Could redshift be wrong?

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>I've never seen inflation do anything to anything in a controlled test.</strong></p><p>Why do you always fall back on this?&nbsp; Do you completely disregard observations?&nbsp; If gravitational lensing wasn't seen in 1919, general relativity would have been in a world of hurt.&nbsp; At the time, there were no ways to physically experiment with in a laboratory... at least none that I'm aware of.&nbsp; It was all math and observation.&nbsp; </p><p>You don't need a lab coat, goggles and clipboard to falsify a theory.</p><p>Ways to falsify inflation:&nbsp;</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705048</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9612017v2</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And what does inflation have to do with redshift mechanisms and Ari Bryn's paper?&nbsp; Inflation and plasma redshift aren't even remotely related.&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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>This is now hijacking of a thread&nbsp;to support of your theory.</p><p>That's the kind of stuff that has gotten you banned in other places. Hopefully it won't come to that.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MM:I've never seen inflation do anything to anything in a controlled test.</p><p>Why do you always fall back on this? </DIV></p><p>Because it was true when Guth first proposed it, and it remains true to this day. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you completely disregard observations? </DIV></p><p>Which observation might that be?&nbsp; You mean that gaping hole in the universe that demonstrates that the universe is *not* homogenously distributed?&nbsp; You mean the lack of observations of monopoles even after 25 years of looking for them?&nbsp; What "observation" are you claiming is evidence of "inflation"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If gravitational lensing wasn't seen in 1919, general relativity would have been in a world of hurt.</DIV></p><p>But many aspects of "gravity" are testable today in controlled conditions, with or without lensing data. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the time, there were no ways to physically experiment with in a laboratory... at least none that I'm aware of.&nbsp; It was all math and observation.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>That is less true today however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need a lab coat, goggles and clipboard to falsify a theory.</DIV></p><p>No, but you need a logical method to do so.&nbsp; There was no way to falsify Chapman's theories and to verify Birkeland's theories any more than Birkeland had already done without some in-situ measurements to work with.&nbsp; Both Birkeland and Chapman's theories were mathematically viable, but only physical testing and physical gathering of data could verify or falsify either theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ways to falsify inflation:&nbsp;http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705048http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9612017v2 </DIV></p><p>I'll comment after I've read it.&nbsp; It sounds like it will be a hoot to blow that paper out of the water.&nbsp; It should be a lot of fun when we get to the "monopole problem". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And what does inflation have to do with redshift mechanisms and Ari Bryn's paper?&nbsp; Inflation and plasma redshift aren't even remotely related.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>They are only related in the sense that they are different ways of "explaining" the same exact redshift observation.&nbsp; Ari attempts to explain the observed redshift as a "tired light" phenomenon, whereas inflation and DE attempt to explain that same observation as being&nbsp; related to Doppler shift and "cosmological redshift" (i.e. movement).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is now hijacking of a thread&nbsp;to support of your theory.That's the kind of stuff that has gotten you banned in other places. Hopefully it won't come to that. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>FYI, the only reason I even brought up inflation and DE in this thread is because these items are involved in "explaining" the same observation of redshift that Ari's tired light theory is also attempting to explain.&nbsp; They are competing theories that both relate to the observation of redshfifted photons.&nbsp; In the sense that Ari's tired light theory has never been physically verified any more than any other theory, it in no way is superior to other theories as it relates to emprical testing.&nbsp; It may in fact have some mathematical problems as well, but I have not personally found them, nor has anyone else I've ever talked with about this paper.&nbsp; I'll have to wait till I hear DrRockets objections before I comment further on that point. </p><p>As for my bannings at other astronomy oriented websites, my virual lynching had absolutely nothing to do with me hijacking threads.&nbsp; I have always limited myself to a few key threads and I've limited my postings to pretty much a single forum on every message board that I've ever posted to.&nbsp; It had nothing to do with me randomly hijacking threads and it had everything to do with protecting the status quo, and eliminating all serious competition.&nbsp;</p><p>The rule system of this establishment is fair and in scientific integrity.&nbsp; Other astronomy oriented message boards begin by attempting to apply a completely different rule system to EU theory than to any other theory under consideration.&nbsp;&nbsp; In such scenarios, there was never a level playing field in the first place and anyone who effectively argues for EU theory is eventually "put to death" for their insolence.&nbsp;&nbsp; These websites typically have a long list of "banned" individuals that all share a common tendency.&nbsp; They all tend to be effective "critics' of the status quo.&nbsp; That evidently was my only "sin".</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In its original incarnation, inflation aimed to solve a number of cosmological conundrums:<strong> to explain why the Universe appears so close to spatial flatness</strong>, <strong>why it is so homogeneous and isotropic on large scales</strong>, and <strong>why it is not overwhelmed by magnetic monopoles</strong>. It is largely in this first guise that inflation offers little predictive power, although we shall see that there are several observations which could exclude inflation as an explanation of even these properties of the Universe.