Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh for goodness sake.&nbsp; I accept expansion.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If this is true, then you must also accept superluminal expansion.&nbsp; If it was bound by special reativity we would observe the high redshift of distant superclusters to be completely different.&nbsp; Considering redshift is exactly inversely proportion to it's distance, they can not be bound by special relativity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"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?"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.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. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>If we assume for the sake of argument that both types of redshift occur exactly as you describe, I still don't see how either type of redshift is related to the amount of matter in various locations.&nbsp; It seems to me that both forms of redshift (Doppler and Comsmological) would still occur naturally and would be uneffected by any sort of decrease in mass density around any point in the photon's path.&nbsp; I still don't see how your void could result in a noticeable cool spot in the WMAP data.&nbsp; The cosmological redshift should only be dependent upon distance, and any doppler redshift would come from a surface of last scattering which would presumably be traveling at a uniform speed.&nbsp; Where does the photon lose any excess energy inside the void? What is the physical process that creates that cool spot? &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 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. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Ok. I guess I'll have to wait until you've read a few Chapters from Alfven's book and we can discuss it then.&nbsp; Keep in mind that a current sheet of moving charged particles that "reconnects" involves charge attraction/reconnection and kinetic energy transfers of energy. That kind of "reconnection" is viable.&nbsp; Without a current sheet however, no "magnetic reconnection" will occur or could occur because magnetic fields do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. Only charged particles can make and break connections, not magnetic fields. </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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where does the photon lose any excess energy inside the void? What is the physical process that creates that cool spot? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Gravitational redshift.&nbsp; As the wave leaves an area of higher density into an area of lower density it loses energy.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If this is true, then you must also accept superluminal expansion.&nbsp; If it was bound by special reativity we would observe the high redshift of distant superclusters to be completely different.&nbsp; Considering redshift is exactly inversely proportion to it's distance, they can not be bound by special relativity. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm afraid that depends entirely on wihether or not one buys into the inflation scenario, and I do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Long, slow, consistent acceleration is something I'd consider.&nbsp; Superluminal expansion however is a horse of an entirely different color IMO. </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'>Gravitational redshift.&nbsp; As the wave leaves an area of higher density into an area of lower density it loses energy.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>How? </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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Special relativity gives us time dilation and length contraction.&nbsp; The equivalence principle states that the acceleration felt by a stationary object within a gravity well is equivalent to an object being accelerated through space.&nbsp; A photon on earth (as viewed by an observer outside the well) will experience time dilation and the corresponding length contraction.&nbsp; As it leaves the gravity well, the lenth of its ruler expands, thus the frequency decreases while the wavelength and redshift increase as it approaches the observer.</p><p>You claim to understand Relativity, so I'm curious about the question.&nbsp; Are you trying to lead me somewhere and make a point?&nbsp; If so, just get it over with.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Special relativity gives us time dilation and length contraction.&nbsp; The equivalence principle states that the acceleration felt by a stationary object within a gravity well is equivalent to an object being accelerated through space.&nbsp; A photon on earth (as viewed by an observer outside the well) will experience time dilation and the corresponding length contraction.&nbsp; As it leaves the gravity well, the lenth of its ruler expands, thus the frequency decreases while the wavelength and redshift increase as it approaches the observer.You claim to understand Relativity, so I'm curious about the question.&nbsp; Are you trying to lead me somewhere and make a point?&nbsp; If so, just get it over with. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Oh come now.&nbsp; You know you like the suspense.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>I'm laying low today so I'll keep you in suspense for a little longer.&nbsp;&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Here's a great example of the bias I'm talking about:</p><p>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25523</p><p align="left"> <font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Using the Smithsonian-developed X-ray Telescope (XRT) aboard the Hinode sun-watching satellite, astronomers saw <strong>a spiral (helical) <u>magnetic </u>structure unwind</strong> as it left the Sun during the CME. Such unwinding can release energy as the magnetic field goes from a more twisted to a less twisted configuration, thereby helping to power the eruption.</DIV></font></p><p align="left"><br />Emphasis mine.&nbsp; Note that they are describing a simple Birkeland current where the electrical current and the magnetic field that surrounds the current flow cause the plasma to wind around in a helix.&nbsp; This is *not* simply a "magnetic" structure, it's an *ELECTROmagnetic* phenomenon and contains a great deal of current flow.&nbsp; The shape is no shock to anyone who's studied plasma physics, and it's shape is directly related to the current flow inside the plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; These kinds of statements are just plain misleading.</p> <p align="left"> <font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hours later, XRT revealed an inflow of material toward a feature that appears as a bright line--actually an object known as a current sheet seen edge-on. A current sheet is a thin, electrified sheet of gas where oppositely directed magnetic field lines annihilate one another in a process known as magnetic reconnection.</DIV></font></p><p align="left">BZZZT!&nbsp; A current sheet is an electrified sheet of plasma where oppositely charged particles physically "reconnect" inside the plasma.&nbsp; There is nothing "magnetic" about the reconnection process inside of a current sheet, it's purely a kinetic energy/electrical reconnection process. &nbsp; The mention of a current sheet by name was almost a good sign in the sense they actually used the term "current sheet" in the article, but the fact it's followed by a blatently false statement about the nature of a "current sheet" is ridiculously frustrating!&nbsp; There is no "magnetic reconnection" going on inside of a current sheet.&nbsp; There are only 'particle collisions' and "eletrical reconnections" occuring inside of a current sheet.&nbsp;&nbsp; That magnetic reconnection statement was pure misinformation.</p><p align="left"><font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The extended observations from XRT show that magnetic fields flow in toward the current sheet for many hours after the eruption, progressing first toward the sheet and then down to the sun's surface.</DIV></font></p><p align="left">Well, that "magnet field flow" is caused by the current flow!&nbsp; Come on!&nbsp;&nbsp; How can these statements even be from a place of ignorance?&nbsp; If you know that there is a current sheet going on, and you know magnetic fields are directly related to current flow in light plasma, how can you not connect the dots and notice that this is a "current driven event"?&nbsp; The current sheet is the "reconnection" point alright, but it's a particle reconnection and electrical reconnetion process, not a "magnetic" one.&nbsp; These are not sterile magnetic phenomenon, they are current driven phenomenon, each and every one of them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">Computer models of CMEs predict such movements of magnetic field lines, but observing them has proven difficult. The unique positioning of this CME on the sun's limb allowed astronomers to measure those motions.</DIV></font></p><p>So let me guess.&nbsp; Now that observations matched their predictions of "magnetic field lines" inside the plasma, they're going to claim this is somehow evidence that "magnetic reconnection did it" inside of a current sheet !?!?!?!?</p><p>Doesn't anyone at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics know anything about electrical theory or plasma physics? Did any of them bother even reading Alfven's work on MHD theory?&nbsp; I get the distinct feeling from these articles that either the folks at this organization have never read Alfven's work, or they are simply misrepresenting it with the express intent of eliminating the word "electricity" altogether. &nbsp; Hoy Vey.&nbsp;</p><p>That helix structure in a current sheet is called a "Birkeland Currrent".&nbsp; Would someone please explain that to these folks?&nbsp;&nbsp; Would someone please explain that this is an ELECTROmagnetic effect, not simply a "magnetic" one?&nbsp; GRRRRRRRRR.</p><p>The increadible lengths that this industry goes to in an effort to avoid using the term "electricity" is absolutely mind boggling.&nbsp; These are called "electrical discharges" folks.&nbsp; We observe them here in the Earth's atmosphere every single day.&nbsp;&nbsp; No other known, naturally occuring atmospheric event is known to release these sorts of emissions on a physical surface in the solar system.&nbsp; Why can't they just call it an "electrical discharge" inside of a "current sheet"?&nbsp; What's with all the "magnetic" misinformation? </p><p> <font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1"><br /></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm afraid that depends entirely on wihether or not one buys into the inflation scenario, and I do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Long, slow, consistent acceleration is something I'd consider.&nbsp; Superluminal expansion however is a horse of an entirely different color IMO. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Inflation has nothing to do with superluminal expansion, regular old expansion will result in superluminal expansion.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm afraid that depends entirely on wihether or not one buys into the inflation scenario, and I do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Long, slow, consistent acceleration is something I'd consider.&nbsp; Superluminal expansion however is a horse of an entirely different color IMO. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; And I explained this to you before you bought in to expansion consistent with Hubble's Law that by doing so you were also buying to superluminal expansion.</p><p>Once, again -- Hubbles Law states that recessioinal velocities are proportional to distance from the observer.&nbsp; If you are far enough away the recessional velocity will exceed the speed of light.&nbsp; This is consistent with Einstein's view as well.</p><p>This is consistent with long slow consistent acceleration as well.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the rate of acceleration or whether the expansion is accelerating at all.&nbsp; It is not dependent on inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; It is a logical consequence of Hubble's Law and nothing more than that&nbsp;to obtain superluminal recessional velocity within general relativity.</p><p>Edit:&nbsp; This does not mean that massive objects anywhere near us, certainly not within the galaxy or the local group (or quite a bit beyond that) are&nbsp;receding at superluminal velocity with respect to us.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; And I explained this to you before you bought in to expansion consistent with Hubble's Law that by doing so you were also buying to superluminal expansion.</DIV></p><p>Not unless you can explain to me how you tend to explain these observations *WITHOUT* resorting to any brand of blunder theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><br /><p><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'>Inflation has nothing to do with superluminal expansion, regular old expansion will result in superluminal expansion. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>No, regular ol' expansion as Einstein taught GR results in the objects slowing down over time.&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'>No, regular ol' expansion as Einstein taught GR results in the objects slowing down over time.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Yes, gravity in the form of general relativity without a cosmological constant will cause deceleration in the expansion.&nbsp; It need not stop expansion completely, but there certainly is no positive acceleration of the expansion.</p><p>However, even in that case the expansion can result in superluminal recession speeds.&nbsp; It is a simple consequence of Hubbles Law.&nbsp; Recessional velocity is proportional to distance.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; S = H d where S is the recessional velocity, H is the Hubble constant and d is distance.&nbsp; So if d > c/H then S > c.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not unless you can explain to me how you tend to explain these observations *WITHOUT* resorting to any brand of blunder theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>See previous post.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Yes, gravity in the form of general relativity without a cosmological constant will cause deceleration in the expansion.&nbsp; It need not stop expansion completely, but there certainly is no positive acceleration of the expansion.However, even in that case the expansion can result in superluminal recession speeds.&nbsp; It is a simple consequence of Hubbles Law.&nbsp; Recessional velocity is proportional to distance.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; S = H d where S is the recessional velocity, H is the Hubble constant and d is distance.&nbsp; So if d > c/H then S > c.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Ok, so GR expansion "proper" has no sort of acceleration force associated with it.&nbsp; Even if we were to assume right now that some form of acceleration is resulting in very high speed objects in space, what evidence do you have that gravity (a decelerating attractive force and manifold) would in any way be involved in that process?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, so GR expansion "proper" has no sort of acceleration force associated with it.&nbsp; Even if we were to assume right now that some form of acceleration is resulting in very high speed objects in space, what evidence do you have that gravity (a decelerating attractive force and manifold) would in any way be involved in that process?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />A&nbsp;couple of&nbsp;questions and a statement:</p><p>Just out of curiosity is the formula S = H x d blunder theory as you call it?</p><p>So do you buy into superluminal recession velocities (which are completely compatable with special relativity)?&nbsp; </p><p>The acceleration observed is barely detectable therefore it is <strong>not</strong> responsible for "very high speed objects in space" as you call it.&nbsp; And by the way, the reason that superluminal recession velocities do not violate the special theory of relativity is because they aren't really "high speed objects in space", it is more like they are objects&nbsp;in high speed space.</p><p>&nbsp; Blunder, blunder <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, so GR expansion "proper" has no sort of acceleration force associated with it.&nbsp; Even if we were to assume right now that some form of acceleration is resulting in very high speed objects in space, what evidence do you have that gravity (a decelerating attractive force and manifold) would in any way be involved in that process?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't quite understand your question, but will try to address what I think you might mean.</p><p>First, the high recessional velocities are not due to high speed objects in space.&nbsp; As origin noted it is closer to objects in high speed space.&nbsp; And, in classical cosmologies without dark energy the rate of increase of the recessional speed would be negative -- expansion would be slowing.&nbsp; Gravity would cause that slowing.&nbsp; In that way gravity would be involved -- it would result in a decelerating expansion of space.&nbsp; Until the advent of accelerating expansion and the introduction of dark energy -- which we may ignore in this discussion -- the open problem in cosmology was whether there was 1) enough matter/energy in the universe to eventually halt the expansion and cause&nbsp;the universe to begin to contract, 2) whether there was just enough matter/energy to cause the universe to expand forever, but for the expansion to approach zero asymptotically with time, or 3) whether there was insufficient matter/energy and the expansion would continue with a non-zero lower bound on the rate of expansion.&nbsp; In any of these cases, superluminal recessional speeds are still possible now, while the&nbsp;universe is expanding, for objects sufficiently far away.&nbsp; Gravity is at the heart of this discussion.</p><p>IF the expansiosn of the universe is accelerating, then it is not due to any classical gravitational force.&nbsp; That is the reason for the term "dark energy".&nbsp; We don't know what it is, and in my mind we don't know if it is.&nbsp; Whatever it is it is different from anything we currently understand.&nbsp; If you take the point of view that gravity is just a manifestation of the space-time manifold in terms of the curvature of that manifold --gravity in these terms is not really a force -- then I guess you might see dark energy, if it exists, as another manifestation of the manifold and thereby a connection with gravity. But I don't think you have to think of it that way.&nbsp; If you anticipate a quantum theory of gravity with gravity acting through a particle change mechanism via a graviton (the name for the quantum of gravity if such is ever found), then I have no idea how that particle would be involved in any sort of accelerating expansion of the universe. But this is speculating way beyond anything that we know or for which we have any intelligent hypotheses.</p><p>The key thing to keep in mind is that superluminal recessional velocites do not require the expansion of the universe to be accelerating.&nbsp; There is no need for dark energy for this phenomena.&nbsp; They do require that the universe be expanding, but the rate of expansion could still be decreasing.&nbsp; There is no need for inflation either, so long as one accepts that the universe is expanding now.&nbsp; Inflation merely addresses the hypothesized extremely rapid expansion during the very early life of the universe.&nbsp; The rate in earlier times&nbsp;is not&nbsp;important so long as one accepts the Hubble data that the universe is expanding now.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, so GR expansion "proper" has no sort of acceleration force associated with it.&nbsp; Even if we were to assume right now that some form of acceleration is resulting in very high speed objects in space, what evidence do you have that gravity (a decelerating attractive force and manifold) would in any way be involved in that process?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>One other item regarding manifolds.&nbsp; Gravity is not a manifold.&nbsp; </p><p>A manifold is a mathematics object that is locally like ordinary Euclidean space.&nbsp; But a manifold can have curvature and twists and turns.&nbsp; The surface of a balloon is a 2-manifold, and a flat rubber sheet is also a 2-manifold.&nbsp; so is a Klein bottle. A idealizes string (line segment) is a 1-manifold, and a circle is also a 1-manifold.&nbsp; A geodesic is a curve on a manifold that is locally the shortest distance between 2 points.&nbsp; In a flat plane ( a 2-manifold ) the geodesics are ordinary straight lines.&nbsp; On a sphere (a 2-manifold) the geodesics are segments of great circles.&nbsp; What general relativity tells us is that objects that fall without influence of outside forces follow geodesics in curved space-time.&nbsp; The curvature determines what the geodesics are.&nbsp; Mass determines the curvature, and hence the geodesics, and it is that effect that we call gravity.</p><p>Now suppose that we have two ants on an infinitely stretchable rubber band.&nbsp; That rubber band can be considered a manifold.&nbsp; Lets pretend it is just a line, so a 1-manifold. &nbsp;The ants have a limit to how fast they can run.&nbsp; Call their top speed c.&nbsp; Suppose now that the two ants are moving along the line, one in back of the other.&nbsp; Now an outside influence pulls on the rubber band, causing it to stretch.&nbsp; The stretch the rubber band occurs uniformly, the elongation is expressed as a percentage.&nbsp; So a 10% elongation implies that any distance that was once 1 inch is now 1.1 inches. If the two ants were initially ten inches apart, then even if they cease walking, if the rate of expansion is 10% per second, and if they were 10 inches apart initially then they separate by 1 inch in the first second, and additional 1.1 inches in the second second and so on.&nbsp; At any point in time if they are separted by d inches then without running at all they are becoming separated at the rate of 0.1d inches per second.&nbsp; If d is large enough their recessional velocity can be made arbitrarily large.&nbsp; This is essentially what is happening in the universe.&nbsp; Relativity places a limit on c but it places no limits on the "rate of strain" of the space-time manifold.&nbsp; The difference is only that the expansion is not due to some outside force, but rather is due to initial conditions at the Big Bang or perhaps things that we don't understand yet.</p><p>As we understand gravity in this context it is somewhat analogous to the elastic forces in the rubber band, which tends to resist the expansion.&nbsp; However, it does no seem to have the property that the more you stretch the manifold the stronger is the force, as in the case of gravity it drops off with distance.&nbsp; Elasticity of the rubber band is a pretty good analogy for the strong nuclear force, but not for gravity, so you have to ignore that piece of the analogy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A&nbsp;couple of&nbsp;questions and a statement:Just out of curiosity is the formula S = H x d blunder theory as you call it?</DIV></p><p>Any form of math or any constant that that you intend to stuff into GR theory where Einstein put his steady state constant and then later called it a "blunder" and removed it from GR, is officially "blunder" theory.&nbsp; In Einstein's brand of pure GR, "space" doesn't expand, GR doesn't repulse other objects or accelerate anything beyond the speed of light.&nbsp; There are no physical forms of "negative pressure" even in a perfect vacuum (which doesn't actually exist in reality).&nbsp; There is always positive pressure inside of any vacuum due to large scale EM fields (or "virtual partitcles" (QED)&nbsp; depending on how your prefer to look at QM).&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So do you buy into superluminal recession velocities (which are completely compatable with special relativity)? </DIV></p><p>Technically yes.&nbsp; In other words there could be any number of coomoving coordinate systems in a multiverse, so I would technically have to answer your question in the affirmative. &nbsp; I have no idea how you might try to apply that special form of relavity to a superliminal expanding singularlity thingamabob.&nbsp;&nbsp; Gravity can't do that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The acceleration observed is barely detectable therefore it is not responsible for "very high speed objects in space" as you call it. </DIV></p><p>Unless you intend to deviate from standard GR theory as Eistein taught it, or you intend to suggest that redshift is caused by some kind of "tired light" process, those are in fact "high speed objects".&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And by the way, the reason that superluminal recession velocities do not violate the special theory of relativity is because they aren't really "high speed objects in space", it is more like they are objects&nbsp;in high speed space.&nbsp; Blunder, blunder &nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>But of course not one single astronomer on the whole planet can demonstrate that 'space expansion' (metaphysically undefined I might add) has any tangible or measurable effect on the position of objects of matter in any controlled experiment on Earth.&nbsp; It's another one of those point the sky deals exersizes where your industry slaps some cool looking curve fitting math to some weird idea that is empirically indistinguishable from magic.