(I'm new to this forum so I thought I'd better say a friendly 'Hello').
Ok, so Inflationary/acceleration theory (now supported by WMAP data, Hubble's research etc) tells us that the universe originally 'inflated' and is now accelerating. So I've been completely baffled about how Galaxies can collide, if this is so.
I asked this question recently of a research astronomer at the Syd Observatory and got the standard 'Gravity' and different scales/dimensions answer (ie: gravity overcomes the driving 'force' behind cosmic acceleration and anyway, this operates at a different scale ie: 100's to 1,000's of light years separation).
So, wouldn't the original kick in the early stages of the big bang (Inflation) and the subsequent acceleration (due to 'dark energy'), have given all matter and spacetime an 'outwards' inflationary trajectory -ie: separating everything from everything else, both initially and into the future and hence preclude any co-incidence of trajectories at all inter-galactic scales?
I can't quite see how a theory such as this can work in some parts of the inter-galactic scale but not in other parts. Your comments would be much appreciated, as I am perplexed.
Cheers
Perplexed by BBT? Join the ever growing club. You have not yet asked about large scale structures?
Which astronomer at Syd Uni...? You should have a look at Gaensler's work on intergalactic magnetic fields. It is clear "gravity only" is not sufficient answer.... unless yes of course as Alex post#2 has pointed out some mathamagical entities are invoked, FAR FAR beyond any empirical or intuitive experience.... aswell as flat out ignoring the mapped magnetic fields and charge separation.
As far as WMAP supporting BBT? Well it depends on who is presenting it to you...Ned Wright? WMAP has been plagued by processing errors and is very contested...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
We interperete our data on the basis that the big bang theory is fact and in doing so we eliminate any opportunity of alternatives and perhaps supporting an unsupportable view of the universe.
All too true Alex. Although if you want a career in astronomy, you better not upset the boys who wrote the text books.
I recommend "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, for an analysis of WMAP, redshift anomalies and more.
contrary to the view of
"Without mathematical tools firmly under control and fully understood, discussions like this one are pointless."
I lean towards experiments, repeatability and natural philosophy... since mathematical tools can and do describe any amounts of realities... Ptolomey and his epicycles?
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla
The irony in all of this, is the LHC... what do you think accelerates these particles? yep, giant electro magnets...
Regarding galaxy collisions.... Have you read up on the works of Halton Arp "Seeing Red"? and galaxy (quasar) ejection? I'd also recommend this we are now measuring quasars to be both quantized in relation to their parent Seyfert galaxies... and positioned along minor axis..... and also... totally devoid of all Time Dilation as required by hubble law.... all flying in the face of BBT requirements.
Each to their own realities,
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 24-07-2010 at 10:41 AM.
Alex, you have this fixation with magnetic fields and electromagnetism to the point of almost the exclusivity of everything else. Astronomers and physicists do not exclude the actions of EM in the workings of the universe. They just dispute it's importance in the overall scheme of things when it comes to the main driving forces within the universe. No one is disputing that EM fields are important factor in the way many particles are accelerated to enormous speeds in accretion disks, bipolar jets, sculpt the shapes of gas and dust clouds within galaxies etc etc. But to come out and say it's the main driving force behind everything and that gravity and other forces are secondary to it, is taking things just a little too far. It's all well and good to be able to say that EM is the main driving process behind many of the phenomena we see, but the crux of the matter is being able to prove it. This not only means being able to show the proof through observation but also being able to model the observations and propose theories as to how it all works. Quoting what Tesla said is not proof of anything, nor is it a vindication of anyone's pet ideas. Tesla was a great experimental scientist, but he was far from knowing about or understanding what there is in physics (or the universe). What he failed to realise is that you can't just look at something and then know everything about how it works. There's far more to understanding a process than observing that process in work. That's where the mathematics and theory come into play. It is then where observation either prove, disprove or modify those theories and mathematics. It's the way science works. You cannot have one part without the other. Otherwise it's not really science...only curious tinkering, and around the edges at that.
It's not about "upsetting the boys who wrote the textbooks" that'll wreck a career for anyone. Sometimes it does put you on the outer and doesn't win you favours. I'm all for different ideas and alternatives to what constitutes the present paradigm, but you have to be very much on your toes and know what you're on about. Otherwise you'll make yourself out to be a twit. Scientist, just like many others, have a habit of holding onto pet ideas to the exclusivity of other possibilities. But in order to have an idea which is worth considering, you also have to have good solid evidence supporting your idea. Otherwise it's just speculation at best. Yes, scientist can also be hard nosed about the "state of play" and what constitutes "reality". But many of those others who espouse alternative theories can be just as hard nosed and hidebound. There needs to be a balance between the two, but unfortunately ego and human nature intervene all too often. As well as plain and simple ignorance and closed mindedness. Or it goes completely in the opposite direction, which is just as bad. You have to be careful about jumping onto any bandwagon, just because it appeals to your maverick nature or your conservatism. More often than not, bandwagons have a habit of losing their wheels and coming apart in rather inglorious crashes. We all feel on the outer at times and feel that we may know the right answers and everyone else is not on the right path. But feeling that and being able to prove it and have convincing evidence of that proof is an entirely different thing.
It's like this...I think that traveling faster than light is eminently feasible and that too many of the physicists for far too long have had their collective heads jammed up Einstein's rear end all because of his theories. They're enamoured by them and can't see past the aura they produce. That's not to say that Einstein got it all wrong....he didn't and his theories do hold a lot of water. But he is not the be all and end all of everything there is to know about the workings of gravity or anything else for that matter. Suffice to say, I believe we have most of the physics now which will allow us to achieve the desired goal. However, there are some important pieces which are still missing yet and we need to connect the dots in order to join both ends up. Don't ask me what those dots are. I don't know, and neither do most other scientist at present. But I believe they'll find them soon enough. Probably within the next 50-100 years or so. It's probably going to take someone like Ed Witten to figure it out, but they'll do it. Who knows, might even be Ed himself.
It seems as though you have a fixation on Mathematical theoretical physics, and is probably why you seem to be comfortable and hold onto hope for notions such as hypothetical strings and wait that the next discovery of nature will not come from an empirical eye of discovery, rather a hand connected to a chalk board and complex number system inventions of mans mind.
It is as ok for you to endorse and or protect the wisdom of mathematical constructs such as inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, gravitational waves all of which have absolutely no on earth empirical verification.... as it is for me to talk of charge separation and magnetic fields in plasma, of which is now know to make up 99.9% of the matter in the universe and is well... as does NOT require abstract mathematical entities to be invented adhock to save the day, without any experimental verification of basic processes.
I certainly do not discount the effect we call gravity, I am just skeptical of many of BBT's and gravitationally dominant adhock explanations... for example: Large scale structures being as result of cosmic strings in space-time-fabric near the early (unverfiable, highly mathematical) big bang event...
When something as simple as lab verified plasma filaments can describe such things. There are many more examples of where lab physics can answer some questions.
You are correct Tesla was an inventor, and empiricist. The quote highlighted the different approaches to science... There are many more quotes, from many more empiricists past and modern...
And is why it was followed by 'each to their own', we all have our own choice.
one might like "dark matter".... i'll go with empirical magnetic fields (perrat spiral model)
one might like "cosmic inflation strings".... i'll go with large scale birkeland currents
one might like "bbt".... ill go with my eyes 'yes Arp, that quasar is connected to that galaxy'
I think it's important for alternatives to be talked about... people can make their own choices.
I bet if i said "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", "Black Hole", "Worm Hole", "Strange Matter".... i'd ruffle less feathers... hehhe
I like to explore all areas including alternatives, as there is alot of excellent work in the mainstream of which i learn alot of here.
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 24-07-2010 at 12:15 PM.
Seems like we've drifted into discussions on scientific philosophy.
I think I'm in synch with Carl on this one. Especially on this topic.
Its all good.
Alex - thanks for the reading material references. I'm always on the look out to absorb more knowledge about the topic.
Oh yes - Witten - what a humungous mind/intellect. I just hope humankind makes good use of it while he exists. I'm kinda glad the yanks got him, too. If he lived in Oz he'd be mowed down (which is a pity - after all, he IS a tall poppy).
It seems as though you have a fixation on Mathematical theoretical physics, and is probably why you seem to be comfortable and hold onto hope for notions such as hypothetical strings and wait that the next discovery of nature will not come from an empirical eye of discovery, rather a hand connected to a chalk board and complex number system inventions of mans mind.
No, that's where you're wrong about myself. I am quite comfortable with theory, but I'm also equally comfortable with empirical, experimental science as well. I wouldn't be competent scientist if I wasn't. Sometimes discoveries don't come through looking but through the imagination first. Much of science works that way...look at all the major discoveries ....relativity, atomic theory, gravity, etc etc. They came about through both theory and observation. But that doesn't invalidate anything purely theoretical. Nor does it validate anything empirical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
It is as ok for you to endorse and or protect the wisdom of mathematical constructs such as inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, gravitational waves all of which have absolutely no on earth empirical verification.... as it is for me to talk of charge separation and magnetic fields in plasma, of which is now know to make up 99.9% of the matter in the universe and is well... as does NOT require abstract mathematical entities to be invented adhock to save the day, without any experimental verification of basic processes.
Oh please...inflation, gravitational waves, dark energy and dark matter....yes. Black holes and neutron stars. Have you ever looked at M1 at any stage. See that dim star in the centre of the nebula. That's a neutron star. They've observed hundreds of them, both in supernova remnants and alone. Plus, they've seen concentration of mass in the centres of galaxies and detected movements of stars about these concentrations which could only be black holes. Then you have X-ray binaries where the invisible companions in orbit about the stars could only be either a black hole or neutron star. Usually a black hole. All perfectly observable.
You do realise that for all your protestations about electrical fields and plasmas, you have little evidence to prove your point. Whether they see these things on Earth is neither here nor there. You have to prove that the same processes are occurring in space, and in the dominant fashion that you believe they do. Whilst these processes do occur in space, they are not the dominant factor in the large scale processes which affect the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
I certainly do not discount the effect we call gravity, I am just skeptical of many of BBT's and gravitationally dominant adhock explanations... for example: Large scale structures being as result of cosmic strings in space-time-fabric near the early (unverfiable, highly mathematical) big bang event...
When something as simple as lab verified plasma filaments can describe such things. There are many more examples of where lab physics can answer some questions.
If you have another explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, the CMB, universal expansion etc, feel free to express it here. Feel free to do the research and publish it in the appropriate journals or bring it up at a conference. If you can show good observable and theoretical reasons as to why they should reconsider their ideas about the large scale structure of the universe, how stars are formed and powered, why the spiral structure of galaxies forms, the distribution of dust and gas in galaxies, the nature of the intergalactic medium and how it forms etc etc etc, then feel free to mention those ideas. If they're good enough to withstand scrutiny, the you'll have a goer. If not, then you're going to have to reappraise your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
You are correct Tesla was an inventor, and empiricist. The quote highlighted the different approaches to science... There are many more quotes, from many more empiricists past and modern...
And is why it was followed by 'each to their own', we all have our own choice.
one might like "dark matter".... i'll go with empirical magnetic fields (perrat spiral model)
one might like "cosmic inflation strings".... i'll go with large scale birkeland currents
one might like "bbt".... ill go with my eyes 'yes Arp, that quasar is connected to that galaxy'
I think it's important for alternatives to be talked about... people can make their own choices.
I bet if i said "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", "Black Hole", "Worm Hole", "Strange Matter".... i'd ruffle less feathers... hehhe
I like to explore all areas including alternatives, as there is alot of excellent work in the mainstream of which i learn alot of here.
Like I said earlier, what you see is not necessarily the truth. You only decry BBT because it doesn't fit in with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes reality. Yet despite all your talk about Birkeland currents and such, you have no evidence to the contrary that will uphold your position. Only what a few scientist, who have had their pet ideas dismissed by years and years of observation and theoretical analysis, have begrudgingly held onto in the hope that a miracle will vindicate their position. Unfortunately for them, those miracles of vindication have not happened, despite their continued looking. It may come with further observation, then again it may not.
I'm not dismissing the effect of EM processes on the various scale of structures in the universe, but what I am questioning is your insistence in those EM processes being the dominant driving force in creating what we see. If it was obvious that EM was the driving force behind the formation of galaxies, the large scale structure of the universe etc etc, they would've found it many years ago and this whole discussion would be moot. It's not they've dismissed it out of hand. They have considered the effects of large scale electrical forces in the universe and they've found the idea wanting. It's not that they aren't there entirely, they're not as dominant as some would like them to be.
Oh Alex...you asked a question about electrical fields and star formation. Yes, they do occur in the formation of stars. They have detected very weak magnetic fields emanating from bok globules and such. In cases where the bok globules are well below their jeans masses, the weak electrical forces can contribute to keeping the globule from collapsing, but once the globule becomes large enough, it's Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction and gravity which dominate the process. There are a few papers floating about which talk about the non gravitational processes occurring in these globules. Can't remember the specific papers offhand, but if you go to arXiv.org, you may find them there.
No, that's where you're wrong about myself. I am quite comfortable with theory, but I'm also equally comfortable with empirical, experimental science as well. I wouldn't be competent scientist if I wasn't. Sometimes discoveries don't come through looking but through the imagination first. Much of science works that way...look at all the major discoveries ....relativity, atomic theory, gravity, etc etc. They came about through both theory and observation. But that doesn't invalidate anything purely theoretical. Nor does it validate anything empirical.
I do not know all of your ideas, but in your original post you seemed to be well aware of mine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Oh please...inflation, gravitational waves, dark energy and dark matter....yes. Black holes and neutron stars. Have you ever looked at M1 at any stage. See that dim star in the centre of the nebula. That's a neutron star. They've observed hundreds of them, both in supernova remnants and alone. Plus, they've seen concentration of mass in the centres of galaxies and detected movements of stars about these concentrations which could only be black holes. Then you have X-ray binaries where the invisible companions in orbit about the stars could only be either a black hole or neutron star. Usually a black hole. All perfectly observable.
That xray shape is well known to electrical and plasma physicists as a homo-polar motor. This was actually predicted by the plasma physicist Hannes Alfven in 1963!!!! well before chandra!
Unipolar inductors occur in astrophysics where a conductor rotates through a magnetic field, for example, the movement of the highly conductive plasma in a cosmic body's ionosphere through its magnetic field. In their book, Cosmical Electrodynamics, Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar write:
"Since cosmical clouds of ionized gas are generally magnetized, their motion produces induced electric fields [..] For example the motion of the magnetized interplanetary plasma produces electric fields that are essential for the production of aurora and magnetic storms" [..]".. the rotation of a conductor in a magnetic field produces an electric field in the system at rest. This phenomenon is well known from laboratory experiments and is usually called 'homopolar ' or 'unipolar' induction. [4] Unipolar inductors have been associated with the aurorae on Uranus,[5]binary stars,[6][7]black holes,[8][9]galaxies,[10] the Jupiter Io system,[11][12] the Moon,[13][14] the Solar Wind,[15]sunspots,[16][17] and in the Venusian magnetic tail.[18]
Being a good scientist you'd also be aware that a black hole is defined as an infinitely dense point mass and an event horizon. Since no one has ever found an infinitely dense point mass, or an event horizon (by eclipse) no body has ever found a black hole. This is bad empirics.
Quote:
You do realise that for all your protestations about electrical fields and plasmas, you have little evidence to prove your point. Whether they see these things on Earth is neither here nor there. You have to prove that the same processes are occurring in space, and in the dominant fashion that you believe they do. Whilst these processes do occur in space, they are not the dominant factor in the large scale processes which affect the universe.
Models, predictions, solid empirics based off NEW radio telescope and xray telescope measurements.
These measurements simply were not possible in the days of Einstein. It is of no wonder that gravity dominated physics were based mainly off optical measurements, with no idea or even available knowledge of these highenergy cosmic EM measurements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
If you have another explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, the CMB, universal expansion etc, feel free to express it here. Feel free to do the research and publish it in the appropriate journals or bring it up at a conference. If you can show good observable and theoretical reasons as to why they should reconsider their ideas about the large scale structure of the universe, how stars are formed and powered, why the spiral structure of galaxies forms, the distribution of dust and gas in galaxies, the nature of the intergalactic medium and how it forms etc etc etc, then feel free to mention those ideas. If they're good enough to withstand scrutiny, the you'll have a goer. If not, then you're going to have to reappraise your position.
Why do you think there is universal expansion? i have already provided links that redshift inferred distance IS NOT applicable to quasars, both by absence of time dilation, positions on minor axis and verified quantization to parent Seyferts. A major component of redshift is clearly NOT velocity (expansion or velocity). What are the impacts on hubble law and BBT?
We also find that the Toleman test of surface brightnesses fits ENE over LCDM, when we look at many z-values and relative frequencies: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
As alex mentioned in post #2. Why do we have to look at all data through BBT expansion lenses? Why do you seek "expansion" answers when there is data that says it is not even happening in the first place?
We are not stuck with BBT by default, especially since above has not been sufficiently addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Like I said earlier, what you see is not necessarily the truth. You only decry BBT because it doesn't fit in with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes reality. Yet despite all your talk about Birkeland currents and such, you have no evidence to the contrary that will uphold your position. Only what a few scientist, who have had their pet ideas dismissed by years and years of observation and theoretical analysis, have begrudgingly held onto in the hope that a miracle will vindicate their position. Unfortunately for them, those miracles of vindication have not happened, despite their continued looking. It may come with further observation, then again it may not.
I'm not dismissing the effect of EM processes on the various scale of structures in the universe, but what I am questioning is your insistence in those EM processes being the dominant driving force in creating what we see. If it was obvious that EM was the driving force behind the formation of galaxies, the large scale structure of the universe etc etc, they would've found it many years ago and this whole discussion would be moot. It's not they've dismissed it out of hand. They have considered the effects of large scale electrical forces in the universe and they've found the idea wanting. It's not that they aren't there entirely, they're not as dominant as some would like them to be.
Again, Xray telescopes, radio telescope arrays have not been available, and especially not available when gravity dominated cosmology was conjured up.
This dismissal you invoke of "they would've solved it a while ago" is an appeal to authority. I'm happy to explore all models and data here, but to seriously accept that a textbook penned BEFORE high energy xray telescopes and radio surveys were available is able to "dismiss" is extremely ignorant nonsense.
How would an optical telescope, available to gravity cosmo theories, be able measure Faraday rotation of polarized light, as is now being done with modern radio telescope arrays?
How would you see M1's homo-polar induction motor without x-ray images, only capable with modern space bound telescopes?
Thanks for you reply re- star formation... will absorb, examine and compare.
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 24-07-2010 at 07:42 PM.
Out of interest, which of Einsteins theories have been shown to be incorrect since his passing?
The "Sagnac" experiment invalidated SR/GR by demonstrating a preferential frame.... but this was during Einsteins time.
(Ref. Sagnac M. G., J. de Phys., 1914, 4, 177-195).
Are there any VSL lovers out there? I find the theory quite intriguing as an alternative to inflation. Magueijo appears to be leading the effort. I've seen his documentary on Discovery Science, very interesting.
Last edited by OICURMT; 25-07-2010 at 12:23 PM.
Reason: spelling error
The "Sagnac" experiment invalidated SR/GR by demonstrating a preferential frame.... but this was during Einsteins time.
(Ref. Sagnac M. G., J. de Phys., 1914, 4, 177-195).
Let me pose the question as I did in a previous discussion . If the Sagnac effect is as what you claim it is, then why does the MM test produce a null result.
And please don't cherry pick data as you did previously by quoting Miller's results.
The Sagnac effect is well understood. GPS satellites are corrected for the Sagnac effect for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion.
It has "absolutely" nothing to do with a preferential frame.
That xray shape is well known to electrical and plasma physicists as a homo-polar motor. This was actually predicted by the plasma physicist Hannes Alfven in 1963!!!! well before chandra!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Being a good scientist you'd also be aware that a black hole is defined as an infinitely dense point mass and an event horizon. Since no one has ever found an infinitely dense point mass, or an event horizon (by eclipse) no body has ever found a black hole. This is bad empirics.
Models, predictions, solid empirics based off NEW radio telescope and xray telescope measurements.
These measurements simply were not possible in the days of Einstein. It is of no wonder that gravity dominated physics were based mainly off optical measurements, with no idea or even available knowledge of these highenergy cosmic EM measurements.
I'm fully aware of what a homo polar generator is, but what do you think is actually generating the fields and the currents that maybe present in the plasma of the remnant. Take a good look at the arrowed object in the attached picture. That is the pulsar at the heart of the remnant, The neutron star that you are so fond of believing is nothing more than a theoretical construct. They have observed hundreds of these object since they were discovered in the early 60's, and have many thousands of nice little happy snaps of the said objects. So much for your insistence on empirical evidence in this case. That is the generating source for your charged plasmas in the remnant, what is generating the enormous magnetic fields that are accelerating charged particles to near lightspeed, creating gamma rays, synchrotron radiation and exciting the cloud to glow like it is, that is merrily ticking away at 33 millisecond time intervals. The only thing gravity had involvement, in this case, was forming the pulsar. So your argument against gravity here falls rather flat.
That these processes were not observable in Einstein's day, or for several decades after the fact, is a moot point. That's tantamount to saying that Democritus, in 440BC, got the idea of the atom wrong because he never had the technology to see them. It took over 2400 years and well into the 1980's before we had developed that technology...the tunneling scanning microscope. Guess what, atoms actually exist. You can take piccies of them. But up until then, they were nothing more than a premise based on assumption by physicists...they only knew of their existence via inference in physics experiments. No one had physically seen an atom, but that didn't invalidate any theory that relied on their existence, did it.
Same for black holes...that we haven't physically examined an event horizon of one, seen it, or studied a singularity in a lab, doesn't discount their existence. There is more than enough observable, physical evidence which points to their existence. If you choose to ignore that, then that's your own decision to make.
Why do you think there is universal expansion? i have already provided links that redshift inferred distance IS NOT applicable to quasars, both by absence of time dilation, positions on minor axis and verified quantization to parent Seyferts. A major component of redshift is clearly NOT velocity (expansion or velocity). What are the impacts on hubble law and BBT?
We also find that the Toleman test of surface brightnesses fits ENE over LCDM, when we look at many z-values and relative frequencies: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
I have never denied the existence of EM forces involving space plasmas, the only thing I have questioned is your insistence on their predominance on large scale cosmological scenarios. You have given no evidence to back this claim on sound, verifiable, observable basis...and neither has anyone else. All they have espoused is speculations and tentative hypotheses, nothing more or less. What evidence they do produce is not much more than circumstantial. Maybe....maybe not.