</DIV></p><p>Here are the three basic "predictions" of inflation that have been used for years to support the notion of inflation.&nbsp; There are actually three of them listed, not just two although the author thus far seems to be ignoring the monopole "prediction".</p><p>The authors concede that point one is nearly impossible to verify or falsify. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given that inflation was intended to supply a homogeneous, flat, monopole-free Universe, one might hope that any observation contradicting this would also exclude inflation. Unfortunately, as far as the observations go, we are no closer to knowing whether the Universe is or is not very close to flatness, nor have the observational constraints on the admissible monopole density been significantly tightened.</DIV></p><p>So essentially they take point one off the table, and ignore the fact that the third prediction is like "predicting" zero unicorns and since there are zero unicorns found it somehow supports inflation.&nbsp; No monopoles have ever been found in nature so "predicting' few of them is pointless and completely useless as a useful 'prediction". &nbsp; </p><p>This leaves us with only one real "prediction" we can hope to falisify, namely the homogenous layout of matter predicted by early inflation models.</p><p>http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2329057520070823</p><p>There's a gaping hole in inflation theory.&nbsp; If that particular "prediction" is the only useful prediction of inflation, and the universe is not homogenously distributed, why hasn't inflation been falsified by this observation?&nbsp;&nbsp; There are probably already a few papers trying to explain why inflation is now responsible for gaping holes that defied earlier predictions, and inflation is stiill considered viable, even though it falied it main "prediction".&nbsp; How does a skeptic kill this thing once and for all exactly?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Discovery of a monopole density somewhere below current observational limits would also support inflation, because low monopole number densities imply a violation of causality in the absence of inflation (a minimum number density well above the present observational limits is required by the Kibble mechanism and the known properties of monopoles [5]). It is clear that the observation of a hyperbolic geometry, or a non-zero monopole density, will not falsify<br />inflation.</DIV></p><p>This line from that first paper you cited was absolutely priceless IMO.&nbsp; There has never been a discovery of *any* number of monopoles found anywhere, ever.&nbsp; They do not exist.&nbsp; They are "hypothetical" entities.&nbsp; They utterly lack any sort of emprical support.&nbsp; You can't then use the absence of something that has never been shown to exist in nature as evidence to support something else that has never been shown to empirically exist in nature! </p><p>The authors claim that a density below observational limits would somehow support inflation, so by their logic, since there have been no monopoles ever found, then inflation must now be supported by this finding of zero monopoles?&nbsp; Come on. How circular can they get? </p><p> That's like me whipping up some weird theory about invisible potatoes and "predicting' that there are zero unicorns in the universe because of my invisible potatoes and finding no unicorns in nature I now claim that my finding of zero unicorns supports my pet potato theory.&nbsp; When was there even any emprical link established between the presense of inflation (never emprically demonstrated) and the absence of monopoles (never empricallly demonstrated) or the absense of unicorns (never emprically demonstrated) or any other invisible, undemonstrated entities?&nbsp; There are no monopoles to be found in nature and there is no inflation to be found in nature.&nbsp; They don't exist in nature.&nbsp; This is just a goofy argument and it's always been a very goofy argument.&nbsp; You can't claim that something that has never been emprically demonstrated to exist is somehow absent because of something else that has never been shown to exist in nature.&nbsp; It's a really awkward and irrational argument, and it is an easily dismissed arguement as well.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>Because it was true when Guth first proposed it, and it remains true to this day.</strong></p><p>And may remain that way forever.&nbsp; Some theories can never be tested with beakers and bunson burners.&nbsp; Observatations suffice.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Which observation might that be?&nbsp; </strong></p><p>WMAP&nbsp;</p><p><strong>You mean that gaping hole in the universe that demonstrates that the universe is *not* homogenously distributed?</strong></p><p>Nice try.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751</p><p>Even if that "hole" does exist, the universe is still considered homogeneous on the largest scales.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>You mean the lack of observations of monopoles even after 25 years of looking for them?</strong></p><p>Aren't monopoles the result of GUTs?&nbsp; Doesn't inflation actually resolve the monopole problem as to why they are not seen in abundance (as they should be without inflation)?&nbsp; This is, of course, assuming the GUT epochs in the early universe exist along with monopoles.&nbsp; Monopoles are not (afaik) an absolute requirement... even in GUT, they aren't required.&nbsp; Expected, but not required.&nbsp; I could be wrong about the GUTs, but Inflation has no dependence on Magnetic Monopoles as it appears you think they do. </p><p><strong>What "observation" are you claiming is evidence of "inflation"?</strong></p><p>WMAP </p><p><strong>It sounds like it will be a hoot to blow that paper out of the water.&nbsp; It should be a lot of fun when we get to the "monopole problem". </strong></p><p>It'll be a hoot watching you try. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p><p><strong>They are only related in the sense that they are different ways of "explaining" the same exact redshift observation.&nbsp; Ari attempts to explain the observed redshift as a "tired light" phenomenon, whereas inflation and DE attempt to explain that same observation as being&nbsp; related to Doppler shift and "cosmological redshift" (i.e. movement).</strong> </p><p>Inflation has nothing to do (directly) with dark energy or redshift.&nbsp; You were just trying to create a red herring argument which you have successfully accomplished.&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because it was true when Guth first proposed it, and it remains true to this day.And may remain that way forever.&nbsp; Some theories can never be tested with beakers and bunson burners. </DIV></p><p>If something has no emprical support then it doesn't emprically exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; In empirical science, the onus of responsibilty falls to the one making the claim since no one can ever prove a negative.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Observatations suffice.</DIV></p><p>No, you can't point to a distant observation and claim a new (unproven) kind of invisible force made this observation occur and then use the very same uncontrolled observation to demonstrate the existence of your proposed new invisible force.&nbsp; Emprical acience is quite different from astrology in this respect. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which observation might that be?&nbsp; WMAP </DIV></p><p>Um, it seems to me that you're being a bit inconsistent.&nbsp; WMAP data shows the giant hole.&nbsp; Your rebuttal paper cites a completely different technology to refute the WMAP paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean that gaping hole in the universe that demonstrates that the universe is *not* homogenously distributed?Nice try.http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751</DIV></p><p>So what's with the hole in the WMAP data?&nbsp; Why isn't it homogenous like the radio spectrum?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if that "hole" does exist, the universe is still considered homogeneous on the largest scales.</DIV></p><p>Define a size of a void that you would consider a falsification of inflation theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't monopoles the result of GUTs? </DIV></p><p>What GUT has been ever been found and agreed upon?&nbsp; Are you basing your theory of their existence of some other theory that has never been proven to be true?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Doesn't inflation actually resolve the monopole problem as to why they are not seen in abundance (as they should be without inflation)? </DIV></p><p>Um, where can I pick up a monopole to study?&nbsp; How do you know they would exist in the absense of inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is, of course, assuming the GUT epochs in the early universe exist along with monopoles. </DIV></p><p>Other than pure faith in a unspecified GUT, what evidence leads you to believe that a grand unified field theory involves the existence of monopoles?&nbsp; This cannot be an emprically supported concept since no monopoles have ever been emprically demonstrated to exist, and not GUT has ever been agreed upon.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Monopoles are not (afaik) an absolute requirement... even in GUT, they aren't required. </DIV></p><p>So their absence cannot in any way support anything else.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expected, but not required. </DIV></p><p>Faith is not required in emprical science.&nbsp; That is what separates science from religion.&nbsp; I have never seen a monopole I have no faith they exist.&nbsp; I have no faith they are in any way related to inflation, or anything else for that matter.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could be wrong about the GUTs, but Inflation has no dependence on Magnetic Monopoles as it appears you think they do.</DIV></p><p>I simply pointed out that hypothetical monopoles, and the absense thereof, cannot be used to support inflation or anything else.&nbsp; It's a circular arguement since monopoles are hypothetical and have never been shown to exist in *any* condition, with inflation, without inflation, with mustard, or without mustard.&nbsp; &nbsp; They simply don't exist.&nbsp; They are hypothetical entitiies so their absense cannot be considered evidence of anything.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll be a hoot watching you try.</DIV></p><p>I'm already bored with the first paper.&nbsp; If that line about monopole density being below a threshold is any example of their logic, they're toast.&nbsp; I'll look at both papers after I get something to eat.&nbsp; If there is anything legitimate in these papers that should be addressed, I'll address it.&nbsp; If not, I'll probably just keep my mouth shut on the topic since you see my predicament.&nbsp; I can't falsify Lambda-CDM models, and I'm more interested in DrRocket's critique of Ari's tired light theory. &nbsp; It's the most mathematically sound "tired light" theory that I've personally seen to date. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You were just trying to create a red herring argument which you have successfully accomplished.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Wait a minute.&nbsp; This is not a red herring, it's a critical issue.&nbsp; You have two basic theories being considered to explain the observation of redshifted photons.&nbsp; One theory involves expansion/acceleration and the other involves "tired light" concepts.&nbsp; These two ideas have been banterred around the astronomy community for quite some time.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both of these approaches attempt to explain the same phenomenon in two uniquely different ways.&nbsp; If we're going to compare and contrast these competing theories in detail, and look at what they attempt to explain, it's only fair that any critiicisms of Ari's work, like his lack of emprical support, is fairly compared to the alternative. &nbsp;&nbsp; I only asked DrRocket how his objections could be favorably applied to the alternative theory. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I should have known better.&nbsp; Your tactics are tiresome and I am not going to go through this line for line, out of context crap that you pull.</p><p>This conversation shouldn't even be happening.&nbsp; Inflation has absolutely nothing to do with redshift and I won't partake in agenda driven hijacking.</p><p>Good luck to ya.&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>

 

[BoJangles]

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I&rsquo;ve actually enjoyed this conversation to date, I seem to learn from peoples arguments and links, though in some cases it fly&rsquo;s right over my head. </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Inflation and the accelerating universe has never really sat well with me. My lack of knowledge will stick out a tad here, but wouldn&rsquo;t an "accelerating universe" be observable in the large scale structure of the universe. I.e. wouldn&rsquo;t it stick out through a sort of exponential tapering off of the large scale structure we can observe from our perspective? <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'">Or is that already the case?</span></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&rsquo;ve actually enjoyed this conversation to date, I seem to learn from peoples arguments and links, though in some cases it fly&rsquo;s right over my head. Inflation and the accelerating universe has never really sat well with me. My lack of knowledge will stick out a tad here, but wouldn&rsquo;t an "accelerating universe" be observable in the large scale structure of the universe. I.e. wouldn&rsquo;t it stick out through a sort of exponential tapering off of the large scale structure we can observe from our perspective? Or is that already the case? <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>Why would there be an "exponential tapering off of the large scale structure", and what does that mean ?&nbsp; Probably the best analogy I can give that is visualizable is the surface of a balloon.&nbsp; If you inflate it the surface expands.&nbsp; It you inflate at a constant rate the expansion rate is constant.&nbsp; And if you blow a bit harder with time the inflation rate is accelerating.&nbsp; You might put a grid on the surface as a means to gauge the expansion.&nbsp; &nbsp;But I don't see anything like and exponential tapering off of much of anything.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why would there be an "exponential tapering off of the large scale structure", and what does that mean ?&nbsp; Probably the best analogy I can give that is visualizable is the surface of a balloon.&nbsp; If you inflate it the surface expands.&nbsp; It you inflate at a constant rate the expansion rate is constant.&nbsp; And if you blow a bit harder with time the inflation rate is accelerating.&nbsp; You might put a grid on the surface as a means to gauge the expansion.&nbsp; &nbsp;But I don't see anything like and exponential tapering off of much of anything.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br /><font face="Calibri" size="3">I always imagine the Alex Filippenko string of beads (i watch a lot of google video).</font><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'"> </span></p><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'"><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">0 0 0 E 0 0 0</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">0<span>&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp; </span>E<span>&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp; </span>0</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>E<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0</p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>E<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>0</p><span><span>Actually as soon as I typed this, I realised what I was saying was absurd.</span><span>Maybe I&rsquo;m thinking about red shift being exponential. It seems like something should be exponential. As the further something is away the faster it is accelerating away from us.</span> <p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><span>Anyway I think I should scrub this thought altogether.</span></p></span></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I always imagine the Alex Filippenko string of beads (i watch a lot of google video). 0 0 0 E 0 0 00&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; E&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 00&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp; E&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp; 00&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp; 0Actually as soon as I typed this, I realised what I was saying was absurd.Maybe I&rsquo;m thinking about red shift being exponential. It seems like something should be exponential. As the further something is away the faster it is accelerating away from us. Anyway I think I should scrub this thought altogether. <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>The usual expansion as explained by the Hubble constant has recessional velocity being proportional to distance.&nbsp; The proportionality constant is the Hubble constant.&nbsp; So the recessional velocity varies linearly with distance.</p><p>However, the rate of expansion is different from the recession rate of distant galaxies,&nbsp; There is parameter, called the deceleration parameter q, which depends on the Hubble constant H and its time derivative</p><dl><dd><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/c/9/cc9a317678092c78dc5b741afbaa5e4b.png" alt="q = -left(1+frac{dot H}{H^2}
ight)." /> </dd></dl><p>q has been found to be negative, and that is what is mean by an accelerating expansion of the universe.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&rsquo;ve actually enjoyed this conversation to date, I seem to learn from peoples arguments and links, though in some cases it fly&rsquo;s right over my head. </DIV></p><p>FYI, here is another "tired light" theory that was discussed on another forum that is related to gravity theory that you might find interesting as well.&nbsp; The bottom line here is that redshift has always been hotly debated since Arp first showed that there were anomolies in the redshift data.&nbsp; There has always been a debate between movement (Doppler) oriented explainations for the redhsift phenomenon and what are called "tired light" theories that tend to favor a static universe concept.&nbsp; Ari's redshift paper is one example of a tired light explanation, as is the other thread I cited which presumes that gravity wells have a large effect on photons over great distances.</p><p>You might also want to check out the work of Halton Arp and those who suggest that redshift isn't as "simple" as it's been portrayed, as though several types of redshift are "simple" to understand. &nbsp; Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler expansion (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift".&nbsp; Doppler redshift is emprically demonstrateable in controlled experimentation, whereas cosmological redshift (DE driven redshfit) has never been demonstrated in controlled testing.&nbsp; It should also be noted that Ari's tired light theory has never been emprically demonstrated either.