made by both of you fine fellows. As it seems likely to continue (despite each of your protestations that you're tired of it) please allow me to suggest a couple of things.
Agree that neither of the theories as presented are currently "provable". They're not. Agree to it and stop bashing the other guy with the fact that his assertions aren't "provable".
Agree that the Trip's assertions are the currently accepted best science. They are.
Agree that "currently accepted best science" doesn't mean "right". It doesn't.
Stop calling the "currently accepted best science" "metaphysics". It makes me smile but it's sorta insulting isn't it? I know that is why it is being used but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
Agree that the properties asserted by EU and it's offshoots and/or derivations are deserving of study. I'm not saying stick it in high school science texts at this point but a serious discussion study of some of it's postulations at the University level (phys 101) seems to be called for (IMHO).
And agree (in the spirit of the above) that there are scientists who act protectively regarding their "field" of expertise out of fear. Even as a NOOB I've seen evidence of that in just the few weeks/months I've been reading about this subject. And yes ... it's ok for scientists to open the door carefully since there are plenty of crackpots knocking at it. But let's not allow those crackpots to keep the door closed to theories that have basis. EU is obviously very incomplete and until that door opens a bit it is likely to stay incomplete. I'd suspect that at some point in the future we'd see an improved "currently accepted best science" if they loosen the knobs a bit.
Oh and ... keep calling each other names if you want. It's obvious that neither of you are stupid or idiotic but the name calling is entertaining. If I can further that some; you might try some of the below suggestions as you feel they are appropriate (they're just better reading than "*****" or "idiot").
--- fatuous neanderthal
--- undiscerning falsehood-spewing twit
--- empty-headed bimbo
--- licentiously-leaning dogma-worshipping slut
--- dirty little wiper of other peoples bottoms (<--- I stole that one)
--- spittoon residue
--- vile spewer of tripe
--- miserable trailer-park raised obtuse crap-throwing monkey
--- George Bush-clone (<--- short version of all of the above)
Now go pos rep me or get me a beer. It's up to you.
EDIT: M O R O N is ******'d out here? LOL
Thankyou.
And yes, your point that referring to it as metaphysics is insulting is one of the points that I have tried repeatedly to make to MM, but he doesn't seem to have grasped.
I've been following this discussion since it's inception. There are many commendable points made by both of you fine fellows. As it seems likely to continue (despite each of your protestations that you're tired of it) please allow me to suggest a couple of things.
Agree that neither of the theories as presented are currently "provable". They're not. Agree to it and stop bashing the other guy with the fact that his assertions aren't "provable".
Agree that the Trip's assertions are the currently accepted best science. They are.
Agree that "currently accepted best science" doesn't mean "right". It doesn't.
Stop calling the "currently accepted best science" "metaphysics". It makes me smile but it's sorta insulting isn't it? I know that is why it is being used but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
Agree that the properties asserted by EU and it's offshoots and/or derivations are deserving of study. I'm not saying stick it in high school science texts at this point but a serious discussion study of some of it's postulations at the University level (phys 101) seems to be called for (IMHO).
And agree (in the spirit of the above) that there are scientists who act protectively regarding their "field" of expertise out of fear. Even as a NOOB I've seen evidence of that in just the few weeks/months I've been reading about this subject. And yes ... it's ok for scientists to open the door carefully since there are plenty of crackpots knocking at it. But let's not allow those crackpots to keep the door closed to theories that have basis. EU is obviously very incomplete and until that door opens a bit it is likely to stay incomplete. I'd suspect that at some point in the future we'd see an improved "currently accepted best science" if they loosen the knobs a bit.
Oh and ... keep calling each other names if you want. It's obvious that neither of you are stupid or idiotic but the name calling is entertaining. If I can further that some; you might try some of the below suggestions as you feel they are appropriate (they're just better reading than "*****" or "idiot").
--- fatuous neanderthal
--- undiscerning falsehood-spewing twit
--- empty-headed bimbo
--- licentiously-leaning dogma-worshipping slut
--- dirty little wiper of other peoples bottoms (<--- I stole that one)
--- spittoon residue
--- vile spewer of tripe
--- miserable trailer-park raised obtuse crap-throwing monkey
--- George Bush-clone (<--- short version of all of the above)
Now go pos rep me or get me a beer. It's up to you.
EDIT: M O R O N is ******'d out here? LOL
Thankyou.
And yes, your point that referring to it as metaphysics is insulting is one of the points that I have tried repeatedly to make to MM, but he doesn't seem to have grasped.
Michael.
Once again. You're missing the FRIGGING point.
Try taking the blinders off, just for once.
1) I ignored nothing in refference to the hole, if the analysis is incomplete, which you have agreed that it is, then it is inherently flawed. It really is that simple.
2) That's my dam point. The papers aren't there. The proof isn't there.
3) Both theories can not be correct, one must supplant the other eventually. It really is that simple, I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty wrapping your mind around that single fact.
4) Inflation failed nothing. Period. ALL the paper says is that according to an incomplete analysis, the odds of a hole forming are smaller then were expected based on the presence of such a hole in the first place (actually, 90% of the paper is establishing it's presence in the first place. The very same frigging data that tells us that the hole is there, tells us that even with the hole there, the universe is STILL homogenous to one part in ten thousand. This is another basic fact that you seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to aknowledge. The hole was found using the WMAP data. The WMAP data indicates the universe is homogenous, including this hole, to a very high level (1 part in 10,000) So where, precisely, does Inflation fail the homgeneity test?
5) As far as the Bullet cluster goes?
The following articles and papers ALL disagree with you.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
This one is particularly intersting
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
As was this one.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606216
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0309/0309303v2.pdf
http://cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR2006/0265...006-A-02655.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608408
Meanwhile, I notice that the closest thing to an explanation that I have seen from the plasma cosmology side of things, as I have already stated, involves assuming that relativity was wrong, and aspects of Halton Arps ideas, the same aspects which have been shown as erroneous, and are almost... Velikovskian in nature, are correct.
Even you, personally, can not explain the observations without assuming that the observations and calculations are in error.
And finally, as I have tried to demonstrate, several times now, my saying that the Gumby CDM model is correct is not just some blind "It's correct because I was told it was so" thing, as you in your ad hominem fallacies assert it to be.
I happen to be of the opinion that the evidence is there to support λCDM model (or a closely related variant of it), and that further evidence to support the model will come to light once GLAST and Planck are launched, and once the LHC reaches the appropriate luminosity.
Once again. You're missing the FRIGGING point.
Try taking the blinders off, just for once.
1) I ignored nothing in refference to the hole, if the analysis is incomplete, which you have agreed that it is, then it is inherently flawed. It really is that simple.
2) That's my dam point. The papers aren't there. The proof isn't there.
3) Both theories can not be correct, one must supplant the other eventually. It really is that simple, I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty wrapping your mind around that single fact.
4) Inflation failed nothing. Period. ALL the paper says is that according to an incomplete analysis, the odds of a hole forming are smaller then were expected based on the presence of such a hole in the first place (actually, 90% of the paper is establishing it's presence in the first place. The very same frigging data that tells us that the hole is there, tells us that even with the hole there, the universe is STILL homogenous to one part in ten thousand. This is another basic fact that you seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to aknowledge. The hole was found using the WMAP data. The WMAP data indicates the universe is homogenous, including this hole, to a very high level (1 part in 10,000) So where, precisely, does Inflation fail the homgeneity test?
5) As far as the Bullet cluster goes?
The following articles and papers ALL disagree with you.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
This one is particularly intersting
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407
As was this one.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606216
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0309/0309303v2.pdf
http://cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR2006/0265...006-A-02655.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608408
Meanwhile, I notice that the closest thing to an explanation that I have seen from the plasma cosmology side of things, as I have already stated, involves assuming that relativity was wrong, and aspects of Halton Arps ideas, the same aspects which have been shown as erroneous, and are almost... Velikovskian in nature, are correct.
Even you, personally, can not explain the observations without assuming that the observations and calculations are in error.
And finally, as I have tried to demonstrate, several times now, my saying that the Gumby CDM model is correct is not just some blind "It's correct because I was told it was so" thing, as you in your ad hominem fallacies assert it to be.
I happen to be of the opinion that the evidence is there to support λCDM model (or a closely related variant of it), and that further evidence to support the model will come to light once GLAST and Planck are launched, and once the LHC reaches the appropriate luminosity.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 8 2008, 08:20 PM)
The only thing that the bullet cluster data "proves" is that your mass calculations for computing the amount of mass in a galaxy are grossly flawed...
I'm going to give you the opportunity to think about this one very carefully.
Are you saying that Birkeland, and Alfven were wrong? That the whole of plasma phsycis is based on an erroneous assumption somewhere?
That Plasma doesn't make up 95% of the mass of the super clusters?
That Plasma doesn't behave in a manner similar to a viscous fluid when it encounters itself?
That in such a collision, Plasma dosen't experience a drag force as cloud encounters cloud?
Or are you saying that relativity is wrong?
Think about what you're saying, just for a moment.
Empty-headed bimbo? LOL!
I guess that particular one is going to be tough for me personally.
The point I've been trying to make with Trippy is that the scientific method involves both experimental "qualification" as well as mathematical 'quantification". EU theory is well "qualified" in the lab. It was developed in the classical scientific manner. All of it's core tenets have been studied in controlled laboratory conditions. What EU theory has really lacked is the funding and the support to become a well "quantified" theory, in more mathematically robust terms.
The exact opposite is true of Lambda-CDM theory. While it has been well "quantified" over the years, nobody on planet Earth can produce any inflation field to test in controlled conditions to see what (if anything) inflation does to plasma. The same is true of "dark energy". No controlled test on earth has ever demonstrated that either of things things exist in nature. Without them, none of the beautiful "quantification" of Lambda-CDM theory is completely useless. The fact none of it's core tenets can be tested or falsified makes it impossible to qualify Lambda-CDM theory in the classical laboratory manner.
The term "metaphysical" is appropriate IMO for two reasons. There is no known physical source of "dark energy". There is no known "physical" model to explain how "dark energy" causes "space to expand" or causes plasma to accelerate. There is no physical explanation of inflation as it relates to where we might hope to find some. There is no physical explanation of how it interacts with matter and known forms of energy. There is no physical way to test for inflation in a controlled experiment. More importantly, inflation is literally a "supernatural" field. No other vector or scalar field in nature will undergo exponential increases in volume and retain near constant density. Trippy here can't point to any other known vector or scalar field in nature that does that. It's literally a "once in a big bang" sort of proposition. In order to put any faith in inflation fields, one has to first buy into the singularity concept, and then one has to believe that inflation and DE can cause mass objects to move faster than light. Let's see someone demonstrate this stuff in a controlled experiment because as far as I can tell these concepts defy the laws of physics as we understand them.
As I tried to explain to Trippy, I'm not asking him to give up his personal belief systems. He's welcome to believe in anything he wants. I'm only asking him to agree to include EU theory in the classroom curriculum. In essence I want some form of *real experimental science* presented to college students of astronomy. There is ample evidence that electrical currents affect mass bodies in our solar system and they affect plasmas in space. More importantly, Birkeland's key predictions are based on real "sweat equity" science, and it derived in the classical scientific manner.
There's an important historical lesson here in the debate between "qualification" and "quantification" that is relevant. Chapman proposed a series of mathematical equations to explain the energy transfer between the sun and the Earth that were "prettier" and easier to follow than Birkeland's ideas. For many years (about 70), Birkeland's model was ignored in favor of Chapman's "quantification" methods. The difference between these two ideas is that Birkeland didn't just whip up some mathematical equations, he tested his ideas in real laboratory conditions and noted the behaviors of plasma and currents in controlled conditions. In the end, his model was proven to be correct, and Chapman's theories have been proven to be incorrect, in spite of the fact that it was a better "quantified" idea. Chapman never checked his ideas in the real world, whereas Birkeland did the sweat equity part and therefore his ideas were better qualified and better reflected "reality".
Quantification alone is not a valid measure of the value of a theory. The math to demonstrate how many elves fit on the head of a pin might look perfect, but without any sort of "qualification", it's just a pretty math formula.
I'm willing to accept that all theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and I'm even willing to let Trippy bring his "metaphysical math formulas" into the classroom. What I resent however is the fact that he is unwilling to reciprocate. He will not allow a "better qualified" theory to be taught along side Lambda-CDM theory. IMO that's like stepping backwards in time and claiming Birkeland's energy flow ideas cannot be taught along side of Chapman's formulas because Birkeland's ideas weren't as well to quantified. We can tell from the study of the history of astronomy that a strictly mathematical approach to astronomy is doomed to failure. Why would we intentionally want to repeat the errors of the past? IMO it's time now to give credit where credit is due and give Birkeland's ideas some air time in the classroom.
Keep in mind that I'm not asking Trippy to give up his belief systems, and I reject some EU ideas due to lack of empirical evidence also, so all this huffing and puffing about "hypocrisy" on my part is absolutely absurd.
QUOTE
Stop calling the "currently accepted best science" "metaphysics". It makes me smile but it's sorta insulting isn't it? I know that is why it is being used but it doesn't help advance the discussion.
I guess that particular one is going to be tough for me personally.
The point I've been trying to make with Trippy is that the scientific method involves both experimental "qualification" as well as mathematical 'quantification". EU theory is well "qualified" in the lab. It was developed in the classical scientific manner. All of it's core tenets have been studied in controlled laboratory conditions. What EU theory has really lacked is the funding and the support to become a well "quantified" theory, in more mathematically robust terms.
The exact opposite is true of Lambda-CDM theory. While it has been well "quantified" over the years, nobody on planet Earth can produce any inflation field to test in controlled conditions to see what (if anything) inflation does to plasma. The same is true of "dark energy". No controlled test on earth has ever demonstrated that either of things things exist in nature. Without them, none of the beautiful "quantification" of Lambda-CDM theory is completely useless. The fact none of it's core tenets can be tested or falsified makes it impossible to qualify Lambda-CDM theory in the classical laboratory manner.
The term "metaphysical" is appropriate IMO for two reasons. There is no known physical source of "dark energy". There is no known "physical" model to explain how "dark energy" causes "space to expand" or causes plasma to accelerate. There is no physical explanation of inflation as it relates to where we might hope to find some. There is no physical explanation of how it interacts with matter and known forms of energy. There is no physical way to test for inflation in a controlled experiment. More importantly, inflation is literally a "supernatural" field. No other vector or scalar field in nature will undergo exponential increases in volume and retain near constant density. Trippy here can't point to any other known vector or scalar field in nature that does that. It's literally a "once in a big bang" sort of proposition. In order to put any faith in inflation fields, one has to first buy into the singularity concept, and then one has to believe that inflation and DE can cause mass objects to move faster than light. Let's see someone demonstrate this stuff in a controlled experiment because as far as I can tell these concepts defy the laws of physics as we understand them.
As I tried to explain to Trippy, I'm not asking him to give up his personal belief systems. He's welcome to believe in anything he wants. I'm only asking him to agree to include EU theory in the classroom curriculum. In essence I want some form of *real experimental science* presented to college students of astronomy. There is ample evidence that electrical currents affect mass bodies in our solar system and they affect plasmas in space. More importantly, Birkeland's key predictions are based on real "sweat equity" science, and it derived in the classical scientific manner.
There's an important historical lesson here in the debate between "qualification" and "quantification" that is relevant. Chapman proposed a series of mathematical equations to explain the energy transfer between the sun and the Earth that were "prettier" and easier to follow than Birkeland's ideas. For many years (about 70), Birkeland's model was ignored in favor of Chapman's "quantification" methods. The difference between these two ideas is that Birkeland didn't just whip up some mathematical equations, he tested his ideas in real laboratory conditions and noted the behaviors of plasma and currents in controlled conditions. In the end, his model was proven to be correct, and Chapman's theories have been proven to be incorrect, in spite of the fact that it was a better "quantified" idea. Chapman never checked his ideas in the real world, whereas Birkeland did the sweat equity part and therefore his ideas were better qualified and better reflected "reality".
Quantification alone is not a valid measure of the value of a theory. The math to demonstrate how many elves fit on the head of a pin might look perfect, but without any sort of "qualification", it's just a pretty math formula.
I'm willing to accept that all theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and I'm even willing to let Trippy bring his "metaphysical math formulas" into the classroom. What I resent however is the fact that he is unwilling to reciprocate. He will not allow a "better qualified" theory to be taught along side Lambda-CDM theory. IMO that's like stepping backwards in time and claiming Birkeland's energy flow ideas cannot be taught along side of Chapman's formulas because Birkeland's ideas weren't as well to quantified. We can tell from the study of the history of astronomy that a strictly mathematical approach to astronomy is doomed to failure. Why would we intentionally want to repeat the errors of the past? IMO it's time now to give credit where credit is due and give Birkeland's ideas some air time in the classroom.
Keep in mind that I'm not asking Trippy to give up his belief systems, and I reject some EU ideas due to lack of empirical evidence also, so all this huffing and puffing about "hypocrisy" on my part is absolutely absurd.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 10:57 AM)
]Michael.
Once again. You're missing the FRIGGING point.
And once again you chose the FRIGGING low road. And you can't seem to figure out why we have a communication problem?
This is like a creationist pointing to some lab test and claiming that it is "flawed". That's pure denial on your part IMO. Their analysis is only 'incomplete" because no Lambda-CDM theory ever proposed "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe, so now we're in uncharted territory.
According to inflation theory, there should *not* be a hole of that size in the universe. Someone will now have to go back and tweak one of the fudge factors (inflation, DE, or some other variable) of Lambda theory to "postdict" a new version that will postdict a hole of that size. They will then point to their new postdicted theory and they will then claim that their new and improved Lambda-CDM theory "accurately predicted" big holes in the universe and indeed the universe has big holes in it! Thus the new Lambda-CDM will be embraced by the mainstream. The irony of course is that the whole point of proposing inflation (besides fixing a "missing monopole problem) was to explain a homogeneous layout of matter, so it's only key prediction is moot and yet the theory will live on.
This is like a creationist pointing to some lab test and claiming that it is "flawed". That's pure denial on your part IMO. Their analysis is only 'incomplete" because no Lambda-CDM theory ever proposed "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe, so now we're in uncharted territory.
According to inflation theory, there should *not* be a hole of that size in the universe. Someone will now have to go back and tweak one of the fudge factors (inflation, DE, or some other variable) of Lambda theory to "postdict" a new version that will postdict a hole of that size. They will then point to their new postdicted theory and they will then claim that their new and improved Lambda-CDM theory "accurately predicted" big holes in the universe and indeed the universe has big holes in it! Thus the new Lambda-CDM will be embraced by the mainstream. The irony of course is that the whole point of proposing inflation (besides fixing a "missing monopole problem) was to explain a homogeneous layout of matter, so it's only key prediction is moot and yet the theory will live on.
3) Both theories can not be correct, one must supplant the other eventually. It really is that simple, I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty wrapping your mind around that single fact.
So maybe eventually, electrical currents will be used to explain some of your "missing mass" in distant galaxies. Maybe powerful EM fields will be shown to be the real cause of the acceleration of the universe. Maybe your inflation theory will give way to a powerful electrical discharge though a mass object that caused the mass object to explode. I have no idea what the future might bring. I'm only interested in offering some alternatives in the classroom *today*, so that my children will have some other viable scientific options to choose from.
Boloney. This is pure denial on your part. Guth never produced a single monopole, although he claimed that inflation "solved" a "missing monopole problem". That's like claiming that inflation theory solved a missing unicorn problem and the fact the universe has no unicorns validates inflation. Guth never produce any evidence that monopoles exist in nature, so it failed that test outright.
Show me a single Lambda-CDM theory written before that hole was found that actually "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe? You can't. It doesn't exist. It failed to accurately *predict* this feature of physical reality. It *failed* that test too. Inflation theory has *failed* to produce a single controlled test that demonstrates that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's hyperactive imagination. It failed that lab test part too rather miserably. It hasn't 'passed" any tests in fact.
Boloney. This is pure denial on your part. Guth never produced a single monopole, although he claimed that inflation "solved" a "missing monopole problem". That's like claiming that inflation theory solved a missing unicorn problem and the fact the universe has no unicorns validates inflation. Guth never produce any evidence that monopoles exist in nature, so it failed that test outright.
Show me a single Lambda-CDM theory written before that hole was found that actually "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe? You can't. It doesn't exist. It failed to accurately *predict* this feature of physical reality. It *failed* that test too. Inflation theory has *failed* to produce a single controlled test that demonstrates that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's hyperactive imagination. It failed that lab test part too rather miserably. It hasn't 'passed" any tests in fact.
ALL the paper says is that according to an incomplete analysis, the odds of a hole forming are smaller then were expected based on the presence of such a hole in the first place (actually, 90% of the paper is establishing it's presence in the first place. The very same frigging data that tells us that the hole is there, tells us that even with the hole there, the universe is STILL homogenous to one part in ten thousand. This is another basic fact that you seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to aknowledge.
What you seem to not grasp is that the fact it is "relatively" homogeneous is irrelevant. Your theory didn't predict holes of that size to exist. It's only claim to fame here is that you had a "quantified" model, but that "quantified" model failed a key and important prediction. It failed to predict such holes. It is a failed theory. PERIOD. Since it was never a properly "qualified" theory to begin with (because Guth simply made it up), and it failed the quantification process, there is neither quantitative or qualitative support for the idea. It could be "relatively" homogeneous for lots of reasons, and even that is a "guess" because we don't have the technology to see that far out in space yet, and we can't even see the entire physical universe. What we can tell is that you theory failed to predict what we observe in space and it was never "qualified' in the first place.
Oh for crying out loud. I selected the specific paragraph that shows where it failed the observation test and I even bolded the part where it failed for you. I can't make you embrace the truth. You have to do that part on your own. In truth, your theory failed to predict what is observed in space. You WMAP data shows gaping holes in what is supposed to be at homogeneous "glow" from background radiation for a ""surface of last scattering" and it's not there! There's a gaping hole in your surface of last scattering concept too.
I'll tackle the bullet cluster stuff in a separate post.
First of all this is an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy(ies). I can't quite tell if you're trying to appeal to popularity or appeal to authority, but it's one or the other or both.
They all begin with the premise: We know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy, and we found more mass than we expected. The obvious explanation is that we *don't* know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy which is why it has more mass than we expected. Duh.
Now instead of scrapping their mass calculation methods and trying again, they *assumed* that these methods were accurate and the created a fudge factor of epic proportions (many times the value of the predicted mass), and stuffed it liberally into every gap they could find. They sprinkled a little "dark matter" here and a little dark matter there, until everything "fit".
All this bullet cluster data demonstrates is that we *grossly* (and I mean grossly) underestimated the amounts of mass in a galaxy and we can't explain it. Big deal. It is definitely *not* "proof" (the fact they even used that term shows us the suspect nature of their wild claims) of anything other than our mass calculations of galaxies is off by a very wide margin. PERIOD.
There is no such thing as "dark matter". There is matter that we can't observe because of our primitive technology, but you guys treat "dark matter" like some new and exotic form of mass. I keep hearing about "non baryonic matter" this, non bayronic matter that. I also heard a rumor that non baryonic dark matter tastes yummy, but I can never seem to get my hands on any to verify any of these claims. Stuffing the gaps of your failed mass predictions with non baryonic mass is like me trying to stuff the gaps with invisible potatoes. If you never qualify the fact that invisible potatoes exist in nature, pointing to movement patterns from billions of light years away and claiming "invisiblepotatoesdidit" is pointless, with or without nifty math formulas.
Let me repeat: The only thing that this bullet cluster data "proves" is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because of our primitive technologies and because of our questionable "assumptions" about galaxy measuring techniques. You can't "prove" that invisible potatoes exist in those measurements only because you failed to accurately predict the amount of mass in a galaxy! It's absurd.
What this bullet cluster data *seems* to suggest is that most of the "missing/miscalculated mass" is located closer to the cores of the galaxies and it mostly passed right through the other galaxy. That is hardly surprising since the distances between stars is great and most stars would not collide by pass right on through. If anything it might suggest that most of the mass of the galaxy is found in the infrastructure of the galaxy, as in the solar systems, rather than in the plasma between the solar systems. Then again, even that "assumption" is questionable. The only thing we can say with any certainty from this bullet cluster data is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy. Period. It certainly doesn't "prove" that invisible forms of mass exist, or that invisible potatoes exist, or that invisible fat elves exist in those galaxies.
Well, I know for a fact that Birkeland was wrong on certain points of his presentation. I know that Alfven *might* be wrong about ambiplasmas. They could be "wrong" about a lot of things. Birkeland could not be "wrong" about galaxy mass measurements because we didn't know whole different galaxies even existed back then. Birkeland actually "predicted" that the plasma between the stars made up more of the mass of a galaxy than the stars themselves, so I think he would have been quite comfortable with these observations, and he would not have "assumed" that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium.
Plasmas (particularly light plasmas) do all sorts of unusual things in the presence of EM fields. The EM fields of galaxies might hold the plasma threads in place. I have no idea what might be going on in observations of objects that are often millions if not billions of light years away.
Alfven was right about the viscous nature of plasma, but he was also right about the electrical aspects as well. That last part is the part that he mainstream completely ignores. He wrote the book on MDH theory *and* on EU theory Trippy. He wasn't wrong, he was right. You only think in terms of him being wrong, because you are not including all the factors in your calculations that Alfven considered. He looked at the EM properties of the plasma and realized it would do unusual things in certain instances. In no way am I suggesting he was "wrong" about any key issues. The only thing he proposed that I personally find "iffy" is the ambiplasma thing, so I treat that point with a grain of salt, just like all other demonstrated claims. I don't put him on any special pedestal, but I think his work was solid.
Einstein is one of my all time favorite scientists. I think GR theory as *Einstein* proposed it works just fine to explain the attractive forces of mass bodies on other mass bodies. He claimed that his introduction of a constant into GR that wasn't related to attraction between mass was his "greatest blunder", so I absolutely have zero faith in Lambda-Gumby theory and I'm sure he wouldn't care for it either.
EU theory is not in any way in conflict with GR theory. They work harmoniously. What's "wrong" with astronomy is that the mainstream is trying to explain the universe in the *absence of electrical currents*. That's the problem. GR (as Einstein taught it) is just fine. MHD theory was fine too. When you put these ideas together, the give us a very cohesive picture of the universe.
Modern astronomers do not comprehend electrical theory, so the don't really understand how an electric universe functions. They think mostly in terms of GR theory and they stuff it liberally with fudge factors when GR alone won't offer them a legitimate explanation.
Mainstreamers are only using half of MHD theory. They only acknowledge the magnetic side of MHD theory and they ignore the current carrying side of MHD theory entirely. That's the real problem in a nutshell. GR is great. MHD theory is great. Astronomers just refuse to acknowledge the electrical current side of MHD theory. That's the problem.
Ok, so we both agree the universe is mostly made of plasma. That seems like a good start.
Ok, so we both agree the universe is mostly made of plasma. That seems like a good start.
We agree that the plasma must behave according to MHD, and that MHD essentially implies that when one cloud of plasma passes through another cloud of plasma, they behave as viscous fluids, because of the combination of B & E fields in them.
Well, yes and no. Suns are essentially massive concentrations of plasma and they are separated by vast distances. The odds of a direct hit between two suns in a galaxy "collision" are actually very small. It's highly likely that most of the "infrastructure" of each galaxy will remain intact, while only the sparsest of plasmas between the solar systems will actually "collide' and interact.
Well, *some* of the x-rays are probably caused by collision, but I would assume there is an electrical aspect to this interaction process as well. Note that the current carrying threads are likely to be far more dense than some areas in the collision process and these heavier threads may interact only infrequently with plasma threads in the other galaxy. I would assume that a lot depends on the angle of intersection.
Well, *some* of the x-rays are probably caused by collision, but I would assume there is an electrical aspect to this interaction process as well. Note that the current carrying threads are likely to be far more dense than some areas in the collision process and these heavier threads may interact only infrequently with plasma threads in the other galaxy. I would assume that a lot depends on the angle of intersection.
And we seem to agree that all of the above imply that the majority of the mass should be in the middle, where the collision took place.
The whole "star field" is going to contain mass, and most of you "missing mass" estimates for spiral galaxies puts a lot of the "missing mass" in the outside edges of the galaxy. It seems to me that what I would expect to observe is a bunch of stars sliding right past one another and waving hello to stars going the other direction. I would not expect many "direct hits", though though there may be a few noteworthy exceptions to that rule.
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
You then go on to suggest that the missing mass in the bullet cluster is because we can't weigh the galaxies properly.
Yes. If we assume that the lensing data gives us a fairly accurate pictures of the *total* mass in a galaxy, then we can be pretty certain that the methods used to "guestimate" the mass of a galaxy are *way* off the mark.
Well, Birkeland certainly believed that most of the mass of a galaxy was contained inside of the plasma between the stars, but his estimates seem to be based on an iron concentration level that isn't accurate. I can't say for sure how much mass is in the plasma threads between the stars vs the amount that is found inside the stars themselves. Even if most of the mass is in the filaments between the stars, they carry current and have magnetic fields around them and they would not necessarily interact with the other galaxy all along that plasma thread. More likely there will be threads that pass through one another and intersect only at specific points in each thread. Even in an EU scenario with mass concentrations mostly outside of suns, its would not be likely that much of a the whole current carrying thread would be affected by a galaxy collision. You seem to be assuming some sort of homogeneous layout of plasma, whereas I assume most of that external (to stars) mass is concentrated inside Birkeland current threads.
Well, Birkeland certainly believed that most of the mass of a galaxy was contained inside of the plasma between the stars, but his estimates seem to be based on an iron concentration level that isn't accurate. I can't say for sure how much mass is in the plasma threads between the stars vs the amount that is found inside the stars themselves. Even if most of the mass is in the filaments between the stars, they carry current and have magnetic fields around them and they would not necessarily interact with the other galaxy all along that plasma thread. More likely there will be threads that pass through one another and intersect only at specific points in each thread. Even in an EU scenario with mass concentrations mostly outside of suns, its would not be likely that much of a the whole current carrying thread would be affected by a galaxy collision. You seem to be assuming some sort of homogeneous layout of plasma, whereas I assume most of that external (to stars) mass is concentrated inside Birkeland current threads.
So if 95% of the visible baryonic matter is concentrated in the plasma clouds, then that only leaves 5% in the Galaxies themselves,
I don't think that the ratio of plasma thread mass to solar mass is anywhere near a 95/5 split. In an iron sun scenario, the threads are likely to be mostly composed of hydrogen and helium and protons and electrons, things that can easily escape a large gravity well, whereas heavier elements like iron and Nickel would tend to concentrate inside suns and planets and other forms of MACHO objects. Those objects are unlikely to interact with other objects during the "collision" (pass through) with another galaxy. IMO the interstellar medium is probably a lot lighter than you percieve it to be in relationship to the mass inside the solar systems.
It seems that you and I have very different opinions about how much mass is contained inside of stars vs. the amount of mass in the interstellar medium. I assume that stars are mass separated by the element and the sun mostly releases hydrogen and helium into the interstellar medium, with retaining most of it's heavier elements indefinitely. That seems to be the nature of our disagreement.
It seems that you and I have very different opinions about how much mass is contained inside of stars vs. the amount of mass in the interstellar medium. I assume that stars are mass separated by the element and the sun mostly releases hydrogen and helium into the interstellar medium, with retaining most of it's heavier elements indefinitely. That seems to be the nature of our disagreement.
Now. IF Alfven (and Birkeland, and Perrat, and almost every other plasma cosmologists) assertions are correct, and plasma does indeed make up 95% of the cisible baryonic mass of the universe, including in the bullet cluster,
If our mass projections were off by such a wide margin, then IMO it is likely that this assumption is also off by a large margin.
In theory at least, I have no problem with this part of your argument. We should be able to use that lensing data to pinpoint the mass distribution in each galaxy. We know from this sort of analysis that we grossly underestimated that number. Obviously there is something seriously wrong about are mass projections, and I can identify what that is.
In theory at least, I have no problem with this part of your argument. We should be able to use that lensing data to pinpoint the mass distribution in each galaxy. We know from this sort of analysis that we grossly underestimated that number. Obviously there is something seriously wrong about are mass projections, and I can identify what that is.
then we should (assuming there is no dark matter) find that 95% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the middle, where the collision took place, and that around 5% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the visible galaxies, so the countours traced by the gravitational lensing should follow, almost exactly, the distribution of the plasma clouds, which we can map in X-rays (and other frequencies).
You made another untenable assumption. You don't know that the mass is concentrated in the center. You assumed that. I do not. You also assume that areas that have less x-rays are somehow exempt from containing *normal* mass. I do not make that assumption.
There are only a "finite" number of ways to explain the mass distribution using *normal* matter, but if we can just whip up invisible potato theories at will, then there are almost limitless ways to explain this missing mass. I mean if we can posit fat invisible elves as a "mass source" then anything is possible.
There are only a "finite" number of ways to explain the mass distribution using *normal* matter, but if we can just whip up invisible potato theories at will, then there are almost limitless ways to explain this missing mass. I mean if we can posit fat invisible elves as a "mass source" then anything is possible.
1) Alfven, Perrat, and almost everybody else involved in plasma physics is wrong, and plasmas only make up a small, nearly insignificant portion of the universes mass.
No. Alfven would not have assumed many things that you assumed, but as I recall they did assume that stars were mostly made of hydrogen and helium, and I do not, so in theory at least that issue could be the difference between our positions. I'm still certain that the mass between stars is significant, but I assume it's threaded and it carries currents, and it would be unlikely to interact with other plasma threads along the whole plasma thread.
Why? Even by my way of thinking, that part of their assessment is probably accurate.
Why? Even by my way of thinking, that part of their assessment is probably accurate.
3) Relativity is wrong in it's predictions around gravitational lensing.
I'm a big GR fan, so I doubt that is the case. This is why I actually favor a MACHO style "missing mass" theory over a MOND theory in fact.
They are called "current carrying Birkeland currents" IMO.
They are called "current carrying Birkeland currents" IMO.
Now, note that ALL i have said in reference to the bullet cluster is that it proves that some form of cold dark matter exists. Then bare in mind that you, yourself, are a fom of cold, dark matter.
I'm made of ordinary mass. You might not be able to see me from a distant galaxy, so I could be classified as "unidentified mass" or MACHO dark matter, but there is nothing "non-baryonic" about me.
Actually I emit lots of heat (infrared) and photons of various sorts, but you still probably wouldn't see me from millions of light years away due to limits on technology.
Actually I emit lots of heat (infrared) and photons of various sorts, but you still probably wouldn't see me from millions of light years away due to limits on technology.
The WIMPs vs MACHOs vs WIDGETs debate is a whole other topic entirely.
Just note that I don't have any theoretical objection to MACHO theories or baryonic forms of "missing mass". I don't even have a problem with you suggesting that neutrinos compose some of that missing mass. If however you intend to hypothesize about SUSY related particle theories I will remind you that this branch of particle physics lacks any sort of empirical evidence. I would have a problem with you proposing that kind of 'dark matter" concept to explain your blown mass projections.
Once again. You're missing the FRIGGING point.
And once again you chose the FRIGGING low road. And you can't seem to figure out why we have a communication problem?
QUOTE
1) I ignored nothing in refference to the hole, if the analysis is incomplete, which you have agreed that it is, then it is inherently flawed. It really is that simple.
This is like a creationist pointing to some lab test and claiming that it is "flawed". That's pure denial on your part IMO. Their analysis is only 'incomplete" because no Lambda-CDM theory ever proposed "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe, so now we're in uncharted territory.
According to inflation theory, there should *not* be a hole of that size in the universe. Someone will now have to go back and tweak one of the fudge factors (inflation, DE, or some other variable) of Lambda theory to "postdict" a new version that will postdict a hole of that size. They will then point to their new postdicted theory and they will then claim that their new and improved Lambda-CDM theory "accurately predicted" big holes in the universe and indeed the universe has big holes in it! Thus the new Lambda-CDM will be embraced by the mainstream. The irony of course is that the whole point of proposing inflation (besides fixing a "missing monopole problem) was to explain a homogeneous layout of matter, so it's only key prediction is moot and yet the theory will live on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) I ignored nothing in refference to the hole, if the analysis is incomplete, which you have agreed that it is, then it is inherently flawed. It really is that simple. |
This is like a creationist pointing to some lab test and claiming that it is "flawed". That's pure denial on your part IMO. Their analysis is only 'incomplete" because no Lambda-CDM theory ever proposed "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe, so now we're in uncharted territory.
According to inflation theory, there should *not* be a hole of that size in the universe. Someone will now have to go back and tweak one of the fudge factors (inflation, DE, or some other variable) of Lambda theory to "postdict" a new version that will postdict a hole of that size. They will then point to their new postdicted theory and they will then claim that their new and improved Lambda-CDM theory "accurately predicted" big holes in the universe and indeed the universe has big holes in it! Thus the new Lambda-CDM will be embraced by the mainstream. The irony of course is that the whole point of proposing inflation (besides fixing a "missing monopole problem) was to explain a homogeneous layout of matter, so it's only key prediction is moot and yet the theory will live on.
3) Both theories can not be correct, one must supplant the other eventually. It really is that simple, I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty wrapping your mind around that single fact.
So maybe eventually, electrical currents will be used to explain some of your "missing mass" in distant galaxies. Maybe powerful EM fields will be shown to be the real cause of the acceleration of the universe. Maybe your inflation theory will give way to a powerful electrical discharge though a mass object that caused the mass object to explode. I have no idea what the future might bring. I'm only interested in offering some alternatives in the classroom *today*, so that my children will have some other viable scientific options to choose from.
QUOTE
4) Inflation failed nothing. Period.
Boloney. This is pure denial on your part. Guth never produced a single monopole, although he claimed that inflation "solved" a "missing monopole problem". That's like claiming that inflation theory solved a missing unicorn problem and the fact the universe has no unicorns validates inflation. Guth never produce any evidence that monopoles exist in nature, so it failed that test outright.
Show me a single Lambda-CDM theory written before that hole was found that actually "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe? You can't. It doesn't exist. It failed to accurately *predict* this feature of physical reality. It *failed* that test too. Inflation theory has *failed* to produce a single controlled test that demonstrates that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's hyperactive imagination. It failed that lab test part too rather miserably. It hasn't 'passed" any tests in fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) Inflation failed nothing. Period. |
Boloney. This is pure denial on your part. Guth never produced a single monopole, although he claimed that inflation "solved" a "missing monopole problem". That's like claiming that inflation theory solved a missing unicorn problem and the fact the universe has no unicorns validates inflation. Guth never produce any evidence that monopoles exist in nature, so it failed that test outright.