You have quoted from the few papers that purport to dismiss redshift and quasars distance correlation, yet I wonder whether you actually taken the time to read the rest which also show that the links to quasars and so called parent galaxies is nothing more than chance alignments and optical illusions. Of all the quasars studies by Halton Arp in his quest to prove his ideas, not one of them has actual stood up to detailed scrutiny, yet he still insists on the link he proposes. Arp is a good scientist, but like many scientists, he has a pet idea that he can't seem to part with. Given the number of galaxies and quasars there are in the universe, it's statistically possible that there might be one or a few genuine connections. However that in no way invalidates any previous findings or assumptions on the matter. From long and exhaustive, credible and verifiable observations done over many years, there is no credible evidence for the link between Seyferts and quasars as proposed by Arp and others...only very ambiguous and circumstantial evidence at best.
Why do I think the universe is expanding...did I actually say this at any stage. All I have done is explained what is observed based on current theoretical understanding. Yes, there are problems with Universal expansion and there are competing theories around which may explain some observations more easily than inflation, acceleration or expansion, but they have yet to explain a lot of things themselves and are just as prone to "fudges" as accepted theory is. None of them have the track record of the current theory in explaining the observations that have been made, but that doesn't mean they're to be dismissed either. However, it also doesn't mean that they're any more correct than current theory and they still have a lot of work to be done on them before they can be accepted as viable alternatives to current theory.
You make a habit of quoting papers a lot, but I wonder whether you really understand what's in them. It takes more than a keen interest in the subject matter to know what they're on about. At a minimum, you have to have some background in the work. Have actually studied it. Do you have a degree in astrophysics or cosmology...even if it's just basic undergrad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
As alex mentioned in post #2. Why do we have to look at all data through BBT expansion lenses? Why do you seek "expansion" answers when there is data that says it is not even happening in the first place?
We are not stuck with BBT by default, especially since above has not been sufficiently addressed.
That is a fallacious answer. There is no hard verifiable evidence pointing to the absence of expansion of spacetime...only circumstantial evidence and speculative hypothesising as to what maybe happening. The data that has been presented is not widely supported, in any case, and still need much work done to make it tenable. True, we are not stuck with BBT by default, but neither do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because someone thinks they've found some contradictory evidence. It's not perfect but it's far more sound in it's theoretical and overall observational evidence than the rest of the hypotheses espoused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Again, Xray telescopes, radio telescope arrays have not been available, and especially not available when gravity dominated cosmology was conjured up.
This dismissal you invoke of "they would've solved it a while ago" is an appeal to authority. I'm happy to explore all models and data here, but to seriously accept that a textbook penned BEFORE high energy xray telescopes and radio surveys were available is able to "dismiss" is extremely ignorant nonsense.
How would an optical telescope, available to gravity cosmo theories, be able measure Faraday rotation of polarized light, as is now being done with modern radio telescope arrays?
How would you see M1's homo-polar induction motor without x-ray images, only capable with modern space bound telescopes?
It would've made no difference to what they theorised even if they had the technology in those days to use x-ray telescopes and gamma-ray scopes. That is a completely moot point. It's as I said before, not having the detectors doesn't mean that the ideas they've come up with are wrong. All you have managed to point out is that now they can scan the sky at different wavelengths and see things they previously couldn't see. All that means is they can come up with theories to explain what they observe with the new equipment. It in no way invalidates any previously held theories. And there is no observational evidence that has been published which claims these new detectors and observational techniques has done so. On the contrary, they have bolstered what was previously thought of as just theory and has brought much into light that was previously hidden to observation. Which has been a huge bonus to the astronomical community.
What I said about finding EM influence earlier on in the piece is not an appeal to authority. It's statement of fact. If they had found that EM forces were the predominant factor in the formation of the universe at all scales, they would've acknowledge that and said so. There is no authority to have any appeal to except the authority of hard physical evidence. If it was there, then it would be published and further research would've been carried out. Simple as that...cold hard scientific method at work.
Then you go and accuse me of quoting a textbook and that this was extremely ignorant nonsense. Now, you're going way too far here. Firstly, I have never quoted anything from a text. All I have mentioned is that you should go and read up the available texts and that one of them you may look up is my own textbook I use in my studies...and that there are plenty of other current books out there. FYI...my textbook was written in 2007, so I'd say that's pretty current. Your little outburst smacks of arrogance and sheer hubris, as you seem to think that because you have found some evidence to suit your own world view that everyone else's is somehow deficient. Above all, do you honestly believe that you know more than the scientists that write these textbooks, even those written before the advent of x-ray and gamma ray scopes?? I have a funny conviction that they have not only the study and research mileage over yourself, but also the experience to not come out and make such preposterous statements as you made in this instance. You need to watch what you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Thanks for you reply re- star formation... will absorb, examine and compare.
Nothing to it, but if you continue to make snide little statements without being absolutely sure of your intentions or what you say, I won't proffer anymore information as it won't be in either of our interests.
Are you suggesting that the 'faster-than-expected rotation' of the outer parts of galaxies maybe partially (or fully) due to these rotating fields ?
(This is one of the corner-stones underpinning the 'dark energy' thing too, huh?)
(Just trying to keep up with you guys. Ya got me now ..very interesting).
Cheers
Professor Anthony Peratt from Los Alamos in 1986 used super computers and known lab-experiment properties of plasma to model what would happen if 2 adjacent Birkeland currents formed.
Yes it does not require the hypothetical, undetected, Dark Matter inventions.
As mentioned recently (as in the last 10 years) radio telescopes arrays (of which are still being constructed) have been surveying galaxies and it is now clear that magnetic fields are abundant on large scales. The large scale magnetic fields (and electric currents that cause them) can no longer be ignored.
So now we have Alfvens 1960's theory, Peratts 1986 computer simulations, Lab verified plasma experiments and now Gaenslers (and others) mapping of required large scale magnetic fields.
There are many puzzles left to resolve, like where do the m-fields, or currents come from... but it is clear they are there.... and are observable, both here in the lab, and out there through measuring Faraday rotation.
One is free to believe in Dark Energy and Dark Matter and all those other fantastic concepts, however there are other branches of mainstream that are pursuing cosmologies that begin from lab verified physics, inclusive of large scale charge separation.
Some here often dismiss 'charge separation' away as crack science... it is clearly not the case.... It is verified by large scale observations, and many (even mainstream) are working on this.
I'm fully aware of what a homo polar generator is, but what do you think is actually generating the fields and the currents that maybe present in the plasma of the remnant. Take a good look at the arrowed object in the attached picture. That is the pulsar at the heart of the remnant, The neutron star that you are so fond of believing is nothing more than a theoretical construct. They have observed......... .....So your argument against gravity here falls rather flat.
In 1932 the neutron was discovered.
In 1934 Zwicky declared the neutron star.
Lets be very clear here... gravity dominated cosmology has a model for a neutron star, forming a pulsar yes as you mention with the surface spinning like a lighthouse at 25% the speed of light!
This magical super heavy start also speeds up, speeds down and has 'frequency glitches'.... thats cool... thats your model...
The plasma cosmology model for the pulsar is a relaxation oscillator. This is a very simple piece of known lab physics, any freshman constructs. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
See Pulsar Section
Quote:
"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"
We just have 2 different models here Carl....
I'm just not comfortable with unverified physics being concocted.
all... good lets move along
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
That these processes were not observable in Einstein's day, or for several decades after the fact, is a moot point. That's tantamount to saying that Democritus, in 440BC, got the idea of the atom wrong because he never had the technology to see them....
I think observation is very important. We are talking about large scale radio emissions that are not expected by gravity gas models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Same for black holes...that we haven't physically examined an event horizon of one, seen it, or studied a singularity in a lab, doesn't discount their existence. There is more than enough observable, physical evidence which points to their existence. If you choose to ignore that, then that's your own decision to make.
I'm just saying we have not observed a black hole.
There are models for what we observe to be "Dark Matter", and also bright-plasmoid accelleration, that use real verified lab physics.... see Anthony Peratt above.
You are free to choose, i'm glad you agree we have not observed an infinitely dense point mass, or event horizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
I have never denied the existence of EM forces involving space plasmas, the only thing I have questioned is your insistence on their predominance on large scale cosmological scenarios. You have given no evidence to back this claim on sound, verifiable, observable basis...and neither has anyone else. All they have espoused is speculations and tentative hypotheses, nothing more or less. What evidence they do produce is not much more than circumstantial. Maybe....maybe not.
Yep, cool... I've just posted several verifications of large scale EM forces.
I'm more likely to question Dark Matter, a hypothetical unobservable implied form of matter....before attacking a well known lab verified force.
But hey, thats just me i spose. agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
You have quoted from the few papers that purport to dismiss redshift and quasars distance correlation, yet I wonder whether you actually taken the time to read the rest which also show that the links to quasars and so called parent galaxies is nothing more than chance alignments and optical illusions. Of all the quasars studies by Halton Arp in his quest to prove his ideas, not one of them has actual stood up to detailed scrutiny, yet he still insists on the link he proposes. Arp is a good scientist, but like many scientists, he has a pet idea that he can't seem to part with.
OK now this is absolute nonsense. Arp continues to publish, Redshift quantisation of quasars has now been found with over 40,000 dataset!
Add to this we now have time dilation also matching Arps models.
"nothing more than chance alignments".... sorry Carl. Please see work by Hawkins (not hawking) "quasar time dilation" Astrophysical journal .
Take your head out of the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Given the number of galaxies and quasars there are in the universe, it's statistically possible that there might be one or a few genuine connections. However that in no way invalidates any previous findings or assumptions on the matter.
Sorry if you have a high redshift object, physically connected to a lower redshift parent... even just once.... this empirically falsifies a velocity ONLY redshift.
We now have distinct intrinsic redshift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
From long and exhaustive, credible and verifiable observations done over many years, there is no credible evidence for the link between Seyferts and quasars as proposed by Arp and others...only very ambiguous and circumstantial evidence at best.
it's not ambiguous, it's also backed up by: Redshift quantization, connecting gas from ejection, time dilation absence!
This is not circumstantial. Arps models predict lack of time dilation, did expansion? NO... big phat NO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Why do I think the universe is expanding...did I actually say this at any stage. All I have done is explained what is observed based on current theoretical understanding. Yes, there are problems with Universal expansion and there are competing theories around which may explain some observations more easily than inflation, acceleration or expansion, but they have yet to explain a lot of things themselves and are just as prone to "fudges" as accepted theory is. ............
Intrinsic redshift is not in current models. Yet it is clearly part of observations.
What does this do to universal expansion? I'm not satisfied with ignoring these observations.... all good if you are.... move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
You make a habit of quoting papers a lot, but I wonder whether you really understand what's in them. It takes more than a keen interest in the subject matter to know what they're on about. At a minimum, you have to have some background in the work.
Appeal to authority? What kind of church is this?
Quote:
Have actually studied it. Do you have a degree in astrophysics or cosmology...even if it's just basic undergrad.
Studied physics optics, electronics and have 10yrs exp in raster technologies and compression algorithms, and have processed data for astronomy papers.
But who cares? can we not just stick to the science...?
Is this really going to come down to shiney badges? Pff throughout history some of the sharpest minds had zero badges. Even Einstein flunked his entrance exam.
this is exclusive nonsense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
That is a fallacious answer. There is no hard verifiable evidence pointing to the absence of expansion of spacetime...only circumstantial evidence and speculative hypothesising as to what maybe happening. The data that has been presented is not widely supported, in any case, and still need much work done to make it tenable. True, we are not stuck with BBT by default, but neither do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because someone thinks they've found some contradictory evidence. It's not perfect but it's far more sound in it's theoretical and overall observational evidence than the rest of the hypotheses espoused.
We have 2 distinct models, i'm very interested in exploring them both...
Both models are not perfect, i have questions for plasma cosmology as much as mainstream... I'll always add a bit more weight to experimental results, as it should trumph all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
It would've made no difference to what they theorised even if they had the technology in those days to use x-ray telescopes and gamma-ray scopes. That is a completely moot point. It's as I said before, not having the detectors doesn't mean that the ideas they've come up with are wrong. All you have managed to point out is that now they can scan the sky at different wavelengths and see things they previously couldn't see. All that means is they can come up with theories to explain what they observe with the new equipment. It in no way invalidates any previously held theories. And there is no observational evidence that has been published which claims these new detectors and observational techniques has done so. On the contrary, they have bolstered what was previously thought of as just theory and has brought much into light that was previously hidden to observation. Which has been a huge bonus to the astronomical community.
What I said about finding EM influence earlier on in the piece is not an appeal to authority. It's statement of fact. If they had found that EM forces were the predominant factor in the formation of the universe at all scales, they would've acknowledge that and said so. There is no authority to have any appeal to except the authority of hard physical evidence. If it was there, then it would be published and further research would've been carried out. Simple as that...cold hard scientific method at work.
No appeal to authority? you just asked me to disrobe and show you my shiney badge? You actually said i could not participate without one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Then you go and accuse me of quoting a textbook and that this was extremely ignorant nonsense. Now, you're going way too far here. Firstly, I have never quoted anything from a text. All I have mentioned is that you should go and read up the available texts and that one of them you may look up is my own textbook I use in my studies...and that there are plenty of other current books out there. FYI...my textbook was written in 2007, so I'd say that's pretty current. Your little outburst smacks of arrogance and sheer hubris, as you seem to think that because you have found some evidence to suit your own world view that everyone else's is somehow deficient. Above all, do you honestly believe that you know more than the scientists that write these textbooks, even those written before the advent of x-ray and gamma ray scopes?? I have a funny conviction that they have not only the study and research mileage over yourself, but also the experience to not come out and make such preposterous statements as you made in this instance. You need to watch what you say.
Excellent! lets discuss your textbook, I'm interested in seeing how charge separation is discussed in them, i've not found satisfactory explanations in the ones i have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Nothing to it, but if you continue to make snide little statements without being absolutely sure of your intentions or what you say, I won't proffer anymore information as it won't be in either of our interests.
Just cause i think gravity strange matter stars are nonsense, and am happy to express it, i do still think we could have a beer. My intentions are to explore Carl, you aswell as I are entitled to our own search....Thanks for the heads up on what terms to investigate this further. My comparative search continues.
Let me pose the question as I did in a previous discussion . If the Sagnac effect is as what you claim it is, then why does the MM test produce a null result.
And please don't cherry pick data as you did previously by quoting Miller's results.
The Sagnac effect is well understood. GPS satellites are corrected for the Sagnac effect for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion.
It has "absolutely" nothing to do with a preferential frame.
In the GPS, the Sagnac effect arises because the primary reference frame of interest for navigation is the rotating Earth-Centered, Earth- Fixed frame, whereas the speed of light is constant in a locally inertial frame, the Earth-Centered Inertial frame.
You still fail to grasp the setup of the experimental apparatus. Even in this paper they mention that the Sagnac effect is due to analysis when analyzed relative to an external frame!
This is simply not part of the original Sagnac experimental setup. Please see his original paper or the analysis of Professor Paul Marmet (late) from above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other
In this case, the "infrared film" needed was provided by Sagnac in 1913, when he looked for the aether with an interferometer that rotated, instead of translating in a near-straight line. Something caused his fringes to shift as viewed on the rotating platform, and these shifts meant that the velocity of light was remaining constant relative to the laboratory. Sagnac advanced this as experimental proof against the second postulate of SR, which it actually was. His method has been modified and repeated many times since his day, and currently is being tested constantly among the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Every single time, when rotation of a light path within a surrounding dominant coordinate system occurs, fringes are shifted, light velocities are altered, and the existence of a luminiferous aether is strongly inferred--all contrary to SR.
Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short.
Why? Because the question was asked and many do take Sagnac's experimental results seriously.
Regarding MM, please take a look at the light path setup of the original Sagnac experiment, it will always give a far greater result, than the MM setup. The light path geometry of this is clear. Although yes please see Marmet again with regard to MM.
Oh dear seems to be warming up in here again . We need to remember that all theories whether mathematically or empirically based are simply human constructs and I very much doubt we have the intellect or technologies at this time to propose anything that is within a country mile of what is really happening. Theories will pass with time to be replaced with something new and if we get caught up yelling our truths from the roof tops.........well lets build some pyramids and sacrifice some unimportant plebs to the great god (insert your preferred diety here ............). Alls fair in love and the science sandpit .
Steven, from your paper:
You still fail to grasp the setup of the experimental apparatus. Even in this paper they mention that the Sagnac effect is due to analysis when analyzed relative to an external frame!
It hasn't sunk in with you Alex. An external frame is not a criteria for an absolute frame of reference. This has been explained ad nauseum to you in the past.
And yet you again demonstrate the need to put a spin on an article you clearly do not comprehend.
Quote:
This is simply not part of the original Sagnac experimental setup. Please see his original paper or the analysis of Professor Paul Marmet (late) from above.
Originally Posted by other In this case, the "infrared film" needed was provided by Sagnac in 1913, when he looked for the aether with an interferometer that rotated, instead of translating in a near-straight line. Something caused his fringes to shift as viewed on the rotating platform, and these shifts meant that the velocity of light was remaining constant relative to the laboratory. Sagnac advanced this as experimental proof against the second postulate of SR, which it actually was. His method has been modified and repeated many times since his day, and currently is being tested constantly among the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Every single time, when rotation of a light path within a surrounding dominant coordinate system occurs, fringes are shifted, light velocities are altered, and the existence of a luminiferous aether is strongly inferred--all contrary to SR.
Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short.
Why? Because the question was asked and many do take Sagnac's experimental results seriously.
So what if it is not part of the original experiment? Satellites in orbit send signals to each other in the same direction and opposite to the Earth's rotation. Why do you think it's called a Sagnac correction?
GPS satellites are a perfect example of why aether does not exist. If the Sagnac effect is due to aether then corrections will also have to be applied for the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Quote:
Regarding MM, please take a look at the light path setup of the original Sagnac experiment, it will always give a far greater result, than the MM setup. The light path geometry of this is clear. Although yes please see Marmet again with regard to MM.
Who are you trying to kid? The light path geometry does not give an indication of performance.
What totally refutes your statement is that MM interferometers have been under constant development since the 1880's. A modern day interferometer is millions of times more sensitive than the original.
If Sagnacs are so much better and are designed for the same criteria then why bother with MM interferometers.
The answer is simple, Sagnacs do not measure changes in the speed of light but changes in the distance of the light path.
If the Sagnac effect is due to aether then corrections will also have to be applied for the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
How do you know the ether is not dragged with? All the Sagnac experiment does is violate SR's second postulate in a lab. How can you possibly create a full solar system aether model from this?
Falsify SR in a lab... done... Does it create a full solar model? hmm this is a leap, that is not proposed Steven.
Quote:
The answer is simple, Sagnacs do not measure changes in the speed of light but changes in the distance of the light path.
Who are you trying to kid. The emittor, splitter, detector are all in the frame of reference.
As you said before... for SR "put the ccd on the table, and you will see no interference"
This is not the result.
You then back tracked, and persist by analyzing the result from a non-rotating frame, thus creating your relative length contraction. It is simply not part of the experimental apparatus.
The ccd is on the table.
Mark is correct, here we go again. I answered the question from Virgs and supplied a well published reference from Professor Paul Marmet (i have plenty more, as they are continuously published). If it upsets you that Einstien's errors are discussed, that's up to you.
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 25-07-2010 at 03:32 PM.
It is wonderful to witness the passion and keen interest demonstrated herein...although a taste of disappointment remains from witnessing the frustrations all exhibit when they think another fails to take on board their view.
So lets remain happy and passionate content that all are more or less seeking the ultimate truth.... which is really TOE... and realize that any answer a human can provide may be a somewhat simple explanation of all there is and all there ever has been.
And although math is critical to assess sample data and tends and all the other things a it can do for us math still is really a simplification of any reality....Remember math is happy to explain the complexity of a humans lip movement by understanding the manipulation of only 7 points
And as to ideas that are right and will remain right for all times it is fair to say that anyone who believe such has little regard for history.
So bottom line keep an open mind and dont trust anyone
I have been reading up on the CERN project and gather a matter of interest for those involved is to find the Higgs bosen...it is my understanding that the HB is a particle predicted by the current most popular model..the cold dark matter model??.. and that it is this particle that makes up the Higgs field...
In one lecture the lecturer said that its existence means that even the emptiest part of space would contain billions of them and on that basis a mere cubic centimeter would "weigh" trillions of "tons".... needless to say at this point I claim the HB as the "gravity rain" which creates the "push gravity" of my universe... yet while we await everyone to come to a similar realization may I ask this.... If we have a field (HB field) made up of trillions of HB,s ...would not such a field represent the "aether" thrown out by MM all those years ago?
AND if such a field exists could one not expect that our understanding and interpretation of red shift may be a little flawed ...I raised sometime ago (here) a mind experiment of estimating what we may observe in one of the "voids" in our universe... (huge regions of space which are the closest thing we can find that we could fairly call "nothing")... In that void we must be able to observe EME on each and every trajectory such that at any point its supply would seem almost infinite so one must include it in any sums no doubt..as they do I believe...but hearing more about the HB and the field it apparently scribes through out all there is I expect that HBs would be running about everywhere...would not such an environment require we rethink red shift and therefore the original premise upon the big bang as no doubt the HB was not on the table when an expanding universe was first presented as a possibility
. We need to remember that all theories whether mathematically or empirically based are simply human constructs and I very much doubt we have the intellect or technologies at this time to propose anything that is within a country mile of what is really happening. Theories will pass with time to be replaced with something new and if we get caught up yelling our truths from the roof tops.........well lets build some pyramids and sacrifice some unimportant plebs to the great god (insert your preferred diety here ............). Alls fair in love and the science sandpit 
.
. 
...I raised sometime ago (here) a mind experiment of estimating what we may observe in one of the "voids" in our universe... (huge regions of space which are the closest thing we can find that we could fairly call "nothing")... In that void we must be able to observe EME on each and every trajectory such that at any point its supply would seem almost infinite so one must include it in any sums no doubt..as they do I believe...but hearing more about the HB and the field it apparently scribes through out all there is I expect that HBs would be running about everywhere...would not such an environment require we rethink red shift and therefore the original premise upon the big bang as no doubt the HB was not on the table when an expanding universe was first presented as a possibility
