<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. A metaphysical pig with bright red mathematical lipstick is still a metaphysical pig. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>But one needs to be sufficiently well-educated and perceptive to be able to tell the difference between a pig with lipstick and the real thing. You really do need to learn some physics. And a lot more mathematics.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How long is that discussion in that book? 10 Pages? 5 Paragraphs? A couple of sentences? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Of what possible relevance is the length of the discussion ? <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... If I blatently pilfer your math, would that establish a clear relationship between "magic energy'' and the larger body of physics?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually I would very much like to see you frame your arguments with precise mathematics. Perhaps then they would make more sense.</font> </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.You seemed to have missed my point entirely I'm afraid. I'm not interested in teaching anyone about Lamba-anything theory. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">I was suggesting that if you think EU theory deserves a wider audience, that you teach a course on it. I would hardly recommend that you teach a course on Lamda CDM theory. You clearly have not the necessary understanding of either that model or of general relativity to teach "mainstream" cosmology.</font> </p><p> </p><p> 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.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">If you offered such a course you might get past simply feeling "dismayed" and be in the position of actually taking action.</font> </p><p> 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. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This statement is simply absurd. Physics has been and always be anchored by the results of experiment. The job of a research physicist or cosmologist is to develop theories, expressed in mathematics, that can explain the natural world using as the basis a small number of physical principles that have been determined to be valid by experimental evidence. That is precisely the purpose of Lamda CDM theory. They start with general relativity and the observation that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. They try to fit that observation into general relativity. They find that by hypothesizing "dark energy" that they can show expansion with the machinery of general relativity. Now they need to find empirical evidence that this is more than a curve fit. It may work out. It may not. If it does not then alternate approaches are sought. </font></p><p> I just want to make sure that real emprical physics (as I was taught in college) can still be taught in the classroom. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Having listened to you for some time now, I have no idea what you were taught in college or whether you paid much attention in class. You clearly have no concept of what "empirical" science really is, the proper role of theory, the role of speculation, the processes involved in original research, or the fundamentals of mathematics. I understand that you would not "pay a dime" to learn basic science, and you will be happy to hear that I doubt anyone would want to waste their time trying to instruct someone who clearly does not want to learn.</font> </p><p> <strong>Birkeland and Alfven based all their ideas on emprical physical tests, not mathematical calcuations</strong> involving magical dark things. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">I certainly hope this is not true. </font> <font color="#0000ff">Until you can phrase a physical theory in terms of mathematics you do not really understand it.</font></p><p>There's no logical reason for your industry to prefer Lambda theories over EU principles.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Well, there is classical physics and logic.</font> </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><font color="#0000ff">I have no idea what "magic inflation" is, but I would most certainly be interested in a class in the mathematical theory of inflation. You cannot dress up nonsense with mathematics. In fact quite the contrary is true, if one understands mathematics. </font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I hereby officially request that someone shoot this thread and put it out of it's misery. The last dozen pages have added little more than hard places and rocks arguing with each other.</p><p> </p><p>Ok, I deposit my 2 cents and go back to lurking when I want a headache.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hereby officially request that someone shoot this thread and put it out of it's misery. The last dozen pages have added little more than hard places and rocks arguing with each other. Ok, I deposit my 2 cents and go back to lurking when I want a headache. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Just when we were starting to make real progress. 
<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hereby officially request that someone shoot this thread and put it out of it's misery. The last dozen pages have added little more than hard places and rocks arguing with each other. Ok, I deposit my 2 cents and go back to lurking when I want a headache. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Actually this thread is serving a useful purpose. We have managed to stuff the genie back in the bottle and contain the EU discussion. It was threatening to spill over and dominate other threads -- not good. This is as good a place as any. </p><p>Besides, I would like to receive my copy of Alfven's book and have a bit of time to peruse it before this is brought to a (merciful ?) end. I suspect that there is some useful plasma physics in that book. I also suspect that the contents of that book bear little resemblence to what has been put forth as EU theory in this thread.</p><p>In the meantime we can probe to try to figure out what Michael's theory really is. He is changing direction so fast now that the angular momentum can only be calculated using relativity. I actually thought we had made some progress with the acceptance of the Hubble Law and ordinary expansion of the universe, but I just don't know any more. If that has gone away then I will give up. But if not, there is a glimmer of hope.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I think he waffled a bit on expansion by invoking the possibilities of tired light or plasma redshift.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not possible to "dress up magical ideas with math". </DIV></p><p>That exactly what you did with "dark energy". You slapped a little math on the side and viola, a new mathematical metaphysical entity was born. Fifteen years ago you'd have been laughed at for even suggesting such a thing. Now it's all the rage, just like inflation. Your industry seems to be easily diswayed from emprical science with a wee bit a math and a really bizarre idea. The weirder the better it seems. </p><p>Show me where "high speed space" ever affected the distance between two objects in an emprical test of concept and I'll be happy to let you claim that dark energy did it. Until then, it just looks like $20.00 math that's been slapped to the side of a two bit concept. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>You've got math making dark energy do things in space that you cannot do here on Earth! What are you talking about? You have it "inflating"" a whole universe. You've got math doing crazy things with physicsl objects in space that don't seem to do a darn thing here on Earth.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> By the way nobody here has said that dark energy has anything to do with gravity. </DIV></p><p class="MsoNormal">What is it then? What is it made of? How does it work? Where can I get some? I can buy all the electrical energy I need, yet you guys can never seem to come up with a single consumer product based on "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "inflation", or "monopoles" though you write about these things insistently and publish it over and over and over again. If I claimed my software ran on these things I'd be sued for false advertizing, yet you have these things doing all the important work in Lambda-magic theory.</p><p class="MsoNormal">If dark energy doesn't have anything to do with gravity, then what the heck is it doing being stuffed into GR theory in the first place?</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So your comments about people flying off of the earth and somehow trying to relate that to dark energy is really confusing. <br /><p> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>It is equally confusing to be stuffing an unrelated thing into GR theory. You have no idea what it is, but somehow you think you've learned something by stuffing this mythical entity into a gravity theory? Give me a break. The confusion was your creation, not mine. </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><strong>That exactly what you did with "dark energy". You slapped a little math on the side and viola, a new mathematical metaphysical entity was born.</strong></p><p>And I suppose grossly oversimplifying it make sounds illigitimate? It's statements like these that get you banned. Instead of arguing against the physics or providing a better solution, you rely on pathetic tactics that grate on everyone. </p><p><strong>Fifteen years ago you'd have been laughed at for even suggesting such a thing.</strong></p><p>Ya think? Maybe because 15 years ago, acceleration wasn't observed. Our observations have become orders of magnitude more refined over the 15 years. </p><p><strong>Now it's all the rage, just like inflation.</strong> </p><p>It's not a popularity contest. Lame correlation, Michael. </p><p><strong>Your industry seems to be easily diswayed from emprical science with a wee bit a math and a really bizarre idea. The weirder the better it seems.</strong> </p><p>This is so completely untrue. Your arguments are weak and are show signs that you refuse to try or simply don't understand how the process works. </p><p><strong>Show me where "high speed space" ever affected the distance between two objects in an emprical test of concept and I'll be happy to let you claim that dark energy did it.</strong> </p><p>What is "high speed space"? I assume you mean the observed acceleration. Where has anyone claimed "dark energy did it"? How many times does it have to be explained to you that dark energy is nothing more than an abstract concept that has been inferred due to observations made. </p><p><strong>Until then, it just looks like $20.00 math that's been slapped to the side of a two bit concept.</strong></p><p>More grating comments that makes it appear that you lack the background to actually debate the concept. </p><p><strong>You've got math making dark energy do things in space that you cannot do here on Earth! What are you talking about? You have it "inflating"" a whole universe. You've got math doing crazy things with physicsl objects in space that don't seem to do a darn thing here on Earth.</strong></p><p>Math doesn't make anything physical or otherwide "do" anything. It's a tool to aid in the understanding of what is observed. If the math can't describe what is inferred from the observation, then you start over. </p><p><strong>What is it then? What is it made of? How does it work? Where can I get some? </strong></p><p>Another line of reasoning that shows your failing on how the process works. Especially in cosmology, abstract concepts are often required to explain observations. Then you reverse engineer that concept to see how and IF it works. </p><p><strong>If I claimed my software ran on these things I'd be sued for false advertizing, yet you have these things doing all the important work in Lambda-magic theory.</strong></p><p>How the heck does softare engineering and cosmology have anything in common? Nice non-sequitor, though. </p><p><strong>If dark energy doesn't have anything to do with gravity, then what the heck is it doing being stuffed into GR theory in the first place?</strong></p><p>Because Einstein's field equations allow for the variable. It's not being 'stuffed' in. </p><p> </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'>No. I did not say that. Lamda-CDM theory is a part of the current "mainstream" approach to cosmological research.</DIV></p><p>If you can't emprically distinguish between Lambda-magic and Lambda-CDM given the same math, how can that be "emprical science" exactly? The fact Lamba theory is 'mainstream' has nothing to do with whether or not it is a form of "emprical science". Fifteen years ago, nothing like "dark energy" existed in anyone's vocabulary. 30 years ago, nothing like "inflation" was ever heard of. Now I'm supposed to believe that these things are the most important forces of nature, yet not one product uses such things, and not one physicsl emprical controlled test demonstrates that they even exist in nature? Not one test of concept even after all these years? I'm not that young anymore you know. How long do you expect me to wait around for you to come up with a real emprical tests of these things? I'm not sure I have another 30 years for you to figure out that DE and inflation are non existent. I can already see that for myself right now even if you cannot.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.You seem to constantly be attempting to put words into my mouth. Please don't. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, when you've read a little of Alfven's work, then maybe you will be able to judge the merits of it objectively. It's not easy to do that with folks that have never read his work, and most folks in your industry have never read Cosmic Plasma or even many of his papers. How exactly can one make an informed choice if your industry refuses to publish anything that happens to mention the electircial current running through the plasmas of space? Those coronal loops are no mystery to anyone who's studied EU theory, nor is the observation of acceleration of solar wind. I suppose since you guys can't figure out how solar wind acclerates either, it too must be driven by a form of "dark energy" too? Does "dark energy' power those CME's too? I mean how far do we take this idea of labeling things we don't understand as "dark this" and "dark that"?</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><strong>Not one test of concept even after all these years? I'm not that young anymore you know. How long do you expect me to wait around for you to come up with a real emprical tests of these things? I'm not sure I have another 30 years for you to figure out that DE and inflation are non existent.</strong></p><p>It took over 30 years to test for gravitational redshift.<br />it took some 65 years to test the twin paradox.<br /><br />Just a couple examples of abstract concepts supported by math that were untestable at the time of inferrence. Sometimes thought experiments and abstract concepts out pace technology's ability to test. Just because something can't be tested doesn't mean it is non-existent. </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'>And I suppose grossly oversimplifying it make sounds illigitimate? </DIV></p><p>Dressing it up with math is supposed to make it sound more legitimate to a skeptic? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's statements like these that get you banned. Instead of arguing against the physics or providing a better solution, </DIV></p><p>How can I possibly argue against the physics of something that doesn't physically exist in nature? I don't need a "better" solution to reject a metaphysical one. FYI, I actually got "banned" for promoting EU theory at BAUT, not for saying things like that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you rely on pathetic tactics that grate on everyone. </DIV></p><p>The "tactic" your talking about is actually just a direct result of the fact that you cannot emprically demonstrate that DE actually exists in nature. I can't attack the math or the physics because there is no emprical physical definition of DE and the math is meaningly without it. The idea itself is just terrible! What do you want me to say? It's nothing more than a mathematical construct, a mathematical hypothetical entity. If that grates on you personally, maybe you should reconsider why you would believe in such a thing in the first place? I have to pick on the idea itself, because that is where the problem lies, not in the math. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->Fifteen years ago you'd have been laughed at for even suggesting such a thing.</p><p>Ya think? Maybe because 15 years ago, acceleration wasn't observed. Our observations have become orders of magnitude more refined over the 15 years.</DIV></p><p>Um, that acceleration is not the result of "dark energy", because "dark energy" does not emprically exist. DE has never accelerated a single atom of plasma in any controlled test. How does an observation of acceleration of a plasma universe equate to "dark energy' in your mind? Why should I believe that dark energy is in any way involved in any sort of acceleration of a mostly plasma universe if you can't make it accelerate a single plasma atom here on Earth?</p><p>I'm afraid that the observastion of acceleration doesn't justify your conclusion that dark energy had anything to do with that observation of acceleration. You just "leaped" to that conclusion as a pure act of faith.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It's not a popularity contest. Lame correlation, Michael. </DIV></p><p>It certainly is a popularity contest since it's definitely not emprical physics. If you could physically show me that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination, then you could claim it's not a popularity contest. As it stands, it certainly looks like a popularity contest from here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is so completely untrue. Your arguments are weak and are show signs that you refuse to try or simply don't understand how the process works.</DIV></p><p>Like you actually know how dark energy physically works? You can tell us where it comes from? I can't undestand something that doesn't emprically exist and cannot be emprically demonstrated. Acceleration has nothing to do with "dark energy", because "dark energy" doesn't exist. Slapping math to it won't make it any better. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show me where "high speed space" ever affected the distance between two objects in an emprical test of concept and I'll be happy to let you claim that dark energy did it.</p><p> What is "high speed space"?</DIV></p><p>That's how origin described it (I think I paraphased). Your industry has very creative ways of not offering a physical definition of 'dark energy'. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assume you mean the observed acceleration. Where has anyone claimed "dark energy did it"? How many times does it have to be explained to you that dark energy is nothing more than an abstract concept that has been inferred due to observations made. </DIV></p><p>It's a metaphsysical abstract concept that doesn't exist in emprical nature. The abstract concept is mathematical mythos. Acceleration of plasma does not require "dark energy", and in an Occum's razor arguement, there is no need for "dark energy" to explain acceleration. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->Until then, it just looks like $20.00 math that's been slapped to the side of a two bit concept.</p><p>More grating comments that makes it appear that you lack the background to actually debate the concept.</DIV></p><p>It's only grating because it's true. If you had an emprical test of concept, I couldn't feel that way, and I wouldn't feel that way. As it stands, it really looks like your trying to dress up a metaphysical pig with pretty mathematical lipstick. Yes, I know that seems cold, but from a skeptics perspective, it's still a metaphysical idea, and no amount of math is going to solve the basic problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Math doesn't make anything physical or otherwide "do" anything. It's a tool to aid in the understanding of what is observed. </DIV></p><p>Well, adding math to "dark energy" isn't going to make 'dark energy' do anything or help me understand it. One physical test might do that, but no amount of math is going to demonstrate the DE exists in nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the math can't describe what is inferred from the observation, then you start over.</DIV></p><p>When you apply math to non existent entities I can't make you start over by showing a flaw in the math. DE doesn't exist, and all the math in the world won't change that fact. Normally in emprical science you don't move forward without demonstrating one's claim. You're claiming that DE is responsible for acceleration. Demonstrate it first please.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael->What is it then? What is it made of? How does it work? Where can I get some? </p><p>Another line of reasoning that shows your failing on how the process works. Especially in cosmology, abstract concepts are often required to explain observations. Then you reverse engineer that concept to see how and IF it works.</DIV></p><p>How do you reverse engineer a force of acceleration of a mostly plasma object and come up with "dark energy"? IMO your willingness to simply slap math to any concept shows a failing of reasoning as it relates to emprical science. I can't make you believe in magic Lambda just by pilfering your math on you, so why should I believe in dark stuff or that anything resembling emprical physical science is found in ''dark energy' or "magic energy' or 'divine energy' or any other placeholder term I might use?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How the heck does softare engineering and cosmology have anything in common? </DIV></p><p>Neither would work without electricity. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael-> If dark energy doesn't have anything to do with gravity, then what the heck is it doing being stuffed into GR theory in the first place?</p><p>Because Einstein's field equations allow for the variable. It's not being 'stuffed' in. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The fact you *can* stuff it in there does not mean you *should* stuff it in there! That's the whole point. You're essentially trying to explain something that is unrelated to gravity based on a gravitational formula. That's not even rational IMO, particularly since this presumed new entitiy relegates gravity to minscule player. The only known force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful that gravity is an EM field. Why not start there? Oh ya, you guys aren't allowed to talk about electicity.....</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><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael-> If dark energy doesn't have anything to do with gravity, then what the heck is it doing being stuffed into GR theory in the first place?</p><p>Because Einstein's field equations allow for the variable. It's not being 'stuffed' in. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The fact you *can* stuff it in there does not mean you *should* stuff it in there! That's the whole point. You're essentially trying to explain something that is unrelated to gravity based on a gravitational formula. That's not even rational IMO, particularly since this presumed new entitiy relegates gravity to minscule player. The only known force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful that gravity is an EM field. Why not start there? Oh ya, you guys aren't allowed to talk about electicity.....</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'>Not one test of concept even after all these years? I'm not that young anymore you know. How long do you expect me to wait around for you to come up with a real emprical tests of these things? I'm not sure I have another 30 years for you to figure out that DE and inflation are non existent.It took over 30 years to test for gravitational redshift.it took some 65 years to test the twin paradox.Just a couple examples of abstract concepts supported by math that were untestable at the time of inferrence. Sometimes thought experiments and abstract concepts out pace technology's ability to test. Just because something can't be tested doesn't mean it is non-existent. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's ideas were ultimately shown to be superior to Chapman's ideas but the math was easier to follow in Chapman's theories so Chapman's theories didn't die off till the late 70's when empirical measurements showed them to be inaccurate representations of reality. Birkeland didn't just pencil in a math formula, he did the emprical tests to show he was on to something, and he took the emprical measurements to verify his experiments matched observation. Mathematical concepts have also been lived a long time and have died very hard and ugly deaths. The fact you're personally willing to wait around forever if necessary is not a particularly compelling argument for a skeptic. If you had emprical tests to go by as Birkeland did, your patience might be rewarded. Without such tests, you could be left in the dark forever. </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'>Actually this thread is serving a useful purpose. We have managed to stuff the genie back in the bottle and contain the EU discussion. It was threatening to spill over and dominate other threads -- not good. This is as good a place as any. Besides, I would like to receive my copy of Alfven's book and have a bit of time to peruse it before this is brought to a (merciful ?) end. </DIV></p><p>Well, this thread may indeed come to an end, but EU theory is here to stay and it will be here long after your Lambda-CMD theory is dead and gone. Why? Because EU theory is predicated on emprical physics and only emprical physics and emprical physics is here to stay. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suspect that there is some useful plasma physics in that book.</DIV></p><p>You'd think so, seeing as how he's a Nobel prize winning scientist and all, and seeing as how he wrote the mathematical book on MHD theory that is still in use today.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I also suspect that the contents of that book bear little resemblence to what has been put forth as EU theory in this thread.</DIV></p><p>Feel free to set me straight if you feel I've misrepresented his theories in any way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the meantime we can probe to try to figure out what Michael's theory really is. He is changing direction so fast now that the angular momentum can only be calculated using relativity.</DIV></p><p>Hardy har har. FYI I've always hedged my bets and I've never been particularly attached to BB theories or redshift explanations. They are constantly changing. I never forgot how to just say "I don't know" and to hedge my bets a bit. I don't get paid to claim I know how the universe works, so I don't mind saying "I don't know.". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I actually thought we had made some progress with the acceptance of the Hubble Law and ordinary expansion of the universe, but I just don't know any more. If that has gone away then I will give up. But if not, there is a glimmer of hope. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I've tried to be careful about how far and how much I've signed on to your expansion "law" idea. Hubble himself wasn't nearly as convinced that this was a "law". I'm certainly not about to abandon emprical physics only because of a redshift phenomenon that I can't easily explain or empirically demonstrate. Ari's math looks just as valid as Lambda-CDM math. I can't find any problems with the math in either theory, so how might I tell the difference between them in some empirical way? I'm not sure what the full causes of redshift might be, but one thing I know for sure, dark energy never accelerated anything and therefore it has nothing to do with the redshift phenomenon. </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'>....Well, when you've read a little of Alfven's work, then maybe you will be able to judge the merits of it objectively. It's not easy to do that with folks that have never read his work,...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Actually I have read quite a bit of Alfven's work. I just have not yet read his book. Why do you keep trying to twist my words? I have told you that I read several of his papers. But then I have told you quite a few things, which you choose to remember only selectively, and even then with some odd twist of your own making.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...? I can buy all the electrical energy I need, yet you guys can never seem to come up with a single consumer product based on "dark energy" or "dark matter" or "inflation", or "monopoles" though you write about these things insistently and publish it over and over and over again....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I suppose that you are at least marginally aware of the concept of potential energy. Where can I get some ? I need a pound of it right now. What color is it ? What does it smell like ? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually I have read quite a bit of Alfven's work. I just have not yet read his book. Why do you keep trying to twist my words? I have told you that I read several of his papers. But then I have told you quite a few things, which you choose to remember only selectively, and even then with some odd twist of your own making. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>To your credit DrRocket, you're the first astronomer I've met who's been actually willing to study Alfven's work on their own and do a little research on the subject. I'm not trying to twist your words in any way, and I respect your desire to educate yourself on the subject. </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 suppose that you are at least marginally aware of the concept of potential energy. Where can I get some ? I need a pound of it right now. </DIV></p><p>Oh, you're in luck. If you doubt the existence of potential energy, you can emprically demonstrate it at any time. Anytime you wish to demonstrate potential energy you can pick some up a one pound rock in your backyard today and you can emprically demonstrate that it exists in reality. Go out and pick up a 1 pound rock (preferably not a sharp one) and lift it up about six inches and hold it just above your toes. Before you let go of the rock, the rock will contain potential energy from the work you did to lift the rock. That potential energy will be turned into kinetic energy once you let it go. You will feel the effects of this transformation of the potential energy in the rock into kinetic energy as you let go of the rock and it strikes your toes. </p><p>How might I demonstrate the existence of dark energy in my backyard? </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>How might I demonstrate the existence of dark energy in my backyard? </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>From previous posts for context:<br /><br />You: <strong>"That exactly what you did with "dark energy". You slapped a little math on the side and viola, a new mathematical metaphysical entity was born."</strong><br /><br />Me: "It's statements like these that get you banned."<br /><br />You: <strong>"FYI, I actually got "banned" for promoting EU theory at (site name removed by me per the rules), not for saying things like that."</strong><br /><br />Out of morbid curiosity I checked out said forum and found their banned list. I also skimmed over the threads involved. <br /><br />First, I will retract my statement that you were banned for making any particular statements. You did not, consistently, invoke terms such as 'religious' and 'magic' as you do here. However...<br /><br />Of the three occasions you were banned, two were for hijacking the thread and the bannings immediately followed posts of yours that did contain 'religious' and 'magic'. The third and final banning was disregarding their rules, though you also completely derailed that thread too (imo) promote your agenda. It seems that the derailment wasn't the main issue as noted by the administrator.<br /><br />You have over 900 posts on said forum which I would presume the majority were discussions of your EU model in various forms. I don't claim to be able to read the minds of the moderators, nor am I privy to their behind the scenes discussions, but it is apparent to me (imo) that you were NOT banned for merely discussing EU models. You were banned for repeated violations... all of which may or may not have been assisted by your tactical approach within your posts.<br /><br />If you feel this post is out of line, I will gladly delete it per Moderator request. However, I seem to recall this thread was originally about the suppression of EU models and it was you that singled out said forum and their oppression.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<strong>Dressing it up with math is supposed to make it sound more legitimate to a skeptic?</strong><br /><br />I don't understand how one can 'dress something up' using math. If you ask me to describe '10' using math, I could come up with various way to do it. I could not, however, use math to make 10=11 (maybe DrRocket could, but I wouldn't know where to begin) . With that said, though... my description doesn't make '10' the right answer to the original assumption, it just supports it as being possible.<br /><br />If I can't make the math work to explain dark energy, then the assumption is wrong. If I can make it work, then the assumption is valid. (not necessarily correct).<br /><strong><br />How can I possibly argue against the physics of something that doesn't physically exist in nature? I can't attack the math or the physics because there is no emprical physical definition of DE and the math is meaningly without it. The idea itself is just terrible! What do you want me to say? It's nothing more than a mathematical construct, a mathematical hypothetical entity.</strong><br /><br />You most certainly can invalidate an assumption by attacking the math and/or physics supporting it. Both math and physics are not things you can attack piece by piece. They exist as a whole, all of its parts have to be considered, and how they work together to support any assumptions. If the physics and/or math don't fit the assumption, then the assumption is wrong. It's really a simple concept.<br /><strong><br />I'm afraid that the observastion of acceleration doesn't justify your conclusion that dark energy had anything to do with that observation of acceleration. You just "leaped" to that conclusion as a pure act of faith.</strong><br /><br />Ok. I'll concede I put faith in it. I have faith that the mountains of observations supported by mathematical models may be leading in the right direction. Fair enough? If you show me the observations are flawed and the math is unsupportive, I'll conclude that the current direction in which the methods being persued to verify the assumptions are wrong.<br /><br />I skipped the rest of the post as I would've just been repeating myself within the same post.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, you're in luck. If you doubt the existence of potential energy, you can emprically demonstrate it at any time. Anytime you wish to demonstrate potential energy you can pick some up a one pound rock in your backyard today and you can emprically demonstrate that it exists in reality. Go out and pick up a 1 pound rock (preferably not a sharp one) and lift it up about six inches and hold it just above your toes. Before you let go of the rock, the rock will contain potential energy from the work you did to lift the rock. That potential energy will be turned into kinetic energy once you let it go. You will feel the effects of this transformation of the potential energy in the rock into kinetic energy as you let go of the rock and it strikes your toes. How might I demonstrate the existence of dark energy in my backyard? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I can certainly feel the rock when it hits my toes. But that is after the potential energy has been converted by the gravitational field to kinetic energy. Where is the potential energy before I release the rock ? It is not in the rock. Even in classical physics the potential energy is described as being in the gravitatinal field, So, what is the field and where is it?</p><p>The field is one of those dreaded mathematical concepts. You can't see the field. You can't touch the field. It does store energy. But what is energy? You can't see energy. You can't touch energy, You can only see what energy does. It too is a mathematical concept. Electromagnetic energy is contained in the electromagnetic field. Another mathematical concept.</p><p>How was the accuracy of Newton's law of universal gravitation demonstrated and gravity shown to be real? It happened in two basic steps. 1) The empirical astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe were analyzed in detail and converted by Johannes Kepler into a set of ad hoc principles that describe the orbits of the planets. 2) Newton developed some mathematical techniques, called calculus, and a hypothetical force concept, the law of universal gravitation and showed the two could be combined to predict Kepler's principles. No work at a laboratory scale whatever was involved. Math magic at its best.</p><p> </p><p>Take two bar magnets with a north and a south pole facing one another. Pull them apart. It takes force. Let them go. They move toward one another, turning potential energy into kinetic energy. Where was the potential energy stored. Not in the magnets. They did not change. The potential energy (a mathematical concept) was stored in the magneteic field (another mathematical concept). Both are pretty real,</p><p>So what makes these field real? They provide mathematical predictive power for observed phenomena. And they are consistent with ALL that is observed. Whan an inconsistency is found we go look for a better explanation, just as Newton's theory gave way to genaral relativity, a more precise mathematical construct and description. The eveidence for the concepts is provided by showing two things: 1) the predictive power of the concept through a mathematical model and 2) a demonstration of the effect of the concepts consistent with the mathematical model in empirical experiments. Those experiments need not be a laboratory scale.</p><p>This general approach and process is precisely what is being applied in the case of dark energy. The difference is that dark energy is still in the process of being tested and evaluated. There is a mathematical model and there is empirical evidence. But that model has not been sufficiently well tested to be accepted. And the empirical evidence has not been sufficiently well scrutinized and verified to be totally accepted either. An alternate explanation may eventually be proposed and found to be better. Or additional data may change the empirical picture.</p><p>I am sure that mathematics seems magical to you. But a little education might cure that. It is really kind of neat once you understand it.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNFOvOJZoWwd</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tyRPerr6c&feature=user</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNFOvOJZoWw</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
How might I demonstrate the existence of dark energy in my backyard? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I can certainly feel the rock when it hits my toes. But that is after the potential energy has been converted by the gravitational field to kinetic energy. Where is the potential energy before I release the rock ? It is not in the rock. Even in classical physics the potential energy is described as being in the gravitatinal field, So, what is the field and where is it?</p><p>The field is one of those dreaded mathematical concepts. You can't see the field. You can't touch the field. It does store energy. But what is energy? You can't see energy. You can't touch energy, You can only see what energy does. It too is a mathematical concept. Electromagnetic energy is contained in the electromagnetic field. Another mathematical concept.</p><p>How was the accuracy of Newton's law of universal gravitation demonstrated and gravity shown to be real? It happened in two basic steps. 1) The empirical astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe were analyzed in detail and converted by Johannes Kepler into a set of ad hoc principles that describe the orbits of the planets. 2) Newton developed some mathematical techniques, called calculus, and a hypothetical force concept, the law of universal gravitation and showed the two could be combined to predict Kepler's principles. No work at a laboratory scale whatever was involved. Math magic at its best.</p><p> </p><p>Take two bar magnets with a north and a south pole facing one another. Pull them apart. It takes force. Let them go. They move toward one another, turning potential energy into kinetic energy. Where was the potential energy stored. Not in the magnets. They did not change. The potential energy (a mathematical concept) was stored in the magneteic field (another mathematical concept). Both are pretty real,</p><p>So what makes these field real? They provide mathematical predictive power for observed phenomena. And they are consistent with ALL that is observed. Whan an inconsistency is found we go look for a better explanation, just as Newton's theory gave way to genaral relativity, a more precise mathematical construct and description. The eveidence for the concepts is provided by showing two things: 1) the predictive power of the concept through a mathematical model and 2) a demonstration of the effect of the concepts consistent with the mathematical model in empirical experiments. Those experiments need not be a laboratory scale.</p><p>This general approach and process is precisely what is being applied in the case of dark energy. The difference is that dark energy is still in the process of being tested and evaluated. There is a mathematical model and there is empirical evidence. But that model has not been sufficiently well tested to be accepted. And the empirical evidence has not been sufficiently well scrutinized and verified to be totally accepted either. An alternate explanation may eventually be proposed and found to be better. Or additional data may change the empirical picture.</p><p>I am sure that mathematics seems magical to you. But a little education might cure that. It is really kind of neat once you understand it.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNFOvOJZoWwd</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tyRPerr6c&feature=user</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNFOvOJZoWw</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Out of morbid curiosity I checked out said forum and found their banned list. I also skimmed over the threads involved. First, I will retract my statement that you were banned for making any particular statements. You did not, consistently, invoke terms such as 'religious' and 'magic' as you do here.</DIV></p><p>Evidently it's a hanging offense there just to talk about EU theories on their ATM forum. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> However...Of the three occasions you were banned,</DIV></p><p>Are talking about BAUT now or some other forum? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>two were for hijacking the thread and the bannings immediately followed posts of yours that did contain 'religious' and 'magic'. </DIV></p><p>I've been pretty fair about not hijacking threads. Some threads at BAUT were overlapping the conversations I was already engaged in, and I simply put in my two cents worth. I kept *all* of my posts limited to the single ATM forum and I was not spamming their other forums, or spamming any threads. I responded to each and every post in each and every thread I participated in.</p><p>I fail to see why it would be necessary to ban me for pointing out that youc can't emprically distinguish between magic and inflation with the same mathematical presentation. It's the core idea that's flawed, and not the math, so what would you have me focus my attention on if not the core problem? How is it somehow unfair of me to compare inflation to magic? What other vector or scalar field in nature do you know of that will retain near constant density through several exponential increases in volume? How is that even an unfair comparison?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The third and final banning was disregarding their rules,</DIV></p><p>The rules at BAUT are like an inquisition. If they dont like your idea, they stick you in the ATM forum. They get to ask you any and all questions, and if they don't like the answers or they don't like you personally, they ban you for whatever reason they can come up with. Please point out the exactly phrase that got me banned.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>though you also completely derailed that thread too (imo) promote your agenda. </DIV></p><p>It's an ATM forum with ATM topics related to EU theory. There were several of them going on there, not just one and I participated in threads that other people started that were directly related to EU theory. That's never gotten me banned here before, nor even generated any sort of "warning" from any moderators. I can't participate in mulitple threads in a single forum?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems that the derailment wasn't the main issue as noted by the administrator.</DIV></p><p>No, the main problem they had with me is that I would not grovel at their feet and admit being wrong about EU theory, so after a while they got upset at me. The more effectively and agressively I made my arguments, the weirder they got and the more uptight they got.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have over 900 posts on said forum which I would presume the majority were discussions of your EU model in various forms. </DIV></p><p>Ya, in fact I never even focused on inflation or any of those things that I can recall. It was purely an EU focus without any overt bashing of their beliefs. I simply defended the solar model I have posted on the web there, and that was evidently cause for a lynching.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't claim to be able to read the minds of the moderators, nor am I privy to their behind the scenes discussions, but it is apparent to me (imo) that you were NOT banned for merely discussing EU models. You were banned for repeated violations... all of which may or may not have been assisted by your tactical approach within your posts.</DIV></p><p>The "violations" were things like "being non responsive" (after 900 posts?) or for simply responding to someone's personal attack with a direct response about their tactic. Which "violation" would you say was my worst offense? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you feel this post is out of line, I will gladly delete it per Moderator request. However, I seem to recall this thread was originally about the suppression of EU models and it was you that singled out said forum and their oppression. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't think your posts have ever been out of line or even personal in nature. I'm sure I've said things that have bothered you, but you've always responded professionally and honestly. I like those kind of conversations and I don't ever take offense at them. Most of the conversations at BAUT were also of a professional nature and were fair and honest conversations. I had no hard feelings about the conversations, but banning me for promoting EU theory did bother me quite a bit. Their rules have even become more draconian since my lynching and now all EU conversations are limited to 30 days in length. It's not as through they treat EU theory the same as all theories, or that their rules are applicable to all topics. They specifically and deliberately treat it with contempt and as though it's not a legitimate form of emprical science. I resent that attitude a great deal and I resent being banned simply for promoting emprical science. I've honestly never been banned from any religious website for promoting emprical physics, even when the conversations got "intense'. In the astronomy world however, any mention of electricity can get you banned at a variety of astronomy websites. It's ridiculous how touchy some folks are about having anyone question their beliefs in an open and honest manner.</p><p>I'll admit I've gone a bit 'too far" in this thread a few times and I've been harder than I needed to be on Lambda-CMD theory, but a lot of my frustrations are a direct result of the way your industry has treated me for the past 3 years. It's not as though I didn't try starting out with an olive branch and some humility. After awhile however one begins to realize that a humble olive branch approach isn't making any headway and then a 2x4 approach doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore. </p><p>The problem IMO is that EU theory is constantly being compared to Lambda-CDM models and invariably someone will try too claim Lambda-CDM theory is superior to other theories because of it's "predictive" qualifites, which is what usually derails the conversation. I'll take emprical physics and no 'big picture" creation theories any day. Why? Because I can't falsifify inflation or dark energy or any of the things your industry has tried to stuff into physics over the last 30 years since they don't exist in nature. All I can do is start with things that *DO* exist in nature and try to explain the things I can with those forces of nature. I'm not a big fan of just making up concepts and adding math. That's not emprical science IMO, that's mathematical mythology. Yes, I know that the world "mythology' can seem harsh, but what else can you call it from a skeptics perspective? If you had any inflation experiments to show me that inflation isn't a mathematical mythos, then I couldn't feel this way. As it is, the math seems fine, but the idea is just unflasifyable and outside the realm of 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can certainly feel the rock when it hits my toes. But that is after the potential energy has been converted by the gravitational field to kinetic energy. Where is the potential energy before I release the rock ? It is not in the rock. Even in classical physics the potential energy is described as being in the gravitatinal field, So, what is the field and where is it?The field is one of those dreaded mathematical concepts. You can't see the field. You can't touch the field. It does store energy. But what is energy? You can't see energy. You can't touch energy, You can only see what energy does. It too is a mathematical concept. </DIV></p><p>You forgot an important point however DrRocket. Gravity can be "tested" in normal emprical ways in standard emprical physical tests. I cannot emprically test DE or inflation here on Earth. See that differenc?. FYI, I do consider GR (as Einstein taught it) to be a pure physical explanation of gravity, even if we can't "touch it". We certainly can physically experiment with gravity however which puts it in a completely different category from inflation or DE. </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>Can we eliminate further discussion on what has happened on other boards.</p><p>I would appreciate that. Thanks!</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can we eliminate further discussion on what has happened on other boards.I would apprecaite that. Thanks!Wayne <br /> Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>Certainly. </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
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 177
-
-
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
-
Did NASA's Viking landers accidentally kill life on Mars? Why one scientist thinks so
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram