<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How close was Einstein's "cosmological constant" to what is needed for today's model for accelerated expansion. Is it just a matter of putting Einstein's constant back in to general relativity or is the "Lambda CDM" model allot different than Einstein's <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Einstein's application of the cosmological constant was to provide for a static universe. Discussions of that notion are pretty much dead, and it is difficult to find information about that formulation. But based on energy densities it appears that the current cosmological constant is about 70% of Einstein's. </p><p>It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the use of the cosmological constant is completely empirical and simply is applied to matched the expansion as inferred from observations. There is no strong connection to fundamental theory, and what theory does exist suggests that the cosmological constant based on vacuum energy should many many orders of magnitude greater than what is justified by observation. Our understandig of physics and our most fundamental theories are simply not up to the job.</p><p>This Wiki article contains more detail and links to even more detail. But there is still an awful lot that is just not understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant</p><p>One interesting point, is that the pressue term resulting from vacuum energy is negative, This is in keeping with the experimental phenomena known as the Casimir effect.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p>To me, I think Hawking's is on to something. We can see and prove that black holes are leaking information. I believe the theory is that they're leaking from some other part of the universe. You guys keep saying water flowing and stuff like that, but you're also still on earth. Think of that water flowing through a sewer. The main canal could have millions of offshoots into different places. If, in fact, dark energy (or what I think Hawking's means when he says "information") is leaking from another part of our universe, then maybe the universe is actually doubled over itself, only with a parallel state being the double. I probably just lost most of you.</p><p> </p><p>I can't remember where it's coming from, but I seem to recall a theory on the ability to travel back in time being possible because it was thought possible to fold the universe over itself with enough energy. Something similar to that. Either way, theory or not, I think something like this is happening. Dark energy and dark mass are being spilled into our universe from another universe that acts as a second layer to the reality we percieve.</p><p> </p><p>If our universe had a negative, much like all things we seem to be able to find have a negative, then the size and expansion would be irrelevant due to the fact that the overall multiverse would be just another balancing act that supported a larger balancing act that was also supporting a larger balancing act to the power of forever.</p><p> </p><p>I see pictures sometimes of a picture inside a picture inside a picture going on and on for what seems like ever. That reminds me of what I think the universe is a part of simply because everything is a part of everything else. I also think that the connections we see inside reality are the keys to figuring it out. We can find a physical connection with EVERYTHING inside this atmosphere. The air between you and I connect us on a physical level, even if we, as humans, can't see that physical connection. I think the keys to the secrets of the universe lie in those connections, whether physical or metaphysical.</p><p> </p><p>Still, purly speculation, but it boggles my mind when I think about it. To me, dark energy and dark mass are only the larger side of an even smaller picture we've yet to even begin to grasp, and the only way the universe will ever be eternal is if that is true. Only if under every stone we turn, we find something never seen before. </p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To me, I think Hawking's is on to something. We can see and prove that black holes are leaking information. I believe the theory is that they're leaking from some other part of the universe...Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>If you can see and prove this then please do so. No one else can.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you can see and prove this then please do so. No one else can. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Eh, I suppose that the observations I read were in a report that didn't mean anything. I can't find them again, but I was sure I read that Hawking's Theory was derived from our ability to know that they were leaking information. Now that I've followed up on that a bit, I think I was wrong. In fact, now that I think back on it, the LHC is designed specifically to see and prove this.</p><p> </p><p>The theory remains, though, as well as the statements I made regarding it. I retract my see and prove statement. Well done. 
</p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p> </p>
</p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Eh, I suppose that the observations I read were in a report that didn't mean anything. I can't find them again, but I was sure I read that Hawking's Theory was derived from our ability to know that they were leaking information. Now that I've followed up on that a bit, I think I was wrong. In fact, now that I think back on it, the LHC is designed specifically to see and prove this. The theory remains, though, as well as the statements I made regarding it. I retract my see and prove statement. Well done. Will <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>I doubt that the LHC will allow us to either see or prove the hypothesis that information can escape from black holes. </p><p>The question is the subject of a bet between Preskill and the duo of Thorne and Hawking. Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and published a paper. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507171v2.pdf Thorne has not conceded.</p><p>Hawking's paper has not been widely accepted. Among other things it relies on some unproven notions liking general relativity and quantum mechanics due to Maldecena. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9711/9711200v3.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0106/0106112v6.pdf</p><p>Basically the issue is quite difficult to resolve, because it lies at the juncture between general relativty and quantum mechanics. Until there is a theory that can simultaneously handle quantum theory and gravity it is not likely that the issue will truely be resolved. We don't seem to be much closer to such a theory than we were 25 years ago, despite lots of talk in the popular press about theories of everything, string theory, M theory, etc. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Will <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>I doubt that the LHC will allow us to either see or prove the hypothesis that information can escape from black holes. </p><p>The question is the subject of a bet between Preskill and the duo of Thorne and Hawking. Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and published a paper. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507171v2.pdf Thorne has not conceded.</p><p>Hawking's paper has not been widely accepted. Among other things it relies on some unproven notions liking general relativity and quantum mechanics due to Maldecena. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9711/9711200v3.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0106/0106112v6.pdf</p><p>Basically the issue is quite difficult to resolve, because it lies at the juncture between general relativty and quantum mechanics. Until there is a theory that can simultaneously handle quantum theory and gravity it is not likely that the issue will truely be resolved. We don't seem to be much closer to such a theory than we were 25 years ago, despite lots of talk in the popular press about theories of everything, string theory, M theory, etc. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Maybe with a little effort we can get Al Gore interested in winning another Nobel for his work against Dark Matter. I mean, it's the biggest threat to the entire UNIVERSE. Surely it's more important than "global warming" - we have the whole universe to worry about, dontcha know! [snicker] Ok - I return you to your serious discussion now... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font> (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe with a little effort we can get Al Gore interested in winning another Nobel for his work against Dark Matter. I mean, it's the biggest threat to the entire UNIVERSE. Surely it's more important than "global warming" - we have the whole universe to worry about, dontcha know! [snicker] Ok - I return you to your serious discussion now... <br />Posted by adrenalynn</DIV><br /><br />Ya know, might be something there.</p><p>From Wiki </p><p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png" border="0" alt="File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png" width="800" height="593" /></p><p> </p><p>So you see the deviation in temperature from normal variation that we call global warming seems to have started about 1930 or so.</p><p>And the idea of dark matter began with work of Fritz Zwicky at Cal Tech in 1933. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1937ApJ....86..217Z&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf</p><p>He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster and deduced that there was unseen matter. All about the same time that global warming was starting.</p><p>The evidence is clear, and the solution equally clear. Dark matter and global warming are connected. We must immediately dispatch Al Gore to the Coma cluster to investigate. Michael Moore should accompany him to document the venture. </p><p>Good thinking adrenalynn. If this works you too should receive a Nobel Peace Prize, in this case for improving the general state of the world, and increasing the average IQ remaining on the planet.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The air between you and I connect us on a physical level, even if we, as humans, can't see that physical connection. I think the keys to the secrets of the universe lie in those connections, whether physical or metaphysical. Still, purly speculation, but it boggles my mind when I think about it. To me, dark energy and dark mass are only the larger side of an even smaller picture we've yet to even begin to grasp, and the only way the universe will ever be eternal is if that is true. Only if under every stone we turn, we find something never seen before. Will <br /> Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Very good post, Will. Not because I agree with all what you said, but because finding another person who also care and think about the 'universe and its relation to us'. Glad to see there are other thing's in a few people's minds than Paris Hilton or Barrak H. Obama. After all no one knows the truth. If anyone claims he knows, he doesn't know that he doesn't know.<br /></font></p><p><font size="2">I said the space may be flowing for a few logical reasons which can easily be refuted by some. If space can be 'curved' or bent, why can't it flow. I was picturing the space as flowing like ocean currents, different regions with different speed. This would be a nightmare for scientists, because they like to keep things simpler so that they can model everything with their current tools of Math available, and publish a few papers. </font></p><p><font size="2">But what causes the 'space flow'? Then your Hawking's info leak can come into play linking everything in the universe creating a 'flow'. </font></p><p><font size="2">I also have a positive opinion about empty space having 'negative' mass as dark energy. It tells us in the distant past this region, which we call universe, may have been filled with 'neutral' mass. Something triggered, and positive mass (our visible universe) appeared and negative mass became 'space ' or zero-point energy.</font></p><p><font size="2">Again, what do I know? </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sure, plasma can be. But there is no evidence that it is related to the expansiion of space (not objects in it) that dark energy is postulated for. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I believe that the topic of "expanding space" needs a thread all on it's own. How or why the objects in space get further apart is not really important. The fact they do grow further apart over time, along with the fact that the amount of matter is limited, would tend to slow down the matter collection/formation process over time. I do not understand why an acceleration component would be required to explain that particular observation. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very good post, Will. Not because I agree with all what you said, but because finding another person who also care and think about the 'universe and its relation to us'. Glad to see there are other thing's in a few people's minds than Paris Hilton or Barrak H. Obama. After all no one knows the truth. If anyone claims he knows, he doesn't know that he doesn't know.I said the space may be flowing for a few logical reasons which can easily be refuted by some. If space can be 'curved' or bent, why can't it flow. I was picturing the space as flowing like ocean currents, different regions with different speed. This would be a nightmare for scientists, because they like to keep things simpler so that they can model everything with their current tools of Math available, and publish a few papers. But what causes the 'space flow'? Then your Hawking's info leak can come into play linking everything in the universe creating a 'flow'. I also have a positive opinion about empty space having 'negative' mass as dark energy. It tells us in the distant past this region, which we call universe, may have been filled with 'neutral' mass. Something triggered, and positive mass (our visible universe) appeared and negative mass became 'space ' or zero-point energy.Again, what do I know? <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>The hypothesis regarding dark energy is that it is the result of negative pressure of the quantum vacuum, not negative mass. It is just a hypothesis, and is far from fact, but that is the hypothesis nonetheless.</p><p>There are treatments of space-time as a sort of fluid, but there is no flow in the sense of fluid dynamics and the Navier-Stokes equation. What do you have in mind with your image of flow of space, and to where does it flow ? If mass and energy enter or leave that will create a big problem for conservation laws that will require an explanation all its own.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, that's pretty much it. Mister Mozina, you were instructed to not continue posting Electric Universe themes in these hard-science forums. Apparently you seem to believe we were just kidding. This was not a joke and we were not fooling around. The next EU subject posted by you will lead to severe action. Are you clear on this?! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I am *absolutely* clear about your general intent yevaud. I'm afraid however that the devil is in the details. What I am not clear about is what you are calling "electric universe themes" and what constitutes a "mainstream" Lambda-CDM oriented model and what you believe constitutes "hard" science. </p><p>At the moment I feel like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs, being chased around by the grand Drinquisitor, with no clear rulebook to follow. I also feel like I'm getting "mixed' messages as to what constitutes a mainstream idea presented in the "standard" mathematical fashion, vs an "EU theme". Inflation driven EM fields related to Lambda-CDM models are absolutely *not* congruent with my personal beliefs, other than perhaps the fact that they both include a persistent EM field. </p><p>I can't think of a way to ask my specific questions here without hijacking this thread or insulting you, so if you don't mind I'll reserve my other comments for a "What are the formal set of rules?" thread that I will start in the "Unexplained" thread where we can talk more candidly and openly. I need to think about some specific examples and a clear way of asking you what you expect of me personally. </p><p>I've posted here now for over two years, and I have a great deal of respect for you, Calli, Wayne, and the rest of the moderators. I am trying to cooperate, but I'm not clear what constitutes being "over the line", and I didn't expect to have my own personal inquisitor scrutinizing my ever sentence in every thread. My original statement was in fact very "generic" and it was not a conscious attempt to "peddle" any particular cosmology theory or hijack this thread. It was simply an intent on my part to respond to the poster's original idea about space moving and acting like water, and the density problems associated with that idea. Days passed before DrInquistion made some comment about this being in some way related to "EU" themes. The fact that plasma is sensitive and affected by magnetic and electromagnetic fields is *not* by itself an EU theme, it's a simple statement of fact as I percieved it, as was the idea that magnetic fields have the same affect. </p><p>Before DrInquisition plays the witch burning game with us as pawns in his melodrama again, I would really appreciate some help in clearly understanding and defining what constitutes an "EU" theory vs any other theory involving a plasma universe because the lines here are very blurred, at least from my perspective. I'll start that thread in the unexplained section of the board when I've had time to think about my specific questions and things slow down at work. </p><p>I do however appologize for letting DrRocket "play me" like that with his childish insults and I won't let it happen again. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fer crissake, </DIV></p><p>You know DrRocket, if you didn't use such loaded emotional languange, our conversations would go a lot smoother.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The AUTHORS challenge the paper.</DIV></p><p>Why would the authors challenge their own paper? They didn't "challenge" anything as far as I can tell, they simply "proposed" a "solution" to the phenomenon of acceleration that is currently called 'dark energy". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is speculative and requires data to support or refute it.</DIV></p><p>This is true of all theories. It is however a mathematical presentation of their idea. I haven't been able to refute it, nor have I seen anyone else do so. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They are attempting to explain the accelerating expansion of space with vector field formulations,</DIV></p><p>Yes, this was the first part of their presentation. It is actually the *more* interesting part of their presentation from m perspective. It demonstrates that "ordinary" vector calculus and ordinary forces of nature might be useful in explaining the phenemonon of acceleration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>only one example of which is classical electromagnetism. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That is *one* of the "possibilities". It is not something that you or I can rule out, unless you or I can find some problem with their mathematical presentation. Thus far I have not found such a flaw, nor have you cited one for us. I therefore cannot rule out this possibility, nor can you. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And they postulate that the source of an electromagnetic field might be INFLATION, which we know sends shivers up and down your spine. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. I don't believe in inflation, so this particular method of "creating" a persistent EM field could not and would not be considered an "EU theory" from my perspective. The only thing it shares in common with my personal beliefs is that in would also include a persistent EM field in the universe. In every other respect it is unlike my beliefs, and I"m not a Lambda-CDM proponent by any stretch of the imagination. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are simply making responsible speculations, and await further review and experimental data to evaluate their idea.</DIV></p><p>And because they are "responsible" and include a mathematical 'explanation', you really can't rule out the idea of persistent EM fields in space, nor can I. If we're both going to be in scientific integrity, we must both "entertain" the "possibility" the the universe may include persistent EM fields. It therefore makes no sense to me when you blithely dismiss this idea, or when you get "huffy and puffy" for me mentioning the fact that magnetic field and EM fields can cause plasma to move around and accelerate.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is hardly a firm derivation from established physics.</DIV></p><p>So then how can you personally dismiss the possibility of persistent EM fields in space?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most importantly, this paper offers absolutely no support whatever for your ridiculous EU ideas. EU remains an absurd distortion of physics and belongs in The Unexplained. </DIV></p><p>I don't even know what you think constitutes "EU ideas". It is ridiculous (and against the rules) for us to discuss it here in this thread. Stop bringing my personal beliefs into every conversation, and stop trying to play the role of Grand Inquistor. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... The only thing it shares in common with my personal beliefs is that in would also include a persistent EM field in the universe. In every other respect it is unlike my beliefs, and I"m not a Lambda-CDM proponent by any stretch of the imagination. And because they are "responsible" and include a mathematical 'explanation', you really can't rule out the idea of persistent EM fields in space, nor can I.... Stop bring my personal beliefs into every conversation, and stop trying to play the role of Grand Inquistor. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your introduction of the referent paper, and in particular that paper rather than any of several others on the use of vector fields in quantum field theories posted by the authors virtually simultaneously, has everything to do with your personal beliefs and nothing whatever to do with the underlying science. It was and remains a Trojan Horse.</p><p>Now that you have been called by the mods for a transparent attempt to inject EU garbage into a hard science thread you are trying to squirm out of that charge. So predictable. And just as predictable are your not-very-veiled allusions to EU theory in even this post in which you deny promoting EU ideas.</p><p>You have set up a straw man. I have neither confirmed nor denied the findings in that paper. That will be done in due time through the peer review process if and when the authors submit their ideas to a peer-reviewed mainstream journal.</p><p>What I have pointed out is that the paper does not address your issues, and that you have apparently not even read it. The basic tenor of the paper flies in the face of your many excoriations of "math magic". They have not really explained anything, but rather have advanced a premise that perhaps a vector field similar to the electromagnetic field might explain the expansion of the universe. Your lack of comprehension of the paper is not surprising since reading the paper would not promote your personal agenda. That agenda belongs in The Unexplained, along with other discussions of pseudoscience. Period.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
DrR - thanks for that reply to my post. It put a huge smile on my face. Well reasoned, as usual. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font> (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font> (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The hypothesis regarding dark energy is that it is the result of negative pressure of the quantum vacuum, not negative mass. </DIV></p><p>Good point. The solar wind might be considered "negative pressure" that ever so gently "pushes" against magnetosphere, and pushes against the force of gravity that holds the Earth around the Sun. The same might be said of neutrinos emissions from the sun. The net affect is a quantum "push" against the force of gravity, and a movement of mass in "waves" of particles. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your introduction of the referent paper, and in particular that paper rather than any of several others on the use of vector fields in quantum field theories posted by the authors virtually simultaneously, has everything to do with your personal beliefs and nothing whatever to do with the underlying science. </DIV></p><p>My personal beliefs are in fact irrelevant. The paper does not include my name, and it's not my idea. It is however directly related to this particular topic. I regret even letting you "bait" me into disucssing my first sentence, but this paper is *not* an "EU theory" DrRocket, so stop trying to sell it as such. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was and remains a Trojan Horse.</DIV></p><p>It could only construed as a "trojan horse" to Lambda-CDM theory, if it happens to be in error. If it is correct however, then it is a mathematical "explanation" for the observation of acceleration. Period. The "trojan horse" is you trying to claim this is somehow anything other than what it reports to be, namely an "explanation" (mathematical one) of "dark energy".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now that you have been called by the mods for a transparent attempt to inject EU garbage into a hard science thread you are trying to squirm out of that charge. </DIV></p><p>You got all upset because I dared mention that both magnetic *and* EM fields caused plasma to move. If I'd left off the E in EM, you wouldn't have had anything at all to complain about. In fact that is what you first complained about. I regret even bringing this paper over from the other thread because all you've done is try to misrepresent it as something it is not, namely a representation of my personal beliefs. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So predictable. And just as predictable are your not-very-veiled allusions to EU theory in even this post in which you deny promoting EU ideas.</DIV></p><p>What is "predictable" at this point is the fact that you keep "screening' my every post looking for *anything* that you can complain about to the moderators in hope that they will play the role of executioner in your little "burn the heretic" melodrama. Your motives are transparent and personal and unprofessional DrRocket. My words were clear, clean and devoid of any particular "motive" other than to note that plasma can ebb and flow, but it won't behave quite like water. The rest of this melodrama got started because you got all uptight about one letter, specifically the letter E in EM field. Sheesh. Talk about building strawmen!</p><p>I'm not going to bicker with you in this thread DrInquisition. If you wish to question my motives, you can do so in the new Rules thread I'll start in the unexplained section where we can all speak freely.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very good post, Will. Not because I agree with all what you said, but because finding another person who also care and think about the 'universe and its relation to us'. Glad to see there are other thing's in a few people's minds than Paris Hilton or Barrak H. Obama. After all no one knows the truth. If anyone claims he knows, he doesn't know that he doesn't know.I said the space may be flowing for a few logical reasons which can easily be refuted by some. If space can be 'curved' or bent, why can't it flow. I was picturing the space as flowing like ocean currents, different regions with different speed. This would be a nightmare for scientists, because they like to keep things simpler so that they can model everything with their current tools of Math available, and publish a few papers. But what causes the 'space flow'? Then your Hawking's info leak can come into play linking everything in the universe creating a 'flow'. I also have a positive opinion about empty space having 'negative' mass as dark energy. It tells us in the distant past this region, which we call universe, may have been filled with 'neutral' mass. Something triggered, and positive mass (our visible universe) appeared and negative mass became 'space ' or zero-point energy.Again, what do I know? <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Let's, for a moment, imagine the universe to be an S shaped object overlayed over itself and never ending. That S goes on forever, basically, up and down. If that was the sense, then the multiverse would be connected, black holes would leak from the opposite universe to us (or the ones above and below us in that S) and things would flow evenly. The problem I find is that the curves of the S (assuming that S represents the multiverse) would have to be comprised of a material that had absolutely no charge, negative or positive or neutral, or some sort of transformer that converted the particles flowing through our universe into their opposite for the next universe to remain stable.</p><p> </p><p>I went farther into explaining that, then I noticed something you said and erased it all. </p><p> </p><p>"It tells us in the distant past this region, which we call universe, may have been filled with 'neutral' mass." </p><p> </p><p>With you saying that it made me think about what we're not considering when it comes to negatives and positives and neutrals. If we were in the sense of electricity, we could convert that negative to a positive, or that neutral to a negative, etc, given certain equipment. Let's then remember that we haven't explained dark mass or dark energy, let alone the black hole leaking information thing. Instead of acting as if they were multipliers in expanding our galaxy, what would happen if we applied something as simple as cell-reproduction theory to that level. What would happen if those factors that we can't explain were actually converting particles to the charge the entire universe needed more of? I'm not figuring out your flow very well, but you and I may be onto something in how the universe is placing mass that it should be running out of. </p><p> </p><p>If the universe could convert a negative particle to a positive particle on a whim, then it would essentially be able to create it's own mass from combinations of particles, correct?</p><p> </p><p>I guess the better question to ask is what would happen if we had the ability to make hydrogen, or any other molecule, turn into it's opposite?</p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is the one thing I most dislike about this forum. It airs of closed-mindedness. If you all disbelieve the theory he believes in then it should result in a debate and not a blunt threat of "severe action" if he continues to post on EU. The mainstream theories have problems themselves that seem to constantly need patching up with additional theories. Maybe he is wrong, but maybe you all are as well. To me this just seems alot like cyberbullying. If the requirements for posting here include only posting the most accepted theories, then there would be no debates and everyone might as well just pick up a book on space at their library. <br /> Posted by trumptor</DIV></p><p>Well said. I concur.</p><p> </p><p>Mad ups. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is "predictable" at this point is the fact that you keep "screening' my every post looking for *anything* that you can complain about to the moderators in hope that they will play the role of executioner in your little "burn the heretic" melodrama.</p><p><br /> Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>Thoroughly incorrect. You yourself have persisted in making mention of EU, and I have a lengthy list of said posts by you made <em>following</em> your being instructed to not do so, almost all of them <em>not</em> inspired by commentary by DrRocket. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Replying to:This is the one thing I most dislike about this forum. It airs of closed-mindedness. If you all disbelieve the theory he believes in then it should result in a debate and not a blunt threat of "severe action" if he continues to post on EU. The mainstream theories have problems themselves that seem to constantly need patching up with additional theories. Maybe he is wrong, but maybe you all are as well. To me this just seems alot like cyberbullying. If the requirements for posting here include only posting the most accepted theories, then there would be no debates and everyone might as well just pick up a book on space at their library. <br />Posted by trumptor</p><p> </p><p>Well said. I concur. Mad ups. <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>There is a reason that mainstream physics is mainstream, and it has nothing whatever to do with closed-mindedness. Mainstream physics started as responsible speculation and a deviation from what was accepted at the time in response to know deficiencies in existing theory and open unanswered questions in physics. It did not arise from any outright challenge to proven theory within the domain of known validity of that theory. The process of discovery in scientific research is replete with imagination and is as far from being closed-minded as one can possibly imagine.</p><p>All the same, research in physics requires discipline. The existing principles have been developed with a large dose of imagination, but have been confirmed under threat from the uncompromising sword of experiment. There is a HUGE body of experimental data supporting the pillars of accepted physics. Those pillars are general relativity and the quantum field theories of the Standard Model. They are not perfect, and their shortcomings are known, but when applied within known boundaries they produce exquisitely accurate predictions. It is fair game to make conjectures as to what might be more accurate models of physical reality, but it is not fair game to discount those theories in their entirety.</p><p>There is distinction between imaginative conjectures in the name of refining the known principles of physics and the promulgation of pseudoscientific nonsense. It is not constructive to discuss pseudoscience in a hard science forum, and it has the potential to confuse and damage those who have yet to develop the knowledge and sophistication to recognize the difference quickly. There is a forum in which pseudoscience can be discussed. That forum is The Unexplained. It is the proper place for such discussions. This forum, and other hard science forums, are not.</p><p>In a hard science forum it is reasonable to discuss and learn more about real science, its predictions and its limitations. You may or may not be able to get that from a book. In many cases probably not. But in any case the discussion of serious science in a forum restricted to legitimate science offers a learning opportunity, that is disrupted by pseudoscientific babble.</p><p>Unless and until one has the knowledge of what is accepted mainstream science, one is not qualified to challenge it. Challenges issued in ignorance are worthless. No one contests that there is freedom to express worthless opinions, and there is a forum available in which to do just that.</p><p>There is plenty of room for debate within the limits of legitimate science. That is what research in the sciences is all about. Just attend any talk on research at the frontiers of physics, populated by real physicists, to see such debate in action. Or read a good book by a legitimate physicist. Here is a suggestion: <em>A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down</em> by Robert Laughlin. Or try <em>The Trouble with Physics</em> by Lee Smolin, or <em>Superstrings: A Theory of Everything ? </em>edited by P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown. You will find in those lots of controversy, but no nonsense. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thoroughly incorrect. You yourself have persisted in making mention of EU, and I have a lengthy list of said posts by you made following your being instructed to not do so, almost all of them not inspired by commentary by DrRocket. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Would you please do me the favor of citing the specific statement that I made in this thread that "set you off"? I'm really not trying to be difficult yevaud, I'd really like to understand what it is that I'm doing that is pushing your buttons. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would you please do me the favor of citing the specific statement that I made in this thread that "set you off"? I'm really not trying to be difficult yevaud, I'd really like to understand what it is that I'm doing that is pushing your buttons. </p><p> Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>"The universe is however mostly made of plasma and plasma is very sensitive to changes in magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields. These types of forces might be useful in creating a "current", or an "ebb and flow" inside of a mostly plasma environment."</p><p>The above is pure EU. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The universe is however mostly made of plasma and plasma is very sensitive to changes in magnetic fields and electromagnetic fields. These types of forces might be useful in creating a "current", or an "ebb and flow" inside of a mostly plasma environment."The above is pure EU. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV><br /><br />Amen! <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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a reason that mainstream physics is mainstream, and it has nothing whatever to do with closed-mindedness. Mainstream physics started as responsible speculation and a deviation from what was accepted at the time in response to know deficiencies in existing theory and open unanswered questions in physics. It did not arise from any outright challenge to proven theory within the domain of known validity of that theory. The process of discovery in scientific research is replete with imagination and is as far from being closed-minded as one can possibly imagine.All the same, research in physics requires discipline. The existing principles have been developed with a large dose of imagination, but have been confirmed under threat from the uncompromising sword of experiment. There is a HUGE body of experimental data supporting the pillars of accepted physics. Those pillars are general relativity and the quantum field theories of the Standard Model. They are not perfect, and their shortcomings are known, but when applied within known boundaries they produce exquisitely accurate predictions. It is fair game to make conjectures as to what might be more accurate models of physical reality, but it is not fair game to discount those theories in their entirety.There is distinction between imaginative conjectures in the name of refining the known principles of physics and the promulgation of pseudoscientific nonsense. It is not constructive to discuss pseudoscience in a hard science forum, and it has the potential to confuse and damage those who have yet to develop the knowledge and sophistication to recognize the difference quickly. There is a forum in which pseudoscience can be discussed. That forum is The Unexplained. It is the proper place for such discussions. This forum, and other hard science forums, are not.In a hard science forum it is reasonable to discuss and learn more about real science, its predictions and its limitations. You may or may not be able to get that from a book. In many cases probably not. But in any case the discussion of serious science in a forum restricted to legitimate science offers a learning opportunity, that is disrupted by pseudoscientific babble.Unless and until one has the knowledge of what is accepted mainstream science, one is not qualified to challenge it. Challenges issued in ignorance are worthless. No one contests that there is freedom to express worthless opinions, and there is a forum available in which to do just that.There is plenty of room for debate within the limits of legitimate science. That is what research in the sciences is all about. Just attend any talk on research at the frontiers of physics, populated by real physicists, to see such debate in action. Or read a good book by a legitimate physicist. Here is a suggestion: A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down by Robert Laughlin. Or try The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin, or Superstrings: A Theory of Everything ? edited by P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown. You will find in those lots of controversy, but no nonsense. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Just to let it be said, I agree here. I believe I may have misunderstood what the person I quoted was refering to.</p><p> </p><p>Either way, we got a bit off discussion for about 6 posts with that. So, let's pretend it never happened. </p><p> </p><p>Will </p>
</p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just to let it be said, I agree here. I believe I may have misunderstood what the person I quoted was refering to. Either way, we got a bit off discussion for about 6 posts with that. So, let's pretend it never happened. Will <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>w_d_w</em></DIV></p><p>We can only hope.</p><p>Btw, welcome to SDC. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
Will <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>w_d_w</em></DIV></p><p>We can only hope.</p><p>Btw, welcome to SDC. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
Mars exploration, new rockets and more: Interview with ESA chief Josef Aschbacher
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram