Inflation, Acceleration & Galaxies

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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

It cannot explain or is inapplicable to.

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

All competing ether theories fall apart under empirical evidence.

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.

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

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

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

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

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

It cannot explain or is inapplicable to.

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

All competing ether theories fall apart under empirical evidence.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by xlasnave

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

Alex i enjoy your attitude.

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

Best to you all.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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

So much for staying out of this thread.

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

So much for staying out of this thread.

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

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

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

That is fallacious reasoning.

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

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

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

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

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

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

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

yet another appeal to authority...

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by DonScott

When I met Bridgman at his place of employment - NASA‘s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD on March 16, 2009, he appeared more personable than his rant (and the addendum he has since issued) would indicate. I got the feeling at that meeting that if we could just sit down and talk about things, some area of agreement and mutual respect might be found. Apparently, from reading what he has written subsequent to this meeting, there is little hope of that.
It should be understood that if there are criticisms made by him that I have apparently neglected to address in detail in my comments here, it should not be assumed I have no response to them.
At this point, I‘m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts, pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic. Because I see no willingness on Bridgman‘s part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he
remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.
Nemo me impune lacessit.

Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.
1. They speak down to their audience using arguments from authority‘. check
2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space. check
3. When confronted with in your face evidence‘ such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: ―Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?‖ check
4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of experts‘ does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation. check
5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have. check
6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

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

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

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain ―noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs.‖ There are many morphological characteristics of the Grand Canyon that are enigmatic for ‗standard‘ geologists. Different from the Mississippi (and similar to Lichtenberg patterns), it has no delta, it is narrow at both ends, and its tributaries are as deep at their beginning points as they are when they join the main stream; many such tributaries join at right angles to the central valley. And, of course, it is a mile deep. Also, there is the old saying: ―If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…….‖

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

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

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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

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

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/earth_rille.jpg

Example of a powerful lightning strike at Baker, Florida in 1949. It furrowed the infield for 40 feet during a baseball game, killing 3 players and injuring 50 others. The more sinuous path taken by the lightning can be seen as a smaller trench in the bottom of the furrow. National Geographic, June 1950, p.827

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

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

and your post of this link above has absolutely nothing to do with erosional processes driven by water.

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

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

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

+1 ...

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

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

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

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

OIC!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

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

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

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by OICURMT

+1 ...

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

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

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

Originally Posted by OICURMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by OICURMT

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

OIC!

That's at the beginning....

[CraigS]

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all involved.
Cheers & Rgds.