Inflation, Acceleration & Galaxies

[CraigS]

Hi Guys;

(I'm new to this forum so I thought I'd better say a friendly 'Hello').

Ok, so Inflationary/acceleration theory (now supported by WMAP data, Hubble's research etc) tells us that the universe originally 'inflated' and is now accelerating. So I've been completely baffled about how Galaxies can collide, if this is so.

I asked this question recently of a research astronomer at the Syd Observatory and got the standard 'Gravity' and different scales/dimensions answer (ie: gravity overcomes the driving 'force' behind cosmic acceleration and anyway, this operates at a different scale ie: 100's to 1,000's of light years separation).

So, wouldn't the original kick in the early stages of the big bang (Inflation) and the subsequent acceleration (due to 'dark energy'), have given all matter and spacetime an 'outwards' inflationary trajectory -ie: separating everything from everything else, both initially and into the future and hence preclude any co-incidence of trajectories at all inter-galactic scales?

I can't quite see how a theory such as this can work in some parts of the inter-galactic scale but not in other parts. Your comments would be much appreciated, as I am perplexed.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

:hi:
You no doubt have surrendered the opportunity for consideration of the possibility that any universe, other than one set out via the big bang theory, is available for consideration and/or is indeed worthy of consideration:shrug:...such approach eliminates alternatives:)..

Big bang theory in order to survive as a viable hypotheses needs the "theory of inflation" to explain reasonable concerns with the credibility of the "big bang theory";) however the "inflation theory" determines that all and everything we can observe or consider to be, of, and making up our universe, grew from the size of a grape fruit (just a little bit after the initial big bang.. to a size of some 156 / 160 billion light years diameter in the time of 30 seconds :eyepop::eyepop::eyepop:(or less ..depending on the sums you select as reasonable:D;)..) As laughable as such a prospect may present to any reasonable person that seems to be the way the big bang theory is happy with the dealing with the detail:)...

When one glosses over the probability that such could be fact or possible then this view of the evolution of the universe casts concern for some folks simply because this means that accepting the notion that the entire universe was therefore created in under one minute:question:...mmm science gives creation only one minute and the Pope give creation 6/7 days:question:..when you think of it that way ...mmm... 6/7 days seems more acceptable even though it is entirely unacceptable:shrug::lol::lol::lol:. ...
yes we must accept that all we see observe etc was created in less than one minute thats the science of it:thumbsup:...Such a realization of what the big bang theory asks us to accept demands a more reasonable alternative one could think... yet there is no alternative to the big bang view on universe birth and evolution so far it seems... .. If one can entertain a possibility that the big bang theory is only one of many options yet unresolved or defined and that current thought is not the limit of knowledge and then alternatives may be embraced:D... and that such alternative may be different to the current belief in a big bang approach:D ... so take away the big bang and consider an alternative universe where the question you raise in your post would never need to be asked because the model held no difficulties is explaining away inconsistencies...:):):)

We interperete our data on the basis that the big bang theory is fact and in doing so we eliminate any opportunity of alternatives and perhaps supporting an unsupportable view of the universe;):rolleyes::screwy:.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Gee Alex;

Thanks for your frank reply. I'm actually doing my best to try on the Big Bang, and all it encompasses, to see if it fits in my universe. I'm not sure it does just yet.
I was watching the History Channel's "The Universe" Season One DVD the other day, (I do read more reputable stuff than this, despite this disclosure of my dodgy DVD viewing habits), and Alan Guth, God of Inflation Theory said "anyone who doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory is basically considered to be a crackpot" (or words to that effect).

I don't mind being a labelled a "crackpot" once I understand enough about a particular way of thinking. I'm not there yet, so I continue the challenge !

I kind of favour Fred Hoyle's steady-state Universe (Einstein's also), although I like seeing how the Pope's crowd deals with new updates on things.

Wonderful how mainstream 'Science' thesedays is driven by the need for funding which will further support the consensus. One should also, perhaps, pause and strive to deliberate on things & get a whiff of what's going on - to be fair, methinks

Cheers & Rgds.

[xelasnave]

Your reply is wise:thumbsup:.

Alan Guth believes his hypothesis is correct and calls it a theory however I subscribe to the notion that hypothesis requires something more than mere belief before the grand title of "theory" can be applied:).

To call another a crackpot or any other name which reflects such contempt for any other view does not elevate him or the big bang camp but rather drags it all down to a level I would prefer to live above:rolleyes:. He sounds more political than reasonable....

However Mr Guth is jealous and protective of his most original thought ...as are those who believe the big bang...and all are happy that his hypothesis saved the big bang from death.

I think that there may well be another answer other than inflation that would still save the big bang but will anyone look for it... ? No because enquiry stopped at the level of being able to hold off the deadly questions inflation seeks to eliminate...what were those questions anyhow????


The collision of galaxies is a matter that interests me... and those spirals with another galaxy like a banana stuck in the middle...wow what is going on there...shrug:

I think a big bang answer to your question may point out that it is space that expands and that in this context the matter within is somewhat irrelevant and free to do what it wants and respond to more local influences:).

But when one attempts to visualize an expanding space the prospect of collisions seem improbable.

I have often pointed out the strange situation that exists which reveals spiral galaxies line up like buttons on a string:eyepop:... rather than folk being intrigued by such curious observations I find I get replies ...
'its what you would expect in a big bang'... and so thinking on such a wonderful find is eliminated and to determine what is really going on becomes irrelevant.... for mine I feel that this system of galaxy line up is most curious and points to something going on which we need to know about... if understood may show something about our universe that indicates its reason for existence...but such thinking dies because its big bang consistent and we need no more.

Check out the line up thing and ask "why"

alex:):):)

[bojan]

My two cents:

Without mathematical tools firmly under control and fully understood, discussions like this one are pointless.. unless the adequate beer supply is at hand :cheers:

[xelasnave]

I can only ask ..how good is ones argument if one has to resort to facts :lol::lol::lol:.

A hypothesis is a view or an idea and nothing more. Clearly maths can be offered in support claiming the math is indeed the only evidence required. However math should apply to analysis of the data rather than building a premise and so I ask what data gained from "sample" observation does "inflation" call upon?

Inflation has the math to prove to us that the seemingly impossible is reasonable and in the case of inflation math indeed can prove that all we can observe and or presume to be out there "grew" from zip to all there is in a split second..I feel science will need God to get that one off the ground... and maybe that is the conclusion the big bang leads folk to... to a consideration of a creator when the science leaves us wondering....and as such it would seem that math is indeed a very powerful tool if it can sway a reasonable person to accept its premise with nothing more...say like experiment or observation.

Beer is great.... but few discussions on these matters are pointless as discussion promotes interest and input.

alex:):):)

[sjastro]

There are two issues here the expansion of space-time and the movement of objects in space-time. A common mistake is to think there is no difference between the two.

A galaxy unaffected by gravity is moving away from us but is located at the same postion in space-time.
A galaxy affected by gravity can move in space-time, in other words it's location in space-time changes.
In this case gravity is not overcoming space-time expansion at all, rather it is performing work in moving objects in space-time.

There are no inconsistancies.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Even when things are fully understood, a good supply of beer helps to lubricate the hypothesising process:):):P

[renormalised]

Precisely. It's easy to distinguish between the two regimes. One is an expansion of spacetime itself and this is independent of any movement of objects within spacetime.

Notice how I said "within" spacetime and not "with" spacetime. Two different scenarios with entirely different causal mechanisms. One due to the Big Bang, the other to gravity between objects.

[CraigS]

Hmm;

OK. I get that the two have independent causes but don't both directly change the shape of spacetime and thereby the positions of things in it ?
Ie: doesn't inflation stretch it in all directions and gravity warps it & creates wells etc bringing things closer ?

Until now, I have assumed that the oldest galaxies, 13.75 billion light years away, got there courtesy of inflation. If so, inflation has caused an apparent trajectory. (When reversed I think this trajectory actually gives rise to the original singularity, (the Egg)).

Anyway, apparently, matter & gravity combined after 9 billion years of inflation to form stars. So inflation which seemingly causes diverging trajectories (on the big scale) has been going a lot longer than gravity has !

If this is so, I don't get that gravity could have had enough time to create convergence of galaxies already set on very fast divergent trajectories. I guess it comes down to how far things were apart when gravity started to have a comparable influence on Inflation.

Nowadays, I understand that the latest WMAP 7 year data set reveals a Hubble constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) of 70.4 +/- 1.4 kms per sec per megaparsec. That's about 54 km/sec between Earth and Andromeda. I read that Andromeda is moving at about 100 to 140 km/sec towards the Milky Way.

At the very least, I guess one could say that Inflation and Gravity seem to have comparable magnitudes in their influence on galaxies !

Interesting. And "Thank You" for all your comments. They are actually helping me to think through this. (Perhaps I'll become a better contributer to future forum discussions, as a result).

Cheers

[xelasnave]

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

The above is my effort to refer to you specific statements but it appears a a quote from you sorry but you will see my comments within.
alex

[renormalised]

Inflation changes the size of space, not it's shape. When spacetime inflates, the galaxies stay in their places relative to one another w.r.t. the inflation. Use the old balloon analogy.

Gravity can, and does change the shape of spacetime, but only locally, when it is in respect to the objects within it.



They did. There is no trajectory, as a trajectory requires a point of origin and a point of destination. Since all of spacetime has expanded in all directions, there is no point of origin, nor a destination point because the expansion has occurred everywhere all at once.

Also, that distance you quoted is misleading. It is actually not the real distance to the objects but the light travel time, since expansion occurred, from those objects to us. The light we see has traveled for 13.75 billion years to get here, but in that time, the actual object has traveled much further away from us than that. In actual fact, the physical distance between us and that object...the co-moving distance, would be about 42-45 billion light years and the actual diameter of the visible universe as we see it is about 90 or so billion light years.



The first stars, they believe, began some 200-250 million years after the Big Bang. These were the Population III monsters that helped to ionise the H and He which pervaded the Universe at the time. They formed before the first galaxies, which themselves began to coalesce somewhere around 650 million to a billion years after the BB.

Gravity has been around for longer than inflation, actually. Gravity has always been here. Inflation was just a brief episode in the expansion of the Universe, when it was between 10^-37 and 10^-35 years old, but the expansion has continued after that point, nevertheless.



As I have already explained, there are no trajectories in relation to expanding spacetime. Gravity did have an influence on inflation, as it slowed the rate of inflation down over time, but after about 2 billion years, the expansion of the universe appears to have slowly accelerated due to the presence of "dark energy".



You could say that. But the scale distance of measurement is a megaparsec, so the actual expansion rate is as quoted. Since M31 and our galaxy are gravitationally bound, their mutual attraction is greater than the affects of expansion and they stay together as a bound system.



No, if inflation and gravity had effects of comparable magnitude, nothing would happen...the universe would have never undergone inflation and we wouldn't be here to discuss this. Gravity has a much stronger influence over the bodies of the galaxies themselves and their closer neighbours than the expansion has. But if the universe keeps on accelerating its expansion, that won't be the case. Eventually, the acceleration to expansion will become so great that even a hydrogen atom will end up the size of the present day universe, especially if no force halts the acceleration, or slows it down to a crawl.

[sjastro]

Excellent explanation Carl.

Is this the Masters Degree studies shining through.:)

Steven.

[renormalised]

No, I've known about this before I started my degree:):)

But having a masters (or nearly so) adds a bit of "weight" I suppose:)

[CraigS]

Ok;

For the sake of keeping this discussion focussed, I will admit some errors (due to dodgy sources of data - I've rechecked my sources following renormalised's, Sjastro's and Alex's responses - thanks for keeping me on track, guys).

However, if there was originally a point, a singularity of infinite density, mass, etc, etc, which I think is the main message of the BB, then I think by definition, this is the point of origin (and hence there is a trajectory from thereon).

Not trusting myself on this I just checked one of my favourite books (although, probably just as dodgy as my DVD sources - Brian Greene's 'Fabric of the Cosmos'). He states that one alternative possibility of the BB "is that if the universe is spatially infinite, there was already an infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang. At this moment the energy density soared, large temperatures (etc) ... but these extreme conditions existed everywhere, not just at one point ... instead the BB eruption took place everywhere on the infinite spatial expanse. After the bang, space swelled but its overall size didn't increase since something already infinite can't get any bigger. What did increase are the separations between objects like galaxies (once they formed)."

So, from this perspective (which seems to be an alternative spin on the traditional BB), the term 'trajectory' would have no meaning since there is no single point of origin - my problem seems to disappear (as per renormalised's comments).

It seems that my original question, perhaps, was born from my naivity of understanding of the rubbery state of the BB Theory (already known by Alex). It seems that its not as clear-cut as I thought - ie: that it didn't necessarily all start from a single point.

Which is OK. I can live with a "we're not really sure" answer. Actually, that's quite cool - and an honest answer.

Cheers

[renormalised]

No. Yes, there was a point of infinite density and zero size in the traditional theory....a singularity if you will. However, there is still no trajectory because that point of infinite density and zero size occurred everywhere. All of space and time expanded out of that condition, so in effect everywhere was experiencing that condition. There was nothing outside of that "everywhere" which could be defined as a destination point and no vector to define a trajectory, so that renders your idea of a trajectory moot.



That scenario would only work if the universe was defined as an M-brane and the BB was caused by the collision between two adjacent branes. Though, even in this case, the two branes would have to collide perfectly perpendicular to one another, otherwise you would have a ripple effect in the resultant energy distribution in the universe as the BB occurred in different parts of the branes at different times. That would show up in the CMB much more clearly and unambiguously in the temp fluctuations than what they find. For instance, it would appear to be colder in the direction away from the observer in the direction of travel of the BB ripple, but warmer when looking towards the point of contact between the two branes. In effect, you would have a temp gradient across the universe. This is not supported by the present or past observations that have been made.

Brian is also having two bites a the cherry here. He is saying, in his hypothesis, that space swelled but didn't increase in size because it was already infinite. That's contradictory. Yes, the space between the galaxies increased. However, if you have an infinite sized container with galaxies spread throughout it, the only way to increase the distance between the galaxies is to move them through space, not with space, as space can't get any bigger. In this case, it's not space which is expanding, it's the galaxies themselves which are moving apart. Now, if you look at that, there's only two ways of explaining this. The universe is not infinite but is expanding into an infinite space of something, or, the universe is infinite, but it's contents came from a finite sized source. In that case, there was a pre-existing space into which the contents are moving out into. If it's contents are finite in dimension, then the BB can't have occurred everywhere in spacetime, which by definition, is infinite in this case. The BB would be occurring at a point in spacetime and would not be an expansion of spacetime itself. That would induce a vector to the movement of the galaxies, but in order to produce the CMB results we see, that movement would have to be incredibly smooth in all directions. Which would be far more difficult to achieve in an actual "explosive" event of just matter into a pre-existing space than of an explosively rapid expansion of spacetime and matter itself.




All theories are rubbery, to some extent. They're only ever an approximation of what is observable and in most cases you can never really know everything there is to observe. Something will always turn up to upset the apple cart:)

[sjastro]

There is still no point of origin.
The implication of a point of origin requires the BB to have occurred within existing space. Space-time was created along with the BB. If not the Cosmological principle is violated.

The other issue is that we know nothing about the Universe before the Planck time (10^-43 second after the BB). Quantum mechanics dominates that even space-time is proposed to be quantized. We cannot define "a point" in this time interval.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmmm (again !);

Carl: I kind of liked the M-Brane collision theory. So much solid physics behind M-theory .. I'm kind of hoping the LHC uncovers stuff to support it all. Where are those results anyway ? (That thing's been going, albeit at half speed, for several months now ...)

Carl & Steven: Ok ... now I get it .. I think I've fallen victim to believing that the BB originated from a single point of infinite density etc floating in space .. but as you point out, space didn't exist at the beginning (perhaps). Kinda hard to imagine this after all, I was brought up to believe that space was the absence of everything. Having said this, I get a sense that the mathematics may make it easier to understand this concept.

Thanks again for all your input, guys ... very interesting !

Cheers

[renormalised]

You won't hear about a lot of the results until they come out in the journals. Which means 99% of people won't know anything at all. The only time anything will become public knowledge is if something spectacular happens...like they've opened up a doorway to an(other) universe(s), or they've found a way to crack the light barrier for travel. That would make instant headlines, but much of the work will go relatively unreported.

[Jarvamundo]

Perplexed by BBT? Join the ever growing club. You have not yet asked about large scale structures?

Which astronomer at Syd Uni...? You should have a look at Gaensler's work on intergalactic magnetic fields. It is clear "gravity only" is not sufficient answer.... unless yes of course as Alex post#2 has pointed out some mathamagical entities are invoked, FAR FAR beyond any empirical or intuitive experience.... aswell as flat out ignoring the mapped magnetic fields and charge separation.

As far as WMAP supporting BBT? Well it depends on who is presenting it to you...Ned Wright? WMAP has been plagued by processing errors and is very contested...



All too true Alex. Although if you want a career in astronomy, you better not upset the boys who wrote the text books.

I recommend "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, for an analysis of WMAP, redshift anomalies and more.

contrary to the view of
"Without mathematical tools firmly under control and fully understood, discussions like this one are pointless."

I lean towards experiments, repeatability and natural philosophy... since mathematical tools can and do describe any amounts of realities... Ptolomey and his epicycles?

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla

The irony in all of this, is the LHC... what do you think accelerates these particles? yep, giant electro magnets...

Regarding galaxy collisions.... Have you read up on the works of Halton Arp "Seeing Red"? and galaxy (quasar) ejection? I'd also recommend this we are now measuring quasars to be both quantized in relation to their parent Seyfert galaxies... and positioned along minor axis..... and also... totally devoid of all Time Dilation as required by hubble law.... all flying in the face of BBT requirements.

Each to their own realities,

[renormalised]

Alex, you have this fixation with magnetic fields and electromagnetism to the point of almost the exclusivity of everything else. Astronomers and physicists do not exclude the actions of EM in the workings of the universe. They just dispute it's importance in the overall scheme of things when it comes to the main driving forces within the universe. No one is disputing that EM fields are important factor in the way many particles are accelerated to enormous speeds in accretion disks, bipolar jets, sculpt the shapes of gas and dust clouds within galaxies etc etc. But to come out and say it's the main driving force behind everything and that gravity and other forces are secondary to it, is taking things just a little too far. It's all well and good to be able to say that EM is the main driving process behind many of the phenomena we see, but the crux of the matter is being able to prove it. This not only means being able to show the proof through observation but also being able to model the observations and propose theories as to how it all works. Quoting what Tesla said is not proof of anything, nor is it a vindication of anyone's pet ideas. Tesla was a great experimental scientist, but he was far from knowing about or understanding what there is in physics (or the universe). What he failed to realise is that you can't just look at something and then know everything about how it works. There's far more to understanding a process than observing that process in work. That's where the mathematics and theory come into play. It is then where observation either prove, disprove or modify those theories and mathematics. It's the way science works. You cannot have one part without the other. Otherwise it's not really science...only curious tinkering, and around the edges at that.

It's not about "upsetting the boys who wrote the textbooks" that'll wreck a career for anyone. Sometimes it does put you on the outer and doesn't win you favours. I'm all for different ideas and alternatives to what constitutes the present paradigm, but you have to be very much on your toes and know what you're on about. Otherwise you'll make yourself out to be a twit. Scientist, just like many others, have a habit of holding onto pet ideas to the exclusivity of other possibilities. But in order to have an idea which is worth considering, you also have to have good solid evidence supporting your idea. Otherwise it's just speculation at best. Yes, scientist can also be hard nosed about the "state of play" and what constitutes "reality". But many of those others who espouse alternative theories can be just as hard nosed and hidebound. There needs to be a balance between the two, but unfortunately ego and human nature intervene all too often. As well as plain and simple ignorance and closed mindedness. Or it goes completely in the opposite direction, which is just as bad. You have to be careful about jumping onto any bandwagon, just because it appeals to your maverick nature or your conservatism. More often than not, bandwagons have a habit of losing their wheels and coming apart in rather inglorious crashes. We all feel on the outer at times and feel that we may know the right answers and everyone else is not on the right path. But feeling that and being able to prove it and have convincing evidence of that proof is an entirely different thing.

It's like this...I think that traveling faster than light is eminently feasible and that too many of the physicists for far too long have had their collective heads jammed up Einstein's rear end all because of his theories. They're enamoured by them and can't see past the aura they produce. That's not to say that Einstein got it all wrong....he didn't and his theories do hold a lot of water. But he is not the be all and end all of everything there is to know about the workings of gravity or anything else for that matter. Suffice to say, I believe we have most of the physics now which will allow us to achieve the desired goal. However, there are some important pieces which are still missing yet and we need to connect the dots in order to join both ends up. Don't ask me what those dots are. I don't know, and neither do most other scientist at present. But I believe they'll find them soon enough. Probably within the next 50-100 years or so. It's probably going to take someone like Ed Witten to figure it out, but they'll do it. Who knows, might even be Ed himself.

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Carl,

It seems as though you have a fixation on Mathematical theoretical physics, and is probably why you seem to be comfortable and hold onto hope for notions such as hypothetical strings and wait that the next discovery of nature will not come from an empirical eye of discovery, rather a hand connected to a chalk board and complex number system inventions of mans mind.

It is as ok for you to endorse and or protect the wisdom of mathematical constructs such as inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, gravitational waves all of which have absolutely no on earth empirical verification.... as it is for me to talk of charge separation and magnetic fields in plasma, of which is now know to make up 99.9% of the matter in the universe and is well... as does NOT require abstract mathematical entities to be invented adhock to save the day, without any experimental verification of basic processes.

I certainly do not discount the effect we call gravity, I am just skeptical of many of BBT's and gravitationally dominant adhock explanations... for example: Large scale structures being as result of cosmic strings in space-time-fabric near the early (unverfiable, highly mathematical) big bang event...
When something as simple as lab verified plasma filaments can describe such things. There are many more examples of where lab physics can answer some questions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y).

You are correct Tesla was an inventor, and empiricist. The quote highlighted the different approaches to science... There are many more quotes, from many more empiricists past and modern...

And is why it was followed by 'each to their own', we all have our own choice.

one might like "dark matter".... i'll go with empirical magnetic fields (perrat spiral model (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation))
one might like "cosmic inflation strings".... i'll go with large scale birkeland currents (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current)
one might like "bbt".... ill go with my eyes 'yes Arp, that quasar is connected to that galaxy'

I think it's important for alternatives to be talked about... people can make their own choices.

I bet if i said "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", "Black Hole", "Worm Hole", "Strange Matter".... i'd ruffle less feathers... hehhe

I like to explore all areas including alternatives, as there is alot of excellent work in the mainstream of which i learn alot of here.

[CraigS]

Seems like we've drifted into discussions on scientific philosophy.

I think I'm in synch with Carl on this one. Especially on this topic.

Its all good.

Alex - thanks for the reading material references. I'm always on the look out to absorb more knowledge about the topic.

Oh yes - Witten - what a humungous mind/intellect. I just hope humankind makes good use of it while he exists. I'm kinda glad the yanks got him, too. If he lived in Oz he'd be mowed down (which is a pity - after all, he IS a tall poppy).

Cheers

[renormalised]

No, that's where you're wrong about myself. I am quite comfortable with theory, but I'm also equally comfortable with empirical, experimental science as well. I wouldn't be competent scientist if I wasn't. Sometimes discoveries don't come through looking but through the imagination first. Much of science works that way...look at all the major discoveries ....relativity, atomic theory, gravity, etc etc. They came about through both theory and observation. But that doesn't invalidate anything purely theoretical. Nor does it validate anything empirical.



Oh please...inflation, gravitational waves, dark energy and dark matter....yes. Black holes and neutron stars. Have you ever looked at M1 at any stage. See that dim star in the centre of the nebula. That's a neutron star. They've observed hundreds of them, both in supernova remnants and alone. Plus, they've seen concentration of mass in the centres of galaxies and detected movements of stars about these concentrations which could only be black holes. Then you have X-ray binaries where the invisible companions in orbit about the stars could only be either a black hole or neutron star. Usually a black hole. All perfectly observable.

You do realise that for all your protestations about electrical fields and plasmas, you have little evidence to prove your point. Whether they see these things on Earth is neither here nor there. You have to prove that the same processes are occurring in space, and in the dominant fashion that you believe they do. Whilst these processes do occur in space, they are not the dominant factor in the large scale processes which affect the universe.



If you have another explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, the CMB, universal expansion etc, feel free to express it here. Feel free to do the research and publish it in the appropriate journals or bring it up at a conference. If you can show good observable and theoretical reasons as to why they should reconsider their ideas about the large scale structure of the universe, how stars are formed and powered, why the spiral structure of galaxies forms, the distribution of dust and gas in galaxies, the nature of the intergalactic medium and how it forms etc etc etc, then feel free to mention those ideas. If they're good enough to withstand scrutiny, the you'll have a goer. If not, then you're going to have to reappraise your position.



Like I said earlier, what you see is not necessarily the truth. You only decry BBT because it doesn't fit in with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes reality. Yet despite all your talk about Birkeland currents and such, you have no evidence to the contrary that will uphold your position. Only what a few scientist, who have had their pet ideas dismissed by years and years of observation and theoretical analysis, have begrudgingly held onto in the hope that a miracle will vindicate their position. Unfortunately for them, those miracles of vindication have not happened, despite their continued looking. It may come with further observation, then again it may not.

I'm not dismissing the effect of EM processes on the various scale of structures in the universe, but what I am questioning is your insistence in those EM processes being the dominant driving force in creating what we see. If it was obvious that EM was the driving force behind the formation of galaxies, the large scale structure of the universe etc etc, they would've found it many years ago and this whole discussion would be moot. It's not they've dismissed it out of hand. They have considered the effects of large scale electrical forces in the universe and they've found the idea wanting. It's not that they aren't there entirely, they're not as dominant as some would like them to be.

[renormalised]

Oh Alex...you asked a question about electrical fields and star formation. Yes, they do occur in the formation of stars. They have detected very weak magnetic fields emanating from bok globules and such. In cases where the bok globules are well below their jeans masses, the weak electrical forces can contribute to keeping the globule from collapsing, but once the globule becomes large enough, it's Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction and gravity which dominate the process. There are a few papers floating about which talk about the non gravitational processes occurring in these globules. Can't remember the specific papers offhand, but if you go to arXiv.org, you may find them there.

[Virgs]

Out of interest, which of Einsteins theories have been shown to be incorrect since his passing?

[Jarvamundo]

I do not know all of your ideas, but in your original post you seemed to be well aware of mine?


I'm glad you brough up M1. http://www.aip.org/png/images/chandra.crab.jpg

That xray shape is well known to electrical and plasma physicists as a homo-polar motor. This was actually predicted by the plasma physicist Hannes Alfven in 1963!!!! well before chandra!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Being a good scientist you'd also be aware that a black hole is defined as an infinitely dense point mass and an event horizon. Since no one has ever found an infinitely dense point mass, or an event horizon (by eclipse) no body has ever found a black hole. This is bad empirics.

Look at M1 Xray, look at Alfven model.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
Look at Bryan Gaenslers Magnetic field mapping of large scale structures.

Models, predictions, solid empirics based off NEW radio telescope and xray telescope measurements.

These measurements simply were not possible in the days of Einstein. It is of no wonder that gravity dominated physics were based mainly off optical measurements, with no idea or even available knowledge of these highenergy cosmic EM measurements.



[PDF] The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma - Plasma
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PerattEvidenceCosmic.pdf

Why do you think there is universal expansion? i have already provided links that redshift inferred distance IS NOT applicable to quasars, both by absence of time dilation, positions on minor axis and verified quantization to parent Seyferts. A major component of redshift is clearly NOT velocity (expansion or velocity). What are the impacts on hubble law and BBT?

We also find that the Toleman test of surface brightnesses fits ENE over LCDM, when we look at many z-values and relative frequencies: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284

As alex mentioned in post #2. Why do we have to look at all data through BBT expansion lenses? Why do you seek "expansion" answers when there is data that says it is not even happening in the first place?

We are not stuck with BBT by default, especially since above has not been sufficiently addressed.



Again, Xray telescopes, radio telescope arrays have not been available, and especially not available when gravity dominated cosmology was conjured up.

This dismissal you invoke of "they would've solved it a while ago" is an appeal to authority. I'm happy to explore all models and data here, but to seriously accept that a textbook penned BEFORE high energy xray telescopes and radio surveys were available is able to "dismiss" is extremely ignorant nonsense.

How would an optical telescope, available to gravity cosmo theories, be able measure Faraday rotation of polarized light, as is now being done with modern radio telescope arrays?

How would you see M1's homo-polar induction motor without x-ray images, only capable with modern space bound telescopes?

Thanks for you reply re- star formation... will absorb, examine and compare.

[Jarvamundo]

The "Sagnac" experiment invalidated SR/GR by demonstrating a preferential frame.... but this was during Einsteins time.
(Ref. Sagnac M. G., J. de Phys., 1914, 4, 177-195).

The late, Professor Paul Marmet has a good site on these and more: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html

[CraigS]

So Alex;

Are you suggesting that the 'faster-than-expected rotation' of the outer parts of galaxies maybe partially (or fully) due to these rotating fields ?

(This is one of the corner-stones underpinning the 'dark energy' thing too, huh?)

(Just trying to keep up with you guys. Ya got me now ..very interesting).

Cheers

[OICURMT]

Are there any VSL lovers out there? I find the theory quite intriguing as an alternative to inflation. Magueijo appears to be leading the effort. I've seen his documentary on Discovery Science, very interesting.

[sjastro]

Why drag this up again.

Let me pose the question as I did in a previous discussion . If the Sagnac effect is as what you claim it is, then why does the MM test produce a null result.

And please don't cherry pick data as you did previously by quoting Miller's results.

The Sagnac effect is well understood. GPS satellites are corrected for the Sagnac effect for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion.

It has "absolutely" nothing to do with a preferential frame.

http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/relgrav/solciclos/ashby_d.pdf

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I'm fully aware of what a homo polar generator is, but what do you think is actually generating the fields and the currents that maybe present in the plasma of the remnant. Take a good look at the arrowed object in the attached picture. That is the pulsar at the heart of the remnant, The neutron star that you are so fond of believing is nothing more than a theoretical construct. They have observed hundreds of these object since they were discovered in the early 60's, and have many thousands of nice little happy snaps of the said objects. So much for your insistence on empirical evidence in this case. That is the generating source for your charged plasmas in the remnant, what is generating the enormous magnetic fields that are accelerating charged particles to near lightspeed, creating gamma rays, synchrotron radiation and exciting the cloud to glow like it is, that is merrily ticking away at 33 millisecond time intervals. The only thing gravity had involvement, in this case, was forming the pulsar. So your argument against gravity here falls rather flat.

That these processes were not observable in Einstein's day, or for several decades after the fact, is a moot point. That's tantamount to saying that Democritus, in 440BC, got the idea of the atom wrong because he never had the technology to see them. It took over 2400 years and well into the 1980's before we had developed that technology...the tunneling scanning microscope. Guess what, atoms actually exist. You can take piccies of them. But up until then, they were nothing more than a premise based on assumption by physicists...they only knew of their existence via inference in physics experiments. No one had physically seen an atom, but that didn't invalidate any theory that relied on their existence, did it.

Same for black holes...that we haven't physically examined an event horizon of one, seen it, or studied a singularity in a lab, doesn't discount their existence. There is more than enough observable, physical evidence which points to their existence. If you choose to ignore that, then that's your own decision to make.



I have never denied the existence of EM forces involving space plasmas, the only thing I have questioned is your insistence on their predominance on large scale cosmological scenarios. You have given no evidence to back this claim on sound, verifiable, observable basis...and neither has anyone else. All they have espoused is speculations and tentative hypotheses, nothing more or less. What evidence they do produce is not much more than circumstantial. Maybe....maybe not.

You have quoted from the few papers that purport to dismiss redshift and quasars distance correlation, yet I wonder whether you actually taken the time to read the rest which also show that the links to quasars and so called parent galaxies is nothing more than chance alignments and optical illusions. Of all the quasars studies by Halton Arp in his quest to prove his ideas, not one of them has actual stood up to detailed scrutiny, yet he still insists on the link he proposes. Arp is a good scientist, but like many scientists, he has a pet idea that he can't seem to part with. Given the number of galaxies and quasars there are in the universe, it's statistically possible that there might be one or a few genuine connections. However that in no way invalidates any previous findings or assumptions on the matter. From long and exhaustive, credible and verifiable observations done over many years, there is no credible evidence for the link between Seyferts and quasars as proposed by Arp and others...only very ambiguous and circumstantial evidence at best.

Why do I think the universe is expanding...did I actually say this at any stage. All I have done is explained what is observed based on current theoretical understanding. Yes, there are problems with Universal expansion and there are competing theories around which may explain some observations more easily than inflation, acceleration or expansion, but they have yet to explain a lot of things themselves and are just as prone to "fudges" as accepted theory is. None of them have the track record of the current theory in explaining the observations that have been made, but that doesn't mean they're to be dismissed either. However, it also doesn't mean that they're any more correct than current theory and they still have a lot of work to be done on them before they can be accepted as viable alternatives to current theory.

You make a habit of quoting papers a lot, but I wonder whether you really understand what's in them. It takes more than a keen interest in the subject matter to know what they're on about. At a minimum, you have to have some background in the work. Have actually studied it. Do you have a degree in astrophysics or cosmology...even if it's just basic undergrad.



That is a fallacious answer. There is no hard verifiable evidence pointing to the absence of expansion of spacetime...only circumstantial evidence and speculative hypothesising as to what maybe happening. The data that has been presented is not widely supported, in any case, and still need much work done to make it tenable. True, we are not stuck with BBT by default, but neither do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because someone thinks they've found some contradictory evidence. It's not perfect but it's far more sound in it's theoretical and overall observational evidence than the rest of the hypotheses espoused.




It would've made no difference to what they theorised even if they had the technology in those days to use x-ray telescopes and gamma-ray scopes. That is a completely moot point. It's as I said before, not having the detectors doesn't mean that the ideas they've come up with are wrong. All you have managed to point out is that now they can scan the sky at different wavelengths and see things they previously couldn't see. All that means is they can come up with theories to explain what they observe with the new equipment. It in no way invalidates any previously held theories. And there is no observational evidence that has been published which claims these new detectors and observational techniques has done so. On the contrary, they have bolstered what was previously thought of as just theory and has brought much into light that was previously hidden to observation. Which has been a huge bonus to the astronomical community.

What I said about finding EM influence earlier on in the piece is not an appeal to authority. It's statement of fact. If they had found that EM forces were the predominant factor in the formation of the universe at all scales, they would've acknowledge that and said so. There is no authority to have any appeal to except the authority of hard physical evidence. If it was there, then it would be published and further research would've been carried out. Simple as that...cold hard scientific method at work.

Then you go and accuse me of quoting a textbook and that this was extremely ignorant nonsense. Now, you're going way too far here. Firstly, I have never quoted anything from a text. All I have mentioned is that you should go and read up the available texts and that one of them you may look up is my own textbook I use in my studies...and that there are plenty of other current books out there. FYI...my textbook was written in 2007, so I'd say that's pretty current. Your little outburst smacks of arrogance and sheer hubris, as you seem to think that because you have found some evidence to suit your own world view that everyone else's is somehow deficient. Above all, do you honestly believe that you know more than the scientists that write these textbooks, even those written before the advent of x-ray and gamma ray scopes?? I have a funny conviction that they have not only the study and research mileage over yourself, but also the experience to not come out and make such preposterous statements as you made in this instance. You need to watch what you say.



Nothing to it, but if you continue to make snide little statements without being absolutely sure of your intentions or what you say, I won't proffer anymore information as it won't be in either of our interests.

[Jarvamundo]

Professor Anthony Peratt from Los Alamos in 1986 used super computers and known lab-experiment properties of plasma to model what would happen if 2 adjacent Birkeland currents formed.

The results of his models formed a perfectly shaped barred spiral.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/1/16/Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

This work was also followed up by real physical experiments using lab plasmas, and experimentally verified.

Peratt's papers can be found here: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Yes it does not require the hypothetical, undetected, Dark Matter inventions.

As mentioned recently (as in the last 10 years) radio telescopes arrays (of which are still being constructed) have been surveying galaxies and it is now clear that magnetic fields are abundant on large scales. The large scale magnetic fields (and electric currents that cause them) can no longer be ignored.

