The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".

[UFmbutler]

<p>What you described is not an experiment...where's the data?&nbsp; You rely way too much on "this looks like this so it must be this" logic.&nbsp; Dropping a plasma ball tells me nothing.&nbsp; </p><p>I turn my tv on and I see pictures.&nbsp; I turn it off and I don't.&nbsp; If I turn it on and drop it it hits the ground.&nbsp; Tell me, what did I just demonstrate?&nbsp; Nothing, just that the television works and it has mass. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What you described is not an experiment...where's the data?&nbsp; You rely way too much on "this looks like this so it must be this" logic.&nbsp; Dropping a plasma ball tells me nothing.&nbsp; I turn my tv on and I see pictures.&nbsp; I turn it off and I don't.&nbsp; If I turn it on and drop it it hits the ground.&nbsp; Tell me, what did I just demonstrate?&nbsp; Nothing, just that the television works and it has mass. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>This only serves to demonstrate my previous point that you folks are *overly* fixated upon mathematical verification, to the utter exclusion of "empirical physical verification".</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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can emprical test "gravity" with the device.&nbsp;&nbsp; All you have to do is hold it up and let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; That's an emprical demonstration of the *attractive* force of "gravity". &nbsp; Plug it in and turn it on.&nbsp; You'll notice that EM fields cause the plasma in the ball to "ebb and flow".&nbsp; Turn off the power now and watch what happens.&nbsp; You'll notice nothing much happens inside the ball.&nbsp; Turn it on again and the light show starts again. &nbsp; Hold that object in your hand now and carefully let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; As you observe it fall into your other hand, you are observing an emprical verification of GR and MHD theory combined, otherwise known as "EU Theory". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Are you serious.&nbsp; That is how you incorporate MHD into the theory of General Relativity.&nbsp; Holy crap that is one of the dumbest things I have seen on this site.&nbsp; It doesn't even make any sense.&nbsp; I can encorporate an armadillo into the theory of general relativity exactly the same way.</p><p>Are you OK, or was that some sort of joke?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you serious. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Very serious.&nbsp; I can emprically verify that gravity has an "attractive" capacity in an emprical test.&nbsp; I can verify that EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow in an empirical way.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can combine gravity and EM fields in an empirical "test of concept", and now we can add all the mathematical models and measuring equipment we might want to add, but without question, Alfven's basic approach to science is emprically verifiable and mathematically quantifiable.</p><p>You expect me to believe you that gravity does repulsive tricks and vacuums contain negative pressure, and you can't even offer me a demonstration of concept and you expect me to take in on "faith", and give you more money for research?&nbsp; How exactly did you intend to emprically spend my money? </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>

 

[origin]

<p>Michael you can finally resolve the problem with combining Quantum mechanics and General relativity.&nbsp; Go on your roof and set up a 2 slit experiment and once it is running throw the apparatus off of the roof.&nbsp; There it is; empirical evidence of you combining QM and GR!&nbsp; And none of that annoying math.&nbsp; Gosh you'll be famous!!</p><p>I'll bet Alfven would be proud if he knew he had an empirical wiz kid&nbsp;like you supporting him...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very serious.&nbsp; I can emprically verify that gravity has an "attractive" capacity in an emprical test.&nbsp; I can verify that EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow in an empirical way.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can combine gravity and EM fields in an empirical "test of concept", and now we can add all the mathematical models and measuring equipment we might want to add, but without question, Alfven's basic approach to science is emprically verifiable and mathematically quantifiable.You expect me to believe you that gravity does repulsive tricks and vacuums contain negative pressure, and you can't even offer me a demonstration of concept and you expect me to take in on "faith", and give you more money for research?&nbsp; How exactly did you intend to emprically spend my money? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What concept did we prove?&nbsp; Answer the damn questions and stop with all this wishy-washy talk.&nbsp; We don't need to drop a plasma ball to know gravity works.&nbsp; We don't need to turn on a plasma ball to know there are EM fields.&nbsp; Even if we did, your "experiment" tells us nothing whatsoever that we didn't already know.&nbsp; How is this EU?&nbsp; How is this at all relevant to anything we've been discussing?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You ask us how we expect anyone to give us money for theoretical research...I pose you the same question.&nbsp; How do you expect to get money when it isn't even clear what you intend to prove?&nbsp; I can set a ball of paper on fire and it kind of empirically looks like a star, but it isn't one and I can't do any experiments on it that would&nbsp; be relevant to a star.&nbsp; A plasma ball is a toy, not a lab experiment. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What concept did we prove?&nbsp; Answer the damn questions and stop with all this wishy-washy talk.&nbsp; We don't need to drop a plasma ball to know gravity works. </DIV></p><p>We *do* need to drop an apple, a plasma ball, or something to demonstrate it has an *attractive* effect on physical objects.&nbsp; If however Guth or anyone else want's to claim that gravity has a "repulsive force", I want to see a demonstrateion of concept please.&nbsp; I've never seen my plasma fall "up", not even one single time.</p><p>Guth's claim that gravity was "repulsive" is unsubstanciated by emprical physics.&nbsp; Guth's claim that a negative pressure can exist in a vacuum is also an "extraordinary" claim that is actually physically impossible, not to mention physically impossible to demonstrate. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We don't need to turn on a plasma ball to know there are EM fields. </DIV></p><p>You will&nbsp; have to turn it on to demonstrate that plasma is physically affected by EM fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if we did, your "experiment" tells us nothing whatsoever that we didn't already know. </DIV></p><p>It demonstrates that EU theory "works" as predicted in a physically real way, right here on Earth, in controlled emprical testing.&nbsp; In this case my hand and the switch are the control mechanisms that demonstrate "attractive gravity" and "Plasma movement caused by EM fields.". &nbsp; Please now demonstrate for me how gravity is "repulsive" as Guth claimed or that a vacuum contains negative pressure as Guth claimed.&nbsp; I want to see a physical demonstration of these extraordinary claims.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How is this EU? </DIV></p><p>How is it not EU?&nbsp; It is the combination of GR and MHD theory in motion in space, right before your eyes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How is this at all relevant to anything we've been discussing? </DIV></p><p>We are discussing emprical physics, right?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You ask us how we expect anyone to give us money for theoretical research...I pose you the same question.&nbsp; How do you expect to get money when it isn't even clear what you intend to prove?&nbsp; I can set a ball of paper on fire and it kind of empirically looks like a star, but it isn't one and I can't do any experiments on it that would&nbsp; be relevant to a star.&nbsp; A plasma ball is a toy, not a lab experiment.</p><p>Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I could spend money on "real hardware" to duplicate Birkeland's work for starters. I can spend money on plasma and real things that I can buy off the internet to help me "measure" and help me confirm mathematical models of MHD theory work as predicted.</p><p>How exactly would you go about demonstrating repulsive gravity and negative pressure vacuums on an unrestricted budget?&nbsp; Let's see your budget and how you intend to physically demonstrate your claims?</p><p>Keep in mind that I showed you how to physically test the core tenets of EU theory for under $30.&nbsp;&nbsp; We know that gravity is "attractive" and EM fields move plasma.&nbsp; Let's see how you would go about demonstrating that gravity is repulsive and vacuums have negative pressure. </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'>Michael you can finally resolve the problem with combining Quantum mechanics and General relativity.&nbsp; Go on your roof and set up a 2 slit experiment and once it is running throw the apparatus off of the roof.&nbsp; There it is; empirical evidence of you combining QM and GR!&nbsp; And none of that annoying math.&nbsp; Gosh you'll be famous!!I'll bet Alfven would be proud if he knew he had an empirical wiz kid&nbsp;like you supporting him... <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I'm sure he'd be glad that someone here was actually defending his work rather than calling it "crap". </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Keep in mind that I showed you how to physically test the core tenets of EU theory for under $30.&nbsp;&nbsp; We know that gravity is "attractive" and EM fields move plasma. </DIV></p><p>That is not EU.&nbsp; That is basic E&M.&nbsp; EU cannot be the theory of gravity and the theory of E&M.&nbsp; That would be like me saying I have a new theory called the Magic Duck theory, and when asked to say what it is I say "oh, it's just the theory of gravity".&nbsp; Do you actually study physics or just read a lot of physics looking for silly ways to make semantical arguments? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure he'd be glad that someone here was actually defending his work rather than calling it "crap".</DIV></p><p>I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually a human and not some posting bot.&nbsp; I say this because the fact that we have told you 50 times that nobody thinks Alfven/Birkeland's work is crap and nobody said anything is crap but your interpretations would have registered in a human's brain by now.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only difference at the subatomic realm is the particles are smaller.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>>< </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is not EU. </DIV></p><p>Yes, it is.&nbsp; It is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, in motion, right before your very eyes, for under $30.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is basic E&M. </DIV></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; Essentially it's "physics in motion".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU cannot be the theory of gravity and the theory of E&M.</DIV></p><p>Yes, it can be, and that is exactly what it is.&nbsp; That's exactly what Alfven attempted to explain in Cosmic Plasma as I have been telling DrRocket for over a year now. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That would be like me saying I have a new theory called the Magic Duck theory,</DIV></p><p>You mean like "magnetic reconneciton" theory, where immaterial magnetic lines "reconnect"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and when asked to say what it is I say "oh, it's just the theory of gravity".</DIV></p><p>Sort of like "Lamda-CDM theory"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do you actually study physics or just read a lot of physics looking for silly ways to make semantical arguments?</DIV></p><p>Yes, I also study them "physically", not just with a paper and pencil.&nbsp;&nbsp; That seems to be the fundamental difference in fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually a human and not some posting bot. </DIV></p><p>A bot would certainly have a spellchecker and grammar checker. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I say this because the fact that we have told you 50 times that nobody thinks Alfven/Birkeland's work is crap</DIV></p><p>True.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and nobody said anything is crap</DIV></p><p>False. DrRocket said "EU theory is crap". &nbsp; Why aren't you all over him about it?&nbsp; I thought that science was all about precision?&nbsp; Pricise math is certainly required, and everywhere else I've ever discussed science, so was precise language.&nbsp; EU theory preceedes my introduction to that theory by 100 years.&nbsp; The statement "EU theory is crap" is a false statement.&nbsp; The statement "Michael is full of it" may or may not be a false statement.&nbsp; Why don't you explain that to DrRocket so we can have an intelligent and grown up scientific conversation, and help *him* get that idea through his human brain.&nbsp; I think it would make life a lot easier. </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'>>< <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>? </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>False. DrRocket said "EU theory is crap".</DIV></p><p>Thanks for misquoting me and leaving out the second half of the sentence.&nbsp; I'm not going to even bother responding to you if you are going to twist my words like that. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure he'd be glad that someone here was actually defending his work rather than calling it "crap". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If Alven has the slightest clue regarding what you have been spouting then&nbsp;he is spinning in his grave.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If Alven has the slightest clue regarding what you have been spouting then&nbsp;he is spinning in his grave. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Or he might cause a plasma circuit reconnection to toast the unused neurons </p><p>The spinning might help in creating the required electromagnetic field.</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'>Or he might cause a plasma circuit reconnection to toast the unused neurons The spinning might help in creating the required electromagnetic field. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>He will have to make sure that the fuse on that circuit is a big one.&nbsp; There are a LOT of unused neurons.</p><p>You have a point with the spinning.&nbsp; Alfven was a proponent of self-excited dynamos.&nbsp; I think if he saw the nonsense that Mozina has posted that he might become REALLY EXCITED. <br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/a319891e-8dc3-405c-bfcc-565d5645d268.Medium.bmp" alt="" /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If Alven has the slightest clue regarding what you have been spouting then&nbsp;he is spinning in his grave. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nah.&nbsp; He's just happy that someone around here understands the difference between 'hard science' that involves real actual "hardware' and real control mechanisms like neutrino astrophysics, and some goofy nonsense about negative pressure vacuums and repulsive gravity. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nah.&nbsp; He's just happy that someone around here understands the difference between 'hard science' that involves real actual "hardware' and real control mechanisms like neutrino astrophysics, and some goofy nonsense about negative pressure vacuums and repulsive gravity. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Perhaps, but there are quite a few people around here who fit that description.&nbsp; Virtually everyone who has posted in this thread with the exception of you. I have never befoe seen anyone with so many deep misconceptions regarding physics.</p><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="3">It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. &ndash; Mark Twain</font></span></span> <p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That all depends on how you define each of these theories.</DIV></p><p>What???&nbsp; How "I" would define each of the theories I mentioned would be standard, textbook definitions.&nbsp; The reason they are standard and in textbooks is that the theories are so well supported there isn't much room, if any, to alter their definition.&nbsp; And by definition, I don't mean just a one-liner sentence.&nbsp; </p><p>I have no illusion of being an expert in either of the relativities.&nbsp; However, unlike you, I feel comfortable in what I do know that, if asked, I could write a fairly descent synopsis of what they mean, how they relate to the physical world we live in, the predictions they have made, the predictions that have been verified and describe some of the few remaining open questions with enough accurate detail that a scientific discussion might be had. </p><p>Why do you refuse to do this with EU theory?&nbsp; You claim to understand it better than I do.&nbsp; All I'm asking is for a brief synopsis so a legitimate discussion might be had.&nbsp; Maybe you fear the consequences of opening pandora's box... </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you stuff GR theory full of inflation, it's not going to hold up to rigorous skepticism.&nbsp; If you stuff it full of "space expansion", you'll never be able to emrpically demonstrate it.&nbsp; If you stick to Einstein's brand of GR, it is pure emprical physics. Posted by michaelmozine</DIV></p><p>Why do you persist in make your "stuffing" statement when it is illogical to do so?&nbsp; General Relativity is a geometrical description of gravity.&nbsp; It's a foundation on which a variety of other theories and models may be built.&nbsp; The Big Bang theory utilizes the foundational mathematics of General Relativity and astronomical observations to support it.&nbsp; Inflation is "stuffed" into the Big Bang theory... not General Relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>And, just to remind you, General Relativity was build purely from thought and a chalkboard.&nbsp; Mathematics is the foundation of Relativity.&nbsp; I could be wrong, but I can't recall one single laboratory experiment involving General Relativity that aided in its development.</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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>In response to Origins' request on how one could add MHD to General Relativity;&nbsp; This is Michael's response: </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pick up a plasma ball at Walmart sometime.&nbsp;&nbsp;I can emprical test "gravity" with the device.&nbsp;&nbsp; All you have to do is hold it up and let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; That's an emprical demonstration of the *attractive* force of "gravity". &nbsp; Plug it in and turn it on.&nbsp; You'll notice that EM fields cause the plasma in the ball to "ebb and flow".&nbsp; Turn off the power now and watch what happens.&nbsp; You'll notice nothing much happens inside the ball.&nbsp; Turn it on again and the light show starts again. &nbsp; Hold that object in your hand now and carefully let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; As you observe it fall into your other hand, you are observing an emprical verification of GR and MHD theory combined, otherwise known as "EU Theory". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is absolutely the nuttiest thing you have ever said on here, Michael.&nbsp; I was quite literally laughing my ass off when I read the subsequent post by Origin and UFMbutler.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't even know how to address this corniness.&nbsp; It would have been quite funny if you intended it as a joke, but it is infinitely more humorous because you are SERIOUS!!!&nbsp; Wow...</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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. &ndash; Mark Twain &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>"This isn't right.&nbsp; This isn't even wrong!"&nbsp; - Wolfgang Pauli </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'>What???&nbsp; How "I" would define each of the theories I mentioned would be standard, textbook definitions.</DIV></p><p>The "textbook" Einstein used is not the one used in Lamba-CDM theory today.&nbsp; Alfven's book is considered "the textbook" on EU theory by the way.&nbsp; Deviations are acceptable in EU theory however since the attraction of EU theory is it's focus on emprical physics and it's lack of "strong central control".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason they are standard and in textbooks is that the theories are so well supported there isn't much room, if any, to alter their definition. </DIV></p><p>Someone evidently altered Alfven's definition of MHD theory because he adamantly opposed the idea of "magnetic reconnection" theory.&nbsp; That hasn't stopped the mainstream from using that title anyway.&nbsp; Everyone is an individual and people will apply MHD theory somewhat uniquely.&nbsp; Why should that be surprising?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And by definition, I don't mean just a one-liner sentence. </DIV></p><p>Alfven's book is more than a one liner sentence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no illusion of being an expert in either of the relativities.&nbsp; However, unlike you, I feel comfortable in what I do know that, if asked, I could write a fairly descent synopsis of what they mean, how they relate to the physical world we live in, the predictions they have made, the predictions that have been verified and describe some of the few remaining open questions with enough accurate detail that a scientific discussion might be had. Why do you refuse to do this with EU theory? </DIV></p><p>I have never refused to do so.&nbsp; I refused however to play DrRocket's game of attempting to let him judge an entire theory based on *my personal* presentation of that theory. That is illogical.&nbsp; That's like dissing Einsteins work because he doesn't agree with me over the "space expansion"/"negative pressure vacuum" stuff.</p><p>I've spent 3 years here answering various questions.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claim to understand it better than I do. </DIV></p><p>Sure, I've read more material on it than you have.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All I'm asking is for a brief synopsis so a legitimate discussion might be had. </DIV></p><p>I'm trying to do that in the other thread now that DrRocket has finally offered us his own analysis of Alfven's book.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe you fear the consequences of opening pandora's box...</DIV></p><p>Not me.&nbsp; I'm not the one running from an open conversation in DrRocket's book analysis thread.&nbsp; He opened up pandora's box by calling my presentation of Alfven's work "crap" and now he must realize that I described it pretty accurately which is why he won't discuss it with me any further.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you persist in make your "stuffing" statement when it is illogical to do so?&nbsp; General Relativity is a geometrical description of gravity.</DIV></p><p>Gravity isn't a 'repulsive' force and vacuums don't have negative pressure, and I was taught GR theory without inflation.&nbsp; I don't have any trouble with the way you presented GR theory, but I've seen some outrageous claims related to GR theory where "inflation"" is simply "assumed" to be part of GR.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It's a foundation on which a variety of other theories and models may be built.</DIV></p><p>If you can "build on" it with "inflation", then surely it's "ok" to build on it with MHD theory too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Big Bang theory utilizes the foundational mathematics of General Relativity and astronomical observations to support it.</DIV></p><p>That's probably something a first semester student might just accept by I know better.&nbsp; I understand Arps work too.&nbsp; I know that some elements of BB theory today are simply "interpretations", not simply observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inflation is "stuffed" into the Big Bang theory... not General Relativity. </DIV></p><p>Well, in your case, I realize you see it that way. It's not always like that in all converations however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, just to remind you, General Relativity was build purely from thought and a chalkboard.&nbsp; Mathematics is the foundation of Relativity.&nbsp; I could be wrong, but I can't recall one single laboratory experiment involving General Relativity that aided in its development. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I can't think of a single element of Einstein's work that had any mention of inflation or dark energy however.</p><p>Even in GR theory, there are different ways to view Einstein's work and different ways to appreciate it and describe it.&nbsp; You and I might even disagree on what GR means, but both of us seem to respect Einstein's work none the less.</p><p>In the case of EU theory, if DrRocket intends to demonstrate Alfven's work is in error, it's not my personal beliefs that DrRocket needs to disprove, it's Alfven's work he must find fault with.&nbsp;&nbsp; Evidently he didn't find any fault, so now he's on to plan B, he's attacking his age, and ignoring the fact I was correct that the particle approach to MHD theory is also valid. </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 absolutely the nuttiest thing you have ever said on here, Michael.&nbsp; I was quite literally laughing my ass off when I read the subsequent post by Origin and UFMbutler.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't even know how to address this corniness.&nbsp; It would have been quite funny if you intended it as a joke, but it is infinitely more humorous because you are SERIOUS!!!&nbsp; Wow... <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I can demonstrate the core tenets of EU theory (attractive gravity/EM fields cause plasma movement) for under $30.&nbsp; You could *never* demonstrate Guth's rediculous claims about "repusive gravity" (my plasma ball has never fallen up, not once), nor could you ever hope to demonstrate "negative pressure vacuums".&nbsp; I can't believe you folks are actually serious about that stuff either.&nbsp; At least I can emprically demonstrate that gravity is attractive and that EM fields have an affect plasma.&nbsp; Got any inflation I could play with, or any "repulsive gravity" devices I might inspect?&nbsp; Give me a break.... </p><p>DrRocket can't even tell the difference between "hard science" with real "hardware' and real control mechanisms and a software simulation based on a physical impossibility.&nbsp;&nbsp; A vacuum cannot achieve a negative pressure.&nbsp; Even if we removed everything from the vacuum, it would only achive a zero pressure.&nbsp; What would any of you even add or subtract from the vacuum to achieve a negative pressure?&nbsp; Be specific as to which "form" of energy you would add or subtract from the zero pressure chamber. </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><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.<span style="font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span>..... </span>The FACTS are that the energy of the quantum vacuum provides a negative pressure term for use in the stress-energy tensor in the field equations of general relativity, that negative pressure term is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant, which in turn is equivalent to dark energy, and which provides for a model in which the expansion of space is accelerating.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is also true that current quantum field theory calculations predicts a negative pressure that exceeds that required to explain the observed accelerated expansion by 120 orders of magnitude, which is a HUGE discrepancy, and the theory is not now at all satisfactory.<span>&nbsp; </span>But the reason for the problems is totally unrelated to Mr. Mozina&rsquo;s illogical rants.</DIV></span></p><p>All of this is utterly false.&nbsp; The vacuum cannot contain "negative pressure".&nbsp; You're trying to stuff metaphysics into a GR theory.&nbsp; You can't even identify the *FORM OF ENERGY* you would put into a zero pressure vacuum to achieve a negative pressure.&nbsp; The FACTS are that your stress-energy tensor is stuffed with magic.&nbsp; Space doesn't expand either.&nbsp; That's another of your unsupportable assertions that is devoid of emprical support.&nbsp; I can't believe all the stuff you claim is "fact" that is nothing more than physically impossible mumbo jumbo based on Guth's pitiful understanding of a vacuum. </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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space doesn't expand either.&nbsp; That's another of your unsupportable assertions that is devoid of emprical support.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The Hubble proportionality constant is estimated to be <font size="2">H</font>₀&nbsp;=&nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap">70.1 &plusmn; 1.3 (km/s)/<span class="mw-redirect">Mpc</span></span>. How would you propose we test this empirically?</p><p>For reference, here is the current state of play in this field:</p><p>Eppur Si Espande - (11 Apr 2007)</p><p>"The rather wide-spread belief that cosmological expansion of a flat 3D--space (with spatial curvature k=0) cannot be observationally distinguished from a kinematics of galaxies moving in a flat and non-expanding space is erroneous. We suggest that the error may have its source in a non relativistic intuition that imagines the Universe not as a spacetime but separates space from time and pictures the cosmological expansion as space evolving in time. The physical reality, however, is fundamentally different -- the expanding Universe is necessarily a curved spacetime. We show here that the fact that the spacetime is curved implies that the interpretation of the observed cosmological redshift as being due to the expansion of the cosmological 3D--space is observationally verifiable. Thus it is impossible to mimic the true cosmological redshift by a Doppler effect caused by motion of galaxies in a non-expanding 3D-space, flat or curved. We summarize our points in simple spacetime diagrams that illustrate a gedanken experiment distinguishing between expansion of space and pure kinematics. We also provide all relevant mathematics. None of the previously published discussions of the issue, including a recent popular Scientific American article, offered a similarly clear way out of the confusion."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Cosmological Radar Ranging in an Expanding Universe&nbsp; - (15 May 2008) </p><p>"While modern cosmology, founded in the language of general relativity, is almost a century old, the meaning of the expansion of space is still being debated. In this paper, the question of radar ranging in an expanding universe is examined, focusing upon light travel times during the ranging; it has recently been claimed that this proves that space physically expands. We generalize the problem into considering the return journey of an accelerating rocketeer, showing that while this agrees with expectations of special relativity for an empty universe, distinct differences occur when the universe contains matter. We conclude that this does not require the expansion of space to be a physical phenomenon, rather that we cannot neglect the influence of matter, seen through the laws of general relativity, when considering motions on cosmic scales."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>A short answer to critics of our article "Eppur si espande" - (17 Dec 2008)</p><p>"Recently we presented a formal mathematical proof that, contrary to a widespread misconception, cosmological expansion cannot be understood as the motion of galaxies in non-expanding space. We showed that the cosmological redshift must be physically interpreted as the expansion of space. Although our proof was generally accepted, a few authors disagreed. We rebut their criticism in this Note."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We <em>know</em> the universe is expanding, and it seems like expanding space is the most likely explanation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>