Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just to be totally clear, this is not my personal theory, all I am doing is is illustrating the Lambda-CDM concordance model of cosmology. I couldn't think this stuff up myself, you know! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I hear ya. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> My bad.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is not actually complicated at all. If objects are embedded in space that expands, and it was expanding fastest during the earliest times and slowing down towards the present, and light moves at a constant speed, then the angular-diameter redshift distance observations seem to fit, as do our observations of the time-dilation of typeIa supernovae (with a high degree of confidence).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but as I understand Lambda-CDM theory, the universe is not only thought to be expanding, it's actually thought to have been accelerating over time as the dark energy component has grown and become more dominant. In other words, it should have been expanding more slowly at first and it's been accelerating over time. I'm not convinced that the SN1a data actually "fits" any particular theory, particularly as we start to look at objects with a higher redshift value. <br /> <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">Hmmm. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but as I understand Lambda-CDM theory, the universe is not only thought to be expanding, it's actually thought to have been accelerating over time as the dark energy component has grown and become more dominant. In other words, it should have been expanding more slowly at first and it's been accelerating over time.</font><br /><br />I am afraid to say you are mistaken and I have to correct you. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The model proposes that the universe was expanding at its fastest right after the beginning but was decelerating quickly and had been slowing for most of its history, but relatively recently the expansion has started to accelerate again, as the slowing rate of expansion allowed dark energy to dominate. The rate of expansion now is nowhere near as fast as the the rate during the early universe.<br /><br />We infer from redshift that the universe is now 1090 times larger than when the CMBR was emitted at <i>t</i>=380,000 years, but is only around 15 times larger than when the first stars formed at something around <i>t</i>=100 million years. So it increased in size at a far larger rate between CMBR and the first stars, than between those first stars and the present.<br /><br />It is estimated that the radius of the observable universe was 40 million light years when the CMB was emitted, and was around 3 billion light years in radius when the first stars formed.<br /><br />After a fraction of a second during which the universe initially inflated (which is a separate theory, not included in the L-CDM model) the universe was expanding at rate that was decelerating from the speed of light at the planck scale.<br /><br />A good illustration of this is to think in terms of the hubble limit, the distance where a point in space is receding from another point at the speed of light.<br /><br />At the very beginning, a point only a planck distance away was receding at the speed of light, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[docm]

New Scientist is reporting that Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and her team are suggesting that the void "is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation."<br /><br />Link to teaser (subscribers get the full article)<br /><br />Haven't found a link to the paper yet, but if true it's astounding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

That ought to make for interesting discussion... Thanks for reporting that docm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am afraid to say you are mistaken and I have to correct you. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken, and it certainly won't be the last time either.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The model proposes that the universe was expanding at its fastest right after the beginning<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok, so let's start at the beginning. How fast was matter (as in material forms of mass with gravitational fields) traveling? Why didn't the gravitational forces take over and cause the whole thing to implode instantly?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> but was decelerating quickly and had been slowing for most of its history,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So at what point (time wise) did it start to decelerate, and why?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> but relatively recently the expansion has started to accelerate again, as the slowing rate of expansion allowed dark energy to dominate.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So, unlike any other field in nature, as it expands, dark energy gets "stronger"? So if I'm understanding this theory properly, inflation is a "super" field. Unlike other known vector and scalar fields in nature, it did not significantly decrease in density with an increase in volume. That in itself is quite a trick. <br /><br />Dark energy however is a "super-duper" field. Not only didn't it get weaker, it actually got stronger over time and stronger with an increase in volume? Care to show me any field in nature that does either of those nifty physics tricks? I'm sure that I could build a "free energy machine" out of something like that! <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The rate of expansion now is nowhere near as fast as the the rate during the early universe.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Please, just read these links, rather than me interpreting them and then retyping them here. It will be a lot easier as there is a lot of information to digest. There are references at the bottom of each article.<br /><br /> Timeline of the big bang<br /><br /> Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation<br /><br />The Metric Expansion of Space<br /><br />Observable Universe<br /><br />Comoving Distance<br /><br />And I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Could you explain to me what the CMB was emitted from at this stage? How did those particles (?) come to be spread out over 40 million light years in distance in only 380,000 years? How about the speed of light limitations for objects made of mass? Didn't they apply in the early stage, and if not, why not?</font><br /><br />From the wiki links:<br /><br /><i>"The cosmic microwave background is a prediction of Big Bang theory. In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favourable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This happened at around 3,000 K or when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old (z=1088). At this point, the photons scattered off the now neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to electrons combining with nuclei and to the dec</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[docm]

This void is in the northern hemisphere and Dr. Mersini-Houghton's team has predicted that another will be found in the southern hemisphere. Given how large this void is I guess you could call this test #1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[genius2007]

The curious thing is that it is always assumed that the big bang was an inflation not an inversion. Then we get surprised that quantum shows connections outside the possibility of general relativity.<br /><br />An inversion would seem like an inflation if viewed from the inside, we are in the universe and therefore are inside. Space would have needed to be pushed to be expanded into which would require energy, lots of energy. Once that was insufficient to continue the bubble the dynamics of a captured system take over.<br /><br />The energy is least at the edge and so the coolest and thinnest. The Mpemba effect is the creating of thermal vortices in cold edge containers causing rapid cooling. Those are energy vortices and the fall is back inwards.<br /><br />Just as an offside when electricity was discovered the flow was thought to be from positive to negative. A simple little thing like an inversion start would give what looked like a universe from within that inflated.<br /><br />But the big difference is that it would be captured, have a residual energy density all the way through just as any other pressurized system would which if measured from within might mimic electric or plasma universe, may cool to matter and through the action of vortex movement would be in a state of internal flow.<br /><br />Just a thought <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>New Scientist is reporting that Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and her team are suggesting that the void "is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Now just for a second, try to put on your skeptics hat with me here. Now I'm not much of a believer in metaphysics, and this inflation thingy is really "out there" from my perspective. It's primary purposes were to explain a 'homogeneous mass layout of the universe, and to solve a missing monopole problem. As far as I know, no monopoles have ever existed, no inflaton fields have ever existed, and now I know for sure that the physical universe is not homogeneously distributed. From where I sit, that last observation of a hole in the universe pretty much falsifies inflation with a third and last nail in it's coffin. Inflation violates the laws of conservation of energy (Guth actually called it a "free lunch'), it violates the speed limit of mass, it fails the observational test quite miserably. What's left to discuss?<br /><br />It's really one and only claim to fame is being taken away from it by reality as we observe it. The universe is not homogeneously distributed. Instead of simply allowing this inflation dogma thing to die a natural death, its cult followers are attempting to resurrect it by means of more hocus-pocus from a skeptics perspective. Now we are supposed to believe that quantum entanglement of "universes" (plural) (of mass?) are being pulled out of this magic inflation hat? There is absolutely no way to falsify a word of any of this stuff using real physics, just as there is no way to falsify the notion of "expanding space". It's all metaphysical dogma, built on unfalsifiable, and untestable premises. As such, it falls outside the realm <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This void is in the northern hemisphere and Dr. Mersini-Houghton's team has predicted that another will be found in the southern hemisphere. Given how large this void is I guess you could call this test #1.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Define the term "test" for me. You're talking about a postdicted "observation" as far as I can tell. That isn't a controlled scientific test of a concept. I can "predict' a threaded and non homogeneous universe with plasma physics too. I can "test" plasma physics oriented concepts in controlled scientific tests. How do I test this "quantum entanglement of inflation riding mass traveling faster than light universes" concept? <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You misinterpret the concordance theory if you insist it states a homogenous universe down to a fine scale.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Define "fine scale"? It never predicted a hole of that size in the physical universe.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The lumpiness is accorded to early quantum fluctuations that got expanded out during a period of growth of spacetime itself. Voids and concentrations are a natural outcome of the theory. The unusually large void may also be a prediction of the theory if, along with all else, there is consideration given to undertones for instance.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I posted a link on one of these two threads about the likelihood of finding a void of this size in our little neck of the woods, based on inflation theory. It was extremely unlikely. What now?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As regards inflation, this was a theory to fix some problems in the Big Bang theory.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Like a "missing unicorn, er 'monopole' problem"? You mean like that "Everything should implode back into a black hole singularity" little problem?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Big, Short duration inflation invented by Guth before the discovery of Dark Energy.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The key term here is "invented by". The term was invented by a single human being, and it has no basis in physical reality.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> It was to last but a fraction of a second and cause a number of e-folds until the presumed scalar field collapsed. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This was quite a trick too because no other identified scalar or vector field will increase volume exponentially without experiencing a significant decrease in density. Nice trick.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font></blockquote> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The lambda has been resurrected again to account for the apparent Dark Energy term. While some but not all essence theories have been ruled out, the Lambda still is the front runner.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But Einstein himself called that insertion of a constant his "greatest blunder". He never tried to identify the forces involved in that constant, and he certainly never called it "dark energy". The notion of a "front runner" is rather arbitrary as it relates to testable physics. Nobody has ever shown that dark energy exists, or has any effect on matter or space. It's purely a theoretical and unfalsifiable concept. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You misinterpret the concordance theory if you insist it states a homogenous universe down to a fine scale. The lumpiness is accorded to early quantum fluctuations that got expanded out during a period of growth of spacetime itself. Voids and concentrations are a natural outcome of the theory. The unusually large void may also be a prediction of the theory if, along with all else, there is consideration given to undertones for instance. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I wanted to address this point separately and directly. A void of this size is *not* predicted to occur in inflation based Lambda-CDM theory.<br /><br /><br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the co-moving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. <b>Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot.</b> One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think it's time to toss out inflation and Lambda-CDM theory. I misera <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I will restate my view here in the context of your cite:<br /><br />The void statistics they use is in the context of a small observable patch of around 30 Mpc and could be flawed as one goes out to 100Mpc. However, that has nothing to do with what I have been calling a "failure of imagination" to include the role of undertones and their cancellation nodes as regards the much rarer instances of the large voids in question.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />From a skeptics perspective, it seems like the "imagination" of astronomers has been working overtime as it is. It's time for a reality check.<br /><br />The two "problems" that Guth supposedly "solved" with his made up inflation theory was to explain that "missing monopole problem" (like there have ever been any monopoles shown to actually exist in nature?) and to explain a homogeneous layout of matter in the universe. On top of that, nothing like inflation has ever actually been shown to exist in nature. The whole thing seems positively conjured up in pure imagination! What 'problem" does inflation actually solve for us now?<br /><br />EU theory is based upon the assumption that the universe is threaded and has holes in it, and has all kinds of current channels flowing between larger objects in space. Plasma is known to form filament channels and it will create density differences in the presence of current flow. A non homogeneous plasma universe is easily explained by plasma physics. What did inflation ever do for us? Why is inflation so shy around a lab? If you ask me, the whole theory of inflation went up in smoke with the discovery of that giant hole in the universe. That was it's one and only claim to fame, unless you really have some empirical evidence that monopoles actually exist in nature.<br /> <br />I'm sure that someone will now postdict a new inflation component and toss in a few more variables to make things work our right, and they'll claim th <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Rather than saying at what scale the lumpiness becomes relevant, it may be more accurate to suggest a redshift when the lumpiness becomes physically significant. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're making an assumption here that isn't necessarily valid. You don't know that redshift is in any way related to lumpiness. You're simply assuming that they are somehow related. All we know is that the universe is not homogeneously distributed. That's not much of a surprise to a plasma physics major. You can watch plasma form all sorts of different density regions in the lab, just by applying currents to the plasma. How do you know that lumpiness is related to redshift in any way? I don't think that you can justify that assumption.<br /><br />Can you define "dark matter" for me? This paper seems to suggest that only 10 percent of the universe is made of baryonic mass. Got a gram of any "dark matter" I can experiment with in a lab? After all, it's supposedly 9 times more abundant than baryonic mass. How hard could it be to round up a gram of it for us? I'd settle for one *controlled* scientific test of that concept that demonstrates that "dark matter" exists in nature and has some effect on nature.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This has already been done in an alternative theory to LCDM that is still within the Big Bang Theory. Essentially the Lambda is seen as a mirage due to Hubble flow and the presence of voids. I wrote a short review for the “Dark Energy as an Illusion†thread I started some time ago.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Welll, the elimination of one metaphysical fudge factor is a step in the right direction from my perspective, but you've got at least two of them floating around in that theory. I'm attracted to MOND theories because they eliminate the need for dark matter. Maybe you should think about combing MOND theory with that theory, and then y <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To get matter paid for by gravity, simply take the Einstein equation and put zero on say, the right hand side and all the other terms on the left hand side. You get curvature paid for by the energy tensor to zero sum it out.<br /><br />Or you can think of it as the positive energy of matter and radiation and the gravity it creates. Remember that the sign of the potential energy is negative; i.e. objects fall down rather than up. Here the potential energy of the gravity field is paid for by the energy density .<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is a gross misconception IMO. The universe is filled with energy. That energy necessarily predated a BB event assuming there was a BB event. We know that is true based on the first law of thermodynamics. Guth's "free lunch" theory was purely false IMO. The energy that is stored in mass is not "offset" by the force of gravity in that mass. We can demonstrate this point by blowing up a hydrogen bomb in space and releasing the energy that is contained in the mass of the hydrogen. In a perfect release of energy (all mass converts to photons), there is no mass and no gravity left after the event, but there is still a lot of energy in the form of photons that still exists and that are still released in the event. The energy contained in the photons is not offset by gravity, it's cruising the universe at light speed.<br /><br />Energy may have been converted into mass during some kind of BB event, but in no way was there a "free lunch" process involved in a 'big bang". The energy around us has existed eternally according to the laws of thermodynamics. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The neutrino problem with the iron sun theory<br /><br />The particular paper in question was a short one by Manuel Oliver and Aditya Katragada submitted in October of 2004. It was among the list you link supplied in your post of 10/03/07 at 6:13 PM. It does predate your involvement in the theory.<br /><br />Is There a Deficit of Solar Neutrinos?<br />http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410460 <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ah, I had a feeling that your comments predated my involvement in iron sun theory. FYI, Dr. Manual's calculations in that paper were based on the (IMO mistaken) concept that the sun is responsible for all the energy release in our solar system. EU theory on the other hand suggests that the energy to power the stars is not entirely an internal process. If Dr. Manuel is correct about a heavy core, then it's possible that stars both store kinetic energy and release that kinetic energy through induction, but I believe it was an invalid assumption to presume that all the energy released by stars comes from a completely internal process. That is not likely to be the case in an electric universe. The sun is more like a conductor, or if Dr. Manuel is correct, it's a conductor with the ability to store kinetic energy in the form of a rapidly spinning heavy core which would likely rotate over a 5 minute period based on observed heliosiesmology rhythm cycles. In any event, the various neutrino effects would be very difficult to predict in an EU oriented solar model.<br /><br />Which specific controlled neutrino experiment are you claiming has conclusively demonstrated that neutrinos change flavors that in no way rely upon solar theory?<br /> <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>

 

[genius2007]

_quote_______________________<br />If Dr. Manuel is correct about a heavy core, then it's possible that stars both store kinetic energy and release that kinetic energy through induction, but I believe it was an invalid assumption to presume that all the energy released by stars comes from a completely internal process. <br />___________________________________<br /><br />I am surprised I haven't mentioned either Guth or Dr Manuel here, first Guth.<br /><br />Do we know if the free lunch of co-created space is proven, assumed, deemed unfalsifiable or potentially a mistake. I look at little details. A co-created space might be considered to cost nothing only if there was no drain on energy to allow it. If there was then there are two components to the big bang. One the initial energy and two the ongoing drain on that energy to create space until a point of balance.<br /><br />If that was the case then one would expect every point in the system to register an energy potential. The system would be closed. The observer from inside the system needing to see a co-moving expansion would need to realise the energy pressure of space.<br /><br />In the early universe a large bubble light travels in lesser density through distance. In time matter forms and the bubble reduces in size and becomes more dense. The light received must travel in the higher density of the medium of the observer and is viewed as red shifted the further back it is viewed. It also brightens and so doesn't need a second tired light theory. As with any medium space being full of energy it is not entirely transparent. Just like the ocean at midday it is bright just under the surface and darker at depth. Incidentally I think we just solved Olber's paradox here too.<br /><br />Now Dr Manuel. The big bang has been likened to blowing up a balloon. So how about likening it to blowing up a balloon under water. An energy cost to the initial inflation. Also from the neck of the balloon a force and flow of energy into the ballo

 

[genius2007]

I really should post this under the comet Holmes thread but seeing as how I was looking at an electric type or energy description in the previous post I wondered if there would be a second result.<br /><br />Certainly when comet Holmes first illuminated there was a gap of 5 months and it then brightened again. If it was due to charge would a stream of particles be detectable flowing back towards the sun? Might some of them even cross the orbit of earth?<br /><br />The reason I put this is due to having seen an electro-corrosive welding device at an air force open day display. The particles are electrically corroded from the metal to erode the hole required in the work piece held.<br /><br />So for one a counter moving stream of particles due to balancing the charge. Then secondly if such an event was to happen to this planet how big would the hole be when something so much larger has finished balancing the charge or heating to sufficient temperature to stop the flow?

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am surprised I haven't mentioned either Guth or Dr Manuel here, first Guth.<br /><br />Do we know if the free lunch of co-created space is proven, assumed, deemed unfalsifiable or potentially a mistake.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It is "assumed", unfalsifiable, and probably a mistake. No other vector or scalar field in nature acts like an inflaton. It's an "extraordinary" claim, and as such, will require extraordinary evidence by the rules of "science". <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I look at little details. A co-created space might be considered to cost nothing only if there was no drain on energy to allow it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You'll have to be more specific when you use the term "energy" and the term "space". Be specific in terms of physics. When you say "energy", what are you talking about in terms of testable, and "real" physics? Are you talking about quarks and neutrinos, and photons? When you use the term "space" are you describing the distance between these physical items inside a compressed (densly populated) 'spacetime"?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> If there was then there are two components to the big bang. One the initial energy<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok, we'll assume for the sake of argument that there is one initial energy state 'x" (the energy required to create all new forms of mass) that never changed at any point in the process. No net additional energy was created or destroyed in the "event". All energy predated the event.<br /><br />Now just to be clear here, when I talk about energy, I'm describing known physical, testable 'things', like photons, quarks, electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons, etc. We can break it down into other "testable" physical particles if you prefer, but I insist we speak in terms of testable physics.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font></blockquote> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So for one a counter moving stream of particles due to balancing the charge. Then secondly if such an event was to happen to this planet how big would the hole be when something so much larger has finished balancing the charge or heating to sufficient temperature to stop the flow?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />http://a1862.g.akamai.net/7/1862/14448/v1/esa.download.akamai.com/13452/qt/Atmospheric_drag.mov<br /><br />Here's an ESA movie that shows the interplay between the solar wind and Venus.<br /><br />The heliosphere is bathing the sun in electrons, and most of these electrons are *electrically* reconnecting with outbound protons in the solar wind. There are probably "beams" of electrons that rain down from the heliosphere and push down into the solar wind. These beams may in fact be detectable and may be responsible for some types of solar flares. I would imagine that whole electrical exchange process flows in patterns around the Parker Spiral. We should indeed be able to detect some flow patterns in the plasmas around the sun. The positioning of the outer planets in particular may play a very critical role in the location of these currents flows. <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>

 

[genius2007]

Thank you MichaelMozina,<br /><br />The movie is very interesting. As for cutting up a concept of flow and form ... I have seen where it leads to. This is your thread and by reading what you write I know you think very clearly and are passionate about science.<br /><br />The name I chose was for impact only, not a back patting exercise. I need clear minds to look at a simple concept. And that just doesn't work if it is split and attacked by competing theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics.<br /><br />Best of wishes to you for the festive season and may all your hard work pay dividends ... cheers

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is only marginally related, but WOW what a picture!!!<br /><br /> Dec 11 APOD <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]

Wow indeed. That is a really great image! <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>

 

[genius2007]

Yes WOW<br /><br />For what it is worth I have just seen the movie Beowulf the 3D version and still have the polarized glasses. If that image could be adapted for position just as the pixels in the animated movie were it may just give an even more spectacular feel to the view.