Origins of the UNIVERSE

[Nereid]

Hello Michael

As normal your comments are cool and to the point.

I have my opinions as to the ongoings of the universe. Neried comments are so limited and one side.

Neried said

Fortunately, we have methods other than what any one individual may (or may not) "think" to determine the nature of the universe.

Neried, What methods mate? and keep the fantasy ideas at home. What type of cosmologist are you? Your comments are very child like.

I think we've been over this before ... this is an avowedly scientific website and discussion forum.

What is science? My shorthand version:

* theories are the engine (-> if there's no theory, it has little to do with science)

* theories should be internally consistent (-> lack of internal consistency means it isn't science)

* a theory should be consistent with well-established theories, where their domains of applicability overlap (this one has some powerful implications which are frequently misunderstood)

* above all, a theory should be consistent with (all) good, relevant experimental and observational results.

To examine science at one level higher (which would take us beyond the scope of this forum), you could examine Lakatos (science as "research programme"), Kuhn ("paradigm shifts"), or Popper ("falsification").

In the case of modern concordance cosmology ("Big Bang theory"), it's the only game in town (no other theory, AFAIK, can even address Olbers' paradox, let alone account for the WMAP data on the CMB, to give just two examples).

Of course there are gaps, holes, and dozens of aspects that are WIP (work in progress) ... that's why so much telescope time is devoted to testing the theory!

[Nereid]

[snip]

I think the universe is endless and recyclic.

And I think the entire universe is just a light show, put on by Nereid's invisible pink fairies.

Fortunately, we have methods other than what any one individual may (or may not) "think" to determine the nature of the universe.

So exactly what physical evidence can you present to support inflation theory that is any better than claiming invisible pink fairies did it?

Sure ... consistency ... an inflation field is consistent with the symmetry-breaking of the strong force, with the flatness and smoothness of the observable universe, with GR, with ... and it's the only game in town (wrt these things).

Personally, I find it awesome that observations of tiny fluctuations in microwaves we can detect on a spacecraft can be directly linked to the behaviour of highly energetic collisions of protons and electrons (in 'caves' underground).

Have you got any evidence to demonstrate that monopoles can or do exist by any chance?

I know of no such (good) observations. But how is that relevant to modern concordance cosmology?

Dark energy?

I'm sure you are as familiar as I with the evidence - distant supernovae (that's direct evidence), the WMAP (and other) CMB data, the large scale structure of the universe (from SDSS, for example), ... the most powerful 'evidence' is joint - just a single parameter is needed to account for millions of observations, of many different kinds ....

What exactly is that in terms of particle physics or QM?

Who knows? If we did, then there'd be a whole lot of other questions we'd be investigating, wouldn't there?

And, once again, it's the only game in town!

It seems to me that astronomy today is filled with all sorts of "thoughts" about what the universe might be made of, none of which have any support at all in the world of real life observation.

OK, and it seems to me that astronomy today is truly astonishing ... the universe seems to behave extraordinarily 'well', as in just a few numbers plus a few equations suffice to account for just about everything we have been able to 'see' to date!

But if we're doing science, what should our criteria be?

Inflaton fields might as well be invisible pink fairies, since they act like more like fairies in terms of density than any other vector or scalar field in science.

On this I can assure you you are quite mistaken (at least as far as Nereid's invisible pink fairies are concerned) - fairies are quite capricious, and can account for every single photon detected by WMAP (but only after it is detected, of course).

Evidently the only "taboo" subject in astronomy is "electricity".

You mean like the Jupiter-Io current, currents in pulsar magnetospheres, and jets from AGNs?

[Nereid]

Evidently the only "taboo" subject in astronomy is "electricity".

You mean like the Jupiter-Io current, currents in pulsar magnetospheres, and jets from AGNs?

I'll catch up on the rest of your post after work, but this point deserved a response of it's own.

No, I'm talking about the electricity that drives the fusion processes inside of coronal loops.

So you're looking - specifically - for peer-reviewed articles on fusion in coronal loops?

I'm talking about the electricity that flows throughout the plasma universe itself.

Oh, the "Electric Universe" nonsense (or, if you prefer, pseudo-science).

Astronomers today are fixated on a "gravity-centric" notion of cosmology, when many of the features of our universe are shaped by the simple flow of electrical currents and EM waves.

Indeed.

And plasma physics is, as you are no doubt very well aware, an important part of astrophysics.

What is NOT part of astrophysics is the kind of nonsense (or, if you prefer, pseudo-science) and vitriol that fills the webpages of so many 'electric universe' websites.

As you well know (but many readers here may not), the door is completely open, for anyone who thinks there is a scientific case to be made, along the "electric universe" lines, to make it.

To date, all such attempts have been, shall we say, underwhelming.

Astronomers seem more than happy to buy into concepts about "dark energy", "monopoles" and "free lunch inflaton fields" without so much as explaining what any of these things really are as it relates to particle physics or QM, and without even explaining how these concepts are "superior" to the concepts behind plasma cosmology.

I have no idea what you are saying here - perhaps you could elaborate?

If it's "there is a 'better game' - than concordance cosmology" - then please say so ... (and provide references, to peer-reviewed papers, which show this 'plasma universe's track record in accounting for the usual cosmological observations).

If it's simply "cosmologists have not answered every question", then we can't be talking about science, can we?

[harry]

Hello All

Neried I'm sorry for my comments, its not in me to be like that.

I understand where you are coming from and the line of thinking that makes you draw your comments. Maybe your right.

But! I cannot see or understand that you have a close end mind set. Allow yourself the option. What if?

========================================

Hello Michael

No, I'm talking about the electricity that drives the fusion processes inside of coronal loops. I'm talking about the electricity that flows throughout the plasma universe itself. Astronomers today are fixated on a "gravity-centric" notion of cosmology, when many of the features of our universe are shaped by the simple flow of electrical currents and EM waves. Astronomers seem more than happy to buy into concepts about "dark energy", "monopoles" and "free lunch inflaton fields" without so much as explaining what any of these things really are as it relates to particle physics or QM, and without even explaining how these concepts are "superior" to the concepts behind plasma cosmology.

Again well done.

The future in cosmology is in Electricty, Electromagnetic and plasma science. These are the elements able to explain many issues from star formation, compact star cores including MECO.

[harry]

Hello All

Just got this in the mail.

Hubble Finds Evidence for Dark Energy in the Young Universe
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 6/52/full/

Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate.

Researchers also have found that the class of ancient exploding stars, or supernovae, used to measure the expansion of space today look remarkably similar to those that exploded nine billion years ago and are just now being seen by Hubble. This important finding gives additional credibility to the use of these supernovae for tracking the cosmic expansion over most of the universe's lifetime.

I love it when the BB people assume the BBT is a fact than proceed to add credit to it.

It writes that the universe has a lifetime. What crap. No evidence. Just fantasy ideas trying to make it look real.

[cosmo_uk]

I say we all just agree with Harry from now on cos its like talking to a rather dense brick wall - in fact he should get his own thread to just rant about the big bang being wrong, how the sun is a giant peach melba and where he can list websites to his hearts content:) bless

[Nereid]

So, harry, would you care to state, as clearly as you can, what you regard as the criteria one should use, when investigating the nature of the universe (cosmology), from a scientific perspective?

[Nereid]

Thanks harry, er, Michael!

So, harry, would you care to state, as clearly as you can, what you regard as the criteria one should use, when investigating the nature of the universe (cosmology), from a scientific perspective?

Well, one of the first things we should do is impose an Occam's Razor argument to any new "field" or "particle" being presented. If the event in question can be explained *without* inventing any new particles or fields, it should be considered "superior" from a "scientific" point of view.

Aye, and there's the rub - in the case of inflation and dark energy, there is simply no other explanation that comes even remotely close to being both consistent and able to explain the data.

And Occam's Razor cuts in more ways than one - "consistency across many domains" is buried in it.

And we already have quite a bit of 'Occam's Razor history', re 'new "particles"' ... a great deal of the Standard Model's success can be said to flow from new fields and particles ... indeed, even OM's own work would be null and void without the 'new particle' neutrino ...

Plasma cosmologists don't need monopoles, inflaton fields, *or* dark energy to explain what we see in the universe.

Indeed.

Pity that they can't account, quantitatively, for *Olbers' paradox, *the primordial abundance of light nuclides, *the H-R diagram, *the CMB, *the Hubble relationship, *quasars, ...

And at the hand-waving, word salad level, how does one choose between competing ideas?

Interjecting just one "hypothetical" field or particle into an explanation for the universe around us would be suspicious enough in comparison to an explanation which requires no unevidenced fields or particles, but then what should we do with an ad hoc explanation that requires not just one, but *three* new fields/particles?

I count two (inflation and DE) - what's the third?

Perhaps you've missed them, but there are plenty of papers full of evidence of inflation and DE (not to mention all the consistency links ...) - would you be interested in reading some of them?

[Nereid]

Aye, and there's the rub - in the case of inflation and dark energy, there is simply no other explanation that comes even remotely close to being both consistent and able to explain the data.

That is simply a false statement.

It seems that I was insufficiently precise ...

Wrt to their respective domains of applicability, there are no other theoretical constructs which have the same, or even close, quantitative explanatory power as inflation and DE, in terms of the good observational and experimental results (within the relevant domains).

Intersecting matter/antimatter "singularities" might explain "inflation", and expanding EM fields could explain the acceleration of the universe.

Well, a zillion things 'might' or 'could' explain stuff ... the point is this: there are none, published today, in the relevant peer-reviewed journals

There is no need to interject unevidenced particles to explain the "bang" of the "Big Bang", or the acceleration we see.

Perhaps you could clarify this? I wasn't aware that either inflation or DE involved "unevidenced particles".

What the heck *is* dark energy,

Good question!

At the moment, it would seem to be something like Einstein's cosmological constant, and somehow related to vacuum energy. There are rather few constraints on its detailed nature (so far), but the astonishing thing is that just a single parameter seems to account for so many thousands of good observations!

and how do you know that EM fields are not the cause of acceleration?

We don't ... and if you'd like to develop that idea into a fully quantitative, consistent theory, get it published, you may make a big contribution to cosmology.

However, until then ...

And Occam's Razor cuts in more ways than one - "consistency across many domains" is buried in it.

I'm willing to let it cut both ways, but it should be imposed universally to all topics. We don't need "dark energy" to explain acceleration. Why then are we buying into that idea?

OK, so what is the competing explanation, which does as good (or better) a job of accounting for all the relevant good observations? and is also internally consistent? and consistent with all well-established theories which have domains of applicability which overlap?

Is it necessary for me to repeat the nature of science (cosmology in this case) in every part of my responses? Or can I simply ask you to re-state your comments in terms of theory/consistency/observation and experiment (quantitatively, in all cases, of course)?

And we already have quite a bit of 'Occam's Razor history', re 'new "particles"' ... a great deal of the Standard Model's success can be said to flow from new fields and particles ... indeed, even OM's own work would be null and void without the 'new particle' neutrino ...

Well, unlike a "monopole",

You've mentioned "monopole" several times now ... what is it? And how is it relevant to modern cosmology?

the neutrino was "theorized" based on a perceived loss of energy in specific particle physics reactions. It could and has been "studied", and we have begun to "measure" it with some precision.

Indeed.

And how much of what you wrote is, shall we say, revisionist?

At the time, just how much better were the good observational or experimental results (in cosmology), favouring the neutrino, than inflation? How many years was it between its theoretical debut and it being detected?

Or we could go back a few years, and consider helium? Or 'nebulium'?

That is completely not true of "monopoles" or Guth's "free lunch " "inflaton fields".

Really? So, just so that I understand your point here ... in the MM view of the nature of cosmology, the science, just what is 'legal' in terms of theoretical constructs?

Nobody has every documented any such thing in a lab. Ever.

