Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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...... &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>And I just couldn't resist the Ad Hom comment... he fed me a fastball on that one and swung for the fences.</p><p>Anyway... How do you, personally, differentiate between expanding space and expanding spacetime?&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'>And I just couldn't resist the Ad Hom comment... he fed me a fastball on that one and swung for the fences.Anyway... How do you, personally, differentiate between expanding space and expanding spacetime?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Everything labeled "dark energy" in Lambda-CMD theory is essentially described to me by some as "expanding space".&nbsp; It's very interesting how different individuals describe it.&nbsp; I've heard it called "dark energy", "negative pressure density", "expanding space". I forget what origin called it, but something like "fast moving space".&nbsp; It's all been added to GR in the past 15 years.&nbsp; Notthing like that kind of stuff was taught to me in college or even written about for many years later.&nbsp; It's only the in the past 15 years or so since the dark energy addition to GR theory took place, so it's very easy for me to see where that distinction is.</p><p>Einstein regretted his insertion of a constant into GR.&nbsp;&nbsp; You're trying to stuff it back in there again, and without justification IMO.&nbsp; You don't even know if this "acceleration" is even remotely related to gravity in the first place.&nbsp; Eintein never said a word about dark energy and and he regretted fudging the numbers with a constant.&nbsp; He removed it, and his friends claimed he regretted it. &nbsp; I'm old enough to remember the history of how things transpired, so I see a very clear distinction between 'expansion" as Einstein described it and this "expanding space" you're describing. The interesting thing from my perspective, is that Lambda-CDM theory relegates gravity to a mere minor player in the scheme of things, a mere 28% of the total force of nature.&nbsp; Gravity now presumably does push me, pull you tricks depending on distance, but only if you dont physically try to measure it, because it's always shy around material beings.&nbsp; It's all sounds so "hokey" sounding now, and I really used to love the empirical physics elegance of GR theory.&nbsp; I really hate seeing GR theory being cludged up by metaphysics.&nbsp; </p><p>FYI, If Lambda-CDM proponents ever were to actually try to tie that "expanding space"/"dark energy" concept back to real emprical physica, they would have to definite it in real physical terms, a superluminal aeither of some sort.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Normal expansion" non (superluminal expansion) might be explained though QM and the idea of an expanding, ever present EM field, but there is no way I can think of to justify what you're doing with 'dark energy" using standard GR as I was taught it in my youth.&nbsp; No material object made of matter could possibly move faster than light in Einstein's GR theory.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory has matter doing superluminal feats of magic that Einstein never even dreamed of.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO the only way to justfiy any of these models is to go back to aether theory. </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'><font color="#0000ff">There is extremely strong evidence that the condensation was much greater than just going down to 10%, </font> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What "extremely strong" evidence might that be?&nbsp; I'm curious frankly, because Alfven's BB theory seemed from my perspective to be one of the single least "metaphysical" theories I'd heard in a long time.&nbsp; Even assuming redshift is directly related to movement and expansion, how can you know that all mass was ever collected to a "point", a "singularity", or even to a spherical area of a few hundred million light years across?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see how you can be certain of the original size.</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'>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. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Man we're having a tough time with the term "space" and the idea of "expansion".&nbsp; Your inclusion of constants (or other math) into Einstein's constant is the issue we're arguing, nothing more.&nbsp; I agree I've taken some liberties in terms here, but you're misusing the term "space" IMO in a big way.&nbsp; By inserting a constant back in, what are you equating with that constant, and how does it physically work?&nbsp; I think if you'll answer these questions, we might finally understand each other about the concept of "expansion".&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>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25556</p><p><font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another possibility is that energy release happens very <strong>gradually</strong>, but very close to the sun's surface. In this case, a phenomenon called thermal nonequilibrium causes the loops to go through periodic fits of dynamic behavior. The latest computer simulations suggest that these solar temper tantrums may also be able to explain the observations.</DIV></font></p><p>Another possiblity of course is that it is not a "gradual" process at all, it's called an electrical discharge.</p><p>http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm</p><p>You think someone there would notice that these things actually can move at lightening leader speeds.&nbsp; It's called an "electrical discharge".&nbsp; Bruce figured that out 40 years ago.&nbsp; It's not a gradual process at all, nor would any gradual process explain Bruce's observations or any solar satellite observation.&nbsp; I can't believe they'll model everything *except* the one force of nature that has already been shown to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely 'electricity". They point Rhessi at Earth and observe gamma rays from disharges on Earth. They point the same satellite at the solar atmosphere and see gamma rays from it's atmosphere, and they call it "magnetic reconnection" and "thermal nonequilibrium". &nbsp; Hoy Vey.......</p><p>Someone might explan to James Klimchuk that electrical discharges do indeed experience 'thermal non-equilibrium", and they do indeed create strong "reconnection" events, and form loops in the atmosphere like Birkeland demonstrated more than 100 years ago and Bruce wrote about almost 50 years ago. </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'>Man we're having a tough time with the term "space" and the idea of "expansion".