Big Bang Bull

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p>So every picture I see, even the most distant hubble images, shows cosmic phenomenon repeating itself.&nbsp; I understand the doppler effect conjecture, but I'm not convinced red-shift is ONLY due to recessional speeds or distance.&nbsp; Can't electric charge shift the image in the electro-magnetic spectrum?&nbsp; There seems to be lots of electrical phenomenon in the cosmos.&nbsp; What is the astronomy take on electricity?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So every picture I see, even the most distant hubble images, shows cosmic phenomenon repeating itself.&nbsp; I understand the doppler effect conjecture, but I'm not convinced red-shift is ONLY due to recessional speeds or distance.&nbsp; Can't electric charge shift the image in the electro-magnetic spectrum?&nbsp; There seems to be lots of electrical phenomenon in the cosmos.&nbsp; What is the astronomy take on electricity?&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>No</p><p>Yes</p><p>Astrophysicists are thoroughly grounded in electrodynamics and associated physics, which most certainly includes plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics.&nbsp; It is modeled rigorously and taken into account as appropriate for the particular issue under discussion.</p><p>With regard to the notion of the "Electrical Universe" that receives a lot of discussion on various forums, it has been evaluated by many competent physicists, on its merits and compared with what is actually observed and what can be derived from general relativity, and classical electrodynamics.&nbsp;&nbsp;It has been determined to be mostly bull, and promulgated by a band of zealots who are totally ignorant of basic physics.&nbsp; The normal tactics of these zealots is to avoid meaningful scientific discourse, answer questins with questions and make posts with huge lists of non-specific references to papers of no merit that have been reviewed and rejected for publication in reputable journals.&nbsp; A fringe group, also discredited seems to have hijacked the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science to promote cosmological notions that are, charitably, foreign in the publications of an engineering society.</p><p>You will undoubtedly&nbsp; hear shortly from such uninformed zealots.&nbsp; Stay tuned, I think I hear one coming.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will undoubtedly&nbsp; hear shortly from such uninformed zealots.&nbsp; Stay tuned, I think I hear one coming. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This has to be one of the funniest lines I've read in my 2+ years here at SDC.&nbsp; You had me in tears.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has to be one of the funniest lines I've read in my 2+ years here at SDC.&nbsp; You had me in tears.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />I'm very sorry for being so insignificant in your studies.&nbsp; I thought this was Science dot com under the forum "ask the astronomers."&nbsp; What I asked was your take on electricity.&nbsp; How is electro-magnetic theory addressed large scale, since we know it works on any scale.&nbsp; What are the laws of classical electrodynamics?&nbsp; I want your ideas.&nbsp; Not your ridicule.&nbsp; Do you really think you're plain better than me?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm very sorry for being so insignificant in your studies.&nbsp; What I asked was your take on electricity.&nbsp; How is electro-magnetic theory addressed large scale, since we know it works on any scale.&nbsp; I want your ideas.&nbsp; Not your ridicule.&nbsp; Do you really think you're plain better than me?&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>You need to look at the total post.&nbsp; dereckmcd was commenting on my post in response to yours, not directly to your original words.&nbsp; You will find that once a thread has started that many of the&nbsp;posts may be addressing points raised by responders and may not be directed at just you.&nbsp; </p><p>Electrodynamics indeed works on any scale,&nbsp; It is applied through Maxwell's equations and approximations derived from those equations for specialized situations.&nbsp; And it is applied where the electromagnetic force exists at a level sufficient to be important.&nbsp; Because the universe as a whole is charge neutral, the electromagnetic force tends not to be a big player on the largest scales.&nbsp; Gravity is dominant in most, but not necessarily all, large scale situations.&nbsp; There are situations, particularly those involving large scale behavior of plasma -- the magnetosphere of the Earth for instance -- in which electromagnetic forces drive the phenomena.</p><p>It might help a bit if you elaborated on your question.&nbsp;&nbsp;As it stands the question is overly&nbsp;broad. &nbsp;"Electricity" is not the term most often used in astrophysics.&nbsp; In that discipline issues are most often phrased in terms of 'electromagnetism" or "electrodynamics" but in either case what one is talking about is Maxwell's equations and the theory that is derivable from those equations.&nbsp; "Electricity" tends to be a term used, in astrophysical contexts, by the proponents of the "Electrical Universe" theory, and if you are such a proponent you ought to make that fact known.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And it is applied where the electromagnetic force exists at a level sufficient to be important.&nbsp; Because the universe as a whole is charge neutral, the electromagnetic force tends not to be a big player on the largest scales.&nbsp; Gravity is dominant in most, but not necessarily all, large scale situations.&nbsp; There are situations, particularly those involving large scale behavior of plasma -- the magnetosphere of the Earth for instance -- in which electromagnetic forces drive the phenomena. </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I read this quote.&nbsp; The writer seems to think strong electric fields are common in space.&nbsp; "Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs."</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It might help a bit if you elaborated on your question.&nbsp;&nbsp;As it stands the question is overly&nbsp;broad. &nbsp;"Electricity" is not the term most often used in astrophysics.&nbsp; In that discipline issues are most often phrased in terms of 'electromagnetism" or "electrodynamics" but in either case what one is talking about is Maxwell's equations and the theory that is derivable from those equations.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>You're right.&nbsp; I am getting too broad.&nbsp; Let's get to the original question.&nbsp; Do electric fields shift the electro-magnetic spectrum?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Electricity" tends to be a term used, in astrophysical contexts, by the proponents of the "Electrical Universe" theory, and if you are such a proponent you ought to make that fact known.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I don't want there to be two sides to a coin here--either you're with us or you're against us.&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Two-sides arguing is a failure in politics as well as science.&nbsp; I'm a free thinker, and I have not been overly impressed with the notions of the accepted models.&nbsp; I think the electric star hypothesis&nbsp;makes more sense&nbsp;than the nuclear-fusion model, yes.&nbsp; I think if a charged body carries enough potential, it will glow, and if it carries enough, it will arc.&nbsp; I think if two bodies of different potential get too close to each other, you will see an electro-static discharge like touching things at high altitudes or lightning striking.&nbsp; I think if two bodies are 4.5 light years away, gravity has little to do with their interaction, and I think the&nbsp;invention of black holes is a cop out.&nbsp; I think a lot of other things that would appaul you and cause you to lash out.&nbsp; But I don't want to argue about these things.&nbsp; I just want to know if electric fields shift the electro-magnetic spectrum; and if they do, then they cannot be excluded from hubble's conjecture about recessional speeds or distance calculations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; But I don't want to argue about these things.&nbsp; I just want to know if electric fields shift the electro-magnetic spectrum; and if they do, then they cannot be excluded from hubble's conjecture about recessional speeds or distance calculations.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Your question is still a bit imprecise, but I will try to reformulate a bit and give it a try.&nbsp; First, except in a static case electric fields occur in combination with magnetic fields, in an electromagnetic wave, or a equivalently a flux of photons.&nbsp;The spectrum is simply a characterization of the electromagnetic field.&nbsp; So in a sense the fields ARE the spectrum.</p><p>Electromagnetic fields add vectorially,&nbsp; So if you have one field and add in another the spectrum that you get will be the sum of the two.&nbsp; But that is not a shift.</p><p>I think you are actually asking whether there is some other mechanism that might be producing the observed red shift.&nbsp; The answer is that&nbsp;physicists do not think this is the case.&nbsp; Photons, unless they interact with&nbsp;something, scattered,&nbsp;maintain a fixed frequency, with the exception of general relativistic effects.&nbsp; In general relativity both gravity and an expansion or contraction of space can also affect frequency.&nbsp; One would not expect scattering to produce a consistent clean and simple shift.&nbsp; So the short answer to your question is a resounding NO.&nbsp; The observed redshift is not caused by electric fields permeating the universe.&nbsp; </p><p>From your other statements I think that you may have run across a series of e-paper by Ari Brynjolfsson on "plasma redshift".&nbsp; Those papers have been around in different versions for a number of years.&nbsp; He has been unable to get them published in a refereed journal.&nbsp; They are confusing and the theory&nbsp;appears to be seriously flawed.&nbsp; No such mechanism&nbsp; has been demonstrated in the laboratory.&nbsp; If it is your intent to start a debate over these papers then we are done.&nbsp; They have been around, been reviewed by competent prople, and have been rejected.&nbsp; There is not point in flogging that dead horse.</p><p>With regard to the electric sun hypothesis you might want to take a look at the thread "Why is electricity the forbidden topic in astronomy".&nbsp; In there, fairly early on, you will find a crude calculation that will show you that if the sun were actually electrically powered you would see a magnetic field at the surface of the earth that is many millions of times greater than what is actually observed.</p><p>By the way, there is no 'bull" to the big bang.&nbsp; The understanding of that phenomena is certainly not complete.&nbsp; But the foundations of the theory are extremely well grounded in just two things.&nbsp; The first is the observation that the universe is expanding, as was discovered by Hubble and published in 1929.&nbsp; The second is Einstein's general theory of relativity, which has been tested experimentally many times in many ways.&nbsp; In 1973 Hawking and Ellis showed that as a logical consequence of general relativity a universe that is expanding now, must have in the past been in an extremely compressed state.&nbsp; The mathematics actually predicts the origin in a singularity, a single point.&nbsp; The prediction of a single point is questionable, because in such a compressed state the effects of quantum mechanics would be very important and general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hence the theory actually breaks down at that stage.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the predictions are reliable up to a very short period after the big bang itself.</p><p>Before you reject the accepted models you need to understand what you are rejecting.&nbsp; They are, after all, accepted for a reason.&nbsp; Unfortunately that will require you to go through some rather complicated physics and mathematics.&nbsp; Ths stuff is in many cases counter-intuitive, so if you rely on your day-to-day experience, so-called common sense, you may find yourself going down a nonn-productive path.</p><p>Let me offer you this.&nbsp; The notions of the electric universe and plasma cosmology proponents have been taken seriously and have been evaluated objectively by mainstream astrophysicists.&nbsp; You can find discussions in Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles or in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.&nbsp; Those notions have been set aside and are no longer pursued because they did not meet good scientific criteria.&nbsp; One problem is that these theories, while proclaimed loudly by their advocates have not made a single non-trivial correct&nbsp; prediction and have made a myriad of predictions that are completely at odds with what is observed.&nbsp; The apparent inability of EU proponents to accept objective obsrvational data and the implications of well-supported physical principles is the reason that their theories have not been firmly relagated to the wacko bin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

trumptor

Guest
<p>"<em>The apparent inability of EU proponents to accept objective obsrvational data and the implications of well-supported physical principles is the reason that their theories have not been firmly relagated to the wacko bin</em>."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I take it you don't really care for the EU that much. But really, you think the theories in Norway or Switzerland are far different than those in the EU countries?<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The apparent inability of EU proponents to accept objective obsrvational data and the implications of well-supported physical principles is the reason that their theories have not been firmly relagated to the wacko bin."&nbsp;I take it you don't really care for the EU that much. But really, you think the theories in Norway or Switzerland are far different than those in the EU countries? <br />Posted by trumptor</DIV></p><p>In this context EU means "Electrical Universe" and not "European Union".&nbsp; I have no problem with good scientists from the European Union.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

trumptor

Guest
<p>I know<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>&nbsp;I don't care much for the scientists from the electrical universe either!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are situations, particularly those involving large scale behavior of plasma -- the magnetosphere of the Earth for instance -- in which electromagnetic forces drive the phenomena.</DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Are you saying that the earth is charged, and that charge resides in the ionosphere, 80km from the surface?<span>&nbsp; </span>And this charge is spinning and moving with the earth through space and creates a magnetic field? Are other objects in space charged too or is it just the earth?<span>&nbsp; </span>I wonder what would happen if two highly&nbsp;charged objects were near each other, like a binary pair of stars.<span>&nbsp; </span>What about groups of charged objects circling each other?<span>&nbsp; </span>That could be a lot of force.<span>&nbsp; </span>Maybe we don&rsquo;t even need black holes to explain how galaxies are held together.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>electric fields occur in combination with magnetic fields, in an electromagnetic wave, or a equivalently a flux of photons.&nbsp;The spectrum is simply a characterization of the electromagnetic field.&nbsp; So in a sense the fields ARE the spectrum.</DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Wait, the fields <em>are</em> the spectrum, but changes in the fields don&rsquo;t change the spectrum?<span>&nbsp; </span></span><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Are you saying that the earth is charged, and that charge resides in the ionosphere, 80km from the surface?&nbsp; And this charge is spinning and moving with the earth through space and creates a magnetic field? Are other objects in space charged too or is it just the earth?&nbsp; I wonder what would happen if two highly&nbsp;charged objects were near each other, like a binary pair of stars.&nbsp; What about groups of charged objects circling each other?&nbsp; That could be a lot of force.&nbsp; Maybe we don&rsquo;t even need black holes to explain how galaxies are held together.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wait, the fields are the spectrum, but changes in the fields don&rsquo;t change the spectrum?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />I don't believe that's what he's saying. The earth's magnetosphere is created by the dynamo that creates out magnetic field. It's not really (charged) by the earth. Any charge comes from interactions with the solar wind and magnetic field.</p><p>Mercury also has a magnetic field and magnetosphere, Venus and Mars do not, since their core is frozen,m or at least sluggish enough so a dynamo can not be created.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Are you saying that the earth is charged, and that charge resides in the ionosphere, 80km from the surface?&nbsp; And this charge is spinning and moving with the earth through space and creates a magnetic field? Are other objects in space charged too or is it just the earth?&nbsp; I wonder what would happen if two highly&nbsp;charged objects were near each other, like a binary pair of stars.&nbsp; What about groups of charged objects circling each other?&nbsp; That could be a lot of force.&nbsp; Maybe we don&rsquo;t even need black holes to explain how galaxies are held together.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wait, the fields are the spectrum, but changes in the fields don&rsquo;t change the spectrum?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>You have succeeded in misstating everything that I said.&nbsp; Everything.&nbsp; I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts