<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have miscontrued, apparently deliberately, nearly everything that I have said. You also misrepresent empiricism. For the Lamda CDM model is nothing but empiricism, and that is the problem with it. 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.</DIV></p><p>It's not emprical because you've never physically demonstrated that these constants.</p><p>A) exist in nature</p><p>B) have anything at all do with 'gravity'.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what you mean by manifolds point towards matter. Manifolds don't point. Compaasses point. You apparently have no idea what a manifold is, despite my attempting to tell you on several occassions. Go get a book on differential geometry.</DIV></p><p>The tensor field is *attractive* in nature, not repulsive. Yes, I've taken liberties with terms, but the idea is very simple. Gravity is an *attractive* force, not a repulsive one. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what you mean by stating that C has not been physicall defined. It is the speed of light in a vacuum and is one of the most important constants in all of physics. 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. There is some speculation that it may be related to the energy of the vacuum, but there are problems with that idea. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The term C on my part was a ambigous reference to the "constant" your putting into GR, not the speed of light. Sorry about that.</p><p>I guess what I don't understand DrRocket is why you're rejecting 'dark energy', but you're hanging on to the constant. Eintein never tried to define what that constant might represent, and he ultimately took it out when he realized it was not a necessary part of gravity theory. If any sort of additional "expansion" is occuring as a result of that constant, it would almost certainly have to involve an expanding aeither field of some sort. If such a thing exists, it should be found everywhere and we should be able to 'test' for it in normal emprical ways. I'm not completely closed to the idea, but that constant will have to be physically defined and emprically distinguishable from magic, using the same constant. </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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...what I don't understand DrRocket is why you're rejecting 'dark energy', but you're hanging on to the constant....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am neither rejecting dark energy nor hanging on to the constant. I simply recognize that there is data, for which we do not have and adequate explanation, that indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. That data is, by any normal definition, empirical. It is not, at least in my mind, conclusive.</p><p>A hypothesis has been put forward to explain the data. The explanation involves a hypothetical quantity called "dark energy". The effect of "dark energy" is reflected in the field equations of general relativity by means of a "cosmological constant". If you put that constant into the field equations you can match the observed accelerating expansion. Dark energy may or may not be a correct explanation for the data, which may or may not turn out to be valid in light of additional data to be obtained in the future. This is called scientific research. Because the model is based solely on limited data and not on fundamental and verified laws of physics it is called an empirical model.</p><p>Empirical models are stopgap notions used when one cannot adequately describe phenomena in terms of the fundamental principles of physics. The fundamental principles are generally considered to be general relativity and the two quantum field theories, the electro-weak theory and quantum chromodynamics. Where nuclear processes are not important the operant field theory reduces to quantum electrodynamics. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The tensor field is *attractive* in nature, not repulsive. Yes, I've taken liberties with terms, but the idea is very simple. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>And which particular tensor did you have in mind?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know. I really just don't know whether *this* physical "universe" had a beginning. If it did have a "beginning", great. If not, oh well. I'm detached from any particular outcome. .... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Interesting. You have stated that you do accept that the universe is expanding in conformance with Hubble's law. Also that you accept a cosmology based on general relativity so long as the field equations do not contain a cosmological constant. Let's see what that implies.</p><p>General relativity without a cosmological constant will not permit a static universe. So it must be either expanding or contracting. </p><p>If the expansion of the universe were constant and if it had no beginning, then it would have expanded by an infinite amount and we would be unable to see distant galaxies.</p><p>If the expansion of the universe were constantly decelerating, as one would expect from gravitational effects in the absense of a cosmological constant, and if the universe had no beginning then the rate of expansion must have been faster in the past than what we see now and having gone on for an infinite period of time we again should be able to see no distant galaxies.</p><p>Since you accept no cosmological constant, the expansion cannot be accelerating. So we must conclude that the universe had a beginning.</p><p>So we have a universe with a beginning. And it is, per general relativity a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, without boundary. So where on the manifold is this beginning ? Very near any point on the manifold of space-time things look locally just like they look here on Earth, for that is what it means to be a manifold. No beginning of space or time here. What does a "beginning" look like ? It looks like a distinguished point -- a singularity. So, it would appear that you are forced, by your own choices, into a situation in which the origin of the universe is clouded by a singularity. The Big Bang.</p><p>Still detached ?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know. I really just don't know whether *this* physical "universe" had a beginning. If it did have a "beginning", great. If not, oh well. I'm detached from any particular outcome. As it relates to astronomy, I'm more interested in things I can demonstrate and things I can be sure of. In the end, the first law of thermodynamics insists that whatever energy that exists in our physical universe today has always existed. Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. 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.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Fair enough based on how I formed the question. My intent was get back into redshift, but I see you are still willing to accept tired light theories. Pointless for me to continue in that direction.<br /> </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>
I admit it is rare to see much discussion on electricity, but much of it is linked to demand. There's not that much interest in it compared to more exotic topics such as the ones you mentioned. It's not that it is suppressed, just that people don't really want to read and talk about it.
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I admit it is rare to see much discussion on electricity, but much of it is linked to demand. There's not that much interest in it compared to more exotic topics such as the ones you mentioned. It's not that it is suppressed, just that people don't really want to read and talk about it. <br />Posted by ecitonburchelli</DIV></p><p>Supply and demand have nothing whatever to do with the process by which papers submitted to scientific publications are refereed nor with the specific avenue of research selected by a competent researcher for a given topic. What are you talking about?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am neither rejecting dark energy nor hanging on to the constant. </DIV></p><p>You have no evidence that "dark energy" is anything other than a figment of human imagination. The constant is simply a mathematical construct, nothing more. If I assign the term "magic" to that constant, anything I might point to in the sky is not driven by magic simply by virtue of a math formula! Why would you "accept" DE or the constant, if you can't demonstrate either of them in a controlled experiment? Why should I put any faith in these things as a skeptic? Isn't the onus of responsibility on *you* to provide emprical evidence of "dark energy"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I simply recognize that there is data, for which we do not have and adequate explanation, that indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. That data is, by any normal definition, empirical. </DIV></p><p>Actually even that "data" is in fact "interpreteted". Your opinions are not the same as Ari, or Arp. There is evidently a subjective component to even that assertion. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is expanding? So what? What does that have to do with gravity? When was the last time you saw a human being fly off the Earth, flung out into space by gravity?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not, at least in my mind, conclusive.</DIV></p><p>Even if the expansion/acceleration is conclusive, that in no way validates any from of 'dark energy'. All that would mean is that acceleration is occuring and you don't know why.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A hypothesis has been put forward to explain the data.</DIV></p><p>You are essentially hypothesizing that acceleration occurs for an unknown reason that you're labeling "dark energy". How is that batter than pointing to the sky and claiming magic did it? You didn't identify the *known* force of nature that you feel is responsible for this action, and you've given no *physical* definition of this "dark energy". It's a *metaphysical* definition.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The explanation involves a hypothetical quantity called "dark energy". </DIV></p><p>There is no 'hypothetical entity' called "dark matter", anymore than there is any hypothetical entity called magic. The label you are choosing is irrelevant, is is your mathematical model, because you cannot phyiscally distinguish between your "dark energy" and magic in any emprical test of concept.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The effect of "dark energy" is reflected in the field equations of general relativity by means of a "cosmological constant". </DIV></p><p>Show me that dark energy has any effect on matter in a controlled test, and then I'll be happy to let you claim "dark energy" has some effect on matter. If you can't do that here, why in the world would you believe it happens anywhere? How do I know "dark energy" has any effect on anything? Why not cludge up electrical theory with "dark energy" too? Does it have any electrical effect on plasma? Why did you choose to stuff it into gravity theory? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you put that constant into the field equations you can match the observed accelerating expansion. </DIV></p><p>You can match those same redshift measurement using "tired light" theories too. So? How do you know that a specific mathematical model is right simply by virtue of a curve fitting exersize? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark energy may or may not be a correct explanation for the data, which may or may not turn out to be valid in light of additional data to be obtained in the future. This is called scientific research.</DIV></p><p>If there was a valid way that might allow me to physically "test" this "dark energy" in a controlled experiment, it might be called "scientific research'. Where does "dark energy" come from so that we might build an experiment to test this idea?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because the model is based solely on limited data and not on fundamental and verified laws of physics it is called an empirical model.</DIV></p><p>Woah! You never *emprically* demonstrated that "dark energy" had anything to do with real physics and real physical objects. It's not "verified" in any way. You can't call that an "emprical model", anymore than I can call Lambda-magic theory 'emprical". It's not anything close to "emprical".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Empirical models are stopgap notions used when one cannot adequately describe phenomena in terms of the fundamental principles of physics. </DIV></p><p>Unfortunately "dark energy" has no effect on physics or physical objects. It's not a part of "physics", it is hypothetical mumbo-jumbo as far as I know.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fundamental principles are generally considered to be general relativity and the two quantum field theories, the electro-weak theory and quantum chromodynamics. Where nuclear processes are not important the operant field theory reduces to quantum electrodynamics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO the whole universe probably reduces to "quantum electrodynamics", but your industry refuses to acknowledge the "electricity" part! </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And which particular tensor did you have in mind? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh, you're being so coy. The tensor field that always (it's never failed) to pull me back to the Earth everytime I jump into the air. The force is *attractive* and *strictly* attractive. You've never demonstrated that DE is related to gravity, or that it has any effect on gravity, or that gravity is in any way repulsive in any controlled instance. The whole repulsive thing is purely speculative in nature, and has nothing to do with real "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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I admit it is rare to see much discussion on electricity, but much of it is linked to demand. There's not that much interest in it compared to more exotic topics such as the ones you mentioned. It's not that it is suppressed, just that people don't really want to read and talk about it. <br /> Posted by ecitonburchelli</DIV></p><p>There isn't much interest in the topic because nobody has heard of it, or been exposed to it in any professional setting. It's never mentioned in the classroom. It's never taught to astronomers who take up that particular profession. DrRocket here will be the very first "astronomer" I know of that will have actually read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven. Interest has a lot to do with media attention and what you're taught in school. It is surpressed by the mainstream or we would find more EU articles published in the APJ or Nature, and not just in the IEEE publications.</p><p>Go over to the Bad Astronomy forum one time and real their rules and how they pertain to EU theory specifically. It's literally a forbidden topic and treated in a completely different way from any other "hypothetical" construct that is considered "mainstream". The astronomy industry is not giving EU theory a fair shake, nor will they publish the material. There isn't much interest in EU theory because nobody has a clue it's even out there to read about and to study. Few if any astronomers have studied Birkeland's work. I've yet to even meet an astronomer who's read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven *before* I asked them about it. How would you suggest folks even know it's out there if the mainstream won't publish any materials on the topic, and you can't discuss it in public on various astronomy websites? If it were not for Space.com, I don't think there even would be a single mainstream astronomy forum that allows for free discussion on the entire topic of EU 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, you're being so coy. The tensor field that always (it's never failed) to pull me back to the Earth everytime I jump into the air. The force is *attractive* and *strictly* attractive. You've never demonstrated that DE is related to gravity, or that it has any effect on gravity, or that gravity is in any way repulsive in any controlled instance. The whole repulsive thing is purely speculative in nature, and has nothing to do with real "physics". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Not being coy at all. I asked a direct question. You did not answer. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have no evidence that "dark energy" is anything other than a figment of human imagination. The constant is simply a mathematical construct, nothing more. If I assign the term "magic" to that constant, anything I might point to in the sky is not driven by magic simply by virtue of a math formula! Why would you "accept" DE or the constant, if you can't demonstrate either of them in a controlled experiment? Why should I put any faith in these things as a skeptic? Isn't the onus of responsibility on *you* to provide emprical evidence of "dark energy"? Actually even that "data" is in fact "interpreteted". Your opinions are not the same as Ari, or Arp. There is evidently a subjective component to even that assertion. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is expanding? So what? What does that have to do with gravity? When was the last time you saw a human being fly off the Earth, flung out into space by gravity?Even if the expansion/acceleration is conclusive, that in no way validates any from of 'dark energy'. All that would mean is that acceleration is occuring and you don't know why.You are essentially hypothesizing that acceleration occurs for an unknown reason that you're labeling "dark energy". How is that batter than pointing to the sky and claiming magic did it? You didn't identify the *known* force of nature that you feel is responsible for this action, and you've given no *physical* definition of this "dark energy". It's a *metaphysical* definition.There is no 'hypothetical entity' called "dark matter", anymore than there is any hypothetical entity called magic. The label you are choosing is irrelevant, is is your mathematical model, because you cannot phyiscally distinguish between your "dark energy" and magic in any emprical test of concept.Show me that dark energy has any effect on matter in a controlled test, and then I'll be happy to let you claim "dark energy" has some effect on matter. If you can't do that here, why in the world would you believe it happens anywhere? How do I know "dark energy" has any effect on anything? Why not cludge up electrical theory with "dark energy" too? Does it have any electrical effect on plasma? Why did you choose to stuff it into gravity theory? You can match those same redshift measurement using "tired light" theories too. So? How do you know that a specific mathematical model is right simply by virtue of a curve fitting exersize? If there was a valid way that might allow me to physically "test" this "dark energy" in a controlled experiment, it might be called "scientific research'. Where does "dark energy" come from so that we might build an experiment to test this idea?Woah! You never *emprically* demonstrated that "dark energy" had anything to do with real physics and real physical objects. It's not "verified" in any way. You can't call that an "emprical model", anymore than I can call Lambda-magic theory 'emprical". It's not anything close to "emprical".Unfortunately "dark energy" has no effect on physics or physical objects. It's not a part of "physics", it is hypothetical mumbo-jumbo as far as I know.IMO the whole universe probably reduces to "quantum electrodynamics", but your industry refuses to acknowledge the "electricity" part! <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have succeeded in replying to a short post with a long list of non sequitur responses.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><em> </em><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There isn't much interest in the topic because nobody has heard of it, or been exposed to it in any professional setting. It's never mentioned in the classroom. It's never taught to astronomers who take up that particular profession. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If you would care to look at <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology </em>by P.J.E. Peebles you will find a discussion of alternate cosmological theories including that of Alfven. You will also see why Peebles does not endorse that theory. It is certainly a "mainstream" book, used in the classroom.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting. You have stated that you do accept that the universe is expanding in conformance with Hubble's law. Also that you accept a cosmology based on general relativity so long as the field equations do not contain a cosmological constant. Let's see what that implies.General relativity without a cosmological constant will not permit a static universe. So it must be either expanding or contracting. </DIV></p><p>That's only true if *no other force* has any effect. Throw in some charge separation and you might easily achieve a steady state universe too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the expansion of the universe were constant and if it had no beginning, then it would have expanded by an infinite amount and we would be unable to see distant galaxies.</DIV></p><p>What "constant'? The unviverse doesn't have any "constants". It may sometimes expand and it may sometimes contract. I have no evident that this expansion is 100% constant, because our technology isn't that good, and we can't see that far back in time. You just *assumed* it's a constant process. I don't know that. You don't know that either. It may have been constant for billions of years and it may change over a 15 bilion year timeline. How do I know what the universe does in every instance?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What does a "beginning" look like ? </DIV></p><p>What was wrong with Alfven's 'beginning"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looks like a distinguished point -- a singularity.</DIV></p><p>Alfven's brand of a BB theory had no singularity. What makes you think there was one?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, it would appear that you are forced, by your own choices, into a situation in which the origin of the universe is clouded by a singularity. The Big Bang.Still detached ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yep. Until you can give me a logical reason to choose your singularity over Alfven's brand of a "Bang", I'm detached, even if we *know* that acceleration is occuring *now* and has been heppening for a few billion years. </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>
<p><strong>"You have no evidence that "dark energy" is anything other than a figment of human imagination."</strong></p><p>It is based on real honest to goodness observations. Nobody just made it up on a whim. </p><p><strong>"The constant is simply a mathematical construct, nothing more."</strong></p><p>Nothing wrong with using math to attempt to explain an observation in lieu of physical, tangible lab tests. It's a good place to start on what may be a long investigation. </p><p><strong>"If I assign the term "magic" to that constant, anything I might point to in the sky is not driven by magic simply by virtue of a math formula!"</strong></p><p>You can assign any term you want to it. That doesn't lessen the significance of what is being observed and the resulting pursuit to explain it. </p><p><strong>Why would you "accept" DE or the constant, if you can't demonstrate either of them in a controlled experiment? </strong></p><p>No one is blindly accepting it and lab results are not the only way to begin the pursuit of answers. </p><p><strong>Why should I put any faith in these things as a skeptic? </strong></p><p>No one is asking you to. Faith without pursuit of answers is religious. Faith while attempting to pursue answers is science. </p><p><strong>Isn't the onus of responsibility on *you* to provide emprical evidence of "dark energy"?</strong></p><p>Yes. Right now the only empirical evidence is the apparent acceleration that is observed. The job now is to pursue an explanation. That's science. </p><p><strong>"Actually even that "data" is in fact "interpreteted"."</strong></p><p>Nothing wrong with interpretation. Theorists have their place in the sciences. </p><p><strong>"Your opinions are not the same as Ari, or Arp."</strong></p><p>What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? </p><p><strong>There is evidently a subjective component to even that assertion. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is expanding? So what? What does that have to do with gravity? When was the last time you saw a human being fly off the Earth, flung out into space by gravity?</strong></p><p>You lost me here. </p><p><strong>Even if the expansion/acceleration is conclusive, that in no way validates any from of 'dark energy'. All that would mean is that acceleration is occuring and you don't know why.You are essentially hypothesizing that acceleration occurs for an unknown reason that you're labeling "dark energy".</strong> </p><p>Exactly. </p><p><strong>How is that batter than pointing to the sky and claiming magic did it? You didn't identify the *known* force of nature that you feel is responsible for this action, and you've given no *physical* definition of this "dark energy". </strong></p><p>By claiming it is magic, you are giving up the pursuit of an explanation. Magic is a defeatist term in the context of science. </p><p><strong>It's a *metaphysical* definition.</strong></p><p>Throughout history, metaphysical ideas applied to cosmology have lead to the pursuit of answers via legitimate science.</p><p><strong>There is no 'hypothetical entity' called "dark matter", anymore than there is any hypothetical entity called magic. The label you are choosing is irrelevant, is is your mathematical model, because you cannot phyiscally distinguish between your "dark energy" and magic in any emprical test of concept.</strong></p><p>Correlating dark energy/matter to the word magic just doesn't follow. A scientists claiming something is magic is saying that he can't explain a phenomena and is giving up the pursuit to explain it. That is not happening here. </p><p><strong>Show me that dark energy has any effect on matter in a controlled test, and then I'll be happy to let you claim "dark energy" has some effect on matter. If you can't do that here, why in the world would you believe it happens anywhere? How do I know "dark energy" has any effect on anything? Why not cludge up electrical theory with "dark energy" too? Does it have any electrical effect on plasma? Why did you choose to stuff it into gravity theory?</strong> </p><p>If they ever figure out what is causing the acceleration, they might be able to define it. Until then, you don't give up the pursuit just because it can not be recreated in a lab experiment. </p><p><strong>You can match those same redshift measurement using "tired light" theories too. So? </strong></p><p>Tired light theories have too many observational flaws to be considered as valid. </p><p><strong>How do you know that a specific mathematical model is right simply by virtue of a curve fitting exersize?</strong> </p><p>You can't be sure. That's why further pursuit for answers is an ongoing process. </p><p><strong>If there was a valid way that might allow me to physically "test" this "dark energy" in a controlled experiment, it might be called "scientific research'.</strong> </p><p>Observations of the real world in a natural setting doesn't count as scientific research?<strong><br /></strong></p><p><strong>Where does "dark energy" come from so that we might build an experiment to test this idea?</strong></p><p>They are pursuing that answer as we type. </p><p><strong>Woah! You never *emprically* demonstrated that "dark energy" had anything to do with real physics and real physical objects. It's not "verified" in any way. </strong></p><p>I don't think anybody has. That would be a paid, fist class ticket Stockholm. </p><p><strong>You can't call that an "emprical model", anymore than I can call Lambda-magic theory 'emprical". It's not anything close to "emprical".</strong></p><p>By definition, observations are empirical. </p><p><strong>Unfortunately "dark energy" has no effect on physics or physical objects.</strong> </p><p>Are you 100% certain of that? </p><p><strong>It's not a part of "physics", it is hypothetical mumbo-jumbo as far as I know.</strong></p><p>Theoretical physics has its place. </p><p><strong>IMO the whole universe probably reduces to "quantum electrodynamics",...</strong></p><p>It may be. The first to prove a quantum theory of gravity will be immortalized. </p><p><strong>but your industry refuses to acknowledge the "electricity" part!</strong> </p><p>I think that is a broad stroke painted by you born out of frustration. </p><p> </p><p> Heh... this whole responding line by line can be fun. Especially when it contains no substance to further the debate or in pursuit of answers.<br /></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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Fair enough based on how I formed the question. My intent was get back into redshift, but I see you are still willing to accept tired light theories. Pointless for me to continue in that direction. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Well, keep in mind that I do favor some sort of Doppler redshift and overall movement in the system. I'm just not sure that we can ignore Arp's work, or ignore Ari's "solution" to the notion of what you are calling "cosmological redshift". Ari's mathematical solution requires no forms of "dark energy", no superluminal expansion and nothing that violates any known laws of physics. In theory at least one could "test" his mathematical model in controlled experimentation. IMO howeer, the smoothness of the redshift across various wavelengths seems to be a bit at odds with a scattering effect, so I do in fact tend to favor some form of expansion. That subjective opinion could however be simply predjudice on my part because even I was taught to believe in BB theory. 
</p><p>As I said earlier, I much more interested in undertstanding solar CME activity and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. I'm also interested in solar wind activity, and things that are 'measurable' and tangible and falsifyable and verifyable in a standard empirical scientific manner. </p><p>The "big picture" issues are interesting too of course, but we cannot travel much beyond our own solar system at the moment, and this sort of "science' is a lot more speculative in nature. Has the universe always accelerated, or does it contract sometimes as well? How old it is? I can't really answer these questions using emprical scienfic methods and I may never be able to do so. It's ok by me to say "I don't know" as it relates to these sorts of questions because I never forgot how to say "I don't know", and I realized a long time ago that I may never know these answers. I certainly put no faith in specific creation dates that are based entirely on metaphysical entities. </p><p>I don't even mind this stuff being written about ultimately, but I do want to see more mainstream publications begin to publish EU material. If it's "ok" to claim million degree coronal loops are somehow associated with "non thermal equalibrium" and "magnetic reconnection", then surely it's ok to associate them with electrical discharges as Bruce did. There's no logical reason why all ideas should not be explored and written about. I'm just disturbed by the fact that the industry of astronomy is not playing fair, and they aren't creating a level playing field. Emprical science should not be a taboo topic of conversation, but I've yet to ever read a mainstream article from the APJ or Nature or other such mainstream publications that describe solar atmospheric activity in terms of electrical discharges in plasma. IMO that's the major problem in your industry, not it's creation theories. Creation theories have been around forever, and they'll probably continue to be around forever as far as I know. I just want to see a level playing field, and I just want emprical science to get a fair shake.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>As I said earlier, I much more interested in undertstanding solar CME activity and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. I'm also interested in solar wind activity, and things that are 'measurable' and tangible and falsifyable and verifyable in a standard empirical scientific manner. </p><p>The "big picture" issues are interesting too of course, but we cannot travel much beyond our own solar system at the moment, and this sort of "science' is a lot more speculative in nature. Has the universe always accelerated, or does it contract sometimes as well? How old it is? I can't really answer these questions using emprical scienfic methods and I may never be able to do so. It's ok by me to say "I don't know" as it relates to these sorts of questions because I never forgot how to say "I don't know", and I realized a long time ago that I may never know these answers. I certainly put no faith in specific creation dates that are based entirely on metaphysical entities. </p><p>I don't even mind this stuff being written about ultimately, but I do want to see more mainstream publications begin to publish EU material. If it's "ok" to claim million degree coronal loops are somehow associated with "non thermal equalibrium" and "magnetic reconnection", then surely it's ok to associate them with electrical discharges as Bruce did. There's no logical reason why all ideas should not be explored and written about. I'm just disturbed by the fact that the industry of astronomy is not playing fair, and they aren't creating a level playing field. Emprical science should not be a taboo topic of conversation, but I've yet to ever read a mainstream article from the APJ or Nature or other such mainstream publications that describe solar atmospheric activity in terms of electrical discharges in plasma. IMO that's the major problem in your industry, not it's creation theories. Creation theories have been around forever, and they'll probably continue to be around forever as far as I know. I just want to see a level playing field, and I just want emprical science to get a fair shake.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is based on real honest to goodness observations. Nobody just made it up on a whim. </DIV></p><p>The only "honest to goodness observation" here is "acceleration", and even that is a subjective opinion beased on a subjective interpretation of a *few* SN!A results. You didn't like ARI's "interpretation' of that same data for instance. The "dark energy", your industry just made up on a whim because nobody has shown that dark energy even exists, let alone that it could in any way be responsible for an observation of acceleration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing wrong with using math to attempt to explain an observation in lieu of physical, tangible lab tests.</DIV></p><p>Yes there is something wrong with using magic in a math formula in lieu of physical lab tests. There is no substitute for emprical testing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's a good place to start on what may be a long investigation. </DIV></p><p>Well, let's start with some simple questions. Where does 'dark energy" come? Where can I get some so I can experiment with it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can assign any term you want to it. That doesn't lessen the significance of what is being observed and the resulting pursuit to explain it.</DIV></p><p>So it is perfectly acceptable to you if I take Lambda-CDM theory and substitute the terms 'divine" or "magic' into every term that is current "dark" and then I'm free to teach Lambda-devine or Lambda-magic theory to your children in a formal school setting?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Michael=->"Why would you "accept" DE or the constant, if you can't demonstrate either of them in a controlled experiment?"</p><p>No one is blindly accepting it and lab results are not the only way to begin the pursuit of answers.</DIV></p><p>You're blindly accepting that lab results are *NOT* required in pursuit of emprical answers. I don't buy that concept. Birkeland didnt just claim "dark energy" drove auroral activity. He came up with a *real* force of nature and performed *real empical tests* to determine if EM fields could drive this process. You can't simply *assume* magic moves things in distant space of you can't get magic to move things here on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->Why should I put any faith in these things as a skeptic? </p><p> No one is asking you to. Faith without pursuit of answers is religious. Faith while attempting to pursue answers is science.</DIV></p><p>First of all, one can have faith in God or any religious concept and still claim to be (and raally be) looking for answers and explanations. I might posit that God exists and still be looking for explanations of what God might be.</p><p>Secondly, I see no evidence that your industry is looking for real answers since none of you can even tell me where DE comes from, 15 years after first positing the idea. What answers are you pursuing exactly and how are you *actively* pursuing them? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->Isn't the onus of responsibility on *you* to provide emprical evidence of "dark energy"?</p><p>Yes. Right now the only empirical evidence is the apparent acceleration that is observed. The job now is to pursue an explanation. That's science.</DIV></p><p>If you can't emprically differentiate between magic and your dark energy based on the same math, it's not "emprical science", it's "hypothetical speculation". If and when you can empirically differentiate between the two, *then* it becomes emprical science. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Nothing wrong with interpretation. Theorists have their place in the sciences. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but there has to be some way of *emprically* differentiating between various subjective interpretations. How can you emprically demonstrate that your DE "solution" is any more emprically valid than Ari's scattering solution?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->"Your opinions are not the same as Ari, or Arp.</p><p>"What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? </DIV></p><p>There are always multiple ways to *subjectively* interepet any set of data. I can at least see that Ari's idea are *alledgedly* based on empirical physical processes. I might be able to construct a device to test these ideas. On the other hand, how would I begin to "test" your subjective interpretation of these same observations?</p>I'll skip the repetition below. The basic issue here is pretty simple. If you can empirically demonstrate any difference between Lambda-CDM theory and Lambda-magic theory, then I'm perfectly willing to let you teach this theory to my children as a form of "science". If you can't emprically justify your creation dates and/or your beliefs, then I can't help but see this as a form of religious dogma being stuffed down my children's throats under the guise of "science". IMO that's false advertizing and unethical. There's quite a difference between an emprical "truth" and "faith" oriented forms dogma. Your belief in new forces of nature are not emprical truth. They are beliefs that are born from faith, not from emprical testing.<br /> <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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you would care to look at Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles you will find a discussion of alternate cosmological theories including that of Alfven. You will also see why Peebles does not endorse that theory. It is certainly a "mainstream" book, used in the classroom. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How long is that discussion in that book? 10 Pages? 5 Paragraphs? A couple of sentences? </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...?So it is perfectly acceptable to you if I take Lambda-CDM theory and substitute the terms 'divine" or "magic' into every term that is current "dark" and then I'm free to teach Lambda-devine or Lambda-magic theory to your children in a formal school setting?...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As far as I am concerned you can teach any idioitic notion you please to students who attend your class voluntarily. To teach this junk in a public primary or secondary school where attendance is mandatory is quite another thing. It is also not appropriate to make such a class mandatory for receipt of a degree, but it would be an acceptable elective if you can present the material with sufficient rigor to make clear the relationship to the larger body of physics, and the mathematical models that pertain thereto. So, if you think this stuff needs to be taught, see if some university will let you hold a lecture course or conduct a colloquium. If they do, more power to you. Free exhange of ideas is a good thing. Just be ready to receive critical comments with an open mind yourself.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have succeeded in replying to a short post with a long list of non sequitur responses. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>They were specific objections DrRocket, objections that you failed to address. On your word alone, I have no idea if "dark energy" exists in nature anymore than I know if magic exists in nature. Slapping either of these items into a math formula is pointless, regardless of whether it matches some distant observation unless you have emprical evidence that shows that magic or dark energy is real and has some tangible effect on nature. Magic math is not a force of nature. Dark energy math is not a force of nature. Mathematical constructs based on magic and/or dark energy are not a valid forms of emprical science, they are hypothetical posibilities that no one could ever prove or disprove. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On your word alone, I have no idea if "dark energy" exists in nature ..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No kidding. This is only point on which you seem to agree with the rest of us. </p><p> You know, if you would inhale for moment and listen you might actually learn something.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No kidding. This is only point on which you seem to agree with the rest of us. You know, if you would inhale for moment and listen you might actually learn something. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That works both ways DrRocket. I can't disprove a hypothetical. In emprical science you must emprically demonstrate that your idea has merit. I can't disprove that dark energy exists in nature. I can't disprove that magic exists in nature. I can't disprove invisible unicorns. I can't disprove anything. That is why emprical science is predictated upon demonstrating something *first*. You never did that. Math formulas don't help us one bit, because you can't distinguish between dark energy and magic energy and divine energy using the same math formula. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I am concerned you can teach any idioitic notion you please to students who attend your class voluntarily. To teach this junk in a public primary or secondary school where attendance is mandatory is quite another thing. </DIV></p><p>So you would agree then that teaching Lambda-CDM theory in a mandatory setting should not be permitted?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is also not appropriate to make such a class mandatory for receipt of a degree, but it would be an acceptable elective if you can present the material with sufficient rigor to make clear the relationship to the larger body of physics, and the mathematical models that pertain thereto. </DIV></p><p>How did you establish a clear relationship between "dark energy" and the larger body of emprical physics? If I blatently pilfer your math, would that establish a clear relationship between "magic energy'' and the larger body of physics?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, if you think this stuff needs to be taught, see if some university will let you hold a lecture course or conduct a colloquium.</DIV></p><p>I would never have the audacity to do something like that in the first place, and if I were to teach any brand of cosmology to anyone, it would be EU theory, not Lambda-magic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If they do, more power to you. Free exhange of ideas is a good thing. Just be ready to receive critical comments with an open mind yourself. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You seemed to have missed my point entirely I'm afraid. I'm not interested in teaching anyone about Lamba-anything theory. I'm simply dismayed that astronomers peddle this kind of metaphysical stuff in magazines and mainstream publications *and the classroom* to the exclusion of EU theory. I don't know what happened along the way to emprical science, but somehow your industry got lost over the last 30 years and they got left behind. It now seems to prefer a brand of metaphysical dogma that has no emprical justification. I just want to make sure that real emprical physics (as I was taught in college) can still be taught in the classroom. Birkeland and Alfven based all their ideas on emprical physical tests, not mathematical calcuations involving magical dark things. There's no logical reason for your industry to prefer Lambda theories over EU principles.</p><p>The point is that I'd certainly never pay a dime to anyone in your industry to "teach me" about dark matter or inflation just like you would never sign up for a class on "magic inflation" and "magic energy", only because I dressed up my magic ideas with math. A metaphysical pig with bright red mathematical lipstick is still a metaphysical pig. </p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point is that I'd certainly never pay a dime to anyone in your industry to "teach me" about dark matter or inflation just like you would never sign up for a class on "magic inflation" and "magic energy", only because I dressed up my magic ideas with math. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It is not possible to "dress up magical ideas with math". This is just one of the many absurd things you have said in this thread but I think it is instructive. The point is mathematics must seems magical to you so you think that you can make math do something that it cannot. </p><p>By the way nobody here has said that dark energy has anything to do with gravity. So your comments about people flying off of the earth and somehow trying to relate that to dark energy is really confusing.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you would agree then that teaching Lambda-CDM theory in a mandatory setting should not be permitted?..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No. I did not say that. Lamda-CDM theory is a part of the current "mainstream" approach to cosmological research. Anyone interested in astrophysics or cosmology needs to understand the rudiments of that theory to be able to read the literature and judge the merits for themselves objectively.</p><p>You seem to constantly be attempting to put words into my mouth. Please don't. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 176
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
FAA creating new committee to update launch regulations
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram