Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

Page 9 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>em&middot;pir&middot;i&middot;cal&nbsp; (m-p&icirc;r-kl)adj.1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.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.</DIV></p><p>Actually IMO, we'd all be a lot better off if we stuck to emprical scientific testing before pointing to the sky and blaming events on unevideced mystical forces.</p><p>An "emprical test" involves an element of control or a control mechanism of some kind.&nbsp; For instance, when we were building neutrino detectors, we had an idea of where they came from based on emprical testing of beta decays.&nbsp; We could isolate a presumed source of neutrinos, and we could turn on and off the source to observe the effects on the&nbsp; controlled experiment, and fire it up again to observe those results as well.&nbsp; Where does infaltion or DE even come from?&nbsp; How would we go about controlling either of these things?&nbsp; If there is no control mechanism it's simply a pure "observation" in the sky, not a "controlled emprical sceintific test".&nbsp;&nbsp; Adding math to your claim doesn't eliminate the need to demonstrate that the "force" or form of matter you claim exists actually exists in nature. </p><p>There is key point that I made which you failed to respond to. &nbsp; I'm going to pilfer the math of Lambda-CDM theory for a second and everywhere I see the term "dark", I'm going to insert the term "magic".&nbsp; If I slapped exactly the same Lambda-CDM math related to "dark energy" to "magic energy", what emprical advantage does "dark energy" and "dark matter" have over "magic energy" and "magic matter"?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p> The answer of course is "NONE".&nbsp; You can't honestly distinguish Lambda-CDM theory from Lambda-magic theory.&nbsp; Astronomers never demonstrated that "dark energy" or "magic energy" exists in nature, so pointing to a distant observation in the sky and claiming that magic energy did it is not a valid "test" of anything.&nbsp; There's no control mechanism, and therefore there is no physical evidence "magic energy" had anything at all to do with any sort of acceleration, even if the math looks super cool.&nbsp; Magic energy cannot be "tested" with a computer model, because I can't justify the magic math in the first place!&nbsp; Magic energy didn't make that acceleration occur because magic energy doesn't exist.&nbsp; Likewise that same mathematical model applied to anything that cannot be emprically demonstrated is utterly pointless.&nbsp; It is not a "test" of anything.&nbsp; There is no control mechanism involved and there is no emprical evidence that magic energy has anything at all to do with accelerartion of objects or the expansion of space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"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"? "Just another case of you jumping the gun on a headline.http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/scientists-say.htmlI 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.</DIV></p><p>Inflation theory is nothing more than a "what if" proposition. &nbsp; IMO you're the one jumping to the conculsion that "inflation" ever existed at all, that DE ever existed at all, and that you can use these things in a math formula related to the physical universe.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that magic inflation or magic energy, or magic matter exists in nature, so my stuffing such things into a match formula is not going to "test" these things even if they happen to match the uncontrolled observation.</p><p>I willl grant you that maybe we aren't sure how to 'explain' the cold spot yet, and there may be more to the story before it's all said and done, but that cold spot is there, and it's not "predicted" to be there based on inflation.&nbsp; A mathematical "prediction" related to "magic inflation" is pretty useless unless one has faith that magic inflation exists in nature and does something to nature.&nbsp; If one has no "faith" that inflation exists in nature, there's absolutely no emp;rical way to show that it exists in nature now, or ever.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Well, I already agreed that it doesn't apply to "all scientists", just the ones that posit and defend Lambda-CDM theory, inflation, monopoles, etc.&nbsp; The bottom line is that without magical elements like inflation and DE, the creation date selected by astronomers is no more physically supportable than any other creation date.&nbsp; The universe is huge.&nbsp;&nbsp; We're not even sure how huge yet because Hubble and Spitzer can't see that far. &nbsp; We do know that it is certainly far larger than 27.4 light years across and supposedly it all started from a single "point".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pure GR theory doesn't allow for particles of mass to travel faster than light.&nbsp; There's no possible way from the tenets of GR theory that matter can exceed the speed of light, and there is no force of nature that has ever been shown to have any effect on "space". &nbsp;&nbsp; Without these fudge factors being stuffed into the process, you can't justify a 13.7 billion year date any better than any creationist can justify their creation date.&nbsp; That is a fact.&nbsp; Admittedly it is a fact that most Lambda-CDM proponents are loathe to hear, but hey, I'm only the messenger here. &nbsp; It's is not my fault if particular individuals build their beliefs systems on things that have no emprical scientific support, but rather are gaint leaps of faith. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's go back a couple weeks here and count how many times you likened these scientists to creationists.</DIV></p><p>Let's first note too that I have already admitted that my original net was far too wide and my generalization were too general.&nbsp; Thanks to Calli and others, I've tried to be more specific in my criticisms as of late and I have noted that this particular criticism relates only to Lambda-CDM proponents, not to "all scientists".&nbsp; &nbsp; Not all of your peers seem to have faith in DE or inflation by the way, and these are the two metaphysical "biggies" from my perspective.&nbsp; It's not accurate to suggest this criticism applies to all scientists.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's go back and count how many time you have applied derogatory names and titles to these theories.</DIV></p><p>Shouldn't I have the right to criticize Lambda-CDM theory openly and scientifically?&nbsp; Is it my fault that you can't emprically demonstrate that inflation or DE is not a figment of human imagination?&nbsp; Should I not voice my criticisms only because they sound "derogatory" or hurt someone's feelings?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Evidently your industry has a very tough time taking criticism.&nbsp;&nbsp; Oddly enough I've never been banned from a religous website for picking on their dogma, but I have been removed from astronomy websites for picking on their dogma, or for just promoting EU theory in the case of Baut. &nbsp; What's that about?&nbsp;</p><p>I'm not the only one picking silly names.&nbsp;&nbsp; The term "Dark energy" is silly IMO too.&nbsp; It's no better than calling it "magic energy".&nbsp; It's just a label.&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact you can't distinguish emprically between Lamda-CDM theory and Lambda-magic theory using the same mathematical models demonstrates this point conclusively.&nbsp; The only reason I'm picking another silly label is to show you that silly labels and math are no substitute for emprically identified forms of energy and matter.&nbsp; It's only 'silly" to you because magic doesn't exist.&nbsp; Likewise it's silly to me that you use terms like "dark energy" in math formulas when nothing like it is known to exist in nature. It's just the same to me as if you used "magic energy" in those same calculations.&nbsp; The "silliness" is related to the fact that a label and a math formula is not an emprical "test" of said label.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you confident it's the subject matter that gets you removed and not your tactics?</DIV></p><p>I've used exactly these "emprical" tactics on reliigious websites with creationists and I've never been banned for it.&nbsp; It's the fact that I question their dogma, and that I do so effectly, that tends to create the hard feelings.&nbsp; The "tactics" actually have changed a bit as I've learned new ways to attack the dogma.&nbsp; I've always kept my criticisms aimed at the dogma and theories, not at individuals, so banning me for "tactics" simply implies you don't like the implications of what I'm suggesting.&nbsp; The emotional reaction is a function of the effectiveness of the argument in my experience.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's is case and point: Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories&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.</DIV></p><p>The dogma of Lambda-CDM theory is not falsifiable.&nbsp; It's not based on emprical science.&nbsp; It's not based on anything other than "faith" in things that cannot emprically demonstrate.&nbsp; That does in fact move it into the "dogma" category and out of the "emprical science" category. &nbsp; It's not my fault that you cannot empricallly differentiate between Lambda-CDM theory and Lambda-magic theory.&nbsp; The point of using a silly term here is to show you that it's silly to slap mathematical models onto things that cannot be emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; It would be like me trying to prove the invisible potatoes composed the "missing mass" of the unvierse.&nbsp; The silly name is specifically intended to point out this fact.&nbsp; It is just as silly to me that you call&nbsp; it "dark energy" or "dark matter".&nbsp; These things do not exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will openly embrace data that is shown to conclusively contradict prevailing theories..</DIV></p><p>And the doubling of star light in a galaxy conclusively contradicts current Lambba-CDM theory.&nbsp; Alfven conclusively condradicted "magnetic reconnection" too.&nbsp; &nbsp; Prevailing theories change over time as well.&nbsp; "Dark energy" is term that was created rather recently actually.&nbsp; "Inflation" is something that Alan Guth made up about 25&nbsp; years ago.&nbsp; These things were not 'prevailing" theories a few years ago, and I have no confidence that they will "prevail' for any great length of time. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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.</DIV></p><p>That is only because the mainstream publications never publish anything related to EU theory, a legitimate pure form of&nbsp; "emprical' science.&nbsp;&nbsp; As long as the public remains blissfully ignorant of the alternatives to popular theories, the mainstream can pretty much get away with arguing any minor points of their dogma forever.&nbsp; For all the talk about inflation and DE and DM, nothing "concrete" has ever come of these things either. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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?</DIV></p><p>No, I got the feeling that paper was simply "grasping at straws" in a desparate attempt to save inflation theory.&nbsp; Funny how they'll print that kind of hand waving stuff, but nothing related to Alfven's plasma cosmology theories. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>The problem here from my perspective is that the mainstream is not "posticting" a "fix" from a failed "prediction" of inflation theory.&nbsp; The problem with that theory is that it was never justifiable to begin with.&nbsp; No other known vector or scalar field found to exist in nature acts anything like inflation.&nbsp; No other field retains a near constant density throughout mutliple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; It's quite literally a "supernatural" construct in the first place.&nbsp; It's only supposedly useful "prediction" was that it "predictied" a homogenous layout of matter, and&nbsp; until recently that was what we thought the universe looked like.&nbsp; That hole defies inflation theory and there is no other possible way to falsify a theory that isn't based on physical testing in the first place.&nbsp; When do we just call it "falsified"?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry for the rant Michael, I've tried to maintain my demeanor, but I just had to let loose here a bit.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Actually Derek, I have enjoyed our conversations a great deal and you've been a true gentleman and scientist during our debates. I think I probably deserved your tough response.&nbsp; I can see how my posts might seem pretty offensive, and your response seems justified from my perspective.&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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>One more example of the difference between emprical science and mathematical myth making can be found in the theory of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Hannes Alfven spent his whole career criticizing the concept of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; That hasn't stopped anyone from manipulating the math in MHD theory to model "magnetic reconnection theory", or from claiming it is somehow connected to the Earth's aurora.&nbsp; Kristian Birkeland demonstrated through emprical testing that electron flow could be involved in the Earth's aurora.&nbsp; Noboday ever duplicated the emprical test of concept for "magnetic reconnection" before claiming that it was related to the Earth's aurora activity.&nbsp; There are now mathematical models of "magnetic reconnection" and absolutely no emprical test to show it's real in any way.&nbsp; Now should I believe Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland who showed me emprically that the Earth's aurora is caused by electron flow, and who explain the plasma physics behind the process, or should I just trust astronomers who point at the sun and claim "magnetic reconnection did it"?&nbsp; That is the serious question I have to ask myself as an emprical scientist interested in discovering "truth".&nbsp;&nbsp; One emprical test is worth a thousand expert opinion and a couple of thousand computer models in my book.&nbsp; I believe Birkeland because he showed me emprically that electron flows could cause the effects we observe in the solar atmosphere and in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; I don't believe that "magnetic reconneciton" is real at all because there is no physical model identified that is unique to magnetic reconnection theory, and there is therefore no way to differentiate it from ordinary electrical and particle interactions in plasma.&nbsp; As far as I know, Hannes Aflven was right to label that theory "pseudoscience".&nbsp; He did write the book on MDH theory afterall, and he did understand electrical theory as an electrical engineer.&nbsp; He clearly understood that magnetic fields always form a full and complete continuum, whereas astronomers seem to believe you can make and break magnetic connections like you can make and break electrical circuits.&nbsp; In all the years I've been involved in computer hardware and software, I've never seen anyone make and break separate magnetic field connections in a controlled experiment.</p><p>This again comes back to emprical testing.&nbsp; Whereas your DE seems to be "untestable" by any physical method, we should be able to test the magnetic reconnection concept emprically in lab.&nbsp; Since no physically unique energy release process has ever been identified for "magnetic reconnection", it's not even possible to falsify or verify the concept in the first place, and the only "emprical testing" that's been done to date involved huge flows of current that simply 'stirred up" the objects in the plasma and resulted in ordinary electrical and particle reconnections within the current sheet inside the plasma. </p><p>This is why emprical testing is *critical*, and this is why mathematical models are not a valid sceintific substitute for emprical testing.&nbsp; You can model "magnetic reconnection" all you like, but until you can show me how it works in a lab, I'm afraid it's not emprical science, it is hypothetical speculation. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The whole point of physical theories is be able to take the results of laboratory observations, made under very controlled conditions, explain them in relatively simple principles that are framed in the language of mathematics, and then apply those principles more widely to explain phenomena that may not be confronted in the limited environement of the laboratory.</DIV></p><p>Exactly.&nbsp; That's exactly how EU theory was developed in fact.&nbsp; Birkeland had an idea about how he might explain the Earth's aurora and he created emprical experiments in a lab and compared these results to in-situ measurements he made of the Earth's magnetic fields.&nbsp; Alfven took it several steps further by explaining the mathematical properties of plasma and then he used these same basic principles to explain a mostly plasma universe.</p><p>Compare and contrast that with claiming "inflation did it". &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Without the application of mathematics and mathematical reasoning, the utility of laboratory data is so limited as to be utterly useless. </DIV></p><p>Well that's not actually true, but Birkeland did in fact lay out quite a bit of mathematics, so at no time has EU theory been without a mathematical model.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's also never included a creation event because there is physical way to be sure that every bit of material was ever contained in a "point".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Predictions made using mathematics are, far from magical,</DIV></p><p>When you apply mathematics to known forces of nature, no.&nbsp; If you try to apply mathematics to "magic', it is in fact "magical math".&nbsp; Inflation is magical math because no known vector or scalar field in nature does what you claim inflation does.&nbsp; Same with DE.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>a logical extension of hard empirical data obtained in the laboratory.</DIV></p><p>But that exactly the part you skipped!&nbsp; You guys never demonstrated in a lab that Guth's inflation nonsense was anything other than his personal imagination run amuck!&nbsp; Where did you demonstrate that inflation exists in a lab before you started pointing to distant objects and claiming inflation did it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact the principles on which those calculations are based reflect&nbsp; a body comprisng far more empirical data than can be found in&nbsp;the laboratory experiments performed by any single individual.&nbsp;&nbsp;Applications of those principles&nbsp;tend to avoid traps caused by poor laboratory technique or simple misinterpretation of data that is common with a smaller experimental data base.</p><p>It is in fact the theoretical constructs of physics that are of the most value and that provide the basis for engineers to build real products. </DIV></p><p>Then name for us one real product that works on inflation, magnetic reconnection, DE, DM or monopoles?&nbsp; I'll be happy to name a dozen products that work on electrical current and plasma physics principles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your so-called reliance on what you call empirical data is misplaced.</DIV></p><p>Quite the opposite is true.&nbsp; Emprically gathered scientific is not ever "misplaced" even without a mathematical model.&nbsp; Birkieland's physical experiments still demonstrated that electrical current could cause the effect of auroras around planets even if he never layed out a single line of math.&nbsp; Fortunately that isnt' the case however and EU theory has always has mathematical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is far more empirical data standing behind theoretical calculations than you are apparently willing to recognize.</DIV></p><p>There is actually no emprical data standing behind a theoretical calculation involving magic.&nbsp; Likewise, you can't learn anything from slapping a DE calculation into what was once a physics formula because DE doesn't exist in nature.&nbsp; It doesn't fly to claim DE exists until you do the lab work that your guys forgot to do. Then and only then can you show that DE has an effect on something and it's logical to try to explain distant event with it.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate the force you're describing is not a figment of your imagination however, no amount of math is going to make it real.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physical law lives or dies on agreement with experiment,&nbsp; Period. </DIV></p><p>I agree.&nbsp; Unfortunately for you, no experiments involving inflation, de, dm, monopoles or magnetic reconnection have ever been performed in a lab.&nbsp; It is therefore outragous for you to pointing at distant objects and blaming these events on the those items.&nbsp; if you want to blame acceleration on a known force of nature, great, show me the math.&nbsp; Math related to invisible forces however is unfalsfiable and unverifiable as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also need to understand the difference between a calculation that has as its purpose&nbsp;to hightlight the logical conclusion of a hypotheses&nbsp;so as to&nbsp; provide a prediction by which it may be tested and&nbsp;a calcultion that is intended to provide a specific prediction based on verified physical principles.</DIV></p><p>You also have to recongnize the difference between appling a calculation to a known force of nature and applying one to invisible and unfalsifiable things that have never been shown to exist in nature.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the heart of your many misconceptions is the notion that a laboratory experiment can be applied broadly&nbsp;without regard to scale or the influence of factors present in nature but deliberately&nbsp;excluded in the laboratory, without&nbsp;recourse to&nbsp;the basic theoretical principles on which the phenomena is based.</DIV></p><p>This is ultimately a strawman arguement.&nbsp; I didn't say we could disregard anything.&nbsp; I said you have to do the first part first, namely show that your described force of nature actually exists in nature and *then* it's logical to apply mathematics to the idea and start thinking about the scaling issues.&nbsp; You can't even show me that inflation does anything to any form of matter so your "scaling" excersize is a mathematical mythology run amuck.&nbsp; You might complain that EU theory attempts to scale laboratory science to a degree that may not fly at larger scales, but you can't even demonstrate DE or inflation at a small scale, so why should I beliieve it scales to astronomical sizes?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Application of those principles requires the use of mathematics.&nbsp;It is precisely the failure to apply sound physics in extrapolating from the laboratory to the outside world that was the source of the criticism levied at Alfven,</DIV></p><p>Excuse me?&nbsp; That has to be the single most unfounded assertion I've ever heard.&nbsp; Unlike the inflation fans and the DE fans, Alfven tested his ideas in a lab and *then and only then* did he attempt to scale them in computer models.&nbsp; All of Alfven's theories are based on sound plasma physics princples that can be shown to work at smaller scales.&nbsp; Not one bit of it is 'trumped up math" that lacks emprical support in a lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>your hero,</DIV></p><p>Actually he wasn't just my hero evidently. Folks gave him the Nobel prize for his work in plasma physics.&nbsp; Astronomers then ignored most of it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and&nbsp;one reason that his cosmological ideas were eventually dismissed. </DIV></p><p>I assure you that his work was not "dismissed" by any EU proponent.&nbsp; It wasn't "dismissed" by Peratt, or any of his students that I'm aware of.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only people that seem to "dismiss" his work never seem to have even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" before dismissing his ideas out of hand.&nbsp; Have you read that book by the way?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His notions regarding cosmology simply do not fit the&nbsp;empirical evidence.</DIV></p><p>This statement is absolutely false.&nbsp; All of his theories fit with cosmological data, including those multimillion degree coronal loops, the selective acceleation of He2+ over He1+ in solar wind activity, the induction processes we see in Saturns rings, etc.&nbsp; No emprical evidence has ever shown DE or inflation to have any effect on the physical universe. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short,your approach reflects extremely bad science. </DIV></p><p>This is quite ironic coming from a guy who believes in inflation, DE, magic forms of matter with unique "properties", etc.&nbsp; The notion of "bad science" is obviously very subjective and is unrelated to emprical science, at least in your mind.&nbsp; In my opinion, pointing at the sky and claiming "magic energy did it, and&nbsp; here is the math to prove it" is "bad science".&nbsp; If and when you can show me that any new forces of nature exist in nature, then I'll be happy to look at your math.&nbsp; In the meantime however, I'll stick with 'emprical science",whether you like it or not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Emprical science has never let me down yet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not empiricism at all. </DIV></p><p>EU theory began in the lab, it was mathematically explained by a Nobel Prize winnng physicist and it is based *entirely* upon emprical science.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is mystical mumbo jumbo of the very sort that you mistakenly attribute to mainstream science. </DIV></p><p>Birkeland didn't point to the aurora and say "magnetic reconnnection did it" or "dark energy did it".&nbsp; He picked a *real* force of nature and built experiments to test his theories. Alfven did the same.&nbsp; Every bit of EU theory is 100% rock solid emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The mystical mumbo jumbo all comes from your side of the aisle, including expanding space, surpernatural forms of inflation that solved missing monopole problems, and dark forces that presumably make up 95% of the universe.&nbsp; I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot the moment you noted we apply what we learn in a lab on larger scales.&nbsp; You never found out anything about DE or inflation in a lab before you tried to apply it to larger scales. </p><p>Every shread of EU theory is based on physical properties that can be demontrated in a lab and then applied to larger scales using the same physical principles that apply in a lab.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory in contrast is nothing but a collection of mathematical mumbo jumbo stuffed into an otherwise perfectly good theory about the attractive force of gravity.&nbsp; None of which can even be shown to be related to gravity in any way shape or form in a lab. </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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; The only people that seem to "dismiss" his work never seem to have even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" before dismissing his ideas out of hand.&nbsp; Have you read that book by the way?...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>i actually was&nbsp;considering purchasing that book.&nbsp; But since the cost is roughly $180 decided to investigate Alfven's theories a bit more before making the purchase.&nbsp; What I did find out is that the entire theory is dependent on the existence of a current flowing through the universe that powers the stars. quite a large current apparently.&nbsp; The purported source of this power is a matter-antimatter annihilation, the material involved being in what Alfven calls an ambiplasma.&nbsp; Now, there is no EMPIRICAL&nbsp;EVIDENDE whatever for such a large scale reaction occuring.&nbsp; If such a reaction were&nbsp;to occur&nbsp;it&nbsp;would release characteristic photons that would be very easy to detect, given the amount of power involved and the fact that if the electrons could get to the sun there would have been ample time for the photons to also reach us.&nbsp; So, in the face of this complete lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I have decided not to spend the $180.&nbsp; Perhaps, when the mood suits me I might wander over to a library and take a look, but I don't feel a pressing need.&nbsp; There are plenty of EU sources available on the internet to provide an explanation of the tenets of EU theory and by checking several I have some confidence that they are stated accurately.</p><p>Equally, as I have pointed out to you several times, were there such a huge current flowing through the sun, then simple classical electrodynamics would show that there would be an enormous magnetic field at the surface of the Earth.&nbsp; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that no such field exists.</p><p>So, it would seem that EU mumbo jumbo can safely be ignored due to lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i actually was&nbsp;considering purchasing that book. </DIV></p><p>Translation:&nbsp; You're drawing your own conclusions about Alfven's work without ever even bothering to read it!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But since the cost is roughly $180 decided to investigate Alfven's theories a bit more before making the purchase.</DIV></p><p>Well, ignorance is free whereas education typically costs money.&nbsp; How much did you spend on your astronomy book colection? &nbsp; FYI, Cosmic Plasma was the best investment in a physics book that I ever made by the way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I did find out is that the entire theory is dependent on the existence of a current flowing through the universe that powers the stars. </DIV></p><p>I already mentioned that to you earlier in our conversation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>quite a large current apparently.</DIV></p><p>Indeed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The purported source of this power is a matter-antimatter annihilation,</DIV></p><p>That's one possibility of course.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the material involved being in what Alfven calls an ambiplasma.&nbsp; Now, there is no EMPIRICAL&nbsp;EVIDENDE whatever for such a large scale reaction occuring.</DIV></p><p>If you mean there is no emprical evidendence that antimatter exists or you are suggesting that matter/annihilation annihilation does not occur nature, that obviously incorrect.&nbsp; If you are suggesting that no such thing as "ambiplasma" is known to exist in nature, that is absolutely correct which is exactly why I said "I don't know" when you asked me where the electrical currents come from.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If such a reaction were&nbsp;to occur&nbsp;it&nbsp;would release characteristic photons that would be very easy to detect,</DIV></p><p>How might you expect to "detect" this matter/antimatter annihilation today?&nbsp; The idea is that the matter and antimatter spread out into vast separated clouds and that electrons flow through our section of spacetime. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>given the amount of power involved and the fact that if the electrons could get to the sun there would have been ample time for the photons to also reach us.&nbsp; So, in the face of this complete lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I have decided not to spend the $180.</DIV></p><p>Well, if you're whining about his proposal of ambiplasma, you don't *have* to accept that aspect of his proposal if you don't want to.&nbsp; The fact you don't like one particular aspect of all the various ideas he put forth is not a logical reason to wallow in ingorance about all his other work.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Perhaps, when the mood suits me I might wander over to a library and take a look, but I don't feel a pressing need.&nbsp; There are plenty of EU sources available on the internet to provide an explanation of the tenets of EU theory and by checking several I have some confidence that they are stated accurately.</DIV></p><p>I have news for you.&nbsp; I've talked to *a lot* of EU proponents over the last few years and I wouldn't call all of the descriptions I've read about EU theory online as "accurate".&nbsp; Quite the opposite in fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you really want to understand the basics of EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory, Birkeland and Alfven are your best bets.&nbsp; Otherwise you're stuck with people like me, who are not electrical engineers or astronomers by trade but rather just amateurs trying to explain it to you.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's hardly your best educational option. &nbsp; It seems to me if you don't want to spend the money the library is your best bet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Equally, as I have pointed out to you several times, were there such a huge current flowing through the sun, then simple classical electrodynamics would show that there would be an enormous magnetic field at the surface of the Earth. </DIV></p><p>You keep alledging this but you never accounted for the movement of charged particles and the influence of Earth magnetosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that no such field exists.So, it would seem that EU mumbo jumbo can safely be ignored due to lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That is a really ignorant statement when it comes down to it.&nbsp; Birkeland's energy flow theories beat out Chepman's beautiful mathematical theories because Birkeland did what Chapman did not do.&nbsp; Birkeland did the real emprical scientific work. He rolled up his sleaves and he demonstrated that current flows could indeed light up the Earth's auroras.&nbsp; He showed that they could generate coronal loops and discharges in the atmospheres of planets and the sun.&nbsp; He showed how EM fields generated equatorial rings around planets and he described the current flows he observed in his experiments.&nbsp; He also went to great lengths to take in-situ measurement of the Earth's magnetic fields during aurora activity to verify his models jived with what he observed in the lab.&nbsp; Chapman just wrote nice looking math formulas on paper.&nbsp; Birkeland won that debate hands down, although some folk clung to Chapmans ideas until the early 70's when satellites finally confirmed Birkieland's aurora theories with in-situ measurements from space.&nbsp; Birkeland has already done a lot of the basic lab work for us.&nbsp; Alfven built on his work and added to it significantly, and did so with emprical testing as well. &nbsp; Your one (valid) criticism of one of Alven's many theories (proposing ambiplasma) is not a legitimate reason to ignore every single other aspect of Alven's work, Birkeland's work and EU theory.&nbsp; It's a nifty rationalization and all, but it's a lame excuse for not educating yourself IMO.</p><p>The only "mumbo-jumbo" going on here is your portrayal of EU theory as anything other than hard core emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nobody currently knows where the electrical current comes from, just as we have no idea where the universe came from or how it got here.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can however test for the presense of this electrical flow in very empircal ways.&nbsp; There is nothing metaphysical about electron flow, even if we cannot currently identify the source of the electrons. </p><p>IMO you're being scientifically lazy if you won't even be bothered to read his work before you begin passing wholesale judgement on it.&nbsp; At least I bothered to read Alan Guth's goofy theory and papers about his "free lunch" inflation process, that solved his missing monopole problem before blowing it off for lack of emprical support.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've read plenty of papers and articles on "dark energy" and "dark matter" too before passing judgement on these theories.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sheesh.&nbsp; I've yet to meet even a single proponent of Lambda-CDM theory that has *ever* read any of Alfven's books or Birkeland's book, and no critic of EU theory I've met in cyberspace has ever read their book(s) either.&nbsp;&nbsp; No wonder this industry is in such sorry shape.&nbsp; You guys don't even bother educating youreself on the theories in a professional manner before passing wholesale judgement on something you simply don't understand in the first place!&nbsp; Holy cow. </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>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><strong>"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."</strong></p><p>Mathematical models and observational evidence.&nbsp; There are other ways to determine the age of the universe that all overlap in their ranges of what WMAP determined.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"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?"</strong></p><p>We've been over this with metric expansion.&nbsp; Are you a Tired Light proponent?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"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? I'm afreid from the standpoint of emprical science, the creation date chosen by astronomers is emprically no better than any other creation theory."</strong></p><p>Do you apply this same approach to spacetime?&nbsp; I mean spacetime is warped, yes?&nbsp; That's what relativity tell us.&nbsp; Must be something physical I should be able to get my hands on and test in a lab.&nbsp; Or is it just a mathematical approach to something observed in which case we can dismiss it entirely. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">i actually was&nbsp;considering purchasing that book. </div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Translation:&nbsp; You're drawing your own conclusions about Alfven's work without ever even bothering to read it!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You technique of parsing my words sentence by sentence and taking them out of context is more than a little sophomoric.&nbsp; You could at least take in the entire thought before misinterpreting what I say.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">But since the cost is roughly $180 <strong>decided to investigate Alfven's theories a bit more before making the purchase</strong>.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well, ignorance is free whereas education typically costs money.&nbsp; How much did you spend on your astronomy book colection? &nbsp; FYI, Cosmic Plasma was the best investment in a physics book that I ever made by the way.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">That is rather telling.&nbsp; I have quite a few&nbsp;books that I believe are more enlightening.&nbsp; Might I suggest that you invest in a good electrodynamics book.&nbsp; Jackson's&nbsp;<em>Classical Electrodynamics</em>&nbsp;is highly recommended.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">What I did find out is that the entire theory is dependent on the existence of a current flowing through the universe that powers the stars. </div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I already mentioned that to you earlier in our conversation.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">My God, we agree on something !&nbsp; So given that this is,&nbsp;by our mutual agreement, a point on which the validity of the entire turns, you will forgive me for focusing on that point in order to facilitate my decision as to whether investing $180 in Alfven's book is justifiable.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">quite a large current apparently.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Indeed.</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">The purported source of this power is a matter-antimatter annihilation,</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That's one possibility of course.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">It is in fact the source hypothesized by Alfven.&nbsp; And hence I believe that I am indeed justified in evaluating that notion in deciding whether or not to part with the $180.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">the material involved being in what Alfven calls an ambiplasma.&nbsp; Now, there is no EMPIRICAL&nbsp;EVIDENDE whatever for such a large scale reaction occuring.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you mean there is no emprical evidendence that antimatter exists or you are suggesting that matter/annihilation annihilation does not occur nature, that obviously incorrect.&nbsp; If you are suggesting that no such thing as "ambiplasma" is known to exist in nature, that is absolutely correct which is exactly why I said "I don't know" when you asked me where the electrical currents come from.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">No,&nbsp;that is not what I am suggesting. I am about to do something that you might find foreign.&nbsp; I am going to apply some known principles of physics to&nbsp;Alflven's hypothesis.&nbsp; Antimatter is known to exist.&nbsp; In fact it is know that each elementary particle of normal matter has an antimatter counterpart.&nbsp; Further the&nbsp;rest masses of those particles are known rather precisely.&nbsp; When a particle and an anti-particle&nbsp;annihilate each other they emit photons of known frequencies, permitting the annihilation reaction to be detected.&nbsp; So, if there were a large-scale matter-anti-matter power source it would make its presence known.&nbsp; No such source has been found, and if it&nbsp;is the source powering all the stars in the universe it would be&nbsp;a HUGE power source.&nbsp; Lacking any empirical evidence whatsoever for this source, and&nbsp;having available abundant evidence that there is in fact&nbsp;antimatter comprises a tiny fraction of the matter found in the universe, I must conclude that such a power source is extremely unlikely -- what you typically refer to as mumbo jumbo.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">If such a reaction were&nbsp;to occur&nbsp;it&nbsp;would release characteristic photons that would be very easy to detect,</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>How might you expect to "detect" this matter/antimatter annihilation today?&nbsp; The idea is that the matter and antimatter spread out into vast separated clouds and that electrons flow through our section of spacetime.</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">If the matter and antimatter are spread out into bast separated clouds, then there is no annihilation and no energy being released.&nbsp; If they are releasing energy then they would be detected by the photons released.&nbsp; And those photons would comprise the electromagnetic field needed to propel the electrons that EU claims is the current source powering the stars.&nbsp; No photons, no electromagnetic field, no motive force, no current.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">given the amount of power involved and the fact that if the electrons could get to the sun there would have been ample time for the photons to also reach us.&nbsp; So, in the face of this complete lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I have decided not to spend the $180.</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Well, if you're whining about his proposal of ambiplasma, you don't *have* to accept that aspect of his proposal if you don't want to.&nbsp; The fact you don't like one particular aspect of all the various ideas he put forth is not a logical reason to wallow in ingorance about all his other work.&nbsp;</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#0000ff">I am not whining about anything.&nbsp; I am applying physical principles and concluding that the theory is, in your language magical mumbo jumbo.&nbsp; I do not dismiss ALL his other work.&nbsp; His work on everyday plasma dynamics is undoubtedly very good.&nbsp; It is his cosmology that I feel able to dismiss, because of a complete lack of EMPIRICAL evidence and contradiction by well-known physics.&nbsp; This has absolutely nothing to do with the any predictions involving the Lamda CDM model, inflation, or the big bang hypothesis.&nbsp; The problem is the contradiction with classical electrodynamics and particle physics.</font></div><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Perhaps, when the mood suits me I might wander over to a library and take a look, but I don't feel a pressing need.&nbsp; There are plenty of EU sources available on the internet to provide an explanation of the tenets of EU theory and by checking several I have some confidence that they are stated accurately.</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have news for you.&nbsp; I've talked to *a lot* of EU proponents over the last few years and I wouldn't call all of the descriptions I've read about EU theory online as "accurate".&nbsp; Quite the opposite in fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you really want to understand the basics of EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory, Birkeland and Alfven are your best bets.&nbsp; Otherwise you're stuck with people like me, who are not electrical engineers or astronomers by trade but rather just amateurs trying to explain it to you.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's hardly your best educational option. &nbsp; It seems to me if you don't want to spend the money the library is your best bet.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yes, I agree it is often better to get information from the horse's mouth.&nbsp; But in this case you have agreed that the key tenets that bother me are correct, and I have confirmed that by looking at several other web sites and found all of them in agreement on these basic points.&nbsp; Now, if Alfven's words are contrary to all of that then perhaps he is spot on.&nbsp; But if so then his acolytes are terribly misinformed and his true EU theory has been perverted beyond recognition.&nbsp; I think that is not likely to be the case.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Equally, as I have pointed out to you several times, were there such a huge current flowing through the sun, then simple classical electrodynamics would show that there would be an enormous magnetic field at the surface of the Earth. </div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You keep alledging this but you never accounted for the movement of charged particles and the influence of Earth magnetosphere.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I have addressed that issue on several occasions.&nbsp; You seem to want to ignore that.&nbsp; The movement of charged particles IS current, and is considered in the calculation.&nbsp; In fact that is the whole point.&nbsp; If there were a significant current in and out of the Earth that would only increase the effect.&nbsp; Magnetic fields add vectorially, and the calculate magnetic field from the fictitious current powering the Sun, which would be something like 57 MILLION TIMES the strength of the observed field at the surface of the Earth, would simply overwhelm the magnetosphere.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">I note that you have never offered a quantitative counter-argument.&nbsp; If there is any whining going on here it is in this quarter.&nbsp; Apparently it bothers you that a simple physical model shows such a gross disagreement between reality and what can be deduced from a fundamental postulate of EU cosmology.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE shows that no such field exists.So, it would seem that EU mumbo jumbo can safely be ignored due to lack of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. <br />Posted by DrRocket</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That is a really ignorant statement when it comes down to it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually is&nbsp;a rather informed statement backed up by real, no-kidding physics.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; Birkeland's energy flow theories beat out Chepman's beautiful mathematical theories because Birkeland did what Chapman did not do.&nbsp; Birkeland did the real emprical scientific work. He rolled up his sleaves and he demonstrated that current flows could indeed light up the Earth's auroras.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This both true and completely irrelevant to the question of electrical currents powering the stars and in particular the SUN.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>He showed that they could generate coronal loops and discharges in the atmospheres of planets and the sun.&nbsp;He showed how EM fields generated equatorial rings around planets and he described the current flows he observed in his experiments.</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">No he did not.&nbsp; He showed that he could generate phenomena in a laboratory that looked like those phenomena</font></p><p>He also went to great lengths to take in-situ measurement of the Earth's magnetic fields during aurora activity to verify his models jived with what he observed in the lab.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">And he did not find a magnetic field 57 million times the usual value.&nbsp; He did some very nice work related to auroras, which has no bearing whatsoever on cosmology.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; Chapman just wrote nice looking math formulas on paper.&nbsp; Birkeland won that debate hands down, although some folk clung to Chapmans ideas until the early 70's when satellites finally confirmed Birkieland's aurora theories with in-situ measurements from space.&nbsp; Birkeland has already done a lot of the basic lab work for us.&nbsp; Alfven built on his work and added to it significantly, and did so with emprical testing as well. &nbsp; Your one (valid) criticism of one of Alven's many theories (proposing ambiplasma) is not a legitimate reason to ignore every single other aspect of Alven's work, Birkeland's work and EU theory.&nbsp; It's a nifty rationalization and all, but it's a lame excuse for not educating yourself IMO.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You really do need to separate the valid plasma physics describing auroras from the nonsense involved in EU cosmology.&nbsp; </font></p><p>The only "mumbo-jumbo" going on here is your portrayal of EU theory as anything other than hard core emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nobody currently knows where the electrical current comes from, just as we have no idea where the universe came from or how it got here.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can however test for the presense of this electrical flow in very empircal ways.&nbsp; There is nothing metaphysical about electron flow, even if we cannot currently identify the source of the electrons. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You are quite correct about stating that there is nothing mystical about electron flow.&nbsp; It is a very well understood phenomena.&nbsp; It so well understood, that physics can demonstrate that it is absolutely not a significant factor in the power source for the sun.&nbsp; Is plasma physics critical to solar physics ? -- absolutely yes.&nbsp; Does it have anything to do with an external power source for the sun ? -- absolutely not.</font></p><p>IMO you're being scientifically lazy if you won't even be bothered to read his work before you begin passing wholesale judgement on it.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">Sorry, not correct at all.&nbsp; </font></p><p>&nbsp;At least I bothered to read Alan Guth's goofy theory and papers about his "free lunch" inflation process, that solved his missing monopole problem before blowing it off for lack of emprical support.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've read plenty of papers and articles on "dark energy" and "dark matter" too before passing judgement on these theories.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sheesh.&nbsp; I've yet to meet even a single proponent of Lambda-CDM theory that has *ever* read any of Alfven's books or Birkeland's book, and no critic of EU theory I've met in cyberspace has ever read their book(s) either.&nbsp;&nbsp; No wonder this industry is in such sorry shape.&nbsp; You guys don't even bother educating youreself on the theories in a professional manner before passing wholesale judgement on something you simply don't understand in the first place!&nbsp; Holy cow</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually the theories have&nbsp;been evaluated.&nbsp; And links to some of those evaluations have been posted in these threads.&nbsp;&nbsp;One can evaluate some theories quite efficiently by concentrating on their fundamental premises without having to evaluate each and every detail.&nbsp; When the fundamental are shown to be utter hogwash, it is not necessary to split hairs further.&nbsp; The basic premises of EU cosmology are so ludicrous that further evaluation is pointless.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">The fundamental premises of EU cosmology have been considered, understood quite well thank you, and determined to be complete nonsense given the current state of both empirical knowledge and ability to understand the implications of electrodynamics, general relativity and particle physics.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Now you also ought to recognize that mainstream physics did evaluate and accept Alfven's work on basic plasma behavior, and did not throw out the baby with the&nbsp;bathwater&nbsp; But the bathwater had to go.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is some, not conclusive but some, empirical data that supports the inflationarly model of cosmology.&nbsp; It is actually pretty impressive.http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge108.html <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>There is absolutely, positively *no emprical evidence* of inflation on that page, or any page.&nbsp; Let me quote Guth:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand. </DIV></font></p><p>There is no such thing as a "repulsive" form of gravity. &nbsp; Nothing about GR suggests this sort of "repulsion' is in any way related to GR.</p><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General relativity from its inception predicted the possibility of repulsive gravity;</DIV></font></p><p>False.&nbsp; It's inception included absolutely nothing related to any "constants".&nbsp; In Einstein's *blunder theory* the only time Einstein even suggested it was to explain a static universe model.&nbsp; At no time did he suggest that C was in any way related to repulsive forms of Gravity.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is just purely misrepresentation of GR theory,&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Gravity is an attractive force, not a repulsive one.&nbsp; Guth took rediculace liberties with GR in that statement.</p><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in the context of general relativity you basically need a material with a negative pressure to create repulsive gravity.</DIV></font></p><p>There is no such thing as a "negative pressure", or any matieral known to man which exhibits such properties.&nbsp; In no way is this concept in any way related to GR theory except for the fact that Guth tried to make that connection.&nbsp; These things exist in the human imagination, and not in physical reality.&nbsp; This is human imagination, not physics.</p><p>There is no physical evidence that any form of energy creates "negative pressure" or repulsive gravity.&nbsp; This is purely dreamed up nonsense, nothing more.&nbsp; A single test of concept would have sufficed, but alas in the 25 years since he dreamed this stuff up, not one single scientist on earth has ever come up with anything remotively like emprical evidence that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overacttve imagination.</p><p>These are the kinds of misleading statements related to GR theory that are designed to help his goofy inflation ideas ride the coattails of real physics.&nbsp; It' isn't physics.&nbsp; It isn't GR. There is no such thing a "negative pressure" in a vacuum, and there is nothing like "inflation" that has ever been found in nature.&nbsp; This notion of stuffing it into GR is only designed to somehow make it seem reasonable. It's not reasonable at all.&nbsp; It's not even associated with GR theory as Einstein taught it, it's only associated with "blunder theory" as Einstein called it.&nbsp; He should have said "Blunder theory" everywhere he said "GR".&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory requires and needs none of this metaphysics junk.</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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
FYI, these sorts of statements would constitute "false advertizing" in my industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory has absolutely nothing to do with anything Guth attributed to GR theory.&nbsp; He's stuffing GR theory with metaphysical add ons and claiming that GR supports that baloney.&nbsp; It does not.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no "negative pressure" in GR theory. There are no repulsive forms of gravity in GR theory. There are no superliminal speeds even possible in GR theory.&nbsp; None of his statements are true of GR theory.&nbsp; He's intentially misleading the public into believing that his metapysical brand of cludge "blunder theory" is the same as GR theory.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; These are all blatently false statements and they would constitute false advertizing in any industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is the unethical part of astronomy today.&nbsp; Metaphyiscs is being passed off as "physical science".&nbsp;&nbsp; None of Guth's statements are true. They are all entirely false.&nbsp; No human being has ever shown that gravity causes repulsion at all. In fact GR theory proper supports none of this nonsense, particularly those superliminal speeds he's achieving with his metaphysical cludge.&nbsp;&nbsp; When I read articles like this I get angry.&nbsp; This is not GR or physics, this is a cludged variation of "blunder theory" stuffed with metaphysics being sold to unsuspecting students under the guise of "GR theory".&nbsp; I feel sorry for the physics students going to college today.&nbsp; When I was in college they taught me real physics.&nbsp; Today student's haven't got a prayer of learning real physics.&nbsp; They're being blatently and systematically lied to by their professors.&nbsp; Someone should sue Guth for these kinds of false and misleading statements.&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory supports none of this nonsense. <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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
&nbsp; <p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">There seems to be to be some general misunderstanding about how physical theories are viewed and what constitutes reality.<span>&nbsp; </span>Some theories seem to be dismissed out of hand, by some people, due to inability to adequately explain certain points, while others seem to be supported despite clear conflict with generally accepted principles.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">It should be understood that ALL present physical theories have faults, and inconsistencies.<span>&nbsp; </span>But the fundamental pillars of physics do, in most circumstances, provide very accurate predictions of the outcome of experiment.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is agreement with observed data that is the sole arbiter of the validity of a physical theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is also agreement with observation that provides the guidelines to define the range of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>And it is agreement with an extraordinarily large body that supports the major theories of physics within their proper domain of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>To disagree with those theories in circumstances in which they are known to be valid is to be grievously wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Newton&rsquo;s theory of mechanics is a pillar of classical physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is still widely used today, and accounts nicely for most mechanical phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>Nearly all engineering calculations are performed in accordance with Newton&rsquo;s laws. <span>&nbsp;</span>In Newton&rsquo;s theory the Galilean transformation provides a simple correspondence between reference frames that is in keeping with our everyday experience and with common sense.<span>&nbsp; </span>Velocities add as vectors. It is, as Einstein showed, wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>It<span>&nbsp; </span>provides clear predictions of the precise location and velocity of any particle given knowledge of the initial conditions and the forces acting on the particle, which as quantum mechanics shows us is wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Maxwell&rsquo;s equations are the foundation of classical electrodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are the basis for our understanding of electrical phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>Electrical engineering calculations are based on these equations, and they serve very well in the design of electrical circuits and radiating systems.<span>&nbsp; </span>Maxwell&rsquo;s equations serve as a model of the unification of forces, in this case the electrical and magnetic forces.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are consistent with relativity, and in fact provided a prediction of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial reference frames before the formulation of special relativity.<span>&nbsp; </span>Classical electrodynamics provides predictions of a component of the mass of the electron, which is related with the self-interaction that results in radiation from an acceleration of the electron.<span>&nbsp; </span>Several models for the electron have been proposed for this calculation, but all result in erroneous predictions for the electron mass, and the most-widely accepted model, the point charge used in practice today, results in a prediction of infinite mass.<span>&nbsp; </span>The theory is wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Einstein&rsquo;s special theory of relativity provides an explanation for the constancy of the speed of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>It predicts other phenomena, that are not consistent with common sense, but are verified by experiment.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is, however, not able to address real-world situations in which gravity plays a role.<span>&nbsp; </span>Like Newtonian mechanics it also fails to be consistent with the observations of quantum phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Elementary quantum mechanics attempts to explain the behavior of matter, particularly at the atomic scale with a wave equation that describes the probabilities of attributes of particles.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is successful in describing many phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, it is not consistent with the observations of relativistic phenomena, and no quantum wave equation has been developed that fits a relativistic theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>So this theory too is wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Quantum field theories have been developed to provide a framework that is consistent with quantum uncertainty and with special relativity.<span>&nbsp; </span>They provide exquisitely precise predictions that are in agreement with experimental data to many decimal places.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum electrodynamics and the theory of the weak nuclear force have been merged into a single unified theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum mechanics provides a theory of the strong nuclear force that binds quarks that is also successful in accurately predicting nuclear behavior.<span>&nbsp; </span>As with Maxwell&rsquo;s theory one can predict the mass of the electron, and as with Maxwell&rsquo;s theory, that predicted mass is infinite.<span>&nbsp; </span>These theories are also wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Einstein&rsquo;s general relativity takes over where special relativity leaves off and provides a beautiful theory of gravity, based on differential geometry and the theory of manifolds.<span>&nbsp; </span>It predicts and expanding universe.<span>&nbsp; </span>But the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, so an additional term , a cosmological constant, needs to be added to explain that.<span>&nbsp; </span>This constant is consistent with the theory, but the need for it is a bit mysterious.<span>&nbsp; </span>Einstein once added such a constant himself, to provide for a static rather than an expanding universe, and then retracted it.<span>&nbsp; </span>The theory predicts the formation of singularities with the property of extraordinarily high mass contained in a single point, and of an origin of the universe itself from a single point.<span>&nbsp; </span>These predictions may or may not be true.<span>&nbsp; </span>But if true, then it is almost certain that quantum phenomena play a role in the behavior of matter in such a confined state.<span>&nbsp; </span>General relativity is a deterministic theory and is not consistent with quantum phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is almost certainly wrong.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">So where does that leave us?<span>&nbsp; </span>All of our physical theories are wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>Should we simply declare total ignorance and be willing to accept any mystical explanation of the natural world? Should we abandon all hope of explaining the world and decide that God is indeed playing dice and we can&rsquo;t even see the roll?<span>&nbsp; </span>I think the answer is a resounding &ldquo;No.&rdquo;</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">All of our physical theories are approximations to the truth, but under most circumstances they seem to be very good approximations.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are so good that it is reasonable to regard them as &ldquo;true&rdquo; except in extreme situations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum theory breaks down in the face of very large gravitational fields.<span>&nbsp; </span>General relativity breaks down at small dimensional scales, and perhaps at very large ones.<span>&nbsp; </span>There are aspects to matter that we don&rsquo;t understandAnd while we search for answers we use the available theories and recognize that they are limited.<span>&nbsp; </span>But we also cling to the correspondence principle and demand that any improvement on those theories must agree with them to a high order, in those situations in which they have been shown by sound empirical data to provide very accurate predictions indeed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum electrodynamics and general relativity remain the current gold standard, even as we search for something better. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">As we search for something better, we use the available theories and additional hypotheses in our search.<span>&nbsp; </span>There seems to be &ldquo;dark matter&rdquo; supplying much of the observed gravity in the universe. <span>&nbsp;</span>We don&rsquo;t know what it is, but it provides a hypothesis that when incorporated into a model based on relativity seems to explain what we see.<span>&nbsp; </span>That provides a license to look for it. <span>&nbsp;</span>There is no particularly good explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant that is inserted into the model in an ad hoc fashion, so the name &ldquo;dark energy&rdquo; is applied.<span>&nbsp; </span>A few think it may the energy of quantum vacuum, which has been observed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Most simply don&rsquo;t know.<span>&nbsp; </span>It does provide agreement between general relativity and observed behavior of the universe.<span>&nbsp; </span>So again we have a valid license to look for it.<span>&nbsp; </span>We don&rsquo;t know the origin of mass, so we search for the Higg&rsquo;s boson, an object predicted by what we do know of quantum field theory.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Some of the current speculations are somewhat &ldquo;wild&rdquo; and &ldquo;far-out&rdquo;, but they are consistent with the basic framework.<span>&nbsp; </span>They may or may not eventually be shown to be valid.<span>&nbsp; </span>They may or may not eventually provide a clue to a more refined and better theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>But the <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>predictions that they provide are consistent with what we know to be true where we know it to be true.<span>&nbsp; </span>Skepticism is appropriate, and a necessary ingredient in the development of science.<span>&nbsp; </span>Outright dismissal is not.<span>&nbsp; </span>Similarly, adoption of oddball theories that provide explanations for as few phenomena, but fail to agree with observed facts and with fundamental predictions of established physics in domains of known accuracy is foolish.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, these sorts of statements would constitute "false advertizing" in my industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory has absolutely nothing to do with anything Guth attributed to GR theory.&nbsp; He's stuffing GR theory with metaphysical add ons and claiming that GR supports that baloney.&nbsp; It does not.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no "negative pressure" in GR theory. There are no repulsive forms of gravity in GR theory. There are no superliminal speeds even possible in GR theory.&nbsp; None of his statements are true of GR theory.&nbsp; He's intentially misleading the public into believing that his metapysical brand of cludge "blunder theory" is the same as GR theory.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; These are all blatently false statements and they would constitute false advertizing in any industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is the unethical part of astronomy today.&nbsp; Metaphyiscs is being passed off as "physical science".&nbsp;&nbsp; None of Guth's statements are true. They are all entirely false.&nbsp; No human being has ever shown that gravity causes repulsion at all. In fact GR theory proper supports none of this nonsense, particularly those superliminal speeds he's achieving with his metaphysical cludge.&nbsp;&nbsp; When I read articles like this I get angry.&nbsp; This is not GR or physics, this is a cludged variation of "blunder theory" stuffed with metaphysics being sold to unsuspecting students under the guise of "GR theory".&nbsp; I feel sorry for the physics students going to college today.&nbsp; When I was in college they taught me real physics.&nbsp; Today student's haven't got a prayer of learning real physics.&nbsp; They're being blatently and systematically lied to by their professors.&nbsp; Someone should sue Guth for these kinds of false and misleading statements.&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory supports none of this nonsense. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><font color="#0000ff">All that you have demonstrated is that you have no understanding of general relativity whatsoever.&nbsp; I quite understand that you become angry.&nbsp; That is a natural reaction of someone who is confronted with constructs that are beyond their understanding.&nbsp;&nbsp; You really ought to take the effort to learn a little physics, or at least return to your college and ask for your money back.&nbsp; It is a pretty objective subject and not really conducive to being dominated by liars, whether they be professors or not.&nbsp; False, incorrect, and misleading notions are quickly weeded out.&nbsp; That is one reason that you don't see EU theory being taught in physics or astronomy classes.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Apparently "You can't handle the truth." --- Jack Nicholson<br /></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">General relativity, at the basic level, is silent on the subject of negative pressure and resultant repulsive action, and on expansion&nbsp;of space at "superluminal" rate,&nbsp; Those notions are consistent with GR, but are not mandated by it.&nbsp; What they constitute are&nbsp;hypotheses that, when incorporated into a cosmological model based on general relativity, provide predictions that are available for testing in the light of observed data.&nbsp; Thus far they seem able to provide predictions that agree with that data and that are not predicted by other models&nbsp; The body of evidence supporting those notion is not yet sufficient for complete acceptance.&nbsp; But it is certainly adequate so as to support mantaining those hypotheses as possibilites.&nbsp; To simply dismiss them without further investigation is the height of foolishness.</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>]You technique of parsing my words sentence by sentence and taking them out of context is more than a little sophomoric.&nbsp; You could at least take in the entire thought before misinterpreting what I say.</DIV></p><p>I took nothing you said out of context DrRocket.&nbsp; You're passing judgement on a whole range of ideas based on *one* specific concepts that Alfven put forth to try to explain the current flow.&nbsp; If you had told me that you reject that particular concept, I would have welcomed you with open arms to emprical science club!&nbsp; Empircal science can be and should be applied to all theories.&nbsp; Alfven's ambiplasma is no better than Guth's inflation idea because neither of them can demonstrate these things exist in nature.&nbsp; You're desire therefore to reject that particular idea is logical and rational.&nbsp; I rejected it too for exactly the same reason you cited. I don't play favorites with emprical science, so I personally put no faith in ambiplasma anymore than I put faith in inflation.&nbsp; It's also utterly irrelevant to EU theory if ambiplasma exists or ever existed in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's entirely scientifically acceptable to say "I don't know where the current flow originates", and EU theory then includes ZERO metaphysical ideas that cannot be emprically demonstrated.</p><p>You took one single aspect of all his various theories and tried to rationalize rejecting a whole cosmology theory that isn't even dependent upon that single issue.&nbsp; You've never read his book.&nbsp; You don't seem to know much about his theories other than what I've told you and other than what you read on Wiki.</p><p>FYI, I've purchased lots of books on Electrodynamics.&nbsp; Most of the newer one's I've purchased like "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics" by Borris Somov are stuffed with statements about "magnetic reconnection" however and that issue alone is enough to make me regret spending that kind of money on a book that clearly isn't based on pure physics.&nbsp; On the other hand it's got so much useful information about the formulas associated with MHD theory and plasma physics and it's presented in such a clear way that I've learned to overlook it's flaws. &nbsp;</p><p>I tend to read things I disgree with so that:</p><p>A) I've at least educated myself to the topic.</p><p>B) I can judge it fairly based on the emprical laws of physics.</p><p>I don't agree with everything that Alfven discusses, or evertyhing that Somov put's forth in his book either, but I don't regret educating myself, and I like both books.&nbsp; Somov's apporach is a more mainstream approach that uses "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source.&nbsp; Alfven rejected that specific idea outright.&nbsp; Now whom shall I believe is telling me the truth?&nbsp; This is where emprical science is critically important.&nbsp; One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.</p><p>What I resent is that fact that every EU critic I've run into online has not only never read Alfven's work, they refuse to do so.&nbsp; &nbsp; This makes a real scientific discussion almost impossible.&nbsp; If I had refused to educate myself to GR theory, I might actually believe some of Guth's comments about GR theory.&nbsp; If I had refused to educate myself to Alfven's theories, I might still think standard Lambda-CDM theory is somehow useful.&nbsp; Education however allows one to make informed scientific decisions and to see exactly which statements are physically demonstrated and demonstrable in a controlled experiment, and which statements are metaphysical leaps of faith.</p><p>I would not be able to debate you or Guth about the finer points of GR theory had I not studied it first.&nbsp; I fail to see how anyone can reasonably debate EU theory without reading Birkeland's work and Alfven's work and having some idea of what their theories are based on.&nbsp; When you tell me you won't spend the money to educate yourself on Alfven's theories only because you don't like one non critical part of his work, I can't help but be amazed.&nbsp; I didn't reject Guth's cludged version of GR theory until I at least read his work, analyzed his approach, noticed the parts that were different from standard GR theory, and had a chance to think about it. &nbsp; I really don't have a clue how you intend to honestly critiique Alfven's work if you won't be bothered to read it.</p><p>Since his book is copyrighted, I can't hand you the electronic version of it (which I also have), but I can at least point you to a small collection of Alfven's papers that I have collected in case you ever get curious and decide to study it seriously.</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven</p><p>Since these papers are entirely free, you have no legitimate reason to not at least read some of his papers before passing judgement on his entire theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; You'll note that "I don't know" is not a metaphysical explanation for the current flow, it's an honest admission of ignorance.&nbsp; I don't know where the current comes from.&nbsp; It's possible Aflven was right about antimatter being involved in that process, but I can't demonstrate that at the moment, so "I don't know" is a "better" answer from my perspective.&nbsp; I don't know how the universe got here, it's just here.&nbsp; I dont' know where the current comes from, but I can observe it's effects on nature.&nbsp; I can still emprically and physically test for this presumed current flow, whereas inflation theory is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable in any controlled way. &nbsp;</p><p>What I really can't understand is how you can logically justify the metaphysics of your own belief systems and yet reject EU theory for it.&nbsp; IMO, it's a blatent double standard on your part.&nbsp; You have "inflation", DE, and DM stuffed into contemporary theory and you can't emprically demonstrate any of them.&nbsp; That's three metaphysical reasons to reject Lambda-CDM theory, and yet you don't.&nbsp; You did however try to write off Alfven's whole life's work on EU theory based on one non-critical metaphysical assertion he made about where he thinks the current flow comes from.&nbsp; That's not a rational response from my perspective, it's an emotional one.&nbsp; Even if you took Alfven's theories in their entirety, it would only include *one* and only one metaphysically unverified add-on, and would still beat current theory 3 to 1.&nbsp; In fact you could assert that God did it using ambiplasma and still beat Lambda-CDM theory by 3 to 2.&nbsp; You could say "God did it with electrical current and still beat Lambda-CDM theory 3 to 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you claimed "God is the universe and he did it with electricity", you'd technically have zero "metaphysical entities" since you've given a physical description of God, you'd just one unfalsifiable assertion which would still be better than Lambda-CDM theory.&nbsp; If you're aversion to EU theory is ambiplasma theory, then just say "Electrical current did it" and you'll beat Lambda-CDM theory 3 to 0 in terms of metaphysical constructs.&nbsp; If you're aversion to metaphysics is your reason to having faith in an idea, 'electricity did it" is a whole lot more reasonable and acceptable than "inflation, DE and DM did it". </p><p>In no case however is it rational to reject&nbsp; EU theory based on one non critical component of the theory in favor of Lambba-CMD theory if you only barometer of their value is how many metaphysical add-on's it includes. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All that you have demonstrated is that you have no understanding of general relativity whatsoever. </DIV></p><p>Boloney.&nbsp; I undertand GR quite well thanks, I just don't buy your cludged verison of blunder theory. Most of your wet behind the ears students might not know the difference between GR theory and blunder theory, but I do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I quite understand that you become angry.&nbsp; That is a natural reaction of someone who is confronted with constructs that are beyond their understanding.</DIV></p><p>Inflation is not beyond my understanding, nor is "dark energy".&nbsp; They don't exist in nature and you cannot demonstrate they do exist in nature, so I get irked at you stuffing these things into an otherwise elegant physics formula.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really ought to take the effort to learn a little physics, or at least return to your college and ask for your money back. </DIV></p><p>Pure ad homenim.&nbsp; Inflation isn't "physics", it's metaphysics.&nbsp; You can't show us a single controlled physics experiment to justify your faith in inflation.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; My college education was fine.&nbsp; Your metaphysical add-ons since that time are what are messed up.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is a pretty objective subject and not really conducive to being dominated by liars, whether they be professors or not. </DIV></p><p>A professor that says "I don't know if inflation exists or whether it's related to gravity" is not lying.&nbsp; A person that claims inflation is a part of GR theory is lying.&nbsp; There is a distinct difference between these two statements. Guth has been consistently loose with the truth.&nbsp; He never distinguishes between his imaginary friend and GR theory proper.&nbsp; That is false advertizing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>False, incorrect, and misleading notions are quickly weeded out. </DIV></p><p>If that were true, then Guth's statements would have been weeded out 25 years ago.&nbsp; Instead his false statements are repreated in books and classrooms the world over.&nbsp; Inflation never did anything to anything in a physics experiment.&nbsp; It's a metaphysical construct unlike any known scalar or vector field found in nature.&nbsp; There is no "negative pressure" even in a perfect vacuum.&nbsp; None of his nonsense is physics, it's purely fabricated in his head just like his resolution of his missing monople problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is one reason that you don't see EU theory being taught in physics or astronomy classes.</DIV></p><p>It's not taught in classrooms because folks are just ignorant of the whole theory.&nbsp; I was too only 3 years ago.&nbsp; I've yet to meet a single critic of EU theory that even read Alfven's work or Birkelands work before our conversation started. You can't scientifically reject something you don't understand in the first place!&nbsp; Ignorance is not bliss.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently "You can't handle the truth." --- Jack Nicholson</DIV></p><p>Emprical science is truth.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM proponents don't seem to be able to handle the truth under the emprical microscope. They get emotionally upset when you point out that inflation is a figment of Guth's overactive imagination and that nothing causes "space to expand". &nbsp; In fact the only boards that have ever banned me for focusing on emprical science are astronomy boards.&nbsp; Never once has that occurred on a religious forum.&nbsp; Go over and look at the draconian rules at BAUT once and how it is applied to EU theory.&nbsp; Your industry can't handle the truth.&nbsp; They can't even handle an open scientific debate without modifying the rules system to screw the debates in their favor! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General relativity, at the basic level, is silent on the subject of negative pressure and resultant repulsive action,</DIV></p><p>No, it's not.&nbsp; GR theory says *zip* about repulsive actions and has absolutely nothing to do with repulsive actions.&nbsp; In fact it is only designed to explain attractive reactions in objects made of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your notion that it is "silent" is a pure rationalization since Einstein himself rejected any addition to GR that might give you a loophole.&nbsp; He called it his greatest blunder.&nbsp; He wasn't silent about it at all, and he wasn't even trying to make C do superliminal magic tricks!&nbsp; It's not silent at all.&nbsp; It's describe *attraction* between objects, not repulsion. You've turned GR on it's head.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and on expansion&nbsp;of space at "superluminal" rate,</DIV></p><p>False. In GR theory, objects of mass are limited to light speed.&nbsp; The physical manifold could not possibly "expand" at faster than the objects that makeup spacetime can separate, so 2C is the most "expansion" you could ever hope to achieve in standard GR theory.&nbsp; Einstein's GR theory is not only not silent about this part, it refutes your claim completely.&nbsp; Even a "negative pressure" thingamabob could not and would not cause the manifold to expand beyond 2C (C in each direction). &nbsp; Only in mythology can you exceed C, not in emprical science and GR theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those notions are consistent with GR, but are not mandated by it. </DIV></p><p>None of these add ons are "consistent" with GR.&nbsp; GR consistently describes *attraction" between objects, not repulsion.&nbsp; GR consistently limits objects of mass to C.&nbsp;&nbsp; Superluminal speeds and repulsive events are in no way at all consistent with GR theory.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What they constitute are&nbsp;hypotheses that, when incorporated into a cosmological model based on general relativity, provide predictions that are available for testing in the light of observed data.</DIV></p><p>If I stuffed superliminal repulsive magic into GR theory I'm sure I could pilfer your math and show that magic is consitent with observed data too.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Repusion has never been shown to be in any way related to gravity. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Thus far they seem able to provide predictions that agree with that data and that are not predicted by other models </DIV></p><p>Again, that is pointless.&nbsp; So what if you can "predict" a creation date by stuffing magic into GR theory.&nbsp; It's a pointless prediction that defies the primary tentents of physics and GR theory!&nbsp; The universre is larger than 27.4 light years across.&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory could never be used to explain your creation date.&nbsp; Only a metaphysical construct could do that and you created a metaphysical construct.&nbsp; &nbsp; If I were trying to come up with a creation date based on EU theory, I could not possible come up with that same date, and you can't possibly justfiy your date using emprical science.&nbsp; Who cares is you predict a creation date based on magic?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The body of evidence supporting those notion is not yet sufficient for complete acceptance.&nbsp; But it is certainly adequate so as to support mantaining those hypotheses as possibilites.&nbsp; To simply dismiss them without further investigation is the height of foolishness. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It would be foolish to believe in magic, irrespective of the fact it might be useful in predicting a creation date.&nbsp; It would be foolish for me to believe that GR theory can be used to explain repulsive events without emprical evidence that gravity can do such tricks.&nbsp; It would be foolish of me to believe that inflation is anythying other than an imaginary idea unless someone can emprically demonstrate that it's not a figment of Guth's imagination.&nbsp; It would be foolish for me to believe that objects made of matter can exceed the speed of light unless someone can demonstrate it in controlled experiments.&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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; There seems to be to be some general misunderstanding about how physical theories are viewed and what constitutes reality.</DIV></p><p>Emprical science however can distingish things that exist in reality.&nbsp; Mathematical formulas based on metaphysical entities can not do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It should be understood that ALL present physical theories have faults, and inconsistencies.&nbsp; But the fundamental pillars of physics do, in most circumstances, provide very accurate predictions of the outcome of experiment. </DIV></p><p>Inflation isn't "physics".&nbsp; DE isn't "physics".&nbsp; They aren't forms of physics because they don't physically exist in reality nor have they been shown to exist in an emprical experiment. &nbsp; You've confused emprical reality with math formulas based on metaphysical constructs.&nbsp; Math formulas related to inflation and DE do not describe reality. They describe an imaginary reality with imaginary forces that have never been shown to exist in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is agreement with observed data that is the sole arbiter of the validity of a physical theory. </DIV></p><p>And Lambda-Magic theory is also consistent with observed data if I simply pilfer your imaginary math.&nbsp; So what?</p><p>Newtons theories in no way support a repulsive feature to gravity.&nbsp; Einsteins' theories don't support that idea either.&nbsp; Both of them based their ideas on emprical physics. &nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory is a cludged (superliminal) variation of "blunder theory", not GR theory.</p><p>The basic problem in astronomy today is that you have abandoned emprical science in favor of an imagined reality where mass travels as superliminal speeds and inflation faeries overcome gratiational force and "dark energy" is somehow related to gravity.&nbsp; None of these assumptions has ever been emprically demonstrated and none of these ideas have anything at all to do with "reality". &nbsp; Reality implies a physical existence.&nbsp; DE and inflation have never been shown to physically exist.&nbsp; DE and inflation are not physical realities, they are metaphysical and imaginary ideas being falsely passed off as emprical science.&nbsp; GR theory in no way supports superliminal travel.&nbsp; GR theory in no way supports "repulsion".&nbsp; These are completely at odd with GR theory in fact because the tensor field always points to mass, not away from it.&nbsp; None of the metaphysical extension to Lambda-CDM theory have anything to do with reality or GR theory.&nbsp; They are purely imagined forces of nature being stuffed into a "blunder theory" as Einstein described it. Make no mistake here, Einstein would be appauled at what's happened to physics today.&nbsp; He wrote a beautiful physics theory based on the laws of physics and the forces of nature.&nbsp; Every bit of it can be falsified and/or verified.&nbsp;</p><p>Lambda-CDM theory is not based on laws of physics, but upon imagined forces of nature that have never been shown to actually exist.&nbsp; It is *not* a "physics" theory, it is a metaphysical theory with at least three unique forms of energy/mass that have never been demonstrated.&nbsp; It's not a physics theory, it's an imaginary theory with imaginary forces.&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>
 
O

observer7

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; There seems to be to be some general misunderstanding about how physical theories are viewed and what constitutes reality.&nbsp; . . .&nbsp; Skepticism is appropriate, and a necessary ingredient in the development of science.&nbsp; Outright dismissal is not.&nbsp; Similarly, adoption of oddball theories that provide explanations for as few phenomena, but fail to agree with observed facts and with fundamental predictions of established physics in domains of known accuracy is foolish.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Bravo!&nbsp; Well said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Bravo!&nbsp; Well said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by observer7</DIV></p><p>Well, there's one major problem however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There seems to be to be some general misunderstanding about how physical theories are viewed and what constitutes reality.&nbsp; . . .&nbsp; Skepticism is appropriate, and a necessary ingredient in the development of science. </DIV></p><p>The skepticism is directly related to empricism.&nbsp; Skepticism requires emprical evidence.&nbsp; The rules of science require that something be demonstrated as true since a negative cannot be proven.&nbsp; Skepticism and empricism go hand in hand in science.&nbsp; Skepticism is indeed a major necessity in science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Outright dismissal is not.</DIV></p><p>Outright dismissal is actually the "norm" unless you can emprically demonstrate something to be true.&nbsp; I can emprically demonstrate that EM fields can cause plasma particles to "expand".&nbsp; It is therefore a scientifically valid theory to suggest that EM fields might be involved in causing the universe to accelerate.&nbsp; Magic cannot be emprically demonstrated to do anything to a plasma body, so claiming magic caused plasma to expand is not a legitimate physical theory.&nbsp; It is unflasifiable as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Show me a physics experiment where DE or inflation moved plasma and I'll be happy to let you theorize about how these things had some massive effect on the whole universe.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate they are not a figment of human imagination, it is not emprically viable to claim they did something to distant objects in the sky.&nbsp; That isn't physics anymore, it's mathematical myth making based on metaphysical ideas and it is empirically and skeptically indistinguishable from "magic" based on exactly the same mathatical formulas. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Similarly, adoption of oddball theories </DIV></p><p>Ad homimenon. EU theory is not an "oddball" theory.&nbsp; The use of the term implies someone is an "oddball" for siticking with empirical science.&nbsp; Emprical science is not "oddball" science.&nbsp; It is good science.&nbsp; It is the only "real" science that can be shown to apply to "reality".&nbsp; Mathematical imagination is fine, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with emprical science.&nbsp; Once can computer model how many elves might fit on the head of a pin, but that mathematical model is meaningless unless there is an emprical demonstration that elves actually exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that provide explanations for as few phenomena, </DIV></p><p>I'd rather be able to explain a "few" phenomenon like solar wind acceleration, corornal loops, fusion in the solar atmosphere, planetary rings, ring currents ect, using standard empricically demonstrated forces of nature, than to believe in "imaginarry things" that physically explain *NOTHING* in emprical reality and help us explain none of the afore mentioed items.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but fail to agree with observed facts and with fundamental predictions of established physics in domains of known accuracy is foolish.</DIV></p><p>The age of the universe is not "observed fact".&nbsp; It is in fact a date that cannot even be justified with emprical science.&nbsp; There is no "accuracy" to be found in this number, it's just a number.&nbsp; It's a number you can't even come up with without violating all the known emprical laws of nature!&nbsp;&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory is absolute not "established physics".&nbsp; It is "established metaphysics" based on imaginary forces that do not emprically exist in nature.&nbsp; What I resent is that this stuff is being taught in school as though it is in fact "physics".&nbsp; It's not "emprical physics".&nbsp; It's imaginary physics based on imaginary things.&nbsp; Empricism is never foolish, nor is skepticism in the absense of emprical evidence.</p><p>If astronomers could emprically demonstrate that DE and inflation and DM are not fudge factors of epic proportions, then it would be meaningful to describe Lambda-CDM theory as "physics".&nbsp; Doing so without emprical support is simply false advertizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no 'physics" to inflation.&nbsp; There is only "imagined physics" related to inflation. The only way to emprically call it "physics" is to show a controlled experiment that demonstrates it is not a figment from Guth's imagination.&nbsp; Nobody did that part.&nbsp; The skeptic and the empricist in me cries fowl just as it cries fowl with any religious person tries to tell me when the universe was created but cannot emprically demonstrate their claim.&nbsp; Skepticism and empricism are integral parts of "real physics".&nbsp; Imaginary physics is not emprical physics.&nbsp; Emprical physics requires emprical evidence.&nbsp; Imaginary physics can be applied to anything and to any label.&nbsp; I can slap a math formula to magic too, but my magic math is not a physical theory, it is a mathematical mythos devoid of emprical support regardless of whether or not I have attached math to it in an effort to describe something in physical reality, and regardless of how well my magic math formula matches the observeation I tried to describe with this math.&nbsp; Magic math is magic math.&nbsp; It's not a substitute for emprical science.</p><p>I will stick with EU thoery because it is predicated and built upon emprical science and *only* upon emprical science.&nbsp; I continue to apply exactly the same emprical standards to any EU idea as I do inflation or DE or DM, and I use exactly the same standards of emprical science to weed out concepts from EU theory that are not part of physical reality.&nbsp; I therefore have no more faith that "ambiplasma" is responsible for the current flows of the unviverse than I have faith in inflaiton.&nbsp; I can however at least emprically test for current flow even if I cannot identify the original source of the electrons.&nbsp; I can't verify or falsify any aspect of inflation in a controlled test. </p><p>Empirical science is impersonal.&nbsp; It's only when we get emotional attached to an idea that is can seem "personal".&nbsp; Lambda-CDM is ultimately not a theory that is based on emprical physics and skeptical science.&nbsp; Rather it is an imaginary physics based on imaginary forces of nature that have never been emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; Calling it "physics' IMO is simply false advertizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's "imaginary physics" based on "imagary forces of nature".&nbsp; I don't dismiss "physics" theories, but I do dismiss any and all "imaginary" forms of physics.&nbsp; I do so very impersonally, irrespective of the topic. &nbsp; That is standard operating proceedure in all branches of empirical 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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is absolutely, positively *no emprical evidence* of inflation on that page, or any page.&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Your statements are falacious.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Apparently you did not care to read the page in question since there is a chart showing a rather nice agreement between the predictions of inflation and observed anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation --- real no-kidding empirical evidence taken in the ultimate laboratory, the universe itself.</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/1/585fbf8d-ef87-4d85-a1a4-39c5737916da.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Since his book is copyrighted, I can't hand you the electronic version of it (which I also have), but I can at least point you to a small collection of Alfven's papers that I have collected in case you ever get curious and decide to study it seriously.http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/AlfvenSince ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Thanks.&nbsp; I willl take a look.&nbsp; Where can one obtain the electronic version of the book ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, there's one major problem however.The skepticism is directly related to empricism.&nbsp; Skepticism requires emprical evidence.&nbsp; The rules of science require that something be demonstrated as true since a negative cannot be proven.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually it usually the opposite.&nbsp; A theory is accepted on the basis of agreement with all of a large body of empirical&nbsp;data, but it is not proven correct.&nbsp; It is deemed to be inadequate when it is found to be in disagreement with even one&nbsp;valid observation.&nbsp; At that point it&nbsp;may be discarded, revised, or used only in specific circumstances in which it is know to be an accurate approximation.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, the strongest proof in science is in&nbsp;fact proof of a negative.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Skepticism and empricism go hand in hand in science.&nbsp; Skepticism is indeed a major necessity in science.Outright dismissal is actually the "norm" unless you can emprically demonstrate something to be true.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Absolutely backwards, as noted above.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I can emprically demonstrate that EM fields can cause plasma particles to "expand".&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">Actually you cannot.&nbsp; Plasma particles are nothing more than ionized bits of atoms and molecules, and are well known.&nbsp; The particles in a plasma do not expand or contract as the result of EM&nbsp; fields, except insofar as might correspond to the dictates of relativity.&nbsp; What you can demonstrate is the electromagnetic fields can cause the plasma gas to expand.&nbsp; You can also demonstrate that electromagnetic fields can cause a plasma gas to compress, and that is the principle of the Tokomak.&nbsp; All that this says is that charged particles respond to the electromagnetic field, and that is accepted by everyone.</font></p><p>&nbsp;It is therefore a scientifically valid theory to suggest that EM fields might be involved in causing the universe to accelerate.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Absolutely not.&nbsp; There is no evidence whatever that electromagnetic energy can cause an expansion of space-time.&nbsp; In fact quite the opposite is true.&nbsp; There is a construct allowed by general relativity in which a sufficient concentration of electromagnetic energy can create closed loops in space-time, essentially a blackhole built from light.&nbsp; Such objects were&nbsp;conceived&nbsp;by and studied by John Archibald Wheeler, and are called geons.&nbsp; There is no evidence that geons actually&nbsp;exist in nature.&nbsp; But they are consistent with general relativity and the physics&nbsp;involved shows that the effect of&nbsp; the energy in an electromagnetic field&nbsp;warps space in the same manner as any other form of matter/energy&nbsp;and is in that sense attractive.&nbsp; Note that this has absolutely nothing to do&nbsp;with the repulsion force between two particles of like charge.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp; Magic cannot be emprically demonstrated to do anything to a plasma body, so claiming magic caused plasma to expand is not a legitimate physical theory.&nbsp; It is unflasifiable as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Show me a physics experiment where DE or inflation moved plasma and I'll be happy to let you theorize about how these things had some massive effect on the whole universe.&nbsp; If you can't demonstrate they are not a figment of human imagination, it is not emprically viable to claim they did something to distant objects in the sky.&nbsp; That isn't physics anymore, it's mathematical myth making based on metaphysical ideas and it is empirically and skeptically indistinguishable from "magic" based on exactly the same mathatical formulas.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is simply gibberish.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Ad homimenon. EU theory is not an "oddball" theory.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Unless EU is personified,&nbsp;there is nothing ad hominem here.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; The use of the term implies someone is an "oddball" for siticking with empirical science.&nbsp; Emprical science is not "oddball" science.&nbsp; It is good science.&nbsp; It is the only "real" science that can be shown to apply to "reality".&nbsp; Mathematical imagination is fine, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with emprical science.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This just silly.&nbsp;Theoretical and experimental science go hand in hand.&nbsp; Theory needs experiment to&nbsp;demonstrate a predictive capability and show theories to be false when they fail to give adequate predictions.&nbsp; Experimental science needs theory in order to apply the results of the carefully controlled work in the laboratory to the more complicated situations of the real world.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Once can computer model how many elves might fit on the head of a pin, but that mathematical model is meaningless unless there is an emprical demonstration that elves actually exist in nature.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">No, you can't.&nbsp; You&nbsp;can cause a computer display to show any graphics that you would like.&nbsp; But you cannot show pure fiction using a model that is based on physical principles.&nbsp; It is the model that is important, and not the computer.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I'd rather be able to explain a "few" phenomenon like solar wind acceleration, corornal loops, fusion in the solar atmosphere, planetary rings, ring currents ect, using standard empricically demonstrated forces of nature, than to believe in "imaginarry things" that physically explain *NOTHING* in emprical reality and help us explain none of the afore mentioed items.The age of the universe is not "observed fact".&nbsp; It is in fact a date that cannot even be justified with emprical science.&nbsp; There is no "accuracy" to be found in this number, it's just a number.&nbsp; It's a number you can't even come up with without violating all the known emprical laws of nature!&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">Apparently you fail to grasp the connectioin between general relativity and empirical science.&nbsp; The theory has been shown to be accurate in many many experiments.&nbsp; It may be beyond its limits of validity in some situations considered in cosmology, particularly in the extremely universe.&nbsp; However, it has a broad range of validity.&nbsp; When one couples the predictive power of general relativity with our empirical observations of the universe and our knowledge of particle physics and the nuclear physics applicable to stellar astrophysics one can make an educated estimate of the age of the universe.&nbsp; It is not just a made up number at all.&nbsp; Not only does it not violate "all the known empirical laws of nature" it is quite consistent with those laws and with the empirical evidence that we have available.</font></p><p>&nbsp;Lambda-CDM theory is absolute not "established physics".</p><p><font color="#0000ff">That is quite true.&nbsp; It is a hypothesis that is widely believed to be a appropriate model&nbsp;for cosmology and it&nbsp;is consistent with general relativity.&nbsp; It requires certain assumptions that may or may not be correct.&nbsp; But&nbsp;does make predictions that one can try to test, and that is the proper role of a hypothesis in theoretical physics.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; It is "established metaphysics" based on imaginary forces that do not emprically exist in nature.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This statement is just silly.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;What I resent is that this stuff is being taught in school as though it is in fact "physics".&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is because you do not understand physics and the role of a hypothesis in the development of physical theory.&nbsp; It is indeed physics.&nbsp; It is not a verified model.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;It's not "emprical physics".&nbsp; It's imaginary physics based on imaginary things.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Not at all.&nbsp; It is simply imaginative physical theorizing.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; Empricism is never foolish, nor is skepticism in the absense of emprical evidence.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Skepticis, appropriately applied is a good thing.&nbsp; Dismissal of sound hypotheses&nbsp;in absence of adequate data is foolish.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>If astronomers could emprically demonstrate that DE and inflation and DM are not fudge factors of epic proportions, then it would be meaningful to describe Lambda-CDM theory as "physics".&nbsp; Doing so without emprical support is simply false advertizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no 'physics" to inflation.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is simply a demonstration of ingnorance in the processes involved in research physics.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;There is only "imagined physics" related to inflation. The only way to emprically call it "physics" is to show a controlled experiment that demonstrates it is not a figment from Guth's imagination.&nbsp; Nobody did that part</p><p><font color="#0000ff">&nbsp;Quite the contrary is the case.&nbsp; Experiments are being done to eithe confirm or refute inflation.&nbsp; Rather that take place in a laboratory, where the proper conditions cannot be created, these experiments are being in space, and from the ground using sophisticated instrumentation that can see&nbsp;in many parts of the electomagnetic spectrum.&nbsp; </font>&nbsp;</p><p>The skeptic and the empricist in me cries fowl just as it cries fowl with any religious person tries to tell me when the universe was created but cannot emprically demonstrate their claim.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Fowl?&nbsp; Is there a chicken flying around here?</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Skepticism and empricism are integral parts of "real physics".&nbsp; Imaginary physics is not emprical physics.&nbsp; Emprical physics requires emprical evidence.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">And it requires empirical evidence that is applicable to the issues at hand.&nbsp; That may require evidence taken from sophisticated observatin in the universe at large, as opposed to artificial environments in a laboratory that cannot create a realistic situation.&nbsp; Or it may require that very controlled experiments in the laboratory be used along with sophisticated analytical models to apply those results to real-world observations.</font></p><p>&nbsp;Imaginary physics can be applied to anything and to any label.&nbsp; I can slap a math formula to magic too, but my magic math is not a physical theory, it is a mathematical mythos devoid of emprical support regardless of whether or not I have attached math to it in an effort to describe something in physical reality, and regardless of how well my magic math formula matches the observeation I tried to describe with this math.&nbsp; Magic math is magic math.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">More silliness, and perhaps a hint of math anxiety.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;It's not a substitute for emprical science.I will stick with EU thoery because it is predicated and built upon emprical science and *only* upon emprical science.&nbsp; I continue to apply exactly the same emprical standards to any EU idea as I do inflation or DE or DM, and I use exactly the same standards of emprical science to weed out concepts from EU theory that are not part of physical reality.&nbsp; I therefore have no more faith that "ambiplasma" is responsible for the current flows of the unviverse than I have faith in inflaiton.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Since&nbsp;the entire theory depends on the&nbsp;current flow, which must have source, this rather&nbsp;puts the old Kibosh on EU doesn't it.&nbsp; If this is not the equivalent of elfin magic then I don't know what is.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I can however at least emprically test for current flow even if I cannot identify the original source of the electrons.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yes indeed.&nbsp;&nbsp; And there is no evidence whatsoever for a current flow providing the power that&nbsp;most physcists attribute to fusion reactions in the&nbsp;Sun.&nbsp; Any such gigantic current would create a readily detectable, and quite enormous, magnetic field,&nbsp;that simply does not exist.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I can't verify or falsify any aspect of inflation in a controlled test. Empirical science is impersonal.&nbsp; It's only when we get emotional attached to an idea that is can seem "personal".&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">But it&nbsp;can&nbsp;be evaluated agains emirical data collected&nbsp;by a variety of instruments.&nbsp; That&nbsp;data is currently&nbsp;being gathered and evaluated.&nbsp; Inflation will live or die on the basis of such observations.&nbsp; So far the data is limited, but inflation is holding up.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Lambda-CDM is ultimately not a theory that is based on emprical physics and skeptical science.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Utterly and completelyfalse. It is in fact completely empirical and that is one of its problems.&nbsp; It is empirical evidence that indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.&nbsp; Until that empirical evidence came to light no one even suspected that the&nbsp;expansion wa s accelerating.&nbsp; The biggest problem in&nbsp;cosmology is that we have this empirical evidence,&nbsp;but we have no good theory to go with it.&nbsp; So one real question is. "Is this empirical evidence valid?"&nbsp; Thus far it seems to be.&nbsp;&nbsp;Similarly it is emirical evidence that&nbsp;tells us that the empirically determined rates of rotation of some galaxies and galaxie groups is such that&nbsp;the structures would come apart unless there is more matter available to provide gravity than what&nbsp;we can account for in our observations.&nbsp;&nbsp;We do not have a good theoretical explanation for&nbsp;the observation, so an empirically motivated factor for "dark matter" is put in place in the model as a place&nbsp;holder while we search for&nbsp;a solid explanation.</font>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff"> So, you see, the real problem wth the Lamda CDM model is that it is too empirical and not on firm theoretical ground.</font></p><p>&nbsp; Rather it is an imaginary physics based on imaginary forces of nature that have never been emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; Calling it "physics' IMO is simply false advertizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's "imaginary physics" based on "imagary forces of nature".&nbsp; I don't dismiss "physics" theories, but I do dismiss any and all "imaginary" forms of physics.&nbsp; I do so very impersonally, irrespective of the topic. &nbsp; That is standard operating proceedure in all branches of empirical science. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You misunderstand how science progresses and the role played by experiment, theory and speculation.</font><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Your statements are falacious.</DIV></p><p>No, they are 100% accurate.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; Apparently you did not care to read the page in question since there is a chart showing a rather nice agreement between the predictions of inflation and observed anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation --- real no-kidding empirical evidence taken in the ultimate laboratory, the universe itself. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Now if you could just demonstrate that inflation has the emprical effect on nature in a controlled experiment that you claim it has, then you might be able to use that information to justfy your faith in inflation. &nbsp;</p><p>If I simply substitude the term "magic" into your "inflation" terms and pifler your math on you, you can't claim that this is emprical evidence that magic exists, just because my magic formula fits the graph.&nbsp; You can't take an uncontrolled observation, point to the sky, conjure up some math and claim "my magic math formula did it".&nbsp; That's not emprical science, that is mathematical mythos run amuck.&nbsp; My magic Lambda-CDM theory doesn't demonstrate magic did it.&nbsp; Likewise your magic inflation theory doesn't demonstrat that Guth's magic inflation did it either.&nbsp; Curve fitting exercises with elves are pointless, and in no way represent "emprical science". &nbsp; It's a curve fitting exersize wtih magic stuff, nothing more.</p><p>If and when you can emprically demonstrate the inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination, and you can show it has the effect on nature that you claim, then I'll be happy to look at your graph.&nbsp; As it stands, it's like asking me to look at your magic graph.&nbsp; I don't care that your magic inflation fits some distant observation if you can't show me that magic inflation exists in nature.&nbsp; What is so hard to understand about the idea that math alone and curve fitting exersizes are no substitute for emprical testing?</p><p>Inflation doesn't exist.&nbsp; It's imaginary.&nbsp; Your graph is an imaginary curve fitting exersize based on imaginary forces, nothing more.&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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not forbidden, but when the EU supporters suggest there is no fusion in the sun, you are way out on a very long limb.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I wanted to revisit this post for a moment if you don't mind.&nbsp;</p><p>Actually I agree with you 100% Wayne. I personally believe that fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere as witnessed by the Rhessi satellite and it's recording of neutron capture signatures and gamma radiation in the atmosphere and near the surface.&nbsp; I also believe that every object that spins inside of an EM field will create induction currents, turning spin energy into electrical current.&nbsp; There is currently no logical way to know at the moment how much energy is created in the local induction process, but EU theory certainly suggests that some energy is released locally and how much comes from an external source.&nbsp; I'm not even certain of what the core might look like or contain, but I do remain open minded about the possibility of local fusion processes, both internally and externally.&nbsp; IMO there is a lot of misinformation related to EU theory on the internet, which is why I strongly suggest that one learn EU theory first from Kristian Birkeland (my favorite emprical scientist by the way), and then from Dr. Charles Bruce, and then from the perspective of Hannes Alfven and/or Anthony Peratt.&nbsp; Anthony's book is IMO an easier for a layman on this topic, but the price of that book is unbelieivable (something like $500 because it's out of print and probably because it directly relates to plasma physics from a Los Alamos employee)&nbsp; IMO Peratt is an easier read, but the physics is there to read in both books.&nbsp; I highly recommend these particular authors, only because that is how I came to accept EU theory in the final analysis.&nbsp; Until I'd been through all of these authors, I had a certain amount of doubt.&nbsp; Once I put them altogether like that, it all fell into place for me.</p><p>I guess I'm an emprical sort of "show me" individual, and once I saw the electric light so to speak, there was no way back for me.&nbsp; This transformation was pretty quick in some way, since it's only been about a 3 year journey thus far, but it's been very rewarding to me both from a scientific and also from a "spiritual" perspective.&nbsp; I highly recommend anyone and everyone take that journey.</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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Cosmology%20In%20The%20Plasma%20Universe%20-%20An%20Intoductory%20Exposition%20-%20Hannes%20Alfven.pdfAm I misunderstanding or does this paper refer to magnetic merging (which is I think the same as magnetic reconnection) as a possibility in the magnetohydrodynamics for fluid plasmas ?&nbsp; See the table. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm unclear if you meant to link to this particular paper.&nbsp; I don't recall anything in that paper related to "magnetic merging".&nbsp; I did a quick search and didn't find anything.</p><p>Essentially this is Alfven's "Big Bang" approach to plasma physics, and it's a purely "electric/matter/antimatter" model where matter and antimatter symmetry is preserved, and objects pass electrons nad positrons accross double layers of plasma. &nbsp; It's actually an excellent introductions to Alfven's overall approach to cosmology.</p><p>Alfven rejected the concept of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; He had some rather harsh things to say about it in fact.&nbsp; He&nbsp; explained that this was really just a simple particle interaction that was occuring inside of current carrying double layers.&nbsp; The interesting part about that is that WIKI's diagram of 'magnetic reconnection' shows a current carrying double layer, and that would actually be a kinetic energy/electical reconnection process.&nbsp; They claim on the WIKI page that this can occur in the absense of a double layer as well.&nbsp; That last claim is false. &nbsp; The diagram shown wowuld in fact release energy, but it is a fundamentally particle physics interaction, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; I don't think you'll find any support in Alfven's work for "magnetic merging" or "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; He was pretty clear in his book that it was a false idea, a fundamental misunderstanding of plasma physics. &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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm unclear if you meant to link to this particular paper.&nbsp; I don't recall anything in that paper related to "magnetic merging".&nbsp; I did a quick search and didn't find anything.Essentially this is Alfven's "Big Bang" approach to plasma physics, and it's a purely "electric/matter/antimatter" model where matter and antimatter symmetry is preserved, and objects pass electrons nad positrons accross double layers of plasma. &nbsp; It's actually an excellent introductions to Alfven's overall approach to cosmology.Alfven rejected the concept of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; He had some rather harsh things to say about it in fact.&nbsp; He&nbsp; explained that this was really just a simple particle interaction that was occuring inside of current carrying double layers.&nbsp; The interesting part about that is that WIKI's diagram of 'magnetic reconnection' shows a current carrying double layer, and that would actually be a kinetic energy/electical reconnection process.&nbsp; They claim on the WIKI page that this can occur in the absense of a double layer as well.&nbsp; That last claim is false. &nbsp; The diagram shown wowuld in fact release energy, but it is a fundamentally particle physics interaction, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; I don't think you'll find any support in Alfven's work for "magnetic merging" or "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; He was pretty clear in his book that it was a false idea, a fundamental misunderstanding of plasma physics. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Table I bottom row.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
If light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with matter/electrons, why is this not called a Redshift ?
Replies
17
Views
4K
Astronomy
jhixon
J
saraerdmann
Question Re: Innovative idea for using the Earth's magnetic field to propel spacecraft
Replies
3
Views
3K
Space Travel & SpaceX
billslugg
billslugg
S
Question How does Earth have a magnetic field when it doesn't meet the electromagnetic requirements (an iron core is insufficient)?
Replies
28
Views
4K
Cosmology
Classical Motion
Classical Motion
A
We have the capability now, why aren't we shooting for observations at 13.8 - to 14-billion light years from Earth?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Astronomy
Gibsense
Gibsense
Greenlight
Question Why is the horizon of the observable universe?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom