The magnetic field as "dark matter"

[michaelmozina]

No, I'm saying that galaxies in front of us are being accelerated faster than we are, and they are moving away from us. Galaxies behind us are being accelerated slower than we are and they are moving away from us. Galaxies to the left and right are moving (slightly) away from us at all times due to the expansion of the universe (like the expansion of solar wind particles). It's a lot like a solar wind process, but it's obviously not *caused by* solar wind. I'm just using solar wind particles as an analogy in place of galaxies. The force of acceleration however would still be the same however, namely EM fields, plasma sheaths, and charge separation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That is not the velocity data that we have seen.<br /><br />The local group hangs out tpgether.<br /><br />Everything else is moving away, the further away. the faster it is moving away. <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]

But that's what we would see. The local group is simply gravitationally bound and going in exactly the same direction. Everything else is moving slightly away from us, or is being accelerated at a faster or slower rate from us. <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]

No Michael that is not what we see. IF we were moving like like buckshot from a gun you would not see a uniform movement away from us (edited to add), <i>as you described your post</i>. We would see a nonuniform recession.<br /><br />So what would be causing the glaxies in your buckshot hypothesis to move away from each other?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[zenmaster]

Your buckshot example makes no sense. The pellets that were in the hemisphere in front of us (in front being the opposite direction from where we were "shot out of") would be seen to be accellerating away from us, but all of the pellets in the hemisphere behind us would still be coming toward us to varying degrees, or their apparent movement away from us would be decellerating.<br /><br />That's not what is happening in the universe. The only way a buckshot or explosion theorey, the way you are describing it, would work is if we in fact were not moving and everything was shot from where we were.<br /><br />So, you could try to bring back the theory that we are the center of the universe, with your conclusions, if you want, because that's the only way your theory works in any capacity.<br /><br />

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No Michael that is not what we see. IF we were moving like like buckshot from a gun you would not see a uniform movement away from us (edited to add), as you described your post. We would see a nonuniform recession.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not if the distribution pattern was relatively uniform.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So what would be causing the glaxies in your buckshot hypothesis to move away from each other? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />They are moving away from each other just like buckshot spreads itself out over time and distance. In this case, even a small variation of the vectored direction of the galaxies would result in a vast change of distance between the galaxies over a few hundred billion years. Everywhere we look, the galaxies that are not in our gravitationally connected group are moving away from us because the galaxies are spreading out over time as they expand out from their point of origin. It would be a similar process for solar wind particles for that matter. They spread out over time because they are going from an area of greater concentration, to an area of less concentration. As the particles leave the photosphere the distance between particles increases over time, and the density of the medium continues to decrease with distance. <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>Your buckshot example makes no sense. The pellets that were in the hemisphere in front of us (in front being the opposite direction from where we were "shot out of") would be seen to be accellerating away from us, but all of the pellets in the hemisphere behind us would still be coming toward us to varying degrees, or their apparent movement away from us would be decellerating. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's not a problem as long as the force of acceleration continues to increase over time and distance. The galaxies behind us would appear to be getting further and further away from us over time and we would continue to accelerate faster than they do, so they would continue to get further and further away from us over time, just as the galaxies ahead of us are getting further and further ahead of us.<br /><br />We need not be at the "center" of anything. Our little visible sliver of the physical universe is but one region that undergoes constant expansion and acceleration like every other region. It is the expansion and the acceleration that must continue to increase over time, nothing more. Everything else works just fine so long as what we observe is but one little "pie shaped sliver' of the whole expansion/acceleration process.<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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

"In this case, even a small variation of the vectored direction of the galaxies would result in a vast change of distance between the galaxies over a few hundred billion years."<br /><br />Not sure that's relevant since that's an order of magnitude more than the age of the Universe. <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]

How did you determine the age of the physical universe? <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]

<font color="yellow">How did you determine the age of the physical universe?</font><br /><br />You can look up how this is calculated by cracking open any decent book on astronomy. <br /><br />How is it a theoretical astrophysicist such as your self does not know this? - that was sarcasm by the way.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

Those books rely upon metaphysical processes like "expanding space" and inflation and things that have never been shown to actually occur in controlled laboratory conditions. How then can you be sure of anything related to the physical age of the universe? <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]

<font color="yellow">Those books rely upon metaphysical processes</font><br /><br />Oh, I see. Astronomy, astrophysics and physics as taught in the universities the world over are actually composed of metaphysical hand waving.<br /><br />You on the other hand have found the truths based on solid scientific evidence, such as the sun has a solid iron surface.<br /><br />Have you no idea how ludicrous you sound? <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

No, please don't put words in my mouth. I very specifically said that inflation and the concept of "expanding space" (dark energy) are actually composed of metaphysical hand waving. That is easily demonstrated by pointing out the fact that no human being has ever demonstrated that either of these things can be empirically demonstrated in a lab in controlled experiments. They are metaphysical entities with no parallel in nature. No known vector or scalar field in nature will experience several exponential increases in volume without experiencing a significant decrease in density. Inflation and dark energy are composed of metaphysical hand waving. That's what I said.<br /><br />Do you have any empirical physical evidence that "space" can "expand" or that inflation and monopoles weren't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that stuff sounds to an EU/Plasma Cosmology proponent?<br /><br />http://www.cosmologystatement.org/<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>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">I very specifically said that inflation and the concept of "expanding space" (dark energy) are actually composed of metaphysical hand waving.</font><br /><br />Whoa, my bad. I should have realized that it is only that area that you feel the scientific world is wrong. <br /><br />See I was thinking that you might have trouble with other aspects of science as taught by universities around the world (well not Bob Jones University maybe) such as the sun is composed of ~98% H & He, or that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, or that neutrinos, change flavors, or that gravity is the dominant force in shaping the large scale structures in the universe, stuff like that.<br /><br />By the way you still have not given any reasonable explanation or evidence of how electricity / magnetism are actually dark energy.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're (this galaxy) is simply surfing in intergalactic currents All of the galaxies beyond our local group are moving away from us. The only way that can be possible (excluding the accepted expansion of the universe) is if the 'intergalactic currents' are moving away from us in every direction. Right? <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;The electromagnetic field itself would have to be "stretching"/expanding in every direction. </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><strong>Whoa, my bad. I should have realized that it is only that area that you feel the scientific world is wrong.</strong></p><p>There is a distinct difference between "being wrong" and "metaphysical handwaving".&nbsp; You'll have to be specific about your statements.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think current solar theory is scientifically "wrong" but it is not an example of metaphysical handwaving, unlike "dark" things and inflatiion which are clear examples of metaphysical handwaving.</p><p><strong>See I was thinking that you might have trouble with other aspects of science as taught by universities around the world (well not Bob Jones University maybe) such as the sun is composed of ~98% H & He,</strong></p><p>Well, I do believe that it is "wrong", but that isn't a "metaphysical" belief.&nbsp; We can create hydrogen and helium in lab, whereas "inflation" is shy around controlled experiments.&nbsp; You're confusing disagreements in "science" with disgragements about "dogma".&nbsp; Inflation is "dogma".&nbsp; Hydrogen suns are "science" that happens to be wrong.</p><p>You for instance cannot demonstrate that our own sun is mostly made of hydrogen and helium without making the assumption that the sun is not mass separated.&nbsp; The concept of the elements staying "mixed together" is in error, but it is not metaphysical handwaving.&nbsp; It's just bad scientific assumption at worst case.</p><p>Compare and contrast that now with inflation. You can't show me one controlled experiment where inflation can be shown to exist in nature. That is why inflation is "bad dogma", not "bad science".</p><p><strong>or that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion,</strong></p><p>But see, I personally beleive that at least some of the suns energy comes from the fusion of elements and I've written papers to that effect.</p><p><strong>or that neutrinos, change flavors,&nbsp;</strong></p><p>Show me a *controlled* experiment where that occured.&nbsp; That is not an umprovable idea, but it remains unproven.&nbsp; It's certainly not "metaphysical" in any way.</p><p><strong>or that gravity is the dominant force in shaping the large scale structures in the universe,</strong> </p><p>How do you know that?&nbsp; Is that statement dogma or science?&nbsp; EM fields are in fact 39 orders of magnetitude more powerful than gravity. &nbsp; </p><p><strong>stuff like that. By the way you still have not given any reasonable explanation or evidence of how electricity / magnetism are actually dark energy. <br /> Posted by origin</strong></p><p>You have shown me no empirical evidence that "dark energy" exists in nature.&nbsp; I simply suggested that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and I can demostrate this fact in a controlled experiment.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't show me that "dark energy" does anything to plasma in a controlled experiment. </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'>&nbsp; I simply suggested that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate and I can demostrate this fact in a controlled experiment.</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>No, Micheal, if you had&nbsp;simply said that, I would have said no kidding.&nbsp; You said,&nbsp;"'Dark' forces can be explained with "electromagnetic' fields", which is not true and you have still not given any evidence to the contrary.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't show me that "dark energy" does anything to plasma in a controlled experiment.</DIV></p><p>This is absolutely true.&nbsp; No one has any idea what 'dark energy' is (not even you). &nbsp;The only thing that is known is that the expansion of the universe started acclerating about 10 billion years ago this affect has been attributed to a term called 'dark energy' because it would take some unseen force to cause an acceleration of the universe.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, Micheal, if you had&nbsp;simply said that, I would have said no kidding.&nbsp; You said,&nbsp;"'Dark' forces can be explained with "electromagnetic' fields", which is not true and you have still not given any evidence to the contrary.This is absolutely true.&nbsp; No one has any idea what 'dark energy' is (not even you). &nbsp;The only thing that is known is that the expansion of the universe started acclerating about 10 billion years ago this affect has been attributed to a term called 'dark energy' because it would take some unseen force to cause an acceleration of the universe. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV><br />The only "observeration" that is currently chalked up to "dark energy" is it's ability to accelerate a universe that is mostly composed of plasma.&nbsp; I can show you that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate.&nbsp; "Dark energy" has no other obvious claim to fame, or characteristic other than it's ability to create an acceleration process.&nbsp; Big deal.&nbsp; EM fields do that every single day. </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 show you that EM fields cause plasma to accelerate.&nbsp;[/Quote]</p><p>That is wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the acceleration&nbsp;in the expansion of the universe.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;"Dark energy" has no other obvious claim to fame, or characteristic other than it's ability to create an acceleration process.&nbsp; Big deal.&nbsp; EM fields do that every single day. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>An EM field cannot be responsible for the observations that we see unless the field is radiating from our galaxy.</p><p>&nbsp;And of course this EM field that has no identifible source would cause the electrons to move in the opposite direction of the positively charged ions.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;The more you think about the implications of the EU the more implausible it sounds, and it starts off pretty implausible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><strong>An EM field cannot be responsible for the observations that we see unless the field is radiating from our galaxy.</strong></p><p>No.&nbsp; It simply has to be an all pervasive expanding and accelerating EM field.&nbsp; How do you know EM fields have nothing to do with the expansion process again?</p><p><strong>And of course this EM field that has no identifible source would cause the electrons to move in the opposite direction of the positively charged ions.&nbsp; &nbsp;The more you think about the implications of the EU the more implausible it sounds, and it starts off pretty implausible. <br /> Posted by origin</strong></p><p>The electrons do flow in opposite directions from the plasma flow of positively charged plasma.&nbsp; The implausible part is when the mainstream talks about "dark energy" and "dark matter".&nbsp;&nbsp; These things do not exist in nature and have never been empirically demonstrated to have any effect on any form of matter, energy or "space" in any controlled experiment.&nbsp; They are metaphysical handwave constructs.&nbsp; They are placeholder terms for what is essentially human ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. </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'>No.&nbsp; It simply has to be an all pervasive expanding and accelerating EM field.</DIV></p><p>Can you demonstrate&nbsp;a 'pervasive expanding and accelerating EM field' in the lab?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do you know EM fields have nothing to do with the expansion process again?</DIV></p><p>It does not match the obsevations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><strong>Can you demonstrate&nbsp;a 'pervasive expanding and accelerating EM field' in the lab?</strong></p><p>Sure.&nbsp; I can then scale that process by at least 18 known orders of magnitude with great accuracy.</p><p><strong>It does not match the obsevations.</strong> </p><p>Of course it does.&nbsp; That all pervasive EM field is lighting up coronal loops on the solar surface.&nbsp; EM fields are certainly one force of nature that is known to be 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, and something is causing the universe to accelarate.&nbsp; Care to empirically demonstrate that inflation has any effect on anything in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; Care to empircially demonstrate that it is a force of nature rather than a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp;</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'>Can you demonstrate&nbsp;a 'pervasive expanding and accelerating EM field' in the lab?Sure.&nbsp; I can then scale that process by at least 18 known orders of magnitude with great accuracy.</DIV></p><p>Please explaing how you could do this in the lab.&nbsp;&nbsp;No great&nbsp;detail is needed just a little more than saying yes.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not match the obsevations. Of course it does.&nbsp; That all pervasive EM field is lighting up coronal loops on the solar surface.&nbsp; EM fields are certainly one force of nature that is known to be 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, and something is causing the universe to accelarate.&nbsp; Care to empirically demonstrate that inflation has any effect on anything in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; Care to empircially demonstrate that it is a force of nature rather than a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>We are not discussing coronal loops we are discussing the accelerating expansion of the universe.</p><p>Yes, something is causing the expansion of the universe&nbsp;to accelerate - are you now saying that you do not know what is causing the acceleration?</p><p>We are not discussing inflation we are discussing the accelerating expansion of the universe.</p><p>To remind you once again - you said that the acclerating expansion of the universe can be explained by an EM field (or magnetic field), you have not done so as of yet.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[granpa]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible that the magnetic field has energy? If so, how much would that energy be? Would the energy have an impression on the space-time continuum? Since they extend infinitely, could the magnetic field of stars have more energy than the stars themselves? Could magnetic fields be the "dark matter" we are looking for? <br /> Posted by kmarinas86</DIV></p><p>the energy contained in the magnetic field at each point is proportional to the square of the field intensityat that point. this is why like charges repel. for a system&nbsp; of two particles the total field energy is less (by half) when they are far apart than when their fields overlap. </p><p>integrated over infinite space the total amount of energy contained in the field of a single particle is finite and for a proton considerably less than the energy of the intrinsic rest mass. </p><p>if the charge were entirely on the surface of a sphere then half the total energy would be within 2r of the center. &nbsp;</p>