Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:46 pm

bystander wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Einstein's cosmological constant was rightly rejected, because it was not necessary to explain observations. Now, better observations suggest that there is something analogous at work (although not exactly the same thing at all).
aristarchusinexile wrote:If the Constant is correct, its rejection was incorrect regardless of supposed observations at that time .. which reminds us of the need to be totally open minded instead of simply paying lip service to the concept of discovery, debate being much more healthy and companionable and productive as a result. Also, from what I read, as our observational abilities improve, our need to revisit rejected ideas becomes more imperative.
wiki wrote:Cosmological Constant: History

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman.

It is now thought that adding the cosmological constant to Einstein's equations does not lead to a static universe at equilibrium because the equilibrium is unstable: if the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting.

Since it no longer seemed to be needed, Einstein called it the '"biggest blunder" of his life, and abandoned the cosmological constant. However, the cosmological constant remained a subject of theoretical and empirical interest. Empirically, the onslaught of cosmological data in the past decades strongly suggests that our universe has a positive cosmological constant. ...
Good old Bystander to the rescue. So, it was Einstein's preconceived notions rather than scientific evidence of a static universe which caused him to disregard the Constant. I know I'll be repeating myself, but this is the same mindset which forms stifling thought processes for anyone beginning a study of cosmology with Big Bang, as compared with a clean slate.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by bystander » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:31 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:Einstein's cosmological constant was rightly rejected, because it was not necessary to explain observations. Now, better observations suggest that there is something analogous at work (although not exactly the same thing at all).
aristarchusinexile wrote:If the Constant is correct, its rejection was incorrect regardless of supposed observations at that time .. which reminds us of the need to be totally open minded instead of simply paying lip service to the concept of discovery, debate being much more healthy and companionable and productive as a result. Also, from what I read, as our observational abilities improve, our need to revisit rejected ideas becomes more imperative.
wiki wrote:Cosmological Constant: History

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman.

It is now thought that adding the cosmological constant to Einstein's equations does not lead to a static universe at equilibrium because the equilibrium is unstable: if the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting.

Since it no longer seemed to be needed, Einstein called it the '"biggest blunder" of his life, and abandoned the cosmological constant. However, the cosmological constant remained a subject of theoretical and empirical interest. Empirically, the onslaught of cosmological data in the past decades strongly suggests that our universe has a positive cosmological constant. ...

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:26 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:If the Constant is correct, its rejection was incorrect regardless of supposed observations at that time ..
I disagree completely. In science, the correct thing to do is to follow the evidence. If there was no evidence for this constant, it was correct to reject it. To do otherwise would essentially end scientific progress. As I noted previously, you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples of rejected ideas that were later readopted.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:47 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Einstein's cosmological constant was rightly rejected, because it was not necessary to explain observations. Now, better observations suggest that there is something analogous at work (although not exactly the same thing at all).
If the Constant is correct, its rejection was incorrect regardless of supposed observations at that time .. which reminds us of the need to be totally open minded instead of simply paying lip service to the concept of discovery, debate being much more healthy and companionable and productive as a result. Also, from what I read, as our observational abilities improve, our need to revisit rejected ideas becomes more imperative.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:02 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:Do you mean like Einstein rejecting the Constant, Chris? (Or whatever it was he rejected and was eventually found to be necessary to his theory - my head is too full of things right now to remember stuff, if you know what I mean. Anyway .. you said, "that generally keeps things moving forward" so my input could correctly be viewed as time-wasting redundancy.
I mean just what I said: there is seldom a need to consider options that have been previously rejected. That doesn't mean there are not exceptions, but they are few and far between, and getting fewer as our observational abilities improve. I did not say that every previously rejected idea must be rejected out of hand, but most old ideas (the plasma universe is a good example) were rejected for good reason, and there is no compelling reason to revisit them. That's the key, of course: a reason must be compelling. If you revisit every old idea every time you consider a new theory, you'll never get anywhere. As I said, one reason for the success of science is that it is progressive with respect to understanding nature, not regressive.

Einstein's cosmological constant was rightly rejected, because it was not necessary to explain observations. Now, better observations suggest that there is something analogous at work (although not exactly the same thing at all).

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:38 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
ta152h0 wrote:for science to succeed ( ie get answers 0 one must consider all options, even those rejected previously.
Actually, one of the main reasons that science succeeds is because there is seldom a need to consider options that have been previously rejected. That generally keeps things moving forward.
Do you mean like Einstein rejecting the Constant, Chris? (Or whatever it was he rejected and was eventually found to be necessary to his theory - my head is too full of things right now to remember stuff, if you know what I mean. Anyway .. you said, "that generally keeps things moving forward" so my input could correctly be viewed as time-wasting redundancy.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:27 pm

ta152h0 wrote:for science to succeed ( ie get answers 0 one must consider all options, even those rejected previously.
Actually, one of the main reasons that science succeeds is because there is seldom a need to consider options that have been previously rejected. That generally keeps things moving forward.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by ta152h0 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:18 pm

for science to succeed ( ie get answers 0 one must consider all options, even those rejected previously. Even though I have not been convinced we are not " sitting inside a land mine that has gone off and not all powder been expended ".

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by bystander » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:Moving along to MOG ...
Direct further discussion on MOG to here: http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... =8&t=16718

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:33 pm

bystander wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.
Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology have been identified as topics not for discussion by Nereid. Further disscussion along these lines will result in this topic being locked.
Moving along to MOG ...

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by bystander » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:28 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.
Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology have been identified as topics not for discussion by Nereid. Further disscussion along these lines will result in this topic being locked.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:06 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Czerno wrote:@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?
I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.
Pseudoscience? In our present era (my lifetime) Plasma was once considered by the consensus to be the leading theory .. and I'm not too old to paddle a canoe solo on a three month trip.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:03 pm

kovil wrote:The universe is 99.99% plasma, and as such, plasma is highly influenced by electric and magnetic fields.
Sing it out, Kovil.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:02 pm

Czerno wrote:@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?
I'd suggest dropping this discussion. The idea of a plasma universe is long since discredited. It is pseudoscience at its worst, and has been identified by this list's moderators as a topic which is largely out of bounds for discussion (since this is a science forum). Discussing it risks getting an otherwise interesting topic locked.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:01 pm

kovil wrote: The reason Einstein and others never considered electric field forces and magnetic field forces when they formulated their cosmological concepts is because they never had lunch with the students of electrical engineering from across the campus.
Right .. scientists of differing specialties desperately need to lunch together more often ..

Supercritical Fluids - "Where the distinction between liquid and gas disppears." Discovered at a hydrothermal vent August 08, (From 'Discover' - November 08)

If these kinds of things are happening on our planet, under our noses, what is happening 'out there'?

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:59 pm

kovil wrote:"In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations."
The problem here is that redshift is not caused by recessional velocity alone, and there is substantial evidence to support this statement, but mainstream science ignores the data. So they reach incorrect conclusions about true distance to observed objects, and refuse to acknowledge any reevaluations.
This single statement reveals that you don't have any understanding of modern cosmology. Cosmological redshift, used to estimate distance, has nothing to do with recessional velocity. No astronomer believes that, no astronomer is using it that way, so there's no opportunity to reach "incorrect conclusions".

[Further incoherent babble about plasma snipped.]

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by bearkite » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:05 pm

Which is the SN? I've been looking at all the old imagery that I could find ( http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/SNIMAGES/sn1994d.html ) and it appears that 1994D was well embedded in the galaxy (not on the outskirts).

Am assuming the bright object in lower left is a foreground star. Unless I've got my scale all messed up.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by kovil » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:32 am

The universe is 99.99% plasma, and as such, plasma is highly influenced by electric and magnetic fields.

These are good papers to start with.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... 6TPS-I.pdf

These are the same paper;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf [the 2MB file, for slower connection speeds]

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf [the 7MB size file for faster connection speeds]

This is the paper I was looking for and couldn't find right away, "Synchrotron Radiation Spectrum for Galaxy-Sized Plasma Filaments"
It explains how the fields and the ions interact, and lays the basis for what we observe.
The reason Einstein and others never considered electric field forces and magnetic field forces when they formulated their cosmological concepts is
because they never had lunch with the students of electrical engineering from across the campus.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/Perattpdf/PeterPeratt.pdf

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by Czerno » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:22 am

@ Kovil : How do you propose that the electromagnetic field, how ever strong, influenced the kinematics of globally neutral matter ?

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by kovil » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:31 am

In terms of taking this description to task:

"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself. In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations. Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less- strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data. What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations. Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."

"Eleven years ago results were first presented indicating that most of the energy in our universe is not in stars or galaxies but is tied to space itself."
Yes, I agree, there is considerable electric and magnetic field energy in space, and it is not able to be interpreted as 'matter' in our observations.

"In the language of cosmologists, a large cosmological constant is directly implied by new distant supernovae observations."
The problem here is that redshift is not caused by recessional velocity alone, and there is substantial evidence to support this statement, but mainstream science ignores the data. So they reach incorrect conclusions about true distance to observed objects, and refuse to acknowledge any reevaluations.

"Suggestions of a cosmological constant (lambda) were not new -- they have existed since the advent of modern relativistic cosmology. Such claims were not usually popular with astronomers, though, because lambda is so unlike known universe components, because lambda's value appeared limited by other observations, and because less-strange cosmologies without lambda had previously done well in explaining the data."
Again, mainstream's misinterpretation of redshift lies at the bottom of their assumptions of an expanding universe. The universe is NOT expanding. It is only a lack of understanding about what redshift is and how it occurs that leads to the erroneous concept of Lambda in the first place.

"What is noteworthy here is the seemingly direct and reliable method of the observations and the good reputations of the scientists conducting the investigations."
This is due to the fact that anyone going against the grain of mainstream science and the ideological tenets put forth and enforced by The Church/Big Bang Theory adherants, is ostracized and in danger of losing their authoritative position of employment. So good reputationed scientists find it professionally advantageous to go along with the wacky theories that mainstream science promotes, like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, redshift as an absolute indicator of distance, and Lambda as indicator of an expanding universe.

"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe."
The reason we observe the rotational properties that galaxies have, is because electric fields and magnetic fields surround galaxies and are the main progenitor of galactic rotational properties, not gravity. The electric field and magnetic field forces supply the missing 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' forces necessary that mainstream astrophysics is looking for. It is only mainstream astrophysics' stubborn blind refusal to listen to or even investigate Electric Theory's postulations about how electric and magnetic fields influence galactic rotational properties that the erroneous concepts of dark matter and dark energy are even entertained.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/M ... rames.html

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe (2009 March 29)

by ta152h0 » Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:53 pm

I have always believed we are still experiencing the Big Bang, it " ain't over yet ". Pass the beer

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe

by bystander » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:09 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:A lenticular galaxy can show some spiral structure. It was probably classified based on stellar types, and a lack of star forming regions.
All that dust and no star forming regions? There seems to me to be a lot of blue scattered amongst that dust. Wouldn't that be indicative of emission nebula and star formation?

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe

by Chris Peterson » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:53 pm

bystander wrote:Why is this catlogued as lenticular? It certainly looks like a spiral to me.
A lenticular galaxy can show some spiral structure. It was probably classified based on stellar types, and a lack of star forming regions.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe

by bystander » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:43 pm

neufer wrote:APOD 2009 March 29 is NOW correctly identified as the more distant NGC 4526: a lenticular galaxy in the Virgo cluster.
Why is this catlogued as lenticular? It certainly looks like a spiral to me.

Re: Signals of a Strange Universe

by Chris Peterson » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:29 pm

orin stepanek wrote:"Over the past eleven years, independent teams of astronomers have continued to accumulate data that appears to confirm the existence of dark energy and the unsettling result of a presently accelerating universe. The above picture of a supernova that occurred in 1994 on the outskirts of a spiral galaxy was taken by one of these collaborations."

Does this mean that the dark energy was the cause of the supernova of the star on the outskirts of this galaxy?
No. These types of supernovas serve as standard candles, allowing the distance to the galaxy to be accurately determined. It is by comparing distance to redshift that the acceleration of the Universe is detected and measured.

Top