Quasar Time Dilation

[CraigS]

Hi All;

In spite of the (considerable) risk of starting another skirmish, I've decided to forge ahead and ask whether anyone has heard/read any follow-ups on Mike Hawkins' article in April's Monthly Notices of the Royal Ast. Society on 'Time Dilation in Quasar Light Curves':

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123345710/abstract

or the journo's article:
http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

Whilst this came up in the other thread on Galaxies & Inflation, (by one of the Alex es - Jarva), I've been left hanging ever since I read the article.

Please note I'm only asking if anyone has heard of any follow-ups - I reckon there's some really interesting stuff which might come out of Hawkins' continued investigation ... (one way or the other).

He started it .. so it'll be great to see him finish it !

:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

No....I'll have to keep an eye out for any.

Ah....like your avatar:) A Calabi-Yau manifold:):)

Just like the universe itself, we're all multidimensional beings (well, most of us anyway:))

BTW..I'll send you a copy of the full article, if you want to read it:)

[Kal]

I read the journo article but I don't understand how they can come to the conclusion that "even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth."

Any cliff notes if you have read the article? :)

[renormalised]

You have to read the actual paper, Kal. If you want it, I can post it to you. It's too large to attach here.

I haven't read this article yet, however what he's saying is that depsite the redshift showing that "X" quasars are further away than "Y" quasars, there is no apparent slowing down of the light due to time dilation caused by expansion. Now, that means this...either expansions is wrong, redshift is wrong, or if they're both correct then there must be some other mechanism causing this apparent anomaly. It could also be that his sample size is too small and he hasn't taken into account enough observations on a large enough set of quasars (a possibility), or he has misinterpreted what he has seen (possibly), or he hasn't fully looked at the power spectrum of the quasars across all wavelengths and fully considered the environment from which this light is emanating from. Most of these surveys are done in the vis-UV end of the spectrum. That means at most quasar's distances that light would've been originally in the hard x-ray and gamma ray region of the spectrum when it was emitted. That means a whole new set of circumstances has to be taken into consideration when dealing with its origins.

[CraigS]

Ok .. so now I've read the complete paper, I'm even more interested.

... so here comes the controversy ... oh no !! :mad2:)

:)

"There is however surprisingly little direct evidence that the Universe is expanding. As mentioned in Section 1, searches for time dilation in gamma-ray bursts do not provide a conclusive test. Supernova light curves on the other hand appear to show convincing evidence of time dilation (Foley et al. 2005), which would rule out a non-expanding universe as an explanation for the results presented here for quasar light curves. Although this result has been challenged in an interesting paper by Crawford (2009) on the basis of bias in the sampling procedure, it seems fair to say that the result is still generally accepted."

So,
GRBs => not a conclusive test for universe expansion,
Supernova light curves => convincing evidence of expanding universe (with an outstanding challenge);
Quasar light curves => no dilation but not evidence for a static universe.

So that's a pretty up-to-date summary of where things stand at the moment.

Fascinating !

Cheers

[renormalised]

Pretty much. What most people don't know is that there's more than one BB model. At the last count I think it was somewhere up around 10-20 different models...some more plausible than others, but all pointing to the same conclusion...expansion.

There are problems with all observations, including those of the quasars, as I mentioned in my last post. Even the fact that they've compared the closer quasars to those that are at large values of z is in itself problematical. Simply because the closer quasars are less luminous for good reason....they're a lot older and have different characteristics of accretion and emission than the younger quasars. It's like comparing a 10 year old kid with his/her grandparents. Whilst the basics maybe very similar, it's the details which actually matter. You'll find this out as you read more about the subject:)

[sjastro]

It's also why galaxy data is much more reliable for supporting an expanding Universe. Apart from the much larger sample size, Type IA supernovae light curves are independent of the host galaxy's z-value.

The age of the galaxy doen't complicate the picture as does Quasars.

Steven

[renormalised]

Precisely, and that outstanding challenge to Type IA light curves is mostly due to the actual mechanism of the explosion. There are some anomalous results from Type IA light curves which may point to slightly different mechanisms occurring in some cases. However, that in no way invalidates most of the results as they show clear evidence of being the nuclear detonation of white dwarfs.

[CraigS]

If I'm reading the paper correctly, I think they're saying that they've corrected for the correlation between redshift and time-scale (which I think follows on from the redshift and luminosity correlation). They did this by limiting the absolute magnitude range to exclude the correlation (ie: a reduced dataset). They also seem to have done a bunch of other corrections/checks to eliminate other known correlations.

Looks like a pretty thorough analysis (& why wouldn't it be .. pretty reputable source, I would think).

[CraigS]

G'Day Steven;

Yep.

I think they go on to make the point that something has to give to explain why the quasar data doesn't show the time dilation, none-the-less.

Cheers

[renormalised]

I'll actually have to read the paper myself before I comment on the specifics, but the fact that they have such a reduced dataset and have essentially ignored the correlations is an important point to bring up here.

These correlations are important in determining just what type of mechanism is controlling the emissions from the quasars and how it related to quasar age, distance etc. Without those correlations, you can't really make head nor tail of what is occurring, all you can do is speculate on how luminosity and redshift are related and what mechanism is possibly driving the luminosity and variability in the quasars. That's why you need to read the other papers that he cites from, including those earlier one of his own. You can only draw some basic conclusions from this paper, but only about this paper. Whilst many of the other studies have been done with even fewer quasars and quite a few others have been done with a lot more, arbitrarily excluding the correlation (or anti-correlation data as the case may be) data is not sound. He may have done a thorough analysis, but you have to look at it in the light of other results. It will be good to see what others make of his results and to see what they decide to publish.

[CraigS]

Yep. Agreed.
Cheers

[renormalised]

Do you have access to or use on your own computer any bibliography software??. If you have, I have BibText files of resources you can use to find articles,

[sjastro]

Interesting paper.

Fourier Analysis can be a minefield by filtering out good data but the methodology looks OK.

Comparing the paper to the time dilation of Type IA supernovae in galaxies, there are fewer variables to contend with in the supernova data.
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sja...n_redshift.pdf (http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sja...n_redshift.pdf)

In this case "all" that has to be done is calculate the light curve of the supernova in the galaxy's (supernova) rest frame.

This is done using the SNID algorithm.
The authors of the algorithm go to great pains in defining SNID.

"What does SNID stand for?

Supernova Identification. It does not stand for any of the following:

Scandinavian Network for Infectious Diseases
Smart Network Interface Device
Studies in National and International Development
Subscriber Network Interface Device
Sud Nivernais Imphy Decize":lol::lol::lol:

Steven

[renormalised]

There's quite a few papers on SnIA and cosmology on the net, mentions a few different pieces of software for Sn identification.

[CraigS]

So having skimmed thru six of this guy's papers (Hawkins), I think he's got the analysis side fairly well sorted.

He looks like he's spent about 12 years on it so far !!

His focus seems to be on the search for the nature Darkness (Energy, Matter), rather than what makes a quasar tick.

A candidate for the 'Prince of Darkness' title, huh ?

Love to know what his peers think ie: what/where is their feedback ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

"Prince of Darkness"....I'm sure he would be thrilled being called that:):P

Best way to see how well his colleagues and peers think of him is to see how often he's cited in the relevant literature. And the level of those citations...i.e. importance.

[sjastro]

You can ask directly!

You can contact Ned Wright.
Despite the negative remarks made by one particular individual, Ned is one of the very few cosmologists who converses directly with the public.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/b4u-write.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_L._Wright

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Ned's tutes should be required reading for anyone wanting to go off at tangents with wild ideas. Then after reading and (hopefully) understanding what he has written, if they still want to go off on tangents, at least then they'll know enough to not make a complete fool of themselves.

[CraigS]

Hmmm;

Thanks for that.
I'll have a read thru his FAQs when I get a chance. They look interesting.
I think I'll be bouncing my real questions around here first, though.

Fortuitously, I'm also reading a book called "Einstein's Telescope" by Evalyn Gates, so I'm getting an infusion of grav. lensing and the hunt for dark stuff from there. Its reasonably up to date, which helps. Mind you, I reckon I'll have to read it about half a dozen times before it sinks in. (Its a bit easier going than the Prince of Darkness's papers, though ...)

:)

Cheers.

[Jarvamundo]

It's disappointing to see the distaste for exploring the concepts that challenge BBT, even when the originator of the thread posted with the caviate "at the risk of starting a skirmish". I agree it's getting boring and distracts from the subject matter.

Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

Hawkins has done some excellent and very thorough work here. Widely published body of long research, a great contribution.

Further reading in to the subject of this thread, which may also be interesting, is the observed quantization of the redshifts of quasars. Just google redshift quantization & quasars or Karlsson Redshift.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_ galaxies.pdf

I would also recommend the writings of Jayant Narlikar. One of India's premiere cosmologists, and quasar specialist.

Very interesting topic. Good questions. Look forward to more news on this topic, good to see it being brought up by curious laymen as we are not stuck with BBT by default, and it's not unreasonable for us to expect a model to make atleast some predictions without adhock inventions.

[renormalised]

Look Alex, instead of cherry picking stuff out of Hawkins and trying to back up your strawman arguments, why not actually read what he has written in his papers and then come back with a reply, with something a little more factual. Taking snippets out of papers and using them to try and make out that he backs up your line of thought is not debate. It's deception and the EU crowd are very good at that. It's nothing more than a trite attempt at spin.

As for Lerner's reply...what would he actually know....nothing. He's not even a scientist, despite his saying so to the contrary (a "plasma physicist"....hardly). He's nothing more than a sci-fi author, who happens to have an undergrad degree in physics. A BA at that. Did a bit of graduate work but never finished. And you're trying to tell me he knows more about astronomy, cosmology and physics than Ned Wright....give me a break!!!!. Lerner's book is that shot through with errors in maths and theory, it's not worth even reading except for as an example of what fringe pseudoscience does to actual science in it's pursuit of the irrational or the fanciful. If he actually understands one scintilla of what he's supposed to have read in order to have written his book, he'd know he was wrong himself in so many ways and he wouldn't have had the audacity to publish it.

[renormalised]

No point in arguing with you Alex...you have the answers all sewn up.

[sjastro]

For someone so manifestly opposed to mathematics, you seem blissfully unaware that Hawkin's studies on the lack of time dilation in quasars is based on mathematical filtering of the data involving fourier analysis.
The mathematics is far more involved when compared to time dilation studies of galaxies.

So the cherry picking now involves supporting mathematical manipulation of data to make a point.



It seems to me you are unaware that metric expansion is not an exclusive property of BBT but also is part of all Steady State theories including Narlikars.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you can integrate Narlikar's ideas into Lerner's without making a complete contradictory mess.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

That's the whole point, Steven. He and the rest of the EU crowd decry the maths and say it's all mumbo jumbo, but when they find something which they can use to make their point and take what was being said completely out of context, all of a sudden the maths is good, wonderful and very precise. Smells of hypocrisy to the core. It also shows how facile their own arguments are. You can't have one paradigm and believe in it then use evidence from another to back yours up, when they both contradict one another.

[sjastro]

It simply proves that the EU crowd want to engage in ideological battles with mainstream science. When it involves ideology, logic becomes the first casualty.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I don't think logic had anything to do with it in the first place. But you are right there:)

[bojan]

Guys, it's a logic of politics ;)

My high school math professor was always stressing that "there are many kinds of logic... " :lol:

[renormalised]

Politics...always rearing its ugly head:):P

They've got their fingers in everything!!!!!:)

I wonder what Julia thinks about time dilation in quasars....of course, Tony would disagree with her!!!:P

And then they'd both promise to do something about it:):P

[CraigS]

Politics ? - Realty type 3 - "Reality by Concensus" - what politicians practise - eg: "Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real". (Straight from Witten's dictionary definitions, credits to Bert).

So the logic falls into the same category.

Cheers

:)

[bojan]

Quasars.. is this something to eat ???

[renormalised]

Must be....new fangled bickie I suppose:)

Hope they're chockie!!!!

Tony would say they're shortbreads:P

[sjastro]

I propose a subclass to reality type 3. (Say 3a)
"Reality by concensus on a common denominator."

""Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a Jack Russel is".

How do we go around ratifying this?

Steven

[renormalised]

Easy...hand it over to the experts....anyone know anything about guinea pigs??:):P

They'll do for a control:P

[Jarvamundo]

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

pseudoskeptisism at it's finest..... "show me your papers".

Seeming unaware of the JPL funded propulsion work? the ESO work? the IEEE & astro papers? The working relationships within the plasma research community including ITER. But all of this is irrelevant, for the rebuttal discusses the factual misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Dr Wrights efforts on the material.

Ahh yes, another authoritarian rant sparked from the mere sharing of ideas and information that might be different to those professed loudly by some of the establishment, but at the same time be specifically explored by the largest publisher of peer reviewed science on the planet (IEEE).

"It's not even worth reading"

Have you?

[renormalised]

I know all about his work. None of it has any bearing to do with the discussion and has everything to do with his insistence that he is a plasma physicist. He does not hold the necessary qualifications to be one. He has no PhD, little graduate training, which he didn't finish because he decided to go off and be a sci-fi author and he has the audacity to start a company and pass himself off as one. Only that he actually has plasma physicists and real scientists employed in his company would he have been even able to get the work that he did. He's a good talker, good at selling things, ideas. But he's no scientist. It's exactly the same as saying Bill Gates is an expert computer scientist.....Bill Gates dropped out of uni in his 3rd year. He never even finished uni. So, he's not a computer scientist and neither is Lerner a plasma (or any other kind of) physicist.

So, before you go accusing people of things you and your fellow mates are so fond of doing yourselves, you want to go and actually learn something about your little mates, instead of following their lead.

[Jarvamundo]

hmm, revealing an innate appetite for authoritarian science.

There is a long list of highly successful mathematicians and scientists that do not pass this shiney badge test. What will we tell them all?

"It's not even worth reading"

Have you?

[CraigS]

Steady on ! ...

We hamsters control it all !
(Love the power, brother !!)

[renormalised]

Oops, sorry, hamsters!!:):P:P

You wouldn't want to be one (guinea pig) is Sth America...you'd be part of the menu!!!:):P

[CraigS]

Whatever you like ... it shouldn't matter what you tell 'em !

[renormalised]

It's got nothing to do with authoritarian science or any other nonsense you might like to call anything.

It's got everything to do about having the necessary knowledge...which means learning and spending time to do that learning, in order to be able to fully understand what you're on about and to be able to critically analyse the current state of that knowledge, without resorting to wild speculation and outright fantasy in order to do so.

[renormalised]

Let's just see here....

Where's the logical fallacy in stating what the actual qualifications of a so called "scientist" actually are. He does not have the necessary qualifications in the field he supposedly studied to be called a scientist in that field. You tell me...what do you ordinarily have to have before you're considered a physicist (of any sort). Especially to be able to teach or do the research required of most physicists in big labs and such. At a minimum, you need a PhD. Bachelors degrees of anything just don't cut the mustard. A bachelors degree is barely a start...might just qualify you as a junior technician and even there, they like you to have actual postgraduate qualifications.

If anything, your entire statement is in fact Argumentum ad Hominem and argumentum ad verecundium.

Why....you appeal to validity of EU by saying that it must be true because here's Eric Lerner and he wrote this book saying it is (in this case). Wow, he should know he's a plasma physicist. Which he is not. He may own a company dealing in the area. He may have a BA (Bachelor of Arts....mind you, and if you knew anything about how they structure their courses you'd know exactly what I was talking about) in physics and little bit of graduate work under his belt. But a fully qualified physicist.....no.

Let alone appealing to the likes of David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. Then you get the same appeals to Don Scott and Anthony Peratt. The only two who have any sort of qualifications in their fields of interests. But that doesn't make them uniquely qualified to be experts in any other field or to know something the others don't. Or to have the hutzpah to call themselves something they're not....which fortunately they don't. Unless Scott and Peratt think they're astronomers, geologists and other scientists too.

You also argue to the point of the IEEE etc and how it's the largest publisher of peer reviewed material on the planet. Yes and in what field mostly....Electronic and Electrical Engineering. Nothing to do with astronomy, astrophysics or any other science except in a few fields like biomedical imaging, remote sensing, plasma science etc. Everything to do with electronics and electrical engineering. Your appeal to authority here is another example of the pot calling the kettle black, as you and your fellows are so quick to blame everyone else for appealing to authority. They have no authority in astronomy or astrophysics. Would you expect a plasma physicist to tell a neurosurgeon what to do. Seems you might given the ridiculous nonsense that gets posted over at thunderbolts.info in the forum "The Human Question". Just because they are the largest publishers of peer reviewed science is a function of their raison detre and nothing to do with the anything else. They have a large number of journals under their auspices....so what. They're mostly to do with electronics, electrical engineering, computers and the like. NewsCorp has a large number of newspapers. That doesn't make them experts on publishing books (or even at telling balanced news for that matter).

All you have done was try to appeal to the authority of a few and to the veracity and validity of even less.

[Jarvamundo]

besides...
* Radio / Radio telescopes
* Optics
* Plasma dynamics (99.9% of the matter in the universe)... used to model magnetospheres, CME's, auroral dynamics
* Bio systems
* Nuclear physics
* Computers, computational simulations & modelling algorithms

I find these highly relevant to astro.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Nothing to do with astro? please... highly relevant, and increasingly so... astro can wander off an invent 'space tornados' 'flux tubes' 'rubber bands', just sayin, alot of answers seem to have good empirical physics that have yet to be fully explored, before moving onto supernatural dark concepts, a body of terrestrial science is there to be utilized.

[CraigS]

Alex;

Just exactly what is your purpose for visiting this site ?
I'm left intrigued !!

Cheers

[renormalised]

Notice, Alex, that I qualified my statement on the relevancy of E&EE to astrophysics etc, by saying "etc" at the end of my sentence. Or did you conveniently forget to see that and thought you'd take another shot instead. I even mentioned biomedical imaging. Seems you don't read what you don't like to see, Alex. It's as I have said, that the IEEE is a large publisher of scientific literature is neither here nor there. It is not the main source for astronomical literature nor is it the main source of physics literature. It is solely to do with communications, electronic and electrical engineering and a few other sidelines (http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/journmag/journals_magazines.html). You do know what IEEE stands for, don't you??:P

As for your links to your friends of the EU, plasma cosmology "universe"...accusing others of appellations to authority and yet you and your fellows do exactly the same thing yourselves. So, as I have also previously stated, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

If Peratt et al, are so confident of their ideas why don't they try and publish them in the journals that matter....the astronomy and astrophysics journals, the pure physics journals, the geological journals and the archaeological/history journals etc etc etc (since I see Peratt has even encroached upon that territory as well....who else has). Forget about your little conspiracy theories and all that rot as to why not...if they think their theories are so cogent and correct, put them in journals that have strong peer review processes and rigorous citation/usage occurring, instead of journals with lax academic/peer review standards and barely read, or those only read amongst the converted and/or their own profession. That'll be a true test of their ideas, not hiding behind bushes and hoping no one will notice what they're saying.

[Jarvamundo]

It was only in response to your original adhom dismissal, often employed to mislead or misguide. "they are not real scientists"

I've never said don't believe xxx because he's doesnt "have an xx degree" and is a "fool".

[CraigS]

The same.
I actually look forward to seeing some contributions from you .. Steven's question buried somewhere way back there which asks you to explain the logic behind some of your views would be a great starting place.

How 'bout it, Alex ?

(I'm not being sarcastic here, either).
Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Appreciated Craig_S, a healthy attitude.


a Lead in with a personal slag "for someone"... but hey lets move on...
Correction: manifestly opposed to abstract mathematical models demanding new physics, then reinvoking these hypothetical inventions as fact. Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Gravity waves... you know where we are going with this. Irrefutably noone has ever found any of the above inventions.

Mathematics to aid in measurements i'm all for....


... some important analysis issues have been brought up in this thread... this is where i really absorb some great insight from you and carl.

Now, I simply said a) we are not stuck with BBT or expansion by default b) the Hawkins 10yr+ body of work was a great contribution.


cherry picking? this may be your interpretation.... i just simply said it's darn interesting and a great contribution. You have raised some questions on mathematical analysis..?

I remain very puzzled as to why quasars:
1) appear (in this body of work) to be void of time dilation
2) appear (in photos) infront of galaxies
3) appear to be connected by jets to host galaxies
4) appear to be frequently located near interacting galaxies
5) appear to exibit a quantised stepped redshift, when analysed from their (hypothesised) ejection parents in a 40,000+ dataset.
6) appear to exibit a relationship of distance from parent and this quantisation stage
7) appear to have a statistical weighting to be located along the minor axis of galaxies
8) does not obey hubble relationship
9) demands one of those inventions up above

the "very distant superdooper bright early galaxies far far away" just "cut the mustard" shall we say (for me).

this is why i point out some alternative models.... i just seems a good time to explore some ideas.

Question? Maybe there is some confusion, I was speaking in terms of narlikar's work on quantized redshift mentioned in my post "karlsson"



Here is where i see some interesting work from Narlikar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_mass_hypothesis

Maybe some of these names have enough degree's for Carl not to be too peeved.

Lerner's ideas, but lets be more precise and call this experimental lab physic's experiments with plasma z-pinch dynamics are modeling what could be a mechanism for this ejection hypothesis.

As far as Lerner's ideas on expansion, i was not aware that he had formed any models? Although he has published with the Pacific Astronomy Society, recent work on the Toleman surface brightness tests.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
"Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model"

My experience with his past work (JPL research) is focussed on his z-pinch experiments for fusion propulsion, and z-pinch modelling, although yes he has written about a number of other peoples work in his book. Ofcourse now he heads up focus fusion development using this same device. Peratt and Alfven layed the ground work for this, i see Eric's work being exciting empirical investigations, with a distinct relationship to Peratts galaxy models. Why is this investigation a bad thing? why should it be trashed when clear results and relationships to alternative galaxy models are finding empirical and experimental success? (maybe it's me, but i find this exciting).



Carl's rants about 'he is not qualified' really bug me... if there is an error with the analysis or the science above lets discuss it. Lets leave the dogmas at the door.

[CraigS]

Ok. I can't see any probs with you being passionate about this work.
I'm not particularly passionate about it & some others aren't also. I respect your views, however.

I'm also not sure anyone's going to resolve it on an Amateur Science website, either. Which still leaves me with the question as to why you're trying to extract answers here. ??

These matters should be resolved amongst the guys who write the papers and follow some kind of more rigorous process than postings.

I'll leave comments about the deeper technical aspects to others better suited to comment, if they so choose.

Rgds.

[sjastro]

Narlikar uses GR and has developed an "abstract" mathematical model based on modifying Einstein's field equations and is able is derive a metric solution on which interpretations and theoretical predictions are made.
One of his "hypothetical inventions" is that the age of mass that is created in his steady state model determines the amount of redshift. Currently there is no data to support this.

See where I am going with is ...........

Narkilar's work displays all the characteristics that you criticize mainstream cosmology for.

Yet to recommend Narlikar is all the more remarkable given that in previous posts you have argued that SR is wrong (hence GR is wrong).

Perhaps you read Narkilar's own book "An Introduction to Relativity".
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Relativity-Jayant-V-Narlikar/dp/0521735610

It might give you a better insight into how mainstream science operates and how theory is used to make predictions not statements of proof.
Perhaps even more important is knowing about the history of relativity and how it was built on observation and experiment.



It's called Fourier Analysis. It's the mathematics of isolating periodic (repeatable) information in what would otherwise appear to be random data. It has nothing to do with statistics. It's used extensively in Science and Engineering. Some astroimagers use it for processing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

You need to really read the literature of the field and not pick and choose between what papers to read and what not to read (possibly because they aren't kosher in your view).

So, you want answers...go here..

http://deep.ucolick.org/overview.html

http://www.2dfquasar.org/

http://magnum.anu.edu.au/~TDFgg/ (http://magnum.anu.edu.au/%7ETDFgg/)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1987BAAS...19Q.689S

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..102S

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0208117

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006astro.ph..629 4B&db_key=PRE&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c19685

http://cas.sdss.org/astro/en/

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...633...4 1T&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c10466

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833

There's more to come yet...but I'm tired and I'm off to zzz land.

I'm not going to do all the legwork for you. I've given you some avenues of inquiry to look at, now it's upto you to do the hard yards in order to actually learn something, instead of swallowing the first bit of nonsense that makes some twisted sense to "common sense". It's quite plain to see you have no experience in the subject matter at hand because if you did, you'd know that common sense doesn't necessarily apply to what occurs in physics...any physics and especially quantum physics, relativity and the like. I'm afraid that what you believe is common sense and what is actual reality are two entirely different things. You're suppose to have some background in physics, you should know that. Or have you just forgotten everything you were taught, or don't want to acknowledge what you were taught as being right and somehow your "unique" point of view on things is correct.

In any case that paper of 40000+ you refer to, Bell and McDiarmid. Yes, interesting. Both of them had already acknowledged that selection effects were the cause of the most prominent peaks in their study and yet they went ahead and included that data anyway. They then said that the selection effects couldn't be the reason for the apparent periodicity and then gave no analysis of why that was the case at all. Just a brief statement upon cross survey comparisons. What sort of science is that. They know full well they can't use data that has by rights been contaminated by effects that they have already acknowledged as being the cause of the periodicity in their study. Then set about just ignoring the fact and then brushing it aside by claiming that there is a periodicity when there isn't any. That's nothing more than trying to explain away a great embarrassment in order to justify their previously held conclusions.



Really gets up your nose. Well, it's good to see I'm getting some sort of response out of you. Why should it bug you....because what I have stated about Lerner is correct. He is not a qualified physicist, of any sort. All he has is a BA (Bachelor of Arts) degree. Not even a science degree. He didn't even complete any of the graduate work he did at UM. None of it. He has no postgraduate qualifications whatsoever. And yet, he has the audacity to pass himself off as a plasma physicist!!!!. All he is, is the CEO and President of his own company that happens to deal in plasma and nuclear physics. And a sci-fi author. Oh, and a political activist, if you didn't know about that. The fact that he passes himself off as a scientist is a joke. Despite the fact I don't agree with either Peratt or Scott, I have more respect for them and their positions as academics than I have for someone who basically isn't what he says he is. At least they took the time to gain the required knowledge they needed to become successful in their own fields of study.

You talk about leaving dogma at the door....take real good look at yourself in the mirror, Alex. If anything, it is you that is being dogmatic about your ideology here. Personally, I couldn't give a rats about what you may or may not believe in. That is your choice, not mine. However, when you come on here spreading what is essentially wild speculation for the most part about the grand scheme of plasma cosmology and how it is so much more viable as a theory than standard cosmological theory, especially when you haven't a clue at what you're on about and don't know the science...spreading that Neo Velikovskian nonsense that is EU and expect people to swallow it without question...who do you take us for??!!. The worrying thing that I see is that "joe public" doesn't have the knowledge for the most part to be able to see through the strawman nonsense that the proponents of EU like to spout as science. The fact that you even use the works of scientists like Alfven, Arp and other to somehow justify your mistaken beliefs is nothing short of an abuse of science...and an abuse of the reputations of those scientists you so much revere. Just because a scientist has an idea that sounds good doesn't make it right and when so much subsequent observation and detailed work has shown that they were wrong in the first place, for the most part, then why continue to hold onto such notions. Yes, BBT isn't perfect. No theory is and for all we know they maybe replaced by something else in the future. That's the way science works. However, given the facts that actually present themselves through observation and theoretical work (and despite your disdain for it, science is based on hypothesis and theory, as well as observation), it is by far the majority consensus amongst scientist that the best current theory that explains what is out there is BBT. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not. What you want it to be is neither here or there. You have not done the ground work to either prove or disprove the theories. Many many others, far better educated and more intelligent than most people at this forum or anyone of your EU crowd have done the legwork and written countless papers on this subject and so many others. If they are supposedly all wrong, then I'd like to see you find the definitive proof that they are. If you're upto the task, which I seriously doubt. The fact that I have seen the derision with which you and your EU colleagues treat many of the scientists in these fields, such as Hawking, Susskind, Wright and others only goes to show just how little you really do know and how much disrespect you have for anyone who's taken the time to learn something about science. The only scientist whom you show anything like a sort of respect for are those that seem to have some sort of concordance with your beliefs. Quite frankly if I was one of them, I wouldn't want to even be associated with the sort of pseudoscientific fantasy I've seen being proselytised over at thunderbolts or holoscience or any one of the other crackpot sites. Might come as huge surprise to you but Alfven actually concurred with the expansion of spacetime. So does every other scientist you follow. If you knew anything about any of the Steady State Theories you espouse, you'd know right off the cuff that they all propose metric expansion of spacetime. Just their mechanisms differ from currently accepted cosmological theory. They also even use much of the same mathematics and background theory that you EU proponents have this huge beef with. Go read the literature in it's entirety instead of cherry picking at it. Look at it in the context of the overall picture, not some myopic, self serving view of the theory.

You know what annoys me the most about this. I have a degree to finish and I don't have the time to be countering the arguments of the likes of yourself or the other EU proponents. Yet, despite the fact I have a lot more important things to do, I have to make the time to respond to what is being written here because as a geologist and as a trainee astronomer, if you will, I have a duty to respond when I see nonsense being promulgated as respectable science. When arguments of pure fallacy, unsubstantiated and/or misinterpreted science, erroneous circular reasoning and unjustifiable statements made out to be fact are bandied about by people who have no clue themselves. Not one of the EU camp that I have ever come across has any training in the sciences needed to be able to critically analyse any of what has been written and the few of you that actually have degrees have seem to forgotten most of what you've been taught, or were never interested in that being taught which would've honed your skills as critical thinkers. Critical thinking is not about being skeptical. It's about applying logic, clear thinking and your knowledge to a problem(s) in order to figure out what the answer(s) is/are to that/those problems. It's not about belief or disbelief and that is the huge difference between science and cultism. Between rationality and irrationality. Between what is fair a reasonable and what is flights of fancy and delusion.

No Alex, you miss the point entirely as to why people such as myself, Steven and many, many others hold the positions that we do. It's not about this science or that science or what is ultimately right or wrong. What it is about is the utter disregard towards and downright misrepresentation of a subject being made a notion of as being legitimate and then the disrespect being shown towards those in that field who happen not to agree with a notion that has, at its very best, only circumstantial evidence and speculation to provide it with any substance at all. For the most part, wild speculation, flights of ridiculous fancy and a complete *******isation of all and any legitimate scientific inquiry, theory or practice...even that which it so sorely clings to for its own dubious legitimacy.

Respond how you wish Alex, I have nothing further to say on this thread. Except to add more things for you to look at, as and when I have the time to do so.

[Octane]

:standing ovation:

However, Carl, your words will fall on deaf ears.

H

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Steven, i am intrigued by Narlikars models with regard to the quasar redshift. To me some form of Bohr style model seems to be in action with regard to the observed quasar redshift quantisation.

I'm interested to see other ideas and solutions if you have them.

Increasingly i'm not convinced that these quasars are not at the distances implied by their redshift. This time dilation just adds to it.



I'm aware of the technique, you have comments and questions regarding this [particular] paper Steven? Or is this just the 'application of the technique' confidence level.... style broad comment?

[Jarvamundo]

Thankyou Carl, I'll leave the rest of your rant out, part of it did actually address some science so hey lets progress.



ok, the way i understand the to-ing and fro-ing on "selection effects" are that the peaks are formed when the quasars are analyzed with regard to the (hypothesized) ejecting galaxy. There are plenty more quantization papers, not just this.

To me, if you are looking for a quantization with respect to ejecting parent, well... you'd kinda need to include those no?

If there are other selection effects please share.

[Jarvamundo]

I wouldn't call it extracting answers.... sharing insights, references and discussion would be more my take on it.

Is this an exclusive standard model BBT only forum? If it is, then apologies, it's certainly not part of any of the forum specifications i have seen.

As mentioned on other threads i explore all models, clearly plasma science has answers to *some* questions, but not all, to gain exposure to the other material i have found this as a good source for some material.

Appreciate the attitude look forward to further insights.

[bojan]

Spot on, Carl..
However, pseudo science is unstoppable in our market-oriented society, where everything is treated as saleable product to someone.
The same thing is happening with ID.. currently stopped by court in US (and it is a shame it came to that in a first place.. better than nothing, I guess), but who knows for how long..

[CraigS]

Ok. Cool.
Please excuse my use of the term 'extracting answers'. It wasn't intended to provoke anything (I've had enough of all that).

I don't think this is an exclusive BBT forum.

I do think it is a 'scientific thinking' forum.

We're all explorers at heart.

Rgds.

[renormalised]

(See pictures below)

So, I'm going to break my silence here.

OK Alex, you know what this is. I've made it large so you can see what's there, just so there's no ambiguous nonsense to be bandied about with the results of this survey. Now, where's your Bohr Model like redshift quantisation here, Alex. Where's the evidence for discrete bands of quasars at preferred distances all nice and neatly delineated by a shell like structure. Can you see it Alex, in the survey data or has there been a conspiracy to hide it from the scientific community and the public. Add a few more data points to hide the patterns...that's the sort of answers I'd expect from the EU crowd. Or is this just all "sheer nonsensical filth" as you so blithely labeled another paper over at thunderbolt.info (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=38872&sid=5bc807f0048374c1a0c81e1d1e63f02 b). What, is everything you don't agree with that actually relates to real science filth, nonsensical and any one of a number of other labels I've seen yourself and the rest of your compatriots over at these sites label science and the authors of those papers.

For anyone interested, here is the paper so decried...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5394
Galaxy Formation Theory

Authors: Andrew J. Benson (1) ((1) California Institute of Technology)
(Submitted on 28 Jun 2010 (v1), last revised 12 Jul 2010 (this version, v2))

Let's look at when most of these papers that you want to refer to came out. For anyone interested you can go here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

to read and download the respective papers. You will note that most of these papers were written before the large scale z surveys on both quasars and galaxies were done in the late 90's. You can also go here...

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+quasars+AND+of+AND+redshif t+quantization/0/1/0/all/0/1

To find some papers on redshift quantisation. Also note the repetition of the same authors espousing the same views. Important as it shows where each author is coming from.

Here is also papers about quasar clustering you can look at...

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+quasars+AND+in+AND+z+clust ering/0/1/0/all/0/1

or quasars in general...

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+quasars/0/1/0/all/0/1

And if you need further evidence.... click on below (doesn't want to paste here). That's a similar survey done on galaxies. If anything, the periodic redshifts would show up in this and other galaxy survey even more strikingly simply because of the far larger numbers of galaxies involved in the surveys. Where's the Bohr Model shells here, Alex. Despite some obvious clustering in the galaxies measured, there is none. And, there are even more recent surveys, some done on quasars, which show no periodicity, as well as many other interesting things.... SDSS DR7 Data (http://www.sdss.org/DR7/)

And if anyone is interested in where the figures came from, here are the sites for those...

2D Quasar Survey (http://www.2dfquasar.org/) and 2D Galaxy Survey (http://magnum.anu.edu.au/%7ETDFgg/)

[marki]

Carl, don't waste your time, get back to work and finish that masters.

Alex, there are quite a few members of this forum (my self included) who have physical science degree's with post grad qualifications. To us it is very clear that your focus on this forum is not to learn but to convert others i.e.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3073

You seem to run on a very predictable cycle yet you claim you are working inside the TOS for this site. May I suggest you read them again and look for the word troll.

I don't believe anyone on this forum is an absolute believer in the state of current cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are just a couple of things that bother me. But right now it's the best we have. It would be better to discuss the flaws without reverting to diversionary tactics and constructed myths based on no real evidence what so ever. So you don't like it? Best go back to uni, get qualified and find a better explanation. Don't post pseudo science, start arguments and waste peoples time.

Mark

[bojan]

Science degree is not necessary to understand where all this leads ;) (I don't have one - 'only' engineering... + 35 years of experience in industry..) but I have enough understanding of how science works to see all this throughout.. and so do many others, fortunately.
The problem is with people who may be fooled by all this advertising for 'freedom' of ideas .. and even recent pulling out the arguments related to "Terms Of Service" on this forum...

[marki]

Bojan, the only real difference between a science and engineering degree is that one will keep you eating patatoes and sausages whilst the other won't :P;):D. My comment was related more towards how Alex goes about things.

Mark

[renormalised]

Hey, I like bangers and mash!!!. Especially with some onion gravy and a few veg:):P

[CraigS]

.. And that seems to be coming from a 'Pastafarian' !!
:)

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

The bohr style model was in reference to the a mass style function of steps to produce the quantization.

I don't see how the data presented below can ever hope to express quantization, when the quantization is with regard to the ejecting galaxy. A giant pan looking for quasar shells is of no use with this interpretation no?

an analogy here might be... looking at a crowd of people, you see a random scatter.... but if you look with reference to the parent, you will see generational banding of ages.

The data presented here does not seem to have this incorporated?

[renormalised]

No, the Bohr style model was in response to a perceived notion of quantised values for z, meaning that the physical distance to the quasars themselves as expressed by their z values was somehow "set" at particular values....that being you had groups of quasars in consecutive bands of distance.

The reason why the data presented can't ever hope to express the quantisation is because it doesn't exist, except as a selection effect.

A survey of quasars is the only way you're going to observe any quantisation of redshift, if it ever existed in the first place.

As for quasars being ejected form their "parent" galaxies, despite the protestations of a few of the likes of Arp, Burbidge and such, there has been nothing more than rather bad circumstantial evidence for any of these so called "intrinsic redshifts" and quatisations. It's been proven, time and time again that their observations are nothing more than chance alignments and other effects of perception. And as for this quasar/parent galaxy association, let's just have look at the actual observational evidence. If quasars are this ejected material from galaxies, then we should be able to see this occurring randomly across the entire sky, if it's a true effect of observation. What do we actually find....quasars distributed randomly across the sky with no association with any galaxies for the most part except as chance alignments, or when we can see the galaxy surrounding the quasar and/or when they're in clusters. There is no correlation whatsoever between the positions of galaxies and of quasars because if there were, you would see it in the observations. There would be obvious signs of ejection occurring randomly across the sky in all directions. There isn't. It may have been a possible explanation for what they saw back in the 60's when Arp first came up with the idea, but astronomy has passed him by a long time ago.

So, the reason why the data doesn't have it incorporated is because there is no need to. It is an invalid premise which has been shown to be so by the vast and overwhelming majority of observations and present standard cosmological theory.

It is quite obvious from your response (in your analogy) that you do not have the knowledge to be able to discuss this with any real ability. You can't talk around the point Alex. Sooner or later you're going to have to address the science in a proper manner and with the background knowledge to be able to support your claims. Looking to your EU friends and their speculations and cheery picking the science won't help.

[Jarvamundo]

Bohr style model, mentioned is of MASS.... not quasar position.

I think we are jumping between:

Bohr style model of quasar distance shells relative to earth observations
Bohr style model of mass, providing some form of mechanism for redshift stepping.

What we both think of chance alignments and photos with high redshifted quasars infront of, or linked by arms of ejection to be are well... one of those believe your eyes moments. Yes it can be swamped by large sets, when applied without the hypothesis in mind, such as supplied here.

The analogy holds for the hypothesis of ejections from active seyferts. Karlsson peaks are from the parent to child, it does not apply across population.

The hypothesis is "a component" of redshift is intrinsic.

[renormalised]

No, no and no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

That is all that needs to be read to see what the Bohr Model is about and I suggest that people read it before they go quoting about "Bohr Models" of quasar z quantisation. It has nothing to do with the "mass" of anything except that at high energies it can be used calculate the masses of heavy quark mesons.

It's not a matter of anything being swamped by large datasets. Those large datasets go directly to the problem. If there was a statistically significant population of quasars being produced by an method of ejection, that population would show up in the observations. If there were a statistically significant population of quasars associated in some way with a nearby galaxy, that would also show up in the observations. Put the two together and, ergo, there would be a case for quasars being ejected from galaxies....active seyferts or not. Considering that an earlier stage in the universe all galaxies were quasars, the observational evidence for any ejection mechanism would be overwhelming, if it existed at all. What do we actually find in the data....no evidence whatsoever for actual physical connections or ejection mechanisms of quasars from galaxies...of any type. Where there are associations, it is either due to chance alignments and other optical effects, or the galaxies that the quasars reside in are visible, or the quasars and other galactic objects are in actual clusters much like modern day galaxies.

What's more, if these quasars are being ejected from a parent galaxy, why do all the supposed "ejected" quasars show a redshift, even when the ejected quasars is supposedly in front of the parent galaxy and actually moving towards us in relation to their combined movement. A redshift would imply a movement away from us, and behind the parent galaxy. So do these ejections events have for some curious reason a preferred vector of ejection??!!!. Simple observation and statistical analysis would tell you that in an ejection event, the direction of ejection would be random and in any population there would be (to within a reasonable margin) an equal number of quasars traveling in all directions after ejection. There would be no preferred direction. The same would apply to the Doppler shifting (which this actually is, if the scenario were the case) of the light from the ejected quasars. You would observe both blue and redshifted objects. Why is it that we see only redshifted quasars supposedly ejected from galaxies??. If there are ejected quasars in front of the parents galaxies, that would imply a direction of ejection towards our general direction. The quasar would in fact be closer to us than the galaxy and exhibiting a blueshifted spectrum and a velocity component of ejection towards us, not away as their actual Doppler (red) shift implies. Blueshifitng of the spectrum cannot be gotten away from, it is a simple law of physics that all bodies in motion must obey if they are in fact moving towards the observer.

So, how could a body that should be exhibiting a blueshifted spectrum have a redshift?? Only one other way...a gravitational redshift, or a redshift generated by the gravitational field of the object. However, to completely cancel out any blueshift that might be exhibited an ejected object, the gravitational field of the object would have to be so intense that no light at all could escape from the said quasar. There's only one object that that could be....a black hole. Yet, the proponents of EU flatly deny their existence, yet they have no credible alternative to replace them. They have a lot of mumbo jumbo and wild speculation about electrical fields on scales of size and energies completely outside of the observed processes seen occurring and have no evidence for their supposed dominance over gravity on these scales or energies at all, despite what they may claim. If there were evidence, then it would've been found and studied. There's no grand scientific conspiracy to hide evidence or what not.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, if the gravitational field was so intense that you had a black hole, you wouldn't even get a redshift either. No light would be getting to the observer to be able to take a reading. But you would be seeing massive gravitational effects on their surroundings. Apart from gravitational lensing of the parent galaxy, which would mean that the observed galaxies would in fact be extremely distorted in appearance (unless the EU crowd have a way of explaining that away too), what other effects would be present. There would be a massive accretion disk around the hole, if it was in contact with enough material to drag in. That would mean an enormously hot, fast rotating and highly energetic (in terms of radiation being emitted) disk of gas would be present around the hole. You would then have all the processes which occur in these situations, such as bipolar jets, high energy x ray and gamma ray emissions and enormous luminosities. What the EU crowd maintain, through their following of Halton Arp's original hypothesis is that the quasar seen is just a small (in terms of physical size cf to the parent galaxy) ejected blob of gaseous materials exhibiting a discordant redshift. If that was the case and it was actually obeying the laws of physics, there would be a black hole present given that it's supposed to be a redshift only object, even when it's apparently ejected away form the galaxy and towards the observer. And by all rights, if there were a black hole present, where are the other effects I have outlined?? In fact, why is there even a redshift at all. Where is the massive distortion of the parent galaxy from the gravitational lens being produced by the gravity of the hole?? More to the point as well, considering how far away these objects are and the time taken for light to travel that distance between the object and the observer, just how old and how long does these supposed ejected objects last for?? Are we going to obey the laws of physics for some phenomena and not for others, which would have to be the case if the EU crowd want to have their cake and eat it too. Or how are the EU fraternity going to explain that or explain away the observed lensing effects of gravity on so many objects that have been observed to date. I suppose there's some magical quality in EM that will do such a thing but so far science (of any sort) has yet to come up with any answer to that.

These blobs of gas can't be held in check by electrical forces for an indefinite period of time. And, if they actually understood anything about EMF (electromagnetic forces) and plasmas in the first place, they'd know that apart from the plasma being electrically neutral, despite a separation of charges (there's equal numbers of positive and negative charges in a plasma), even in a closed system the charges will rapidly cancel one another out because there is no input of energy into the system to maintain the separation of charges. If there were such an internal mechanism you would have perpetual motion which completely violates all the laws of theormodynamics, for a start. If in their opinion the ejected quasars have a connection with the parent galaxy, where is this input of energy coming from?? The connection can't last indefinitely and having the connection in the first place would facilitate a leakage of energy from the system and in fact collapse the fields being generated far quicker as it would be an open ended system. The potential difference between the two end would rapidly cancel out unless there is, in effect, a "battery" or power source maintaining the potential difference. Where is the evidence for that???.

As for the last statement made, a "component" of redshift is intrinsic. Are we to believe that we can somehow say that "Oh, we do have a redshift being caused by ("what???") yet some of it must be coming from the source itself". You either have a Doppler shift caused by the physical movement of that object through space, which is an intrinsic redshift, if it moving with respect to those other object around it, or if that object is at rest with respect to those others, you have a redshift caused by the metric expansion of spacetime. Unless you have a gravitationally induced redshift, there is no other way to produce any sort of intrinsic redshifting of light (that we presently know of). So far, no observations made have shown any other cause for this kind of redshift. If there was another observable mechanism, it would've been found, simple as that. Or are we to believe that EMF can somehow create redshifts and/or blueshifts of light without any apparent physical laws behind the supposed mechanism for doing so, because there is no laws of plasma physics or electrical/magnetic fields which can do this. Nothing that Faraday, Galvani, Ampere, Ohm or anyone else connected with that side of science came up with a way to change the frequency and wavelength of light in such a manner. Not unless you're seriously suggesting that what you are seeing is a radio transmitter (or in this case light) with an external power source, because that's what it would have to be to do this. Redshift and blueshift are caused by changes in the wavelengths of the light generated by movement towards or away from the observer....discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842.

The use of "intrinsic" in this case is a misnomer and a misuse of the word, as it is a misunderstanding of what is occurring and a misunderstanding of the basic science behind the mechanisms producing it. It is also predicated on a mistake of observation and the subsequent belief in that mistaken observation.

[sjastro]

I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why you support Narlikar's theory for redshift quantization in the first place given it's extensive mathematical usage (which you oppose in mainstream cosmology), in a GR framework (which must be wrong given your assertions that SR is proven wrong by Sagnac).

Steven

[bojan]

Oh yes.:D
I was very aware of that when I had to decide: physics/astronomy or engineering..

[renormalised]

It won't be forthcoming, Steven, because there is no explanation worth noting, to give.

Actually it appears to be a general opposition to maths in any science full stop....should just all be "observation and empirical data".

That's the hypocrisy of it all.

[renormalised]

And you went for the bangers and mash:):)

Just make sure they gave you enough gravy and veg with it:):P

[bojan]

Well, what's done was done :shrug:..
A year or two and I am moving to Seymour (dark skies..) to enjoy what's left of gravy and veg (not much though.. )

[renormalised]

And the greedy B's in Canberra want to leave you with even less if they can.

Well, at least you'll be somewhere far enough away from them to enjoy the dark skies:)

And the only large scale electrical activity you're likely to come across will be the occasional storm:):P

[sjastro]

I'm hightlighting the deliberate distortion and misinformation presented of mainstream science.

Even their "PC is empiricism" mantra is deceitful.

Show me someone claiming that a Birkeland current at a cosmological scale can reproduced in a laboratory scale test and I will show you a liar.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I know.

I haven't seen anything they've said or claimed which can be backed up.

There wouldn't be enough power on this planet (including the "Z" machine at Sandia) to even come close to generating the size of Birkeland current they'd need for anything of a cosmological scale. Scaling it down to lab size only makes the problems of energy density even worse. Maybe in a century or two, if they figure out how to harness either antimatter or ZPE (if they can, in fact, do so).

[CraigS]

I have to have a go here and comment that dealing with the concepts invoked by cosmo scales would seem to be not easy for the human brain. (Well, perhaps just mine). Spending time pondering these would thus seem to be a prudent step towards overcoming this issue.
(Ie: brought about by the counter-intuitiveness of scale ?)

Cheers

[renormalised]

Problem is, Craig, when you try and experimentally model a high energy process on an enormous scale in a lab, when you scale down the size of the process, the energy requirements for generating that process on a smaller scale go up because you're trying to model a process whose energy densities must increase on the smaller scale in order to faithfully duplicate what it seen on the larger scale. Trying to duplicate a cosmological scale Birkeland current in a lab would be impossible using today's technology. They have a hard enough time trying to duplicate the Birkeland currents in Earth's aurorae without resorting to enormous machinery. Generating some small scale experiment with a few hundred watts of electrical power and seeing some weak current being generated is not producing a scaled down version of what's present in real life. Because the interactions between current generated and it's surrounding are only very, very approximately modeling what is occurring on the larger scale, and in actual fact will miss a lot of the interactions because the small experiment just doesn't reach the energy density/current thresholds of the naturally occurring processes.

To account for what is seen on cosmological scales with high energy density electrical currents in plasmas, on the smaller scale they would have to increase the energy density per unit volume/size of the experiment that there wouldn't be enough power generated anywhere to accomplish it. Even the Z machine at the Sandia Labs would'nt have enough power, nor could it sustain that power/energy density for long enough. I think it generated about 10-15 MA (Mega Amperes) and 290 TW (terawatts) of output for 70-100 nanoseconds at its top!!. It would have to sustain several orders of magnitude greater flux capacity and overall wattage than that on a pretty much permanent basis for it to even come close to modeling even the Earth's magnetosphere and electrical potential. Let alone something on a cosmological scale.

[CraigS]

Hmm..
Its interesting that I recall the physics underpinning your words above, historically, (I think), became more 'mainstream' about the time of Hawking's work on black hole entropy, (but perhaps originally coming from particle physics research) ? ... I don't think black holes are allowed in the EU, are they ? So, the mainstream perception of the physics behind your words can't exist either ?

Oh my goodness ... I'll have to stop right there ... !!
(Oops .. I just bit my tongue !!)

Cheers

[renormalised]

Nope...no black holes, no neutron stars, no white dwarfs, stars are powered by galactic scale birkeland currents generating z-pinches in plasmas, they don't explode etc etc etc....and a whole lot of other nonsense.

[Jarvamundo]

Carl is correct here (wow i said it), with regard to PC.

#1 Black holes
1) No body has ever found a black hole. Never. Zip.
2) Black holes (hilberts error) are not permitted by Schwartzchild actual solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg

With the empirical plasma z-pinch you can describe the centers of galaxies, you can both computer model, AND produce this in the lab.

#2 Neutron Stars (should we be leaving out strange stars?
These fantasticly spinning (25% speed of light) super heavy stars, which include SPEED UPs, SPEED Downs, Frequency "glitches".... are well a bit of a stretch...

EU proposes a relaxation oscillator. That is a real thing, any freshman can assemble. No super dooper spinning, No never-observed neutron hand holding, beyond empirical possibilities.

#3 Other stars
In this case the HR diagram can be replaced by current density.

Professor Don Scott, recently invited to present at NASA has put together this page. The details are best left to his explantions here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

#4 Stars don't explode?
This is well catered for, and is actually the foundation of Hannes Alfvens works.... ie he was employed to work on exploding plasma in power distribution. I thought you said you were aware of this? This was the foundation of his work, lead to MHD and his Nobel? Heard of exploding double layers?

Exploding stars are an EM "dipole" phenomina.... all you need to do is look at a picture of an exploding star, and you will [mostly] see an Hour Glass... This is DIPOLE in nature.... NOT neutral GAS + gravity. Also take a look at the high energy radiation produced by the acceleration in plasma double layers. I think this was discussed with Stephen in another thread here on IIS. "Brake radiation"

Other bits
Have a look at the rotation curve of a galaxy spiral that does not ignore EM (google Peratt). (Much like the work B Gaensler Syd Uni is currently measuring resultant magnetic fields of this EM)... and you will see that No dark matter is needed.

"whole lot of nonsense"
like creation from nothing? worm holes? divide by zero black holes? 25% of speed of light spinning stars, dark matter, dark energy..... good luck with that. :lol:

The distaste for such concepts certainly has not been limited to me in this thread. A fair few of us, are not happy with these gravity-only dark mysteries, and search for solutions, i am simply sharing on i have come across after joining IIS to further my investigations. Dark, black theories remain there for anyone soo inclined. And all the best to you.

All that is required with PC is that the models keep in mind that charge-separation does exist on large scales. This is currently not catered for in the neutral gas models that dominate gravity only cosmology.

PC ignore gravity? certainly not.... all it's doing is also acknowledging that 99.99% of matter in the universe is in plasma state (http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma). fact. The models simply incorporates EM forces, as per our terrestrial lab experiments, which as mentioned here.... led to the discovery of Birkeland Currents.

yep, you can do it in the lab. yes more needs to be done.

Don't let the anti-empiric resistance get to you... plasma experiments scale very well... this ofcourse is well known to plasma scientists. Ofcourse we cannot produce a birkeland current on cosmic scales... but if it walks like a duck and quacks...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Birkeland-terrella.jpg .... then models can be developed that are based on real experience.

Herbert Spencer once said, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

[bojan]

I know it will be mostly useless.. But, could we concentrate on debunking those ideas (presented above) methodically, one by one?
Alex is using a shotgun, spraying all around (and with help of language that is really annoying, to me at least. But it's the same language used on those EU sites.. so it comes as natural for him, it seems).

So, specifically, just for the start:
How can relaxing oscillator concept be used to explain all observed (empirical. that is) aspects of pulsars (especially double ones)?
How exactly EU guys explain neutrinos detected from SN1987A? And from out Sun? (I know I am in trouble here :P.. Neutrino problem can be 'easily' explained by EU, no? But I need to see from his mob - how exactly?)

And I do not want to see the links to suspicious websites as an answer, this is not good enough for constructive discussion.

[Jarvamundo]

Quite happy to go one by one Bojan, and address particulars... the shot gun of Adhom attacks will need to be put down too?

Regarding Pulsars / relaxation oscillator. please see Professor Don Scott section on previous link?

It is already covered.

Should we open a new thread on this...? we're drifting.

[bojan]

Not good enough mate.
I want to read this expressed with your own words.
No cheating here.

[Jarvamundo]

Ahh.... so we are not interested in exploring the theories themselves?

wow.

[bojan]

I didn't say that.
"We" are interested to hear (read) from you the explanation of at least some of those theories.. I don't have that much time so please explain.
If you can't explain those things with your own words, you do not have the understanding of those matters. This is how I was taught to behave at school.
Plain and simple.

[Jarvamundo]

ok... this is probably the most suitable section for your query.



To me, variations in rates will also be a point of falsification... youd know being an engineer, that varying the pulses on a relaxation oscillator is a simple thing to do... This becomes very important when we begin to analyse the frequency glitches detected in pulse rates...

A question from a layman might be "How does this pulsar, that is one of the heaviest things known, apparently spin up, then spin down"

relaxation oscillator = simple
spinning lighthouse = ?

[bojan]

OK.
Now, I am not sure if you know this, but me being an electronics engineer, I do know that relaxation oscillators are VERY unstable, exactly because it is so easy to change their frequency.
Typical relaxation oscillator will vary more than 10% over relatively narrow temperature range and power supply voltage...

Now we just have to explain, why pulsars are so stable? Because, the change in pulsar frequencies are minuscule, compared to those in typical relaxation oscillator (in terms of ppm). Also, those changes are occuring very rapidly. This also needs explanation/modelling.

However, this was not my question.

I want to see the description of that oscillator of yours - how it works.. I want to see the (equivalent of ) "schematic", in other words.
Or, I want to see the precise description of mechanism of this oscillator: from where the energy comes from, what is this that oscillates and how. Where is the feedback path?
Also, I know how to calculate the oscillation frequency of the circuit consisting of two transistors (or even valves... the first oscillator I build myself was with ECC81) and couple of resistors and capacitors.
I want to see the same type od calculation here. And of course, I need to see some examples.. and how those calculated results relate to observed specimens.
Until I don't see it... I simply can't take those ideas seriously.

[renormalised]

Quoting an YouTube video means zip. If anyone wants to deny the existence of black holes, then they have to answer to the vast majority of the written papers that deal with just such objects at the centres of galaxy and as the remnants of supernovae explosions....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+black+holes/0/1/0/all/0/1

That is only some of the papers present in the literature.

Have a large enough mass of material concentrate in a small enough area and you have the conditions for the formation of a black hole, which is effectively an enormously steep gravitational gradient generated by a highly concentrated mass. And despite their protestations, it is an outcome of the Schwarzchild metric. He didn't finish off his equations and it was up to Hilbert and Einstein to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriving_the_Schwarzschild_solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

You will get the usual nonsense reply from the EU crowd saying his solutions don't allow for the formation of black holes, but a quick reading of the above will show otherwise. It's here they'll start talking about conspiracies etc.

Let's now look at neutron stars....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+neutron+stars/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Not only are they researched to a great degree in the journals and the theories regarding the formation of and the physical characteristics widely known, they have actually observed thousands of the object and since the EU fraternity are so big on empirical and observational data, what more needs to be said than this (see picture below). That is the Crab Nebula and that little star below the one near the centre of the pic is the neutron star (indicated by the arrow)... a pulsar by chance that also shines in the visible part of the spectrum. Then you have lone neutron stars without any evidence of surrounding nebula (see picture below).

Here is the EU's answer...relaxation oscillators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxation_oscillator). Read this and see if this tallies with what they have found out about quasars...see for yourselves. This appeal to simplicity as they would have it (even a freshman could assemble) is nonsense. They have nothing to do with neutron stars.

Prof Don Scott, who is an electrical engineer, not an astrophysicist and has no training in the field, has proposed that stars are powered by galactic scale birkeland currents and that generate z-pinches in condensed balls of plasma. Firstly, let's look at Birkeland currents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current). They do apply to solar-terrestrial and planetary physics....yes. For certain situations. However, to then come out and say they power stars as well is completely off the planet (pardon the pun). If they power the stars, as they say, how do they account for the generation of neutrinos and gamma rays from the cores of stars. How do they account for the ratio of hydrogen to helium and the heavier elements found in stars. How do they account for the longevity of the stars....massive electrical fields have to have a power source to create a separation of charge and drive the flow of current. Where is their power source???? Or do we have some magical source of power at the centre of the galaxies and/or in the subsequent physical structures. They may propose that the z-pinch creates the power and that certain turbulent instabilities within the plasmas generate extra power and pass that onto the z-pinch and such. well, what they don't tel you is that most plasmas are electrically neutral...there us no net flow of charge within the system. These ideas about turbulent flows transferring charge are just pure speculation and that unless they have a permanent power source (and even then), z-pinches give out and the plasma leaks away like a sieve. Once it cools it recombines as a normal gas. In any case, with these enormous Birkeland currents supposedly circulating around the galaxy (and, they also generate the spirals arms of galaxies, according to EU), where is the synchrotron radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation) and bremsstrahlung? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung)? There would be massive amounts of it present in the galaxies as well as in the universe in general if this was occurring. Why aren't we seeing the results of Compton scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering) occurring in even greater amounts than what already occurs in astrophysical processes?? Over the projected lifetime of the universe, the amount of radiation generated by all this activity would've raised the temp of the CMB by about 1-4K and radio telescopes would be buzzing with its presence in space. It seems to be conspicuously absent by its evidence. It would also seem reasonable to assume that this same radiation would also be coming from all the stars, if they were powered in such a fashion, plus the radio waves they would give off would be characteristic of such processes occurring. Where are those radio waves?? Not there I wonder!!.

Stars don't explode...well, tell that to the millions that have and all the remnants of these explosions that have been observed, catalogued and such. How do the EU fraternity account for the distribution of heavy elements within the gases of the cosmos. I'm sure there's some magical electrical effect which can produce these elements and disperse them. I invite everyone to go online and have a look for these processes they claim exist. Go and have a read of Prof Alfven's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n) work. It has been shown to be wrong time and time again with respect to most areas of astrophysics. Despite the fact that he is a Nobel Laureate (something the EU crowd harp on about incessantly) and he was a very good electrical engineer, and many of his ideas have been subsequently adopted in plasma physics and some areas of astrophysics, not everything that he has espoused has been shown to have any veracity. Observation and further theoretical work has seen to that. I would also recommend that you have a look at these pages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reactio n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+supernovae/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+process+AND+triple+alpha/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+CNO+cycle/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+reaction+AND+pp+chain/0/1/0/all/0/1

As for "Other bits" that will be taken care of all in due course. I doubt that Dr Gaensler would be so bold as to put any stamp of approval on anything the EU says despite the fact that they claim his work supports their views. Neither would any other scientist working today worth their salt in their respective fields. Any that did would be looking for notoriety and to get publicity through controversy. Few scientists would risk their careers in such a way.





(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram )

[renormalised]

If you actually even bothered to go and read a textbook on astrophysics, or one specifically on neutron stars and pulsars, then you would know why they have the physical characteristics and why they behave in the manner they do. But apparently that's beyond your own capabilities as it might actually teach you some real science for a change. You have been repeatedly challenged on numerous points of science and asked to explain yourself and yet you just steadfastly ignore everything written and those challenges, to post more rhetorical nonsense and bad science. It is quite plainly obvious that you came to this site with these views already quite strongly believed in and were prepared to openly cause problems with the good conduct of posts here by knowingly proselytising your views that you knew would engender a response from people here who can see through the BS you quote, post and write.



I'm not wasting anymore of my time nor my breath arguing with you because I know that it will amount to nothing. I have more important things to do than argue with a fool.

[sjastro]

Yes Alex why don't you explain it in your own words.

It's very easy to hide behind youtube extracts, particularly nonsense titled Einstein's idiots.

You would not even have the vaguest comprehension of Crother's ideas let alone appreciate the fact it is utter crap.
It is not surprising that Crothers was never able to complete his PhD as even a switched on maths undergraduate can see the flaws in his paper.

The utter hypocrisy is how you evoke Ad Hom attacks at the drop of a hat, yet post links for an individual who calls all and sundry idiots for disagreeiing with him.

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

What do you propose causes the magnetic fields Gaensler and many other teams are mapping?

Since plasma dominates the inter-stellar regions of space, would it be a giant leap to conclude it is an electric current? Is this not well the simplest of Maxwell... ? one and the same? Are you proposing bar magnets? Gaensler certainly is not.

Gaensler is ofcourse not proposing an externally powered sun, or Alfven like galactic system, his work (to my knowledge) is focusing on a dynamo style theory, unfortunately the issue of where the seed current (or m-field) comes from.

Either way, Gaenslers work and others are reporting... the magnetic fields, and there for large currents (since they are one an the same) are there, awaiting explanation.

Does this align with PC/EU expectations? Well one simple look at Alfven's circuit and Peratt's simulations makes it kinda obvious. What are the other explanations?

for Carl:TB.info Joined: at Feb 06, 2010 10:26 am
IIS:Join Date: Apr 2009

Calm down, and do the math there champ.

I'll continue to explore mainstreams ideas for pulsars, but we are now hitting 25%c rotation, and other fantastic forms of matter, relaxation oscillators are (to me) a far far simpler explanation, i am more at ease with these ideas. It does require that pulsars occur as binary pairs. The EU pulsar model was a bucket of pennies dropping for me, after years of following the lighthouse theory.... i simply find the RPM involved in these fantastic beacons of light to be to much of a stretch.

[renormalised]

My mistake...I apologise. But don't think that let's you off:P

[Jarvamundo]

We have been through this in a prior series of discussions, where we came to a head over inverse Gaussian curvature vs the radius. "the r" in the Schwartzchild solution, which you now admit is not his actual solution?

I respectfully. left that discussion still uneasy with the sharp step like event horison of a SMBH. As you continue to point out... "it's the smaller black holes you need to watch out for". If you just stand back from this, it is a bit contradictory (that is without the hilberts derivation imprint).

To me it seems, still to this day, un-intuitive for a geometric model, to have a SMBH appear less dangerous than a BH. Granted this is not the basis for Crothers proof, but you just see where my curious-laymen headspace is here.

It was after this I discovered the works of Stephen Crothers, so far i have not seen his hypothesis been refuted. Rather he was flown to the German Royal Society to present this, and continues to. You mention that "even an undergraduate can spot his errors".... well why would his PHD professor need to fly to London to consult his Nobel laureate peer? Surely consulting an undergraduate would've been easier?

Anyways it's all irrelevant, i'd be very interested in where you can show Crothers to be wrong, i'm sure he would too?

[Jarvamundo]

Interesting points Bojan... lets also take into account the scales of these, essentially capacitors.

A seemingly highly balanced system... well yes.... impossibly balanced... well given the scales, i think not.

Another clue here is the curve of the impulses themselves. Looks very similar to that of an arc no? I'm still puzzled on this one, from a lighthouse-beacon model.

I do just explore this theory side by side with mainstream... your EE input and circuit theory knowledge becomes as valuable, if not more, than curved plane mathematics, with regard to this hypothesis.

[CraigS]

Alex;

Perhaps its just for the masses (mainstream does this also - 'Precisely' for instance) but I see a lot of these kinds of statements on EU. Is it just a bit of sarcasm or are these 'observational' statements fair dinkum ?

I mean if you put on a pair of yellow sunglasses, everything looks yellow, doesn't it ?

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Correct - a requirement for the relaxation oscillator hypothesis (for me) was that the shape of the pulse match empirical experience with plasma emissions.

Then we move onto the required speeds.

Again, i just explore these side by side... on pulsars in particular the relaxation hypothesis sits FAR FAR better than super dooper heavy mass whizzing at 25% c.

What happens when it's > 25%C... well we start inventing strange matter stars etc etc...

What about the oscillator model? well bojan will tell you varying the rate upto the GHz is a simple terrestrial experiment.

All one needs to to picture that electrical discharge is taking place between 2 orbiting bodies...

GIANT MAGNETIC LOOP SWEEPS BETWEEN STELLAR PAIR
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=64043


again... question: WHAT IF NOT AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH PLASMA is causing this magnetic field.

We have birkeland currents powering auroras... (fact, verified by space probes measuring them)

Tell me how many pulsars are found orbiting a partner... ? Granted mainstream has many explanations... just saying during my investigations some far simpler ones appear in PC theory. Not for all... but for pulsars... for me... well it's pretty simple.

[CraigS]

Interesting .. your motives are driven by the desire for simplicity (I'm not being critical here).
What if the nature of the thing you're viewing is actually complex ? Would you see the complexity ?

Cheers

[bojan]

Alex,
you seem to misunderstood me..
My example of relaxation oscillator was put to make you think... outside of EU, and by no means as a contribution to those theories....
First you have to explain the mechanism (schematic if you will) of this "cosmic relaxation oscillator", and then, of course, it's phenomenal frequency stability (Interesting.. when we are discussing mechanical versus "electrical" model - Crystal oscillators are VERY stable - and they are VERY mechanical devices ;). Rotating star core is also mechanical device) .

Also, you have to explain why the pulsar frequency is so close in value to the rotational speed that theoretical model (based on angular momentum preservation principle) of collapsed star predicts? Coincidence?
( And no, it is not a coincidence that I am using the same tone as EU mob).
A simple explanation to pulsar and its observed properties then is, that it is an ultra-dense stellar mass, fast rotating object with strong magnetic field.. Simple.

[Jarvamundo]

Do you mean in the absence of simplicity.... well then i guess i would lean to the most simplest available.

I though there was a razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)for this? I thought we were all cool with this?

I guess i try to explain whats out there, with what we actually have here, well understood physics can explain some things, without theoretical conjecture (95% dark). It is only with this natural philosophy of real things can we be reasonably confident we are describing actual reality. Science must lead mathematics, in astro i tend to feel we have it the other way. I (me, doesnt have to be you) see PC as a possible branch we can pinch *some* answers from.

Acknowledging electric currents that cause these large scale magnetic fields (that have been dubbed 'flux tooobs') is really *the* only step.

[Jarvamundo]

Power source, capacitor bank, spark gap? seems pretty stable to me?
Wave reflections on plasma 'flux toobs'?
Really most of this should be able to be modeled quite well with plasma dynamics... but yes the body of work is no where near as funded or developed as mainstream's neutral view.

Interestingly we are finding radio patterns between Saturn and moons, that are exhibiting pulse signaling too. We can and have measured these electrical currents (birkeland currents). It would be very interesting to study these in detail.... similar to what themis is doing now, here.

Yes as mentioned there are mainstream explanations, what makes me nervous is that the models are continuously adjusted for new discoveries... lets be quite clear... the new 'strange matter' stars were not expected.

Have we ever found ultra-dense stellar mass to be stable? ie a cup of neutrons.

Relaxation oscillator is both simple, and well understood with empirical ties to technology.

[bojan]

They are not.

And I am still waiting for schematic ;) ...

[CraigS]

And do you agree that mathematics encompasses the logic which ensures that we are describing the physical world, free of human interpretation ?

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

the model is this:

Scott says: “As I see it, [variable] binaries operate generally as follows: Each of the stars has an electrical capacitance. These two capacitances are permanently connected by a plasma (cloud). This plasma exhibits (as do all plasmas) a nonlinear resistance. If one of the stars charges up to a high enough voltage ... , then the plasma will go into the arc mode and emit brilliant light, perhaps x-rays and gamma-rays. Electrical energy will be transferred from the first capacitor (star) to the other. It doesn't make any difference which star is bigger.
“The "bridge" between the two stars probably doesn't go away. After the arc discharge is over (the voltage difference between the two capacitors is dissipated), the plasma bridge goes back into its normal glow or dark current mode and waits for the next discharge.”

now is this oscillation linked to mechanics... interesting question bojan, i feel capacities of the bodies and distance and available plasma to be the dominant variables.

[Jarvamundo]

That is a great sales pitch... but really...Free of human interpretation? Is this not exactly what point-particles and probability clouds are?

I'm concerned that the underlying nature might be ignored or missed by applying man's maths.

Was it Einstein that said God doesn't play dice?

Mathematical tools are averaging tools, often very handy at covering detail, yes for the benefit of mans quick modeling.... but is this maths really free of human interpretation? are we not applying it to nature?

You have described the math's leading science paradigm, that seems to be prevalent today.

We should not forget that mathematics can describe any amount of realities. Repeatable experiment only 1. Of theory and empiricism, the choice is always the latter..... unless we are happy to settle for paradoxes.

and why we continue to throw billions at gravity-wave antennas for things that 'must be there', are we expecting a result that is free of human interpretation.

what was einteins quote of insanity.... (gee even i'm quoting einstein alot here).

proceed with humility fellow explorer

[renormalised]

Where do these fields come from??

Well, whilst they're not certain as to where the original field in the galaxies came from (although there are ideas....namely a primordial field generated by the first stars and such, as well as a dynamo generated by the flowing ionised gases), the field of the galaxies are generated from several sources...namely photo-ionisation and shock waves traveling through the ISM (from supernovae, stellar winds of various kinds and other sources). They basically ionise all the gas that's present and electrifies the dust grains through the photoelectric effect. That generates the magnetic field. The fields themselves are pitifully weak...on the order on 10 nanotesla on the average!!!. Well, that's some 50000 times less intense than the earth's own field. The fact that these field are present in the spiral arms is no big deal....that's where much of the ionised gases and dust are, where most of the supernovae occur and where nearly all the massive stars which are able to ionise the ISM through their starlight and stellar winds, etc, are located. But what might also come as a surprise to you and the rest of the EU crowd is that the galaxy doesn't end at the spiral arms. Most of the gas and the stars in the galaxy doesn't even reside in the arms. All the arms are areas of over density...around 10-20% higher than average. The arms are generated by a spiral density wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory) that the materials within the galaxies move through. The density waves themselves only move slowly through the galaxies or not at all. All those other stars and ionised gases also maintain a very weak field as well. There are no large Birkeland currents traveling through the ISM creating spiral arms or anything else. There maybe electrical currents in the ISM, yes, but nothing of the scale or extent that are being bandied about by the EU fraternity. Nothing of the extent that could effectively confine the gases and dust to spiral arms without generating far more radio waves, synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung than what is actually present. And this is just for a start. Plus as has been mentioned before, where is the source of the charge separation and what is maintaining it to be able to generate all these currents?? Especially currents of the extent proposed. What currents are there don't even rate with the currents experienced in interplanetary space or on the planets themselves. There's no comparison.

As I have repeatedly said to you on numerous occasions, I have no problems with plasma physics or it's importance in astrophysics. However, I have a concern where that physics gets taken out of its proper context and used in situations in which there have been little or no observational or theoretical evidence for its existence, or no need for it. Where that happens and claims are made to the contrary, then those claims have to be backed up by extremely solid evidence (not just one or two experiments cited umpteen number of times, as Peratt has.), or otherwise they have no valid basis. That's how science works. If you can't falsify a hypothesis then it was never valid to begin with. It becomes nothing more than speculation.

No, Gaensler never proposed that, but Scott, Peratt and those two Neo Velikovskian twits who wrote "Thunderbolts of the Gods" are. Gaensler wouldn't be so stupid to treat other scientist as fools by proposing that sort of tripe. Plus, he'd make a mockery of his own career and most likely jeopardise it by holding onto notions like this.




Alfven's circuit ideas and Peratt's few simulations have no bearings on what's there in reality. If they did, they would be readily accepted and studied accordingly. However the reasons why they aren't accepted are the fact that their ideas have been tested and found wanting. They may hold for certain situations....with the interplanetary environment, the planets themselves and with certain aspects of astrophysical phenomenon, but they have not been found applicable as a overall general phenomenon to be applied to all situations.

Like I said, Alex, get some textbooks and read them if you want to learn about this. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Read the books written by those that have the track records in these fields of astrophysics. They're the ones to learn off if you need to. None of us here have been able to talk any sense to you, so you might as well go to the source and learn from there. As a matter of fact....here....

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9780691130279/?cf=3&rid=97221669&i=2&keywords=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Physics2/9780805304022/?cf=3&rid=97221669&i=8&keywords=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Physics2/9780691140292/?cf=3&rid=97221669&i=11&keywords=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9781891389344/?cf=3&rid=97221669&i=12&keywords=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astrophysics/9780691125114/?cf=3&rid=97221669&i=10&keywords=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Physics2/9783540769644/?cf=3&rid=2049586857&i=1&keywords=pulsars+and+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9781600215483/?cf=3&rid=2049586857&i=4&keywords=pulsars+and+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9781402092633/?cf=3&rid=2049586857&i=24&keywords=pulsars+and+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9783540423409/?cf=3&rid=2049586857&i=27&keywords=pulsars+and+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Science/Astronomy_Space/9780521434294/?cf=3&rid=2049586857&i=29&keywords=pulsars+and+neutron+stars

There you are....you said you were serious about wanting to find out about mainstream science theories and observations. Here's some books then for you to buy. You may not want to buy all of them, and there are a great many more I could've listed but if you're serious and honest about this, then get the books that you can.

[sjastro]

Where do you come to this stunning conclusion???

Schwartzchild solution is based on the assumption that space-time has a spherical symmetry, so r is a radial measurement. End of argument.



What has Hilbert got to do with Kerr, given that Hilbert had the termerity for being dead for twenty years when Kerr came up with the metric for rotating black holes?

The discussion revolved around Kerr's metric. Nothing to do with Schwarzchild and nothing to do with Hilbert. Rotating black holes don't even have "real" singularities.
There is no contradiction.



Of course you don't understand because you are mathematically illiterate.
What is unintuitive to you is straightforward to anyone who understand the maths.



Let me explain to you without any mathematics.
Einstein's field equations are so difficult that it is not possible to solve from first principles like an algebraic equation or simple ordinary differential equation.
Solving Einstein's equations is done in reverse. You construct a potential solution where the mathematics of the solution are based on certain physical assumptions. You then plug the solution into the field equations to see if it works.

Schwarzchild's solution is based on this principle. One of the physical assumptions made in the Schwarzchild solution is that space-time around a body has a spherical symmetry and r is a radial distance. There is no other way to interpret r.

The other issue is the singularity. Schwarzchild's solution is an example of learning to crawl before you can walk. It represents a simple solution of a non rotating black hole. Non rotating black holes probably don't exist in nature. Rotating black holes despite your protestations do exist without being burdened with singularities.

So it is a moot point to discuss singulariities in nature as the source of the singularities, non rotating black holes probably don't exist.

Steven

[renormalised]

Apart from the fact that you need to go back and learn basic physics (ever heard about conservation of angular momentum??), the fact that you've mentioned aurorae and the instance of Algol and it's companion is neither here nor there. I have to tell you again....and again and again and you still don't hear. I...we...have no problems with plasma physics where it's applicable to the situations it is an important factor in. But where there are no observational or theoretical reasons for its influence at all, except for maybe some circumstantial evidence in a few cases, then you have no reason to apply it. This idea that what you see in experiments must apply to all other situations because it applies to some is bad experimental procedure and design. It's also faulty theory. In all of science it has never applied that because you can produce results at one scale that those results must by definition scale upwards to all scales and apply in all situations. That has never been the case, despite what Alfven might've like to think and what yourself and your EU compatriots like to think. Most of you have no training in any science, most haven't even gone beyond senior or in some cases junior high school. And they expect to be able to understand the sciences they like to believe they have some handle on??. It's hard enough for those that actually have the training in those sciences to understand them, let alone for people that have little or no experience at all!!!!. Then to come out and say that those experts don't know what they talking about and castigating them, well that's just going way to far. That is arrogance based entirely on complete ignorance, conceit, jealousy and intellectual hubris.

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Steven and Carl.

Carl, i really cannot understand how you can be absolutely sure that electrical currents do not exist. How are you able to map dark mode plasma current flow? I'm not aware this is well developed?

http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/8686/file_1.pdf?sequence=1

An rf modulated plasma (no generator) is what it may take. Cosmic plasma's have much work to be done, Alfven himself said MHD was insufficient to describe observations, more work still to be done. Lerner and his team, though you may bag em, are developing these models along side their empirical investigations with regard to z-pinch.

Thankyou for acknowledging the role of charge separation in our solar system. The new tools becoming available will shed more light on this, charge separation does exist, it continues to be examined.

Thanks Steven, again looking forward to any rebuke you may offer Crothers on his work. Also a photo of a black hole would also be of use.

[bojan]

This, as described doesn't look like the oscillator to me at all
This guy tried to describe something analogous to oscillator with negative impedance.. but I can't see the mechanism of it at all. How does it work?

To be able to use plasma in oscillator, couple of conditions must be satisfied (mathematics!)
- there must be present a resonant circuit capable of turning the phase of the signal by 180°. That means, you have to have inductance and capacitance in the circuit. If only one of those are present, there are no conditions to start and maintain oscillations (mathematics again, sorry..)
Also, the size of the circuit must be much smaller than the wavelength of the oscillations. Otherwise, the oscillator becomes much more complicated, with distributed parameters - meaning the oscillation frequency (if the conditions for oscillations ate met at all) becomes dependent of the physical size of the system.
- there must be present the suitable source of the energy (OK, lets say there is.. but how does it work?

Now, the "terrestrial" model of this type of oscillator was realised a long time ago by Heinrich Hertz (in his time there were no valves yet, so he used spark as active element - negative impedance) in his circuit to generate short bursts of oscillations..
Tesla used the same for his high voltage experiments.

However, this is not a pulsar. The size of double star system would suggests oscillations with fundamental periods in the range of minutes to
hours - VERY long wavelengths.. not easy to detect at all.
The sparking itself was NOT part of the oscillator - it only provided the very short duration plasma cloud which behaved like negative impedance, but it lasted long enough compared to the period of oscillations (they were in GHz band), so the relatively narrow-band waves of sufficient duration were radiated from his contraption and detected couple of metres away by another resonant circuit.

Also, plasma will have negative impedance ONLY at certain current density, and ONLY immediately before it is becoming plasma - when the current increase is causing the voltage to drop. and this is happening in a moment of spark formation (when ionisation is starting, forming plasma out of neutral, high-density, isolation medium like air at normal atmospheric pressure).

Nope.. the cosmic version of this doesn't look plausible at all.

[sjastro]

A recent term that has come into the vernacular is the "Anti Rationlist Principle" where an opinion outweighs any facts that may support that opinion.

All you are doing is creating fiction to support your feeble arguments.



This is an example of fiction refuted by simple logic. If we assume something "must be there" then why do we need to spend billions finding it???

What we are actually seeing is the scientific method at work. GR predicts the existence of gravity waves, it doesn't prove their existence. The proof or otherwise comes through testing and observation.

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

30yrs... few billion... still waiting for a non-null result ;)

[sjastro]

It took over 250 years to prove Newton's description of launching bodies into orbit around Earth. It's called Sputnik.

[CraigS]

Would you agree that both repeatable experimentation and theory are necessary steps to ensure models are as free from human interpretation as possible ? And then if there's a dilemma, then empirical results drive interpretation ?

If so, how would you then interpret those results ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

Go back and reread what I have said in God knows how many posts you have found an imperative to post in....I have not denied the existence of electrical fields in space. What I have questioned is the insistence on this grand overarching omnipresence of electrical fields on scales and energies at which they have never been observed or even theorised at. Especially this ridiculous insistence on its complete dominance over gravity in pretty much every situation you care to apply it in. I suppose, now, it's electrical force holding everything down to the surface of the planet, or hey, why not have the Grand Canyon carved by some mega plasma discharged caused by Venus being ejected from the body of Saturn...all the while we're a supposed satellite of the giant planet....yes, that's what your revered Thornhill and Talbott would want us to believe. That is the most ridiculous piece of bad science fiction I have ever heard of or read. At least Velikovsky had the decency not to assail our collective common sense by suggesting such utter crud...at least he proposed that Venus may have been ejected from Jupiter, from where it orbited. He didn't completely rearranged the solar system to suit some wild psychotic mind snap. That's the sort of rot that we see the EU crowd falling for...just take a look at this rot from the holoscience website...Thornhill and Talbott's owned words..

What a heap of utter nonsense!!!!. It's that far off the planet (no pun intended) it's not even worth commenting about. Then we have this...Electric Galaxy (http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=5), and this, Electric Stars (http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6), Electric Life (http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=10)...I'm not even going to bother with the rest.



RF modulation!!!! By what and from where?? You still need a transmitter and a transmitter needs a power source. That would mean in a galaxy you'd need multiple sources to generate the appropriate ionising radiation. Where are these RF sources?? Where have they been found in observations?? You can't have the plasma being self modulated, so don't even attempt to explain it that way. In any case, most of the plasma in space is neutral...there's charge separation but not net flow of charge. As for your "dark flow". Anyone familiar with how plasmas work would know that anything masking a plasma's charge separation in such a manner would cause any current flow to collapse and thereby render it neutral....no more Birkeland current. You have to remember, even when the emissions are not in the visible spectrum, these plasmas still have ions and electrons moving about in the plasma and emitting radiation of all kinds. The fact that Birkeland currents also generate radio waves and other radiation seems to be curiously tossed aside by EU proponents. I mean, are you going to deny the radio emissions from Jupiter and the other planets with magnetic fields???



There's nothing to thank for, considering I have never denied the existence of such currents within the solar system. And that last bit was a bit of a throw away line, Alex. Whatever tools they develop will be turned to whatever they decide to turn them to.

As for Crothers...anyone who carries on like he did and still does, doesn't deserve to be listened to in any capacity. Anyone who can't take advice and thinks he knows better than those who have all the mileage under their belts, then actively attacks them and their science doesn't even deserve to have an undergraduate degree, let alone a PhD. If he did the same to me as he did to those professors and scientists, he'd find himself in court faster than he could say "jack robertson".

[renormalised]

And whilst we're busy quoting Einstein here, how about a reminder of another quote of his...."I know of only two things which maybe infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. I don't know about the former but I'm pretty certain about the latter".

Seems to have ring of truth about it when applied to the EU and it's followers.

[Jarvamundo]

Craig you continually raise some interesting questions...

Models inherently cannot be free from human interpretation.

Steven raised a good point above with regard to Newtonian dynamics, a human model, we now have galaxy rotation curves not giving 1 toss about this model... the results are violently different. We also have a little probe reaching the plasma double layer of our heliosphere that also doesn't fully follow the model.

Nature does not, will not, care about man's mathematical models. Never has.

As i raised before, by me, human mathematical models are handy, very handy, they help us average out, or provide quick "good enough" calculations to be used to better our experience.

[bojan]

I am still waiting from you to present the plausible model of cosmic relaxation oscillator, which will explain all properties of pulsars...In your own words.
Backed with calculations, of course.

[Jarvamundo]

You continually raise misunderstandings that seem prevalent in some astronomy interpretations of plasma dynamics. Particularly the function and isolating nature of double layers.

I understand your frustration, many of your queries are explained when studying plasma double-layers. I'd be happy to work through some of these with you.


I understand this invitation remains open.

[CraigS]

Just trying to get where you're coming from. Let's not worry about the science, just yet .. another question ..

... Ultimately, does it upset you to see the models driving research funding?
(Ie: might that be your biggest issue ?)

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Bojan, i have provided the links to the proposed model.

If you are seriously interested, it would be wise to follow through the progression of the electric model for the sun, then onto variable starts and the HR diagram and modes of plasma.

All these are inherently interlinked, you as an EE will no doubt find this easy to work through.

I can copy and paiste Professor Don Scott's entire site (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/) here if you really want, but the answers you seek have been summarized therein.

Beyond that search for his peer reviewed published works, or watch his 2009 presentation at NASA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y).

[Jarvamundo]

All good Craig.... Puttin me on a couch aye? hah... ahwell... You do not wish to discuss science?

hmm breakin it down... I just discuss other models Craig... I like lab experiments... when i see a plasma experiment spin up with the same rotation profile as spiral galaxies, with the same barred-shape... i guess i get excited. kind of a "looks like a duck" moment. Something real, something that does it as we see it, something testable here terrestrially.

I'd have to really agree with this empirical approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y

I find this statement very hard to disagree with.
http://cosmologystatement.org/

How bout you Craig? do you find saftey and comfort in these dark-ages?

[bojan]

No mate, this was not the deal..
I want to see this in your own words, backed with some simple calculation result

I simply do not have time to go through all your links, but since you already (I hope you did) have, surely you must be able to provide something that will satisfy my curiosity?.. or not?
How all this "sits" in your mind?

Otherwise, we are just citing authorities and "authorities".. playing games.
And, I am still not sure if you do know what you are talking about.

Until then..

[CraigS]

I read the statement. I get the funding issue.
Amateurs like us, probably can't change that situation. Funding justification is a difficult process. It is a professional scientists'/political interface issue. Amateur Scientists don't manage that process.

At the end of the day however, there have to be models (& tangible progress on them), to obtain funding. Mainstream science has achieved this for hundreds of years - they must've gotten them right for that funding to continue. (Eg: Plasma research).

Finding 'safety' ?
In 'Astro Science', I don't think I look to any particular theory to maintain an even keel.
I don't always believe what my eyes see. I resonate with mainstream science because its been proven to lead towards a future and it resists the illusions created by the mind.

The 'darkness' is self-correcting - it'll go away, courtesy of the process which created it.

Forcing it won't make it so.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Sorry for the rhetorical question but are you being dishonest again, or is it poor memory?
Remember the Neptune analogy for dark matter I gave a while back.



Nature doesn't care for illogical thinking, dishonesty and human bias either.

With regards to maths and nature take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

I've sent you this link beforehand, obviously the penny didn't drop beforehand, probably won't this time either.



But should be avoided at all costs if they are too difficult to comprehend or causes conflict with an ideology.

Steven

[sjastro]

Don't hold your breath Bojan it will be serious for your health.

Steven

[renormalised]

No thank you. If I want to find out about more aspects of plasma physics, I'll go buy a textbook on it and/or go and talk to one of the guys at uni. I don't need an "armchair expert" telling me how things work.

[renormalised]

I wouldn't be so cocky as to pronounce that as some sort of ideological truth. Even a cursory look will tell you all you need to know about the fundamental mathematical underpinnings of nature. All we have done is expressed those mathematical truths as theories and equations on paper. Only the blind fool or religious nutter couldn't it see. Which one are you??.

[Jarvamundo]

Carl, ofcourse, the text is what i would be helping with ;)

[Jarvamundo]

Hah, certainly don't expect to change funding here... it's just a discussion forum...

Yep, all good... I'm more of an eyes man...

Look forward to the darkness going away.

[renormalised]

Not likely.

[CraigS]

Try this one on (not directed at anyone, in particular):

“There’s a game humans play … its characterised by a complaint from somewhere.

Its motives stem from a need to dominate, or a need to avoid domination by others, at all costs.

What are the costs? Loss of respect, loss of relatedness, general misery.”

Not that that's true or anything.

Another one for the next release of Hamster’s Take on Humans (HTH for short - pending RATification, of course), coming soon to a newsagents near to you !
:P:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

1. Hamster

2. "RATification"

:):)

[Jarvamundo]

what? no cage?

[CraigS]

What !!???
Where did that come from ????
I protest !!!
Someone (thing)'s been using my login !!

Call that pest controller, right now !!
:eyepop:

[sjastro]

And what is your reference Alex, "Plasma Physics according to Garp".

Let me remind you again, since SR is wrong because Sagnac dictates it, implies that plasma physics is also wrong.

Evidently you are unaware of relativistic plasma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_plasma

Why don't you explain the mechanism of X-ray synchrotonic radiation for non-relativistic plasmas given that SR is wrong.

Steven