Origins of the UNIVERSE

The cosmos at our fingertips.
harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:13 am

Hello All

It is well known that the Big Bang theory has been funded more than any other theory.

Right or wrong, it does not matter.

What matters is science being applied correctly.

There are alot of information that is coming in at this moment.

Until the scientists work out this info and feed it back to us, we are in limbo land.

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

Hello Kovil

You said new matter is formed.

Matter can change from one phase to another, i think this is what you meant.

This is part of the recycling process of matter. Stars and compact cores all eject sub atomic matter that reforms into normal matter.

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

This is a great wet site.

If we keep our cool, and smile and smell the roses.
What ever will be will be.
Harry : Smile and live another day.

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Post by makc » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:14 am

harry wrote:This is a great wet site.
Wet? You must have clicked one of those spam links ;)

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Post by makc » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:13 pm

makc wrote:
Nereid wrote:...in only 3 days' time we'll know if SCC still has legs or not (ditto GR)...
would you mind to keep me posted on this subject?
I always have to keep me posted myself :(

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:41 pm

Let's take a detailed look at kovil's lengthy post.
kovil wrote:In the beginning, Astrophysicists and Cosmologists did not study electrical engineering, so electrical ideas did not cross their minds when pondering what is going on in our galaxy and between galaxies.
I think there is a name for this elementary logical flaw; whatever its name, can't you see how the second proposition does not follow from the first?
Plasma was not well understood by the cosmological community at that time either. Subsequent to the first half of the 20th century new instruments and new investigations have brought plasma and electrical effects into the scope of interstellar investigations and astrophysics.

Now we are involved in multi-discipline wide investigations to understand why and what and how the universe really works and behaves.
Indeed.

There are nearly 3,000 papers in the ADS database with the term "MHD"* in the title; and over 10,000 with it as a keyword.

It certainly seems that the astrophysics community has been quite vigorous in its application of Alfvén's work!
The Truth will not be discovered by ignoring scientific input from the other sciences. If Neried, Cosmo and Astro wish to ignore electrical engineering's input, they do so at their own risk and it matters not to me if they go down with the 'ship of established state and church' on the subject of defending the BBT against all odds. It will be to their own demise and ignorance.
Why should it be "electrical engineering's input"?

What is in "electrical engineering" that isn't already in Maxwell's equations?

Isn't Alfvén's work a far more consistent, reliable, fundamental base to work from?

I do hope you will answer these questions kovil.
Space exploration is a subject that will be best served by results, and the knowledge of the truth will yield the superior results. So unless the Church and Establishment are trying to control public knowledge to keep the People from being a competitive force in business or trade, the truth will be known soon. If there is some conspiracy to keep the truth from being known about the galaxy and outer space, then we are entering into a 'dark ages' of a sort. Ultimately the truth will be known, and my money is on the fact that electrical forces play an equal if not dominant role in interstellar activities.
How, other than by applying the scientific method appropriate to astronomy, do you suggest that the role of "electrical forces" in "interstellar activities" be investigated?
Not every mysterious crater on Earth is made by 'electrical machining', and this tout by some of the electrical websites throws a poor light on the good ideas they do have. Overall they are on the right track tho, and it would be good to look for evidence. What would thunderbolt scarring look like and what evidence would remain? How much current could be absorbed or held in capacitance by a planet and how far would a potential differential be able to transit to achieve equilibrium? I have some questions about this aspect. Comets do likely have both electrical and solar heating/boiling going on simultaneously, and this confuses the issue of what is happening, it is not entirely one or the other.

Arp's DVD about Redshift from the Thunderbolts.com website has a very interesting idea at the end. Halton Arp and Janet Narlikar have an idea that the ejection material from active galactic nuclei (AGN) which create the quasi-stellar radio sources (QSR) straddling the AGN; the material stream coming from the AGN is 'new matter'.
It is, indeed, an interesting idea.

However, it is also one that is quite inconsistent with the huge amount of high quality astronomical observations that are available to you, kovil, for free.

Take lensed quasars, as just one example: can you account for them, using the Arp-Narlikar variable mass hypothesis (VMH)?

or even Arp's empirical relationship, as presented in "NGC 520 chain of quasars" (Arp, H. 1974 A.J. 79, 923)?

I'm serious kovil; if you think you can defend these ideas, please do so.

Oh, and if you can't, would you be kind enough to say so?
It is pure wavefunctions that as they 'age' become in communication with the universe as they emit photons from interaction with any interstellar medium (ISM) that they encounter subsequent to ejection from the AGN, as the pure wavefunctions become matter, protons and electrons. As John Dobson describes, Time comes into this universe through the Inertia/Momentum component of matter. As the material wavefunction ejecta from the AGN ages it gains momentum/inertia by communicating via the photons it emits, and it learns of the rest of the matter in the universe and in so doing becomes subject to a changing 'rest mass' by its learning from communication via photons. As the 'new matter' ages, its rest mass increases, until it comes into ballance with the agreed upon rest mass that is universal. However 'rest mass' is a highly locally dependent number, and it is not the same in all locations. In the center of the AGN it is a different number than it is in lower density environments. This is why the redshift numbers differ for the structures near an AGN, and why the redshift numbers fall off as the spun off structures from the AGN move further away and age longer and communicate longer with their surroundings.
Has this idea of John Dobson been published, in a peer-reviewed astronomy journal? If so, please provide a reference.
This idea flies in the face of BBT and like minded theories. I'm not certain if to call BBT et al, 'creationist' or 'evolutionary'. But they are definitely not 'steady state' which is what this idea of Arp's is suggesting; that the universe does not have a beginning nor an end, and it is creating new matter from AGN ejecta, and this can create new galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

I'm not completely sold on Arp's ideas, but I am completely sold on investigating more into his ideas and think the established astronomical community that is denying him funding and observatory time is doing so at its own peril of ignoring the truth and of being in denial and sticking to their historical position of theory out of fear or wanting some kind of control over the sciences for some reason to which I am not yet privy.
I don't know about 'denying', but if the quality of the papers he would produce from observations he would make by being given time on the VLT (say) is no better than his recent papers, then I'd say the TACs (telescope allocation committees) made the right decisions.

Of course, if you'd like to present a case that his recent papers are, pace Nereid, of high quality ...

Or maybe your intention is even more radical ... we give equal time to all ideas, no matter how silly, nor how thoroughly they have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of good experiments and observations?
- - - -


To go a few steps further: The ejected material, pure wave-function essences from the AGN, (the ejecta is so energetic it is too ‘active’ to be matter yet, it is beyond being confined into electrons and protons), this will become protons and electrons; and then by emitting photons from interactions with each other and/or the ISM, the emitted photons bring awareness of the rest of the universe to this ‘new matter’. As it cools more, it can become ionized atoms (ions have one or more electrons missing) and then atoms with no electrons missing; tho at this stage only hydrogen would be forming most likely, as heavier atoms need stars in which to form (or so we presently think).

As John Dobson claims, “There are no photons ! There isn’t anything be-bopping all over the place from
every-possible-here to every-possible-there. If there was, space-time would be so full of ‘photons’ you couldn’t make your way across the room. Let alone see stars light years away.”

So if there are no photons, what is truly happening? What is truly happening is, light is awareness. Light is how awareness is communicated within space-time. ‘Photons’ are simply a metaphor for us to talk about a very difficult concept, and giving that concept a name and ‘particle’, it helps most of us to gain some kind of conception. Like electrons and protons are a concept. They are really only a pure wave-function, but it helps to conceptualize something solid. It helps to feel we have something solid underfoot to stand upon. We are all actually just an awareness inside of our own head, and our sensory input that is transmitted in electrical impulses through the nerves creates all we hear, see, touch, smell and taste; and That we call our experience of the outside world, but after a while we take it for granted and start to believe that it is ‘real’ !

Light transmits awareness at the ‘ratio of space to time’, and that ratio is the ‘speed of light’. It is a ratio of ‘distance to time passed’, (at the speed of light that is). Thusly one ‘light year’ is the distance light travels in one year, and that is the ‘ratio that space has to time’ in the arena of awareness transmitted by light.

As Dobson says, “Between the emission event (a photon being emitted for whatever reason) , and the absorption event (when the photon is absorbed by whatever, like your eye when you see something) there is no ‘thing’ that traverses the distance. It is an awareness that is transmitted, and that awareness transmits at the ‘ratio of space to time’ or the ‘speed of light’, which ever way you prefer to speak of it or think of it.”

In this way the universe is aware of itself, in this way we are a part of the universe and we have our awareness of the universe.
Has Dobson shown that this idea is consistent with the relevant good experimental and observational results?

If so, please give us a reference, or references, so we may check for ourselves.
Arp’s idea is very new, and almost ‘religious’ in a way, and threatens to overthrow established religion and state, and these are likely the reasons it is being so irrationally opposed by the established science power structure establishment. Anyone that power structure can cajole, threaten, arm-twist, reward with funding or observatory time or position of prestige, to defend its position of ideology and squash any and all opposing theories, it is doing so daily.
Actually, as I said above, the reason why his ideas don't get much airtime is that they are inconsistent (no conspiracy involved).

But, perhaps you can do a better job than Arp and his supporters of presenting a consistent case ...

I look forward to such a presentation, from you, with considerable interest.

*MHD stands for magneto-hydrodynamics, one aspect of plasma physics, for which Alfvén got his Nobel.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:39 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Nereid wrote:There are nearly 3,000 papers in the ADS database with the term "MHD"* in the title; and over 10,000 with it as a keyword.
Which of those 3000 papers describes the universe as Alfven did, including the *electrical currents* that flow through the plasma universe?
Haven't seen you in a while Michael!

I don't know - why don't you check, and tell us?

In any case, why is it relevant?

After all, science is about as far from a personality cult as it is possible to imagine ... and so MHD has now been extended far beyond the pioneering work of Alfvén, just as GR is, today, far richer than Einstein's initial work on it.
It certainly seems that the astrophysics community has been quite vigorous in its application of Alfvén's work!
The astrophysics community only seems embrace half of his MHD thoeries, specifically the non current carrying half. They refuse to accept the role of electrical currents running *through* the plasma universe as Alfven did however. In my experience, few if any astronomers have ever read Alfven's books.
But why should they read his books? After all, books are not subject to peer-review ... shouldn't they be reading the relevant papers first?

And why shouldn't they reject his ideas on "the plasma universe"? After all, the test is whether those ideas are consistent with the relevant good observational and experimental results, not just that one person (Alfvén) held those ideas.

Or perhaps you do think science should be more a personality cult?
Why should it be "electrical engineering's input"?
Because plasma carries current very efficiently and we live in an electric universe according to Alfven.
I see that you omitted the second, paired, question - I wonder why?

Here it is again:
What is in "electrical engineering" that isn't already in Maxwell's equations?
Want to take a crack at answering that, Michael?
Isn't Alfvén's work a far more consistent, reliable, fundamental base to work from?
Yes, it is, but Alfven saw the universe quite differently than you do. What makes your views scientifically superior to his?
A masterful non-answer!

The question was, in case you missed it, how is 'electrical engineering' superior to (classical) electrodynamics (the classical foundation of plasma physics), in terms of how one should incorporate plasma physics into astrophysics?

It has nothing to do with how Nereid (or Alfvén) sees (saw) the universe; science isn't a democracy, nor a personality cult.

The test is, surely:
a) internal consistency
b) consistency with well-established theories whose domains of applicability overlap
c) (above all) consistency with the relevant, good observational and experimental results.

And especially with regard to c), surely the verdict is pretty clear-cut: the universe certainly doesn't seem like Alfvén's "plasma universe".

kovil
Science Officer
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:58 pm

Gravity is not the only force in the universe in outerspace.

Post by kovil » Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:51 am

Apr 17, 2007

<copyright text deleted>

[Admin's note:
kovil, I have deleted the text of your long post as it seems to be, word for word, the same material as appears on another website. The webpage from which it comes has a clearly visible copyright statement.

The Asterisk* has no intention of breaching copyright so clearly declared.

If you are unclear about the conventions governing 'fair use' of copyright material, please ask.

Please be more careful in future.
]

Sorry, I thought Thunderbolts would like to be posted here. I have more to learn about this copyright thing. I'll pay attention in the future. Sorry, I don't want to cause APOD trouble.
Last edited by kovil on Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:58 pm

[snip]
And especially with regard to c), surely the verdict is pretty clear-cut: the universe certainly doesn't seem like Alfvén's "plasma universe".
How so?
Michael,

Please provide at least one reference to a paper, published in a relevant astronomy peer-reviewed journal, which shows how Alfvén's plasma cosmology idea accounts for the following:

a) Olbers' paradox, not only in the visible waveband, but also in the gamma, x-ray, and infrared wavebands

b) the cosmic microwave background, including the dipole and the angular power spectrum

c) the primordial abundance of the light nuclides hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4

d) the 'Hubble relationship', the observed relationship between the redshift and distance of galaxies

e) the universe's large-scale structure; for example, as summarised here.

harry
G'day G'day G'day G'day
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by harry » Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:08 pm

Hello All

I was posted this link.

Interesting research


http://www.physorg.com/news95517501.html
Scientists of the MiniBooNE experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermilab today announced their first findings. The MiniBooNE results resolve questions raised by observations of the LSND experiment in the 1990s that appeared to contradict findings of other neutrino experiments worldwide. MiniBooNE researchers showed conclusively that the LSND results could not be due to simple neutrino oscillation, a phenomenon in which one type of neutrino transforms into another type and back again.
The announcement significantly clarifies the overall picture of how neutrinos behave.
How does this effect the standard model?
Harry : Smile and live another day.

makc
Commodore
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Post by makc » Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:20 pm

Nereid wrote:I'm serious... if you think you can defend these ideas, please do so. Oh, and if you can't, would you be kind enough to say so?
Serious?

No, you've got to be kidding us.

I think it is damn obvious that noone here wants to defend even simple statements, not to mention full-blown "ATM" theories with real math and stuff.

After all, this is "Cafe" not "Prove your favorite theory is scientific" forum. So, if you do not want unscientific stuff discussed here, please have some balls and put that straight into forum rules, reserving full right (and responsibility) for determining what is or is not scientific for yourself. This would eliminate any need in such lengthy and apparently pointless discussions as this one.

Thanks for consideration.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:53 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

I was posted this link.

Interesting research


http://www.physorg.com/news95517501.html
Scientists of the MiniBooNE experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermilab today announced their first findings. The MiniBooNE results resolve questions raised by observations of the LSND experiment in the 1990s that appeared to contradict findings of other neutrino experiments worldwide. MiniBooNE researchers showed conclusively that the LSND results could not be due to simple neutrino oscillation, a phenomenon in which one type of neutrino transforms into another type and back again.
The announcement significantly clarifies the overall picture of how neutrinos behave.
How does this effect the standard model?
It is one (terrestrial) confirmation of neutrino oscillations, the first conclusive discovery of which earned Davis and Koshiba the 2002 Nobel Prize for physics (shared with Giacconi).

Neutrino oscillations, along with dark matter, dark energy, and a g-2 result for the electron (or was it the muon?) that is ~3-sigma from the Standard Model's predictions, are the only clues we have, to date, (AFAIK) on how to go beyond the Standard Model (SM). Testing the SM in a new energy regime is one of the primary objectives of the LHC. It is also a goal of INTEGRAL, GLAST, the various dark matter searches (and telescopes), LOFAR, AMANDA, the Pierre Auger CRO, and many other active research projects throughout the world.

One interesting feature of this experiment - one which is becoming more common - is the 'blinding' of the researchers to the data, until after the experiment has finished collecting it (and certain preliminary data reductions have been done). IIRC, this was also done with at least one of the best g-2 experiments recently.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:01 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Nereid wrote:e) the universe's large-scale structure; for example, as summarised here.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... Alfven.pdf

I think I'll start with your last question first. How does standard theory explain those magnetic fields around the threads of space, if not with electrical current?
I'm familiar with this document.

It doesn't, as far as I can see, say anything at all about the large-scale structure of the universe, wrt the size of density fluctuations about the mean in terms of scale (which is what the SDSS graph in the link in my post shows).

But perhaps I missed it? Where, in that PDF document, does Alfvén present a case for the relationship between density fluctations and scale?

And to your question, where, in that PDF document, does Alfvén present a quantitative description of "magnetic fields around the threads of space"?

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:21 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Nereid wrote:I'm familiar with this document.
How about this one? Or this one?

There is also this paper. I could go on if you would like. Much of Alfven's material is hard to come by and it's not available on Arxiv. It takes some digging and some research to put all his papers together in a cohesive way.
In my earlier post, I asked this:
Please provide at least one reference to a paper, published in a relevant astronomy peer-reviewed journal, which shows how Alfvén's plasma cosmology idea accounts for the following:

a) Olbers' paradox, not only in the visible waveband, but also in the gamma, x-ray, and infrared wavebands

b) the cosmic microwave background, including the dipole and the angular power spectrum

c) the primordial abundance of the light nuclides hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4

d) the 'Hubble relationship', the observed relationship between the redshift and distance of galaxies

e) the universe's large-scale structure; for example, as summarised here.
Your first response contained a document that did not address any of these five topics ... at least, it seemed to me that it didn't.

I asked you for clarification; specifically, how that particular document addresses e) above.

You did not answer. Or perhaps you have not yet answered ... do you intend to answer?

So, let me try again: which, if any, of the five items above are addressed by the new material you have posted?

Please be specific.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:25 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:[snip]

The primary difference is that astronomers use dark matter and black holes, and magnetic reconnection to describe things that Alfven described as being related to current flows through plasmas.

[snip]
(my bold)

Just out of curiosity, how did Alfvén, or any other proponent of his 'plasma cosmology', describe black holes as being related to current flows through plasmas?

Specifically, how did (do?) they account for the observations presented in APOD 14 January, 2007?

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:44 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Nereid wrote:You did not answer. Or perhaps you have not yet answered ... do you intend to answer?
You seem to be putting very specific constraints on what you want answered, and I'm unclear exactly what you want. Alfven and Peratt pretty much wrote the book on Plasma Cosmology from a plasma physics perspective. If you want explanations about how Plasma Cosmology explains the large scale structures of space, there is plenty of material on that subject, including material that does not come directly from Alfven.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... 6TPS-I.pdf
So, let me try again: which, if any, of the five items above are addressed by the new material you have posted?

Please be specific.
I was specifically trying to address the last item on your list, specifically how plasma cosmology explains the largest structures of space. If you want to get into specific subsets of each and every structure, we can do that, but I'm not altogether clear what you are after at this point in time.

My only intent was to demonstrate to you and others that there is a *very* strong mathematical foundation behind plasma cosmology.
If you read the part of this thread leading up to your (first) post of Mon Apr 16, 2007, you'll see that I was addressing, in detail, kovil's long post.

My response was to point out that there are three criteria we can use to judge a theory in astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology), of which perhaps the most powerful is "c) (above all) consistency with the relevant, good observational and experimental results"

This comment followed: "with regard to c), surely the verdict is pretty clear-cut: the universe certainly doesn't seem like Alfvén's "plasma universe"."

You asked in what way Alfvén's "plasma universe" is inconsistent with good observational and experimental results, and I provided you a list of the five sets of independent tests which are used, by the astronomy community, wrt cosmological theories, and asked if you could provide references to papers showing how well Alfvén's "plasma universe" passes those tests.

So far, you have not answered this question, in respect of any of the five!

FWIW, I've been asking these sorts of questions, of all those who present claims concerning alternative cosmologies (whether theories, hypotheses, or just plain speculative ideas) for several years now. As a result, I'm pretty familiar with the literature, by proponents of alternative cosmologies, on how well they meet these tests ... and Alfvén's "plasma universe" is one of worst in this regard, in that I've not read anything yet* that does an even halfway decent job of addressing even Olbers' paradox, much less the other four.

So, do you have any references to papers that do address these five sets of tests? Or even just one of them??

*And yes, I've read many Alfvén and Perratt papers; FWIW, Perratt (Alfvén seems to have written few, if any, quantitative papers on astronomy and cosmology) may know his plasma physics wrt lab plasmas, but his apparent understanding of the relevant parts of astronomy is, IMHO, shall we say, somewhat less than impressive.

hishadow
Ensign
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:58 am

Post by hishadow » Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:45 pm

Nereid wrote:Specifically, how did (do?) they account for the observations presented in APOD 14 January, 2007?
I remember seeing a segment on a PBS broadcast named Monster of the Milky Way, where astronomer Andrea Ghez shows the dramatic u-turn of a star in the center of our galaxy. Couldn't find any clip though on the Internet.

ed: found it.. it's available on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/program.html in Chapter 3 - Tracking the monster.

Nereid
Intrepidus Dux Emeritus
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 am

Post by Nereid » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:26 am

hishadow wrote:
Nereid wrote:Specifically, how did (do?) they account for the observations presented in APOD 14 January, 2007?
I remember seeing a segment on a PBS broadcast named Monster of the Milky Way, where astronomer Andrea Ghez shows the dramatic u-turn of a star in the center of our galaxy. Couldn't find any clip though on the Internet.

ed: found it.. it's available on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/program.html in Chapter 3 - Tracking the monster.
Here is an ESO PR, from 2002, that gives some details of this 'dramatic U-turn' star (that came as close as only 17 light-hours to the SMBH ... whew!).