&nbsp; Your inclusion of constants (or other math) into Einstein's constant is the issue we're arguing, nothing more.&nbsp; I agree I've taken some liberties in terms here, but you're misusing the term "space" IMO in a big way.&nbsp; By inserting a constant back in, what are you equating with that constant, and how does it physically work?&nbsp; I think if you'll answer these questions, we might finally understand each other about the concept of "expansion".&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I haven't inserted a constant anywhere.&nbsp; I have told you, and told you, and told you, that this has nothing to do with dark energy.&nbsp; Put the constant in, take the constant out -- I don't care.&nbsp; It is totally irrelevant to the fundamental issue of the expansion of space following Hubbles Law.&nbsp; And it is not me that is having a tough time with "space" or "expansion". </p><p>Expansion of space means exactly what it says.&nbsp; Put two pins in the map of the space, at locations removed from very much matter.&nbsp; Wait a while.&nbsp; You will then find them farther apart.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... 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....Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It probably has.&nbsp; All quotes seem to lead back to Gamow's book though.&nbsp; I think the&nbsp; quote is true, and it is striking enough that it has been used over and over again.&nbsp; To me it merely serves to emphasize the role that aethetics played in Einstein's approach to research.&nbsp; The cosmological constant appears in the field equations in a rather ad hoc manner, and so is "ugly".&nbsp; Einstein, like Dirac looked for beauty in physical law.&nbsp; So I easily imagine Einstein calling the insertion of an ugly constant in to his otherwise beautiful field equations as a blunder, when Hubble's data showed the constant to be unnecessary. &nbsp;However, that blunder has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Lamda CDM theory.</p><p>In fact the use of the cosmological constant in Lamda CDM theory is virtually identical to the use to which it was put by Einstein.&nbsp; He believed at the time that the universe was static.&nbsp; His field equations would not support a stable static universe.&nbsp; So he inserted the constant to permit a solution with a static universe.&nbsp; There was no explanation for the constant other than that it permitted a static universe. &nbsp;Then new&nbsp;data showed the universe to be expanding and he took the constant out.&nbsp; Now we have a situation where data seems to indicate that not only is the universe expanding, but the expansion is accelerating.&nbsp; General relativity doesn't like that without the cosmological constant.&nbsp; So, lacking any better approach, and not understanding the problem, we give the problem a name, "dark energy" and insert the constant into the field equations.&nbsp; Now we find that we can model an accelerating expansion.&nbsp; Maybe it's right and maybe it's not, but it at least provides a hypothesis that one can now try to test.&nbsp; Then along come the EU guys and somehow this turns into a religious war.&nbsp; Go figure.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everything labeled "dark energy" in Lambda-CMD theory is essentially described to me by some as "expanding space".&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Ok. &nbsp; You've made it abundantly clear about your take on dark energy.&nbsp; However, as has been stated, remove Lambda from the equation and you still have expansion.</p><p>Is it your contention that this expansion is 2 superclusters receding from each other due motion through space, changing their coordinates or that the distance between them is increasing while their coordinates within spacetime remain the same?</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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, that blunder has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Lamda CDM theory.</p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's precisely the point I was trying to make.&nbsp; Einstein's blunder wasn't the constant, rather it was his refusal to recognize that, with or without a constant, a stable static universe simply didn't work.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that even with the constant, Einstein's universe was still unstable and he knew that.&nbsp; Yet he ignored that and moved forward... hence his regrets. </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'>That's precisely the point I was trying to make.&nbsp; Einstein's blunder wasn't the constant, rather it was his refusal to recognize that, with or without a constant, a stable static universe simply didn't work.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that even with the constant, Einstein's universe was still unstable and he knew that.&nbsp; Yet he ignored that and moved forward... hence his regrets. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The way I understand it, and I could be wrong, is this:&nbsp; First look at the&nbsp;cases that involve no cosmological constant: 1) In a static universe gravity will cause matter to clump back together, contracting.&nbsp; This one is pretty simple, since gravity is attractive.&nbsp; So a static universe with no repulsive force to counter gravity is unstable.&nbsp; It will immediately begin to contract. 2) An expanding universe is stable, in the sense that it can go on expanding, with gravity acting to slow that expansion.&nbsp; It then either expands indefinitely ( if the matter and hence gravity is insufficient to stop the expansion completely) or the expansion can come to a halt and gravity will cause it to contract from that point. 3) A contracting universe is also stable, in that gravity will cause it to contract either indefinitely or until things are so compact that other forces stop it.&nbsp; Given the ability of enough matter to create a black hole, forces outside of gravity are insufficient to stop the contraction and you end up with a singularity.</p><p>Now throw in a cosmological constant.&nbsp; If you pick that constant skillfully you counteract the gravitational force and you can sustain a static universe.&nbsp; Turn up the constant a bit higher and you not only cancel gravity, you add in a repulsive force that causes expansion of space and an accelerating expansion at that.&nbsp; Turn it down a bit and gravity prevails and not much of notice happens.&nbsp; In any case&nbsp;use of the constant is ad hoc and I think this is what caused Einstein's objection.&nbsp; He did not like fudge factors.&nbsp; Neither do I.&nbsp; They are ugly.&nbsp; Einstein liked beautiful theories.&nbsp; </p><p>There is one intriguing possibility for the cosmological constant.&nbsp;This is in the realm of conjecture, but it is serious conjecture and not of my making.&nbsp; Some people think the source of the cosmological constant, aka dark energy, may be the energy of the quantum vacuum.&nbsp; That energy is the result of the brief formation of virtual particles in a vacuum.&nbsp; Particle/anti-particle pairs continually wink in and out of existence.&nbsp; This sounds a little strange, but it is real and is the source of the Casimir effect which has been demonstrated in the laboratory.&nbsp; If one could formulate a reasonable theory in which this sort of thing accounted for "dark energy" then the big picture might&nbsp;come together with a cosmological constant that could be explained in terms of hard physics.&nbsp; This would involve a strong link between general relativity and quantum theory&nbsp;-- the current Holy Grail of theoretical physics.&nbsp; I&nbsp; personally&nbsp;do not understand how this vacuum energy can be repulsive, since energy, like matter (they are the same thing) curves space to create gravitational attraction. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25556Another possiblity of course is that it is not a "gradual" process at all, it's called an electrical discharge.http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htmYou think someone there would notice that these things actually can move at lightening leader speeds.&nbsp; It's called an "electrical discharge".&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>How do you store the electrical energy in order to get a discharge in a environment that is dominated by extremely conductive plasma, other than in a magnetic field?&nbsp; If you are going to store electrical energy you only have two options.&nbsp; An electrical field or a magnetic field (or both).&nbsp; If the storage mechanisn is purely in an electrical field then you need some method of developing a static electric charge, ie a massive charge separation.&nbsp; How do you do that without an outside influence?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you pick that constant skillfully you counteract the gravitational force and you can sustain a static universe.&nbsp; Turn up the constant a bit higher and you not only cancel gravity, you add in a repulsive force that causes expansion of space and an accelerating expansion at that.&nbsp; Turn it down a bit and gravity prevails and not much of notice happens.&nbsp; In any case&nbsp;use of the constant is ad hoc and I think this is what caused Einstein's objection.&nbsp; He did not like fudge factors.&nbsp; Neither do I.&nbsp; They are ugly.&nbsp; Einstein liked beautiful theories. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>From what I've read, Einstein's static universe was analagous to balancing a pencill on its head.&nbsp; There's a non-zero chance of accomplishing it, but given the slightest of perterbations and the effects are irreverseable therefor unstable in reality.&nbsp; Einstein couldn't imagine anything other than a static universe so he went with this model despite knowing this.&nbsp; That's my interpretation, anyway.&nbsp; Hubble's observation forced him not only to dump lamda, but his entire solution.&nbsp; I suppose you could relate his blunder to lambda, but I think it goes much deeper than that. </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'>From what I've read, Einstein's static universe was analagous to balancing a pencill on its head.&nbsp; There's a non-zero chance of accomplishing it, but given the slightest of perterbations and the effects are irreverseable therefor unstable in reality.&nbsp; Einstein couldn't imagine anything other than a static universe so he went with this model despite knowing this.&nbsp; That's my interpretation, anyway.&nbsp; Hubble's observation forced him not only to dump lamda, but his entire solution.&nbsp; I suppose you could relate his blunder to lambda, but I think it goes much deeper than that. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I think I'll do a little checking.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think I'll do a little checking. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think I got the pencil analogy from Ned Wright's site.&nbsp; I don't remember if he attributes a source or not.&nbsp; But there are loads of papers written about it.</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 think I got the pencil analogy from Ned Wright's site.&nbsp; I don't remember if he attributes a source or not.&nbsp; But there are loads of papers written about it. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Ok I see what Ned Wright is saying.&nbsp; But he is using the term stability a bit loosely.&nbsp; If I understand his pont, it is not that Einstein's static universe is unstable, but rather that the theory is not robust.</p><p>Here is the difference.&nbsp; To me to say that the universe is unstable would be to say that the steady state could not be maintained if there were small perturbations of the distribution of matter/energy in the universe. As far as I can tell Einstein's formulation is not subject to that disease. One would rather expec that since he and we do not know the precise distribution of matter in the universe.</p><p>What I get from Ned Wright's site is that if the cosmological constant is set for the universe on the basis of a single assumption as to the average mass density ( i.e. the ratio of total mass to total volume) then if the ratio is perturbed, but the cosmological constant is kept constant, the resulting universe will then eithr expand indefinitely or it will contract.&nbsp; So basically the stability depends on choosing the cosmological constant to fit the precise volume of the universe.&nbsp; But in a truly steady-state cosmology the volume and total mass/energy are&nbsp;in fact constant, that is what makes it steady-state.&nbsp; So to me that means that the model is not robust, meaning that the constant has to be chosen precisely, but once that precise choice is made, the resulting model is stable.</p><p>Without a cosmological constant to counteract gravity, one would have to have a very precisely uniform distribution of matter to avoid eventual gravitational collapse.&nbsp; For instance I think if you distributed matter evenly at precisely the integer lattice points in 3-space and assumed an infinite Euclidean geometry, that would be stable (every mass would feel and equal gravitational pull in all directions by symmetry) but any slight perturbation of that distribution and it will collapse.&nbsp; With a force or negative pressure to counteract gravity you need not be so precise in distributing mass.</p><p>I have been looking through several books on cosmology and general relativity, but can't find anything on Einstein's use of the constant except for Einstein's original paper.&nbsp; In that he only deals with large-scale structure and does assume uniform distribution of mass.&nbsp; He does not address stability questions.</p><p>I also note on Ned Wright's site a discussion of the constant and the potential relationship with vacuum energy.&nbsp; He then goes on to discuss it in terms of effect on an open an closed universe and I think makes a mistake that is typical in physics of thinking that that question is cleanly answered by curvature.&nbsp; But it is not.&nbsp; A positive curvature gets you a closed manifold, but a negative curvature can also do that.</p><p>Bottom line -- I think Einstein's steady state universe was stable in the sense described above, but there remains a confusion factor.</p><p>On a different subject, but related to this thread I did find a discussion of Alfven's plasma cosmology in <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology </em>by Peebles.&nbsp; He note that is physically possible and consistent with classical physics, but that it does not jive well with empirical data and relies on an unlikely coincidence in the Earth being very near the center of whatever explosion substitutes for the Big Bang.&nbsp; It does show that serious cosmologists have considered, and set aside, Alfven's cosmological theories.&nbsp; He was not ignored.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So basically the stability depends on choosing the cosmological constant to fit the precise volume of the universe.&nbsp; But in a truly steady-state cosmology the volume and total mass/energy are&nbsp;in fact constant, that is what makes it steady-state.&nbsp; So to me that means that the model is not robust, meaning that the constant has to be chosen precisely, but once that precise choice is made, the resulting model is stable.Without a cosmological constant to counteract gravity, one would have to have a very precisely uniform distribution of matter to avoid eventual gravitational collapse.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>I'm going to have to accept your assessment.&nbsp; And I'll also retract my assertion that Einstein "knew" his model was unstable.&nbsp; The only thing I could find were unsourced statements that Einstein concluded at the time he solved for a static model was that "it is an untestable hypothesis". (I'm sure Michael loves to hear that).&nbsp; Even then, though, he still accepted his model as viable.&nbsp; The earliest 'proof' that I can find that Einstein's static-stable universe was indeed unstable was a paper by Eddington.</p><p>Eddington, A S. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 90, 668, 1930. </p><p>I can't seem to find the actual literature without paying for it, but it is referenced often.&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'm going to have to accept your assessment.&nbsp; And I'll also retract my assertion that Einstein "knew" his model was unstable.&nbsp; The only thing I could find were unsourced statements that Einstein concluded at the time he solved for a static model was that "it is an untestable hypothesis". (I'm sure Michael loves to hear that).&nbsp; Even then, though, he still accepted his model as viable.&nbsp; The earliest 'proof' that I can find that Einstein's static-stable universe was indeed unstable was a paper by Eddington.Eddington, A S. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 90, 668, 1930. I can't seem to find the actual literature without paying for it, but it is referenced often.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have seen references to Eddington's paper as well.&nbsp; What was said was that Eddington showed that if the radius (hence volume) of Einstein's spherical steady-state universe were to change even slightly that the universe would either then expand or contract.&nbsp; This is certainly an undesirable aspect of a cosmological theory, but it is not completely damning since if you are claiming a truly static cosmology, the radius will not change&nbsp;without an outside influence, and since we are talking about the universe, there cannot be an outside influence.&nbsp; I think the '"intelligent design" crowd might have a field day misinterpreting things in this case, since it cescribes a situation in which the radius and cosmological constant have to be precisely matched, with no room for even a small error, and no physical mechanism for making that match.&nbsp; You are stuck with the anthropic principle, which has been a poor guide in the past.</p><p>I&nbsp;haven't seen a reference to an "untestable hypothesis", but I am not particularly surprised.&nbsp; Until Hubble found the redshift correlation, I would be surprised if anyone of Einstein's era would had considered any means of experimentally addressing issues on a cosmological scale.&nbsp; It is not something that can be done in a laboratory.&nbsp;</p><p>There is nothing wrong with developing a hypothesis that is untestable at the moment, so long as it is consistent with physical principles that are known or that can be tested.&nbsp; To do so simply puts a&nbsp;challenge on the table for experimentalists who can be very clever at devising new tests.&nbsp; All of general relativity was, in a real sense, untestable at the time that Einstein advanced the theory.&nbsp; Then the experimentalists saw gravitational lensing during and eclipse, and Einstein correctly predicted the observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury.&nbsp; Had those observations been contrary to general relativity, the theory would probably have been cast aside.</p><p>BTW the notion of robustness is one item that makes inflation attractive to some.&nbsp; The universe as we see it is pretty close to flat.&nbsp; The Big Bang hypothesis requires a highly curved space-time in the early universe.&nbsp; The inflation mechanism predicts both the very uniform, but slightly anisotropic cosmic background radiation and very flat present-day universe over a broad range of initial conditions.&nbsp; So far non-robust theories have eventually been shown to be incorrect.&nbsp; Lack of robustness is one reason that Alfven's cosmology has not been accepted, as discussed in Peeble's book.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&nbsp;haven't seen a reference to an "untestable hypothesis", but I am not particularly surprised.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't remember exactly where I read that.&nbsp; I'm sure it was just some random article with the author's interpretation.&nbsp; I believe it was in reference to the early days of Einstein and De Sitter having discussions.&nbsp; Maybe the quote was attributed to De Sitter.&nbsp; Again, though... there was no source for the quote.&nbsp; I just remember it as amusing considering the discussion here on the forum.&nbsp; If I stumble upon the link again, I'll try to remember to post it.&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'>General relativity doesn't like that without the cosmological constant.</DIV></p><p>You mean general relativity can't explain that.&nbsp; If you stuff in a constant however, you have to define the nature of that constant.&nbsp; Care to do that in real *physical* terms for us?&nbsp; What does that constant represent in terms of real physics?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, lacking any better approach, and not understanding the problem, we give the problem a name, "dark energy" and insert the constant into the field equations.</DIV></p><p>No, you took *leaps* of faith by suggesting that any sort of acceleration would be in the least bit related to "gravity" in the first place!&nbsp;&nbsp; That's really quite a leap of faith because the manifold always points to the mass, not away from it.&nbsp; You've turned GR inside and out and relegated gravity to a mere 28% of the forces of nature.&nbsp; Care to tell us what that constant now represents in terms of real nature?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now we find that we can model an accelerating expansion.</DIV></p><p>You've turned gravity theory into a magic show, where it attracts sometimes, and repulses sometimes, and we can't ever physically "test' the idea in a lab because magic acceleration is shy around a lab.&nbsp; You just turned emprical physics into unflasifyable dogma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe it's right and maybe it's not, but it at least provides a hypothesis that one can now try to test.&nbsp; Then along come the EU guys and somehow this turns into a religious war.&nbsp; Go figure. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If it's a "religious" war in you mind, it's only because you've abanded emprical physis in the process and you've created dogma that is indistinguishable from magic using exactly the same math formulas.&nbsp; The 'religious' part is coming from your side of aisle, not mine.&nbsp; Just just defended real emprical physics, and trying to prevent it from being taken over by religious dogma.&nbsp; If you can emprically demonstrate what your constant reprsents in terms of real physics so we might test your idea in some emprical way, I'll be happy to consider your hypothesis.&nbsp; If you going to simply have "faith" this has anything at all to do with gravity, then show me how your constant affects gravity on a small scale on on two atoms,and I'll be happy let you postulate about how this "dark energy" now makes up 72% of the universe. &nbsp; Until and unless you can emprically and physically define C, and show that your constant has the effect you claim it has on ordinary items, I have no option but to reject your hypothesis on grounds that it is emprically indistinguishable from magic, using exactly the same constant.</p><p>You're the one trying to turn emprical physics upside down and turn it into a religious dogma.&nbsp; I'm trying to simply prevent that from happening and I'm forcing you to emprically demonstrate your case like I would do in any field of science.&nbsp; It's no my fault your industry has never physically defined C or physically tested for "dark energy".&nbsp; If I claimed C was magic and slapped your "dark energy" math to magic, would you let me claim that magic made up 3/4ths of the universe?&nbsp; Come on.&nbsp; This isn't about me or GR.&nbsp; This is about what you're trying to do with emprical science, and GR.&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 haven't inserted a constant anywhere.&nbsp; I have told you, and told you, and told you,</DIV></p><p>What you never told me was how you started from a mass body in a singularity, and somehow achieved "superluminal" expansion without inseerting any constants.&nbsp; I don't believe your statement, because without some constants, GR "proper" (without any constants) isn't capable of making the massive singularity "inflate" or do anything but sit there sucking in everything like a giant "black hole". with a massive event horizon.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What you never told me was how you started from a mass body in a singularity, and somehow achieved "superluminal" expansion without inseerting any constants.&nbsp; I don't believe your statement, because without some constants, GR "proper" (without any constants) isn't capable of making the massive singularity "inflate" or do anything but sit there sucking in everything like a giant "black hole". with a massive event horizon.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You, know I have reached the point where I don't care if you believe me or not.&nbsp; As I have told you several times the basic cosmology theories start with now, not then.&nbsp; Given the now in which there is ample data that the universe is expanding, you can run general relativity backwards and show an origin in a singularity.&nbsp; This was done by Hawking and Ellis.&nbsp; The singularity is an indication that general relativity has broken down, but the conclusion of an origin in an extraordinarily compact form remains valid.&nbsp; The expansion may be the result of initial conditions of unknown origin or of inflation, but that doesn't matter.&nbsp; We know that at this time the universe is expanding, and that is consistent with GR.&nbsp; GR does have the capability to predict the&nbsp;actual origin of the universe or the forces that were operable during the earliest moments of the Big Bang.&nbsp; We don't know enough yet to formulate such a theory.&nbsp; A "Theory of Everything" does not exist.</p><p>I have shown you on several occassions how, starting with Hubbles Law which you say that you accept, one can show superluminal recession velocities.&nbsp; It does take a little bit of math :&nbsp; S = Hd.&nbsp; Now set S = c and solve for d, to find d=c/H.</p><p>I can't tell you how to start with a singularity, and neither can anybody else.&nbsp;Even&nbsp;inflation does not start at time 0 and a singularity.&nbsp; Guth explicitly states in his book that an extrapolation to infinite density is not to be&nbsp; trusted. I&nbsp;certainly do not&nbsp;assert that it all started with a singularity, as I have told you over and over and over again.&nbsp;You are starting to sound like a little kid who thinks that by repeating a question to which he has been told that no one knows the answer he will eventually get an answer anyway. I don't know how it all began and I probably won't find out this year either.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean general relativity can't explain that.&nbsp; If you stuff in a constant however, you have to define the nature of that constant.&nbsp; Care to do that in real *physical* terms for us?&nbsp; What does that constant represent in terms of real physics?No, you took *leaps* of faith by suggesting that any sort of acceleration would be in the least bit related to "gravity" in the first place!&nbsp;&nbsp; That's really quite a leap of faith because the manifold always points to the mass, not away from it.&nbsp; You've turned GR inside and out and relegated gravity to a mere 28% of the forces of nature.&nbsp; Care to tell us what that constant now represents in terms of real nature?You've turned gravity theory into a magic show, where it attracts sometimes, and repulses sometimes, and we can't ever physically "test' the idea in a lab because magic acceleration is shy around a lab.&nbsp; You just turned emprical physics into unflasifyable dogma.If it's a "religious" war in you mind, it's only because you've abanded emprical physis in the process and you've created dogma that is indistinguishable from magic using exactly the same math formulas.&nbsp; The 'religious' part is coming from your side of aisle, not mine.&nbsp; Just just defended real emprical physics, and trying to prevent it from being taken over by religious dogma.&nbsp; If you can emprically demonstrate what your constant reprsents in terms of real physics so we might test your idea in some emprical way, I'll be happy to consider your hypothesis.&nbsp; If you going to simply have "faith" this has anything at all to do with gravity, then show me how your constant affects gravity on a small scale on on two atoms,and I'll be happy let you postulate about how this "dark energy" now makes up 72% of the universe. &nbsp; Until and unless you can emprically and physically define C, and show that your constant has the effect you claim it has on ordinary items, I have no option but to reject your hypothesis on grounds that it is emprically indistinguishable from magic, using exactly the same constant.You're the one trying to turn emprical physics upside down and turn it into a religious dogma.&nbsp; I'm trying to simply prevent that from happening and I'm forcing you to emprically demonstrate your case like I would do in any field of science.&nbsp; It's no my fault your industry has never physically defined C or physically tested for "dark energy".&nbsp; If I claimed C was magic and slapped your "dark energy" math to magic, would you let me claim that magic made up 3/4ths of the universe?&nbsp; Come on.&nbsp; This isn't about me or GR.&nbsp; This is about what you're trying to do with emprical science, and GR.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have miscontrued, apparently deliberately, nearly everything that I have said.&nbsp; You also misrepresent empiricism.&nbsp; For the Lamda CDM model is nothing but empiricism, and that is the&nbsp; problem with it.&nbsp; It is simply one means of adapting a model to fit observed empirical data, without a solid theoretical footing for the constants that are plugged in to make that fit possible.</p><p>I have no idea what you mean by manifolds point towards matter.&nbsp; Manifolds don't point.&nbsp;Compaasses point.&nbsp;&nbsp; You apparently have no idea what a manifold is, despite my attempting to tell you on several occassions.&nbsp; Go get a book on differential geometry.</p><p>I have no idea what you mean by stating that C has not been physicall defined.&nbsp; It is the speed of light in a vacuum and is one of the most important constants in all of physics.&nbsp; If you are referring to lamda in the CDM model, then of course no one has a physical explanation, that is why the reference if to "dark energy", which as you have been told again and again is simply a name given to something that we do not understand.&nbsp; There is some speculation that it may be related to the energy of the vacuum, but there are problems with that idea. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What you never told me was how you started from a mass body in a singularity, and somehow achieved "superluminal" expansion without inseerting any constants.&nbsp; I don't believe your statement, because without some constants, GR "proper" (without any constants) isn't capable of making the massive singularity "inflate" or do anything but sit there sucking in everything like a giant "black hole". with a massive event horizon.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I take it from the tone of this statement you believe in a universe without a beginning?&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'>You, know I have reached the point where I don't care if you believe me or not.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Well, at some point we will have to agree to disagree, I'm sure.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I have told you several times the basic cosmology theories start with now, not then.</DIV></p><p>It makes a lot of assumptions about then, based on interpretations from "now" that IMO cannot be justified via emprical evidence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the now in which there is ample data that the universe is expanding, you can run general relativity backwards and show an origin in a singularity.</DIV></p><p>But this itself is an act of faith.&nbsp; Alfven's "Big Bang" ideas are just as valid as yours, and there's no way anything is going to come out of a singularity the size of a universe.&nbsp; IMO it doesn't matter whether or not you think it was once the size of a single atom or just the size of the event horizon.&nbsp; You're faith in any sort of singularity is really unverifiable and unfalsifyable. &nbsp;</p><p>One thing that is abundantly clear, without inflation and dark energy, you will never exceed superluminal expansion.&nbsp; You'll need constants galore to be stuffed into that formula for any expansion at all.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This was done by Hawking and Ellis.&nbsp; The singularity is an indication that general relativity has broken down, but the conclusion of an origin in an extraordinarily compact form remains valid. </DIV></p><p>You really can't justify that statement.&nbsp; How would you emprically demosntrate it to be true?&nbsp; Alfven's Big Bang theory only required a contraction to about 10% of the original size and began expanding from there.&nbsp; The fact things move away from each other now would not be evidence that everything began from one "singularity".&nbsp; It's an interesting concept, but not particularly verifyable.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion may be the result of initial conditions of unknown origin or of inflation, but that doesn't matter.</DIV></p><p>But it does matter to me.&nbsp; It matters to me that you "assume" that inflation isn't just a figment of Guth's imagination.&nbsp; I remember BB theory *before* inflation became vogue, and I must say I've never been particluarly impressed with the idea.&nbsp; Guth's missing monopole problem wes certainly not convincing. His description of the process as a "free lunch" process was more than a wee bit disturbing in fact.&nbsp; The fact you can't emprically demonstrate that inflation is real is a significant problem from my perspective, particularly if you intend to teach this thing in a formal classroom setting as "science". &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We know that at this time the universe is expanding, </DIV></p><p>Actually we *believe* (at the moment) that it's expanding.&nbsp; In reality however Ari's paper demonstrates that there are other mathematical ways to "interpret" the redshift data.&nbsp; Arps observations must also be reexamined, particularly in light of the fact that astronomers have been talking about galaxies ejecting large objects at very high speeds. &nbsp; MECO theory suggests that large physical objects may have an intrinsic redshift.&nbsp; We *presume* from the redshift observations that teh universe is expanding.&nbsp; For the time being that seems to be the most logical conclusion, but it's not a given, and the 'interpretations' of the redshift phenomenon may change over time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that is consistent with GR. </DIV></p><p>I suppose that depends on how you define "GR".&nbsp; GR doesn't really support the idea of mass objects achieving speeds beyond the speed of light. &nbsp; If everthing began as a single coordinate system of mass, it's not poasible to make these mass ojbects travel as superliminal speeds, at least not without stuffing in those constants.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>GR does have the capability to predict the&nbsp;actual origin of the universe or the forces that were operable during the earliest moments of the Big Bang.</DIV></p><p>Not really.&nbsp; Alfven's 'earliest moments' are nothing like yours.&nbsp; His earliest moments had nothing to do with a "singularity" in fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We don't know enough yet to formulate such a theory.&nbsp; A "Theory of Everything" does not exist.</DIV></p><p>Well, that's true of course, but to listen to your coleagues describe Lambda-CMD theory, it is the theory of 'everything' and they seem to think they can pin down a creation date to within a few hundred thousand years.&nbsp; It does profess to explain the whole event.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have shown you on several occassions how, starting with Hubbles Law which you say that you accept,</DIV></p><p>If you recall, I suggested that Hubble's law was likely to turn out to be a good rule of thumb, not necessarily a "law" as you seem to suggest.&nbsp; Secondly I remain open to other sorts of "tired light' alternatives and mass objects with intrinsic redshifts.&nbsp; While it's possible Hubble's expansion is indeed occuring, I don't know that for a fact.&nbsp; I accept the concept of basic expansion as it was taught to me in college.&nbsp; That type of expansion however was directly related to the momentum of the mass objects, and involved no "constants", no inflation, no "dark energy", nothing like that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>one can show superluminal recession velocities. </DIV></p><p>If your "bang" started everything moving at .22C, and no constants are stuffed into GR, no 'Bang" would result in superliminal velocities of objects made of mass.&nbsp; The superliminal idea is not really congruent with the idea that everthing began in a single location.&nbsp; When you guys claim normal explansion (without constants) results in superliminal speeds of objects made of mass, that makes my skin crawl.&nbsp; You can't do that without adding constants and metaphysical entities galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does take a little bit of math :&nbsp; S = Hd.&nbsp; Now set S = c and solve for d, to find d=c/H.I can't tell you how to start with a singularity, and neither can anybody else.&nbsp;Even&nbsp;inflation does not start at time 0 and a singularity.&nbsp; Guth explicitly states in his book that an extrapolation to infinite density is not to be&nbsp; trusted. I&nbsp;certainly do not&nbsp;assert that it all started with a singularity, as I have told you over and over and over again.&nbsp;You are starting to sound like a little kid who thinks that by repeating a question to which he has been told that no one knows the answer he will eventually get an answer anyway. I don't know how it all began and I probably won't find out this year either. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I guess the bottom line here is that I have no faith in Guth's inflation.&nbsp; I have no faith in dark energy, or any faith in stuffing such things into GR theory and adding them as constants into a variation of blunder theory.&nbsp; Unless one puts pure "faith" in these ideas, it is impossible to validate or verify such claims emprically.&nbsp; It's a skeptics worst nightmare. &nbsp; By stuffing such superliminal processes into GR, you've come up with a creation date that is otherwise impossible to arrive at using known laws of nature and the known size of the physical universe.&nbsp; IMO it is no better than pulling a creation date out of thin air.</p><p>I really don't even mind the fact that you want to believe in these things and write about these things.&nbsp; All I ask is that pure emprical EU theory be taught and published along side of these other creation oriented theories so that students can make an informed choice.&nbsp;</p><p>EU theory doesn't necessarily presuppose that everthing began as a 'point'.&nbsp; It doesn't require inflation or 'dark energy" be involved in expansion.&nbsp; It allows for multiple 'interpretations' of the redshift phenomenon. &nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike Lamba-CDM theory, it is really only based on tangible physical forces of nature that can be emprically demonstrated to exist in nature in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; It attempts to describe everything based on emprical physics.</p><p>IMO, it's ok to have lots of discussions about lots of possible options.&nbsp; It should also be "OK" to talk about EU theory, and to promote EU theory.&nbsp; Here on this astronomy forum, that is possible.&nbsp; Unfortunately that isn't a universal truth, and your industry has some very strong biases towards EU theory in general.&nbsp;&nbsp; I never see the APJ or Nature or any of the mainstream publications publish any materials based on EU theory.&nbsp; Instead I see your industry making every effort to oversimplify *ELECTROmagnetic* phenomenon into only 'magnetic" driven events.&nbsp; I see your industry blatently ignoring the obvious electrical activity in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; I see it grossly misrepresent MHD theory in paper after paper.&nbsp; These things bother me far more than your feith in Lambda-CMD creation theories.</p><p>Believe it or not, I would not attempt to "squelch" theories I put no faith in.&nbsp; MOND theory seems as goofy to me as any inflation theory or dark matter theory, but hey, it's all "possible".&nbsp; There is however a problem in your industry in the way it systematically attempts to eliminate all discussion of EU theory, both on popular websites devoted to astronomy,&nbsp; and in the publishing community.&nbsp; EU proponents are forced to take their work to the IEEE, or other types of secondary publications to even be published at all, and your industry doesn't even respond to the valid criticisms of 'magnetic reconnection" theory that come from such publications.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>IMO there's a sinister side to this process, not because Lamba-CDM theory is popular or that it is taught to students, but because EU theory is being systematically eliminated from the cirruculum and from the mainstream publications.&nbsp; That makes real competition impossible.&nbsp; It makes it impossible to make an informed choice.&nbsp; I'm old enough to know the history of cosmology theory for the past 40 years, but most students of astronomy today don't have the luxury.&nbsp; They are being taught that GR theory *includes* constants.&nbsp; I wasn't taught that at all, in fact I was taught just the opposite.&nbsp; How would they know to even question someone like you when they talk about these constants being a part of GR?</p><p>IMO it's not really a problem that all options are put on the table for students to choose from.&nbsp; The real problem is that emprical physics is being systematically removed from the curriculum and from the publications that help astronomers make informed choices.&nbsp;&nbsp; These mainstream publications are doing your industry a grave disservice by eliminating EU theory from mainstream print.&nbsp; They do serious harm when they publish pseudo-science (Alven's actual words) like "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; Astronomers looks silly today when they claim "magnetic reconnection' causes these atmospheric solar events, because folks like Charles Bruce and Hannes Alfven have shown that these are electrical atmospheric discharges in the solar atmosphere for more than 50 years.&nbsp; It's like your industry is stuck and it can't unstick itself.&nbsp; It's refusing to embrace the electrical side of plasma physics, but that is the only way to explain these solar events.&nbsp; In an effort to avoid the real 'cause' of these emissions, they're literally making themselves look foolish now. &nbsp; "Non thermal equilibrium did it"?&nbsp; Well, if a lightning bolt is an example of "Non thermal equilibrium", sure. &nbsp;&nbsp; Then again, why not just call it an "electrical discharge" and describe it in electrical terms?&nbsp; Your industry seems to be stepping all over it's own toes, and destroying it's credibility by refusing to acknowledge the obvious.&nbsp; If electrical discharges cause gamma and x-rays in the Earth's atmosphere, and Rhessi can see these gamma ray emissions in discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, then the most like cause of the gamma rays that Rhessi observes in the solar atmosphere are also 'electrical discharges", not "non thermal equilibrium". &nbsp; Come on.&nbsp; The lengths now that your industry is going to in an effort to avoid the term "electricity" is getting to the point that your industry is losing credibility in a big way.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>If you want to believe in GR theory with constants in it, great.&nbsp; All I ask is that your industry stops blocking real emprical progress, and stops the denial routine as it relates to EU theory.&nbsp; Those high energy discharges are *electrical* in nature.&nbsp; Yes, they have a "magnetic" component, and yes they have a "non thermal equilibrium" component, but they are driven, created and caused by eletrical current running through the plasma! </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 take it from the tone of this statement you believe in a universe without a beginning?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't know.&nbsp; I really just don't know whether *this* physical "universe" had a beginning.&nbsp; If it did have a "beginning", great.&nbsp; If not, oh well.&nbsp; I'm detached from any particular outcome.&nbsp; As it relates to astronomy, I'm more interested in things I can demonstrate and things I can be sure of.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>In the end, the first law of thermodynamics insists that whatever energy that exists in our physical universe today has always existed.&nbsp; Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed.&nbsp; This suggests to me that the physical unvierse is in fact 'eternal', at least as far as I will ever be able to really 'know' based on emprical physics. &nbsp; </p><p>I'm more interested in how the sun's coronal works, and how solar wind is being accelerated, and how CME's occur.&nbsp; I'm much less interested in the "big picture' issues, because they've changed dramatically over my lifetime, and I'm sure that they will keep changing over time.&nbsp; Any actual emprical 'knowledge' that we might acquire about cosmology will come from emprical physics and has already come from emprical physics like Birkeland did with aurora, and Alfven did with plasma physics.</p><p>I'm just not sure what to make of the whole universe just yet.&nbsp; One thing I am sure of however, it is electrical in nature.&nbsp; Plasma is a nearly perfect conductor of current, and I see ample evidence that the solar atmosphere carries plenty of electrical current.&nbsp;&nbsp; Every aspect of Birkeland's experiments can now be verified and/or falsified via in-situ observations. That is why I'm interested in EU theory.&nbsp; It can be verified and/or falsified here and now.&nbsp; I can't verify or falsify that "inflation" ever existed.&nbsp; I can't verify or falsify that "dark energy" exists in nature.&nbsp; I therefore don't care about those things at all.&nbsp; If faith in these things are 'required' in order for me to believe in a specific creation event, then I will remain skeptical of such a concept.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's nothing personal, it just a commitment on my part to pure emprical physics. </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>