There are no neutron stars "in a lab" either, nor black holes, nor galaxies, nor supernovae, nor EeV particles, nor ...

In the MM view of the science of astronomy, must an entity be "documented in a lab" before it can be 'legal'?

Both particles, the one Guth was trying to "minimize" and the magic free lunch inflaton field were creations of Guth's mind, nothing more. There has never been any evidence of monopoles or inflaton fields here on earth. Ever.

Er, and there are theories, in physics, astronomy, cosmology, ... which are NOT creations of {someone's} mind?

Pity that they can't account, quantitatively, for *Olbers' paradox, *the primordial abundance of light nuclides, *the H-R diagram, *the CMB, *the Hubble relationship, *quasars, ...

It's a pity you aren't willing to help do that. Instead you'd rather simply "put faith" in some mathematical constructs that may or may not even apply to reality.

{insert statement concerning science here}

Start by explaining Guth's "ultimate free lunch". How was that a free lunch, and how is a free lunch not violating the first law of thermodynamics?

A good book that has a concise, non-mathematical explanation is Joseph Silk's "the infinite cosmos" (ISBN 0-19-850510-8 ). If you'd like a good answer, more quickly, why not post that question on Physics Forums?

And, wrt "the first law of thermodynamics", can you show that inflation violates this? With math (not just words)?

And at the hand-waving, word salad level, how does one choose between competing ideas?

Well, I tend to pick the one that has observational evidence to support it. Plasma tends to move and flow in the presence of strong EM fields. I don't need "dark energy" to explain movement in plasma.

II count two (inflation and DE) - what's the third?

Monopoles. Remember the reason Guth introduced the "need" for inflation? What evidence can you present to suggest that there was ever really a "problem" with monopoles in the first place?

OK, now it's clear.

Whatever reason Guth might, or might not, have had for developing inflation, surely the only relevant question, today, is "how critical are "monopoles" to modern inflation theory?" AFAIK, they aren't, at all.

Perhaps you've missed them, but there are plenty of papers full of evidence of inflation and DE (not to mention all the consistency links ...) - would you be interested in reading some of them?

I've read all kinds of papers that report to find evidence of "dark energy", but none of them have ever explained what "dark energy" is, let alone how it applies back to particle physics. None of them have explained why "dark energy" is a "better" scientific answer than expanding EM fields. Until I see some logical reason to suggest that movement in plasma can't be caused by electrical flow and standard plasma physics, I see no direct evidence for either dark energy or inflaton fields. Show me one lab experiment in controlled conditions that has demonstrated either particle actually exists. Both of of these ideas come purely from an "interpretation" of what we see in the movements of the universe, nothing more. There is no evidence for DE or inflation fields in QM or GR.

{insert statement concerning science here}

[Nereid]

So you're looking - specifically - for peer-reviewed articles on fusion in coronal loops?

I'm looking for a rational explanation for the Rhessi images of coronal loops Nereid. Do you have any explanation for these million degree loops that don't involve electricity or fusion? What are those neutron capture signatures that we see in Rhessi images?

I don't know ... but if you'd like, you could post a question in Physics Forums ... you'd get plenty of good responses (it's a little OT for this thread, wouldn't you say?)

I'm talking about the electricity that flows throughout the plasma universe itself.

Oh, the "Electric Universe" nonsense (or, if you prefer, pseudo-science).

IMO, this sentence speaks to everything that is wrong with astronomy today. It has lost it's natural curiosity. It has become fixated on a single "belief system" and dogma, and it has become intolerant of any and all descent to the point of hostile ridicule.

IMO, this sentence speaks to everything that is wrong with crackpots today. They have lost their natural skepticism. They have become fixated on a single "belief" system and dogma, and they have become intolerant of any and all dissent to the point of hostile ridicule.

Now, can we get back to a discussion of science please?

Somehow in your mind it is "science" to believe there was a "monopole" problem, that Guth somehow fixed with his "ultimate free lunch" "inflaton fields". You seem to have great faith in "dark energy", although you can't explain how such a field actually relates back to particle physics and QM. For instance, what is the size of the particle/wave, and how does it interact with the atom, etc?