&nbsp; It's kind of like claim :, "Look at that "magnetic reconnection in the solar atmsosphere" mythos that seems to never die, even though Alfven himself trashed that idea repeatedly, and currents sheets are not a form of "magnetic reconnection" in the first place! </p><p>Ultimately I'll have to agree here that special relativity does not preclude what we observe in any way, but nothing in GR as Einstein taught it suggests that these phenomenon have anything at all to do gravity or spacetime expansion.&nbsp; Whatever the cause of these observations, they have nothing whatsoever to do with "gravity" or GR theory.&nbsp; </p><p>There is no such thing as "exanding space" or repulsive forms of gravity in GR theory or in the real world, even if you can model it on a computer.&nbsp; Likewise there is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" in MHD theory only because someone can model it with a computer.&nbsp; Unless there is a controlled emprical test of the concept, these are meaningless metaphysical (imaginary) pieces of misinformation, based on either a general ingorance of the physical theory (GR or MHD), or based on willful misrepresentation of that theory.&nbsp; I'm willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so frankly I'm not at all convinced that your industry really conceptually understands the physical ramifications of either MHD theory or GR theory in the final analysis.</p><p>When you personally state things like plain old standard GR expansion leads to superliminal speeds, and your industry claims that "magnetic reconnection' happens inside of a flowing current sheet, it's like someone running their fingernails down a chalkboard. &nbsp; The more misinformation I hear coming from your industry, (and your lips personally), the less confidence I have in your industry as a whole.&nbsp; When your industry outright bans me from their website for promoting emprical physical science in cyberspace, and for pointing out the difference between emprical physics and metaphysics, I can't help but think that your industry is in big trouble.</p><p>I just thank God that there real science oriented websites like this one, and there are honest moderators like these these moderators that protect free speech and promote scientific debate, even when it's painful to listen to and uncormfortable. &nbsp; I'm glad there are real science forums like this forum where virtual lychings aren't carried out in special witch hunt forums that are specifically set aside for EU proponent like we see over at BAUT.&nbsp;&nbsp; Promoting emprical physics in astronomy should not be a lynching offense, or put on a 30 day deadline.&nbsp; The fact the we can never read about EU theory in the primary astronomy publications demonstrates that this unethical bias toward empricial physics that we see on some astronomy forums is repeated in the publishing end of your your industry.&nbsp; That must stop.</p><p>If you want to live in the metaphysical dark your whole life origin, that's you business.&nbsp; All I ask is that emprical physics like EU theory be given a voice in the mainstream publications, and that there is some clear distinction being made in the classroom between real empicial GR physics as any EU proponent might use, and metaphysical forms of blunder theory. &nbsp; &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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "exanding space" or repulsive forms of gravity in GR theory or in the real world, even if you can model it on a computer.</DIV></p><p>If space is not expanding but you accept&nbsp;that recession velocities are superluminal then you must disagree with special relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is not possible (according to special relativity) for&nbsp;galaxies to be receeding <em><strong>through</strong></em> space&nbsp;at a velocity >c.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just thank God that there real science oriented websites like this one, and there are honest moderators like these these moderators that protect free speech and promote scientific debate, even when it's painful to listen to and uncormfortable.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It is truly painful and uncomfortable to listen to you but only because you sound like Cliff Clavin from the program <em>Cheers </em>when you try discuss physics.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If space is not expanding but you accept&nbsp;that recession velocities are superluminal then you must disagree with special relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is not possible (according to special relativity) for&nbsp;galaxies to be receeding through space&nbsp;at a velocity >c.&nbsp; It is truly painful and uncomfortable to listen to you but only because you sound like Cliff Clavin from the program Cheers when you try discuss physics.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Er, Cliff would have been the one that claimed that standard GR expansion would result in superluminal speeds of objects. &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'>Er, Cliff would have been the one that claimed that standard GR expansion would result in superluminal speeds of objects. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't know who Cliff is, but I have explained this to you on several occasions.&nbsp; Before and after you openly accepted the notion of expansion of space per the standard cosmological model (no dark energy, no dark matter) using general relativity.&nbsp; It is a logical consequence of Hubble's Law, to which you have agreed.&nbsp; Einstein himself signed up to this.&nbsp; It's OK.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't quite understand your question, but will try to address what I think you might mean.First, the high recessional velocities are not due to high speed objects in space.&nbsp; As origin noted it is closer to objects in high speed space.</DIV></p><p>The term "high speed space" has no physical defintion.&nbsp; It is a metaphysical hypothesis that I am unable to falsify or validate in any emprical or physical way.&nbsp; Can you clarify this idea and provide me with a definition of "space" in some emprically physical (tangible) way?&nbsp; Can you demonstrate that high speed space can change the physical distance between even two atoms or two subatomic particles?&nbsp; If you can't do even that much, what makes you think that "high speed space" has any effect on any objects of made of physical material?</p><p>IMO, your definition resembles an "aether" theory of some kind.&nbsp; Assuming "space" is physicslly "real", and it affects the distance of all of the spacetime manifolds simultanesouly, it would necessarily operate and move at superluminal speeds and we should be able test for it everywhere, not just in some distant unreachable location.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, in classical cosmologies without dark energy the rate of increase of the recessional speed would be negative -- expansion would be slowing.</DIV></p><p>Well, I will wholeheartedly agree that without some external force acting upon the galaxies we would expect the expansion rate to slow over time. &nbsp; I lack belief in dark enrergy and so do you.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is therfore illogical from my perspective to believe that anything other than deceleration is related to gravity, or that dark energy has any effect on anything made of matter. &nbsp; We don't seem to have any disagrement on this part of the discussion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Gravity would cause that slowing.&nbsp; In that way gravity would be involved -- it would result in a decelerating expansion of space. </DIV></p><p>And as far as we can empirically physically demonstrate, gravity only has an attractive quality about it. The manifold always points to the mass, much like downward dents made by the balls in your rubber sheet analogy.&nbsp;&nbsp; Gravity has no known repulsive quality.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Until the advent of accelerating expansion and the introduction of dark energy -- which we may ignore in this discussion -- the open problem in cosmology was whether there was 1) enough matter/energy in the universe to eventually halt the expansion and cause&nbsp;the universe to begin to contract, 2) whether there was just enough matter/energy to cause the universe to expand forever, but for the expansion to approach zero asymptotically with time, or 3) whether there was insufficient matter/energy and the expansion would continue with a non-zero lower bound on the rate of expansion.&nbsp; In any of these cases, superluminal recessional speeds are still possible now, while the&nbsp;universe is expanding, for objects sufficiently far away.</DIV></p><p>We seem to be in agreement to this point at least.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gravity is at the heart of this discussion.</DIV></p><p>Well, I'm not sure we should be looking to gravity to explain or understand these observations in the first place.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IF the expansiosn of the universe is accelerating, then it is not due to any classical gravitational force.&nbsp; That is the reason for the term "dark energy".&nbsp; We don't know what it is, and in my mind we don't know if it is.&nbsp; Whatever it is it is different from anything we currently understand.&nbsp; If you take the point of view that gravity is just a manifestation of the space-time manifold in terms of the curvature of that manifold --gravity in these terms is not really a force -- then I guess you might see dark energy, if it exists, as another manifestation of the manifold and thereby a connection with gravity. But I don't think you have to think of it that way.&nbsp; If you anticipate a quantum theory of gravity with gravity acting through a particle change mechanism via a graviton (the name for the quantum of gravity if such is ever found), then I have no idea how that particle would be involved in any sort of accelerating expansion of the universe. But this is speculating way beyond anything that we know or for which we have any intelligent hypotheses.The key thing to keep in mind is that superluminal recessional velocites do not require the expansion of the universe to be accelerating.&nbsp; There is no need for dark energy for this phenomena.&nbsp; They do require that the universe be expanding, but the rate of expansion could still be decreasing.&nbsp; There is no need for inflation either, so long as one accepts that the universe is expanding now.&nbsp; Inflation merely addresses the hypothesized extremely rapid expansion during the very early life of the universe.&nbsp; The rate in earlier times&nbsp;is not&nbsp;important so long as one accepts the Hubble data that the universe is expanding now. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm finding it difficult to find any real point of disagreement to be honest.&nbsp; I see no problem using SR to attempt to explain redshift.&nbsp; I see no problem trying to known forces of nature to explain "repulsion" (like charge repulsion).&nbsp; It's only when we start attaching mathematics and "properties" to mythical concepts that I get squeemish.&nbsp; </p><p>I don't really have any problem with GR as you are defining it, in the absense of 'dark energy", which neither of us seems to put any faith in. &nbsp; I can even envision some sort of aether idea to account for "high speed space", but I still want to see some physical evidence in some emprically tangible way.</p><p>GR as you have described it, without mythical components is a magnificent bit of physics.&nbsp; I hate to see it get cludged up with "repulsive" forces that most likely don't have anything at all to do with "gravity" in the first place.&nbsp; I have great respect for GR theory as Einstein taught it, and no respect whatsoever with what's been done to it lately.&nbsp; Even you seem to have averision to the dark energy idea and rightlfully so IMO. &nbsp;</p><p>I don't really have any trouble with making some additions to GR theory as long as everyone realizes that these are "non standard" forms of GR and have nothing whatsoever to do with emprical physics, or basic GR.&nbsp; The are not physical hypothesis, they are metaphysical hypothesis.</p><p>I also want to make sure that we can also explore the more likely causes of more mundain topics like solar wind acceleration and solar discharges and CME events in a fair an open manner.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want to see the mainstream publications open themselves up to EU theory and EU concepts too, not just big picture, big hypotheticsl ideas. &nbsp; Charge repulsion could in fact be a form of energy that might cause positively charged galaxies to 'spread apart", but I never see anyone write about that. &nbsp;&nbsp; Dark energy can't do anything to anything because it doesn't exist in nature, yet paper after paper is devoted to that topic. &nbsp; I just want to make sure there is room for real GR and MHD theory as well as "non standard" components like "dark energy' and "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>FYI, I can't wait till you've read the first few chapters of that book.&nbsp; You'll never look at plasma physics the same.</p><p>What the mainstream is missing is the current flow that drives these physical movements of the plasma and drive these kinetic energy processes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There's no such thing as "magnetic reconnection", just charged, fast moving particles in a standard discharge condition. &nbsp; Calling a current sheet a "mangetic reconnection" process is like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection" driven event. The current flow does the work, not the magnetic field. &nbsp; The magnetic fields are simply winding around with the current flow inside tighly tristed filaments.&nbsp; The mainstream treats light, kinetically activity, highly charged plasma as though it was "frozen", even some 30+ years after he told them it wasn't "frozen" at all. </p><p>I'm like a kid just before Christmas waiting for you to read that book. &nbsp; You'll see the light on that topic sooner or later too, and we'll be complete agreement on DE, ambiplasma, GR and magnetic reconnection. </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'>Any form of math or any constant that that you intend to stuff into GR theory where Einstein put his steady state constant and then later called it a "blunder" and removed it from GR, is officially "blunder" theory.&nbsp; In Einstein's brand of pure GR, "space" doesn't expand,...</DIV></p><p>Actually Einstein put in the steady state constant to avoid expansion.&nbsp; Once he took it out the expansion was on.&nbsp; So in Einstein's brand of pure GR, with no cosmological constant, space must either be expanding or contracting.&nbsp; Hubble's empirical observations show that we are in expanding&nbsp;phase.&nbsp;&nbsp;The alternative would be contraction. And in contraction, if you are sufficiently far away you would be approaching at superluminal speeds rather than recessing at superluminal speeds.&nbsp;&nbsp;The derivation is the same, only the sign of the Hubble constant changes. &nbsp;But we don't see a blue shift, so we conclude that we are in an expanding period.</p><p>Again this has nothing whatever to do with inflation.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>