Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually Einstein put in the steady state constant to avoid expansion. </DIV></p><p>Actually to avoid "contraction".&nbsp;&nbsp; The vectors in the manifold always point to the mass objects.&nbsp; The balls alwways sink into the rubber sheet, and he was trying to explain why they didn't all clump together over time.&nbsp;&nbsp; He wasn't trying to turn gravity into a repulsive force either, since he in no way characterized what his constant might be.&nbsp; It could have been any known force of nature, including EM fields. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once he took it out the expansion was on. </DIV></p><p>It was more like once he realized from Hubble that expansion was going on, it became an unnessary albatross in the theory and he took it out and called it his greatest blunder.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So in Einstein's brand of pure GR, with no cosmological constant, space must either be expanding or contracting. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and all through college and up until about 15 years ago the mainstream always assured me that it was expanding and slowing down over time. &nbsp; Now they want me to believe that 3/4 of the universe is made of "dark energy" which I never even heard of until 15 years ago. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.Again this has nothing whatever to do with inflation. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, except for the fact taht you never explained how we went from a singularity (maybe but not quite?)&nbsp; to galaxies moving at superluminal speeds moving in different coomoving coordinate systems.&nbsp; I suppose you can explain that without inflation and dark energy?</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'>... 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><font color="#0000ff">If you get into the details of&nbsp;the mechanism, per general relativity, it turns&nbsp;out that local gravity prevents the expansion of space.&nbsp; So you don't see it happening within atoms, or in fact within the galaxy.&nbsp; Also it does not&nbsp;have a direct on the objects, except to increase separation between objects that are separated by a lot of vacuum.</font>&nbsp; &nbsp;</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>The big difference between genreal relativity and the aether theory is that the aether was presumed to exist within space, and it was presumed that we move within the aether.&nbsp; That notion was debunked and the result was special relativity.&nbsp; In general relativity space can change, and as it changes the distance between objects can also change.&nbsp; In addition, an object can mover through space.&nbsp; Thus distance between objects can change for two distinct reasons.&nbsp; One is ordinary motion through space.&nbsp; The other is the expansion of space itself.&nbsp; It is only this latter type of distance change that can cause superluminal recession speeds.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Secondly, there is only one space-time manifold.&nbsp; So there is no question of something in several manifolds simultaneously.&nbsp; Cosmology is roughly speaking an attempt to understand the structure of that manifold, particularly the curvature.</font></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.And as far as we can empirically physically demonstrate, gravity only has an attractive quality about it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I can generally agree with this statement, except that I do not disbelieve in dark energy.&nbsp; I am simply withholding judgment.&nbsp; I am hoping for a much better explanation, or data that suggests that the expansion is not really accelerating.&nbsp; But the data at the moment is not encouraging of that position.</font></p><p>&nbsp;The manifold always points to the mass, much like downward dents made by the balls in your rubber sheet analogy.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I think you are trying to describe the effect of curvature and this is roughly correct.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; Gravity has no known repulsive quality. 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>We seem to be in agreement to this point at least.&nbsp;Well, I'm not sure we should be looking to gravity to explain or understand these observations in the first place.&nbsp;&nbsp;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; 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><font color="#0000ff">Hubbles work is empirical evidence of the expansion of the universe.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</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;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; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">The problem is that these add-ons do correspond to empirical physics.&nbsp; In fact that is the real problem, they are added on to explain some specific empirical observations.&nbsp; I would be more&nbsp;comfortable with an explanation that was tied to a more generally applicable theoretical&nbsp;construct.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>The are not physical hypothesis, they are metaphysical hypothesis.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;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">That might be largely because there is no empirical data whatever for the existence of a significantly positively charged galaxy.&nbsp; In fact if such were to exist I would expect the galaxy to virtually explode due to the charge.&nbsp; It is precisely&nbsp;because the electromagnetic force is so much stronger than gravity that no one would accept such an idea without very strong evidence indeed.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&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;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.What the mainstream is missing is the current flow that drives these physical movements of the plasma and drive these kinetic energy processes.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I don't think so.&nbsp; I haven't seen any references to magnetic field changes without current flow.&nbsp; Neither I nor anyone else knows how to produce a magnetic field with a current somewhere.&nbsp; Even ferromagnetism relies on currents at the atomic scale.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&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. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">I don't think you can say that.&nbsp; It can be demonstrated from Maxwell's equations that the energy flowing through&nbsp; a resistive wire comes from the electric and magnetic fields that surround the&nbsp;wire,&nbsp;via the Poynting vector which the cross product of the E and B fields.&nbsp; If you would like to see this discussed you can find it in <em>The Feybmab&nbsp;Lectures on Physics.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>You&nbsp;can use the&nbsp;standard way of looking at things in which the energy is due to the motion of the electrons without going&nbsp;very far astray, but&nbsp;looking at it through the field equations is quite valid.&nbsp; I think that&nbsp;the problem that you are having with the&nbsp;mainstream may be more one of language&nbsp;than of real physics.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&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. 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><p><font color="#0000ff">We'll see.</font>&nbsp;</p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[damskov]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, and all through college and up until about 15 years ago the mainstream always assured me that it was expanding and slowing down over time.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Well, then some annoying empirical measurements turned up, showing that the furthest galaxies seemed to be accelerating. Either observations are wrong, or something is causing the acceleration. Can you agree with this so far?</p><p>Yes, observations may be wrong. To be honest, I've seen the graph used to claim the acceleration; it's based on SN1a standard candles, and at very high redshift the distribution does become rather noisy. But if the expansion is really accelerating, something must be causing it. Until someone comes up with the right explanation, everyone is using the term "Dark Energy" as placeholder term.&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; Well, except for the fact taht you never explained how we went from a singularity (maybe but not quite?)&nbsp; to galaxies moving at superluminal speeds moving in different coomoving coordinate systems.&nbsp; I suppose you can explain that without inflation and dark energy? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Right now nobody can explain the evolution from time 0, whether that is a singularity or something else.&nbsp; You can't do it with dark energy and inflation, so you can't do it wouthout them either. They could not explain it in Einstein's day either.&nbsp; But you can use standard general relativity to show that, given the universe as we observeit, which is expanding then running general relativity backwards, that the universe began in an extremely compact form.&nbsp; The actual prediction is a point, a singularity, which is reflective of the breakdown in the applicability of general relativity.&nbsp; It may well not have started as a Euclidean point, but it is pretty clear that in the beginning the universe was pretty compact.</p><p>What is your point ?&nbsp; If you believe nothing until there is perfect answer for everything, then you have no foundation at all.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations are wrong too.&nbsp; They predict an infinite mass for the electron.&nbsp; If electrons had infinite mass your plasma theory would be in the toilet along with everything else.&nbsp; All that we have are approximations, some pretty good approximations.&nbsp; And the expanding universe fits with one of the very best approximations that we have -- general relativity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Right now nobody can explain the evolution from time 0, whether that is a singularity or something else.&nbsp; You can't do it with dark energy and inflation, so you can't do it wouthout them either. They could not explain it in Einstein's day either. </DIV></p><p>Essentially from my perspective what you are saying is that *if* we somehow allow for massive galaxies to accelerate to superliminal speeds by some unspecified process, *then* the objects would coast apart over time at "superluminal apeeds", and maybe slowing down over time, and maybe just drifting apart forever.&nbsp; I can't really say much about that idea, since it really begins by violating the prime directive of GR, namely that objects of matter cannot travel faster than light.&nbsp; I suppose if they were already traveling at Warp 128, then surely they might coast apart and slow down to WARP 127 before gravity is not longer relevant.&nbsp; The problem is that it begins with an unfalsifiable premise, and it violates every core premise of GR theory as I see it.</p><p>If we aren't going to base our physical idea upon testable aspects of emprical science, and there is no way to even begin to test the idea in any concievable way, I'm really not that interested in the idea.&nbsp; Since Einstein didn't figure it out either, I'd much rather leave the redshift question for another day, and focus on those solar "current sheets" experiencing&nbsp; so called 'magnetic reconnection' once you're read a couple of chapters of Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I'd rather focus most of my attention on some of the more explainable things we observe inside our solar system.&nbsp; <br /> </p><p>The thing is DrRocket, I'm not on any particular deadline as far as creation event dates are concerned, and I'm not convinced that the redshift issue isn't being highly oversimplified like everything else I see being done with "electromanetism" that suddenly turns into "magnetism".&nbsp; Arp's work also deserves much more consideration on this issue, expecially since astronomers recently have been talking about galaxies spitting out black holes and heavy objects.&nbsp; I think there is more to the redshift issue than simple expansion effects.&nbsp; I am certainly leaning heavily in the expansion direction just like the mainstream, but I am concerned about Arp's reservations/observations, and I'm just not sure it's quite as simple (like three forms of redshift is "simple") as it's currently being portrayed today.&nbsp; Hubble's law is more likely to turn out to be a good rule of thumb more than a true "law" in every single scenario.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you can use standard general relativity to show that, given the universe as we observeit, which is expanding then running general relativity backwards, that the universe began in an extremely compact form. </DIV></p><p>Sure, but as Alfven suggested, that condensation might only have been down to 10% of what it is today before the whole thing started "expanding" again.&nbsp; You have no physical evidence that it was ever all condensed to a few hundred light years, let alone that it was all condensed into one giant "singularity" (whatever that might be).&nbsp;&nbsp; The gravitational force alone would preclude a singularity of that size from ever "inflating" at all. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The actual prediction is a point, a singularity, which is reflective of the breakdown in the applicability of general relativity.</DIV></p><p>I think it's a huge leap of faith personally.&nbsp; It's a temptingly mathematically attractive hypothesis that I believe has lured in a lot of mathematicians.&nbsp; Whether all physical matter was ever closer together than several hundred light years is pure speculation IMO, even in a "Bang" sort of hypothesis, and I'm not personally even attached to that concept.&nbsp; I'm more interested in how our own sun works and how solar wind works and things a little closer to home.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may well not have started as a Euclidean point, but it is pretty clear that in the beginning the universe was pretty compact.What is your point ?&nbsp; If you believe nothing until there is perfect answer for everything, then you have no foundation at all.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations are wrong too.&nbsp; They predict an infinite mass for the electron.&nbsp; If electrons had infinite mass your plasma theory would be in the toilet along with everything else.&nbsp; All that we have are approximations, some pretty good approximations.&nbsp; And the expanding universe fits with one of the very best approximations that we have -- general relativity. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>As long everyone is well aware that GR theory is nothing remotely even like Lambda-CDM theory in the sense that GR theory is a pure physics theory as Einstein taught it.&nbsp; It is pure emprical science.&nbsp; Every aspect of GR theory is either falsifiable in some way or it has already been verified with in-situ measurements.&nbsp; It is in the same category as Brikeland's work in pure emprical physics.&nbsp; There''s no aspect of GR theory that isn't a true form of empricical physics.</p><p>Lambda-CDM theory on the other hand is pure creation theory and metaphysical speculation, nearly totally devoid (only 5$) of real emprical physics.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory should come with a consumer warning label.&nbsp; It's not physics, it's mysticism with cool math, and only 5$ real physics.&nbsp; IMO, passing Lambda theory off as a form of GR theory should be a criminal offense called "false advertizing" like they would do to me in my industry if I claimed that my software ran on "inflation" and dark energy" and 'dark matter'. </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'>Essentially from my perspective what you are saying is that *if* we somehow allow for massive galaxies to accelerate to superliminal speeds by some unspecified process, *then* the objects would coast apart over time at "superluminal apeeds", and maybe slowing down over time, and maybe just drifting apart forever.&nbsp; I can't really say much about that idea, since it really begins by violating the prime directive of GR, namely that objects of matter cannot travel faster than light.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">We are going in circles.&nbsp; The whole point&nbsp;is that this does&nbsp;not violate general relativity.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; I suppose if they were already traveling at Warp 128, then surely they might coast apart and slow down to WARP 127 before gravity is not longer relevant.&nbsp; The problem is that it begins with an unfalsifiable premise, and it violates every core premise of GR theory as I see it.</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">There is no acceleration and no coasting involved.&nbsp; It is space that is expanding, and this is a totally separate phenomena from motion of objects in space.&nbsp; The problem is that you are not seeing general relativity correctly.</font></p><p>If we aren't going to base our physical idea upon testable aspects of emprical science, and there is no way to even begin to test the idea in any concievable way, I'm really not that interested in the idea.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">But it has been tested empirically.&nbsp;&nbsp;There have been many tests of general relativity, and it has passed with flying colors.&nbsp; The only known problems with general relativity occur with things like the singularity in black holes and the singularity associated with the Big Bang -- basically when&nbsp;you are forced to&nbsp;consider gravitational and quantum effects simultaneously.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;Since Einstein didn't figure it out either, I'd much rather leave the redshift question for another day, and focus on those solar "current sheets" experiencing&nbsp; so called 'magnetic reconnection' once you're read a couple of chapters of Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I'd rather focus most of my attention on some of the more explainable things we observe inside our solar system.&nbsp; The thing is DrRocket, I'm not on any particular deadline as far as creation event dates are concerned, and I'm not convinced that the redshift issue isn't being highly oversimplified like everything else I see being done with "electromanetism" that suddenly turns into "magnetism".&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">dI franky don not believe that electromagnetismis being turned into magnetism.&nbsp; I have not seen such being done.&nbsp; But if it is then I agree that such&nbsp;is not appropriate.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Arp's work also deserves much more consideration on this issue, expecially since astronomers recently have been talking about galaxies spitting out black holes and heavy objects.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You lost me with this one.&nbsp; There is a perfectly good explanation based on gravity and general relativity.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I think there is more to the redshift issue than simple expansion effects.&nbsp; I am certainly leaning heavily in the expansion direction just like the mainstream, but I am concerned about Arp's reservations/observations, and I'm just not sure it's quite as simple (like three forms of redshift is "simple") as it's currently being portrayed today.&nbsp; Hubble's law is more likely to turn out to be a good rule of thumb more than a true "law" in every single scenario.Sure, but as Alfven suggested, that condensation might only have been down to 10% of what it is today before the whole thing started "expanding" again.&nbsp; You have no physical evidence that it was ever all condensed to a few hundred light years, let alone that it was all condensed into one giant "singularity" (whatever that might be).&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">There is extremely strong evidence that the condensation was much greater than just going down to 10%, and it is general relativity.&nbsp; Until you are substantially more compact than that, general relativity works quite well.&nbsp; It is only when you are sufficiently small that quantum effects become important that general relativity clearly breaks down.&nbsp; In any case, even if you started from 10% of current size, the mechanism of expansion is valid and you still get superluminal recession velocities.</font></p><p>&nbsp;The gravitational force alone would preclude a singularity of that size from ever "inflating" at all. I think it's a huge leap of faith personally.&nbsp; It's a temptingly mathematically attractive hypothesis that I believe has lured in a lot of mathematicians.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Most of the people involved are physicists.&nbsp; And physicists are not generally mathematicians.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Whether all physical matter was ever closer together than several hundred light years is pure speculation IMO, even in a "Bang" sort of hypothesis, and I'm not personally even attached to that concept.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">If things were not smaller than that then are problems with general relativity that have not yet been uncovered, and pretty serious problems at that.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I'm more interested in how our own sun works and how solar wind works and things a little closer to home.As long everyone is well aware that GR theory is nothing remotely even like Lambda-CDM theory in the sense that GR theory is a pure physics theory as Einstein taught it.&nbsp; It is pure emprical science.&nbsp; Every aspect of GR theory is either falsifiable in some way or it has already been verified with in-situ measurements.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">General relativity has indeed been verified with empirical data.&nbsp; The Landa-CDM model is simply a model that is consistent with general relativity, but is not logically derivable from it.&nbsp; It is a way to provide an explanation of what is observed using general relativity.&nbsp; It may turn out that there are other ways to explain the data, also consistent with general relativity, but no one has proposed such an alternate explanation yet.</font></p><p>&nbsp;It is in the same category as Brikeland's work in pure emprical physics.&nbsp; There''s no aspect of GR theory that isn't a true form of empricical physics.Lambda-CDM theory on the other hand is pure creation theory and metaphysical speculation, nearly totally devoid (only 5$) of real emprical physics.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory should come with a consumer beware label.&nbsp; It's not physics, it's mysticism with cool math, and only 5$ real physics.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">No.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Lamda-CDM model is&nbsp;a piece of real physical research.&nbsp; It is a hypothesis that is consistent with existing theory and it is in principle testable.&nbsp; It has not yet&nbsp;been adequately tested, and hence is not accepted as a true explanation of the empirical data.&nbsp; It does come with a consumer beware label.&nbsp; In fact, it is not for the average consumer yet.&nbsp; It is not mysticism it&nbsp;is a hypothesis.&nbsp; Anybody who accepts it as truth is foolish.&nbsp; Anybody who dismisses it as false at this point is equally foolish.&nbsp; We don't know.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;IMO, passing Lambda theory off as a form of GR theory should be a criminal offense called "false advertizing" like they do to me in my industry if I claimed that my software ran on "inflation" and dark energy" and 'dark matter'.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Lamda-CDM theory is clearly labeled as a hypothesis, as are "inflation", "dark energy" and "dark matter".&nbsp; I find that a lot more honest than many claims for vapor ware.&nbsp; You are taking the very attitude toward these&nbsp;models that you complain about others taking with EU theory.&nbsp; And they have empirical data to support them -- it was empirical data that raised the questsions that they are attempting to answer.</font>&nbsp;</p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, then some annoying empirical measurements turned up, showing that the furthest galaxies seemed to be accelerating. </DIV></p><p>Well, evidently "interpretation" has a lot to do with how individuals selectrively process that information.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500</p><p>I'm not suggesting Ari's way of interpreting this data is correct or "better" than your interpretation, but a few SN1A studies isn't particularly convincing evidence of "dark energy" IMO.&nbsp; ARI's math looks pretty sound as well. Who's math is "better"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Either observations are wrong, or something is causing the acceleration. </DIV></p><p>Even if we presume that some form of acceleration is occuring, how would that force of acceleration even remotely be related to GR theory?&nbsp; I might understand you entertaining some QM oriented "zero point energy" (false vacuum)&nbsp; acceleration theory based on ever accelerating EM waves in the false vacuum, or charge repulsion between galaxies, or something thet involves a known force of nature, but you can't just make up a word, slap some math to that word, and then claim that this word emprically exists in nature.&nbsp; If you can't emprically distinguish between magic and the theoretical word in question using exactly the same math, the mathematical models aren't really helpful. &nbsp; I'm happy to let you try to explain that acceleration using any and all forces of nature, but not metaphysical ideas with imagined mathematical properites.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, observations may be wrong. To be honest, I've seen the graph used to claim the acceleration; it's based on SN1a standard candles, and at very high redshift the distribution does become rather noisy. But if the expansion is really accelerating, something must be causing it. Until someone comes up with the right explanation, everyone is using the term "Dark Energy" as placeholder term.&nbsp; </p><p> Posted by damskov</DIV></p><p>I've read papers that seem to suggest that wider studies of SN1A data seem to falsify all current models.&nbsp; I can't find the link to that paper at the moment but when I find it, I'll post it for you.</p><p>Suffice to say, IMO there is a clear and significant difference between emprical physical forces of nature and imagined ones. &nbsp; The idea the we can only see "space expand" in the absense of anything physical because it's shy around gravity is just all too far fetched for me to handle.&nbsp; It's all to convieniently unflasifyable and all too mystical for my tastes.&nbsp; GR describes an attractive and curved manifold of "spacetime" (yes I know I'm taking poetic liberties), but it in no way describes repulsive force, negative pressure vacuums, speedy space, inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; By itself it's an amazing piece of emprical physical theory, all of which can be falsifified or verified emprically.&nbsp; With all the metaphysical fudge factors of Lambda-CDM theory however, it's misleading to even call it a GR theory anymore.&nbsp; It's got magical properties of repulsion and attraction all operating inside the same manifold at the same time.&nbsp; I just don't believe it would work like that, and not a single human being seems to be able to repulse a single atom using gravity.</p><p>About all I can say is that I never forgot how to say "I don't know".&nbsp; I'm not sure how to bests explain the SN1A data, but I'm not about to swap physics for something that is 95% metaphysics only because I can't quite answer some interesting and perplexing question at the moment.</p><p>I'm willing to ingore the SN1A data for now, and to leave the full redshift debate for a later date.&nbsp; What I think would be more helpful right now is to focus on solar wind acceleration, solar atmosopheric discharges and things that we can measure in some tangible physical way.&nbsp; I'm certain that EU theory can explain what we observe sooner or later, but I don't personally have all the answers right now.&nbsp; Ari could be right about redshift and EM fields, but that theory lacks emprical support just like "speedy space".&nbsp; Neither arguement is particularly compelling, even if the math works out fine both ways. &nbsp; </p><p>I'm more conserned with Harvard and Cambridge point to solar events, describe the current sheet that drives these high energy events, and then calls the process "magnetic reconnection". That is far worse IMO than making up "DE", because any sort of "magnetic reconnection" event should be able to be demonstrated in a lab, and nobody did that.&nbsp; The only tests of "magnetic reconnection" were specifically intended to create current sheets in plasma.&nbsp; Current sheets are composed of moving charged particles.&nbsp; They have kinetic energy and charge attraction toward other charged particles.&nbsp; The discharges can in fact "reconnect" from one point to another as electrons seek the path of least resistence.&nbsp; Magnetic fields cannot make and break connections like electrical circuits.&nbsp; This kind of misinformation is far more damanging to your profession than dark energy or dark matter because it is easily refuted and was refuted often by Hannes Alfven himself.&nbsp; He called it pseudoscience.&nbsp; Einstein just called his mistake a "blunder".&nbsp; </p><p>IMO MHD theory as Alfven taught it was pure emprical physics.&nbsp; Likewise GR as Einstein taught it is also pure emprical physics.&nbsp; I'm sure if we put these things together we can figure out a lot of what goes on in the empirical physical universe, but as long as electricity remains the forbidden topic of astronomy, we'll forever live in the dark 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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein just called his mistake a "blunder".&nbsp; IMO MHD theory as Alfven taught it was pure emprical physics.&nbsp; Likewise GR as Einstein taught it is also pure emprical physics<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p><p>I challange you to provide a legitmate source where Einstein admitted to the cosmological constant as being a mistake or a blunder.&nbsp; I'm not talking about unsourced quotes from articles and books, or heresay from folks making claims.&nbsp; I also challenge the notion that General Relativity, as is taught today, has deviated from how it was taught 75 years ago.</p><p>This conversation is so terribly frustrating.&nbsp; I don't understand this GR 'proper', 'standard' GR, or GR 'as Einstein taught it'.&nbsp; General Relativity is what it is... you can't deviate from it in the context of this discussion.<br /><br />I think what we are talking about are his field equations of which there are various solutions.&nbsp; Non of which that allow for a static universe... that was Einstein's blunder.&nbsp; His refusal to accept that his very own field equations allowed for EITHER an expanding or contracting universe but not a static one.&nbsp; Even with a constant, it was still unstable and Einstein STILL refused to see it as anything other that static.<br /><br />Friedmann's solution showed an expanding universe, Einstein accepted the math, and yet, he still rejected the implications.&nbsp; Hubble made observations that fit friedmann's solutions and Lamaitre's hypothesis of a big bang.&nbsp; Only then did Einstein accept an expanding universe with a lambda set to zero.&nbsp; He didn't "take out" the cosmological constant... He trashed his entire solution to the field equations.<br /><br />Lambda is allowed within Einstein's field equations.&nbsp; Friedmann used it, but he set it to zero.&nbsp; Only since 1998 has Lambda been set back to to a negative number due to the observation of an accelerating universe.&nbsp; The trick now is to figure out what the heck it is and why it does what it does.<br /><br />Applying a cosmological constant is not a deviation from General Relativity.&nbsp; It's been an accepted term with in the equations from day 1.&nbsp; Nowhere will you find a source that quotes Einstein (or anyone) that states a cosmological constant is not allowed in any solution.<br /><br />The only thing the Lambda CDM model has in connection with General Relativity is that it is derived the the Big Bang theory which is a consequence of the FRLW metric and Hubble's Law.&nbsp; There is nothing in the model that goes against General Relativity (standard, proper, as Einstein taught, or otherwise).&nbsp; It's a model... not a blunder theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I challange you to provide a legitmate source where Einstein admitted to the cosmological constant as being a mistake or a blunder.&nbsp;Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I think he has you on this one.&nbsp; This is from <em>Einstein </em>by Walter Isaacson.&nbsp; "When I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein", George Gamow later recalled, "he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life."&nbsp; This is noted as&nbsp; being taken from a 1970 book by Gamow (page 149), <em>My World Line.</em></p><p>But I agree with your statements regarding physics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..." IMO.&nbsp; ARI's math looks pretty sound as well. Who's math is "better"?... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I took a look at this paper of Ari's and a related one.&nbsp; That is the most convoluted disconnected mess I have ever had the displeasure of trying to read.&nbsp; When I found a piece where he claimed to be doing general relativistic quantum mechanics I wrote him off completely.&nbsp; That alone, if true, would get him a Nobel prize in a heartbeat.&nbsp; I don't intend to waste my time with his stuff again --&nbsp;ever.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>" I can't really say much about that idea, since it really begins by violating the prime directive of GR, namely that objects of matter cannot travel faster than light.&nbsp; I suppose if they were already traveling at Warp 128, then surely they might coast apart and slow down to WARP 127 before gravity is not longer relevant.&nbsp; The problem is that it begins with an unfalsifiable premise, and it violates every core premise of GR theory as I see it."</strong><br /><br />Quite the opposite.&nbsp; It violates Special Relativity which is only valid with inertial motions through a Euclidean spacetime manifold not distorted by strong gravity potentials.&nbsp;&nbsp; General Relativity gives us a curved spacetime in which SR doesn't apply.&nbsp; When SR is applied over large enough distances, there are inconsistencies.&nbsp; GR fixes these.&nbsp; And the formulae for redshift are different between the two.&nbsp; GR redshift formula allows for superluminal velocities.<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'>I think he has you on this one.&nbsp; This is from Einstein by Walter Isaacson.&nbsp; "When I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein", George Gamow later recalled, "he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life."&nbsp; This is noted as&nbsp; being taken from a 1970 book by Gamow (page 149), My World Line.But I agree with your statements regarding physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't accept 2nd hand information from an autobiography.&nbsp; I could write the same in my autobiography... that doesn't make it true.&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't accept 2nd hand information from an autobiography.&nbsp; I could write the same in my autobiography... that doesn't make it true.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Now you are starting to&nbsp;sound like Michael.&nbsp; George Gamow is a reliable source, a first rate physicist and cosmologist with no axe to grind and who had first-person dealings with Einstein.&nbsp;&nbsp;The remark to Gamow seems&nbsp;to be the&nbsp;source for&nbsp;this remark that has become a widely known and accepted piece of the folklore of physics.&nbsp; Gamow's book is widely cited on this point.&nbsp; </p><p>Yes, you could write this in your own autobiography.&nbsp; And yes, no one would believe you. &nbsp;The difference is that Gamow is credible, while you would not be.&nbsp; He had direct dealings with Einstein.&nbsp; And people have actually&nbsp;purchased his book.</p><p>Besides, it doesn't make any difference.&nbsp; It is a great quote and demonstrates clearly the role of mathematical beauty in Einstein's research.&nbsp; And in light of more recent cosmological research it may not have been a blunder after all.&nbsp; The jury is still out.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you are starting to&nbsp;sound like Michael.&nbsp; George Gamow is a reliable source, a first rate physicist and cosmologist with no axe to grind and who had first-person dealings with Einstein.&nbsp;&nbsp;Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>And he co-wrote the first college textbook I ever had on Physics.</p><p>Wayne<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#0000ff">There is no acceleration and no coasting involved.&nbsp; It is space that is expanding, and this is a totally separate phenomena from motion of objects in space.&nbsp; The problem is that you are not seeing general relativity correctly.</font> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm a bit busy today, so I'll have to break up my responses a bit. &nbsp; </p><p>But DrRocket, this is not "general relativity".&nbsp; In Einstein's version of GR, "space' did not expand.&nbsp; There was no constant.&nbsp; He tried that and yanked it the moment he realized there was expansion happening.&nbsp; The "expansion" he envisioned and taught was simple physical expansion of the mass objects that make up "space time".&nbsp; He in no way suggested that "space" expands, that there were any negative pressure vacuums, etc.&nbsp; These things were "added to" GR, and are not a part of the core GR principles that Einstein himself taught and believed in.&nbsp; This "expansion of space' is an undemonstrated and unfalsifyable belief.&nbsp; No human being can demonstate "space expansion" because somehow "space expansion" is shy around gravity, so any experiment we might come up with is doomed to failure because the physical nature of our equipment will make this "space expansion" impossible to detect.&nbsp; How could such a theory ever be falsified or physically demonstrated in any emprical way?&nbsp; It can't be done.</p><p>The onus of responsibility in science falls to the one making the claim.&nbsp; If you can't get "space" to expand the distance between even two single atoms or subatomic particles, then I lack faith that "space expands" anywhere.&nbsp; Faith on your part in such concepts is not a form of emprical science.&nbsp; It is metaphysical (you didn't physically descrbie "space') idea, that is ultimately unfalsifiable and undemonstrated.</p><p>I have great respect for pure GR with no constants or other mathematical constructs stuffed into it.&nbsp; I have no respect "negative pressure vacuums", or "dark energy", or any form of "space expansion".&nbsp; These are metaphysical ideas that were stuffed into GR only recently.&nbsp;</p><p> It's not that I see GR improperly DrRocket, it's that I don't believe in your statement that "space expands", or that such a concepts even belongs in GR in the first place.&nbsp; Einstein tried the idea and he didn't like it.&nbsp; I don't like it either, and I refuse to accept that it's even a part of "GR".&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; It's a part of what he "presumably" refered to a a blunder, and the idea wasn't even resurrected until about 15 years ago.&nbsp; I learned GR theory in the old school manner Dr.&nbsp; Unless someone can physically demonstrate that "space" does anything in a controlled emprical test, I'm going to continue to lack faith that it occurs in nature or that it is even a part of GR theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's part of Lambda-CDM theory perhaps, but it's not a part of GR theory as Einstein taught GR theory.&nbsp; No such thing is part of GR theory as Einstein described GR theory.&nbsp; Likewise, no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" occurs in Alfven's brand of MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "add-on" to these theories have never been emprically demonstrated, and since these guys wrote these theories, your claims are in fact "extraordinary".&nbsp; As such they require "exttraordinary" support.&nbsp; I've not seen anyone make gravity repulse anything, or cause space to expand in a controlled test.&nbsp; I therefore see no reason to stuff these things into what is otherwise a perfectly good empirical physics formula. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>[QUOTE... But DrRocket, this is not "general relativity".&nbsp; In Einstein's version of GR, "space' did not expand.&nbsp; There was no constant.&nbsp; He tried that and yanked it the moment he realized there was expansion happening.&nbsp; The "expansion" he envisioned and taught was simple physical expansion of the mass objects that make up "space time".&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina[/QUOTE]</p><p>Yes it is.&nbsp; Yes it did.&nbsp; Yes there was, when was trying to model a static universe.&nbsp; Precisely, when he recognized that there was expansion happening.&nbsp; No it wasn't, not even close.&nbsp; In fact the idea of mass objects expanding is a bit bizarre.&nbsp; Where are you getting that one?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I took a look at this paper of Ari's and a related one.&nbsp; That is the most convoluted disconnected mess I have ever had the displeasure of trying to read.&nbsp; When I found a piece where he claimed to be doing general relativistic quantum mechanics I wrote him off completely.&nbsp; That alone, if true, would get him a Nobel prize in a heartbeat.&nbsp; I don't intend to waste my time with his stuff again --&nbsp;ever. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is an interesting juxtaposition.&nbsp; You didn't find any specific problem with his mathematical presentation, it's the "ideas" you didn't like.&nbsp; I have the same reaction when you claim ""space expands".&nbsp; I have no problem with the math, it's the fact it's an undemonstrated assertion that I have trouble with.&nbsp; I actually have the same problem with ARI's paper by the way.&nbsp; It's an interesting idea, but the concepts remain undemonstrated.&nbsp; I see no emprical difference between his "ideas' and yours, though they attempt to mathematically explain exactly the same observation.&nbsp; Neither idea "moves me".&nbsp; I can't help being skeptical of both ideas, and math alone isn't going to be able to tell us who is right and who is wrong.&nbsp; The is where emprical testing is critical, and necessary in emprical physics.</p><p>I don't necessarily disagree that Ari's idea lack emprical support.&nbsp; In fact they do lack emprical support just like your space expansion idea.&nbsp; Until I see one of you duplicate the effect being described by the math in a controlled scientific test, I lack faith in either idea. &nbsp; I actually have been through a lot of ARi's math, so I actually have faith that his mathematics is probably good, I just have no faith in the basic idea, just as I have no faith that "space expands". &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'>This is an interesting juxtaposition.&nbsp; You didn't find any specific problem with his mathematical presentation, it's the "ideas" you didn't like.&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are misconstruing my objections.&nbsp; Whatever he is doing it most certainly is not mathematics.&nbsp; It doesn't appear to be physics either.&nbsp; It sure is wordy, but without any clear explanation of the ideas.&nbsp; If I believed his claims I would have to believe that he has developed a mechanism for redshift that was never before known and successfully developed a theory incorporating both general relativity and quantum mechanics.&nbsp; I know from long experience that when such claims are made and there has been no further talk of such revolutionary developments in the community, that the claimer is talking through his hat.&nbsp; I don't have time to try and fight through 90 or 100 pages of gibberish looking for a nugget.&nbsp; There are way too many better uses for my time.&nbsp; Ari flunked the smell test.&nbsp; Alfven has not, yet.&nbsp; Your version of Alfven is pretty odorous, since among other things you (whether you want to admit it or not) have rejected general relativity.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes it is.&nbsp; Yes it did.&nbsp; Yes there was, when was trying to model a static universe. </DIV></p><p>He took it out and called it a "blunder" the moment he realized the unviverse was expanding!&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact the idea of mass objects expanding is a bit bizarre.&nbsp; Where are you getting that one?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only "expansion" described by GR theory (without any constants) is the epansion of the momentum of objects that create the manifold.&nbsp;&nbsp; In your rubber sheet analogy, the shape of the sheet changes as the physical objects move away from each other and "spread out". They physically have to move for the expansion to occur, and by doing so, they expand the deformed rubber sheet.&nbsp; There is "space expansion" described by Einstein in the book I listed for you earlier.&nbsp; This idea of "expanding space" was added back in just 15 years ago, along with the words "dark energy" to describe the cause of this "space expansion"". &nbsp;&nbsp; Until they started talking about "expanding space", no astronomer claimed the universe was 3/4th "dark energy"!&nbsp; There's a very distinct point in history where blunder theory was resurrected again, and it is directly associated with "dark energy". &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Where did you get the idea that "space expands"?&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'>He took it out and called it a "blunder" the moment he realized the unviverse was expanding!&nbsp;&nbsp; The only "expansion" described by GR theory (without any constants) is the epansion of the momentum of objects that create the manifold.&nbsp;&nbsp; In your rubber sheet analogy, the shape of the sheet changes as the physical objects move away from each other and "spread out". They physically have to move for the expansion to occur, and by doing so, they expand the deformed rubber sheet.&nbsp; <strong>There is "space expansion" described by Einstein in the book I listed for you</strong> earlier.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No it is not.&nbsp; I refer you to Appendix IV, page 134 of the book.&nbsp;It is space that is expanding.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; And objects do no create the manifold.&nbsp; Mass and energy of objects (including fields) determines the curvature of the manifold.&nbsp; I think perhaps you need to learn what the term "manifold" means.&nbsp; You seem to continually misuse it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ari flunked the smell test. </DIV></p><p>Your "expanding space" idea also flunked the smell test IMO Dr.&nbsp; That's my point.</p><p>Actually, I've had a lot of folks look at that paper, many of them spent time going through the math looking for mistakes.&nbsp; I've yet to see one pointed out by anyone.&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact his idea seem "incredible" to you, doesn't justify your faith in "expanding space".&nbsp; He could in fact be on to something and may one day be recognized for his work.&nbsp; You can't really view science as a popularity contest. &nbsp; I"ve also seen your industry ignore even Hannes Alfven, a guy they gave a Nobel Prize to.&nbsp; I have no confidence that your industry would recognized 'genius" if it dropped in their lap.&nbsp; I'm not suggesting Ari's ideas fall into that category, but I cannot disprove them from a mathematical perspective, and I've yet to meet anyone who can.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven has not, yet. </DIV></p><p>He never will either.&nbsp; He won the Nobel prize for a reason.&nbsp; His theories in cosmology are directly related to his work in plasma physics and he wrote the book on plasma physics.&nbsp; He's a credible source from a physics perspective, from a mathematical perspective, from an electrical engineering perspective, and from a theoretical perspective.&nbsp;&nbsp; There's nothing but emprical science to be found in his work, and it's all good stuff with the possible exception of "ambiplasma" which is the only concept he put forth that cannot be emprically demonstrated in a lab.&nbsp; I prefer 'I don't know" to making things up, so "I don't know" where the current flow originates or terminates, I just see it's effects on nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your version of Alfven is pretty odorous, since among other things you (whether you want to admit it or not) have rejected general relativity.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>First of all, my thoughts on GR are not related to my thoughts on MHD theory.&nbsp; For instance, I could be wrong about one thing in one theory and not the other.&nbsp; My version of Einstein might be oderous from your perspective, but that really has nothing to do with MHD theory or Alfven or his work.&nbsp; I could be completely wrong about how I personal interpret his work and it would still be good work.&nbsp; My personal opinions on either topic are irrelevant to the scientific correctness of Alfven's theories.&nbsp; You owe it to yourself to study his theories free from my input and free from all other opinions about his work.&nbsp; I give you high praise for ordering his book and I look forward to our conversation about the motive force of energy *after* you've read a couple of chapters of that book. Alfven explains the errors the mainstream is making about 'magnetic reconnection' better than I could ever hope to do, and he has the personal credibility (our should) that I do not have.&nbsp; I think it's a more powerful argument when it's coming from a guy who has been recognized with a Nobel Prize as the founding father of MHD theory. &nbsp; </p><p>Like I explained earlier, I do favor an expansion model, but I"m not yet convinced that acceleration is real based on one SN1A study.&nbsp; I've seen more recent studies that seem to refute such ideas anyway, so I really have no confidence that "space expands", or that Ari's theories have merit.&nbsp; I will give Ari's theories one point, I would have to say that they are falsifiable, in some way, but I'm not sure how to devise an experiment that might verfify or falsify his claim.&nbsp; It is however based upon particle physics prinicples, so it should be able to be tested in a controlled way.&nbsp; If and when someone does that, then maybe I'll take a cloesr look at his work.&nbsp; In the mean time "I don't know&nbsp; what the big picture looks like yet" works just fine by me.&nbsp; As I said, I'm more&nbsp; interested in explaining coronal loop activity and solar wind activity with EU principles because I know that they can be applied to these issues.&nbsp; ARI's even shown a way to apply them to redhshift issues, I simply don't know if he's right or wrong just by looking at the math. </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'>Your "expandind space" idea also flunked the smell test Dr.&nbsp;... I do favor an expansion model, but I"m not yet convinced that acceleration is real based on one SN1A study.&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are contradicting yourself.</p><p>You need to separate the notions of "expanding space" from "accelerating expansion".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If you reject "expanding space" then you are placing yourself in disagreement with Einstein -- that is OK, he could be wrong.&nbsp; If you are only rejecting "accelerating expansion" then you are simply questioning the more recent data that suggests the expansion is indeed accelerating -- that is also OK, and I think you have more company with this position.</p><p>But the problem is that, based solely on your words, the rest of us cannot figure out what your position is.&nbsp; You appear to want to take a position and then drag Einstein over to agree with you.&nbsp; You can't do that.&nbsp; Einstein's final position, after seeing the Hubble data, is that space is expanding.&nbsp; You can agree or disagree.&nbsp; You can't change Einstein's position for him.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you are starting to&nbsp;sound like Michael.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Hey now... I can handle the run of the mill Ad Homs, but that's low (j/k Michael <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />).</p><p>Anyway, I reread my post and agree that it was a bit out of character for my style.&nbsp; I've been I'll the last few days, so I blame the nyquil.</p><p>With thtat said, however... I still don't accept a quote as credible from a book that was published after both men have passed.&nbsp; I see the quote as more of a folk lore than anything.&nbsp; There's something mythical about Einstein and his greatness amongst us mere mortals.&nbsp; My opinion is that quote is thrown around as much as it is to make Einstein appear human (which he is, of course).&nbsp; I don't doubt Einstein had reservations and regret, but I think the whole "biggest mistake of my life" has been over used and abused.</p><p>The only reason it rubbed me the wrong way was Michael's corelating the quote to the LambdaCDM model as "blunder theory".&nbsp; I understand Michael's reasoning behind it, but I think it's a real stretch to compare the two.&nbsp;</p><p>I retract my demands, but still stand by my assertations.&nbsp; Sorry for dragging the thread down a notch.</p><p>Time for more Nyquil... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif" border="0" alt="Yell" title="Yell" /> </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'>You are contradicting yourself.</DIV></p><p>We're just having a hard time on this one issue because of unclear use of terms (on your end IMO).</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You need to separate the notions of "expanding space" from "accelerating expansion".</DIV></p><p>What you are calling "expanding space' in *THIS* sentence is what I would call simple "expansion".&nbsp; It happens, but only as the objects inside the manifold expand and move.&nbsp; It is an expansion of "spacetime", not "space".&nbsp; Spacetime can expand as the objects that make up the spacetime continuum move and expand outward. That is ordinary expansion based on the physical movement and physical momentum of particles made of mass.&nbsp; The manifold changes shape accordingly, but the expansion is physically related to the movement of the objects made of mass.</p><p>The idea of "expanding space" is baloney, or at least the point I'm contesting. It's you "speedy space" thing, the part that is associated with "dark energy" and non standard variations of GR theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO you are incorrectly using terms when you say "expanding space".&nbsp; You should IMO be saying "expanding spacetime", not "expanding space".&nbsp; Only when you insert that blunder constant (or mathematical construct) into GR theory can you get 'space' to expand.&nbsp; "Space" however isn't expanding, and I reject your addition of that constant back into GR theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you reject "expanding space" then you are placing yourself in disagreement with Einstein -- that is OK, he could be wrong. </DIV></p><p>I don't reject "expanding spacetime" as Einstein described it.&nbsp; It's only the idea that "space" expands or what you are calling "accelerating expansion", or "dark energy" that I disagree with.&nbsp; This is a recent addition to Lambda-CDM theory that was not part of my GR cirriculum or part of GR until 15 years or so ago.</p><p>Einsteins final "solution" didn't include any constants, or any "acceleration space" components, or any "dark energy" components, or any "blunder"" components or whatever you want to call it.&nbsp; There is a distinct difference between GR theory "proper" and blunder theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The introduction of constants back into blunder theory will give you an expansion of "space", but without it, there is only a "normal" expansion of objects and a normal expansion of the spacetime continuum.&nbsp; Only by adding constants do you get "speedy space", "dark enegy" or whatever you call it.&nbsp; If you don't believe in "dark energy", then why would you believe that "space" expands?&nbsp; I don't logically see how you can reject "dark energy", and not reject the math you're adding to GR?&nbsp; It just doesn't compute from my perspective.&nbsp; You evidently "question" the use of placeholder terms for the math, but you seem to be convinced the math is correct and describes some other "space expansion" force of nature.&nbsp; I don't know of any force of nature that causes "space" to expand between two objects, and such a thing has never been demonstrated to occur in nature. I don't just reject the term, I reject the instertion of the extra math as well.<br /> </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'>Hey now... I can handle the run of the mill Ad Homs, but that's low (j/k Michael ).</DIV></p><p>LOL!&nbsp; It seemed like a quick way to get in a cheap shot at both of us at once.&nbsp; It was clever, and actually a bit funny too.&nbsp; Besides, it worked in my favor, well, sort of...... </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>