Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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 />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I note that you have not responded to this request for actual references that might support your claims.&nbsp; Is there a reason for this reluctance ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&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 <strong>regardless of how well these math formulas jive with some observation in the sky</strong>...l.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>With this statement you have separated your mode of thought from the entire scientific enterprise.&nbsp; Specific quantitative agreement between theoretical constructs and what is observed in nature is the very essence of science.&nbsp; Your assertions are utterly ridiculous.</p><p>You repeatedly misrepresent empiricism, just as above.&nbsp; You totally misrepresent the value and meaning of physical theory, with characterizations such a "math magic" and 'mysticism."&nbsp; You have evidenced total ignorance of the very nature of general relativity. and what the space-time manifold is.&nbsp; Your claims&nbsp;that this is different from what you learned&nbsp;in college and what Einstein taught are proof that you learned little in college and have no idea what Einstein taught, as shown by the many references supplied to you regarding the substance of general relativity -- including papers written by Einstein. &nbsp;You show a fear of any thing that involves&nbsp;mathematics. You promote notions, such as the energy source for the sun being an externally applied current, for which there is not only no empirical supporting evidence but for which there is clear empirical evidence to the contrary -- the measured magnetic field at the surface of the earth being one example.&nbsp; Your only counter to quantitative arguments, based on established physics, that demonstrates the fallacy of your notions is to call the arguments "magic" but never to offer a&nbsp; scientifically-based counter argument.&nbsp; When asked for references for unsupported statements of "fact", such as statements as to what is implied by general relativity, you offer nothing.&nbsp; When presented with documented facts to the contrary, you ignore them.&nbsp; When presented with data, taken from careful measurements, such as the Boomerang and CBI experiments, you dismiss it.&nbsp; When shown predictions from theoretical models that agree with that data you ignore them.&nbsp; </p><p>Your approach is no more in keeping with science than that of the inquisitors who persecuted Galileo.&nbsp; And no more informed.&nbsp; You really do need to learn some physics.&nbsp; That would probably entail learning some of that dreaded "mathematics' as well.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where's Andrew's Dead Horses when you need them.This is tedious. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I agree.&nbsp; Even I'm tired of whipping on Lambda theory at this point.&nbsp; I'll try to refocus on the topic of the thread.&nbsp; I still feel that it is an important issue.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#000080">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really, really, really, really&nbsp;miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </DIV></font></p><p>Me too!&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'>I note that you have not responded to this request for actual references that might support your claims.&nbsp; Is there a reason for this reluctance ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only book I've read by Einstein himself was "Relativity - The Special and the General theory".&nbsp; Funny but I don't recall him mentioning "inflation" or "dark energy" at all in that book.</p><p>http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039822/ref=sr_1_1/104-3049025-7971165?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211924363&sr=8-1</p><p>The rest of the authors I would have to look up after all this time and I'm at work right now and it's not very important to me. Suffice to say that DE and inflation got stuffed into GR theory long after I was introduced to the idea.</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'>The only book I've read by Einstein himself was "Relativity - The Special and the General theory".&nbsp; Funny but I don't recall him mentioning "inflation" or "dark energy" at all in that book.http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039822/ref=sr_1_1/104-3049025-7971165?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211924363&sr=8-1The rest of the authors I would have to look up after all this time and I'm at work right now and it's not very important to me. Suffice to say that DE and inflation got stuffed into GR theory long after I was introduced to the idea.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>In that case I refer you to Appendix IV, pages 134-135 in my copy, in which Einstein talks about the expansion of space.</p><p>As you have been told repeatedly, the expansion of space is independent of notions of inflation or of dark energy.&nbsp; You conintue to state that Einstein did not admit to an expansion of space, or space-time, which is clearly false, as noted above.&nbsp; Of course he did not&nbsp;talk about inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; Einstein died in 1955 and neither those theories nor the empirical data that they were developed to explain existed at that time.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With this statement you have separated your mode of thought from the entire scientific enterprise.&nbsp; Specific quantitative agreement between theoretical constructs and what is observed in nature is the very essence of science. </DIV></p><p>Sure, as long as your theoretical construct can be shown to exist in nature!&nbsp; You skipped that part.&nbsp; I can "theorize" that EM fields might have "x' effect on an ion.&nbsp; I can then "test' that idea in a controlled experiment.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your assertions are utterly ridiculous.</DIV></p><p>No, your assertion that inflation is related to gravity is ridiculous unless you can demonstrate that inflation has some effect on objects.&nbsp; If you can't do that, then stuffing inflation into GR is no better than me stuffing magic into GR.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You repeatedly misrepresent empiricism, just as above. </DIV></p><p>Excuse me?&nbsp; Pots and kettles I'm afraid.&nbsp; You can't emprically demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination.&nbsp; You can't empirically demonstrate that *any* known vector or scalar field identified to exist in emprical nature will undergo numberous exponential increases in volume while retaining a near constant density.&nbsp; You made up the whole thing!&nbsp;&nbsp; Nothing like inflation is know to exist in emprical science!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You totally misrepresent the value and meaning of physical theory, with characterizations such a "math magic" and 'mysticism." </DIV></p><p>You are misrepresenting mathematical constructs as emprical science.&nbsp; They are not one and the same thing.&nbsp; Math and a silly label are not a valid scientific substitute for emprical physics.&nbsp; If you can't get "inflation" to move a single atom in a lab, what in the world makes you think it would do anything to a whole universe?&nbsp; DE? Where can I get some to play with in a controlled experiment?&nbsp; Where does DE even come from?&nbsp; This isn't emprical physics!&nbsp; This is mathematicians gone wild, not emprical science.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't just point to auroras and claim "magnetic reconnection did it" and whip up a little math.&nbsp; He experimented with a known force of nature and showed how *electricity* did it, using standard methods of emprical science.&nbsp; When I read about how "magnetic reconnection" did it, the whole theory is one big mathematical mismodel of real world plasma, and no emprical science.&nbsp; It's the same with dark things and inflation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have evidenced total ignorance of the very nature of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>No, kid's going to school today have a general ignorance of GR, and they might therefore believe you when you claim DE and inflation are somehow related to gravity.&nbsp; I learned GR theory in the old school method when it a real physics formula, and could be emprically verified and/or falsified.&nbsp; Today's brand of "Blunder" theory isn't anything at all like GR theory as Einstein taught it. &nbsp;&nbsp; You're just stuck trying to discredit me somehow for not letting you stuff metaphysical junk into an otherwise excellent physics theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and what the space-time manifold is.</DIV></p><p>Einstein's "space-time manifold" didn't include DE or inflation. Get real.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Your claims&nbsp;that this is different from what you learned&nbsp;in college and what Einstein taught are proof that you learned little in college and have no idea what Einstein taught, as shown by the many references supplied to you regarding the substance of general relativity -- including papers written by Einstein. &nbsp;You show a fear of any thing that involves&nbsp;mathematics.</DIV></p><p>This has ultimately nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics, what I know about mathematics, what I was taught about mathematic, etc.&nbsp; GR never included DE up until maybe 15 years ago. GR never included inflation either.&nbsp; These are things that were "stuck to" GR theory, and don't belong in GR theory.&nbsp; It's not about whether or not your math works out, it's about whether or not you can demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination and that it has any effect on "gravity" in a controlled test.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You promote notions, such as the energy source for the sun being an externally applied current, for which there is not only no empirical supporting evidence </DIV></p><p>Baloney. The solar wind process is supporting evidence. Those multi-million degree discharges in the solar atmosphere are also evidence of this current.&nbsp; The strong magnetic field strengths we observe in that light atmosphereic plasma is evidence of this current flow.&nbsp; Your statement is absolutely false.&nbsp; Birkeland's currents have already been emprically demonstrated by satellites.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is plenty of evidence that we live in an electric universe. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but for which there is clear empirical evidence to the contrary -- the measured magnetic field at the surface of the earth being one example.</DIV></p><p>Gah!&nbsp; You've listened to nothing I've said evidently.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your only counter to quantitative arguments, based on established physics, that demonstrates the fallacy of your notions is to call the arguments "magic" but never to offer a&nbsp; scientifically-based counter argument.</DIV></p><p>I don't have to "counter prove" your claim.&nbsp; It is up to you to demonstrate that your theory is emprically distinguishable from magic. &nbsp; If I pilfer your math, you can't seem to do that.&nbsp; How is that my fault?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When asked for references for unsupported statements of "fact", such as statements as to what is implied by general relativity, you offer nothing. </DIV></p><p>GR theory doesn't *imply* anything about DE or inflation.&nbsp; What am I supposed to offer you if there is nothing to offer?&nbsp; When did Einstein say a word about "inflation"?&nbsp; Why are you stuffing that into his theory?&nbsp; When did inflation ever have any empirical effect on any object of mass?&nbsp; When did gravity ever do repulsive tricks?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When presented with documented facts to the contrary, you ignore them.</DIV></p><p>When you try to slap mathematics to magic entities, what else would you like me to do?&nbsp; Inflation doesn't exist anymore than magic inflation exists give the same mathematical formula.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When presented with data, taken from careful measurements, such as the Boomerang and CBI experiments, you dismiss it.</DIV></p><p>No, I didn't dismiss their data at all, in fact I used it to demonstrate the emisisons you're looking at have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of "surface of last reflection".&nbsp; They data is fine.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with magic or inflaiton or elves either.&nbsp; It's just data.&nbsp; I don't reject their data, just your "interpretation" of that same data.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When shown predictions from theoretical models that agree with that data you ignore them. </DIV></p><p>Of course.&nbsp; You'd do the same thing with "magic elves" if I tried to stuff them into a GR formula too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your approach is no more in keeping with science than that of the inquisitors who persecuted Galileo.</DIV></p><p>Er, no.&nbsp; You're now going to compare me to an inquisitor?&nbsp; Is there no low you won't stoop to in debate?&nbsp; Last time I looked, you were free to come and go as you please.&nbsp; How are you being persecuted exactly?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And no more informed.</DIV></p><p>The opposite is really true here.&nbsp; It's because I was "informed" about GR theory *before* your industry tried to cludge it up with metaphysical constructs that allows me to know the difference between your brand of metaphysics and Einsten's real physics formula related to gravity.&nbsp; I understand that difference whereas most of the folks you talk with are blissfully ingorant of the history of GR theory.&nbsp; You're just angry because you can't "misinform" me too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really do need to learn some physics. </DIV></p><p>Your inability to physically and emprically demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination has nothing to do with my comprehension of physics.&nbsp; You can't get inflation to move a single subatomic particle in a lab, so what makes you think it has any effect on matter? &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That would probably entail learning some of that dreaded "mathematics' as well.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The personal attacks are pointless.&nbsp; It certainly has no effect on me personally because I know better.&nbsp; I think most of the reading audience can also tell the difference between my supposed math skills, and you inability to empricallly demonstrate that inflation can move items of mass.&nbsp; There is no connection between these two things.&nbsp; Anyone can demonstrate that EM fields can move subatomic particles and atoms with a simple $20 plasma ball from Walmart. Why can't you demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination in the real world?</p><p>This debate comes back to one simple thing.&nbsp; You can't get inflation or DE to move a single atom in a lab.&nbsp; You never will be able to do so.&nbsp; You still expect me to believe you when you claim "infation did it".&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Your math formula doesn't help me one bit because I can apply that same math to magic and come up with Lambda-magic theory too. So what?&nbsp; Unless you can emprically demonstrate that inflation is distingishable from magic, your math is useless in resolving this disagreement.</p><p>Keep in mind if you have any doubts about who is right and who is wrong in this converaation there's a simple solution.&nbsp; Ask yourself which tangible physical product in your life run on "inflation" or "dark energy"?&nbsp; There isn't a single one.&nbsp;&nbsp; Guess why?&nbsp; They don't exist in nature.&nbsp; Plenty of products in your life run on electrical current, because that does exist in reality and anyone can demonstrate that fact.&nbsp;</p><p> If Lambda-CDM fans could demonstrate inflation or "dark energy" like anyone can demonstrate electricity, we wouldn't be having this dispute.&nbsp; The only reason you attack me personally DrRocket is because you can't demonstrate inflation does anything to anything in the real world, and you're mad about it.&nbsp; &nbsp; I understand your frustration, but if you asked me to verifiy that EM fields move objects of matter, I have no difficulty in doing so.&nbsp; If I could do that with inflation and DE too, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you wouldn't be so upset.&nbsp; The fact you can't do that is what ultimately upsets you.&nbsp; Oh well.&nbsp; I'm sorry that you can't show anyone in a court of law that inflation exists the way we can demonstrate that electrical currents exist.&nbsp; If DE was as prolific and widespread as&nbsp; you claim (3/4ths of the whole universe) why can't you make it do anything to even a single atom in any controlled emprical test?&nbsp; How is your inability to demonstrate your claim related to me in any way other than the fact I'm calling your bluff? </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'>In that case I refer you to Appendix IV, pages 134-135 in my copy, in which Einstein talks about the expansion of space.As you have been told repeatedly, the expansion of space is independent of notions of inflation or of dark energy. </DIV></p><p>The expansion of "spacetime" was never in dispute. &nbsp; That "DE" has anything to do with that rate of expansion is in dispute.&nbsp; Notice the difference?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You conintue to state that Einstein did not admit to an expansion of space, or space-time, which is clearly false,</DIV></p><p>Einsteins "expansion" process was limited to the speed of light and was dictated by the movements of objects that change the shape and layout of the manifold. &nbsp; You're brand of blunder theory attempt to associate something called "dark energy" with gravity, but again you failed to show that gravity is at all repulsive in nature or that DE exists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>as noted above.&nbsp; Of course he did not&nbsp;talk about inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; Einstein died in 1955 and neither those theories nor the empirical data that they were developed to explain existed at that time. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes indeed.&nbsp; There is no "emprical data" to support "dark energy". &nbsp; "DE" never accelerated anything, let alone plasma.&nbsp; EM field could drive an acceleration process in plasma, but DE never did anything to plasma in any lab ever.</p><p>You really are wasting your breath trying to "beat me into submission" by attacking my mathematical background or my physics background.&nbsp; You could easily put this debate to rest if you could only do with inflation and DE what I can do with an ordinary plasma ball. &nbsp;&nbsp; The more you attack me personally for your lack of emprical support, the more certain I am that you're show is busted.&nbsp; One physical test could end the debate and you don't have one.&nbsp;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp; I understand your frustration, but if you asked me ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm not frustrated.&nbsp; I am bemused.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not frustrated.&nbsp; I am bemused. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I'm quite bemused by the fact that every time I ask you to name a known vector or scalar field in nature that will retain near constant density while undergoing several exponential increases in volume, you run like crazy from the question.&nbsp; Ever going to answer that question for us DrRocket?&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'>Yes, and I'm quite bemused by the fact that every time I ask you to name a known vector or scalar field in nature that will retain near constant density while undergoing several exponential increases in volume, you run like crazy from the question.&nbsp; Ever going to answer that question for us DrRocket?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Vector fields don't have a volume.&nbsp; They don't have a density either, though some view the magnitude of a 2-form as flux density.&nbsp; If you can give a precise mathematical formulation of your question, I will try to provide an answer.&nbsp; It might help if you put the question in context.&nbsp;&nbsp; As it stands I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion of "spacetime" was never in dispute. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Here are your own words:</p><p><font color="#0000ff">"&nbsp;Expansion as Einstein taught it was simply a function of momentum and ,movement of objects with mass, nothing more.&nbsp; You aren't talking about his version of GR at all, nor are you talking about the "expansion" that Einstein described.&nbsp; His concept of "Expansion" was simply an "object in motion stays in motion" sort of expansion that was likely to be slowing over time due to the gravitational attraction of objects with mass.&nbsp;"</font></p><p>Apparently it was in dispute.&nbsp; Further, this notion fits your definition of "math magic" and&nbsp;"mysticisn" since this expansion has never been demonstrated in a laboratory, nor can it be since it does not occur in regions tightly bound by gravity.&nbsp; So if you do accept Einstein's version of expansion, you must logically drop your objections to observational data and to mathematically derived predictions.&nbsp; </p><p>And for at least the fifth time, I tell you that expansion of space or space-time (they go hand in hand) does not depend on either inflation or dark matter.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>"So why would these regions be any cooler than photons from anywhere else?"</strong><br /><br />Electromagnetic waves that are redshifted have less energy.<br /><strong><br />They are measureing photons on some wavelength however."</strong><br /><br />Indeed.&nbsp; Redshift occurs throughout the entire spectrum.<br /><strong><br />"Wouldn't all the photons experience expansion and accelation?&nbsp; Why do these specific photons lose more energy than any other photons?"</strong><br /><br />All photons are subject to redshift and I don't believe redshift values vary from one end of the spectrum to another.&nbsp; In other words, redshift doesn't have a bias.&nbsp; The specific photons you are speaking of (I assume the CMB) don't lose more energy than any other electromagnetic wave.&nbsp; It just so happens the specific tools used to do the measuring are finely tuned to focus on a very small portion of the microwave range of the spectrum.<br /><strong><br />"Um, wouldn't they lose energy too as they moved away from the higher density mass after they passed by the mass?"</strong><br /><br />Yes, but you are focusing only on doppler redshift.<br /><strong><br />"I'm confused as to why an area of low density mass would have any net effect on the overall redshift."</strong><br /><br />Cosmological and gravitational redshift.&nbsp; From one end of the void to the other, the wave will experience more redshift.&nbsp; Local regions of space, the doppler effect is the predominant mechanism for redshift.&nbsp; Over large scales, cosmological redshift is the major player.&nbsp; Given enough mass over large enough distances, the photon tends to maintain or gain momentum and thus these regions appear hotter or 'redder' on the graphics you see.&nbsp; Less mass, the cosmological redshift is more pronounced than regions with more mass.&nbsp; Also keep mind that as the photon is leaving an area of mass it is climbing out of a gravity well and will succumb to gravitational redshift.&nbsp; So, in the center of these voids, you combine factors cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift, and you get your cold spots.<br /><strong><br />"There is no logical reason to believe that these background photons should be cooler in a region of less mass."</strong><br /><br />I'm sure I didn't explain as well as a professor might, but the logical reasons are there.<br /><strong><br />"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"."</strong><br /><br />I think this is probably beyond my scope of understanding, but from what I gather is that at the time of the scattering, the deviations are due, also, to gravitational redshift.<br /><strong><br />"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."</strong><br /><br />I see the point you are trying to make and it is valid if you remove the values of redshift to achieve what the apparent magnitude is using optical telescopes, but these aren't the observations being made nor are they relevant.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So if you do accept Einstein's version of expansion, you must logically drop your objections to observational data and to mathematically derived predictions.&nbsp; And for at least the fifth time, I tell you that expansion of space or space-time (they go hand in hand) does not depend on either inflation or dark matter.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not sure if it was this thread or the other one discussing 'spacetime'.&nbsp; I believe I mentioned something to the effect that if mass affects spacetime and spacetime affects matter, then it must be something physical and I asked for a gram of it so I can test it in a lab.&nbsp; Or might it be nothing more than a mathematical description of observed phenomena in the universe. </p><p>I got no response. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </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>One positive aspect of this discussion has been the opportunity to learn more about the work of Hannes Alfven.&nbsp; I have now read quite a few of his original papers.&nbsp; I had two fundamental, and related objectives in reading them.&nbsp; First, I wanted to gather enough information to determine whether purchasing his book <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics </em>would be a useful expenditure.&nbsp; I also wanted to determine if Alfven was a well-rounded competent physicist or someone who gifts were limited to magnetohydrodynamics.&nbsp; Even beyond that, I&nbsp;was concerned by the representations of his theories that I have seen in this forum and elsewhere on the internet, and I wanted to determine in my own mind if Alfven simply unconventional or if he was a&nbsp;wacko who happened to have a moment of brilliance.</p><p>I have now determined that his insight into plasma behavior was quite extraordinary and therefore that his book would make a useful addition to my library.&nbsp; I have&nbsp;placed an order for the book.</p><p>My purchase decision is based on my review of several of his papers.&nbsp; I found that his grasp of basic physics is such that he can discuss physical theories in a competent manner and can formulate his views precisely using the mathematical language of classical physics.&nbsp; His statements, in the papers that I have read, are quite consistent with classical physics.&nbsp; I do find some of his notions, notably his idea of an ambiplasma of matter and antimatter to be inconsistent with what is observed empirically, but I find no contention that this matter generates currents that power the stars and our Sun.&nbsp; I can separate&nbsp;his unproven and likely invalid&nbsp;notions from his more well-founded ideas regarding plasma behavior and thereby extract useful insight.&nbsp; </p><p>I find a stark contrast between the writings of Hannes Alfven and the image I had formed based on the words of Michael Mozina.&nbsp; He is able to formulate his notions precisely, and can use elementary mathematics (including vector analysis) to describe the phenomena of which he speaks.&nbsp; He limits his use of terms like "mythical" and "magical" to specific phenomena which argues persuasively may not occur in nature. He is precise in describing the specific phenomena to which he objects.&nbsp; In particular he objects to the notion of "freezing" of magnetic fields in the body of plasma,and his position is in keeping with Maxwell's electrodynamics.</p><p>Alfven seems to be a solid physicist, albeit an unconventional one.&nbsp; He seems to be very intuitive. I don't see him as an outstanding theorist in the mold of an Einstein, Feynman, Schwinger, Chandrasekhar, or Weinberg.&nbsp; But he was clearly outstanding in understanding the behaviors of plasma as typically encountered in electrical engineering applications.&nbsp; He was perhaps a bit out of his depth in extending laboratory experiments to astrophysical environments, but&nbsp;his opinions in those matters still deserve a fair hearing.&nbsp; He was careful in formulating his theories.&nbsp; There is enough substance in his writings for one to make a reasoned decision to accept or reject them.&nbsp; He has rationale for his opinions, and he defends that rationale through application of classical physics.&nbsp; One can understand his assumptions and accept or reject them based on real physical data, some of which was not available during Alfven's lifetime.&nbsp; I think he would be utterly horrified to hear his name associated with the notions of the Electrical Universe put forth by Mr. Mozina and others at various internet sites.&nbsp; He was a maverick, but he was not a nut.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>You know DrRocket, after that last post about Hannes Alfven, and how you ordered his book, I could almost kiss you.&nbsp;&nbsp; You'll enjoy the light side, trust me. </p><p>I think it would be worthwhile for me to simply keep my mouth shut for awhile on this particular topic, let you get the book and then I think we can have a great discussion on this topic.&nbsp; I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss his actual ideas, and you can set us straight on the finer points of his theories.</p><p>FYI, I apply the empirical song and dance routine exactly the same way to plasma physics as I do to any other theory under the sun.&nbsp; I am therefore also very leary of ambiplasma concepts.&nbsp; IMO it would be hypocritical of me to simply "put faith" in any concept Alfven puts forth without some sort of emprical support in a lab.&nbsp; I think even he would admit that this would be a "wise" way to go.&nbsp; I don't put much faith in ambiplasma, and I haven't forgotten how to say "I don't know" as it relates to cosmology, so "I dont know" where the circuit originates or terminates, I just know I can observe it's effects on nature.</p><p>If you don't mind, I'd like to kick back for awhile, wait until you've read some of his book and see where that takes us.&nbsp; I have posted a link to the work of Kristian Birkeland, and IMO it's also well worth the reading.&nbsp; He was no "nut" either. &nbsp;&nbsp; It's an 156 megabyte download, but it's free, and it's the best bit of empirical science that I have ever seen.&nbsp;</p><p> Even I would happily agree that it would be "better" to learn EU theory from Birkeland and Alfven rather than a bunch of EU "rookies" on the internet.&nbsp;&nbsp; My personal introduction to EU theory took place only a few years ago, but I can tell you one thing already.&nbsp; Once you come over to the empirical "light" side of electrical unvierse theory/plasma cosmology theory, you'll never see the universe the same way ever again.&nbsp; It's worth every penny of what you'll spend on that book.</p><p>Here by the way is that link to Birkeland's published works.&nbsp; It is a huge (156 MB) download, so I wouldn't even try it without a high speed connection.&nbsp; I think you'll be impressed with Birkeland's grasp of mathematics, his lab work and his field work as well.</p><p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</p><p>IMO Birkeland and Alfven were every bit the equal to Einstein and Maxwell, etc.&nbsp; My personal favorite is probably Birkeland.&nbsp; He did it all, the math, the lab work and the field work too.&nbsp; The field work involved taking measurements in some of the harshest environments on Earth.&nbsp; He was definitely my favorite of the bunch.&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'>Here are your own words:"&nbsp;Expansion as Einstein taught it was simply a function of momentum and ,movement of objects with mass, nothing more.&nbsp; You aren't talking about his version of GR at all, nor are you talking about the "expansion" that Einstein described.&nbsp; His concept of "Expansion" was simply an "object in motion stays in motion" sort of expansion that was likely to be slowing over time due to the gravitational attraction of objects with mass.&nbsp;"Apparently it was in dispute.&nbsp; Further, this notion fits your definition of "math magic" and&nbsp;"mysticisn" since this expansion has never been demonstrated in a laboratory, nor can it be since it does not occur in regions tightly bound by gravity.&nbsp; So if you do accept Einstein's version of expansion, you must logically drop your objections to observational data and to mathematically derived predictions.&nbsp; And for at least the fifth time, I tell you that expansion of space or space-time (they go hand in hand) does not depend on either inflation or dark matter.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have tried now on serveral occasions to set you straight on the finer points of my objects to "dark energy" and how it relates to GR theory.&nbsp; I'm going to try one more time since you still don't seem to "get it".</p><p>I was raised in "old school" physics and "old school" GR theory as Einstein taught it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm well aware that "spacetime" can "expand" as the physical objects of matter and the objects that make up spacetime "expand", spread out, and the spacetime manifold that surrounds these physical objects expands accordingly. &nbsp;&nbsp; I'm fully understand that expansion occurs as a function of momentum. &nbsp; That was never a point of disagreement between us, but for some reason you seem to think I have a problem with "expansion". That's not the case.</p><p>What I object to is stuffing "dark energy" into that process.&nbsp; The "expansion" that Einstein describes is specifically and finitely limited to the speed of light.&nbsp; There is no possibility that objects of mass can move faster than light, so the spacetime continuum that Einstein describes could never expand a superliminal speeds.&nbsp; The objects that make up the manifold can't travel that fast. &nbsp;</p><p>Even in a pure vaccum there is only a "zero" amount of pressure.