Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews70.html</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A systematic survey of the ionic charge state composition of 0.25 - 0.8 MeV/nuc energetic helium with the ACE/SEPICA instrument reveals that, after H⁺ and He²⁺, He⁺ constitutes the third most abundant ion in the inner heliosphere in this energy range. The average abundance during 1998 - 2000 has been determined to be He⁺/He²⁺ = 0.06, with substantial variability and maximum values approaching unity.</DIV></p><p>A charge attraction driven process between the solar atmosphere and the heliosphere that was tempered by gravity would certainly tend to selectively favor He2+ over He1+.&nbsp; Why else would we expect to observe solar wind ratios of these two ions that so obviously favors HE2+ over HE1+? &nbsp; H+ is light and heavily charged.&nbsp; HE 2+ is much heavier, but it's charge causes it to be more easily accelerated toward the heliosphere.&nbsp; The selection process of elements by not only atomic weight but also by charge is another dead give away that there is a charge attraction between the lower atmosphere of the sun and the heliosphere.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is true in a court room when all you have are their 'words'.&nbsp; In Manuel's case, you can easily refute the data he presents without relying on the allegedly filthy nature of his character. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>True, for an audience with an adequate background, and the time and inclination to dig into the particular details of his data.&nbsp; But knowledge of the source is useful in sifting through a great deal of data, qnd deciding&nbsp;how to efficiently allocate one's time.&nbsp; It is also useful for those lacking some background in judging the likely credibility of the source.&nbsp; Nothing in the allegations ought to be taken as conclusive evidence of the truth or falsity of Manuel's assertions,&nbsp;the more so&nbsp;since the matter is not settled.&nbsp; However, I think it is legitimate to consider the source when evaluating scientific opinions and explanations, as opposed to raw data. In the case of those who are posting in this thread, there is adequate background to make an independent assessment.&nbsp; And those individuals can and will&nbsp;absorb additional information and use it or discard it as their needs and perspective dictate.&nbsp; But for those who have a less deep background, additional information may help in assessing credibility of testimonial data brought into the discussion.&nbsp; Those people, if present at all, are likely to be unseen lurkers.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>True, for an audience with an adequate background, and the time and inclination to dig into the particular details of his data.&nbsp; But knowledge of the source is useful in sifting through a great deal of data, qnd deciding&nbsp;how to efficiently allocate one's time.&nbsp; It is also useful for those lacking some background in judging the likely credibility of the source.&nbsp; Nothing in the allegations ought to be taken as conclusive evidence of the truth or falsity of Manuel's assertions,&nbsp;the more so&nbsp;since the matter is not settled.&nbsp; However, I think it is legitimate to consider the source when evaluating scientific opinions and explanations, as opposed to raw data. In the case of those who are posting in this thread, there is adequate background to make an independent assessment.&nbsp; And those individuals can and will&nbsp;absorb additional information and use it or discard it as their needs and perspective dictate.&nbsp; But for those who have a less deep background, additional information may help in assessing credibility of testimonial data brought into the discussion.&nbsp; Those people, if present at all, are likely to be unseen lurkers.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Unseen lurkers can pretty easily tell the difference between finding fault in someons's scientific arguements and finding fault in their character.&nbsp; Unfortunately an individuals character is not actually a valid scientific measure of their scientific knowledge or their scientific work. &nbsp;</p><p>If you'd rather spend your time on another part of the evidence being presented in this thread, how about addressing the solar wind helium ion selection process, or Kosovichev's heliosiesmology evidence or his doppler image, or LMSAL's RD image?&nbsp; There are many sources of supporting data here to choose from and Manuel's elemental composition methods are only one of the pieces of infromation I have presesnted here for you to choose from.&nbsp; In Manuel's case it seems to be much easy to attack his character, yet it is much harder to find fault his work in nuclear chemistry, &nbsp; Unfortunately there is no one to one correlation between one's character and scientific accuracy, so even if his character is indeed found to be flawed in a court of law, it would still not invalidate his work in nuclear chemistry.</p><p>As I said, there are lots of aspects of this argument to refute, and this debate is about ideas, it is not about individuals.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pick another aspect of the information I have presented if you prefer.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I don't really understand the process as well as I should to make an educated guess, I would suggest that Uranus' and Neptune's rings are along their repsective equatorial axis, however their magnetic fields are inclined 59 and 49 degrees to their spin axis, respectively.&nbsp; This leads me to believe that Saturn's rings are not due to Birkeland Currents, or, at least, the effect of the currents is not a major player.&nbsp; I, certainly, don't deny Birkeland Currents are associated with planetary ring current, but I question their association with dust/debris (whatever you prefer to refer to them as) rings around the gas giants. </DIV></p><p>Your point about the spin axis rotation being different from the magnetic pole is not unlike what we find with the sun. Keep in mind however that it's spin axis may ultimately have the upper hand as it relates to where current flow is focused and where the rings are located, I'm not sure we could necessarily assume that the current flow through any physical object is always oriented in a polar alignment with it's magnetic field. The sun's magnetic field rotates over a 22 year timeline, but the solar wind is concentrated in the spin axis alignment, not in the sun's magnetic alignment. &nbsp;</p><p>In the case of the solar model I've presented, it contains a heavy core (neutrons or heavy fissionable elements) that spins rapidly and has a strong magentic field. That inner core rotates relative to the spin axis over a 22 year timeline.&nbsp; The current flows around the sun howevever, at least the solar wind streams are still strongest in the spin axis direction, throughout the magnetic field rotation cycle of the sun.&nbsp; I still don't think you can rule out current flow in ring formation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just making the comparison between your absolute statement that dark matter does not exist. </DIV></p><p>Dark matter theory (belief in SUSY particles) is a "belief system" that has not been emprically demonstrated in a lab.&nbsp; Photons can be observed and demonstrated in a lab.&nbsp; There is an obvious emprical difference between these two ideas. &nbsp; It seems like an apple and orange comparison from where I sit.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>All these ideas being debated here can either be emprically demonstrated, or they cannot be emprically demonstrated in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; I know for a fact that I can demonstrate that current flows through plasma and forms&nbsp; "current threads" and I can demontrate that EM feilds will accelerate plasma.&nbsp; I can show you that gravity has an effect on the flow of plasma as well in controlled experiments.&nbsp;&nbsp; No one on Earth can emprically demonstrate that dark energy, dark matteer, or magnetic reconnection has any effect on plasma in a controlled experiment here on Earth.&nbsp; That makes them significantly different from "light theory" which you are validating for us right now as you read these words and you observe the photons that come from your monitor and that allow you to recreate and read them in your brain. </p><p>The core issue here is that some theories are based on emprical physics and some ideas are not based on emprically demonstrated fact.&nbsp; I can't be absolutely certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in nature or interfere with galaxies, but stuffing a math formula full of unicorns to show how it solves a lensing problem wont' make invisible unicorns any more "real" nor will the mathematical curve fitting excersize demonstrate that invisible unicorns emprically exist in nature and have some lensing affect on nature.&nbsp; Only an empirical test in controlled conditions could do that.&nbsp; I can't be certain that SUSY particles do not exist or that they cannot live long enough to solve a lensing mystery, or account for any "missing mass".&nbsp; I only know what can be emprically demonstrated, and what cannot be empirically demonstrated. Since SUSY particles cannot be empircally demonstrated, I can't just let you point to the sky and claim that SUSY particles did it, anymore than I can let you point to the very same observation and claim invisible unicorns are responsible for that same observation.&nbsp; The mathematical modeling of invisible things won't make invisible things come to life, or actually solve any empirical physics problem. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote> <p>Let me begin with a definition of a "magnetic rope" from Hannes Alfven, the creator of Magneto Hydrodynamic Theory: </p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;"<font color="#0000ff">However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . <strong>A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)</strong>, and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to <strong>a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes'</strong> . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.</font>"</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> </blockquote><p>A Bennett pinch is a current carrying plasma thread.&nbsp; It is certainly an electrically powered kinetic energy process and it involves the flow of electrons through the plasma thread to create the constriction effect inside of the current carrying magnetic rope.&nbsp; Let's now look at a recent discovery from the THEMIS program:</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html</p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&ldquo;The substorm behaved quite unexpectedly," says Vassilis Angelopoulos, the mission's principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute. The storm traversed an entire polar time zone, or 400 miles, in 60 seconds flat.&rdquo;<br /><br /> Photographs taken by ground cameras and NASA's Polar satellite (also supporting the THEMIS mission) revealed a series of staccato outbursts each lasting about 10 minutes. Angelopoulos said that some of the bursts died out while others reinforced each other and went on to become major onsets.<br /><br /> Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.<br /><br /> "The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."</DIV><p>So NASA has verified that current carrying plasma threads can flow between the sun and the Earth, and we know that solar wind particles pick up electrons inside the tail of a comet.&nbsp; Now if the sun's charged solar wind particles can pick up electrons from the tail of a comet, it seems likely that the sun's solar wind particles can pick up electrons in the Earth's magnetotail as well.&nbsp; Somehow a complete circuit is being created or there is no way this much energy could be delivered in side that current carrying plasma rope.</p><p>It seems to me origin that there are many ways to verify the presence of current flows both into and out of the sun. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>"Your point about the spin axis rotation being different from the magnetic pole is not unlike what we find with the sun. Keep in mind however that it's spin axis may ultimately have the upper hand as it relates to where current flow is focused and where the rings are located, I'm not sure we could necessarily assume that the current flow through any physical object is always oriented in a polar alignment with it's magnetic field."</strong><br /><br />After having done a bit of reading, I realize that the planetary ring current are, in fact, aligned with the equatorial plane.&nbsp; Found a pretty neat animation here:<br /><strong><br />http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia10095.html</strong><br /><br />Am I correct in assuming you believe the rings that we refer to as 'icy rings'&nbsp; are mostly plasma?&nbsp; I'm not quite clear how you come to this conclusion considering Cassini has images of structures within the rings that show moonlets, clumps of matter, etc...<br /><strong><br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=2818</strong><br /><br />Or are you saying that the mechanisms that form the planetary current rings are the same mechanisms that form the icy rings?<br /><br />As for the rest of your post, I don't wish to debate semantics anymore.&nbsp; It would seem no matter the point I try to get across, It is responded with repetitive commentary that I've already heard dozens of times over the last few days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After having done a bit of reading, I realize that the planetary ring current are, in fact, aligned with the equatorial plane.&nbsp; Found a pretty neat animation here:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia10095.html</DIV></p><p>Nice animation.&nbsp; Thanks for the link.&nbsp; The images would suggest that the ring currents are caused by some sort of induction process due to the rotation of the planet.&nbsp; It would also suggest that these currents begin very close in toward the planet rather than being limited to the outer regions.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sure Alfven would jump all over these images as evidence of an induction process since the current flow is in fact driven by the rotation cycle of the mass object.&nbsp; The fact we see an induction current like this only serves to bolster Alfven's view of the universe IMO.&nbsp; If the sun induces currents like that as well, it would confirm Alfven's model. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Am I correct in assuming you believe the rings that we refer to as 'icy rings'&nbsp; are mostly plasma?</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; I think origin assumed I believed that the rings were mostly plasma, but I assume there are mostly composed of 'dust" particles and perhaps some plasma particles. too. The only point of disagreement seems to whether or not planetary rings emit *any* light on *any* wavelength.&nbsp; The movie you provided would suggest that they do emit light and that the currents in the ring are induced by the rotation cycle of the planet.&nbsp;&nbsp; The logical way to explain that image would be to suggest that the metal components of the planet that drive the ring currents are "off center" in some way which is why the currents rotate as a "blob" around the ring as the planet spins.&nbsp; Alfven's basic premise was that suns (all rotating objects) generate eletrical induction currents as they rotate inside an electromagnetic field. &nbsp; This movie certainly supports that theory IMO.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm not quite clear how you come to this conclusion considering Cassini has images of structures within the rings that show moonlets, clumps of matter,</DIV></p><p>I agree with you that there is a lot of material in the rings that is not "plasma".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As for the rest of your post, I don't wish to debate semantics anymore.&nbsp; It would seem no matter the point I try to get across, It is responded with repetitive commentary that I've already heard dozens of times over the last few days. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm not exactly sure what kind of answers you're looking for, but I will try to be concise with my answers.&nbsp; It has been my experience that some repitition is helpful because most folks have never been exposed to EU theory in school, and it's a very different way of looking at the universe. &nbsp; There's also repetition associated with trying to address the same issues with different individuals.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a software programmer, I consider my time to be quite valuable. It's certainly not my intent to waste my time boring you with repetitiive responses.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I'm a bit confused as to where your theory diverges from the standard (for lack of a better word) theory concerning Saturn's icy rings.&nbsp; I think the entire community is in agreement that their are ring currents around planets with a magnetic field.<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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; I think origin assumed I believed that the rings were mostly plasma, but I assume there are mostly composed of 'dust" particles and perhaps some plasma particles. too. The only point of disagreement seems to whether or not planetary rings emit *any* light on *any* wavelength.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am not *sure* what you *think* but as I said certainly any body will *emitt* *some* *EM* *radiation* if they are heated, which would be true of the *rings* of *Saturn*.&nbsp; They do *not* emit light at the wavelength that would be *expected* if the *rings* were *composed* of *plasma*, however.<br />No, I didn't assume, I&nbsp;asked you if you thought the rings were plasma since that is what Birkeland thought.&nbsp; You said </p><p>"The term "dusty plasma" is the most appropriate term I can think of.&nbsp; Plasma is often composed on only partially ionized particles with lots of non ionized material present."</p><p>You now&nbsp;have apparently changed your mind and believe&nbsp;they are composed of dust with *perhaps* *some* *plasma* *particles*.&nbsp; Congratulations, you have changed your mind and have disagreed with a proposal by Birkeland.&nbsp; </p><p>Now if you could just get past the belief in volcanoes on the sun we will have made some tremendous progress!</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not *sure* what you *think* but as I said certainly any body will *emitt* *some* *EM* *radiation* if they are heated, which would be true of the *rings* of *Saturn*.&nbsp; They do *not* emit light at the wavelength that would be *expected* if the *rings* were *composed* of *plasma*, however.</DIV></p><p>Are you saying there is *no* plasma and no charged particles in the rings?&nbsp; Unless that is your claim, I don't see how our positions were really ever much different.&nbsp; All I'm suggesting is the I presume some of the material is plasma, but the term plasma is typically *assumed* to be "dirty" plasma, and presumed to contain some non-ionized material.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I didn't assume, I&nbsp;asked you if you thought the rings were plasma since that is what Birkeland thought.</DIV></p><p>I don't recall him "thinking" that in the first place.&nbsp; Perhaps you could quote him?&nbsp; He presumed that some of the material was in fact "plasma" as you are describing it, but I don't recally him suggesting that was the only type of material present.&nbsp; That seems to be your strawman of his basic arguement, not his personal belief about rings.&nbsp; He was able to create light emitting rings around planets using current flow.&nbsp; Saturns rings light up due to current flow to, the current created in those ring currents specficially. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You said "The term "dusty plasma" is the most appropriate term I can think of.&nbsp; Plasma is often composed on only partially ionized particles with lots of non ionized material present."You now&nbsp;have apparently changed your mind and believe&nbsp;they are composed of dust with *perhaps* *some* *plasma* *particles*.&nbsp; Congratulations, you have changed your mind</DIV></p><p>You seem to be confusing your own confusion about my position with my changing my position. That was always my assumption.&nbsp; I think you started with a misconception about what Birkeland thought about rings, and you insterted that strawman into his belief system only so you could compare and contrast that with mine.&nbsp;&nbsp; I fail to see the point frankly.&nbsp; I have far more information about thosee rings than he could ever hope to have know 100 years ago. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and have disagreed with a proposal by Birkeland. </DIV></p><p>Even if that were the case (which I doubt), there would be a logical reason behind it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I certainly have access to a lot more information than Birkeland ever had.&nbsp; I would hope we would be a bit further down the road with information about composition of elements, the light they produce from various ions, composition of rings, etc.&nbsp; What would that prove even if it were true? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now if you could just get past the belief in volcanoes on the sun we will have made some tremendous progress!&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Ok, since you won't deal the charge separation issue, how about you explain the following images&nbsp;</p><p>http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/MOVIES/mov8.mpg</p><p>http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/MOVIES/movies.html</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]

<p>It is so&nbsp;difficult to have a discussion with you michael, because your goal is not getting at the truth or facts your goal is to further your agenda.&nbsp; You dodge and weave, misrepresent what has been said, deliberately misunderstand and a minor&nbsp;grain of&nbsp;fact&nbsp;is blown&nbsp;completely out of proportion to make it seem like your EU theory is reasonable.&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you saying there is *no* plasma and no charged particles in the rings?&nbsp; Unless that is your claim, I don't see how our positions were really ever much different.</DIV></p><p>There are ionized atoms in my eye, that does not mean my eye is made of plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All I'm suggesting is the I presume some of the material is plasma, but the term plasma is typically *assumed* to be "dirty" plasma, and presumed to contain some non-ionized material.</DIV></p><p>Astronomers suggest that the rings of saturn are 99.99% ice and dust.&nbsp; For all intents and purposes there is no plasma, could there be a&nbsp;nuclei&nbsp;with no electrons in the ring, yes, that does not support Birkelans model?&nbsp; No.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't recall him "thinking" that in the first place.&nbsp; Perhaps you could quote him?&nbsp; He presumed that some of the material was in fact "plasma" as you are describing it, but I don't recally him suggesting that was the only type of material present.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland wrote&nbsp;"We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in which these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a" and bla bla and so forth.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That seems to be your strawman of his basic arguement, not his personal belief about rings.&nbsp; He was able to create light emitting rings around planets using current flow.&nbsp; Saturns rings light up due to current flow to, the current created in those ring currents specficially.</DIV> &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So what is lighting up?&nbsp;&nbsp;And like I&nbsp;said before the rings&nbsp;don't light up, remember the picture where the rings in the shadow of Saturn, no light, but let me be clear there were not enough photons of the wavelength of visible light to be recorded by the CCD used with the telescope.&nbsp; Now&nbsp;you will say&nbsp;something to the effec "origin doesn't&nbsp;believe that a photon has ever been emitted from&nbsp;material&nbsp;in the rings&nbsp;in the shadow of Saturn"...&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be confusing your own confusion about my position with my changing my position.</DIV></p><p>The way you squirm around your position and twist what was said and change how you define terms, I&nbsp;certainly am confused about&nbsp;your position.&nbsp; You&nbsp;have said the rings&nbsp;of Saturn are dusty plasma (whatever that means) and then that the rings are dust that *may* have some plasma, to the rings are current - so yeah, I have no freaking idea what your&nbsp;position is; other than&nbsp;you think <em>mainstream</em> science is wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have far more information about thosee rings than he could ever hope to have know 100 years ago. Even if that were the case (which I doubt), there would be a logical reason behind it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I certainly have access to a lot more information than Birkeland ever had.&nbsp; I would hope we would be a bit further down the road with information about composition of elements, the light they produce from various ions, composition of rings, etc.&nbsp; What would that prove even if it were true?</DIV></p><p>Bingo!&nbsp; I think we have a breakthrough!&nbsp; Birkeland was ahead of his time.&nbsp; He made some excellent discoveries dealing with the aurora,&nbsp;the&nbsp;solar wind, and let us not forget&nbsp;Birkeland currents.&nbsp; But that was 100 years ago.&nbsp; New discoveries have been made and&nbsp;science has marched on.&nbsp; He was not 100% correct nor could he be with the information he had at hand.&nbsp; Take from him what has been verified and discard what has been shown to be wrong.&nbsp; Time to move forward.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, since you won't deal the charge separation issue</DIV></p><p>Sorry,&nbsp;I don't know what you are talking about.&nbsp; I&nbsp;am skipping a fair amount of the posts because&nbsp;this is getting very repetative and boring.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>how about you explain the following images&nbsp;http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/MOVIES/mov8.mpghttp://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/MOVIES/movies.html <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />This movie shows sunspot flows: outward flows in the penumbra (Evershed flow), and inward flows in the umbra.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is so&nbsp;difficult to have a discussion with you michael, because your goal is not getting at the truth or facts your goal is to further your agenda.&nbsp; You dodge and weave, misrepresent what has been said, deliberately misunderstand and a minor&nbsp;grain of&nbsp;fact&nbsp;is blown&nbsp;completely out of proportion to make it seem like your EU theory is reasonable.</DIV></p><p>This is why it is so difficult to have a scientific discussion with you because your goal is not to get to the scientific fact, but rather to attack the individual.&nbsp; Yawn.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are ionized atoms in my eye, that does not mean my eye is made of plasma.</DIV></p><p>The fact Birkeland created rings around plenets using electrical current does not mean that he personally believed that all the material around every ring of every planet would be made of plasma!&nbsp; You keep ignoring that point.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Where's the quote from Birkeland that I asked you for?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Astronomers suggest that the rings of saturn are 99.99% ice and dust.&nbsp; For all intents and purposes there is no plasma,</DIV></p><p>Astronomers believe lots of things that have turned out to be untrue and unfounded assertions.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>could there be a&nbsp;nuclei&nbsp;with no electrons in the ring, yes, that does not support Birkelans model?&nbsp; No.&nbsp;&nbsp;Birkeland wrote&nbsp;"We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in which these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a" and bla bla and so forth.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So what is lighting up? </DIV></p><p>Er, where's the part where he claimed the whole thing was made of plasma?&nbsp; Some of it may be plasma, and may indeed "light up". So?&nbsp; Where did he suggest that the rings would be entirely made of plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And like I&nbsp;said before the rings&nbsp;don't light up,</DIV></p><p>Yes, evidently they do, or we wouldn't observe those ring currents around Saturn.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>remember the picture where the rings in the shadow of Saturn, no light, </DIV></p><p>How about those images of Saturns ring currents?&nbsp; Light or no light?&nbsp; What wavelengths have you use to observe these rings anyway?&nbsp; What makes you think they should radiate in the visible spectrum only because it contains some plasma?&nbsp; Birkeland only demonstrated that they *could* radiate photons.&nbsp; It didn't suggest they *had* to be from the visible spectirum.&nbsp; That's your personal strawman. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but let me be clear there were not enough photons of the wavelength of visible light to be recorded by the CCD used with the telescope.</DIV></p><p>And again, it is entirely irrelevant.&nbsp; Nobody claimed it *must* radiate energy in the visible spectrum.&nbsp; Moreover, due to the limits of our current technology, it is not certain that they do *not EVER* radiate photons in the visible spectrum.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now&nbsp;you will say&nbsp;something to the effec "origin doesn't&nbsp;believe that a photon has ever been emitted from&nbsp;material&nbsp;in the rings&nbsp;in the shadow of Saturn"...&nbsp;The way you squirm around your position and twist what was said and change how you define terms, I&nbsp;certainly am confused about&nbsp;your position. </DIV></p><p>It's not only *my* position you are confused about, it is Birkeland's position you are most confused about.&nbsp; Birkeland's experiments suggested that EM fields might help move matieral into the shape of a ring around the planet. &nbsp; To my knowledge however, he never once claimed that *EVERY ATOM* in the ring was ionized. That was *your* strawman. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm pretty sure that even Birkeland understood the concept of partially ionized "dusty" plasma,&nbsp;&nbsp; You intentionally misrepresented his position, and then you tried to compare and contrast&nbsp; your strawman with my personal belief system. It was a misrepresentation of his position in the first place origin.&nbsp; He never made the claim that all the material in the rings would be entirely ionized.&nbsp; That's the part you never demonstrated and refuse to acknowledge.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You&nbsp;have said the rings&nbsp;of Saturn are dusty plasma (whatever that means)</DIV></p><p>It means that most "plasma" contains particles that are not ionized, including the photosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's the basic ignroance of plasma and it's propertiies that plague astronomy today.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and then that the rings are dust that *may* have some plasma, to the rings are current - so yeah, I have no freaking idea what your&nbsp;position is; other than&nbsp;you think mainstream science is wrong.</DIV></p><p>If you don't know what my position is by now, then you are not paying attention.&nbsp; I've been quite clear about it all along.&nbsp; The cause of your confusion is based on your confusion about Birkeland's postions on this subject.&nbsp; You misrepresented his position, and then you *thought* my position is somehow different from his.&nbsp; The confusion began and ends with you, no me.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Bingo!&nbsp; I think we have a breakthrough!&nbsp; Birkeland was ahead of his time. </DIV></p><p>More than 100 years ahead of his time actually.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He made some excellent discoveries dealing with the aurora,&nbsp;the&nbsp;solar wind, and let us not forget&nbsp;Birkeland currents. </DIV></p><p>The *discoveries* as you call them were emprical discoveries because they were demonstrated in a lab in controlled experimentation, and verifed with in-situ measurements he made himself in the harshest environment on the planet.&nbsp; He showed his mathematical models.&nbsp; He layed out the whole thing, the math, the measurements and the controlled experiments to verify his theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But that was 100 years ago.&nbsp; New discoveries have been made and&nbsp;science has marched on.&nbsp; He was not 100% correct nor could he be with the information he had at hand.&nbsp; Take from him what has been verified and discard what has been shown to be wrong.&nbsp; Time to move forward.</DIV></p><p>What has been shown to be wrong about his theories origin?&nbsp; By shown to be wrong, I mean what has *emprically* been shown to be wrong?&nbsp; When astronomers point to the sky and claim "magnetic reconnection" did it, or "dark stuff did it", what makes you think that is "progress" of any sort?&nbsp; What's worth "discarding" right now based on controlled experimentation?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>While there certainly has been progress at collecting data, there has been no theoretical progress in 100 years that is currently to be found in mainstream astronomy today.&nbsp; Astronomers still point to the sky and claim invisible, unflasifiable things did it".&nbsp; That isn't emprical scientific progress, that is ultimately a pseudoscientific religious dogma. &nbsp; Alfven, Bruce, Peratt, Arp and some others have tried to build on Birkeland's work, but for the most part astronomers today are ignorant of Birkeland's work and ignorant of Alfven's work, and ignorant to the real causes of phenomenon in the sky.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is because they do not do "emprical science" anymore like Birkeland did. They sit around with computers and mathematical models of unflasifyable entities and then try to claim that is some sort of "experiment". That is not progress origin, that is lame dogma, and lame science.&nbsp;&nbsp; Real science is emprical in nature.&nbsp; Folks that believe in neutrinos didn't just sit around and write math formulas.&nbsp; They built real experiments to attempt to verify their existence.&nbsp; When did anybody build an experiment to show that "dark energy" or "inflation" empirically exist in nature before slapping them into a math formula, pointing to the sky and claiming that they exist(ed)?&nbsp;&nbsp; I hate to be the bearer of bad news here origin, but that isn't emprical science, that is mathematical myth making.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This movie shows sunspot flows: outward flows in the penumbra (Evershed flow), and inward flows in the umbra. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>How come outbound flow is concentrated to a single point and that point remains stable throughout the image?&nbsp; What makes you sure thet the upwelling material is coming up from the photosphere, rather than the "stratification subsurface" at .995R? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Mouse_That_Roared_Pipsqueak_Star_Unleashes_Monster_Flare_999.html</p><p><span class="BTX"><p><em><strong>It's in the Spin<br /> According to Osten, who studies nearby stars, EV Lacertae is young, with an estimated age of some 300 hundred million years, and small with a mass and diameter only about a third that of the sun. However, it rotates much faster than the sun, completing a rotation once every four days compared with every four weeks for the sun.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong> She and other scientists think this fast rotation combined with differences in the interior composition compared to that of the sun explain the presence of so many stellar spots on the star's surface, which indicate the generation of strong localized magnetic fields over more than half the surface of the star.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong> The result is a star that is 100 times as magnetically powerful as the sun. It is thought that the energy stored in, and released by, the interactions of these magnetic fields generate its powerful flares.</strong></em></p><p>=========================================================================&nbsp;</p><p>Of course in Alfven's induction theory, the very fast rotation speed make the star more *electro*magnetically active, and it induces more current flow in it's atmosphere.&nbsp; It's not just "magnetically" active, it's *electromagnetically active*..&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't "store" any sort of "magnetic energy" in light plasma, you can only create powerful electromagnetic bursts with *electromagnetic* storage and release systems in light plasma.&nbsp; The notion that a star can "store" and release any sort of "magnetic" energy is simply a misnomer.&nbsp; it's like claiming that a lightening bolt comes from "magnetically stored" energy.&nbsp; There is no such thing as magnetically stored energy, particularly in light plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can store electrons and release them in light plasma, but you can't "store" magnetic energy. This goes back to the misconception astronomers seem to have about the nature of the magnetic fields. They are composed of flowing charged particles, involving vast amounts of current flow. They are not simply "magnetic" events, they are *electromagnetic* flows of energy, complete with kinetic energy and electron flow. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Earth's atmosphere does not "store magnetic energy". It experiences charge separation (you could say it stored electrical energy) in it's atmosphere that is ultimately released in powerful electromagnetic events.&nbsp; Likewise a solar atmosphere is experiencing powerful electromagnetic discharges that release electromagnetic energy.&nbsp; There is no "magnetic" storage of energy going on in these events, nor any "magnetic" release of energy in these events.&nbsp; It's all *electromagnetic* energy.&nbsp; The "electro" part of the magnetic equation never seems to make it to print. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This goes back to the misconception astronomers seem to have about the nature of the magnetic fields.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Thank goodness there is a computer programer like yourself to explain electricilicity to these poor uninformed Phd.s'.</p><p>You are really a hoot, michael!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank goodness there is a computer programer like yourself to explain electricilicity to these poor uninformed Phd.s'.You are really a hoot, michael! <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Er, Alfven explained it to them 30 years ago origin, and Birkeland explained it to them 100 years ago.&nbsp; They obviously didn't listen to Alfven even though they gave him a Nobel prize.&nbsp; They didn't listen to Birkeland either, since they claim "magnetic reconnection" is involved with aurora activity. &nbsp; I guess this lowly programmer will just keep plugging away at them until they get it. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, Alfven explained it to them 30 years ago origin, and Birkeland explained it to them 100 years ago.&nbsp; They obviously didn't listen to Alfven even though they gave him a Nobel prize.&nbsp; They didn't listen to Birkeland either, since they claim "magnetic reconnection" is involved with aurora activity. &nbsp; I guess this lowly programmer will just keep plugging away at them until they get it. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Alfven got the Nobel Prize!&nbsp; Son-of-a-gun, well then there is no reason to look into anything about plasma physics; all there is to know about it was already discovered by Alfven.&nbsp; I pity the poor bastard that is trying to get his Phd in anything to do with plasma physics - there is nothing more to be discovered.</p><p>The Nobel Prize!&nbsp; Geez, you should have mentioned that before I'm sure that would have ended the thread with everyone convinced that there are volcanoes on the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think that&nbsp;there sun people on that iron surface - I know that one of your fans thinks so.</p><p>Maybe you should try to educate some brain surgeons on medical techniques -&nbsp;you would be just as qualified to&nbsp;do that as you are to explain physics to an&nbsp;astrophysicist.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven got the Nobel Prize!&nbsp; Son-of-a-gun, well then there is no reason to look into anything about plasma physics; all there is to know about it was already discovered by Alfven.&nbsp; I pity the poor bastard that is trying to get his Phd in anything to do with plasma physics - there is nothing more to be discovered.</DIV></p><p>Do you make your living building strawmam based arguments or what?</p><p>Have you even read his book "Cosmic Plasma", or did learn everything you know about Alfven and his theories from me? </p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you make your living building strawmam based arguments or what?Have you even read his book "Cosmic Plasma", or did learn everything you know about Alfven and his theories from me? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />You can make a living doing that!</p><p>Actually, I am just trying to annoy you because your style of ignoring, twisting, misrepresenting and general inability to understand math and physics annoys me.&nbsp; Not to mention your arrogance in thinking that you have discovered the truth and that the mainstream physicist are actually meta-physicist.</p><p>At first it is funny but it begins to become annoying after a while, because you repeat the same tired junk over and over and over.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can make a living doing that!Actually, I am just trying to annoy you</DIV></p><p>Seems kinda pointless from my perspective.&nbsp; It makes you look, well, "small" and vindictive.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>because your style of ignoring, twisting, misrepresenting</DIV></p><p>Creationists often feel that I have ignored them, twisted their statements and misrepresented them somehow for pointing out the lack of emprical support in their belief systems.&nbsp; I guess some Lambda-CDM fans feel the same way.&nbsp; Oh well.&nbsp; I'm just the messenger I'm afraid and I don't take it personally anymore.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and general inability to understand math and physics annoys me.</DIV></p><p>I understand math as Alfven and Einstein taught it, based on laws of physics and known forces of nature.&nbsp; It's when you start doing math with magic particles and magic energy that I balk.&nbsp; It's not the math that I have a problem with, or any empircal brand of "physics' I have trouble with.&nbsp; I like GR for instance.&nbsp; It's mathematically challenging and it's based enitrely upon laws of physics.&nbsp; I like QM too.&nbsp; No problem there.&nbsp; It's only when someone stuff the math with metaphysics that I begin to have an "inability to understand".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not to mention your arrogance in thinking that you have discovered the truth</DIV></p><p>Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt and many other have "discovered" the truth behind plasma physics and plasma cosmology.&nbsp; I'm just a guy who happened to read their stuff and learned some things about cosmology in the process.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatever "discoveries' you figure I've personally made, I don't really see it that way at all.&nbsp; As I see it, Birkeland beat me to all of this by 100 years.&nbsp; Alfven explained the math and physics involved over 40 years ago.&nbsp; I'm just the messenger here as I see it.&nbsp; It's not an ego thing for me as you seem to imagine.&nbsp; You'll notice I called it "Birkeland's" solar model, not "Michael Mozina's solar model".&nbsp; I got over myself the moment I read his work.&nbsp; I suggest you do the same.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that the mainstream physicist are actually meta-physicist.</DIV></p><p>There are "mainstream" physicists at Los Alamos like Peratt that is clearly just a "physicist'.&nbsp; There are plenty of people who work with standard physics that are also just 'physicists". &nbsp; Anyone however that stuffs SUSY particles and "dark energy" into cosmology theories is in fact a "metaphysicist", because there is no emprical support that these things exist in nature.&nbsp; I'm sorry if that bothers you, but hey, I'm just the messenger here, just like when I'm pointing out to creationists that their beliefs are based on metaphysics rather than emprical science. &nbsp; I'm sorry if you have an emotional reaction to that fact, but there is *NO* empircal evidence that dark anything exists in nature, or that inflation exists in nature, or that monopoles exist in nature.&nbsp; It's not my fault if you're belief systems are predictated upon the existence of something that lacks emprical support, and I'm just the messenger.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At first it is funny but it begins to become annoying after a while, because you repeat the same tired junk over and over and over.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Name me one thing of Alfven's work that you've actually read and show me one valid reason you reject his work?</p><p>I think you're so interested in discrediting me personally that you've blinded yourself to emprical science by failing to study it entirely.&nbsp; IMO, you really should think about spending more of your time reading Alfven's work and less of your time trying to annoy me.&nbsp; &nbsp; We'd both be better off for it, and you might even come to see me as your friend rather than your enemy.&nbsp; If you're only purpose here is to annoy me, don't you honestly have anything better to do with your time? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Creationists often feel that I have ignored them, twisted their statements and misrepresented them somehow for pointing out the lack of emprical support in their belief systems.&nbsp; I guess some Lambda-CDM fans feel the same way.&nbsp; </p><p>Anyone however that stuffs SUSY particles and "dark energy" into cosmology theories is in fact a "metaphysicist", because there is no emprical support that these things exist in nature.&nbsp; I'm sorry if that bothers you, but hey, I'm just the messenger here, just like when I'm pointing out to creationists that their beliefs are based on metaphysics rather than emprical science.</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You veiled attempts discrediting the LambdaCDM model by comparing the physics that supports it to creationism is absolutely comedic... thanks for the laugh, Michael.</p><p>I'd like to point you to a lecture given by Rocky Kolb at Standford.&nbsp; They're from 2003, but as far as I can tell, they are still quite accurate.&nbsp; There are 3 one hour lectures.&nbsp; The first, providing evidence in support of dark matter/energy based on observations and math.&nbsp; The 2nd and 3rd lectures provide what the possibilities might be concerning the make-up of each.&nbsp; Very indepth lectures not for the layman, though the layman would still gain some understanding as he does a great job of explaining.</p><p>He's quite humorous, too and doesn't remotely lead the viewers to believe this stuff is 'fact'.&nbsp; He is quite clear in explaining what is known and not known.&nbsp;</p><p>http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2003/program_post.htm</p><p>His lectures are toward the bottom half of the page separated by days.&nbsp; If after watching these lectures, you still conclude that this is metaphysics, then I don't know where else this conversation can lead except towards animosity towards each other.&nbsp; To say these folks are stuffing magical elves into Relativity is just laughable. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You veiled attempts discrediting the LambdaCDM model by comparing the physics that supports it to creationism is absolutely comedic... thanks for the laugh, Michael.</DIV></p><p>Other than the longer creation date, what exactly is the emprical difference between Lambda-CDM theory and creationism?&nbsp; Neither of you has a single shred of emprical evidence to support your chosen date.&nbsp; Without supernatural inflation and metaphysical dark energy your creation date is just as emprically undemonstrateable and unfalsifiable as any other date chosen by any other creationist.&nbsp; The universe is physically larger than 27.4 billion light years across, and mass cannot travel faster than light, so how could this physical universe possibly be 13.7 billion years old?&nbsp; Let me guess.&nbsp; Inflation magic?&nbsp; Dark energy voodoo?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd like to point you to a lecture given by Rocky Kolb at Standford.&nbsp; They're from 2003, but as far as I can tell, they are still quite accurate.&nbsp; There are 3 one hour lectures.&nbsp; The first, providing evidence in support of dark matter/energy based on observations and math.</DIV></p><p>You cannot point to an uncontrolled observation in the sky and claim "Elf magic did it, and here's the math to prove it." That is mathematical myth making unless you can emprically demonstrate in a controlled experiment that DE isn't a figment of your mathematical imagination.&nbsp; What exactly is different between dark energy and magic unicorn energy using exactly the same mathematical forumulas in support of each theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The 2nd and 3rd lectures provide what the possibilities might be concerning the make-up of each.</DIV></p><p>I didn't have much luck with the streaming video today, but I'll try again to look at them again later.&nbsp; In your expert opinion, what exactly is "dark energy" and where can I get some to experiment with in a lab?&nbsp; Inflation? What's that made of?&nbsp; Same question about where I might get some to experiment with in a real physics lab? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> To say these folks are stuffing magical elves into Relativity is just laughable. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm afreid from the standpoint of emprical science, the creation date chosen by astronomers is emprically no better than any other creation theory.&nbsp; The day that you can show me that inflation emprically exists in nature, or that DE does something to matter or "space" in a controlled test, I'll stop laughing so hard.&nbsp; Until then, a creation date of 13.7 billion years in a physical galaxy that is much larger than 27.4 billion light years across, sounds just as ridiculous to me as a 6K year old creation date.&nbsp; It is physically impossible for either of these chosen dates to be accurate.&nbsp; In fact a clever creationist with a strong math background could probably figure out at way to stuff enough DE and inflation into your Lambda-CDM theory to make the universe only 6 thousand years old too. &nbsp; I mean if&nbsp; you're going to simply throw away GR speed of light limitations on objects with mass, there is no logical reason that the physical universe can't be 6K years old too if we make "space" expand faster!&nbsp; All you'd need is for "space" to accelerate faster (more DE) and a boat load more "inflation" to get it moving faster and further at the start.&nbsp; The fact you can stuff metaphysics into a math formula and make it match some distant observation is irrelevant if you can't demonstrate that your metaphysical entity exists in reality.&nbsp; Math that is related to inflation gnomes and dark energy elves is not "emprical evidence" of any sort of age of the universe.&nbsp; Using them to prop up your 13.7 billion year&nbsp; creation date is an act of pure faith, not emprical science. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070823_void.htm</p><p>One of the core tenets of inflation was the "prediction" of a homogenous layout of matter in the universe.&nbsp; Did those lectures mention the gaping hole found in inflation theory, or were they written before we discovered inflation failed it's biggest "test"?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2003/lec_notes/turner/p1pg01.html</p><p>All I can do is look at the lecture notes at the moment, but how exactly is "inflation" being "tested"?&nbsp;</p><p>http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2003/lec_notes/turner/p1pg05.html</p><p>Either this is lecturer is sufferring from a serious case of denial, or this lecture was written *before* we found that gaping hole in the universe. &nbsp; That status of inflation these days is certainly not "excellent", it's on life support.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was never actually "excellent" to begin with, but it has since failed its most import prediction.&nbsp;&nbsp; Got anything that is actually up to date? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>em&middot;pir&middot;i&middot;cal&nbsp; (m-p&icirc;r-kl)<br />adj.<br />1.<br />a. Relying on or <strong>derived from observation</strong> or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.<br />b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.<br /><br />I highlighted a couple key words for ya.&nbsp; We'd still be in the stone ages if we had to rely solely on lab work to make progress.<br /><br /><strong>"One of the core tenets of inflation was the "prediction" of a homogenous layout of matter in the universe.&nbsp; Did those lectures mention the gaping hole found in inflation theory, or were they written before we discovered inflation failed it's biggest "test"? "</strong><br /><br />Just another case of you jumping the gun on a headline.<br /><br />http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/scientists-say.html<br /><br />I put as much stock in the article I just posted as the one you posted.&nbsp; I take them both with a grain of salt.&nbsp; Until this has been thoroughly parsed, I remain reserved in my opinion.&nbsp; It might be fun to speculate with "what ifs", but that's all it is.&nbsp; </p><p>Walking into a room full of scientists calling them all dogmatic gumby lambda believing metaphysicists and refer to their theories as magic elves and unicorns because you believe the headline of an article will get you shown the door and laughed at on the way out.&nbsp; </p><p>Let's go back a couple weeks here and count how many times you likened these scientists to creationists.&nbsp; Let's go back and count how many time you have applied derogatory names and titles to these theories.&nbsp; Let's compare that to the number of times we have defiled you and your theories with silly names.&nbsp; I guarantee your count dwarfs ours.&nbsp; You have a history of doing this not only here, but several other boards of which you have been removed from.&nbsp; Are you confident it's the subject matter that gets you removed and not your tactics?</p><p>Here's is case and point:</p><p> <strong>Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories</strong>&nbsp; (A thread you already started on SDC recently about this subject).&nbsp; You made it a whole 2 posts before you resorted to the religious dogma tactic.&nbsp; Next post was all about invisible potatoes, invisible magic dust, and invisible unicorns.</p><p>I will openly embrace data that is shown to conclusively contradict prevailing theories... I have no issue with that.&nbsp; What I won't do is form premature opinions and consider them fact based on an article.&nbsp; I'm sure you can find plenty of Arxiv pdfs to support one side as I could that counter them, but nothing concrete has come of this.<br /><br />There are articles out there from reputable magazine that published stories considering this void as a footprint to an alternate universe.&nbsp; Gonna believe that one, too?<br /><br />All I know is that no one has convincingly explained exactly what it is yet... Just not enough info on it.&nbsp; At this point, everyone is trying to make it fit with their respective theories and models... including the bbt and lambda.</p><p>Sorry for the rant Michael, I've tried to maintain my demeanor, but I just had to let loose here a bit.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Got anything that is actually up to date? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1082255</p><p>Same guy from Jan. 2008 at CERN.&nbsp; AFAIK, same subject matter, but I haven't watched them yet, so I can't comment.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>