Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Table I bottom row. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I believe that term "possible" highly depends on how one defines the term.&nbsp; Here are a couple of quotes from Alfven that describe his feelings on this subject.</p><p>Plasma Cosmology - Page 29&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.&nbsp; All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention . This does not mean that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because <strong>there exist some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for <em>"</em><u>current sheet acceleration</u></strong><u> .</u><em>"</em> </DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; As long as that particular term was being used to describe current sheet particle acceleration and electrical reconnection as Hill was doing at the time, I think Alfven had no problem with the term "magnetic merging". The WIKI article however claims that "magnetic reconnection" can occur *without* a current sheet, which is something that Alfven specficially rerfered to as psuedoscience.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&ldquo;Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging<br />mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all<br />this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously<br />erroneous concept.&nbsp; I was na&iuml;ve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: &lsquo;merging&rsquo; . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.&rdquo;</DIV></p><p>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf</p><p>I gather from reading his various papers and books that the meaning of the term "magnetic merging" began to change over time, and he began to get upset by it.&nbsp; Alfven seemed to have no problem with the idea that typical current sheet acceleration was a type of "magnetic merging" the way Hill was describing the energy release process, but once the term took on a new and different meaning, he attacked the idea, and he called it pseudoscience.&nbsp; Note the word "NO" in the second column of that same table.&nbsp; The magnetic field and particle flow lines in the plasma sheet can indeed "merge" in the sense that the particles that make up the current flow in the current streams can merge and "reconnect" and interact in a standard particle physics manner, but the idea that we can exclude the current flow entirely and achieve the same energy release was absolutely appauling to him.&nbsp; He rejected the WIKI version of "magnetic reconnecton" altogether.&nbsp; He rejected the idea of an energy release process that might occur in the absense of a current sheet.&nbsp; Note that the only controlled physical "tests" done thus far of the "magnetic reconnection" theory have involved the intentional creation of current sheets inside the plasma.&nbsp; The current sheet is the energy release point in these experiments, and the "reconnection" process that is occuring is kinetic and electrical in nature, not "magnetic". &nbsp;</p><p>My best guess is that at the time he wrote that first paper, the term "magnetic merging" was associated with current sheets as Hill was doing, and that type of "magnetic merging" is indeed "possible" according to Alfven.&nbsp;&nbsp; The type of "magnetic reconnection" that WIKI describes however is a horse of a completely different color, even though the name is similar.&nbsp; The ideas are ultimately very dissimilar since one involves a current sheet where particle and electrical "reconnection" is going on, and the other presumably requires no current sheet whatseover.&nbsp; That later idea is the one that Alfven criticised regularly and mercilessly in his work. &nbsp;&nbsp; He takes several shots at the idea in his book Cosmic Plasma.&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Much effort has been spent on attempts to explain solar flares by a magnetic field formalism (a survey of these efforts is given by Heyvaerts (1979)) . For reasons given in Chapter I (see Figure I .4), such an explanation is inadequate . To be more specific, since the boundary conditions are not correctly introduced in the magnetic merging<br />theories of solar flares, these theories cannot explain the rapid concentration of the entire circuit's inductive energy at the point of disruption . On the other hand, there are theories which account for a solar flare as a disruption of a current, but attribute the disruption to instabilities other than exploding double layers . Such theories deserve to be taken seriously .</DIV></p><p>This particular quote takes a direct shot at the claim that the Earth's aurora are in any way related to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The exploding double layer is in fact the source of these high speed particle discharges, not any form of magnetic field line reconnection. The astromers seem to treat the light atmospheric plasma of the sun the way you might try to treat heavy, non flowing plasma, as though it's not moving hardly at all. &nbsp; Quite the opposite is true in light plasma.&nbsp; The coronal loops are composed of current carrying threads that can in fact "merge" in a kinetic and electrical and physical manner.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not a form of "magnetic" energy transfer however, it's a simple explosion of energy inside of a double layer of current carrying plasma.&nbsp; The notion that any form of magnetic field line reconnection can take place without a current sheet is simply untenable as Scott very clearly explains from the perspective of electrical engineering. Alfven was more of particle physics guy and saw everything as moving particles driven by electrical forces.&nbsp; The magnetic fields simply wind around the current flows inside the plasma.&nbsp; There is no such thing as Wiki's descrirption of high speed particle release without plasmas collisions in a current sheet.</p><p>"Magnetic reconnection" is no more responsible for high energy solar observations as magnetic reconnection is responsible for the high temp plasma releases inside thunderbolts in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; The current flow inside the plasma is doing the work, not the magnetic field.&nbsp; The mainstream is trying to put the cart before the horse and suggest that the magnetic field raises the temperature inside the plasma to millions of degrees inside that same thunderbolt.&nbsp; That's ridiculous.&nbsp; It' s like me claiming that the high speed electrons that are flowing inside the copper wires of my house are created by "magnetic reconnection" inside the wire only because I can observe a strong magnetic field around the wire.&nbsp; The strength of the magnetic field in the light atmospheric plasma is directly related to the amount of current this is flowing through the plasma. &nbsp; Mainstream astronomy seems to want to sterilize and simplify the whole "electromagnetic process" into a "magnetic" process, but there is kinetic energy and current flow occuring in the plasma that they are simply ignoring. &nbsp; The moment one utters the term "current flow" the mainstream publishers ignore the work because "electricity" is the one forbidden topic of astronomy.&nbsp;&nbsp; The IEEE has consistently published all kinds of EU materials over the years, but the mainstream astronomy publicatons like the APJ, Scientific American, etc, tend to filter out such articles and such explanations are never published in these mainstream channels.&nbsp; It's very frustrating and very obvious too. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; The IEEE has consistently published all kinds of EU materials over the years, but the mainstream astronomy publicatons like the APJ, Scientific American, etc, tend to filter out such articles and such explanations are never published in these mainstream channels.&nbsp; It's very frustrating and very obvious too. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I read Scotts paper, and I can agree with his quantitative statements.&nbsp; They are about what one might expect see in the first semester of an electrical engineering course on electromagnetic fields.&nbsp; To me one of the key statements is that both he and astrophysicists seem to agree that the B field is divergence-free.&nbsp; That is good, since it is one of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; I also note that his description of magnetic reconnection is consistent with a topological change in a vector field.&nbsp; And he does not reject that sort of change, so long as it is driven by a change in the current flow&nbsp;that is driving the magnetic B field. I can also agree with his assessment that plasmas are not superconductors, even if they are good conductors.&nbsp; That correctly implies that magnetic fields are not, in the very strictest sense "frozen" in plasmas.&nbsp; It may, however, mean that they are effectively shielded from all but major outside influences.&nbsp; Almost any time an effect is called non-existent that statement is wrong.&nbsp; It seems to me that his characterization of plasma physics is pretty accurate.&nbsp; In short, I tend to agree with what he says about physics, but find nothing new.&nbsp; I am astonished that a journal would publish such a paper, as it offers no new science but only seeks to criticize a community that publishes elsewhere.&nbsp; It makes me a bit worried about IEEE publication standards -- and I have been and IEEE member for many years.</p><p>What I am not prepared to accept is his characterization of what other people think.&nbsp; I took a look at the web page associated with one of this references and it seems to tell me that the "other folks" are quite aware that B fields are divergence-free.&nbsp; I think they are also aware that the source of magnetic fields is electric current.&nbsp; Perhaps the problem is that the astrophysicists, at least some of the astrophysicists, and he are not communicating very clearly.&nbsp; It is also possible that there are some astrophysicists with mistaken notions, but I cannot believe that that is the case with all or even most of them</p><p>I saw nothing in his paper that addresses current flow as a major source of stellar energy.&nbsp; I have not found any such statements in Alfven's papers as yet either.&nbsp; Where does that come from ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This particular quote takes a direct shot at the claim that the Earth's aurora are in any way related to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The exploding double layer is in fact the source of these high speed particle discharges, not any form of magnetic field line reconnection. The astromers seem to treat the light atmospheric plasma of the sun the way you might try to treat heavy, non flowing plasma, as though it's not moving hardly at all. &nbsp; Quite the opposite is true in light plasma.&nbsp; The coronal loops are composed of current carrying threads that can in fact "merge" in a kinetic and electrical and physical manner.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not a form of "magnetic" energy transfer however, it's a simple explosion of energy inside of a double layer of current carrying plasma.&nbsp; The notion that any form of magnetic field line reconnection can take place without a current sheet is simply untenable as Scott very clearly explains from the perspective of electrical engineering. Alfven was more of particle physics guy and saw everything as moving particles driven by electrical forces.&nbsp; The magnetic fields simply wind around the current flows inside the plasma.&nbsp; There is no such thing as Wiki's descrirption of high speed particle release without plasmas collisions in a current sheet."Magnetic reconnection" is no more responsible for high energy solar observations as magnetic reconnection is responsible for the high temp plasma releases inside thunderbolts in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; The current flow inside the plasma is doing the work, not the magnetic field.&nbsp; The mainstream is trying to put the cart before the horse and suggest that the magnetic field raises the temperature inside the plasma to millions of degrees inside that same thunderbolt.&nbsp; That's ridiculous.&nbsp; It' s like me claiming that the high speed electrons that are flowing inside the copper wires of my house are created by "magnetic reconnection" inside the wire only because I can observe a strong magnetic field around the wire.&nbsp; The strength of the magnetic field in the light atmospheric plasma is directly related to the amount of current this is flowing through the plasma. &nbsp; Mainstream astronomy seems to want to sterilize and simplify the whole "electromagnetic process" into a "magnetic" process, but there is kinetic energy and current flow occuring in the plasma that they are simply ignoring. &nbsp; The moment one utters the term "current flow" the mainstream publishers ignore the work because "electricity" is the one forbidden topic of astronomy.&nbsp;&nbsp; The IEEE has consistently published all kinds of EU materials over the years, but the mainstream astronomy publicatons like the APJ, Scientific American, etc, tend to filter out such articles and such explanations are never published in these mainstream channels.&nbsp; It's very frustrating and very obvious too. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You may be being too dogmatic.&nbsp; You can, for iinstance show that when a parallel=plate capacitor is charge, the enegy flow into the capacitor through the edges between the plates, essentially due to the action of the Pounting vector.&nbsp; A similar derivation applies to the source of energy ins a resistive wire.&nbsp; To see this derivation, I refer you to <em>The Feynman Lectures on Physics.</em> Now, most often people visualize the energy as coming directly from the movement of the electrons, and this does not create any problems.&nbsp; That certainly is the way one thinks about when doing circuit theory.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the source is due to the electromagnetic field, the E field and the B field acting in concert.</p><p>I still don't understand why the IEEE publishes articles like Scott's.&nbsp; While I think what he says about the physics is sound, it is also elementary.&nbsp; What he says about astrophysicists&nbsp;seems a little distorted and inflamatory.&nbsp; And Scientific American is in no way a&nbsp; scientific journal.&nbsp; It is a nice expository magazine for a general audience.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That correctly implies that magnetic fields are not, in the very strictest sense "frozen" in plasmas.</DIV></p><p>Not only are they not "frozen in", they are moving, flowing current streams in the process of doing a "Bennett Pinch" inside the plasma.&nbsp; When you look at an ordinary plasma ball, that plasma in the ball is actually more dense than the light plasma in the solar atmosphere (for the benefit of the audience, not you).&nbsp; Those "current threads" in the plasma light up because of the movements of electrons through the plasma and the movement of the plasma itself.&nbsp; If we were to crank up the voltage high enough and the current high enough we could generate Bennet Pinch processes in the plasma which release high energy photons.&nbsp; These high energy solar energy releases have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; They are current flow processes related to light plasma that creates kinetic energy filled flowing plasma threads. There's nothing "frozen" about it any more than a lightening discharge is 'frozen'&nbsp; The magnetic field is a function of the current flow, and the plasma threads of moving at relatively high speeds.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may, however, mean that they are effectively shielded from all but major outside influences.</DIV></p><p>In the sense that a tornado can be shielded from all but major outside sources, sure.&nbsp; The energy flow inside the thread pinches the plasma together.&nbsp; Crank up the flow, and you crank up the pinch effect.&nbsp; The one thing that might effect it would be for it to cross another plasma stream doing the same thing, in which case the current will take the path of least resistence and we could see sparks fly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Almost any time an effect is called non-existent that statement is wrong. </DIV></p><p>Well, in this case "magnetic reconnection" in the absense of a current sheet is "non existent".&nbsp; It's an accurate statement.&nbsp; Hannes Alfven was also quite explicit about this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems to me that his characterization of plasma physics is pretty accurate. </DIV></p><p>I thought so as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short, I tend to agree with what he says about physics, but find nothing new.&nbsp; I am astonished that a journal would publish such a paper, as it offers no new science but only seeks to criticize a community that publishes elsewhere.&nbsp; It makes me a bit worried about IEEE publication standards -- and I have been and IEEE member for many years.</DIV></p><p>The mainstream publications deserved that criticism, and much more IMO.&nbsp; The IEEE is simply voicing the concerns of a growing number of scientists that are becomming fed up with the mainstream astronomic journals.&nbsp; The mainstream is intentionally and willfully publishing misinformation related to MHD theory everytime they publish a "magnetic reconnection" article.&nbsp; They either need to hire some new editors that understand something about electrical engineering and plasma physics, or they need to stop publishing rubbish about magnetic fields making and breaking connnections and releasing energy. That is absolutely false information and it's only purpose seems to be the intential exclusion of the discussion of electrical current flow inside plasma.&nbsp; It's annoying and misleading and scientifically false.&nbsp; If someone doesn't criticize them for publishing these false things, what will make them stop?&nbsp; The IEEE is simply fulfilling a necessary function at this point because the astronomy industry is out of control and out of touch with reality.</p><p>QUOTE]I think they are also aware that the source of magnetic fields is electric current. </DIV></p><p>I disagree.&nbsp; The papers I've read seem to treat the plasma column as a 'frozen plaams' and never describe the current flow in terms of electrons moving through the plasma column which increaaes the magnetic field strength of the column.&nbsp; Instead these seem to treat the whole thing as a "magnetic" process and ignore the electron flow that is driving the process.&nbsp; &nbsp; In no way do they treat this process as a discharges process inside plasma, but rather as some kind of sterile magnetic 'pulse" of some kind in a "frozen in' column.&nbsp; It's abusd the lengths that these folks will go to in an effort to avoid mentioning the electron flow inside the plasma!&nbsp; It's aggraving to read if you know anything at all about plasma physics and electromagnetic theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; They point Rhessi at Earth and see gamma rays in electrical discharges in the atmosphere.&nbsp; They point the same equipment at the Solar atmosphere, observe gamma rays coming from the solar atmosphere, and label it "magnetic reconnection". That bogus and false and should never be published.&nbsp; Instead the APJ willingly and wrecklessly publishes anything with the words "magnetic reconnection" and absolutely nothing with the words "current flow".&nbsp; It's bizzare, and it's not an accident and it's not acceptable.&nbsp; If the IEEE doesn't bust them on this behavior, who will?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps the problem is that the astrophysicists, at least some of the astrophysicists, and he are not communicating very clearly. </DIV></p><p>I've been down to LMSAL.&nbsp; We're speaking clearly.&nbsp; The industry isn't listening or responding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also possible that there are some astrophysicists with mistaken notions, but I cannot believe that that is the case with all or even most of them.</DIV></p><p>Then show me one article from the APJ that treats a coronal loop as a current carrying thread, or the solar wind process as an electromagnetic process related to charge separation between the heliosphere and the photosphere.&nbsp; Never do they publish such things and yet all of these guys that write all this stuff about 'magnetic reconnection", certainly have the mathematical skills to do this correctly and write about the current flow and treat it as current flow.&nbsp; They never do.&nbsp; The reason they never do it is because the APJ wont' publish it!&nbsp; They'll bury it, trash the authors reputation and act like he/she is now the black sheep of the family.&nbsp; This is not an accident DrRocket.&nbsp; There's a serious problem in your industry.&nbsp; Either they are clueless about plasma physics and electricity, or they are willfully misresenting these theories in their publications and excluding alternative explanations that are based on actual physics.&nbsp; Which is it?&nbsp; Go over to BAUT now, and read their rule system and tell me that EU theory is being treated fairly by your industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I saw nothing in his paper that addresses current flow as a major source of stellar energy.&nbsp; I have not found any such statements in Alfven's papers as yet either.&nbsp; Where does that come from ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>When I was in college, the term "I don't know" was an accepted part of astronomy.&nbsp; Today astronomers act like the have the whole thing figured out to the first 3 milliseconds. They talk about the age of the unvierse and assign error bars like 120,000 years.&nbsp; They're guessing and acting like these are physicsl facts. They are not.&nbsp; We do not know how to explain most of what goes on in the universe.</p><p>I don't know how the physicsl unvierse got here.&nbsp; I'm not sure what sustains that current flow over time.&nbsp; I just know that there is a current flow and I can test for it using emprical methods of science. I know it's there because I see it's effect on Earth's aurora.&nbsp; I see it's effect on coronal loop activity.&nbsp; I see it accelerate solar wind particles and selectively accelerate He2+ over He1+ by 20 to 1!&nbsp; There are plenty of way to explain these behaviors as long as we introduce the concept of curernt flow.&nbsp; Without it, we're lost.&nbsp; Mainstreamers can't explain solar wind acceleration because they refuse to listen to Alfven, not because it has not been explained to them.&nbsp; He's explained coronal loops to them as well.&nbsp; Instead of publishing work that is congruent with MHD theory, the APJ publishes "magnetic reconnection" junk and calls it science. &nbsp; That is either willful ignorance, or willful deceipt, but it must stop and it must stop soon.&nbsp; A lot of us are loosing our patience and blaming the IEEE for voicing some of that frustration is absurd IMO.&nbsp; It's about time someone tell the APJ they need some new editors.</p><p>I really don't mind reading about all kinds of topics that I put no particuarly faith in.&nbsp; I do however resent the one sided "magnetic" presentation of the universe I keep getting from the mainstream.&nbsp; This is not a "magnetic" universe. This is an "*ELECTROmagnetic* universe.&nbsp; Current sheets "reconnect".&nbsp; Magnetic fields do not.&nbsp; Someone, *PLEASE* explain that to the APJ and the other publications that are publishing that stuff.&nbsp; It's false advertizing, it's false information, and it needs to stop now!&nbsp; The longer this goes on, the longer we wallow around in ignorance.&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection theory is based on an ignorance of MHD theory and plasma physics, and electromagentic theory.&nbsp; Sooner or later someone has to say "enough is enough".</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; I'm not sure what sustains that current flow over time.&nbsp; I just know that there is a current flow ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You&nbsp; have told me before that you have no source for the hypothetical current flow.&nbsp; I understand that. What I was asking is where in Alfven's papers I might find the hypothesis that the energy for the Sun and other stars is supplied by an outside current flow.&nbsp; I have found places where talks about ambiplasma and matter anti-matter reactions providing energy, but I have not yet found a reference to that energy being realized as a current flow that powers the stars.&nbsp; Is this or is this not a part of cosmology according to Alfven ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>I noticed your interest in another thread regarding the supernova reportedly caught on camera.</p><p>I am curioius as to the explanation for a supernova&nbsp;in an electric universe in which the star is presumably powered by an external electric current.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You&nbsp; have told me before that you have no source for the hypothetical current flow.&nbsp; I understand that. What I was asking is where in Alfven's papers I might find the hypothesis that the energy for the Sun and other stars is supplied by an outside current flow.</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure any of the papers on my website covers that specific topic in any depth.&nbsp; Chapter 3 of Cosmic Plasma, entitled "Circuits", covers the unipolor induction process in some detail, and he explains how it applies to a planet, to a sun, and even on a galactic scale.&nbsp; I would suggest you read that specific chapter to answer your questions.</p><p>I also believe that it would probably be a disservice for me to characterize Alfven's work as requiring that the majority of the electrical current flow is necessarily external in origin.&nbsp; I think his work leaves a lot of room for lots of different solar interpretatons, and IMO actually tends to favor a more "standard" solar (all plasma model) of the sun, whereas I personally tend to be more of a Birkeland pureist.&nbsp; There would be several different ways to apply Alfven's induction models to various solar model configurations for instance.&nbsp; They do however suggest that there is an external current flow that is flowing through the sun.&nbsp; How much of the total solar energy output is created locally and how much is external in origin would be open to debate in terms of Alfven's overall presentation IMO.&nbsp; If anything I would say it favors a mostly internally driven, standard solar model process.&nbsp;</p><p> Birkeland's solar modal and experiments however would tend to require that a significant portion (not necessarily all) of the electrical energy that heats the sun would necessarily be "externally" generated. &nbsp; He literally bombarded the sphere with electrons. &nbsp; In the sense that Alfven's work can be applied differently to different solar models, there is come divergence even within EU theory.&nbsp; IMO it would not be fair of me to attempt to suggest that Alfven's theories required the bulk of the current flow to be external in nature, though he seems to assume some portion is external in origin.&nbsp;</p><p> I would however say it is safe to characterize Birkeland's solar model in that way, and I tend to be a Birkeland purist in the final analysis.&nbsp; Birkeland's model however is also open to "interpretation" since it could well contain a spinning core which could create induction currents between the shell and the core.&nbsp; It could also contain a fission oriented core for that matter.&nbsp; It would be almost impossible to determine by either of their models and presentantions how much energy comes from the sun, and how much is external in origin.</p><p>It should be noted that since Alfven's death, two key peices of new information have come to light which tend to support their theories, and tend to favor some kind of extenal input into the solar system energy processes, specifically the Voyager and ACE data.&nbsp; &nbsp; The Voyager program has since demonstrated that the sun's heliosphere is not round, but rather it is deformed into the shape of a teardrop, much like the&nbsp; Earth's magnetosphere.&nbsp; This shape suggests that the heliosphere is being buffeted by charged particles from the southern polar regions.&nbsp; The same sorts of processes that apply to the Earth's magnetosphere activity would also apply to the sun's heliosphere, provided it is being bombarded by mostly negatively charged particles as in the case of Birkeland's experiments.</p><p>In the final analysis, the Sun could still produce most of it's energy locally, and the primarly influence of the charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere would tend to mostly show up in solar flares and solar wind activity.&nbsp; Ace and some other programs have demonstrated that solar wind particles are being accelerated toward the heliosphere as Birkeland's (and Alfven's) models predict, and He2+ is selectively favored over He1+ by a significant margin, just as predicted by a charge separation between the heliosphere and the photosphere.&nbsp; Birkeland's solar model also require/included a strong magnetic field, which could be a heavy, positively charged plasma or neutron material that spins rapidly inside the shell.&nbsp; If so, then an induction process between the shell and the core is likely to produce a lot of current into the system.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Alfven's theories can also be directly applied to standard solar theory and then the induction currents around the sun, and external currents flowing into the sun might only represent a small portion of the entire solar output.&nbsp; </p><p>A whole lot of different options remain on the table just based on Alfven's presentation of material.&nbsp; He seems extremely careful about leaving as many options on the table as possible.&nbsp; His tendency in his papers was to focus on some specific (single) electrical topic, like solar flare activty for instance,&nbsp; by simply treating the sun as the source of all energy.&nbsp; I think you'd have to read a lot of his material to really appreciate how careful he was to leave other options on the table, and to minimize the controversies in his papers to a single topic.&nbsp; He therefore IMO tended to slant his papers in the direction of standard solar theory, and he probably favored most of the precepts of standard solar theory.&nbsp; I couldn't really say for sure since I never met him personally, and my preference for Birkeland's solar model is based upon information from SOHO and TRACE and solar satelites that were not available to him during his lifetime. &nbsp;</p><p>Far be it from me however to insist that Alfven's work has to be interpreted in one specific way.&nbsp; That is why I think it would be best for you to invest some money and get your information straight from the Nobel prize winning horses mouth, and not from me personally. <br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I noticed your interest in another thread regarding the supernova reportedly caught on camera.I am curioius as to the explanation for a supernova&nbsp;in an electric universe in which the star is presumably powered by an external electric current. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It could simply reach a critical temperature where it becomes physically unstable, probably due to a thinning of it's plasma atmosphere over time as neutrons are constantly being pinched from the atmosphere and turned into hydrogen atoms.&nbsp;&nbsp; A star might just experience a significant change in the flow of charged particles at the heliosphere and simply "explode" from the interaction.&nbsp; In Manuel's model the small core could also reach a critcal size as it's shinks over time and simply start disintegrating inside the core at high speeds.&nbsp; Technically, standard solar models could still be applied to Alfven's basic EU theories, and a supernova might have a more "mainstream" explaination, so a lot of options would have to remain on the table. </p><p>The basic idea I hope you're getting from from me in the last few posts is that EU theory can be applied in lots of different ways, particularly depending on the solar model you happen to favor.&nbsp; If you don't like the premise that a sun generates none of it's own energy, don't begin with that assumption.&nbsp; I did not begin with that assumption either. &nbsp;</p><p>IMO the two dead give aways that some of these currents are externally driven are the face that the sun's outer atmosphere is consistently hotter than the photosphere, suggesing parictle/electrical reconnection is occuring around the whole corona and even into the light chromosphere.&nbsp; The solar wind activity is also easily explained by a charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere.&nbsp; Both of these observations suggest that some amount of energy is external in origin, but again, how much of that energy is external and how much is from an internal process remains open to subjective interpretation. &nbsp;</p><p>IMO we need to launch a lot more missions aimed at collecting this kind of in-situe information.&nbsp; Unless and until the mainstream publications stop treating electricity as the forbidden topic of astronomy, no one will even know to build the systems necesary to answer these questions.&nbsp; IMO that is the travesty of treating EU theory as some sort of parriah.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is pure phyiscs, and it is not necessarily threatening to mainstream solar theories.&nbsp; It will be ultimately threatening to concepts like DE and DM and inflation, but so what?&nbsp; Whatever the reason, the bias against EU theory must end, particularly in the mainstream publications.&nbsp; It is also clear to anyone who's paying attention that some of those publications need to hire new editors that have some understand of plasma physics theory and who know a little bit about electrical theory. &nbsp; As long as these mainstream publications keep printing "pseudo-science" (as Alfven called it) related to "magnetic reconnection", we'll be wallowing around in ignroance forever. </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'>No, they are 100% accurate.&nbsp;Now if you could just demonstrate that inflation has the emprical effect on nature in a controlled experiment that you claim it has, then you might be able to use that information to justfy your faith in inflation. &nbsp;If I simply substitude the term "magic" into your "inflation" terms and pifler your math on you, you can't claim that this is emprical evidence that magic exists, just because my magic formula fits the graph.&nbsp; You can't take an uncontrolled observation, point to the sky, conjure up some math and claim "my magic math formula did it".&nbsp; That's not emprical science, that is mathematical mythos run amuck.&nbsp;... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So you reject the Boomerang and CBI data as uncontrolled experiment ?&nbsp; That is simply absurd.&nbsp; They are careful observations of the real world.&nbsp;&nbsp;That is rather like basing your notions of paleontology, not on fossile evidence, but rather on Godzilla movies because they were created indoors in an air-conditoined environment.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you reject the Boomerang and CBI data as uncontrolled experiment ?</DIV></p><p>I don't reject the data that they collected DrRocket, I just recognize it was not a controlled experiment of anything.&nbsp; It was an information gathering process, nothing more.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is simply absurd.&nbsp; They are careful observations of the real world. </DIV></p><p>A careful observation of the real world is not a controlled experiment.&nbsp; I can observe a lightening bolt in the Earth's atmosphere and record all sorts of data about it.&nbsp; That is not a demonstration that "inflation" causes them to occur.</p><p>A control mechanism is something you can adjust in the experiment to observe the results on the experiment.&nbsp; For instance, when we were looking for neutrinos, we had identified the physical reaction that we believed "caused" them to be emitted.&nbsp; We could then construct an experiment involving a nuclear reactor that we could turn on and off, and "control" during the experiment.&nbsp; We could observe the changes in our "experiment" by modifying the control mechanism.&nbsp; In that way would could emprically demonstrate that the reactor was the emission point of the neutrinos just as we "predicted".</p><p>Show me a *controlled experiment* that shows that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is rather like basing your notions of paleontology, not on fossile evidence, but rather on Godzilla movies because they were created indoors in an air-conditoined environment. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That has to be one of the weirdest strawmen that I've ever heard of.&nbsp;</p><p>Keep in mind that I respect the work done by the Boomerang and WMAP teams.&nbsp; Without such data, we cannot begin to make heads or tails of what the universe really looks like.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I "reject" is you pointing at this data and claiiming "inflation did it" unless you can demontrate the inflation emprically exists in nature.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate that inflation is emprically real, that it emprically exists in nature, and has the emprical effect on nature you claim it has, then pointing to the sky and claiming "inflation did it", is no better than me pilfering your math, pointing to these same observations and claiming "magic did it".&nbsp; It's the fact you can't distinguish between magic math and inflation math using emprical scientific *experiments* that is the problem, not the data that's been collected.</p><p>I want to be clear again that I personally have a great deal of respect for all the folks at NASA, ESA, JPL, LMSAL and all the other organizatons that 'collect data".&nbsp; This is pure emprical physics being applied to space exploration and I respect that effort and those achievements as much as anyone else.&nbsp; What I reject is the "interepretaion' of this data, not their hard work and the data they have collected.&nbsp; I don't reject their work or their efforts.&nbsp; I reject your interpretation of what that data means.&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't reject the data that they collected DrRocket, I just recognize it was not a controlled experiment of anything.&nbsp; It was an information gathering process, nothing more.A careful observation of the real world is not a controlled experiment.&nbsp; I can observe a lightening bolt in the Earth's atmosphere and record all sorts of data about it.&nbsp; That is not a demonstration that "inflation" causes them to occur.A control mechanism is something you can adjust in the experiment to observe the results on the experiment.&nbsp; For instance, when we were looking for neutrinos, we had identified the physical reaction that we believed "caused" them to be emitted.&nbsp; We could then construct an experiment involving a nuclear reactor that we could turn on and off, and "control" during the experiment.&nbsp; We could observe the changes in our "experiment" by modifying the control mechanism.&nbsp; In that way would could emprically demonstrate that the reactor was the emission point of the neutrinos just as we "predicted".Show me a *controlled experiment* that shows that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination.That has to be one of the weirdest strawmen that I've ever heard of.&nbsp;Keep in mind that I respect the work done by the Boomerang and WMAP teams.&nbsp; Without such data, we cannot begin to make heads or tails of what the universe really looks like.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I "reject" is you pointing at this data and claiiming "inflation did it" unless you can demontrate the inflation emprically exists in nature.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate that inflation is emprically real, that it emprically exists in nature, and has the emprical effect on nature you claim it has, then pointing to the sky and claiming "inflation did it", is no better than me pilfering your math, pointing to these same observations and claiming "magic did it".&nbsp; It's the fact you can't distinguish between magic math and inflation math using emprical scientific *experiments* that is the problem, not the data that's been collected.I want to be clear again that I personally have a great deal of respect for all the folks at NASA, ESA, JPL, LMSAL and all the other organizatons that 'collect data".&nbsp; This is pure emprical physics being applied to space exploration and I respect that effort and those achievements as much as anyone else.&nbsp; What I reject is the "interepretaion' of this data, not their hard work and the data they have collected.&nbsp; I don't reject their work or their efforts.&nbsp; I reject your interpretation of what that data means.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Then apparently you reject all of the evidence for general relativity that has been developed from observational data -- the bending of starlight by the gravity of the Sun that was the first confirmation of GR and&nbsp;the correct prediction of the precessoion of the perihelion of Mercury by Einstein for instance.&nbsp;&nbsp;There may be work of which I am not aware but&nbsp;I know of no laboratory-scale experiments that validate general relativity.&nbsp; Nevertheless, it stands as one of the pillars of modern physical theory.</p><p>Your position on laboratory-scale experiments vs precise real-world observation is ridiculous.&nbsp; Interpret real-world data as you please.&nbsp; A demonstration showing agreement between that data and the predictions of a model is, in any rational evaluation, a&nbsp;point in favor of that model.&nbsp; It is not total vindication of the model, nor is any single laboratory experiment, but it is a valid contribution towards a body of evidence that could eventually be considered as verificatioin.&nbsp; To throw out such valid data as a point of evidence is not rational science.&nbsp; It is not rational anything. It is pure emotion.</p><p>The plain FACT is that this is empirical data, and it does agree with predictions of inflation.&nbsp; It therefore supports -- supports, not validates -- inflation.&nbsp; Inflation may be wrong.&nbsp; It may also be right.&nbsp; I'm sorry if this shows your statement that there is no empirical evidence for inflation to be a false statement.&nbsp; I'm sorry that being wrong about this FACT makes you angry.&nbsp; Get over it.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then apparently you reject all of the evidence for general relativity that has been developed from observational data -- the bending of starlight by the gravity of the Sun that was the first confirmation of GR and&nbsp;the correct prediction of the precessoion of the perihelion of Mercury by Einstein for instance.</DIV></p><p>Blatant strawman.&nbsp; I have no problem accepting GR theory as Einstein taught it to his student (and to me while reading his material).&nbsp; GR theory as I was taught it in college is just fine by me.&nbsp; It's your introduction of metaphysical constructs like Guth's magical 'inflation' and mystical "dark energy' into a "blunder theory" that I have no confidence in. </p><p>DrRocket, name me one vector or scalar field that is known to emprically exist in nature that will retain near constant density through multiple exponential increases in volume as you claim inflation can do?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The plain FACT is that this is empirical data, and it does agree with predictions of inflation.&nbsp; It therefore supports -- supports, not validates -- inflation.&nbsp; Inflation may be wrong.&nbsp; It may also be right.&nbsp; I'm sorry if this shows your statement that there is no empirical evidence for inflation to be a false statement.&nbsp; I'm sorry that being wrong about this FACT makes you angry.&nbsp; Get over it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is no better than me borrowing your math formulas, stuffing in magic and claiming my magic math supports the existence of magic.&nbsp; Baloney. It's mathematical mythology based on imaginary forces, nothing more.&nbsp; My magic math is not evidence that magic exists.&nbsp; Likewise your magic inflation formulas do not demonstrata that inflation has anything at all to do with 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>You'll note that the hole in the WMAP data actually blows your inflation theory out of the water in two entirely different ways.&nbsp; The fact this region is darker than the rest of the map demonstrates that these specfic photons cannot be coming from a "surface of last scattering", nor can they be just a simple artifact of universal cooling.&nbsp; If that were the case, the lack of material in this region would result in the blocking of less light, and the decreased blocking of light in this region would cause this area to be *BRIGHTER* than the surrounding areas, not darker than the surrounding areas.&nbsp; The fact this less populated region is darker than surrounding areas would suggest that these photons are an artifact that is assocated with energy output from stars and galaxies, not from a surface of last scattering.&nbsp; That big hole is actually a big problem for the surface of last scattering concept. </p><p>The fact that the mass is also not homogeously spread out as "predicted" by inflation theory also blows your inflation theory out of the water. &nbsp; Derick has shown me at least one article that suggests this issue is still under some debate but I've yet to find any paper that directly refutes the mass layout issue, so it's a bit difficult to say whether or not Derick's article has merit or it does not.&nbsp; Either way you look at it however, "inflation" theory isn't well supported by it's supernatural "predictive" abilities anymore than my magic math.&nbsp; Without any sort of emprical evidence to support your inflation theories, this magic version of Blunder theory no longer qualifies as "physics" but rather it is an act of fatih on your part.&nbsp; You don't have to be mad about it, you just have to accept that it is an act of faith on your part, not a form of emprical science or tested emprical physics.&nbsp; It's a form of imaginary phyiscs based on imagined forces that are being plugged into an imaginary math formula. </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'>This is no better than me borrowing your math formulas, stuffing in magic and claiming my magic math supports the existence of magic.&nbsp; Baloney. It's mathematical mythology based on imaginary forces, nothing more.&nbsp; My magic math is not evidence that magic exists.&nbsp; Likewise your magic inflation formulas do not demonstrata that inflation has anything at all to do with gravity. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is typical of your arguments.</p><p>1.&nbsp; It has no logical connection with the post of mine to which you are replying.</p><p>2.&nbsp; It is logically disconnected from any conceivable argument.</p><p>3.&nbsp; It is factually incorrect.</p><p>4.&nbsp; It throws out inflammatory words like "magic" land "mythical" with no justification and apparently no understanding of the issues.&nbsp; You have convinced me that your command of mathematics and physical theory is such that both of these disciplines appear to you as magic.&nbsp; Rather like the perception of a cigarette lighter&nbsp;by aboriginal people.</p><p>Of course inflation has something to do with gravity.&nbsp; It is an add-on to the standard model of cosmology and deals with general relativity.&nbsp; General relativity IS the theory of gravity.&nbsp; Now, whether inflation is correct or not is a different issue, and the jury is still out.&nbsp; There is some empirical evidence that inflation is valid, but not enough to decalare it to have been verified.&nbsp; I have explained this to you several times, with no apparent success.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>"You'll note that the hole in the WMAP data actually blows your inflation theory out of the water in two entirely different ways.&nbsp; The fact this region is darker than the rest of the map demonstrates that these specfic photons cannot be coming from a "surface of last scattering", nor can they be just a simple artifact of universal cooling.&nbsp; If that were the case, the lack of material in this region would result in the blocking of less light, and the decreased blocking of light in this region would cause this area to be *BRIGHTER* than the surrounding areas, not darker than the surrounding areas."</strong></p><p>You do realize that the brightness and darkness are nothing more than false color images use to interpret the temperature fluctuations?&nbsp; It has absolutely nothing to do with visible light.&nbsp; When photons from the CMB pass through a void, they become redshifted due to expansion and acceleration, thus losing energy and temperature... that is what they measure.&nbsp; The "brighter" or redder regions are a higher temperature due to photons gaining energy as they approach regions of higher density mass.&nbsp; That's how they determine the mass distribution and came to the conclusion that area of space may be mostly devoid of matter.</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Blatant strawman.&nbsp; I have no problem accepting GR theory as Einstein taught it to his student (and to me while reading his material).&nbsp; GR theory as I was taught it in college is just fine by me....&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>To what specific books or papers by Einstein are you referring?&nbsp; If not by Einstein then what specific books or papers and by whom ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is typical of your arguments.1.&nbsp; It has no logical connection with the post of mine to which you are replying.</DIV></p><p>It is *directly* related to what you're saying.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; It is logically disconnected from any conceivable argument.</DIV></p><p>The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it's disconected from anything. The "disconnect" is related to the fact you cannot emprically demonstrate that DE or inflation exist.&nbsp; Instead of just admitting this point, you're trying to confuse the issue the magic math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.&nbsp; It is factually incorrect.</DIV></p><p>No, it is factually correct that you cannot emprically distinguish between Lambda-CDM theory and Lambda-magic theory if I simply pilfer your math. &nbsp; That is a fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.&nbsp; It throws out inflammatory words like "magic" land "mythical" with no justification and apparently no understanding of the issues. </DIV></p><p>It only sounds "inflammatory" to you because you seem to believe there is some empirical difference between magic and inflation, or magic and dark energy.&nbsp; There isn't.&nbsp; That fact evidently bothers you personally.&nbsp; It's not my fault.&nbsp; I used the terms only to demonstrate to you how silly it is to slap mathematics to a metaphysical label.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have convinced me that your command of mathematics and physical theory is such that both of these disciplines appear to you as magic. </DIV></p><p>Inflation is in fact quite "magical".&nbsp; Name one other vector or scalar field that will retain near constant density throughout multiple exponential increases in volume?&nbsp; Name one?&nbsp; Only magic does that, </p><p>Name one force of nature that causes "space to expand" in an emprical test?&nbsp; Only magic does that too.&nbsp; When you stuff both of these things into a math formula, you end up with magic math, nothing more.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather like the perception of a cigarette lighter&nbsp;by aboriginal people.</DIV></p><p>Er, no.&nbsp; I can emprically demonstrate to them that a cirgarette lighter works and I can show them how it works and test ever part of it in a lab if they want me to.&nbsp; That is a very poor comparison I'm afraid.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course inflation has something to do with gravity.</DIV></p><p>This is ultimately a statement of faith on your part, and it is ultimately false.&nbsp; You cannot emprically demonstrate that inflation has anything at all to do with "Gravity" or that it has any effect on objects with mass.&nbsp; You simply *assumed* it has something to do with gravity, just as I might *assume* that magic has something to do with gravity.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is an add-on to the standard model of cosmology and deals with general relativity.</DIV></p><p>It is a metaphsical add on, just like 'magic'.&nbsp; If I could demonstrate that magic wasn't just a figment of my imagination, and I could demonstrate that it has some tangible, emprical effect on reality in a controlled experiment, then magic would not be a 'metaphysical add-on'.&nbsp; Since I can't do that part, it's an act of faith for me to add magic to GR theory.&nbsp; Likewise if you could emprically demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's imagination, then you it would be logical for you to associate it with GR theory somehow.&nbsp; Since you can't do that, it's not logical to try to add inflation to anything, let alone GR theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General relativity IS the theory of gravity.</DIV></p><p>Yes and gravity is an *attractive* force of nature, not a repulsive one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, whether inflation is correct or not is a different issue, and the jury is still out. </DIV></p><p>From an emprical perspective, the jury is not out, it's gone.&nbsp; Emprical physics requires emprical evidence.&nbsp; Imaginary physics is not something a jury can decide on based on emprical evidence.&nbsp; You'd lose that case the moment I asked you to show the jury how inflation has any effect on anything in the courtroom.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is some empirical evidence that inflation is valid,</DIV></p><p>This is ultimately a false statement.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that magic is associated with gravity or that inflation is assocated with gravity.&nbsp; A math formula is not an emprical validation for either of these things.&nbsp; They are "made up", and so is the math.&nbsp; I can't slap math to magic, claim it has some effect on nature, point to the sky and call that "emprical evidence" only because my magic math formula fits the uncontrolled observation!&nbsp; That's absurd.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's imagination.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but not enough to decalare it to have been verified. </DIV></p><p>Magic is neither "verified", nor "verifiable" by pointing to the sky and claiming magic did it, nifty math or no nifty math.&nbsp; The mathematical presentation is not a valid scientific substitute for an emprical test.&nbsp; I can emprically verify that EM field move plasma in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; You can't even get inflation to move a single atom in a lab, so why should I believe it would have any effect on a whole universe?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have explained this to you several times, with no apparent success.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate to you that mathematics and metaphysical labels are not a legitimate substitute for emprical testing in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; My sustitution of the term "magic" into a Lambda-CMD theory is not evidence that magic did it.&nbsp; Likewise the fact you stuff "DE" or "inflation" into a math forumula does not demonstrate that these things exist in nature, regardless of how cool the math might be, and regardless of how well these math formulas jive with some observation in the sky.</p><p>I can't stuff magic into a math formula by stuffing it into a math formula and making it fit an *uncontrolled* observation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise you can't stuff DE or inflation into a math formula and claim these things exist only because the math works out.&nbsp; Why is that so hard for you to accept? </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'>You do realize that the brightness and darkness are nothing more than false color images use to interpret the temperature fluctuations?</DIV></p><p>So why would these regions be any cooler than photons from anywhere else?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has absolutely nothing to do with visible light.</DIV></p><p>They are measureing photons on some wavelength however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> When photons from the CMB pass through a void, they become redshifted due to expansion and acceleration, thus losing energy and temperature.</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't all the photons experience expansion and accelation?&nbsp; Why do these specific photons lose more energy than any other photons?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. that is what they measure.&nbsp; The "brighter" or redder regions are a higher temperature due to photons gaining energy as they approach regions of higher density mass.</DIV></p><p>Um, wouldn't they lose energy too as they moved away from the higher density mass after they passed by the mass?&nbsp; I'm confused as to why an area of low density mass would have any net effect on the overall redshift.&nbsp; If the redshift is related to the doppler effect, how can any mass object cause that to change?&nbsp; If the photons gain energy as they approach the mass, then they lose energy as they move away from that same mass.&nbsp; Wouldn't the net result still be zero?&nbsp; I fail to understand why we wouldn't expect to see more photons from these regions since there is less mass to block any photons.&nbsp; I still fail to see how photon energy would be in any way effected by an area of lower mass. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That's how they determine the mass distribution and came to the conclusion that area of space may be mostly devoid of matter.. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I still fail to understand why any amount of "matter" would have any effect on photons coming from a "surface of last scattering" that should be at a significantly greater distance than any sort of "void".&nbsp; Any energy gained by moving toward a field of matter would be lost as it passes through that region and goes out the other side.&nbsp; Gravity would simply tug in the opposite direction as it passed by the matter in that region. </p><p>IMO the fact that this region is cooler tends to suggests that the emissions of these wavelengths are directly related to the galaxies and stars in the galaxies, thus an area with fewer stars will emit fewer of these sorts of photons. &nbsp; If these photons were related to a surface of last scattering, a missing amount of mass between here and that surface should have no effect whatsoever on the number of photons we receive, or their energy state.&nbsp; Any increase in energy as the photons approach the missing mass would be lost as it passes by the mass and is affected in the opposite direction by the tug of gravity.</p><p>There is no logical reason to believe that these background photons should be cooler in a region of less mass.&nbsp; If anything, there is less material to block the photons from behind the void, so if anything this region would be brighter and hotter, not darker and cooler than any other region. </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>Trying to have a reasonable conversation with Michael about EU is exactly like trying to have a reasoned conversation with a fundamental Christian about evolution.&nbsp; No amount of evidence can possible change their minds.&nbsp; There is no amount of evidence that can cause Michael to change his mind -&nbsp;none; he will not accept any&nbsp;possible explinations&nbsp;but his own.&nbsp; He sounds reasonable, but it is only a surface venire of reason, any close inspection of what he is saying shows someone who twist the facts, purposely misinterprets data, changes the subject, ignores difficult points and misrepresents what others have said, all to further his own beliefs.</p><p>I find his methods of discussions completely disingenuous and quite frankly most annoying.</p><p>Again the only redeaming part of this whole thread is the science based information put out primarily by&nbsp;Dr. Rocket and Derekmcd.</p><p><em><font size="1">edited to fix Derekmcd's name</font></em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Trying to have a reasonable conversation with Michael about EU is exactly like trying to have a reasoned conversation with a fundamental Christian about evolution.&nbsp; No amount of evidence can possible change their minds.&nbsp; There is no amount of evidence that can cause Michael to change his mind -&nbsp;none; he will not accept any&nbsp;possible explinations&nbsp;but his own.&nbsp; He sounds reasonable, but it is only a surface venire of reason, any close inspection of what he is saying shows someone who twist the facts, purposely misinterprets data, changes the subject, ignores difficult points and misrepresents what others have said, all to further his own beliefs.I find his methods of discussions completely disingenuous and quite frankly most annoying.Again the only redeaming part of this whole thread is the science based information put out primarily by&nbsp;Dr. Rocket and Derekmcd.edited to fix Derekmcd's name <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You know origin, when I talk about evolution with Christians, I simply ask that we all stick to emprical science and I insist that everything we talk about be focused on the emprical science aspects of the debate, and not on individuals or persons.&nbsp; </p><p>The conversations usually go extremely well at first until a disgruntled "creationist" gets involved and gets all upset about the fact that they cannot emprically justify their creation date.&nbsp; I'm realizing now that there are also Lambda-CDM creationists that also get emotionally distraut when they cannot emprically demonstrate their faith in "dark" thingies, and magic inflation, and creaton dates.&nbsp; Oh well.&nbsp; I can't change that fact, nor can I change the fact that some people get upset when they cannot justify their faith in a particular belief system with emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not my fault.&nbsp; I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings when I point out that inflation is not empirically distinguishable from magic using exactly the same math formula. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>My cosmology opinions have changed over the past three years or so.&nbsp; I'm not the one who is entrenched and emotionally attached to a single cosmology theory.&nbsp; I'm willing to entertain a range of physical theories to explain observation.&nbsp; What I am not willing to do is entertain magic theories, with magic creation dates, that cannot be justified through emprical science and empirical physics.&nbsp; If that bothers you, oh well.&nbsp; I'm not treating your creation theory any differently than any other creation theory.&nbsp; I'm not applying any special rules to your creation theory, I require you all to justify your dates emprically and based on the laws of physics. &nbsp; I'm sorry if you can't do that.&nbsp; It's really not my fault however.</p><p>In a science oriented website, I really shouldn't have to point out to y ou that this conversation isn't about individuals, it's about ideas.&nbsp; My ideas have changed over time, whereas you do not seem to be willing to reevaluate your position based strictly upon the emprical laws of nature.&nbsp; I'm sorry you feel that way, but attacking me personally for trusting in emprical plasma physics isn't going to change anything. </p><p>Empircal science cannot be manipulated.&nbsp; Either you can physically demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, and has some tangible effect on nature in a controlled experiment, or you cannot. &nbsp; You cannot. &nbsp; I'm quite sure that there are a lot of Christian creationists that would love to stuff enough magic inflation into a creation theory to arrive at a 6,000 year figure too, but in GR theory, nothing made of matter moves faster than light, and such superliminal speeds are not emprically possible.&nbsp; The bottom line here is that neither your creation events or any other creation date event that is currently on the table can be justified via emprical physics.&nbsp; If that bothers you, stop killing the messenger and open your mind and change your belief systems.&nbsp; If you want to have faith in your magic stuff, that's fine, but don't attack me personallly for pointing out to you that this is an act of faith on your part, not a physical truth.</p><p>The irony here of you equating me with a Christian creationist is that I can empricallly (physically) justify the statement that "God is the universe, and God is electrical in nature" far better than you could ever hope to justify "inflation and dark stuff did it on date X".&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas my statement evokes no forms of metaphysics (I've physically identified God), your creation event evokes 3 different kinds of metaphysical entities and is utterly unflasifiable based on any known laws of physics.</p><p>I'm afraid that you're barking up the wrong tree if you're going to blame me for trusting in science, and emprical physics.&nbsp; No amount of faith in inflation on your part justifies you attacking me personally.&nbsp;&nbsp; Get over yourself and get over me.&nbsp; This is not about either one of us.&nbsp; It's about emprical physics, vs. faith in metaphysics. </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'>You know origin, when I talk about evolution with Christians, I simply ask that we all stick to emprical science and I insist that everything we talk about be focused on the emprical science aspects of the debate, and not on individuals or persons.&nbsp; The conversations usually go extremely well at first until a disgruntled "creationist" gets involved and gets all upset about the fact that they cannot emprically justify their creation date.&nbsp; I'm realizing now that there are also Lambda-CDM creationists that also get emotionally distraut when they cannot emprically demonstrate their faith in "dark" thingies, and magic inflation, and creaton dates.&nbsp; Oh well.&nbsp; I can't change that fact, nor can I change the fact that some people get upset when they cannot justify their faith in a particular belief system with emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not my fault.&nbsp; I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings when I point out that inflation is not empirically distinguishable from magic using exactly the same math formula. &nbsp;&nbsp;My cosmology opinions have changed over the past three years or so.&nbsp; I'm not the one who is entrenched and emotionally attached to a single cosmology theory.&nbsp; I'm willing to entertain a range of physical theories to explain observation.&nbsp; What I am not willing to do is entertain magic theories, with magic creation dates, that cannot be justified through emprical science and empirical physics.&nbsp; If that bothers you, oh well.&nbsp; I'm not treating your creation theory any differently than any other creation theory.&nbsp; I'm not applying any special rules to your creation theory, I require you all to justify your dates emprically and based on the laws of physics. &nbsp; I'm sorry if you can't do that.&nbsp; It's really not my fault however.In a science oriented website, I really shouldn't have to point out to y ou that this conversation isn't about individuals, it's about ideas.&nbsp; My ideas have changed over time, whereas you do not seem to be willing to reevaluate your position based strictly upon the emprical laws of nature.&nbsp; I'm sorry you feel that way, but attacking me personally for trusting in emprical plasma physics isn't going to change anything. Empircal science cannot be manipulated.&nbsp; Either you can physically demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, and has some tangible effect on nature in a controlled experiment, or you cannot. &nbsp; You cannot. &nbsp; I'm quite sure that there are a lot of Christian creationists that would love to stuff enough magic inflation into a creation theory to arrive at a 6,000 year figure too, but in GR theory, nothing made of matter moves faster than light, and such superliminal speeds are not emprically possible.&nbsp; The bottom line here is that neither your creation events or any other creation date event that is currently on the table can be justified via emprical physics.&nbsp; If that bothers you, stop killing the messenger and open your mind and change your belief systems.&nbsp; If you want to have faith in your magic stuff, that's fine, but don't attack me personallly for pointing out to you that this is an act of faith on your part, not a physical truth.The irony here of you equating me with a Christian creationist is that I can empricallly (physically) justify the statement that "God is the universe, and God is electrical in nature" far better than you could ever hope to justify "inflation and dark stuff did it on date X".&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas my statement evokes no forms of metaphysics (I've physically identified God), your creation event evokes 3 different kinds of metaphysical entities and is utterly unflasifiable based on any known laws of physics.I'm afraid that you're barking up the wrong tree if you're going to blame me for trusting in science, and emprical physics.&nbsp; No amount of faith in inflation on your part justifies you attacking me personally.&nbsp;&nbsp; Get over yourself and get over me.&nbsp; This is not about either one of us.&nbsp; It's about emprical physics, vs. faith in metaphysics. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Just more of the same...&nbsp; You don't have a physic, math or even a science background and you demonstrate that everytime you post.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just more of the same...&nbsp; You don't have a physic, math or even a science background and you demonstrate that everytime you post.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>It's comical how it's somehow my lack of a "background" that is responsible for the fact that you can't emprically demonstrate that inflation and DE are not figments of your imagination in a controlled emprical test of concept.&nbsp; It's somehow my fault that if I pilfer your math and stuff them into Lambda-magic theory, you can't emprically differentiate between Lambda-CDM theory and Lambda-magic theory.&nbsp; It's somehow my fault that you've got gravity doing funky (unfalsifiable) push me pull you things, all the same time? &nbsp;</p><p>I wonder how long it will take before some clever Christian creationists stuffs more inflation and more DE into Lambda-CMD theory to come up with a 6000K year creation data and then goes to court to demand that his theories be taught as "emprical physics" in the classroom too?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Of course Hannes Alfven did know a little something about math, and little something about physics, and a little something about science, and he put his money on EU theory too.&nbsp; I guess amateurs and Nobel prize winning physicists can all agree that plasma physics is superior to mathematical mythos, irrespective of their scientiic background. <br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just more of the same...&nbsp; You don't have a physic, math or even a science background and you demonstrate that everytime you post.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />Where's Andrew's Dead Horses when you need them.</p><p>This is tedious.</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>