&nbsp; All redshift theories tend to be quite long on the math end, and they tend to come up very short when it comes to controlled emprical support. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I should have known better.&nbsp; Your tactics are tiresome and I am not going to go through this line for line, out of context crap that you pull.</DIV></p><p>For my benefit, perhaps you could point out the specific tactic that you personally find so offensive.&nbsp; Frankly I thought I was being pretty "fair" all things considered.&nbsp; I'm always looking for ways to become a better communicator and if I'm overtly offending you, that certainly wasn't my intent.&nbsp; I aught to at least understand the specific things that I said that you feel were unfair and offensive. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This conversation shouldn't even be happening.&nbsp; Inflation has absolutely nothing to do with redshift and I won't partake in agenda driven hijacking.Good luck to ya.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I resent that insinuation.&nbsp; That claim is completely false IMO.&nbsp; The most popular redshift explanations do in fact involve expansion/acceleration theories which are directly related to inflation and "dark energy".&nbsp; There is no "hijack" involved in noting this fact, or in pointing out the flaws in these ideas.</p><p>Ari's tired light theory is simply a very different way of attempting to explain exactly the same observation of redshifted photons using a completely different approach. &nbsp;&nbsp; If the point of this thread is to explore and consider other alternatives to the redshift phenonenon, then it is useful and helpful to understand the limitations and the drawbacks of contemporary theories.&nbsp; Picking on inflation and DE theories in a redshift thread is cetainly "fair game", and in no way is it a "hijack" of a redshift thread to discuss the weaknesses of contemporary redshift theories as we compare alternative ideas.&nbsp; There is absolutely no hijack going on here since the mainstream attempts to "explain" redshift as a Doppler/DE driven process and inflation supposedly put the whole universe in motion and DE makes up the bulk of the redshift at high redshifts. These are integral parts of standard redshift theories so pointing out the weaknesses of these theories is not in any way a hijack of a redshift oriented thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; The most popular redshift explanations do in fact involve expansion/acceleration theories which are directly related to inflation and "dark energy".&nbsp;Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The expansion of the universe that causes redshift has nothing to do with acceleration , inflation, or dark energy.</p><p>As usual you are bringing in unrelated topics to drive the thread toward the endless pointless fate of most of your threads.</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, here is another "tired light" theory that was discussed on another forum that is related to gravity theory that you might find interesting as well.&nbsp; The bottom line here is that redshift has always been hotly debated since Arp first showed that there were anomolies in the redshift data.&nbsp; There has always been a debate between movement (Doppler) oriented explainations for the redhsift phenomenon and what are called "tired light" theories that tend to favor a static universe concept.&nbsp; Ari's redshift paper is one example of a tired light explanation, as is the other thread I cited which presumes that gravity wells have a large effect on photons over great distances.You might also want to check out the work of Halton Arp and those who suggest that redshift isn't as "simple" as it's been portrayed, as though several types of redshift are "simple" to understand. &nbsp; Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler expansion (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift".&nbsp; Doppler redshift is emprically demonstrateable in controlled experimentation, whereas cosmological redshift (DE driven redshfit) has never been demonstrated in controlled testing.&nbsp; It should also be noted that Ari's tired light theory has never been emprically demonstrated either.&nbsp; All redshift theories tend to be quite long on the math end, and they tend to come up very short when it comes to controlled emprical support. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have once again misstated the mainstream theory&nbsp; of redshift in order to promote your EU agenda.&nbsp; Redshift due to expansion of the universe is not dependent on any notion of dark energy.&nbsp; Expansion of the universe, which you have stated in other threads that you do accept, is in fact based on the&nbsp;empirical observations of Hubble which shows that red shift correlates approximately linearly with recession rate.&nbsp; It is that correlation that shows, to the satisfaction of many scientists including Albert Einstein, that the universe is expanding.&nbsp; Hubble's Law was published in 1929.</p><p>In the late 1990's observations began to become available that showed that the expansion of universe, rather than decelerating as was expected due to the effects of gravity, was in fact accelerating.&nbsp; Additional observations since that time continue to confirm this finding.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe</p><p>Dark energy has been hypothesized as an explanation of the acceleration of the expansionl, but is not necessary to explain the expansioin itself.</p><p>Your statements regarding redshift are fallacious, and I think deliberately so,&nbsp;&nbsp;They are completely out of place in this thread in what appears to be an attempt to hijack this thread to promote "EU" theory.</p><p>EU theory is generally recognized as being completely and utterly wrong.&nbsp; Bizarre might be a more accurate term. Tired light, electric comets, the electric sun, the role of the electromagnetic force in overwhelming gravity on cosmic scales, Brinjolfson's plasma redshift, Arp's redshift quantization&nbsp;(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization)have)&nbsp;etc. been adequately dealt with through the use of real science.&nbsp; EU seems to attract a class of people with the patience for very detailed observations and the cataloging of those observations, but without the foundational understanding of science to understand what they are looking at.&nbsp; The result is a series of completely off-the-wall theories backed by "looks like" but unquantified and unquantifiable ideas.&nbsp; The exceptioin seems to be the plasma work of Alfven and Birkeland, which is largely out of place and taken out of context in modern astrophysical discussions.&nbsp; </p><p>Holding these EU beliefs yourself is one thing, but prosletyzing for them among people who are just now developing an appreciation for rigorous science is something else again.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For my benefit, perhaps you could point out the specific tactic that you personally find so offensive.&nbsp; Frankly I thought I was being pretty "fair" all things considered.&nbsp; I'm always looking for ways to become a better communicator and if I'm overtly offending you, that certainly wasn't my intent.&nbsp; I aught to at least understand the specific things that I said that you feel were unfair and offensive. I resent that insinuation.</DIV></p><p>I never said I was offended.&nbsp; I claimed your tactics to be tiresome... not unfair or offensive.</p><p>Your favorite tactic is taking someone's entire though that may consist of several sentences and systematically breaking down each sentence to avoid addressing the original thought.</p><p>Another is answering questions with irrelavent questions to avoid actually answering the question.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That claim is completely false IMO.&nbsp; The most popular redshift explanations do in fact involve expansion/acceleration theories which are directly related to inflation and "dark energy".&nbsp; There is no "hijack" involved in noting this fact, or in pointing out the flaws in these ideas.Ari's tired light theory is simply a very different way of attempting to explain exactly the same observation of redshifted photons using a completely different approach. &nbsp;&nbsp; If the point of this thread is to explore and consider other alternatives to the redshift phenonenon, then it is useful and helpful to understand the limitations and the drawbacks of contemporary theories.&nbsp; Picking on inflation and DE theories in a redshift thread is cetainly "fair game", and in no way is it a "hijack" of a redshift thread to discuss the weaknesses of contemporary redshift theories as we compare alternative ideas.&nbsp; There is absolutely no hijack going on here since the mainstream attempts to "explain" redshift as a Doppler/DE driven process and inflation supposedly put the whole universe in motion and DE makes up the bulk of the redshift at high redshifts. These are integral parts of standard redshift theories so pointing out the weaknesses of these theories is not in any way a hijack of a redshift oriented thread. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You posted Ari's paper which was fine.&nbsp; When the paper was criticized, you brough up inflation as if it was somehow a relavent comparison in what could only be an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion away from the dissection of Ari's paper.&nbsp; That is a red herring argument.&nbsp; One method of hijacking a thread is using red herring arguments... it's subtle, but here we are not discussing anything relavent to the original post.&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion of the universe that causes redshift has nothing to do with acceleration , inflation, or dark energy.<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>What?&nbsp; Ok then, start with a "singularity" and you tell me how the universe started to expand and accelerate without inflation or DE. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never said I was offended.&nbsp; I claimed your tactics to be tiresome... not unfair or offensive.Your favorite tactic is taking someone's entire though that may consist of several sentences and systematically breaking down each sentence to avoid addressing the original thought.</DIV></p><p>Actually the only reason I break down a respsonse is because a single paragraph might contain several different ideas, some of which I might agree with, some of which I might not.&nbsp; I break down ideas only to respond to ideas, not to avoid addressing any particular point, but to be sure I directly address each and every idea that I feel compelled to respond to.&nbsp; It's not a tactic in any way, rather it's simply my "style", irrespective of whether I agree or disagee with the post.&nbsp; What you percieve as a "tactic" is simply a way to address each idea separately. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another is answering questions with irrelavent questions to avoid actually answering the question.</DIV></p><p>Do you have an example you might cite?&nbsp; I try to address *all* the questions head on, so this criticism seems false from my perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You posted Ari's paper which was fine.&nbsp; When the paper was criticized, you brough up inflation as if it was somehow a relavent comparison in what could only be an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion away from the dissection of Ari's paper. </DIV></p><p>I simply asked DrRocket to compare and contrast tired light theories with expansion concepts as it relates to emprical evidence, since he insinuated Ari's method was somehow flawed because it lacked emprical support.&nbsp; It was a simple comparison of competing ideas that attempt to explain the redshift observations, nothing more, nothing less.&nbsp; I also mentioned another gravity oriented explanation of redshift, and Arp's work too.&nbsp; All of these issue are all directly related to the redshift phenomenon.&nbsp; I was not attempting to focus anything away from the basic topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is a red herring argument.</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; A red herring argument would have no roots in the topic of redshift.&nbsp; For instance, if I talked about "dark matter" in relation to this topic. *that* would be a "red herring' since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.&nbsp; On the other hand, inflation supposedly started the expansion process, and DE makes it "accelerate", both of which would be directly involved in the current redshift explanation.&nbsp; There is no red herring in mentioning or even attecking the premises that current redshfit theories are based upon, especially since this thread is directly related to these two ideas.&nbsp; IMO you're just "touchy" about me picking on these ideas because you know darn well they have serious "problems", just like all theories.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What?&nbsp; Ok then, start with a "singularity" and you tell me how the universe started to expand and accelerate without inflation or DE. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Apparently you don't undertand WTH you are talking about.</p><p>Dark energy is not needed to explain the expansion of the universe, it is needed to explain the current accelerating expansion. A distinction you repeatedly either do not understand, or intentionally blur to force your agenda.</p><p>Inflation is a short (few microseconds) super expansion right after the big bang and has nothing to do with the expansion during the following 13 billion years. A distinction you repeatedly either do not understand, or intentionally blur to force your agenda.</p><p>If you want to push your EU theory in your own threads go right ahead. But DO NOT hijack other threads with this stuff again. That's my advice.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you don't undertand WTH you are talking about.</DIV></p><p>Apparently you didn't fully read or fully comprehend my repsonse.&nbsp; I mentioned expansion *and* I also mentioned acceleration.&nbsp; Acceleration is in fact directly related back to DE, and without inflation, no expansion could or would occur.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark energy is not needed to explain the expansion of the universe, it is needed to explain the current accelerating expansion.</DIV></p><p>Where did I claim otherwise?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A distinction you repeatedly either do not understand, or intentionally blur to force your agenda.</DIV></p><p>I certainly do understand this distinction so I can only assume you didn't actually read what I wrote.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflation is a short (few microseconds) super expansion right after the big bang and has nothing to do with the expansion during the following 13 billion years.</DIV></p><p>But without inflation, expansion couldn't occur!</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A distinction you repeatedly either do not understand, or intentionally blur to force your agenda.If you want to push your EU theory in your own threads go right ahead. But DO NOT hijack other threads with this stuff again. That's my advice. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>This thread is directly related to redshift, which is in turn directly related to A) inflation to explain expansion and B) "dark energy" to explain acceleration.&nbsp; It cannot therefore be any sort of "hijack" to meantion these things in this particular thread.&nbsp; I have not "hijacked'' this thread or any thread.&nbsp; I've been very careful to limit most of my criticism and most of my EU oriented comments to the solar thread I started years ago, and the "forbidden topic" thread I started many months ago.&nbsp; The rest of my posts tend to be either directly related to topic at hand, or they are not critical of contemporary theory.&nbsp; I therefore resent you trying to suggest that I hijacked this thread or any thread. </p><p>If you go back and read what I actually wrote to DrRocket, you will see that all I did was ask him to compare and contrast inflation (which is directly related to expansion) to Ari's tired light ideas since he was criticizing Ari's ideas for things that also apply to mainstream theories about redshift. &nbsp; I freely admit that Ari's concepts have not been emprically tested in controlled experimentation, but that is also a huge problem for current redshift theories.&nbsp; There is no difference between tired light theories and expansion theories in that respect.&nbsp; No one has demonstrated that photons are redshifted as Ari suggests and no one has ever demonstrated that inflation does anything to anything in any controlled experiment.&nbsp; His criticism was invalid IMO, and I was simply trying to show that to him by asking him to compare and contrast the two ideas.&nbsp; At no point did I attempt to hijack anything, or deviate from the topic of redshifted photons.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO this is also an invalid criticism, and it's unfair.&nbsp; I have not deviated from the topic of the thread in any way, and current redshift explanations require inflation and DE to make them work properly.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you didn't fully read or fully comprehend my repsonse.&nbsp; I mentioned expansion *and* I also mentioned acceleration.&nbsp; Acceleration is in fact directly related back to DE, and without inflation, no expansion could or would occur.</DIV></p><p>That is not correct. Apparently you don't understand what you are talking about, or are intentionally blurring the distinction.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have once again misstated the mainstream theory&nbsp; of redshift in order to promote your EU agenda. </DIV></p><p>When did I even mention EU theory in this thread prior to now?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Redshift due to expansion of the universe is not dependent on any notion of dark energy.</DIV></p><p>Which is exactly why I asked you to compare and contrast the ideas Ari was presenting and "inflation".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expansion of the universe, which you have stated in other threads that you do accept, is in fact based on the&nbsp;empirical observations of Hubble which shows that red shift correlates approximately linearly with recession rate.</DIV></p><p>When you say "emprical observations of expansion", you're oversimplifying the issue.&nbsp; We only have "emprical observations" of "redshifted photons".&nbsp; The concept of expansion is actually an "interpretation" of this redshift observation.&nbsp; There is no emprical observation of expansion".&nbsp; Expansion is a concept that is an *interpretation* of a redshift observation, just as Ari's ideas are an "interpretation" of these same observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is that correlation that shows, to the satisfaction of many scientists including Albert Einstein, that the universe is expanding. </DIV></p><p>I also accept that expansion is a valid way to "interpret" this redhsift phenomenon, and I personally tend to think that the universe is in motion.&nbsp; Whether or not all redshift can be "explanained" by movement alone is another issue entirely.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hubble's Law was published in 1929.In the late 1990's observations began to become available that showed that the expansion of universe, rather than decelerating as was expected due to the effects of gravity, was in fact accelerating.</DIV></p><p>And from the very start, folks like Arp were pointing out that this "interpretation" may not hold true for every scenario.&nbsp; The acceleration theory didn't come into the discussion untill the 80's.&nbsp;&nbsp; Suddenly in the 80's "DE" went from making up nothing, to composing 75% of the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Additional observations since that time continue to confirm this finding.</DIV></p><p>Except of course Arps work which tends to punch holes in a simplified notion of redshift being directly related to movements alone.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universeDark energy has been hypothesized as an explanation of the acceleration of the expansionl, but is not necessary to explain the expansioin itself.</DIV></p><p>I never claimed otherwise!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your statements regarding redshift are fallacious,</DIV></p><p>Which ones? Be specific.&nbsp; Show me the sentence where I said something fallacious.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and I think deliberately so, </DIV></p><p>Excuse me?&nbsp; What would be the benefit of me deliberately trying to misconstrue any of these ideas?&nbsp; &nbsp; It's one thing to accuse me of ignorance, and it's quite another to accuse me of fraud.&nbsp; At no time have I deliberately tried to mislead you or anyone else on any topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are completely out of place in this thread in what appears to be an attempt to hijack this thread to promote "EU" theory.</DIV></p><p>What? I never even mentioned EU theory in this thread that I can recall.&nbsp; When did I even mention EU theory prior to this post?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU theory is generally recognized as being completely and utterly wrong. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland currents are an accepted part of contemporary theory, so not every tenet of EU theory could possibly be "utterly wrong", even by current theory.&nbsp; How about going over to the forbidden topic thread I started, and you tell me exactly what you think is "wrong" with it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bizarre might be a more accurate term. </DIV></p><p>Oh for goodness sake!&nbsp; Electricity is not "bizarre" in any way, it is a known force of nature, and plasma is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current.&nbsp; There is nothing "bizarre" about current flow through plasma.&nbsp; You can see it occur inside an ordinary plasma ball.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tired light, electric comets, the electric sun, the role of the electromagnetic force in overwhelming gravity on cosmic scales,</DIV></p><p>Note that I never mentioned electric comets, electric suns or EM forces overwhelming gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Brinjolfson's plasma redshift, Arp's redshift quantization&nbsp;(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization)have)&nbsp;etc. been adequately dealt with through the use of real science. </DIV></p><p>What real science?&nbsp; You only presented two basic objections to his ideas, the first of which was irrational since single photons are treated as both particle and wave, and the second one you refused to elaborate on and you never mentioned a page number or a formula that your believed was flawed.&nbsp; You didn't deal with it scientifically, you handwaved it away without so much as a legitimate scientific criticism.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU seems to attract a class of people with the patience for very detailed observations and the cataloging of those observations, but without the foundational understanding of science to understand what they are looking at.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland was attracted to EU theory and he fully understood what he was looking at.&nbsp; Alfven was also attracted to EU theory and he also understood exactly what he was looking at.&nbsp; This is a goofy argument IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The result is a series of completely off-the-wall theories backed by "looks like" but unquantified and unquantifiable ideas. </DIV></p><p>Birekland never settled for "looks like" in any of his experiments.&nbsp; He *simulated* his ideas in a classic scientific manner.&nbsp; Alfven did this too.&nbsp; Both of them "quantified' their ideas ad nassium, you've just never taken the time to read through all their work.&nbsp; Your personal ignorance of the quantification that has been done is entirely self imposed. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The exceptioin seems to be the plasma work of Alfven and Birkeland, which is largely out of place and taken out of context in modern astrophysical discussions. </DIV></p><p>What?&nbsp; These are the founding fathers of the theory and Alfven specifically layed out the foundation of EU theory in his book Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; Birkeland actually did lab work to prove his points and show how electricity was related to astronomical events.&nbsp; These guys did the math you claim was never done.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Holding these EU beliefs yourself is one thing, but prosletyzing for them among people who are just now developing an appreciation for rigorous science is something else again.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Prior to this post, kindly show me where I even even mentioed EU theory in this thread.&nbsp; It seems to me that you're so intent on crusading against EU theory that you simply can't see the forest for the trees.&nbsp; I've stayed completely on topic and I never even mentioned EU theory in this thead until you brought it up.&nbsp; I did mention a static universe idea but I don't even recall mentioning EU theory in this thread until you brought it up and started criticising the idea in this thread.&nbsp; If anyone is hijacking this thread to promote a cause, it's you, not me.&nbsp; You're the one that brought up the topic of EU theory in this thread and your unrelated "cause" seems to be related to bashing the EU concept. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is not correct. Apparently you don't understand what you are talking about, or are intentionally blurring the distinction.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>What is not correct?&nbsp; I didn't blur anything and it's certainly not blurry in my mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>