Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

DrRocket · May 6, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I imagine that it doesn't fit well at all into current theory about stellar evolution.  In fact, if the universe supplies all the energy in the form of electrons, then a sun could last forever, at least in theory.   You can click on my sig line to go to my solar website.  I also started a solar thread here a years ago that explains Birkeland's solar theory in some detail. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I went to your website.  Now I understand.</p><p>I had not realized that the photosphere was made of neon. Foolish me thought that the mainstream number of 0.12% neon was accurate.  But with the revelation from your website and your description of the EU I get it.  The sun and the other stars really are powered by some mysterious current permeating the universe.  Just great big neon lights.</p><p>Are you kidding ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I imagine that it doesn't fit well at all into current theory about stellar evolution.  In fact, if the universe supplies all the energy in the form of electrons, then a sun could last forever, at least in theory.   You can click on my sig line to go to my solar website.  I also started a solar thread here a years ago that explains Birkeland's solar theory in some detail. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I found that epic thread <font size="2"><strong>here</strong></font>.  I gave up reading that thread when the surface of the sun being iron was invoked.  I gotta give ya kudos on your persistence, though.  Sounds like it might be an enticing "theory" for someone who wants to believe in something different, just to be different.  I'm not that guy. </p><p> </p><p>Good luck trying to sell this idea... </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>

nimbus · May 7, 2008

Will the NASA Solar Probe due in 2015 or so help settle the matter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will the NASA Solar Probe due in 2015 or so help settle the matter? <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />Unfortunately, no, it will not.  I am a poor psychic, however on this point my powers are like a finely honed knife.  This is what will happen:</p><p>The probe will find many interesting items that will help to verify some of what is currently theorized about the sun and stars in general.  There will be new discoveries that will not be able to be explained, but will lead to further research.</p><p>Michael will disregard the verification, he will seize on the new discoveries that will prove (in his mind) that astrophysics is in the dark, and regardless of the findings, will tout the probe as further evidence that the Sun has a solid surface and that the universe is a big motherboard.</p><p>The great Carnack has spoken....</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I found that epic thread here.  I gave up reading that thread when the surface of the sun being iron was invoked.  I gotta give ya kudos on your persistence, though.  Sounds like it might be an enticing "theory" for someone who wants to believe in something different, just to be different.  I'm not that guy.  Good luck trying to sell this idea...  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I certainly didn't come up with that solar model just to be "different".  I just happened to watch too many solar satellite videos and images to believe in the "hydrogen sun theory" any longer.   FYI, after three years of online debates, I've yet to hear a rational arguement for even that first image on my website from the hydrogen sun crowd.  Care go give it whirl?  </p><p> You'll note the Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri at Rolla came to the same conculsion three decades ago based on his work in nuclear chemistry. </p><p>http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html</p><p>You'll also note that this is the same exact solar model that Kristian Birkeland was experimenting with over 100 years ago.</p><p>The hydrogen sun theory *assumes* that elements like iron, nickel and hydrogen do not mass separate by weght, and that every sun is completely internally powered.  Neither of these assumptions is true.</p><p> </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>

Saiph · May 7, 2008

<p>If we care to get into Dr. Manuel, and the Iron Sun theory..we should start a new thread as that's a whole new can of worms.</p><p> </p><p>BTW, I've met the man...and I don't think he has a leg to stand on.  If you start an Iron Sun thread, I'll discuss it there, otherwise mum's the word. </p><p>but here's a clue:  The iron sun theory applies, ONLY to our sun, and he absolutely refuses to "speculate" on the nature of other stars. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will the NASA Solar Probe due in 2015 or so help settle the matter? <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>Man, I really hope I don't have to wait that long.....

</p><p>I really don't know.  I'll have to study that mission more to gain some understanding of what kind of equipment it will carry.  I believe that it would require an "active" type of system (like radar) to probe under the photosphere to settle this debate.  IMO however, there is ample evidence already from various satellite systems, heliosiesmology data, nuclear chemistry analysis, and emprical lab test data to settle this debate already.</p><p>To be honest, I expected Hinode to "settle" the electrical aspect of this theory based on the high resolution (SOT) magnetic field detection equipment it carries.  I'm still hopeful that this realization will occur over time, but the more papers I read about "magnetic reconnection" being the power source of these phenomenon, the less that seems likely to me.  It's very frustrating to me to see this part "drag out" because it's a necessary first step IMO. </p><p>It seems to me that this solar theory is so far "out there" (so different from current theory), that any sort of shift toward a Birkeland solar model would have to be gradual and it would come in steps.   One could never logically accept this type of solar model without first realizing that a sun is not actually completely internally powered.  Without that recognition, it's very unlikely anyone would entertain an "iron sun" theory.  IMO the first step in that realization process is to recognize that million degree coronal loops in the solar atmosphere are electrically driven discharge events.   Even that much seems to be taking years to acknowledge.  That's rather frustrating from my perspective since Dr. Charles Bruce acknowledged this point over 50 years ago without the benefit of such sophisticated equipiment.  There is still no guarantee that this recognition of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere is going to happen anytime soon.  I don't forsee any shift in solar theory until we see some change on that front. </p><p>I do believe that it would be possible to probe under the photosphere (to observe a surface) using an active type of radar system, but it will take a lot of trial and error to see which wavelengths will penetrate the solar atmosphere and which will not.  Of course since the basic assumption of current theory is that there is no crust to observe, and the photosphere is "opaque" to every wavelength, so it seems unlikely to me that such equipment would be installed on a solar probe.   Heliosiesmology data has already revealed the presense of a "stratification subsurface" at .995R, so it's possible that such information might spawn some additional interest in studying that phenomenon.</p><p> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111</p><p>Note that this "stratification subsurface" affects (blocks) the movement of plasma, and has a significant effect on the speed of sound in that region.  According to standard theory, that's supposed to be an open convection zone.  Oooops? </p><p> </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>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, no, it will not.  I am a poor psychic, however on this point my powers are like a finely honed knife.  This is what will happen:The probe will find many interesting items that will help to verify some of what is currently theorized about the sun and stars in general.  There will be new discoveries that will not be able to be explained, but will lead to further research.Michael will disregard the verification, he will seize on the new discoveries that will prove (in his mind) that astrophysics is in the dark, and regardless of the findings, will tout the probe as further evidence that the Sun has a solid surface and that the universe is a big motherboard.The great Carnack has spoken....  <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I don't know why you think *I* would disregard the data.  It's the mainstream that refuses to explain those RD images, that heliosiesmology data.  They ignore the acceleration of the solar wind, they ignore the million degree discharges that Dr. Bruce showed were related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.  The only one ignoring data is the mainstream, not me.  I can't even get them to address the very first image on my website.</p><p>I agree with Saiph that any further discussion of solar theory should take place in a new thread.  If you'd like to explain that "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone, or you want to tackle that first image on my website, start a new thread.  Ill be happy to discuss it with you oh great Carnack.....

</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>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If we care to get into Dr. Manuel, and the Iron Sun theory..we should start a new thread as that's a whole new can of worms. BTW, I've met the man...and I don't think he has a leg to stand on.  If you start an Iron Sun thread, I'll discuss it there, otherwise mum's the word. but here's a clue:  The iron sun theory applies, ONLY to our sun, and he absolutely refuses to "speculate" on the nature of other stars.  <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>I think the basic assumption of both of us is that our sun represents the "Rosetta Stone" of astronomy.  Once we understand our own sun, it's then possible to extend that understanding out into space.  We can't see other stars with the kind of precision we can bring to focus on our closest stellar neighbor, so it would be best to focus on the star in our backyard rather than stars at a great distance from us.</p><p>I agree with you wholeheartedly however that any solar discussion should take place in a separate thread.  I'd rather see this thread stay on topic too. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I went to your website.  Now I understand.I had not realized that the photosphere was made of neon. Foolish me thought that the mainstream number of 0.12% neon was accurate.  But with the revelation from your website and your description of the EU I get it.  The sun and the other stars really are powered by some mysterious current permeating the universe.  Just great big neon lights.Are you kidding ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Not even a little. </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>

CalliArcale · May 7, 2008

<p>Neon? You think the Sun's photosphere is made of neon?  What gives you that idea, given that nowhere near that amount is found in actual observations?  I trust you are not relying on some sort of *model* instead of empirical science.  Surely, given your utter disdain for anything other than empirical evidence, you would not reach that conclusion if you didn't have some empirical evidence to back it up.</p><p>I would be very interested to know what that is, and why it contradicts the spectral data so dramatically.</p><p>I remain baffled that you exclude observational evidence from empirical science.  Your responses above did not help me understand why you discount it.  I find myself wondering if this strange distinction is being drawn purely because you don't like what observational evidence has found.</p><p>I also find it interesting that after my example about the neutrino experiment, you shifted from "astronomy does no experimentation" to "astronomy does a study particles", and after I suggested looking for experiments involving electricity, you shifted to "96% of astronomy doesn't use experimentation".  You're realizing that I called you on your hyperbole, aren't you?  I have no clue where you get that precise number from, or even how one could arrive at a percentage.  Either way, it seems somewhat amusing that you attempted to indicate that astronomers don't try to do any experiments, particularly on the subject of magnetic reconnection, by posting a link to an experimental study of magnetic reconnection....</p><p>Talking of the magnetic reconnection experiment that you linked to (pretty much nuking your argument that those closed-minded astronomers never do any experiements), the webpage says this: "The charged particles which create the aurora are thought to be accelerated through magnetic reconnection."  It doesn't say magnetic reconnection is the aurora, as you seemed to be implying.  It says that magnetic reconnection is involved -- which was exactly what I was getting at!  The aurora is caused by charged particles hitting the upper atmosphere, same as what Birkeland demonstrated years ago.  Magnetic reconnection is involved in getting them to the right spot and in the right way to make the upper atmosphere glow.  Honestly, if you don't even understand what they're saying about magnetic reconnection, it's no wonder you think it's all just BS.  But I have to wonder how you could be demonstrating such intelligence and such erudition without understanding what it is these people are actually saying -- unless you are allowing your bias to seriously influence you, which is pretty rich considering that this whole thread is about your believe that there is a conspiracy (or at least a serious bias) to suppress the electric universe theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/XMM_Newton_Discovers_Part_Of_Missing_Matter_In_The_Universe_999.html</p><p>From an EU perspective, these sorts of "discoveries" of plasma threads between objects in space is not actually a discovery at all.  The fact they didn't address the "heat" aspect is more than a little frustrating and it adds insult to injury from an EU oriented perspective.  </p><p> Why are these clouds of gas hot enough to emit x-rays according to standard theory?   In any EU theory, these x-rays would simply be coming from current carrying plasma threads.  In standard theory these thin gas particles should cool off as they move away from all suns, shouldn't they?  Why is the heliosphere emitting energy that is consistent with 6K degree temperatures?  These are the kinds of "observations" that are the dead give away that point us to EU theory IMO.  I really don't comprehend how they can see these clouds of thin gas emit x-rays, and not recognize these emissions as electrically driven emissions.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neon? You think the Sun's photosphere is made of neon? </DIV></p><p>Like all the layers of the sun, the photosphere has a lot of elements running through it, but the yes, I believe the bulk of the photosphere is made of neon.  In fact I believe that the sun is covered by concentric double layers of plasma that are all separated by atomic weight.  The mostly Neon photosphere sits under the mostly helium chromosphere, which both sit under the mostly hydrogen corona. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What gives you that idea, given that nowhere near that amount is found in actual observations?</DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting we count photons to derive the composition of elements? What makes yo think the sun isn't mass separated in any way?   Why wouldn't heavy elements sink to the core?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I trust you are not relying on some sort of *model* instead of empirical science.  Surely, given your utter disdain for anything other than empirical evidence, you would not reach that conclusion if you didn't have some empirical evidence to back it up.I would be very interested to know what that is, and why it contradicts the spectral data so dramatically.</DIV></p><p>I think at this point it would be better for me to answer your questions in a separate thread.  Suffice to say this model came primarily from direct satellite obseveration, and heliosiesmology data from satellite data.  </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>

origin · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You'll note the Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri at Rolla came to the same conculsion three decades ago based on his work in nuclear chemistry. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.htmlYou'l   <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Oh no not, poor Dr. Manuel!  This guy is an embarrassment, one of the problems with tenure.</p><p>Dr. Manuel believes the most common element in the universe is iron.  One of his arguments is that preponderance of iron meteorites.  He has got a point, I have yet to see hydrogen or helium meteorite in the Smithsonian or anywhere else.  Care to address that - I didn't think so!!  It can ONLY mean the sun is an iron shell that surrounds a neutron core, that glows due to neon becoming excited by the lightning in the solar atmosphere.  Oh yeah, and there are volcanoes on the sun too! </p><p>I think that sums up Michael's clearly thought out position, which of course is not supported by the <em>mainstream </em>Science<em> </em>community and their fancy-shmancy metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/XMM_Newton_Discovers_Part_Of_Missing_Matter_In_The_Universe_999.htmlFrom an EU perspective, these sorts of "discoveries" of plasma threads between objects in space is not actually a discovery at all.    <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />They did not discover plasma threads.  They discovered gas that is emiting the radiation not plasma.</p><p>How do you decide which parts of mainstream science to believe and which to discard?  Does it have anything to do with your preconcieved ideas?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh no not, poor Dr. Manuel!  This guy is an embarrassment, one of the problems with tenure.</DIV></p><p>It's just so easy to attack the individual, and so darn difficult to attack the scientific arguement one makes.  I guess that's why most people take the low road.  Yawn.  Nuclear chemistry isn't your forte I presume? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Manuel believes the most common element in the universe is iron.  One of his arguments is that preponderance of iron meteorites.  He has got a point,</DIV></p><p>What I found facinating about his work is that he came to exactly the same conclusion I did, using a completely different line of scientific reasoning.  Pure coindence?  I dont' think so.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have yet to see hydrogen or helium meteorite in the Smithsonian or anywhere else.  Care to address that - I didn't think so!! </DIV></p><p>I will be happy to address that fact.  Hydrogen is light.  It doesn't stick to anything for very long.  While the solar wind is mostly made of hydrogen and helium atoms, the moon doesn't have a hydrogen/heluim atmosphere.   Now it may make perfect sense to you that a sun would be entirely different in composition than it's three closest neighbors, but I don't see any logical reason to believe that to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can ONLY mean the sun is an iron shell that surrounds a neutron core, that glows due to neon becoming excited by the lightning in the solar atmosphere.  Oh yeah, and there are volcanoes on the sun too! I think that sums up Michael's clearly thought out position, which of course is not supported by the mainstream Science community and their fancy-shmancy metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.  <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I'm going to ignore your solar theory insults in this thread.  If you want to discuss solar theory, take it to the new thread I started.  I can back up every one of the core components of Birkeland's solar model, with satellite evidence. FYI, science was never about "popular opinion", in spite of your protestations. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

origin · May 7, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now it may make perfect sense to you that a sun would be entirely different in composition than it's three closest neighbors, but I don't see any logical reason to believe that to be true.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have no idea why I am trying to reason with you, but check out the latest edition of SCIAM and read the article <em>The Chaotic Genesis of Planets, </em>of course it is the evil mainstream which means you won't accept it - so never mind...</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 8, 2008

Michael, I think much of the flak you get is due to your technique.  It's your 'throw the baby with the bathwater' approach.  You seem to want to discard centuries of solid, foundational work based on a few things that aren't very well understood yet.  Absolutely, there are things science can not yet explain.  <br /><br />Dark matter seems to be one of your favorites.  Of course it's a gap filler, but it is certainly not enough to disregard the rest of the evidence and start anew.  Over the last 100 years, our tools are getting better, observations more keen, experiments more detailed, measurements more precise.  Our ability to make predictions based on the wealth of knowledge we have accumulated have lead us this far.   The standard model went through an explosion of discoveries of new particles never 'seen' before over the last 100 years... many (if not most) were predicted before being discovered.<br /><br />Is it really such an absurd idea to think, given our histories of discovery, that we may still yet find more 'stuff' out there?  It's really only been 30 years since the concept of dark matter came to light (yes... pun intended).  Only recently are our tools getting good enough to give it a serious shot at finding whatever it may be.  There's a few ideas out there and some tantalizing, albeit scant, evidence out there.<br /><br />Dark energy is in the same boat, but even more fresh and, seemingly, will be a much more difficult mountain to conquer.  It really is on the fringe of even what mainstream will accept as a gap filler.  You are definitely not alone in that regard.  Regarding dark energy, about all we are certain about is that we are uncertain about it.  The evidence of acceleration alone, however, is not enough to abandon the current model of cosmology.  Much work to do, we have (yes, that was a Yoda voice).<br /><br />Maybe it's just my eyes starting to glaze over your words, but you seem to keep repeating the same issues over and over despite people presenting you with new material with which to debate.  I'm not trying to diminish your efforts, but it almost feels like you have about 5 or 6 different paragraphs that you cut n paste for responses you feel appropriate.  The evidence you provide is really not that compelling, although, I freely admit some of it goes over my head.  On the other hand, when properly motived (by Saiph for example) I do see some new stuff from ya.  Some of it is interesting and makes for a good read.  I really am learning as I wade through this.<br /><br />The stellar model is pretty solid and quite convincing.  Why does it surprise and frustrate you when you walk into an establishment and state you have a better stellar model based on models built around a plasma ball in a lab that required an input of energy to function?  Sure, the stellar model isn't complete... what model is?  I think the preponderance of evidence that supports the model is more than enough to keep on working with it.<br /><br />I still am curious how you explain the sun's energy not being completely internal? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · May 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea why I am trying to reason with you, but check out the latest edition of SCIAM and read the article The Chaotic Genesis of Planets, of course it is the evil mainstream which means you won't accept it - so never mind...  <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>FYI, I get SCIAM, and I've read the article and the article on "dark energy' in the back too.   The whole thing is predictated on the idea that "dark energy" can cause acceleration of a mostly plasma universe.  Of course there was not a single physical controlled test of the idea, or anything related to impirical science.  Like most article in astronomy, it's all based on pure speculation wrapped up in some cute math formula.  Ten years ago there was no such thing as "dark energy".  Now I am to believe it makes up more than 70% of the universe.  Give me a break.</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>

origin · May 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, I get SCIAM, and I've read the article and the article on "dark energy' in the back too.   The whole thing is predictated on the idea that "dark energy" can cause acceleration of a mostly plasma universe.  Of course there was not a single physical controlled test of the idea, or anything related to impirical science.  Like most article in astronomy, it's all based on pure speculation wrapped up in some cute math formula.  Ten years ago there was no such thing as "dark energy".  Now I am to believe it makes up more than 70% of the universe.  Give me a break.  <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Beautiful.  You asked how can rocky planets have a different composition than the sun, I point you to an article that discusses it and what is your response - you don't believe that dark energy exists!?!</p><p>WTF???</p><p>I suppose that means you didn't like the article because it would be like the 1,000 nail in the EU 'coffin' so you ignored it.  Boy, I didn't expect that...<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, I think much of the flak you get is due to your technique.  It's your 'throw the baby with the bathwater' approach.  You seem to want to discard centuries of solid, foundational work based on a few things that aren't very well understood yet. </DIV></p><p>From a physics oriented perspective, the "baby" (as in real physical things) represents only about 5% of current theory at best.  95% of the current theory is metaphysical bath water as I see it.  No such thing as "dark energy" exists in nature.  Astronomers simply noticed a pattern of acceleration of plasma and said "dark energy did it".  The idea of "dark matter' as it was taught to me in school was more along the lines of 'missing mass" (MACHO theory of dark matter).  No self respecting physics professor in my day would have discussed new particles or SUSY particles or anything like that to explain "missing mass".  Now however we hear all sorts of rationalizations about why astronomers cannot accurately measure the mass of a galaxy at a distance.  That inability to accurately measure a galaxy's mass at a distance is now being chalked up to "dark matter" that is presumably five times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, yet not a single astronomer can produce even one single gram of dark matter in a controlled experiment.  It's never factored into the mass of the bodies on our solar system however, nor is "dark energy"?  What's that about? </p><p>From a plasma physics perpective, there's only 5% baby, and 95% really dirty bathwater that must be tossed out.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Absolutely, there are things science can not yet explain.</DIV></p><p>But Birkeland and Alfven could explain things that standard theory cannot.  Shall we just igonre that fact because it makes a few astronomers nervous?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark matter seems to be one of your favorites.  Of course it's a gap filler, but it is certainly not enough to disregard the rest of the evidence and start anew.</DIV></p><p>When the gap fillers become 95% of the theory, and real emprical physics only represents 5% of the theory, it is time to "start anew".   If the gap fillers were say 10% of a theory, then maybe it might be prudent see how things go for awhile.  When the gap fillers get to be more than half the theory, there's defiinitely a problem with the theory.    When the gap fillers are greater than 75% of the theory, it's time to start anew.  Were now at 95% gap filler and I'm certain it's time to start anew.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Over the last 100 years, our tools are getting better, observations more keen, experiments more detailed, measurements more precise.  Our ability to make predictions based on the wealth of knowledge we have accumulated have lead us this far.</DIV></p><p>Yet in just the last 25 five years several metaphysical fudge factors have been stuffed into what used to be "real physics".   Inflation?  What's that?  I never heard of that in college.  Monopole problems?  Really?  Ever seen one show up in a controlled experiment?  Dark matter?  Got a gram?  Dark energy?  When did that ever accelerate anything in lab?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The standard model went through an explosion of discoveries of new particles never 'seen' before over the last 100 years... many (if not most) were predicted before being discovered.</DIV></p><p>Those particle physics "predictions" came from controlled scientifc experimentation, not from pure observations of uncontrolled events.  A neutrinos was "predicted'' because no other type of known particle could account for "missing energy" of specific beta decay reactions.  There were expected physical attriutes of this particle that could be tested in a lab in controlled experimentation.   We knew were they came from.  We knew how to look for them.  We could control a reliable source of them, and turn the source of them on and off and notice the changes that took place in our experiments.  Where does "dark energy" even come from?  How do I look for it?  How do I control it in an experiment?  How can another 72% fudge factor be required to keep this theory alive in just the last 10 years and that not be a signricant problem?  <br /></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it really such an absurd idea to think, given our histories of discovery, that we may still yet find more 'stuff' out there? </DIV></p><p>I've heard religious arguments begin this way as well.  Sure, I will admit that anything is possible.  Emprical science however puts limits on what I might entertain as 'reasonable'.   When the idea is something like inflation or "dark energy' however, the skeptical scientist in me starts to get suspicious.  When the needed 'discoveries" start to exceed the known explanations, then I can't help but believe there is a serious problem with the basic theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's really only been 30 years since the concept of dark matter came to light (yes... pun intended). </DIV></p><p>I think the idea must be older than you think because I remember hearing about "dark matter" in school.  At the time however all that term applied to was a MACHO oriented brand of "missing mass", like plenets we could not see, and dust and meteorites and stuff like that.  No new "particles" of mass are required to explain "missing mass" back then.  Dark energy, inflation, and monopoles are all relatively new additions in the last 30 years however. Of course it's been 25 years since Guth imagined the existence of monopoles and inflation, and nobody has ever found either of them.  Dark energy is about 10-15 years old at this point, and you can't get two astronomers to even agree on what it might be.   I hear incredible statements about negative pressure vacuums, expanding "space" (with no physicsl definitions of space) and all sorts of goofy ideas about what "dark energy" might be.   From my perspective, it has to be the single most absurd idea I've heard to explain simple plasma acceleration.   If it can be reasonable to talk about dark energy causing acceleration of a mostly plasma universe, then surely it can be reasonable to talk about EM fields driving that same acceration process.  I can phyiscally demonstrate to you that  EM fields will accelerate plasma with a $20 plasma ball from Walmart.  Can you demontrate that "dark energy" does anything to any physical object in any experiment?  No, you can't because nobody on Earth can demonstrate this claim.  EM fields are certainly a logical alternative to "dark energy" when it comes to explaining the acceleration of a mostly plasma environment. </p><p> Dark energy doesn't even exist because it has never been shown to exist or have any effect on anything.    It's pure metaphysical bathwater.  I'll be more than happy to toss out 72% of the metaphysical bathwater right now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only recently are our tools getting good enough to give it a serious shot at finding whatever it may be.  There's a few ideas out there and some tantalizing, albeit scant, evidence out there.</DIV></p><p>I'll grant you that there is in fact an outside chance that some SUSY particle might get created in a lab some day.  Of course there is no guarantee that it would ever be stable enough to explain the "missing mass" we need to explain any sort of distant lensing data.  It's not going to be good enough to show that a SUSY particle can be created in a lab.  We will also have to demonstrate that it is stable, and might last more than a millisecond or two.  The odds of that happening IMO are slim to none.  It could happen some day, but until then I'll put my money on Birkeland solar models and iron suns to explain any sort of "missing mass".  All I know for sure that current guestimates about the mass of a galaxy are way off.  Particle related dark matter is a dark horse at best case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dark energy is in the same boat, but even more fresh and, seemingly, will be a much more difficult mountain to conquer. </DIV></p><p>I don't see it that way.  The whole point of introducing "dark energy' was to explain an observation of acceleration of physical objects.  EM fields are easily shown to accelerate plasma. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to introduce any new force of nature to explain acceleration of plasma.  The whole concept of introducing a new force of nature to explain the acceleration of plasma is ridiculous IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It really is on the fringe of even what mainstream will accept as a gap filler.  You are definitely not alone in that regard.</DIV></p><p>It's not only on the fringe, it's the straw that broke the camels back for me personally, and most folks that reject current dogma.  It's the utltimate gap filler.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Regarding dark energy, about all we are certain about is that we are uncertain about it. </DIV></p><p>I'm certain it doesn't exist.  I'm as certain it doesn't exist as I am certain that elves do not exist and that invisible unicorns do not exist.   None of these things have ever been emprically demonstrated, so any good sceptic would not try to claim otherwise.  Show me a controlled experiment that shows that elves have an effect on matter, and I'll let you point to the sky and claim elves caused acceleration or the expansion of something physical (not space).  Until then you can make up all the math you like about elves and show how your elf math matches the observations in the sky, but that pretty math isn't going to make me believe in elves.  The same is true of "dark energy' and "magic".</p><p>[QUOTE}The evidence of acceleration alone, however, is not enough to abandon the current model of cosmology.</DIV></p><p>It is from my perspective. I can easily explain acceleration with EM fields, just as I can explain the constant acceleration of solar wind particles with EM fields.  I can show you experiments where EM fields accelerate plasma.  A good skeptic has no need of "dark" anything to explain acceleration of physical objects.  The more I learn about he behaviors of our universe, the more I'm certain that they involved EM fields galore, and electricity galore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Much work to do, we have (yes, that was a Yoda voice).Maybe it's just my eyes starting to glaze over your words, but you seem to keep repeating the same issues over and over despite people presenting you with new material with which to debate.  I'm not trying to diminish your efforts, but it almost feels like you have about 5 or 6 different paragraphs that you cut n paste for responses you feel appropriate. </DIV></p><p>That is really unfair. I presonally respond to all of these messages, and the only thing I cut in paste are other people's quotes.  The same issues keep coming up over and over again of course, but that is only because you can't empircally demonsrate 95% of your belief system.  That's not my personal fault, nor my personal problem.  I don't need to invalidate your belief system to put faith in EM theory, but when people ask me why I believe as I do, it always comes back to the same issues.  As you said however, I am not alone in this assesment. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The evidence you provide is really not that compelling, although, I freely admit some of it goes over my head. </DIV></p><p>The notion of "compelling' becomes a very personal choice at some level.  I can't make you give up your faith in metaphysical fudge factors.  That's your scientific and personal perogative.  I am not however obligated to agree with your assesment of the physical universe only because it's "popular" at the moment.    Solar centric astronomy was once "popular" too.  I don't really know how to make EU theory seem "compelling" other than to explain various behaviors (like acceleration) with EM fields.  I don't know why you would not find that to be a compelling argument, but I certainly do.  I grew up in "old school physics".  I was a "show me" approach to emprical science.   Today astromers have abandoned that brand of emprical science altogether in favor of faith based system that is 95% metpahysical in nature. That's not my brand of "science" I'm afraid.  Faith has a place even in science of course, but not like that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand, when properly motived (by Saiph for example) I do see some new stuff from ya.  Some of it is interesting and makes for a good read.</DIV></p><p>I agree.  I looks to be turning into a very good conversation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really am learning as I wade through this.The stellar model is pretty solid and quite convincing.  Why does it surprise and frustrate you when you walk into an establishment and state you have a better stellar model based on models built around a plasma ball in a lab that required an input of energy to function?  Sure, the stellar model isn't complete... what model is?  I think the preponderance of evidence that supports the model is more than enough to keep on working with it.I still am curious how you explain the sun's energy not being completely internal? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>If the sun's energy source were completely internal, it's unlikey that the corona would be millions of degrees K.  If the core generated the energy, but the time the heat left the photosphere, it should start to disipate and get cooler.  </p><p>FYI, it was those million degree coronal loops and Birkeland's experiments that sealed the deal for me.  I saw how he used an external power supply and achieve all the core observations we see from the sun and the planets, from aurora, to rings around planets, to coronal loops in the solar atmosphere.  That just could not possibly be a coincidence.  To me, that was the most compelling evidence, even more than the satellite evidence, and I found the satellite evidence to be very compelling.  </p><p>Keep in mind that hydrogen fusion as an energy source was only postulated after we realized that fusion might be able to sustain the energy output to sustain solar life for billions of years.   An external energy source like electrons would also allow a sun to burn for billions of years.  It's just a different way of solving the same longevity issue that made fusion popular.     You might want to take a look at Birkeland's experiments with terella in lab.  To me that was the information that I really need to begin to understand how all the pieces come together.  It was the "compelling" information that led me to EU theory.</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>

derekmcd · May 9, 2008

<p><strong>"From a physics oriented perspective, the "baby" (as in real physical things) represents only about 5% of current theory at best.  95% of the current theory is metaphysical bath water as I see it."</strong>  </p><p>That is an, obviously, blatent attemp at manipulating WMAP's measurements to support your argument.  Just because 95% of the make up of the universe has not been detected does not logically lead to 95% of the current theory is based on bad science. </p><p><strong>"No such thing as "dark energy" exists in nature." </strong></p><p>Such an absolute statement forces me to invoke the "abscense of evidence... " mantra. </p><p><strong>"Astronomers simply noticed a pattern of acceleration of plasma and said "dark energy did it"."</strong> </p><p>Astronomers simply noticed a patern of acceleration of <em>space</em> and said "<em>something that we will, presently, refer to as</em> dark energy did it".  </p><p>- italicized words placed by me help to more clearly reflect what the reality is.<br /> </p><p><strong>"The idea of "dark matter' as it was taught to me in school was more along the lines of 'missing mass" (MACHO theory of dark matter).  No self respecting physics professor in my day would have discussed new particles or SUSY particles or anything like that to explain "missing mass"." </strong></p><p>First, constantly putting dark matter, dark energy, etc into quotes doesn't lessen the significance of their meaning to anyone except, possibly, you.  That's another tactic that becomes not only grating, but insulting after a while.  It doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.  It's similar to not capatalizing the president's name to make a point and accomplishes nothing.</p><p>MACHO's are a legitimate source that constitutes one aspect of dark matter though, it's doubted there's enough.  WIMPs are still viable as a candidate, too.  I believe they are still actively trying to detect through various methods.  SUSY particles are still plausible, too.  Hopefully, the LHC whip up some new potentials.  I'm not sure I can comment much further on WIMPS and SUSY particles... I simply don't know enough about them other than what they mean and their implications.  </p><p>Not sure when you went to school, but I, vaguely, recall you mentioning it was early 80's possibly?  I won't comment on the techniques and/or cirriculum of your professors, but the "no self respecting" comment seems like a rather derogatory comment towards professors that did introduce it into their classes and lectures.  Do you really believe that professors that simply discuss supersymmetry lack self respect?<br /><br /><strong>"Now however we hear all sorts of rationalizations about why astronomers cannot accurately measure the mass of a galaxy at a distance.  That inability to accurately measure a galaxy's mass at a distance is now being chalked up to "dark matter" that is presumably five times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, yet not a single astronomer can produce even one single gram of dark matter in a controlled experiment.  It's never factored into the mass of the bodies on our solar system however, nor is "dark energy"?  What's that about?" </strong></p><p>Astronomers can and do accurately measure the mass of distance galaxies. However, based on their luminosity, there isn't enough matter to explain their rotations.  This is where dark matter is invoked as a possible explanation.  It's highly unlikely an astronomer willl ever produce particles that fit the description of dark matter, but particle physicists might.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  It's still a work in progress.</p><p>It's not factored into the solar system because it is, likely, far too small for there to be any significant, measureable effect.  This whole arguement reminds of the classical theory of gravity not being able to explain the perturbation in Mercury's orbit.  The thought was there was another planet there.  I know you will use that to make your point about missing matter and I would respond with:  At the time there were 7 known planets and classic gravity described, precisely, 6 of them and led to the discovery of the 8th through the missing matter technique.  Just because classic gravity couldn't accurately describe one of them didn't make the theory 14% wrong and change to only 12.5% wrong when Neptune was discovered.  When general relativity came along and finally described Mercury's motion through the solar system with a revolutionary concept, I wasn't necessary to abandon classical gravity.  GR just build upon existing theories.  Maybe not the best analogy, but that's all i have. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p><p><strong>"From a plasma physics perpective, there's only 5% baby, and 95% really dirty bathwater that must be tossed out.But Birkeland and Alfven could explain things that standard theory cannot.  Shall we just igonre that fact because it makes a few astronomers nervous? When the gap fillers become 95% of the theory, and real emprical physics only represents 5% of the theory, it is time to "start anew".   If the gap fillers were say 10% of a theory, then maybe it might be prudent see how things go for awhile.  When the gap fillers get to be more than half the theory, there's defiinitely a problem with the theory.    When the gap fillers are greater than 75% of the theory, it's time to start anew.  Were now at 95% gap filler and I'm certain it's time to start anew.  Yet in just the last 25 five years several metaphysical fudge factors have been stuffed into what used to be "real physics"."</strong>   </p><p>See previous comments... </p><p><strong>""Inflation?  What's that?  I never heard of that in college.  Monopole problems?"</strong></p><p>Rhetorical questions?  I only understand the basic premises of these, but doesn't inflation resolve the monopole issue?</p><p> </p><p>I'm not going to address the rest as it seems to get rather repetitive and/or belongs in the other thread.  And I'm not in the mood to write a book <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />.</p><br /><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>

michaelmozina · May 11, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Beautiful.  You asked how can rocky planets have a different composition than the sun, I point you to an article that discusses it and what is your response - you don't believe that dark energy exists!?!WTF???I suppose that means you didn't like the article because it would be like the 1,000 nail in the EU 'coffin' so you ignored it.  Boy, I didn't expect that...    <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I didn't ingore the article.  I read it.  I'm not however obligated to believe everyting I read in SCIAM.   They print all kinds of baloney in that magazine, and just like the APJ, *never* do you see anything related to EU theory in SCIAM, including anything related to solar system formation from an EU point of view.  In the very same publication that you pointed me to, there is a clear example of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.   SCIAM isn't the be-all-end-all of science, and that article really explained exactly nothing about why the composition of planets would be radically different from a sun.  It said nothing about the moment problems of current solar system formation theories, and it completely ignored the EM factors that create rings around planets, and do doubt help to move material toward the equatorial plane.    </p><p>Now it's fully logical to believe that the sun would be composed of the same elements as it's three closest neighbors.  It's not all that logical to simply *assume* it has a completely different composition than it's three closest neighbors, expecially since these objects presumably formed from the same basic ingredients.  In fact the hydrogen sun theory only work is you *assume* that little or no mass separation occurs in the solar atmosphere.  It's entirely based on a single premise that has never been scientifically established as fact, and is would be entirely unlike any other body in the physical solar system. </p><p>You never personally answered anything.  I asked you why I should believe that the sun is radically different in composition from it's three closest neighbors.  What makes you think that the sun is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium when it's three closest neighbors are mostly composed of iron and nickel?  Didn't all these bodies come from the same basic ingredients? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 11, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is an, obviously, blatent attemp at manipulating WMAP's measurements to support your argument.  Just because 95% of the make up of the universe has not been detected does not logically lead to 95% of the current theory is based on bad science.</DIV></p><p>It means that 95% of current theory is based on "questionable" metaphysical ideas, not emprical, lab tested physics. When an astronomer starts talking about "inflation this", "dark energy that", 'dark matter yada, yada, yada", my eyes start to roll.  Which human being ever did a controlled experiment that empircally demonstrated the effect of any of these things on any form of known matter or energy?  The answer of course is "nobody".  95% of current theory is metaphysical in nature, it cannot be falisifed and it therefore falls outside of the realm of real "physics" an into the realm of metaphysical dogma.  "In the beginning there was inflation........"</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Such an absolute statement forces me to invoke the "abscense of evidence... " mantra. </DIV></p><p>I remember Rumsfeld using that arguement too.  I hear creationist envoke that statement all the time.  So?  Emprical science is all about what we *can* demonstrate in a lab, not what we put faith in.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Astronomers simply noticed a patern of acceleration of space and said "something that we will, presently, refer to as dark energy did it".  - italicized words placed by me help to more clearly reflect what the reality is. </DIV></p><p>Dark energy doesn't exist in nature.  It doesn't do anything to any form of matter.  EM fields however cause plasma to accelerate and that can be demonstrate with emprical physics.   "Dark energy" is mythological dogma, or simply a placeholder term for human ignorance, depending on how you choose to look at it. What it is not however is a form of emprical science.  It's is metaphysical dogma, nothing more.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, constantly putting dark matter, dark energy, etc into quotes doesn't lessen the significance of their meaning to anyone except, possibly, you.  That's another tactic that becomes not only grating, but insulting after a while.</DIV></p><p>I guess I should get into the habit of starting my conversations with astronomers the way that I start conversations with creationists.  I usually begin by asking that we focus on the emprical scientific arguements, and only the emprical scientific arguements.  I also mention to them that I am not their adversary, but rather their friend, a friend who is skeptically reviewing their belief systems so that they can make an informed choice.   I tell them to keep in mind that it is not my personal fault if their belief systems lack emprical scientific evidence, I am merely the messenger.  I'm not their enemy, not am I here to insult anyone. I'm simply pointing out the emprical flaws in their arguements as their friend, with the intent of helping them make an informed scientific decision.  I'm not intentially trying to destroy their belief system, but if their opinions change as a result of the conversation, it is only because their belief systems did not stand up to emprical scientific scrutiny, but instead represent a "statement of faith" on their part, that may or may not be accurate. Should their beliefs change, and that choice is theirs and theirs alone to make.  They should recognize that I am simply their friend helping them find "truth", or "scientific enilightenment".  It is an imprersonal process from my vantage point.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.  It's similar to not capatalizing the president's name to make a point and accomplishes nothing.MACHO's are a legitimate source that constitutes one aspect of dark matter though, it's doubted there's enough. </DIV></p><p>MACHO forms of mass are known to exist.  Evoking MACHO forms of dark matter is not therefore a metaphysical belief.  It is based upon known physics, and known objects.  Compare and contrast that with WIMPS or unicorns that have no emprical support.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>WIMPs are still viable as a candidate, too.</DIV></p><p>What make them "viable" in your opinion?  SUSY particle physics isn't even based on "standard" particle physics theory, and no SUSY particle including WIMPS has ever been observed in nature. If I told you that invisible magic particles were a viable candidate for missing mass, what onus of repsonsibility is on me to demonstrate that claim in  your opinion beforfe I point to the sky and claim magic did it?  Where does emprical science end and metaphysics begin in your opinion? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe they are still actively trying to detect through various methods.  SUSY particles are still plausible, too.</DIV></p><p>How can I falisify that idea?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hopefully, the LHC whip up some new potentials.</DIV></p><p>The term "hopefully" is a statement of faith on your part. So was your belief in SUSY particles.  I have no way to falsify them because they have never been shown to actually exist in nature, let alone that they live long enough to actually make up any form of s stable "missing mass".  Even if they find some of these SUSY particles, what makes you think any of them will remain in that from for more than a few milliseconds?  Let me guess: Faith? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure I can comment much further on WIMPS and SUSY particles... I simply don't know enough about them other than what they mean and their implications.</DIV></p><p>That is true since no human being can really comment on these ideas any further.  I can't stop you from putting faith in these ideas, but I have to point out here  that this is an act of faith on your part and it falls outside of emprical science, and outside of "standard" particle physics theory.   It's a bit like me puting faith in MOND theory.  It's possible that our understanding of gravity and particle physics is flawed, but shouldn't we have to demonstrate that *before* we start attributing properties to these items that may or may not be valid?  How do you know that a WIMP particle for instance won't decay into some other stable form of energy/matter in a matter of milliseconds?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not sure when you went to school, but I, vaguely, recall you mentioning it was early 80's possibly?</DIV></p><p>Late 70's, early 80's.  I think that Guth wrote his inflation paper in 82, but it had not filtered into any sort of college cirrumulum at that point in time.  Every idea I was exposed to was based on real physics, the kind of thing you can test for in a lab.  Today 95% of LAMBDA-CDM theory is based on unfalsifiable hypothesis and forms of metaphysics.  Inflatlation is sort of the ultimate metaphysical slap in the face from my perspective, because no other known vector or scalar field found in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without experiening a signficant decrease in density.   Inflation theory is down right "supernatural" in that respect.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I won't comment on the techniques and/or cirriculum of your professors, but the "no self respecting" comment seems like a rather derogatory comment towards professors that did introduce it into their classes and lectures.  Do you really believe that professors that simply discuss supersymmetry lack self respect?"</DIV></p><p>Few if any professors in my day would have tried to build a theory upon multiple metaphysical entities that did not exist in nature.  Something radical has happened since the early 80's.   Inflation and monopoles go stuffed into the the curriculum sometime in the late 80's and dark energy now is creaping int the classroom over the past 10 years.  Dark matter went from being based on real physics, to being based on non-standard, and undemonstrated brands of particle physics theory.  They whole theory of GR has transformed into a metaphysicsl gumby theory in Lambda-CDM theory, that involves so many fudge factors, that standard physics represents only 5% of the current theory. That's sad from my perspective.  "I don't know" is better than stuffing inflation into the process.  "I don't know" is better than making up labels like "dark energy" to "explain" acceleration of plasma.  "I dont know" is better than claiming SUSY particles did it.  These are not ideas that are based on physics.  They are forms of metaphysics dogma that have never been emprically demonstrated. I'm sorry if you find that statement offensive, but remember, I'm merely the messenger. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Astronomers can and do accurately measure the mass of distance galaxies. However, based on their luminosity, there isn't enough matter to explain their rotations.</DIV></p><p>So all that really tells us is that our "methods" for calculating mass in distant galaxies is pretty lame.  It tells us nothing about where that 'missing mass" is located, or what form of matter it is contained in.  The fact your method doesn't accurately calculate the mass of a galaxy does not give you the right to stuff it with metaphysical fudge factors to make up the difference.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is where dark matter is invoked as a possible explanation. </DIV></p><p>MACHO dark matter is a "scientific" theory.  SUSY based dark matter is not.  It is a faith based belief system because SUSY particles have never been shown to exist in nature, nor have they been shown to remain stable in nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's highly unlikely an astronomer willl ever produce particles that fit the description of dark matter, but particle physicists might. </DIV></p><p>And they might not.  They might produce a few unknown forms of mass, and it may not remain stable.  Anything and everything is 'possible", but emprical science is based upon known forces of nature, and emprically demonstrated particles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's still a work in progress.</DIV></p><p>How long do I have to wait for this work in progress to find any results?  Why should I "hope" they'll find something in the first place?  Why do I need to put any faith in that idea from an EU perspective? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not factored into the solar system because it is, likely, far too small for there to be any significant, measureable effect.</DIV></p><p>95% of the forces that shape our universe have zero effect on our solar system?   How is it possible that all your missing mass, 5 times more mass than what can observe has no effect whatsoever on a solar system?  How is it not special pleading to claim that 95% of the universe has no effect on matter in our solar system?  Isn't that a little convenient from your perspective? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This whole arguement reminds of the classical theory of gravity</DIV></p><p>I don't see how it reminds you of emprical science.  GR theory was physically testable from conception, it has been validated a number of different ways, and GR theory as Einstein taught it (not the LAMBDA-GUMBY thingy) falls well within the realm of falsifiable.   How might I ever hope to falsify your belief that "inflation" exists or ever existed in nature using a controlled experiment?</p><p>These two ideas are nothing alike.  I can test 'gravity' theories in an emprical manner.  I can't test "dark energy" because no one can even tell me where it comes from.   You can't create any "dark energy" in a controlled way, so you can't test it in a controlled way. SUSY theory is based on a non standard version of particle physics theory, and SUSY particles have never been shown to exist.  Infaltion is simply unfalsifiable by any means at all.   GR theory as Einstein taught it could be "tested' even if there were no other gravity theories before it.   Show me how to "test" Guth's inflation concept so I can be sure it wasn't a figment of his wild imagination?</p><p>Again, I would ask you to keep in mind that I'm merely the messenger here of emprical science.  I'm not picking on your personal belief systems, but rather I am analysing the dogma of astronomy today just like you might exaimine creationist theories and how they jive with emprical science..  If my comments seem offensive to you, I suspect it is due to the fact that all humans tend to be emotionally attached to their belief systems, even if they are not based upon emprical science.   My only intent is to point out to you where your theories are a part of emprical science, and where they venture into the realm of "faith" in metaphysical entities.    You're welcome to have faith in metaphysical entities if you prefer, but I prefer to put my faith in emprical science and plasma physics principles.  </p><p>Keep in mind here that I am not asking you to give up your faith in metaphsics, I am simply pointing out that physical theories like EU theory should also be recieiving scientific consideration, but alas we never find SCIAM or the APJ printing anything related to EU theory.  It's not that your brand of metaphysical faith is taught it school that I find most objectional, it's the fact that emprically demonstrated aspects of EU theory are *not* offered as an alternative that I find objectionable.  If dark energy and inflation theories can be taught in school, then surely Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" should also be part of the curriculum, and EU theory should not be treated as the "taboo" subject of astronomy.  I see tons of inflation, dark energy, dark matter, MOND, and magnetic reconnection theories being published by SCIAM and the APJ, but never do these publications devote any space to EU theory. That is pattently unfair.   </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>

Saiph · May 11, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You never personally answered anything.  I asked you why I should believe that the sun is radically different in composition from it's three closest neighbors.  What makes you think that the sun is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium when it's three closest neighbors are mostly composed of iron and nickel?  Didn't all these bodies come from the same basic ingredients?</DIV></p><p>It's not logical to assume that the sun does have a compositin similar to it's closest neighbors..as it shares very few traits with them at all! </p><p>So you're going to base it on mecury, venus and earth which share little in common with the sun?  You're also excluding the two largest neighbors, Jupiter and Saturn, which are mostly gas as well (Saturn's average density is less than waters!) and account for over 90% of the systems mass if you exclude the sun.</p><p>And the composition you list is also erroneous.  While iron is the most at ~30%, oxygen is next, then silicon.  Nickle is only some 2% of the earth. </p><p>Throw in the fact that the nearest neighbors are UNABLE to retain hydrogen, or helium due to their low mass and their ambient temperatuers...and you've just fallen prey to a strong selection bias. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

nimbus

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Saiph

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page