&nbsp; There is no such thing as a negative pressure energy density.&nbsp; It's a mathematical construct that has no counterpart in physical reality. &nbsp; The term "dark energy" is not even related to GR theory unless you try to turn gravity into something it is not.&nbsp; Gravity doesn't "push" anything. &nbsp; The manifold always warps toward the mass objects, not away from them.&nbsp; The whole idea of trying to stuff an unidenfied flying repulsive force into GR theory is well "repulsive" to me. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I don't have any trouble with manifold expansion as the objects inside spacetime coast away from each other at subliminal speeds as Einstein described it.&nbsp; I have no confidence that "dark energy" is even related to gravity, even assuming such a thing is found.&nbsp; I therefore lack any confidence that any math you might create with a hacked GR theory that now does push-me-pull-you tricks is in any way related to "physics" or "gravity theory".&nbsp; IMO it's nothing more than a very weird curve fitting excersize with imaginary forces of nature, nothing more.&nbsp; You would have exactly the same reaction if I stuffed "magic energy" into those same mathematical equation and tried to tell you that magic energy did it. &nbsp; It's not that I have any problem with "expansion" of objects which expands the spacetime manifold.&nbsp; I simply object to you tossing in something completely different into that process.&nbsp; "Space" isn't defined by GR theory, only "spacetime".&nbsp; That manifold is created by the objects in spacetime.&nbsp; It can only expand as the physical objects&nbsp; expand.&nbsp; Physical objects are limited to the speed of light.&nbsp;&nbsp; Superliminal expansion is not possible in standard GR, and you've never demonstrated that GR needs "fixed" to begin with, let alone that it is improved with "dark energy". &nbsp;</p><p>Are we clear on this point yet?&nbsp; I'm really struggling to get you to see the difference between expansion as Einstein described it, and your inclusion of "dark energy" into that expansion process.&nbsp; I've got no beef with expansion, just a beef with your claim that DE in any way influences that expansion process.&nbsp; If you could emprically demonstrate that DE had some influence on the distance between two objects in a controlled experiment I'd feel quite differently.&nbsp; Since you can't do that, I have no confidence in your claim that DE somehow influences any sort of expansion of objects made of mass.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Are we clear on this yet?&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.&nbsp;&nbsp;Are we clear on this yet?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><br />&nbsp;Not at all.&nbsp;I beieve that you have clearly rejected the expansion of space-time consistent with Hubble's Law.&nbsp; You also continue to insert the notions of inflation and dark energy which are not necessary for the basic notion of expansion of the universe.&nbsp; For purposes of the discussion at hand inflation and dark energy are completely irrelevant.</p><p>Either you accept the expansion of&nbsp;the space-time manifold consistent with Hubble's Law or you do not.&nbsp; This is a yes or no proposition.</p><p>If the answer is yes, then you must also accept the logical implications that, in principle, general relativity admits the possibility of superluminal recession speeds.&nbsp; This is simply a result of recessional speeds being proportional to distance.&nbsp; If an object is sufficiently far away, the recessional speed can be arbitrarily high.&nbsp; General relativity places no limit on recessional speed of this sort.&nbsp; It only limits speed of objects in local coordinates.&nbsp; That is just the way it is formulated.</p><p>Or you may&nbsp;answer&nbsp;no, in which case you do not accept the expansio&nbsp;of the space-time manifold.&nbsp; In this case your position is not consistent with that of Einstein.&nbsp; That does not necessarily make your position incorrect.&nbsp; It does place you at odds with general relativity. </p><p>Those are the only two choices.&nbsp; You cannot have some of one position and some of another.&nbsp; They are logically inconsistent.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmological and gravitational redshift.&nbsp; From one end of the void to the other, the wave will experience more redshift.&nbsp; Local regions of space, the doppler effect is the predominant mechanism for redshift.&nbsp; Over large scales, cosmological redshift is the major player. </DIV></p><p>I think you're going to have to clarify this part for me just a bit.&nbsp; I'm getting a weird feeling that you're trying to sneak "dark energy" into this redshift process somehow.&nbsp; What exactly do you mean by suggesting that the redshift will change from end of the void to the other?&nbsp; If there is nothing in the void acting on the photon, what will cause it to change it's redshift from one end of the void to the other?&nbsp; Wouldn't it stay exactly the same from one end of the void to the other if the redshift is related to the speed of the emitting distant object?</p><p>You touched on a key point in your response that I need to checkout.&nbsp; You suggested that this redshift effect is pretty much the same for all the wavelengths (or close anyway).&nbsp; If the redshifting effect is directly related to speed and distance, then I would expect that all the wavelengths would show a similar amount of redshift.&nbsp; If it's not necessarily a function of a speed/distance then we might expect to see redshift variations between various wavelengths.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've always assumed it was uniform across all wavelengths as you suggested, but now that you mentioned it, that is something I've always taken for granted, not something I can say is fact.&nbsp; I'll have to check that out a bit.</p><p>&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'>&nbsp;Not at all.&nbsp;I beieve that you have clearly rejected the expansion of space-time consistent with Hubble's Law. </DIV></p><p>Let's try it this way:</p><p>Did Einstein reject the expansion of space-time consistent with Hubble's law?&nbsp; If Einstein did not reject it, did he include any type of "dark energy" in his explanation of that expansion process?&nbsp; If he agreed with expansion and he didn't suggest that dark energy had anything to do with it, why should I believe that DE has anything to do with expansion?</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'>Let's try it this wayid Einstein reject the expansion of space-time consistent with Hubble's law?&nbsp; If Einstein did not reject it, did he include any type of "dark energy" in his explanation of that expansion process?&nbsp; If he agreed with expansion and he didn't suggest that dark energy had anything to do with it, why should I believe that DE has anything to do with expansion? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; Let's try it this way.</p><p>Pick YES or NO.</p><p>EDIT ;&nbsp; This is not a trick question.&nbsp; No matter which one you choose you have made no statement whatever regarding dark energy or dark matter.&nbsp; They are totally irrelevant to this part of the discussion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; Let's try it this way.Pick YES or NO.EDIT ;&nbsp; This is not a trick question.&nbsp; No matter which one you choose you have made no statement whatever regarding dark energy or dark matter.&nbsp; They are totally irrelevant to this part of the discussion. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh for goodness sake.&nbsp; I accept expansion.&nbsp; I lack belief that dark energy has any effect whatsoever on that expansion process. Why is that so difficult to understand? </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'>Oh for goodness sake.&nbsp; I accept expansion.&nbsp; I lack belief that dark energy has any effect whatsoever on that expansion process. Why is that so difficult to understand? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It is not hard to understand.&nbsp; It is perfectly clear.&nbsp; It is the first time that you have made a clear statement on the subject.</p><p>I have said many times that dark energy is not necessary for expansion.&nbsp; You need not accept dark energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;A lot of people have reservations about it.&nbsp; I am one of them.&nbsp; I simply don't know if there is such a thing as dark energy or not.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>"Wouldn't it stay exactly the same from one end of the void to the other if the redshift is related to the speed of the emitting distant object?"</strong><br /><br />Doppler redshift is what you are describing.&nbsp; Once the photon is emitted from an object that has proper motion through space, it is redshifted.&nbsp; It doesn't change over distance.&nbsp; It will have the same redshift from beginning of emission to reception by the observer.&nbsp; It is solely dependent on velocity and is only an apparent change based on the observer.&nbsp; As long as the velocity remains constant, so will the redshift no matter my distance.<br /><br />Cosmological redshift is a physical change.&nbsp; The electromagnetic wave is actually stretched depending on the distance it has travelled.&nbsp; If i began traveling toward a highly redshifted galaxy at near the speed of light, the redshift would not instantly change because it has physically redshifted due to expansion.&nbsp; There might be a minor (possibly immeasureable) difference, but the cosmological redshift at extreme distances overwhelms any doppler effect despite your velocity through space.&nbsp; Even traversing space at near light speed, and closing the distance between you and your destination, the light would still appear redshifted.&nbsp; The cosmological redshift would only decrease as you decrease the amount the time light has had to travel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not hard to understand.&nbsp; It is perfectly clear.&nbsp; It is the first time that you have made a clear statement on the subject.I have said many times that dark energy is not necessary for expansion.&nbsp; You need not accept dark energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;A lot of people have reservations about it.&nbsp; I am one of them.&nbsp; I simply don't know if there is such a thing as dark energy or not.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, we both seem to have rational reservations about the existence of DE and ambiplasma, and we both seem to agree that no form of "magnetic reconnection" happens outside of a current sheet of moving charged particles.&nbsp; If I can just wait around and not offend you again until you've read some of Alfven's book, I might just be able to get you to vocalize some reservations about inflation and "dark matter" too. &nbsp; I'm really not the SOB you seem to think I am DrRocket.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure once you've read Alfven's book that you and I are going to get along famously.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></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'>...and we both seem to agree that no form of "magnetic reconnection" happens outside of a current sheet of moving charged particles.&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have not signed up to this notion yet.&nbsp; I am not even quite sure what it means, or how it might be derived from Maxwell's equations.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>