Show me a single Lambda-CDM theory written before that hole was found that actually "predicted" a hole of that size to exist in the universe? You can't. It doesn't exist. It failed to accurately *predict* this feature of physical reality. It *failed* that test too. Inflation theory has *failed* to produce a single controlled test that demonstrates that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's hyperactive imagination. It failed that lab test part too rather miserably. It hasn't 'passed" any tests in fact.
ALL the paper says is that according to an incomplete analysis, the odds of a hole forming are smaller then were expected based on the presence of such a hole in the first place (actually, 90% of the paper is establishing it's presence in the first place. The very same frigging data that tells us that the hole is there, tells us that even with the hole there, the universe is STILL homogenous to one part in ten thousand. This is another basic fact that you seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to aknowledge.
What you seem to not grasp is that the fact it is "relatively" homogeneous is irrelevant. Your theory didn't predict holes of that size to exist. It's only claim to fame here is that you had a "quantified" model, but that "quantified" model failed a key and important prediction. It failed to predict such holes. It is a failed theory. PERIOD. Since it was never a properly "qualified" theory to begin with (because Guth simply made it up), and it failed the quantification process, there is neither quantitative or qualitative support for the idea. It could be "relatively" homogeneous for lots of reasons, and even that is a "guess" because we don't have the technology to see that far out in space yet, and we can't even see the entire physical universe. What we can tell is that you theory failed to predict what we observe in space and it was never "qualified' in the first place.
QUOTE
You seem to fail to acknowledge that you don't know that to be true. You *believe* that it is homogeneous and The hole was found using the WMAP data. The WMAP data indicates the universe is homogenous, including this hole, to a very high level (1 part in 10,000) So where, precisely, does Inflation fail the homgeneity test?
Oh for crying out loud. I selected the specific paragraph that shows where it failed the observation test and I even bolded the part where it failed for you. I can't make you embrace the truth. You have to do that part on your own. In truth, your theory failed to predict what is observed in space. You WMAP data shows gaping holes in what is supposed to be at homogeneous "glow" from background radiation for a ""surface of last scattering" and it's not there! There's a gaping hole in your surface of last scattering concept too.
I'll tackle the bullet cluster stuff in a separate post.
QUOTE
5) As far as the Bullet cluster goes?
The following articles and papers ALL disagree with you.
The following articles and papers ALL disagree with you.
First of all this is an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy(ies). I can't quite tell if you're trying to appeal to popularity or appeal to authority, but it's one or the other or both.
They all begin with the premise: We know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy, and we found more mass than we expected. The obvious explanation is that we *don't* know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy which is why it has more mass than we expected. Duh.
Now instead of scrapping their mass calculation methods and trying again, they *assumed* that these methods were accurate and the created a fudge factor of epic proportions (many times the value of the predicted mass), and stuffed it liberally into every gap they could find. They sprinkled a little "dark matter" here and a little dark matter there, until everything "fit".
All this bullet cluster data demonstrates is that we *grossly* (and I mean grossly) underestimated the amounts of mass in a galaxy and we can't explain it. Big deal. It is definitely *not* "proof" (the fact they even used that term shows us the suspect nature of their wild claims) of anything other than our mass calculations of galaxies is off by a very wide margin. PERIOD.
There is no such thing as "dark matter". There is matter that we can't observe because of our primitive technology, but you guys treat "dark matter" like some new and exotic form of mass. I keep hearing about "non baryonic matter" this, non bayronic matter that. I also heard a rumor that non baryonic dark matter tastes yummy, but I can never seem to get my hands on any to verify any of these claims. Stuffing the gaps of your failed mass predictions with non baryonic mass is like me trying to stuff the gaps with invisible potatoes. If you never qualify the fact that invisible potatoes exist in nature, pointing to movement patterns from billions of light years away and claiming "invisiblepotatoesdidit" is pointless, with or without nifty math formulas.
Let me repeat: The only thing that this bullet cluster data "proves" is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because of our primitive technologies and because of our questionable "assumptions" about galaxy measuring techniques. You can't "prove" that invisible potatoes exist in those measurements only because you failed to accurately predict the amount of mass in a galaxy! It's absurd.
What this bullet cluster data *seems* to suggest is that most of the "missing/miscalculated mass" is located closer to the cores of the galaxies and it mostly passed right through the other galaxy. That is hardly surprising since the distances between stars is great and most stars would not collide by pass right on through. If anything it might suggest that most of the mass of the galaxy is found in the infrastructure of the galaxy, as in the solar systems, rather than in the plasma between the solar systems. Then again, even that "assumption" is questionable. The only thing we can say with any certainty from this bullet cluster data is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy. Period. It certainly doesn't "prove" that invisible forms of mass exist, or that invisible potatoes exist, or that invisible fat elves exist in those galaxies.
QUOTE
I'm going to give you the opportunity to think about this one very carefully.
Are you saying that Birkeland, and Alfven were wrong? That the whole of plasma phsycis is based on an erroneous assumption somewhere?
Are you saying that Birkeland, and Alfven were wrong? That the whole of plasma phsycis is based on an erroneous assumption somewhere?
Well, I know for a fact that Birkeland was wrong on certain points of his presentation. I know that Alfven *might* be wrong about ambiplasmas. They could be "wrong" about a lot of things. Birkeland could not be "wrong" about galaxy mass measurements because we didn't know whole different galaxies even existed back then. Birkeland actually "predicted" that the plasma between the stars made up more of the mass of a galaxy than the stars themselves, so I think he would have been quite comfortable with these observations, and he would not have "assumed" that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium.
Plasmas (particularly light plasmas) do all sorts of unusual things in the presence of EM fields. The EM fields of galaxies might hold the plasma threads in place. I have no idea what might be going on in observations of objects that are often millions if not billions of light years away.
Alfven was right about the viscous nature of plasma, but he was also right about the electrical aspects as well. That last part is the part that he mainstream completely ignores. He wrote the book on MDH theory *and* on EU theory Trippy. He wasn't wrong, he was right. You only think in terms of him being wrong, because you are not including all the factors in your calculations that Alfven considered. He looked at the EM properties of the plasma and realized it would do unusual things in certain instances. In no way am I suggesting he was "wrong" about any key issues. The only thing he proposed that I personally find "iffy" is the ambiplasma thing, so I treat that point with a grain of salt, just like all other demonstrated claims. I don't put him on any special pedestal, but I think his work was solid.
Einstein is one of my all time favorite scientists. I think GR theory as *Einstein* proposed it works just fine to explain the attractive forces of mass bodies on other mass bodies. He claimed that his introduction of a constant into GR that wasn't related to attraction between mass was his "greatest blunder", so I absolutely have zero faith in Lambda-Gumby theory and I'm sure he wouldn't care for it either.
EU theory is not in any way in conflict with GR theory. They work harmoniously. What's "wrong" with astronomy is that the mainstream is trying to explain the universe in the *absence of electrical currents*. That's the problem. GR (as Einstein taught it) is just fine. MHD theory was fine too. When you put these ideas together, the give us a very cohesive picture of the universe.
Modern astronomers do not comprehend electrical theory, so the don't really understand how an electric universe functions. They think mostly in terms of GR theory and they stuff it liberally with fudge factors when GR alone won't offer them a legitimate explanation.
Mainstreamers are only using half of MHD theory. They only acknowledge the magnetic side of MHD theory and they ignore the current carrying side of MHD theory entirely. That's the real problem in a nutshell. GR is great. MHD theory is great. Astronomers just refuse to acknowledge the electrical current side of MHD theory. That's the problem.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 9 2008, 07:48 AM)
First of all this is an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy(ies). I can't quite tell if you're trying to appeal to popularity or appeal to authority, but it's one or the other or both.
No it isn't.
Unless your now going to claim that any attempts to cite/reference papers or articles is a logical fallacy.
No it isn't.
Unless your now going to claim that any attempts to cite/reference papers or articles is a logical fallacy.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 9 2008, 07:48 AM)
They all begin with the premise: We know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy, and we found more mass than we expected. The obvious explanation is that we *don't* know how to accurately measure the mass of a galaxy which is why it has more mass than we expected. Duh.
Now instead of scrapping their mass calculation methods and trying again, they *assumed* that these methods were accurate and the created a fudge factor of epic proportions (many times the value of the predicted mass), and stuffed it liberally into every gap they could find. They sprinkled a little "dark matter" here and a little dark matter there, until everything "fit".
All this bullet cluster data demonstrates is that we *grossly* (and I mean grossly) underestimated the amounts of mass in a galaxy and we can't explain it. Big deal. It is definitely *not* "proof" (the fact they even used that term shows us the suspect nature of their wild claims) of anything other than our mass calculations of galaxies is off by a very wide margin. PERIOD.
There is no such thing as "dark matter". There is matter that we can't observe because of our primitive technology, but you guys treat "dark matter" like some new and exotic form of mass. I keep hearing about "non baryonic matter" this, non bayronic matter that. I also heard a rumor that non baryonic dark matter tastes yummy, but I can never seem to get my hands on any to verify any of these claims. Stuffing the gaps of your failed mass predictions with non baryonic mass is like me trying to stuff the gaps with invisible potatoes. If you never qualify the fact that invisible potatoes exist in nature, pointing to movement patterns from billions of light years away and claiming "invisiblepotatoesdidit" is pointless, with or without nifty math formulas.
Let me repeat: The only thing that this bullet cluster data "proves" is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because of our primitive technologies and because of our questionable "assumptions" about galaxy measuring techniques. You can't "prove" that invisible potatoes exist in those measurements only because you failed to accurately predict the amount of mass in a galaxy! It's absurd.
What this bullet cluster data *seems* to suggest is that most of the "missing/miscalculated mass" is located closer to the cores of the galaxies and it mostly passed right through the other galaxy. That is hardly surprising since the distances between stars is great and most stars would not collide by pass right on through. If anything it might suggest that most of the mass of the galaxy is found in the infrastructure of the galaxy, as in the solar systems, rather than in the plasma between the solar systems. Then again, even that "assumption" is questionable. The only thing we can say with any certainty from this bullet cluster data is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy. Period. It certainly doesn't "prove" that invisible forms of mass exist, or that invisible potatoes exist, or that invisible fat elves exist in those galaxies.
See, here's where I think your blatantly wrong.
Think about it, for a minute.
We agree that, especially at the scale of galaxy clusters, most of the visible mass is actually present in the form of plasma. You agreed that that particular assertion or Alfvens was correct, and have made the same assertion yourself.
We agree that the plasma must behave according to MHD, and that MHD essentially implies that when one cloud of plasma passes through another cloud of plasma, they behave as viscous fluids, because of the combination of B & E fields in them.
We agree that the collision heats the plasma to the point where it emits x-rays.
And we seem to agree that all of the above imply that the majority of the mass should be in the middle, where the collision took place.
You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate.
You then go on to suggest that the missing mass in the bullet cluster is because we can't weigh the galaxies properly.
Think about it, for a moment.
You've agreed that 95% of the bullet clusters mass is in the plasma clouds, which you've agreed are, and should be, concentrated in the space between the galaxy clusters - because while the galaxies behave like a system of particles, the plasma behaves like a viscous fluid.
So if 95% of the visible baryonic matter is concentrated in the plasma clouds, then that only leaves 5% in the Galaxies themselves, and even if there is a 95% error in the weight of the galaxies (which you have claimed (effectively) is the case) then that still only leaves a ±4.75% margin of error in the calculation of the mass of the clusters as a whole.
Now. IF Alfven (and Birkeland, and Perrat, and almost every other plasma cosmologists) assertions are correct, and plasma does indeed make up 95% of the cisible baryonic mass of the universe, including in the bullet cluster, and if, as you have agreed, Relativity, and it's predictions of gravitational lensing are correct, then when we use the gravitational lensing of background galaxies to plot out the mass distribution within the cluster, then we should (assuming there is no dark matter) find that 95% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the middle, where the collision took place, and that around 5% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the visible galaxies, so the countours traced by the gravitational lensing should follow, almost exactly, the distribution of the plasma clouds, which we can map in X-rays (and other frequencies).
However. What we find when we map the mass distribution indicated by the gravitational lensing, is that most of the mass is concentrated around the galaxies themselves. And there are only a finite number of ways that this can be true.
1) Alfven, Perrat, and almost everybody else involved in plasma physics is wrong, and plasmas only make up a small, nearly insignificant portion of the universes mass.
2) Alfven, Perrat, and MHD were wrong to predict that the plasma clouds should become bunched up in the middle.
3) Relativity is wrong in it's predictions around gravitational lensing.
4) There is some form of non luminous dark matter present in the cluster, that behaves in the same way as the clusters themselves - IE collisions are rare, and the interaction is predominantly gravitational.
Now, note that ALL i have said in reference to the bullet cluster is that it proves that some form of cold dark matter exists. Then bare in mind that you, yourself, are a fom of cold, dark matter.
You are dark in that you do not emit light.
And you are 'cold' in that you are moving sub-relativisticaly. That is the ONLY thing that those two terms mean. This... Objection to the implication that non baryonic dark matter exists only in YOUR mind. CDM does not specificly imply non baryonic dark matter, that association exists only in your mind. There are Three theories of cold dark matter, and only one of them is non baryonic.
The WIMPs vs MACHOs vs WIDGETs debate is a whole other topic entirely.
Now instead of scrapping their mass calculation methods and trying again, they *assumed* that these methods were accurate and the created a fudge factor of epic proportions (many times the value of the predicted mass), and stuffed it liberally into every gap they could find. They sprinkled a little "dark matter" here and a little dark matter there, until everything "fit".
All this bullet cluster data demonstrates is that we *grossly* (and I mean grossly) underestimated the amounts of mass in a galaxy and we can't explain it. Big deal. It is definitely *not* "proof" (the fact they even used that term shows us the suspect nature of their wild claims) of anything other than our mass calculations of galaxies is off by a very wide margin. PERIOD.
There is no such thing as "dark matter". There is matter that we can't observe because of our primitive technology, but you guys treat "dark matter" like some new and exotic form of mass. I keep hearing about "non baryonic matter" this, non bayronic matter that. I also heard a rumor that non baryonic dark matter tastes yummy, but I can never seem to get my hands on any to verify any of these claims. Stuffing the gaps of your failed mass predictions with non baryonic mass is like me trying to stuff the gaps with invisible potatoes. If you never qualify the fact that invisible potatoes exist in nature, pointing to movement patterns from billions of light years away and claiming "invisiblepotatoesdidit" is pointless, with or without nifty math formulas.
Let me repeat: The only thing that this bullet cluster data "proves" is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy because of our primitive technologies and because of our questionable "assumptions" about galaxy measuring techniques. You can't "prove" that invisible potatoes exist in those measurements only because you failed to accurately predict the amount of mass in a galaxy! It's absurd.
What this bullet cluster data *seems* to suggest is that most of the "missing/miscalculated mass" is located closer to the cores of the galaxies and it mostly passed right through the other galaxy. That is hardly surprising since the distances between stars is great and most stars would not collide by pass right on through. If anything it might suggest that most of the mass of the galaxy is found in the infrastructure of the galaxy, as in the solar systems, rather than in the plasma between the solar systems. Then again, even that "assumption" is questionable. The only thing we can say with any certainty from this bullet cluster data is that we can't accurately measure the mass of a galaxy. Period. It certainly doesn't "prove" that invisible forms of mass exist, or that invisible potatoes exist, or that invisible fat elves exist in those galaxies.
See, here's where I think your blatantly wrong.
Think about it, for a minute.
We agree that, especially at the scale of galaxy clusters, most of the visible mass is actually present in the form of plasma. You agreed that that particular assertion or Alfvens was correct, and have made the same assertion yourself.
We agree that the plasma must behave according to MHD, and that MHD essentially implies that when one cloud of plasma passes through another cloud of plasma, they behave as viscous fluids, because of the combination of B & E fields in them.
We agree that the collision heats the plasma to the point where it emits x-rays.
And we seem to agree that all of the above imply that the majority of the mass should be in the middle, where the collision took place.
You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate.
You then go on to suggest that the missing mass in the bullet cluster is because we can't weigh the galaxies properly.
Think about it, for a moment.
You've agreed that 95% of the bullet clusters mass is in the plasma clouds, which you've agreed are, and should be, concentrated in the space between the galaxy clusters - because while the galaxies behave like a system of particles, the plasma behaves like a viscous fluid.
So if 95% of the visible baryonic matter is concentrated in the plasma clouds, then that only leaves 5% in the Galaxies themselves, and even if there is a 95% error in the weight of the galaxies (which you have claimed (effectively) is the case) then that still only leaves a ±4.75% margin of error in the calculation of the mass of the clusters as a whole.
Now. IF Alfven (and Birkeland, and Perrat, and almost every other plasma cosmologists) assertions are correct, and plasma does indeed make up 95% of the cisible baryonic mass of the universe, including in the bullet cluster, and if, as you have agreed, Relativity, and it's predictions of gravitational lensing are correct, then when we use the gravitational lensing of background galaxies to plot out the mass distribution within the cluster, then we should (assuming there is no dark matter) find that 95% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the middle, where the collision took place, and that around 5% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the visible galaxies, so the countours traced by the gravitational lensing should follow, almost exactly, the distribution of the plasma clouds, which we can map in X-rays (and other frequencies).
However. What we find when we map the mass distribution indicated by the gravitational lensing, is that most of the mass is concentrated around the galaxies themselves. And there are only a finite number of ways that this can be true.
1) Alfven, Perrat, and almost everybody else involved in plasma physics is wrong, and plasmas only make up a small, nearly insignificant portion of the universes mass.
2) Alfven, Perrat, and MHD were wrong to predict that the plasma clouds should become bunched up in the middle.
3) Relativity is wrong in it's predictions around gravitational lensing.
4) There is some form of non luminous dark matter present in the cluster, that behaves in the same way as the clusters themselves - IE collisions are rare, and the interaction is predominantly gravitational.
Now, note that ALL i have said in reference to the bullet cluster is that it proves that some form of cold dark matter exists. Then bare in mind that you, yourself, are a fom of cold, dark matter.
You are dark in that you do not emit light.
And you are 'cold' in that you are moving sub-relativisticaly. That is the ONLY thing that those two terms mean. This... Objection to the implication that non baryonic dark matter exists only in YOUR mind. CDM does not specificly imply non baryonic dark matter, that association exists only in your mind. There are Three theories of cold dark matter, and only one of them is non baryonic.
The WIMPs vs MACHOs vs WIDGETs debate is a whole other topic entirely.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 05:05 PM)
Now, note that ALL i have said in reference to the bullet cluster is that it proves that some form of cold dark matter exists. Then bare in mind that you, yourself, are a form of cold, dark matter.
Lordy. But what kind? 
Lordy. But what kind?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 8 2008, 09:32 PM)
No it isn't.
Unless your now going to claim that any attempts to cite/reference papers or articles is a logical fallacy.
Yes it is. My criticism has been that your basic ideas (inflation, DE and non-baryonic DM) lack any sort of empirical qualification. You can't "qualify" a concept through uncontrolled observations.
That claim about finding "proof" of dark matter was a great example of grandiose back patting run amuck. First of all, you can't actually "prove" anything. The best we might do is provide empirical physical evidence to support a particular position. All evidence also becomes subjective somewhere along the way.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
Like there is an "abnormal" form of matter? There isn't any evidence that any "abby normal" (Young Frankenstein) forms of matter exist in nature. Sheesh! This kind of statement simply makes my skin crawl. When I was in college "dark matter" was thought to be nothing more than MACHO forms of mass that our technologies simply couldn't detect. Now however there is that "new and improved" brand of "dark matter" that would claim that 80% of all "missing mass" is not in baryonic form. That is absolutely unprovable from an uncontrolled observation in deep space.
When we watch the video, and read the actual paper, what we observe is that our mass calculations for both galaxies are *way* off. We also notice that most of the mass we failed to accurately locate, passes directly through the 'collision", and continues on its original flight path. This is completely consistent with any theory that assumes that most of the mass of a galaxy is located in the infrastructure of the galaxy itself, i.e. the solar systems, the spiral arms, etc. The "pink" material is pretty obviously the light plasmas in the ISM interacting with ISM from the other galaxy. The x-rays are most likely due to electrical interactions from induction forces.
In short, all this data "proves" is we have no clue how to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy. Period. Nothing else has been "proved" from a pure observation. For all I know (and what I actually assume) is that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of mass in an average solar system because they *assume* that suns are not mass separated by the element and they *assume* they are mostly made of hydrogen and helium rather than heavy elements.
The fact this author claims to have "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation and a bunch of subjective assumptions, and the fact it was actually *published* no less, shows you how out of tough with reality this industry has become. Birkeland "proved" (empirically) that electrons could have an effect on matter (normal matter). The only way to empirically prove the existence of "non-baryonic" matter is via controlled testing in scientific experiments. "Proof" of exotic forms of matter could not possible come from uncontrolled observations of objects in deep space. That paper was absolutely ridiculous.
Unless your now going to claim that any attempts to cite/reference papers or articles is a logical fallacy.
Yes it is. My criticism has been that your basic ideas (inflation, DE and non-baryonic DM) lack any sort of empirical qualification. You can't "qualify" a concept through uncontrolled observations.
That claim about finding "proof" of dark matter was a great example of grandiose back patting run amuck. First of all, you can't actually "prove" anything. The best we might do is provide empirical physical evidence to support a particular position. All evidence also becomes subjective somewhere along the way.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/
QUOTE
Hot gas detected by Chandra in X-rays is seen as two pink clumps in the image and contains most of the "normal," or baryonic, matter in the two clusters.
Like there is an "abnormal" form of matter? There isn't any evidence that any "abby normal" (Young Frankenstein) forms of matter exist in nature. Sheesh! This kind of statement simply makes my skin crawl. When I was in college "dark matter" was thought to be nothing more than MACHO forms of mass that our technologies simply couldn't detect. Now however there is that "new and improved" brand of "dark matter" that would claim that 80% of all "missing mass" is not in baryonic form. That is absolutely unprovable from an uncontrolled observation in deep space.
When we watch the video, and read the actual paper, what we observe is that our mass calculations for both galaxies are *way* off. We also notice that most of the mass we failed to accurately locate, passes directly through the 'collision", and continues on its original flight path. This is completely consistent with any theory that assumes that most of the mass of a galaxy is located in the infrastructure of the galaxy itself, i.e. the solar systems, the spiral arms, etc. The "pink" material is pretty obviously the light plasmas in the ISM interacting with ISM from the other galaxy. The x-rays are most likely due to electrical interactions from induction forces.
In short, all this data "proves" is we have no clue how to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy. Period. Nothing else has been "proved" from a pure observation. For all I know (and what I actually assume) is that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of mass in an average solar system because they *assume* that suns are not mass separated by the element and they *assume* they are mostly made of hydrogen and helium rather than heavy elements.
The fact this author claims to have "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation and a bunch of subjective assumptions, and the fact it was actually *published* no less, shows you how out of tough with reality this industry has become. Birkeland "proved" (empirically) that electrons could have an effect on matter (normal matter). The only way to empirically prove the existence of "non-baryonic" matter is via controlled testing in scientific experiments. "Proof" of exotic forms of matter could not possible come from uncontrolled observations of objects in deep space. That paper was absolutely ridiculous.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 9 2008, 12:23 PM)
Like there is an "abnormal" form of matter? There isn't any evidence that any "abby normal" (Young Frankenstein) forms of matter exist in nature. Sheesh! This kind of statement simply makes my skin crawl. When I was in college "dark matter" was thought to be nothing more than MACHO forms of mass that our technologies simply couldn't detect. Now however there is that "new and improved" brand of "dark matter" that would claim that 80% of all "missing mass" is not in baryonic form. That is absolutely unprovable from an uncontrolled observation in deep space.
When we watch the video, and read the actual paper, what we observe is that our mass calculations for both galaxies are *way* off. We also notice that most of the mass we failed to accurately locate, passes directly through the 'collision", and continues on its original flight path. This is completely consistent with any theory that assumes that most of the mass of a galaxy is located in the infrastructure of the galaxy itself, i.e. the solar systems, the spiral arms, etc. The "pink" material is pretty obviously the light plasmas in the ISM interacting with ISM from the other galaxy. The x-rays are most likely due to electrical interactions from induction forces.
In short, all this data "proves" is we have no clue how to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy. Period. Nothing else has been "proved" from a pure observation. For all I know (and what I actually assume) is that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of mass in an average solar system because they *assume* that suns are not mass separated by the element and they *assume* they are mostly made of hydrogen and helium rather than heavy elements.
The fact this author claims to have "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation and a bunch of subjective assumptions, and the fact it was actually *published* no less, shows you how out of tough with reality this industry has become. Birkeland "proved" (empirically) that electrons could have an effect on matter (normal matter). The only way to empirically prove the existence of "non-baryonic" matter is via controlled testing in scientific experiments.
We consider Baryonic matter to be 'normal' so yes, you could claim that non-baryonic matter is not normal (within the limited realm of human experience).
The thing about MACHO forms of dark matter, is that based on the observations of the amount of missing mass, we can figure out how much of it there should be in this galaxy. From that we can figure out that if we sit and stare out a distant star for x number of hours, then we should see y number of MACHOs pass between us and the star, creating a gravitational lensing event (a micro lensing event) each time it happens. So if we count the number of micro lensing events, we can estimate the amount of baryonic dark matter in our galaxy.
We have performed this experiment, and the results tell us that there is not enough baryonic dark matter in our galaxy to account for all of the missing mass. So no, it's not absolutely unprovable, and it's not based on an observation in deep space.
Unless you're going to claim that somehow our part of the galaxy is special, or that somehow our galaxy is special.
Which requires the assumption that the statement "Most of the mass of a galaxy CLUSTER is not concentrated in the plasmas that occupy the cluster." Is Incorrect, which, AFAIK goes against the work of Alfven, Perrat, Birkeland, and nearly every plasma physicist I have read about.
You mean aside from all the evidence that supports the standard solar model as correct?
You mean the very same experiments that you claim you shouldn't have to wait for?
When we watch the video, and read the actual paper, what we observe is that our mass calculations for both galaxies are *way* off. We also notice that most of the mass we failed to accurately locate, passes directly through the 'collision", and continues on its original flight path. This is completely consistent with any theory that assumes that most of the mass of a galaxy is located in the infrastructure of the galaxy itself, i.e. the solar systems, the spiral arms, etc. The "pink" material is pretty obviously the light plasmas in the ISM interacting with ISM from the other galaxy. The x-rays are most likely due to electrical interactions from induction forces.
In short, all this data "proves" is we have no clue how to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy. Period. Nothing else has been "proved" from a pure observation. For all I know (and what I actually assume) is that the mainstream grossly underestimates the amount of mass in an average solar system because they *assume* that suns are not mass separated by the element and they *assume* they are mostly made of hydrogen and helium rather than heavy elements.
The fact this author claims to have "proof" of dark matter from an uncontrolled observation and a bunch of subjective assumptions, and the fact it was actually *published* no less, shows you how out of tough with reality this industry has become. Birkeland "proved" (empirically) that electrons could have an effect on matter (normal matter). The only way to empirically prove the existence of "non-baryonic" matter is via controlled testing in scientific experiments.
We consider Baryonic matter to be 'normal' so yes, you could claim that non-baryonic matter is not normal (within the limited realm of human experience).
The thing about MACHO forms of dark matter, is that based on the observations of the amount of missing mass, we can figure out how much of it there should be in this galaxy. From that we can figure out that if we sit and stare out a distant star for x number of hours, then we should see y number of MACHOs pass between us and the star, creating a gravitational lensing event (a micro lensing event) each time it happens. So if we count the number of micro lensing events, we can estimate the amount of baryonic dark matter in our galaxy.
We have performed this experiment, and the results tell us that there is not enough baryonic dark matter in our galaxy to account for all of the missing mass. So no, it's not absolutely unprovable, and it's not based on an observation in deep space.
Unless you're going to claim that somehow our part of the galaxy is special, or that somehow our galaxy is special.
Which requires the assumption that the statement "Most of the mass of a galaxy CLUSTER is not concentrated in the plasmas that occupy the cluster." Is Incorrect, which, AFAIK goes against the work of Alfven, Perrat, Birkeland, and nearly every plasma physicist I have read about.
You mean aside from all the evidence that supports the standard solar model as correct?
You mean the very same experiments that you claim you shouldn't have to wait for?
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 9 2008, 12:23 PM)
Yes it is.
No, it isn't. All I did was cite papers that supported my position, the very same thing you have done multiple times in this thread.
No, it isn't. All I did was cite papers that supported my position, the very same thing you have done multiple times in this thread.
QUOTE
We agree that, especially at the scale of galaxy clusters, most of the visible mass is actually present in the form of plasma. You agreed that that particular assertion or Alfvens was correct, and have made the same assertion yourself.
Ok, so we both agree the universe is mostly made of plasma. That seems like a good start.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We agree that, especially at the scale of galaxy clusters, most of the visible mass is actually present in the form of plasma. You agreed that that particular assertion or Alfvens was correct, and have made the same assertion yourself. |
Ok, so we both agree the universe is mostly made of plasma. That seems like a good start.
We agree that the plasma must behave according to MHD, and that MHD essentially implies that when one cloud of plasma passes through another cloud of plasma, they behave as viscous fluids, because of the combination of B & E fields in them.
Well, yes and no. Suns are essentially massive concentrations of plasma and they are separated by vast distances. The odds of a direct hit between two suns in a galaxy "collision" are actually very small. It's highly likely that most of the "infrastructure" of each galaxy will remain intact, while only the sparsest of plasmas between the solar systems will actually "collide' and interact.
QUOTE
We agree that the collision heats the plasma to the point where it emits x-rays.
Well, *some* of the x-rays are probably caused by collision, but I would assume there is an electrical aspect to this interaction process as well. Note that the current carrying threads are likely to be far more dense than some areas in the collision process and these heavier threads may interact only infrequently with plasma threads in the other galaxy. I would assume that a lot depends on the angle of intersection.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We agree that the collision heats the plasma to the point where it emits x-rays. |
Well, *some* of the x-rays are probably caused by collision, but I would assume there is an electrical aspect to this interaction process as well. Note that the current carrying threads are likely to be far more dense than some areas in the collision process and these heavier threads may interact only infrequently with plasma threads in the other galaxy. I would assume that a lot depends on the angle of intersection.
And we seem to agree that all of the above imply that the majority of the mass should be in the middle, where the collision took place.
The whole "star field" is going to contain mass, and most of you "missing mass" estimates for spiral galaxies puts a lot of the "missing mass" in the outside edges of the galaxy. It seems to me that what I would expect to observe is a bunch of stars sliding right past one another and waving hello to stars going the other direction. I would not expect many "direct hits", though though there may be a few noteworthy exceptions to that rule.
QUOTE
You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate.
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate. |
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
You then go on to suggest that the missing mass in the bullet cluster is because we can't weigh the galaxies properly.
Yes. If we assume that the lensing data gives us a fairly accurate pictures of the *total* mass in a galaxy, then we can be pretty certain that the methods used to "guestimate" the mass of a galaxy are *way* off the mark.
QUOTE
Think about it, for a moment.
You've agreed that 95% of the bullet clusters mass is in the plasma clouds, which you've agreed are, and should be, concentrated in the space between the galaxy clusters - because while the galaxies behave like a system of particles, the plasma behaves like a viscous fluid.
You've agreed that 95% of the bullet clusters mass is in the plasma clouds, which you've agreed are, and should be, concentrated in the space between the galaxy clusters - because while the galaxies behave like a system of particles, the plasma behaves like a viscous fluid.
Well, Birkeland certainly believed that most of the mass of a galaxy was contained inside of the plasma between the stars, but his estimates seem to be based on an iron concentration level that isn't accurate. I can't say for sure how much mass is in the plasma threads between the stars vs the amount that is found inside the stars themselves. Even if most of the mass is in the filaments between the stars, they carry current and have magnetic fields around them and they would not necessarily interact with the other galaxy all along that plasma thread. More likely there will be threads that pass through one another and intersect only at specific points in each thread. Even in an EU scenario with mass concentrations mostly outside of suns, its would not be likely that much of a the whole current carrying thread would be affected by a galaxy collision. You seem to be assuming some sort of homogeneous layout of plasma, whereas I assume most of that external (to stars) mass is concentrated inside Birkeland current threads.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think about it, for a moment. You've agreed that 95% of the bullet clusters mass is in the plasma clouds, which you've agreed are, and should be, concentrated in the space between the galaxy clusters - because while the galaxies behave like a system of particles, the plasma behaves like a viscous fluid. |
Well, Birkeland certainly believed that most of the mass of a galaxy was contained inside of the plasma between the stars, but his estimates seem to be based on an iron concentration level that isn't accurate. I can't say for sure how much mass is in the plasma threads between the stars vs the amount that is found inside the stars themselves. Even if most of the mass is in the filaments between the stars, they carry current and have magnetic fields around them and they would not necessarily interact with the other galaxy all along that plasma thread. More likely there will be threads that pass through one another and intersect only at specific points in each thread. Even in an EU scenario with mass concentrations mostly outside of suns, its would not be likely that much of a the whole current carrying thread would be affected by a galaxy collision. You seem to be assuming some sort of homogeneous layout of plasma, whereas I assume most of that external (to stars) mass is concentrated inside Birkeland current threads.
So if 95% of the visible baryonic matter is concentrated in the plasma clouds, then that only leaves 5% in the Galaxies themselves,
I don't think that the ratio of plasma thread mass to solar mass is anywhere near a 95/5 split. In an iron sun scenario, the threads are likely to be mostly composed of hydrogen and helium and protons and electrons, things that can easily escape a large gravity well, whereas heavier elements like iron and Nickel would tend to concentrate inside suns and planets and other forms of MACHO objects. Those objects are unlikely to interact with other objects during the "collision" (pass through) with another galaxy. IMO the interstellar medium is probably a lot lighter than you percieve it to be in relationship to the mass inside the solar systems.
QUOTE
and even if there is a 95% error in the weight of the galaxies (which you have claimed (effectively) is the case) then that still only leaves a ±4.75% margin of error in the calculation of the mass of the clusters as a whole.
It seems that you and I have very different opinions about how much mass is contained inside of stars vs. the amount of mass in the interstellar medium. I assume that stars are mass separated by the element and the sun mostly releases hydrogen and helium into the interstellar medium, with retaining most of it's heavier elements indefinitely. That seems to be the nature of our disagreement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and even if there is a 95% error in the weight of the galaxies (which you have claimed (effectively) is the case) then that still only leaves a ±4.75% margin of error in the calculation of the mass of the clusters as a whole. |
It seems that you and I have very different opinions about how much mass is contained inside of stars vs. the amount of mass in the interstellar medium. I assume that stars are mass separated by the element and the sun mostly releases hydrogen and helium into the interstellar medium, with retaining most of it's heavier elements indefinitely. That seems to be the nature of our disagreement.
Now. IF Alfven (and Birkeland, and Perrat, and almost every other plasma cosmologists) assertions are correct, and plasma does indeed make up 95% of the cisible baryonic mass of the universe, including in the bullet cluster,
If our mass projections were off by such a wide margin, then IMO it is likely that this assumption is also off by a large margin.
QUOTE
and if, as you have agreed, Relativity, and it's predictions of gravitational lensing are correct, then when we use the gravitational lensing of background galaxies to plot out the mass distribution within the cluster,
In theory at least, I have no problem with this part of your argument. We should be able to use that lensing data to pinpoint the mass distribution in each galaxy. We know from this sort of analysis that we grossly underestimated that number. Obviously there is something seriously wrong about are mass projections, and I can identify what that is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and if, as you have agreed, Relativity, and it's predictions of gravitational lensing are correct, then when we use the gravitational lensing of background galaxies to plot out the mass distribution within the cluster, |
In theory at least, I have no problem with this part of your argument. We should be able to use that lensing data to pinpoint the mass distribution in each galaxy. We know from this sort of analysis that we grossly underestimated that number. Obviously there is something seriously wrong about are mass projections, and I can identify what that is.
then we should (assuming there is no dark matter) find that 95% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the middle, where the collision took place, and that around 5% of the mass of the cluster is concentrated in the visible galaxies, so the countours traced by the gravitational lensing should follow, almost exactly, the distribution of the plasma clouds, which we can map in X-rays (and other frequencies).
You made another untenable assumption. You don't know that the mass is concentrated in the center. You assumed that. I do not. You also assume that areas that have less x-rays are somehow exempt from containing *normal* mass. I do not make that assumption.
QUOTE
However. What we find when we map the mass distribution indicated by the gravitational lensing, is that most of the mass is concentrated around the galaxies themselves. And there are only a finite number of ways that this can be true.
There are only a "finite" number of ways to explain the mass distribution using *normal* matter, but if we can just whip up invisible potato theories at will, then there are almost limitless ways to explain this missing mass. I mean if we can posit fat invisible elves as a "mass source" then anything is possible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However. What we find when we map the mass distribution indicated by the gravitational lensing, is that most of the mass is concentrated around the galaxies themselves. And there are only a finite number of ways that this can be true. |
There are only a "finite" number of ways to explain the mass distribution using *normal* matter, but if we can just whip up invisible potato theories at will, then there are almost limitless ways to explain this missing mass. I mean if we can posit fat invisible elves as a "mass source" then anything is possible.
1) Alfven, Perrat, and almost everybody else involved in plasma physics is wrong, and plasmas only make up a small, nearly insignificant portion of the universes mass.
No. Alfven would not have assumed many things that you assumed, but as I recall they did assume that stars were mostly made of hydrogen and helium, and I do not, so in theory at least that issue could be the difference between our positions. I'm still certain that the mass between stars is significant, but I assume it's threaded and it carries currents, and it would be unlikely to interact with other plasma threads along the whole plasma thread.
QUOTE
2) Alfven, Perrat, and MHD were wrong to predict that the plasma clouds should become bunched up in the middle.
Why? Even by my way of thinking, that part of their assessment is probably accurate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) Alfven, Perrat, and MHD were wrong to predict that the plasma clouds should become bunched up in the middle. |
Why? Even by my way of thinking, that part of their assessment is probably accurate.
3) Relativity is wrong in it's predictions around gravitational lensing.
I'm a big GR fan, so I doubt that is the case. This is why I actually favor a MACHO style "missing mass" theory over a MOND theory in fact.
QUOTE
4) There is some form of non luminous dark matter present in the cluster, that behaves in the same way as the clusters themselves - IE collisions are rare, and the interaction is predominantly gravitational.
They are called "current carrying Birkeland currents" IMO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) There is some form of non luminous dark matter present in the cluster, that behaves in the same way as the clusters themselves - IE collisions are rare, and the interaction is predominantly gravitational. |
They are called "current carrying Birkeland currents" IMO.
Now, note that ALL i have said in reference to the bullet cluster is that it proves that some form of cold dark matter exists. Then bare in mind that you, yourself, are a fom of cold, dark matter.
I'm made of ordinary mass. You might not be able to see me from a distant galaxy, so I could be classified as "unidentified mass" or MACHO dark matter, but there is nothing "non-baryonic" about me.
QUOTE
You are dark in that you do not emit light.
Actually I emit lots of heat (infrared) and photons of various sorts, but you still probably wouldn't see me from millions of light years away due to limits on technology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are dark in that you do not emit light. |
Actually I emit lots of heat (infrared) and photons of various sorts, but you still probably wouldn't see me from millions of light years away due to limits on technology.
The WIMPs vs MACHOs vs WIDGETs debate is a whole other topic entirely.
Just note that I don't have any theoretical objection to MACHO theories or baryonic forms of "missing mass". I don't even have a problem with you suggesting that neutrinos compose some of that missing mass. If however you intend to hypothesize about SUSY related particle theories I will remind you that this branch of particle physics lacks any sort of empirical evidence. I would have a problem with you proposing that kind of 'dark matter" concept to explain your blown mass projections.
Trippy, I am just not sure either.
Hello, Michael, you sound as though you ought to know what you're talking about, but I have some questions concerning one (at least) of your assertions.
You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate.
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
IMHO, after reading that article, MHO remains unchanged.
Sapo
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER
THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS
2005 O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat , M. Mozina
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER,THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS INTO THE SPOTS
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Sorry, I must have missed your earlier post. These are actually very good questions and I'm sorry I didn't see them earlier.
Sorry, I must have missed your earlier post. These are actually very good questions and I'm sorry I didn't see them earlier.
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?
The sun's surface is hot, it is highly volcanic, and it is very electrically active. Therefore the surface of the sun is far less "stable" over time than a planet's crust. While there are distinct surface feature that survive for more than a single rotation cycle, there are typically quite a few surface changes during a single rotation, particularly during the active phases. I seriously doubt that many of the original surface features will survive 81.9 days. I have sat down and mapped the rotation cycle of various individual surface features through a whole rotation cycle, and through that process I can see that the sun goes through a 27.3 day rotation cycle (relative to earth). That time line applies to surface features near the poles and also to surface features nearest the equator. In other words the rotation rate is uniform from pole to equator which is not what we expect to see from plasma. Light plasmas tend to show significant amounts of differential rotation.
It all has to do with the wavelength and each wavelength's ability to penetrate various layers of the atmosphere.
This is a composite Trace/Yohkoh image of the solar atmosphere. The blue areas are what Trace observes in 171A, while the yellow areas represent what Yohkoh observes of the same area in X-ray. The bases of the coronal loops that we observe in these images are only visible in the 171A wavelength, and not in x-ray. The only part of the loop we can see in x-rays are the tops of the coronal loops. That is because the photosphere absorbs most of the x-rays emitted by the loops, while the 171A wavelengths are able to penetrate through the photosphere. Keep in mind that the light source *is* the coronal loop. While the loop emits x-rays all along the loop, most of those x-rays never make it out of the photosphere. Once the loop reaches into the corona, the x-rays, they are no longer fully absorbed, and they become visible. The iron ion wavelengths, as well as the x-ray wavelength are caused by the current flows inside the coronal loops. These current flows heat the plasma inside the loop to millions of degrees. The loops themselves can of course reach into the corona, but they are not limited to the corona.
It all has to do with the wavelength and each wavelength's ability to penetrate various layers of the atmosphere.
This is a composite Trace/Yohkoh image of the solar atmosphere. The blue areas are what Trace observes in 171A, while the yellow areas represent what Yohkoh observes of the same area in X-ray. The bases of the coronal loops that we observe in these images are only visible in the 171A wavelength, and not in x-ray. The only part of the loop we can see in x-rays are the tops of the coronal loops. That is because the photosphere absorbs most of the x-rays emitted by the loops, while the 171A wavelengths are able to penetrate through the photosphere. Keep in mind that the light source *is* the coronal loop. While the loop emits x-rays all along the loop, most of those x-rays never make it out of the photosphere. Once the loop reaches into the corona, the x-rays, they are no longer fully absorbed, and they become visible. The iron ion wavelengths, as well as the x-ray wavelength are caused by the current flows inside the coronal loops. These current flows heat the plasma inside the loop to millions of degrees. The loops themselves can of course reach into the corona, but they are not limited to the corona.
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.
Well, the "best" image IMO is that TRACE RD image because it shows so much detail, and shows us the effect of a CME on the solar atmosphere and surface. Those Doppler images also show "rigid" features under the photosphere as well. RD images are not the only way to observe the surface features, but they do show these features in some detail, particularly the TRACE RD images because they are higher resolution (more zoomed in) images than the SOHO RD images.
There is also helisiesmology data the supports the existence of a "stratification subsurface" that is sitting at about .995R and blocks the up and down flow of plasma in that area.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
I'm not sure what you might consider the "best" evidence of a surface, but I'm rather partial to the TRACE RD image because of the finer details that can be observed in such images. The Doppler images and the heliosiesmology data also support the existence of a "stratification subsurface" (crust) that sits just under the photosphere at .995R. In that area we see a significant increase in sound speeds due to the dense nature of the crust in comparison to the atmosphere above it. Just like the earth, the sun has a relatively "thin" atmosphere relative to it's total size.
Because "noise" doesn't create rigid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. What kind of "noise" would do that?
Because "noise" doesn't create rigid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. What kind of "noise" would do that?
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.
Let's start with that first TRACE image. Notice all the fine details that stay "fixed" in the image, and stay "rigid" throughout the CME event. Light plasma does get "blown around" in that same image. In fact we can see (for lack of a better term) "dust" blowing in the plasma atmosphere, right after the CME event. That dust (more dense material) shows us the direction of the plasma flows in the atmosphere. While the plasma flows from the bottom right toward the upper left, all the "rigid features" stay put in the image. Why?
That is the limit of the technology of these particular satellites.
That is the limit of the technology of these particular satellites.
Wouldn't more accurate rotation rates come from higher resolution images?
Certainly. Then again I can only work with the technologies that are available to me. Hinode images are much higher resolution images, but the wavelengths that are available at full resolution using the SOT are not capable of observing iron ion wavelengths. Rather they are limited to G-Band and CA-H ion filters that mostly pickup emissions from the photosphere in the case of G-Band images, and the upper atmosphere in the case of CA-H wavelengths.
Stereo images can produce "better", higher resolution RD images in the iron ion wavelengths, and I have put together a few of those higher resolution images on my website as well. Unlike the SOHO images, which are available through NASA, I have to create these higher resolution STEREO RD images myself, and therefore the "source" of the image becomes more "suspect". The SOHO and TRACE RD images were created by NASA and LMSAL, so there can be no dispute about the source of the images. That's why I primarily use these images rather than the any other type of image.
Hello, Michael, you sound as though you ought to know what you're talking about, but I have some questions concerning one (at least) of your assertions.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+)
QUOTE (Trippy+)
You agree that General Relativity is accurate, and it's predictions are accurate, therefore you agree that the predictions of gravitational lensing are accurate.
I do actually. I just think that the "missing mass" comes in the form of heavy suns.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07...iron/index.html
IMO Manuel is correct that suns are mostly composed of iron and Nickel, not hydrogen and helium. That would in fact throw off your estimates solar masses by quite a lot in some cases.
IMHO, after reading that article, MHO remains unchanged.
Sapo
QUOTE (Sapo+Jan 9 2008, 03:45 AM)
Trippy, I am just not sure either.
Hello, Michael, you sound as though you ought to know what you're talking about, but I have some questions concerning one (at least) of your assertions.
IMHO, after reading that article, MHO remains unchanged.
Sapo
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You might try some published papers on this topic. There are five of them that I have personally been involved in. Manuel's work on this topic predates my involvement by several decades however, and he would be your best resource for the nuclear side of these presentations, while I would be a better resource on the satellite imagery and heliosiesmology evidence from these papers.
Hello, Michael, you sound as though you ought to know what you're talking about, but I have some questions concerning one (at least) of your assertions.
IMHO, after reading that article, MHO remains unchanged.
Sapo
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You might try some published papers on this topic. There are five of them that I have personally been involved in. Manuel's work on this topic predates my involvement by several decades however, and he would be your best resource for the nuclear side of these presentations, while I would be a better resource on the satellite imagery and heliosiesmology evidence from these papers.
QUOTE (barakn+Dec 26 2007, 09:49 PM)
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.
Since the conversation seems to have come around full swing (finally) back to the original topic, which is the Sun's Origin And Make Up, and since my series of questions (way back on page 4) have gone unanswered, I am quoting my original post and once again asking for answers. This is in reference to comments about solid structures being visible in running-difference images in the following document:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER
THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS
2005 O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat , M. Mozina
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.
Since the conversation seems to have come around full swing (finally) back to the original topic, which is the Sun's Origin And Make Up, and since my series of questions (way back on page 4) have gone unanswered, I am quoting my original post and once again asking for answers. This is in reference to comments about solid structures being visible in running-difference images in the following document:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER
THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS
2005 O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat , M. Mozina
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 10 2008, 04:33 AM)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER
THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS
2005 O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat , M. Mozina
THE SUN IS A PLASMA DIFFUSER,THAT SORTS ATOMS BY MASS INTO THE SPOTS
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
QUOTE
Since the conversation seems to have come around full swing (finally) back to the original topic, which is the Sun's Origin And Make Up, and since my series of questions (way back on page 4) have gone unanswered, I am quoting my original post and once again asking for answers. This is in reference to comments about solid structures being visible in running-difference images in the following document: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:
Sorry, I must have missed your earlier post. These are actually very good questions and I'm sorry I didn't see them earlier.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since the conversation seems to have come around full swing (finally) back to the original topic, which is the Sun's Origin And Make Up, and since my series of questions (way back on page 4) have gone unanswered, I am quoting my original post and once again asking for answers. This is in reference to comments about solid structures being visible in running-difference images in the following document: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: |
Sorry, I must have missed your earlier post. These are actually very good questions and I'm sorry I didn't see them earlier.
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?
The sun's surface is hot, it is highly volcanic, and it is very electrically active. Therefore the surface of the sun is far less "stable" over time than a planet's crust. While there are distinct surface feature that survive for more than a single rotation cycle, there are typically quite a few surface changes during a single rotation, particularly during the active phases. I seriously doubt that many of the original surface features will survive 81.9 days. I have sat down and mapped the rotation cycle of various individual surface features through a whole rotation cycle, and through that process I can see that the sun goes through a 27.3 day rotation cycle (relative to earth). That time line applies to surface features near the poles and also to surface features nearest the equator. In other words the rotation rate is uniform from pole to equator which is not what we expect to see from plasma. Light plasmas tend to show significant amounts of differential rotation.
QUOTE
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)?
It all has to do with the wavelength and each wavelength's ability to penetrate various layers of the atmosphere.
This is a composite Trace/Yohkoh image of the solar atmosphere. The blue areas are what Trace observes in 171A, while the yellow areas represent what Yohkoh observes of the same area in X-ray. The bases of the coronal loops that we observe in these images are only visible in the 171A wavelength, and not in x-ray. The only part of the loop we can see in x-rays are the tops of the coronal loops. That is because the photosphere absorbs most of the x-rays emitted by the loops, while the 171A wavelengths are able to penetrate through the photosphere. Keep in mind that the light source *is* the coronal loop. While the loop emits x-rays all along the loop, most of those x-rays never make it out of the photosphere. Once the loop reaches into the corona, the x-rays, they are no longer fully absorbed, and they become visible. The iron ion wavelengths, as well as the x-ray wavelength are caused by the current flows inside the coronal loops. These current flows heat the plasma inside the loop to millions of degrees. The loops themselves can of course reach into the corona, but they are not limited to the corona.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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)? |
It all has to do with the wavelength and each wavelength's ability to penetrate various layers of the atmosphere.
This is a composite Trace/Yohkoh image of the solar atmosphere. The blue areas are what Trace observes in 171A, while the yellow areas represent what Yohkoh observes of the same area in X-ray. The bases of the coronal loops that we observe in these images are only visible in the 171A wavelength, and not in x-ray. The only part of the loop we can see in x-rays are the tops of the coronal loops. That is because the photosphere absorbs most of the x-rays emitted by the loops, while the 171A wavelengths are able to penetrate through the photosphere. Keep in mind that the light source *is* the coronal loop. While the loop emits x-rays all along the loop, most of those x-rays never make it out of the photosphere. Once the loop reaches into the corona, the x-rays, they are no longer fully absorbed, and they become visible. The iron ion wavelengths, as well as the x-ray wavelength are caused by the current flows inside the coronal loops. These current flows heat the plasma inside the loop to millions of degrees. The loops themselves can of course reach into the corona, but they are not limited to the corona.
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.
Well, the "best" image IMO is that TRACE RD image because it shows so much detail, and shows us the effect of a CME on the solar atmosphere and surface. Those Doppler images also show "rigid" features under the photosphere as well. RD images are not the only way to observe the surface features, but they do show these features in some detail, particularly the TRACE RD images because they are higher resolution (more zoomed in) images than the SOHO RD images.
There is also helisiesmology data the supports the existence of a "stratification subsurface" that is sitting at about .995R and blocks the up and down flow of plasma in that area.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
I'm not sure what you might consider the "best" evidence of a surface, but I'm rather partial to the TRACE RD image because of the finer details that can be observed in such images. The Doppler images and the heliosiesmology data also support the existence of a "stratification subsurface" (crust) that sits just under the photosphere at .995R. In that area we see a significant increase in sound speeds due to the dense nature of the crust in comparison to the atmosphere above it. Just like the earth, the sun has a relatively "thin" atmosphere relative to it's total size.
QUOTE
4. Why does Mozina think raw images show finer details and not just additional noise?
Because "noise" doesn't create rigid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. What kind of "noise" would do that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. Why does Mozina think raw images show finer details and not just additional noise? |
Because "noise" doesn't create rigid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. What kind of "noise" would do that?
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.
Let's start with that first TRACE image. Notice all the fine details that stay "fixed" in the image, and stay "rigid" throughout the CME event. Light plasma does get "blown around" in that same image. In fact we can see (for lack of a better term) "dust" blowing in the plasma atmosphere, right after the CME event. That dust (more dense material) shows us the direction of the plasma flows in the atmosphere. While the plasma flows from the bottom right toward the upper left, all the "rigid features" stay put in the image. Why?
QUOTE
6. Why are the images such low resolution?
That is the limit of the technology of these particular satellites.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6. Why are the images such low resolution? |
That is the limit of the technology of these particular satellites.
Wouldn't more accurate rotation rates come from higher resolution images?
Certainly. Then again I can only work with the technologies that are available to me. Hinode images are much higher resolution images, but the wavelengths that are available at full resolution using the SOT are not capable of observing iron ion wavelengths. Rather they are limited to G-Band and CA-H ion filters that mostly pickup emissions from the photosphere in the case of G-Band images, and the upper atmosphere in the case of CA-H wavelengths.
Stereo images can produce "better", higher resolution RD images in the iron ion wavelengths, and I have put together a few of those higher resolution images on my website as well. Unlike the SOHO images, which are available through NASA, I have to create these higher resolution STEREO RD images myself, and therefore the "source" of the image becomes more "suspect". The SOHO and TRACE RD images were created by NASA and LMSAL, so there can be no dispute about the source of the images. That's why I primarily use these images rather than the any other type of image.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 9 2008, 03:30 PM)
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
You might try some published papers on this topic. There are five of them that I have personally been involved in. Manuel's work on this topic predates my involvement by several decades however, and he would be your best resource for the nuclear side of these presentations, while I would be a better resource on the satellite imagery and heliosiesmology evidence from these papers.
Thank you, I will when I have more time.
You might try some published papers on this topic. There are five of them that I have personally been involved in. Manuel's work on this topic predates my involvement by several decades however, and he would be your best resource for the nuclear side of these presentations, while I would be a better resource on the satellite imagery and heliosiesmology evidence from these papers.
Thank you, I will when I have more time.
QUOTE (Michael Mozina+Jan 10 2008, 08:36 AM)
and through that process I can see that the sun goes through a 27.3 day rotation cycle (relative to earth).
quick question if I could squeeze in...
When you say "relative to earth", do you mean that as we look at the sun, a fixed point at the center of the sun would rotate 27.3 days until we (on earth) see the fixed point at the center of the sun again? Or a full 360 degree rotation?
Sorry, just confused me a little...
Interesting topic!
quick question if I could squeeze in...
When you say "relative to earth", do you mean that as we look at the sun, a fixed point at the center of the sun would rotate 27.3 days until we (on earth) see the fixed point at the center of the sun again? Or a full 360 degree rotation?
Sorry, just confused me a little...
Interesting topic!
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 10 2008, 06:34 PM)
quick question if I could squeeze in...
When you say "relative to earth", do you mean that as we look at the sun, a fixed point at the center of the sun would rotate 27.3 days until we (on earth) see the fixed point at the center of the sun again? Or a full 360 degree rotation?
Sorry, just confused me a little...
Interesting topic!
Yes.
I used the running difference SOHO images to determine the rotational period, and it is traveling at a Lagrange point in Earth's orbit.
When you say "relative to earth", do you mean that as we look at the sun, a fixed point at the center of the sun would rotate 27.3 days until we (on earth) see the fixed point at the center of the sun again? Or a full 360 degree rotation?
Sorry, just confused me a little...
Interesting topic!
Yes.
I used the running difference SOHO images to determine the rotational period, and it is traveling at a Lagrange point in Earth's orbit.
Thanks for responding, Michael.
I am still waiting for links to the images you used to track features over an entire cycle. I am most interested in images that have had the features labeled, and it would be even better if the image had the solar coordinate system overlayed on the sun, or at least the central meridian. After looking at several of your papers and your website www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ all I've seen is a Trace running difference movie that has no time stamps but seems to be for a period of only a few hours, and a handful of other difference or regualar images from Trace and SOHO, none of which track an entire rotation.
That just makes me more confused.
You are saying on the one hand that you are tracking solid objects in these images, and on the other hand you are saying that the objects that are visible in these images are not solid objects but rather are plasma loops.
The helioseismology link is interesting but off-topic (topic= RD images) and will take me a while to digest. I asked for a better argument than "I can see more detail" and you responded by saying that in YHO, you can see more detail in RD images. We may be at an impasse here. When one image is subtracted from another at first the information in the resultant difference image is doubled (if the pixel values can range from 0 to 255 in the original images, a "pixel" in the subtracted result could range from -255 to 255) but in order to display the difference image it must be rescaled back to a range of 0 to 255, which reduces the information in it, and also introduces the possibility of people who don't understand a difference image to misinterpret what they're seeing.
None of the images I've seen in your papers or website show Doppler images (the Trace images are not Doppler). Any links to those, especially ones annotated with arrows pointing at the rigid features, would be appreciated.
If you see a noise speck and then by random chance see another noise speck in the same area 27.3 days later you could be fooled into thinking you saw a feature rotating at 27.3 days. Since I still haven't seen your rigidly rotating features (please send those links!), I can't tell whether you're looking at noise or not. But at least if you were looking at cleaned images you could be relatively assured you aren't, and more importantly you're more likely to convince other people you're not looking at noise and calling it a feature.
Your Trace movie is for a very short period of time. Even if the loops were moving it might not be visible in your movie. The footprints of the loops are often attached to visible sunspots, and it is well known that sunspots do NOT all rotate at the same rate. It would thus be impossible for the loops attached to them to also not rotate at different rates. Therefore I don't buy the suggestion that the things you're seeing there are rigid.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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? The sun's surface is hot, it is highly volcanic, and it is very electrically active. Therefore the surface of the sun is far less "stable" over time than a planet's crust. While there are distinct surface feature that survive for more than a single rotation cycle, there are typically quite a few surface changes during a single rotation, particularly during the active phases. I seriously doubt that many of the original surface features will survive 81.9 days. I have sat down and mapped the rotation cycle of various individual surface features through a whole rotation cycle, and through that process I can see that the sun goes through a 27.3 day rotation cycle (relative to earth). That time line applies to surface features near the poles and also to surface features nearest the equator. In other words the rotation rate is uniform from pole to equator which is not what we expect to see from plasma. Light plasmas tend to show significant amounts of differential rotation. |
I am still waiting for links to the images you used to track features over an entire cycle. I am most interested in images that have had the features labeled, and it would be even better if the image had the solar coordinate system overlayed on the sun, or at least the central meridian. After looking at several of your papers and your website www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ all I've seen is a Trace running difference movie that has no time stamps but seems to be for a period of only a few hours, and a handful of other difference or regualar images from Trace and SOHO, none of which track an entire rotation.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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)? It all has to do with the wavelength and each wavelength's ability to penetrate various layers of the atmosphere. User posted image This is a composite Trace/Yohkoh image of the solar atmosphere. The blue areas are what Trace observes in 171A, while the yellow areas represent what Yohkoh observes of the same area in X-ray. The bases of the coronal loops that we observe in these images are only visible in the 171A wavelength, and not in x-ray. The only part of the loop we can see in x-rays are the tops of the coronal loops. That is because the photosphere absorbs most of the x-rays emitted by the loops, while the 171A wavelengths are able to penetrate through the photosphere. Keep in mind that the light source *is* the coronal loop. While the loop emits x-rays all along the loop, most of those x-rays never make it out of the photosphere. Once the loop reaches into the corona, the x-rays, they are no longer fully absorbed, and they become visible. The iron ion wavelengths, as well as the x-ray wavelength are caused by the current flows inside the coronal loops. These current flows heat the plasma inside the loop to millions of degrees. The loops themselves can of course reach into the corona, but they are not limited to the corona. |
That just makes me more confused.
You are saying on the one hand that you are tracking solid objects in these images, and on the other hand you are saying that the objects that are visible in these images are not solid objects but rather are plasma loops.QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. Well, the "best" image IMO is that TRACE RD image because it shows so much detail, and shows us the effect of a CME on the solar atmosphere and surface. Those Doppler images also show "rigid" features under the photosphere as well. RD images are not the only way to observe the surface features, but they do show these features in some detail, particularly the TRACE RD images because they are higher resolution (more zoomed in) images than the SOHO RD images. There is also helisiesmology data the supports the existence of a "stratification subsurface" that is sitting at about .995R and blocks the up and down flow of plasma in that area. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111 I'm not sure what you might consider the "best" evidence of a surface, but I'm rather partial to the TRACE RD image because of the finer details that can be observed in such images. The Doppler images and the heliosiesmology data also support the existence of a "stratification subsurface" (crust) that sits just under the photosphere at .995R. In that area we see a significant increase in sound speeds due to the dense nature of the crust in comparison to the atmosphere above it. Just like the earth, the sun has a relatively "thin" atmosphere relative to it's total size. |
The helioseismology link is interesting but off-topic (topic= RD images) and will take me a while to digest. I asked for a better argument than "I can see more detail" and you responded by saying that in YHO, you can see more detail in RD images. We may be at an impasse here. When one image is subtracted from another at first the information in the resultant difference image is doubled (if the pixel values can range from 0 to 255 in the original images, a "pixel" in the subtracted result could range from -255 to 255) but in order to display the difference image it must be rescaled back to a range of 0 to 255, which reduces the information in it, and also introduces the possibility of people who don't understand a difference image to misinterpret what they're seeing.
None of the images I've seen in your papers or website show Doppler images (the Trace images are not Doppler). Any links to those, especially ones annotated with arrows pointing at the rigid features, would be appreciated.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. Why does Mozina think raw images show finer details and not just additional noise? Because "noise" doesn't create rigid features that rotate uniformly from pole to equator. What kind of "noise" would do that? |
If you see a noise speck and then by random chance see another noise speck in the same area 27.3 days later you could be fooled into thinking you saw a feature rotating at 27.3 days. Since I still haven't seen your rigidly rotating features (please send those links!), I can't tell whether you're looking at noise or not. But at least if you were looking at cleaned images you could be relatively assured you aren't, and more importantly you're more likely to convince other people you're not looking at noise and calling it a feature.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. Let's start with that first TRACE image. Notice all the fine details that stay "fixed" in the image, and stay "rigid" throughout the CME event. Light plasma does get "blown around" in that same image. In fact we can see (for lack of a better term) "dust" blowing in the plasma atmosphere, right after the CME event. That dust (more dense material) shows us the direction of the plasma flows in the atmosphere. While the plasma flows from the bottom right toward the upper left, all the "rigid features" stay put in the image. Why? |
Your Trace movie is for a very short period of time. Even if the loops were moving it might not be visible in your movie. The footprints of the loops are often attached to visible sunspots, and it is well known that sunspots do NOT all rotate at the same rate. It would thus be impossible for the loops attached to them to also not rotate at different rates. Therefore I don't buy the suggestion that the things you're seeing there are rigid.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->