There are a zillion things I can't explain ... and if you'd like, we could dig up all those quotes from the greats (Einstein, Feynman, Pauli, ...) about the incomprehensibility of quantum theory (to take just one example).

Yet it works (your PC is 'living proof' thereof).

If you have a better theory, by all means develop it, get it published, and you'll have made a good contribution to cosmology.

If you don't like the way science works, then by all means develop an alternative that does suit your tastes.

But until you do that, we shall limit our discussion, here, to modern astronomy (etc), as a science.

You will then turn right around and label the whole theory of plasma cosmology, "electric universe nonsense". Nevermind the fact that you personally cited several papers that demonstrate the existence of the flow of electricity through objects in space. IMO, that is utterly irrational behavior, or it least it seems that way from the outside looking in.

Thank you for the clarification.

If you are referring to 'plasma cosmology' OTHER THAN that promoted on the many sites cited in the BAUT thread on the Electric Universe, then please say so.

If you are referring to Alfvén's 'plasma cosmology', then what I wrote was indeed harsh and uncalled for (however, as you know, that particular set of theories lost credibility due to, among other things, its inability to explain a very wide range of well-established astronomical observations).

And plasma physics is, as you are no doubt very well aware, an important part of astrophysics.

But astronomers today ignore the later half of Alfven's work on MHD theory. He pointed out that electrical currents are heavily involved in these "structures". All the astronomy community heard from his work was "blah blah, "frozen" magnetic fields, blah". There is no such thing as a "frozen" magnetic field, and the magnetic fields we see at the surface of the sun are driven by electrical activity as Bruce demonstrated decades ago.

OK, so how many graduate level university courses in plasma physics have you reviewed? If you have taken any, and asked the lecturers about the things you mention here, what was the ensuing discussion?

But why not go to Physics Forums, and ask about this stuff directly? Then everyone could see the responses, and learn just why these ideas are non-starters, couldn't they?

What is NOT part of astrophysics is the kind of nonsense (or, if you prefer, pseudo-science) and vitriol that fills the webpages of so many 'electric universe' websites.

Ah, the ultimate insult, "pseudo-science". You've used it twice now. Somehow in your mind, monopoles, inflaton fields, dark energy and dark matter are to be labeled "science", but electrical activity through plasma is "psuedo-science". What an odd sense of "reality" you have from my perspective.

It is not "psuedo" anything to speak of electric currents. We can measure them, observe them, test them, etc. Birkeland's EM theories about the aurora were later "tested" by satellites, but not until nearly 70 years had passed. We now see evidence of Birkeland currents in play in the atmosphere of Saturn near it's pole. All the while, you'll label "electricity" as "pseudoscience", in the hope that some smear tactic will make evidence for monopoles, inflaton fields, or dark energy magically appear here in a lab on earth. All I can say is "wow".

As you well know (but many readers here may not), the door is completely open, for anyone who thinks there is a scientific case to be made, along the "electric universe" lines, to make it.

Then I'd like to be reinstated.

Then send an email to Fraser and Phil Plait, with a such a request!

As anyone who's read that material can see for themselves, proponents of the EU idea have been singularly unsuccessful in getting even to first base ...

To date, all such attempts have been, shall we say, underwhelming.

That is because your site tends to burn all heretics at the stake, and they are virtually executed. There is therefore no honest descent possible. If you allowed for true "free speech", the arguments wouldn't be so "underwhelming".

First, it's not 'my' site (Fraser and Phil Plait own it).

Second, the rules for the ATM section are very clear (my bold) - "If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."

Astronomers seem more than happy to buy into concepts about "dark energy", "monopoles" and "free lunch inflaton fields" without so much as explaining what any of these things really are as it relates to particle physics or QM, and without even explaining how these concepts are "superior" to the concepts behind plasma cosmology.

I have no idea what you are saying here - perhaps you could elaborate?

How are "inflaton fields", "dark energy", and "monopoles", somehow superior to plasma cosmology? Explain Guth's "ultimate free lunch" for me, and how these mystical inflation fields retained constant density through exponential changes in volume. What other scalar or vector field in science works that way?

If it's "there is a 'better game' - than concordance cosmology" - then please say so ... (and provide references, to peer-reviewed papers, which show this 'plasma universe's track record in accounting for the usual cosmological observations).

Fine, let's start with the sun's coronal loops. Birkeland created very similar discharges across his spheres about 100 years ago. Bruce pointed out that the coronal loops of our own sun were likely to be electrical discharges based on their speed, and now we have overwhelming evidence that this is the case, including those neutron capture signatures seen by the Rhessi satellite.

Er, what is the connection between "the sun's coronal loops" and cosmology?

Do the papers of Birkeland and Bruce explain Olbers' paradox? the CMB? the large scale structure of the observable universe?

If it's simply "cosmologists have not answered every question", then we can't be talking about science, can we?

Like I said, let's talk about something we can directly observe in satellite images, namely the coronal loops. What "sustains" them over the course of hours in your opinion, and how do they reach million degree temperatures? In your opinion, at what point in the solar atmosphere do they reach these extreme temperatures?

We could ... except that this thread is about cosmology (its title is "Origins of the Universe")

[harry]

Hello All

Having fun I see.

Smile
Hello Cosmo, dense as a brick. Please maybe ultra dense plasma matter.

Its comments like these that makes science a hoo hah thing.

Imagine if you could win an arguement just by putting people down. What loss we would have in our society.

But! I'm too long in the tooth to even worry about it.
=============================================

We are so lucky to have Michael come to our site and discuss some issues.
He is open minded and knowledgeable.

His above comments are logical and to the point. Saves me even adding to it.

Nereid said

Second, the rules for the ATM section are very clear (my bold) - "If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."

The above I agree with.
but! for attacking theories and issues thats ok, but! not with a negative approach. People can be attacked with a positive approach in order help them think and develop the theory rather than discourage.

Are these discussions based on Win Lose or win win and smile.

This forum needs strength through poistive discussions.

I'm at fault in many situations, I hope I can improve.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Having fun I see.

Smile
Hello Cosmo, dense as a brick. Please maybe ultra dense plasma matter.

Its comments like these that makes science a hoo hah thing.

Imagine if you could win an arguement just by putting people down. What loss we would have in our society.

But! I'm too long in the tooth to even worry about it.
=============================================

We are so lucky to have Michael come to our site and discuss some issues.
He is open minded and knowledgeable.

His above comments are logical and to the point. Saves me even adding to it.

Nereid said

Second, the rules for the ATM section are very clear (my bold) - "If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."

The above I agree with.
but! for attacking theories and issues thats ok, but! not with a negative approach. People can be attacked with a positive approach in order help them think and develop the theory rather than discourage.

Are these discussions based on Win Lose or win win and smile.

This forum needs strength through poistive discussions.

I'm at fault in many situations, I hope I can improve.

You may be interested in another of the BAUT rules:

2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That’s fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

If you'd like a reference to a study done on how these (and other) BAUT rules have worked, objectively, please ask (I'll be happy to point you in the right direction).

[harry]

Hello Nereid

You are 100% right.

Attack the ideas and not the person.

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Michael, I take my hat off, you make statements that I cannot argue with.

This forum can become great with free speech. Many come here with little knowledge and go away with a bit more. Some lack the info and give fantasy ideas, smile and in away thats life.

I know that a balance is needed. Just have to play it by ear.

The new observations and new ideas that have come in to play laterly are placing the focus away from the standard models.


I'm reading through, The papers written by Oliver and yourself. Most impressive. Good work.

[harry]

Hello All

I posted this info in the other link. Maybe it should be copied here.

Hello Michael

In the last 10 years I have been looking at Cosmology with Plasma being the line of thought to resolve many if not all issues.

Like I said before, Plasma Cosmology is the way to go. I have read many papers by Hans Alfven, smart cookie.

I do not understand the reason why many cosmologist do not crasp Hans Alfen logic.

Smile, I was just reading through the list of links given to me. I fogot who gave them to me.

Collection of papers
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/


Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasm ... intro.html

Extragalactic Astronomy
http://www.cips.mpg.de/cips_home.html


Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=39706

30 June 2006
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k


Quote:
This slide, shown at the IEEE ICOPS 2006 conference, refers to a "Z-pinch," which is the compression of an electric discharge in plasma by its own induced magnetic field. The canister in the center of the slide has a number of fine tungsten wires stretched between the top metal cap and the lower cap. An intense current pulse is sent through the wires causing them to vaporize and form plasma. The current generates a powerful cylindrical magnetic field that squeezes the plasma inwards toward the vertical axis of the canister. The fact that the plasma is "pinched" along the z-axis gives rise to the term "Z-pinch."

The slide is important because it reveals the peculiar fact that although plasma physicists can see the obvious application of their high-energy laboratory Z-pinches to cosmic phenomena, most seem to assume the electrical Z-pinch is transitory, like their experiments. So they go on to apply incorrect magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) concepts – such as "flows," "jets" and "shocks" to the cosmic phenomena. Magnetohydrodynamics ignores electricity and relies on magnetic fields being "trapped" in plasma. The "father" of plasma physics, the late Hannes Alfvén, showed decades ago that the concept of "frozen in" magnetic fields in space plasma is an invalid concept. He called for primary consideration of the electric circuits, which must be present to sustain the magnetic fields.

It is the contention of the Electric Universe model that all stars are the focus of a continuous Z-pinch effect. Where the discharge becomes sufficiently violent, the familiar Z-pinch morphology becomes apparent in glowing bipolar planetary nebulae (such as the one in the lower left image). And, for example, at bottom center the beaded rings of supernova 1987a are a manifestation of an ongoing Z-pinch and have nothing to do with shocks.

A few IEEE plasma cosmologists do get the picture. With a continuous source of current into a Z-pinch it is possible to mimic the formation and movement of spiral galaxies and the unexpected bipolar shapes of planetary nebulae. No weird science is called for. The crucial requirement is that an uninterrupted cosmic source of electrical power be available. Yet no textbook on astronomy or astrophysics dares to mention electricity. Magnetic fields are mysteriously conjured up without electricity.

The most disturbing thing is that science has become so specialized and insular that astrophysicists do not attend meetings of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society. They would be shocked if they did. The freewheeling exchange of ideas at ICOPS was quite an eye opener for someone who also attends the monoculture of "big bang" astrophysics/astronomy meetings.

A notable presentation at the conference was by a well-known radio astronomer who gave an invited paper to the Space Plasmas audience. He was moved to depart from his prepared talk by an exciting discovery he had made in consultation with others at the conference. Radio astronomy enables plasma scientists to map the "cosmic power lines" that thread the universe. The difference between the Electric Universe and the "shorted out" universe of astrophysics could not be starker. The discovery, which I hope to report on soon, puts the lid firmly on unscientific big bang cosmology.



oops there I go again, giving out links.

I do that, not because I agree with the writer. But! to allow others to read into the subject.

[Nereid]

If you'd like a reference to a study done on how these (and other) BAUT rules have worked, objectively, please ask (I'll be happy to point you in the right direction).

I have a personal "case study" of virtual execution that never made much sense to me, so perhaps you could point me in the right direction. What point was there in virtually crucifying me for not being able to compute the amount of light from coronal loops that might traverse various unknown densities of mass separated plasma layers at a variety of different wavelengths? What was that all about?

Here is a study of the reasons why BAUT members were banned, re their posting in BAUT's ATM section, from the time the BAUT rules began to be enforced (Oct 2005) to Sep 2006.

Note that, in that period, no one was permanently banned solely for refusing to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM idea they presented.

Note also that, to harry's point, 'civility and decorum' is the leading reason why members were banned (for their posts in the ATM section) - not counting spamsters (whose accounts are terminated immediately and permanently), nor sock puppets (the study excluded them).

This BAUT thread contains details of banned posters.

[Nereid]

I don't know ... but if you'd like, you could post a question in Physics Forums ... you'd get plenty of good responses (it's a little OT for this thread, wouldn't you say?)

Actually I would say that it is right on topic for this particular thread. There is certainly a schism that has formed between plasma cosmology, and contemporary astronomy today. Plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity, and one of the most obvious places we can observe the flow of electricity through plasma is inside of coronal loops. If there is ever a place to start building a case for the electric universe idea, it's in the work of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven, and how this work applies to coronal loops. Bruce documented the nature of these discharges was linked to electrical discharges based on their speed. Birkeland actually created these same 'structures' in the lab over 100 years ago. Alfven then build upon his work and showed how electrical currents affect the entire universe.

If you want to get to "first base", these are the people that get us moving in that direction.

[snip]

But until you do that, we shall limit our discussion, here, to modern astronomy (etc), as a science.

Hans Alfven was a plasma cosmologist. His work is taught in class as a "science". It's called MHD theory. According to that theory, kinetic energy, electricity and magnetism in plasma all go hand in hand. You yourself pointed us to at least two (the third one didn't seem related to electricity, but I haven't read the whole thing yet) different areas of "modern astronomy" that demonstrate the existence of electrical fields between and around various bodies in space. Nothing I've proposed is "outside" of "modern astronomy", but rather the existence of electrical currents is a part of "modern astronomy" ever since satellites first observed Birkeland currents from space.

If you are referring to 'plasma cosmology' OTHER THAN that promoted on the many sites cited in the BAUT thread on the Electric Universe, then please say so.

I am referring to plasma cosmology as Alfven's book on astronomy outlines it based on the application of MHD theory on all the *light* plasmas of space. I am referring to plasma cosmology as Birkeland defined it 100 years ago when he spoke of flying electrons and ions of every kind passing between various bodies in space.

[snip]

Do the papers of Birkeland and Bruce explain Olbers' paradox? the CMB? the large scale structure of the observable universe?

To some degree, yes, but let's first start with some of the basics and learn to walk before we start to run.

[snip]

(my bold)

Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917)
Charles Bruce (1902-1979)
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)

I think I've got the right folk, and the right dates - please correct this if I've not.

Which of Birkeland, Bruce, or Alfvén's published papers deal with:
a) Olbers' paradox?
b) the cosmic microwave background?
c) the abundance of (light) nuclides?
d) the large-scale structure of the universe?
e) the Hubble (distance-redshift) relationship?

In each and all cases, I am interested in 'plasma cosmology' papers which provide either a quantitative account of observations, or a quantitative prediction.

[harry]

Hello All

Neried said

In each and all cases, I am interested in 'plasma cosmology' papers which provide either a quantitative account of observations, or a quantitative prediction.

I agree 100%

The question is

Is there funds to give to these areas compared to other theories?

Are funds allocated to other theories because of a political or other agenda.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Neried said

In each and all cases, I am interested in 'plasma cosmology' papers which provide either a quantitative account of observations, or a quantitative prediction.

I agree 100%

The question is

Is there funds to give to these areas compared to other theories?

Are funds allocated to other theories because of a political or other agenda.

harry, the question is, I hope, unambiguous - which of the papers by Birkeland, Bruce, or Alfvén, contain quantitative accounts of the five classes of cosmological observations, or which provide quantitative predictions of the same.

As you are a long time student of cosmology, you are aware (I'm sure) that Olbers' paradox can be worked out - quantitatively - on the back of an old envelope; that the CMB and abundance of light nuclides took the authors who predicted them no more than 'pencil and paper' to produce; and that the Hubble relationship is a linear one (to the level I'm interested in).

You are also aware that each of these three gents had quite considerable 'computational' resources as their disposal, in terms of the pencil and paper of the day.

But maybe I've misunderstood what you wrote - how much effort do you estimate would have been needed, by Birkeland, Bruce, and Alfvén, to write the kinds of papers I was referring to?