Professor Bryan Gaensler of Sydney university is pioneering this work.
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~bmg/papers/stories/301Gaensler-3.pdf (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/%7Ebmg/papers/stories/301Gaensler-3.pdf)

So now we have Alfvens 1960's theory, Peratts 1986 computer simulations, Lab verified plasma experiments and now Gaenslers (and others) mapping of required large scale magnetic fields.

There are many puzzles left to resolve, like where do the m-fields, or currents come from... but it is clear they are there.... and are observable, both here in the lab, and out there through measuring Faraday rotation.

One is free to believe in Dark Energy and Dark Matter and all those other fantastic concepts, however there are other branches of mainstream that are pursuing cosmologies that begin from lab verified physics, inclusive of large scale charge separation.

The Alfven conference is on again this year in Japan http://www.ep.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~alfven5/ (http://www.ep.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/%7Ealfven5/)

Some here often dismiss 'charge separation' away as crack science... it is clearly not the case.... It is verified by large scale observations, and many (even mainstream) are working on this.

[Jarvamundo]

In 1932 the neutron was discovered.
In 1934 Zwicky declared the neutron star.

Lets be very clear here... gravity dominated cosmology has a model for a neutron star, forming a pulsar yes as you mention with the surface spinning like a lighthouse at 25% the speed of light!
This magical super heavy start also speeds up, speeds down and has 'frequency glitches'.... thats cool... thats your model...

The plasma cosmology model for the pulsar is a relaxation oscillator. This is a very simple piece of known lab physics, any freshman constructs.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
See Pulsar Section
We just have 2 different models here Carl....
I'm just not comfortable with unverified physics being concocted.
all... good lets move along


I think observation is very important. We are talking about large scale radio emissions that are not expected by gravity gas models.


I'm just saying we have not observed a black hole.

There are models for what we observe to be "Dark Matter", and also bright-plasmoid accelleration, that use real verified lab physics.... see Anthony Peratt above.

You are free to choose, i'm glad you agree we have not observed an infinitely dense point mass, or event horizon.



Yep, cool... I've just posted several verifications of large scale EM forces.

I'm more likely to question Dark Matter, a hypothetical unobservable implied form of matter....before attacking a well known lab verified force.

But hey, thats just me i spose. agree to disagree.



OK now this is absolute nonsense. Arp continues to publish, Redshift quantisation of quasars has now been found with over 40,000 dataset!

Add to this we now have time dilation also matching Arps models.

"nothing more than chance alignments".... sorry Carl. Please see work by Hawkins (not hawking) "quasar time dilation" Astrophysical journal .

Take your head out of the sand.


Sorry if you have a high redshift object, physically connected to a lower redshift parent... even just once.... this empirically falsifies a velocity ONLY redshift.
We now have distinct intrinsic redshift.


it's not ambiguous, it's also backed up by: Redshift quantization, connecting gas from ejection, time dilation absence!

This is not circumstantial. Arps models predict lack of time dilation, did expansion? NO... big phat NO.



Intrinsic redshift is not in current models. Yet it is clearly part of observations.

What does this do to universal expansion? I'm not satisfied with ignoring these observations.... all good if you are.... move on.



Appeal to authority? What kind of church is this?

Studied physics optics, electronics and have 10yrs exp in raster technologies and compression algorithms, and have processed data for astronomy papers.
But who cares? can we not just stick to the science...?

Is this really going to come down to shiney badges? Pff throughout history some of the sharpest minds had zero badges. Even Einstein flunked his entrance exam.

this is exclusive nonsense!



We have 2 distinct models, i'm very interested in exploring them both...

Both models are not perfect, i have questions for plasma cosmology as much as mainstream... I'll always add a bit more weight to experimental results, as it should trumph all.



No appeal to authority? you just asked me to disrobe and show you my shiney badge? You actually said i could not participate without one?



Excellent! lets discuss your textbook, I'm interested in seeing how charge separation is discussed in them, i've not found satisfactory explanations in the ones i have.



Just cause i think gravity strange matter stars are nonsense, and am happy to express it, i do still think we could have a beer. My intentions are to explore Carl, you aswell as I are entitled to our own search....Thanks for the heads up on what terms to investigate this further. My comparative search continues.

[Jarvamundo]

Steven, from your paper:
You still fail to grasp the setup of the experimental apparatus. Even in this paper they mention that the Sagnac effect is due to analysis when analyzed relative to an external frame!

This is simply not part of the original Sagnac experimental setup. Please see his original paper or the analysis of Professor Paul Marmet (late) from above.



Why? Because the question was asked and many do take Sagnac's experimental results seriously.

Regarding MM, please take a look at the light path setup of the original Sagnac experiment, it will always give a far greater result, than the MM setup. The light path geometry of this is clear. Although yes please see Marmet again with regard to MM.

Best,

[marki]

Oh dear seems to be warming up in here again :P. We need to remember that all theories whether mathematically or empirically based are simply human constructs and I very much doubt we have the intellect or technologies at this time to propose anything that is within a country mile of what is really happening. Theories will pass with time to be replaced with something new and if we get caught up yelling our truths from the roof tops.........well lets build some pyramids and sacrifice some unimportant plebs to the great god (insert your preferred diety here ............). Alls fair in love and the science sandpit :thumbsup:.

Mark

[sjastro]

It hasn't sunk in with you Alex. An external frame is not a criteria for an absolute frame of reference. This has been explained ad nauseum to you in the past.

And yet you again demonstrate the need to put a spin on an article you clearly do not comprehend.



So what if it is not part of the original experiment? Satellites in orbit send signals to each other in the same direction and opposite to the Earth's rotation. Why do you think it's called a Sagnac correction?

GPS satellites are a perfect example of why aether does not exist. If the Sagnac effect is due to aether then corrections will also have to be applied for the Earth's orbit around the Sun.



Who are you trying to kid? The light path geometry does not give an indication of performance.
What totally refutes your statement is that MM interferometers have been under constant development since the 1880's. A modern day interferometer is millions of times more sensitive than the original.

If Sagnacs are so much better and are designed for the same criteria then why bother with MM interferometers.
The answer is simple, Sagnacs do not measure changes in the speed of light but changes in the distance of the light path.

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

How do you know the ether is not dragged with? All the Sagnac experiment does is violate SR's second postulate in a lab. How can you possibly create a full solar system aether model from this?

Falsify SR in a lab... done... Does it create a full solar model? hmm this is a leap, that is not proposed Steven.

Who are you trying to kid. The emittor, splitter, detector are all in the frame of reference.

As you said before... for SR "put the ccd on the table, and you will see no interference"

This is not the result.

You then back tracked, and persist by analyzing the result from a non-rotating frame, thus creating your relative length contraction. It is simply not part of the experimental apparatus.

The ccd is on the table.

Mark is correct, here we go again. I answered the question from Virgs and supplied a well published reference from Professor Paul Marmet (i have plenty more, as they are continuously published). If it upsets you that Einstien's errors are discussed, that's up to you.

[xelasnave]

It is wonderful to witness the passion and keen interest demonstrated herein:thumbsup:...although a taste of disappointment remains from witnessing the frustrations all exhibit when they think another fails to take on board their view:).

So lets remain happy and passionate content that all are more or less seeking the ultimate truth.... which is really TOE... and realize that any answer a human can provide may be a somewhat simple explanation of all there is and all there ever has been.

And although math is critical to assess sample data and tends and all the other things a it can do for us math still is really a simplification of any reality....Remember math is happy to explain the complexity of a humans lip movement by understanding the manipulation of only 7 points:D

And as to ideas that are right and will remain right for all times it is fair to say that anyone who believe such has little regard for history.

So bottom line keep an open mind and dont trust anyone;)

I have been reading up on the CERN project and gather a matter of interest for those involved is to find the Higgs bosen...it is my understanding that the HB is a particle predicted by the current most popular model..the cold dark matter model??.. and that it is this particle that makes up the Higgs field...

In one lecture the lecturer said that its existence means that even the emptiest part of space would contain billions of them and on that basis a mere cubic centimeter would "weigh" trillions of "tons".... needless to say at this point I claim the HB as the "gravity rain" which creates the "push gravity" of my universe:lol::lol::lol:... yet while we await everyone to come to a similar realization:D may I ask this.... If we have a field (HB field) made up of trillions of HB,s ...would not such a field represent the "aether" thrown out by MM all those years ago?

AND if such a field exists could one not expect that our understanding and interpretation of red shift may be a little flawed:shrug: ...I raised sometime ago (here) a mind experiment of estimating what we may observe in one of the "voids" in our universe... (huge regions of space which are the closest thing we can find that we could fairly call "nothing")... In that void we must be able to observe EME on each and every trajectory such that at any point its supply would seem almost infinite so one must include it in any sums no doubt..as they do I believe...but hearing more about the HB and the field it apparently scribes through out all there is I expect that HBs would be running about everywhere...would not such an environment require we rethink red shift and therefore the original premise upon the big bang as no doubt the HB was not on the table when an expanding universe was first presented as a possibility:shrug:

alex:):):)

[sjastro]

Ether dragging is contradicted by the following experiments
(a) Aberration
(b) Fizeau convection coefficient.

It cannot explain or is inapplicable to.

(a) Mass energy equivalence.
(b) Radiation from moving charges.
(c) Meson decay at high velocities.
(d) Trouton Noble experiment.
(e) Unipolar induction using a permanent magnet.

All competing ether theories fall apart under empirical evidence.



Apart from your response taking me out of context and yet again highlighting your lack of understanding of what a frame of reference is, it has absolutely no relevance to the issue.

I asked a very simple question, if Sagnac interferometry shows why c can vary then why doesn't the MM test confirm this? Going off on a tangent on what I had supposedly said about the Sagnac apparatus doesn't answer the question.

Since you're prepared to drag up history let me do the same. On one hand you argue the MM test fails due to "geometrical" issues, on the other hand you produce Miller's experimental data as evidence of a positive result. A massive contradiction.
It is well documented that Miller's results were an experimental anomaly that no one else was able to reproduce. Another convenient piece of cherry picking.

I have had enough this thread. Any further contribution is a waste of my time.

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Sagnac does not have to explain all these Steven. It does not matter if MM or anyother experiment plays a part.

The second postulate of SR is all that the Sagnac falsifies. That is all.

I've not taken you out of context. You blatted at me that if the ccd was on the table i would see nothing... the thread is there... go read it again. Back track all you want, i don't really mind.

The question was asked as to what has been falsified of Einstein's theories. I have investigated for many years this experiment, and provided a well respected link from professor Marmet, for people to go absorb for themselves.

I provided links for all curious laymen out there to go and make up their own mind. There is no church, inspect for yourself, trust no one.



Alex i enjoy your attitude. :)

Go read it for yourself, make up your own mind. Don't be put off by sprays or appeals to authority as you have seen here.

Best to you all.

[sjastro]

So much for staying out of this thread.

If Sagnac falsifies the second postulate, then MM falsifies it as well.
By stating it does not matter that MM or any other experiment plays a part, is your modus operandi at work. You simply pick and choose data that is believed to support your own ideas and conveniently disregard anything else that contradicts it.

[Jarvamundo]

I just don't ignore these results Steven. It only takes 1 experiment to falsify a theory. Ignoring this might reflect your modus operandi no?

[sjastro]

That is fallacious reasoning.

By assuming the Sagnac test confirms the existence of an absolute frame of reference automatically invalidates every other test that shows otherwise. This is not confined to the MM test, but a number of other tests such as the Troutin -Noble test, high energy meson test etc, etc.

The implication of your statement is that each of these tests is fundamentally flawed. Therefore why don't you go through each test and explain the failures of each.

The reality is the only flawed test is the Sagnac test. The flaw is in the interpretation of the result. This has been known for about a century. To think otherwise is delusionary.

The physicist Tom Bridgman who puts out excellent articles debunking pseudoscience nonsense, classifies plasma cosmology in the same category as creationist science or intelligent design where the adherents exhibit a religious like faith on accepting concepts that are clearly wrong.

Steven

[renormalised]

This is the last, albeit brief, post I will make on this subject, mainly because I have more important things to do at present...like an assigment.

However, to begin.....Alex, if you think that one experiment will falsify a theory, then you obviously have little or no understanding of the Scientific Method. All one result will do, at the very most, is maybe point to a possible alternative, but only if that experiment can be 1) repeatable, and is, 2) verifiable and interpreted correctly. No matter if that experiment is repeatable, if the initial interpretation of the results of that experiment are shown to be wrong, then that original experiment is wrong. If repeated experimentation on many hundreds, thousands, of occasions has shown that the experiment and/or interpretation was at fault, then clinging to that experiment in order to bolster a speculative point of view is nothing more than blind faith in a fallacy. That's not science, it's religion.

[Jarvamundo]

yet another appeal to authority...



Yet the IEEE largest professional organization on the planet has now created a journal to explore these very concepts, and NASA now often uses the phrases "Plasma Universe" with it's recent study of "space weather".

Here we go again, the wonderful pseudo-skeptic Tom Bridgman, the appeal to authority. Tom's wonderful (not) rebuttals have demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of plasma concepts and even basic freshman EM concepts.... let alone Tom's stubborn refusal to discuss the concepts in person, when Don Scott was invited to present at his workplace (Goddard).

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTBdirector.htm



If you have no interest in discussing these concepts Steven, that is your call, and ok, i see no good reason to censor discussion or to mock with desperate authority labels of "creationism". Cmon...

Space Plasmas are interesting concepts, that are clearly being explored by NASA, so why can't curious laymen like those here (and me) discuss them, or put them up for discussion without it degenerating into a childish "you don't know what science is" sandbox lecture, or pathetic ad-hom attacks about alcohol??? like really?

It's clear, i've got different views than you on some matters, but really...who cares? Just put the information up, and curious brighter than average laymen, like those here can go investigate for themselves. I.E. "share".

[renormalised]

Quoted from your source...Don Scott. Now we have plasmas forming the Grand Canyon!!!. Methinks Scott should stick to plasma physics because he knows nothing about geology, or hydrology. Now you're talking in my territory. I am a geologist and have been for over 20 years. I have only heard one other completely crackpot idea which comes close to this (no sorry, it's actually worse...believe me!!!). The only similarity between running water and gaseous plasma is in their similar flow characteristics. Essentially both are fluids and behave as such when confined...water by the channel, the electrical current by a flux tube. But that's as far as that goes. To then come out and state that they may have a common origin is bordering on the absurd, especially when they involve entirely different states of matter and physical processes, except for that one similarity. But one similarity in behaviour does not a common origin make.

This precisely why when you open your mouth to say something, you better be pretty damn sure you know what you're on about, because if you don't you'll only make yourself out to be a twit. If you don't know, then it's best to keep quiet.

Yes, I said I wasn't going to post here again, but after reading what you posted, this had to be set straight.

[Jarvamundo]

I have spoken with geology professors that have a differing view, particularly when it comes to examining the empirics of plasma strikes, as demonstrated below. The models and effects have clear differences, and the evidence and science can speak for it'self without yet more appeals to authority and incessant 'name calling'.

For those interested in Electro Discharge Machining machine effects of plasma, they have very different characteristics to that of running water as professed here by Carl (see #1 and #5 above), of which is easily made apparent by inspection of both photos and comparative experiments demonstrated below.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/earth_rille.jpg
By an inspection of just this site, your good geological understanding would immediately notice the start and end features of the rile, with the distinct lack of "its just like water" evidence. This ofcourse combines with the 53+ eye witnesses accounts of the EDM process delivered by the plasma strike, 3 of which could not be interviewed. What is quite clear from this is the features can be distinguished from erosion processes. This is a "looks n quacks like a duck" moment.

For a more complete understanding of the proposal of *some* evidence of plasma discharge, it may be investigated in full here.
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm

[renormalised]

Quite frankly Alex, you have no leg to stand on...neither academically or debate wise. Anyone who has experience with debating and the tactics used will be able to see right through your little diatribe. Despite your evangelical proselytations to the contrary, what you present is nothing more than pseudoscience based on a incomplete and misguided understanding of not only the science you profess to know something about...plasma physics, but also of all the other science which you so clearly haven't a clue about.

In my position, it's damned if I do, damned if I don't. Damned if I strongly defend science because you will always have an "answer" to anything I say which will appeal to those that don't have the knowledge nor the access to the material that a person like myself has...and damned if I don't respond because it will look like I am backing down from the argument and you will appear vindicated. Well, all I can say is I would back the accumulated evidence of over 150 years of geological, astrophysical or any other branch of science, despite the fact that our knowledge is incomplete and still evolving itself, to the misguided and contentious nonsense that people such as yourself have this evangelical zeal to proclaim to all and sundry. I'll back the weight of hundreds of thousands of journal articles, research studies, actual empirical evidence and theoretical determinations over a handful of ranting "true believers" and a few scientist who have, despite the protestations to the contrary, never been able to prove their views in any conclusive manner. You can quote from all the studies you like Alex, but that doesn't alter the fact that those whom you so genuflect so reverently before have repeatedly failed to prove anything that they say is in fact correct. If they had that proof, they would be listened to. Now we're likely to hear about conspiracies to hide the truth from yourself. Honestly, you should really take a step back and listen to yourself. And you'll say I sound like a nutcase!!!!.

To anyone reading this, I invite you to take up a challenge of actually looking around for the information you need to understand these topics for yourself. If you can't find the right information, ask those who can to point you in the right direction. Ask those who have the mileage behind them on these topics. Yes, you can also goto these sites that the likes of Alex and such proclaim are the ones you should be listening to. It's upto you. But don't be fooled by seemingly persuasive arguments to their veracity or the misuse of science to try and convince you of a particular point of view or agenda they're pushing. I can hear Alex now berating me for doing exactly that, but I won't berate anyone. All I'll say in conclusion is if you want to find out about these topics, goto the actual sources of information and read up on the science, ask those who are working in and studying those fields for advice and information, and take anyone or anything pushing a particular agenda/philosophy (e.g. thunderbolts.info (http://thunderbolts.info/), The Electric Cosmos (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm)etc) with a huge grain of salt. They not what they appear to be.

Oh...addendum, about these geology professors....

Who are they....what are their names...list them here.

This ranting about appellations to authority and such is starting to wear a bit thin here, Alex, considering you have done exactly the same thing on numerous occasions (this being one of them) both here and elsewhere on the net, and your post of this link above has absolutely nothing to do with erosional processes driven by water. You can quote all you like about your silly obsession with electrics and plasmas. Most of the sites you have posted links to are not supported by any academic institution or anything of the like.

[Jarvamundo]

Which is the point Don Scott made in his paper. You asked, i thought i'd help clarify with a photo / eyewitness account of the process in action from National Geographic as it seemed you may've misunderstood his point.

[OICURMT]

+1 ...

I'm quite interested in knowing the "source" of your truth. The argument you use with respect to plasma discharges being "just like water" just does not hold up.

I'll admit that this entire thread is impossible to follow, but please do not try to indicate that one type of natural force which depends on gravity is somehow justification or proof that another type of force, governed by electromagnetism is somehow one in the same...

SideBar: I'm a Petroleum Engineer (Reservoir) and have a heavy geology background.

Another SideBar: What was the original nature of this thread? I'm completely lost now... (simple mind that I am).

OIC!

[renormalised]

I love it when someone takes what I wrote and completely takes it out of context.

Oh no, I didn't misunderstand anything. If anything I know exactly where he's coming from.

We're still waiting.........

[renormalised]

I didn't say they were "just like water". I said that the flow characteristics of a confined plasma discharge and a stream/river confined by it's channel have similar characteristic flow patterns...i.e. dendritic. Not that they have the same physical make up. Any substance that has the flow characteristics of a fluid will always follow the path of least resistance. In the case of water in a stream, that means those sediments it can wash away the easiest or the rocks it can erode the easiest. The pattern it follows not only depends on the stream gradient, speed of flow and sediment load, it also depends on the physical characteristics of the rock it is eroding...the hardness of the rock, whether it's layered, fractured etc etc. In the case of the Grand Canyon, flowing water over sandstones, siltstones and other sediments has produced a dendritic pattern of erosional features over time.

In the case of the plasma...it follows the path of least resistance through whatever substance it is moving through. In the case of lightning, that's via the leaders which travel from ground to cloud....essentially a flux tube through which the main bolt discharges. It just happens to follow the same pattern as a stream in some cases...dendritic. What Alex and his merry band (on another site) are trying to say is that erosional pattern you see in place like the Grand Canyon is not due to erosion by water. It's due to the action of some ground based plasma discharge!!!!!. Or that it's the result of electrical currents flowing through the rocks. That the water follows that pattern is only secondary. This even comes down to the geology of the Canyon as well...all controlled by plasmas, you see...sheesh!!!.



I am a geologist...hard rock, base metals/gold explorationist was my job, until the back gave in (and the arthritis set in!!!!). I was also heavily into remote sensing and detection of surface indications of ore deposits through the spectral signatures of various minerals/rock types and surface erosional indicator features. I also have a good solid background in geomorphology, hydrology and climatology as I've also done physical geography at uni. I have two complete majors in the subjects...geology and physical geography. I think I may know a little bit about what I'm talking about:)

I've also been a lifelong amateur astronomer (over 40 years) and also have a pretty good grasp on astrophysics and such. Actually, right at this moment, I'm in my last semester of a MSc in Astronomy/Astrophysics.

Actually, I've had a lifelong interest in all sciences.

There's a lot more I could tell you here, but that's not the point of this thread. That.....



That's at the beginning....:)

[CraigS]

Guys;
Phew !! Apologies for not dabbling more in the discussion. I went on a skiing holiday over the last week and, despite my intense interest, I was out of communication.

As I started the thread, I feel I should probably finish it.

Thanks to all for your inputs ... there's a lot to digest. My mind has been broadened by the raising of subjects, (and sensitivities), I had no clue even existed.

I think my original question was answered within the first 4 or 5 posts. I also understand, and totally support, the following 50 or so replies.

Thanks to all involved.
Cheers & Rgds.