An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

How?

Yesterday you guys were telling me that the term "dark whatever" was nothing more than a placeholder term until we identified the actual "cause" of an observation of 'acceleration' of plasma. Now you *INSIST* new physics is required. When did that transition take place? 4:00AM this morning?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The state of matter called "plasma" is extremely sensitive to the EM field because A) it's an excellent conductor (nearly perfect actually), and B) because it's composed of charge particles that are accelerated by electromagnetic fields.

You can demonstrate that with an ordinary plasma ball. Simply plug it in and turn it on.

That isn't an explanation.

The mainstream's solar model fails to explain the constant acceleration of solar wind. There is something wrong with it, no? Can't we call that observation of acceleration (in fact any observation of acceleration) "dark energy" until we identify it's actual empirical cause?

No one uses "dark energy" to explain the acceleration of the solar wind.

They use it to explain the accelerating expansion of the entire universe.

Why are you conflating the two issues?

How can you be so sure "new physics" is necessary? Didn't you first tell me it was simply a placeholder term for human ignorance that could represent *ANYTHING*, including known forces of nature?

Because if the existing models don't correctly account for observations, then they have to be changed because they are wrong.

The correction to the models is what we mean by "new physics".

Why are you so confident in the existing models?

Why do you think general relativity and the standard model are the end all and be all of physics?

It's not that the models are wrong, the mainstream simply refuses to use them.

How are they refusing to use the existing models?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Yesterday you guys were telling me that the term "dark whatever" was nothing more than a placeholder term until we identified the actual "cause" of an observation of 'acceleration' of plasma. Now you *INSIST* new physics is required. When did that transition take place? 4:00AM this morning?

Yes, it is a place-holder for the observation that the existing models cannot account for the phenomenon.

You say the existing models in fact can explain the phenomenon, I'm curious as to how they can do so.

 

[sandwiches]

That's debatable.

Anything's debatable. The fact remains that a solar panel is not a plug, that's all.

Did your microwave short out from the electrical energy going to it?[/COLOR]

Why would my microwave short out from magical energy?

If it is electricity there is nothing dark about it. Only to those who are blind and can't see it.

If you can see an electric universe, you must have magical powers because it's all made up in your mind.

Magical Electrical Energy Strikes Man.

So, this lightning came from one of the universal neurons of the space brain?

 

[Michael]

That isn't an explanation.

Actually it was a "demonstration", something you can *NEVER* do with "dark energy". I already explained the reason it's sensitive to EM fields. Plasma is composed of charged particles. It is therefore an excellent conductor, and sensitive to EM fields.

No one uses "dark energy" to explain the acceleration of the solar wind.

But I'm simply using the same logic you did. I'm pointing to an acceleration process in the sky and claiming "dark energy" did it until I "figure it out" in terms of actual physics. What's the problem? You did it.

They use it to explain the accelerating expansion of the entire universe.

They can't even demonstrate "dark energy" accelerates a single atom in a lab, EM fields acceleration plasma, so why should I believe it's not an EM field that does that too?

Why are you conflating the two issues?

Yes, intentionally.

Because if the existing models don't correctly account for observations, then they have to be changed because they are wrong.

The problem is that they *CANNOT* account for those observations which is why they "made something up" to "explain it".

How are they refusing to use the existing models?

They refuse to use the methods Alfven used to explain solar phenomenon (electrical current), and continue to peddle something Alfven called "pseudoscience". (magnetic reconnection)

 

[Michael]

Yes, it is a place-holder for the observation that the existing models cannot account for the phenomenon.

They can't account for it, so they simply play "pretend" with the laws of physics. No force of nature can save their theory, so they have to actually *invent* one. I don't care to save their otherwise dead cosmology theory in the first place, so I could care less if the EM field actually could be stuffed into the gaps of their theory. What they did with inflation was simply absurd so adding dark energy in there only makes their theory "childish", and "mythical" IMO.

You say the existing models in fact can explain the phenomenon, I'm curious as to how they can do so.

I can show you any number of ways to demonstrate that EM fields cause the "acceleration" of plasma. That seems to be the only requirement of this stuff in the first place. I can certainly use your same logic and handwave at some uncontrolled acceleration observation in the sky and demonstrate that it is directly related to the EM field.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I can show you any number of ways to demonstrate that EM fields cause the "acceleration" of plasma. That seems to be the only requirement of this stuff in the first place. I can certainly use your same logic and handwave at some uncontrolled acceleration observation in the sky and demonstrate that it is directly related to the EM field.

I'd like to see it.

I'm not convinced plasma can be used on intergalactic scales to explain the increasing acceleration of the galaxies away from each other.

 

[Nabobalis]

Either I'm not reading correctly but how does EM fields accelerating plasmas have to do with the expansion of the universe and the fact that the stars in galaxies are rotating too fast? Could I get a break down of how it all works?

But Dark energy is a place holder and is something we can not explain with our current knowledge of physics, it requires that either there is some new physics or that our current physics is wrong.

 

[Michael]

Either I'm not reading correctly but how does EM fields accelerating plasmas have to do with the expansion of the universe

It is the only known force of nature capable of doing such a trick. What other known force of nature is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity?

and the fact that the stars in galaxies are rotating too fast?

I don't actually have a problem with the concept of "missing mass" or MACHO forms of "dark matter". I hear however that the "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter" are particularly tasty in the spring. IMO "dark matter" is the least of your metaphysical worries. Inflation! Now there's a metaphysical bad boy right out of human imagination. I can even tell you the individual that "made it up" in his head.

But Dark energy is a place holder and is something we can not explain with our current knowledge of physics, it requires that either there is some new physics or that our current physics is wrong.

I believe that your cosmology theory is broken and needs fixing. I have no evidence that "magic energy" can accelerate anything, even if it's a placeholder term.

 

[Michael]

I'd like to see it.

Great. Solar wind is a "full sphere" phenomenon of plasma acceleration that Birkeland not only "predicted", he actually simulated it in a lab.

I'm not convinced plasma can be used on intergalactic scales to explain the increasing acceleration of the galaxies away from each other.

I'm likewise unconvinced that "magic energy" is capable of accelerating anything. I know for a fact that an EM field can and does accelerate plasma right here in our own solar system.

 

[sandwiches]

Either I'm not reading correctly but how does EM fields accelerating plasmas have to do with the expansion of the universe and the fact that the stars in galaxies are rotating too fast? Could I get a break down of how it all works?

But Dark energy is a place holder and is something we can not explain with our current knowledge of physics, it requires that either there is some new physics or that our current physics is wrong.

There's no point in arguing with Michael. He's incapable or unwilling to accept that a name is just that. He seems to be stuck in an alternate reality where the placeholder of dark energy is evil and magical and where a name can change the nature of reality.

 

[Michael]

There's no point in arguing with Michael. He's incapable or unwilling to accept that a name is just that. He seems to be stuck in an alternate reality where the placeholder of dark energy is evil and magical and where a name can change the nature of reality.

It's not simply being used as a "placeholder term" to designate "we don't know" however as that NASA article demonstrates. They aren't just claiming "we don't know". What they claim is "we're sure something *NEW* is required". The only theory in the whole world that "requires" it is the one theory it's supposed to save. Sorry, that sounds *MIGHTY* fishy from a Plasma Cosmology/EU theory orientation of cosmology. I certainly have no need for it, and I can accept "I don't know" as a valid scientific answer even if the mainstream *needs* a new force of nature to keep their otherwise dead theory alive.

 

[sandwiches]

It's not simply being used as a "placeholder term" to designate "we don't know" however as that NASA article demonstrates. They aren't just claiming "we don't know". What they claim is "we're sure something *NEW* is required". The only theory in the whole world that "requires" it is the one theory it's supposed to save. Sorry, that sounds *MIGHTY* fishy from a Plasma Cosmology/EU theory orientation of cosmology. I certainly have no need for it, and I can accept "I don't know" as a valid scientific answer even if the mainstream *needs* a new force of nature to keep their otherwise dead theory alive.

Wow... just wow... Was I finally able to wedge an actual cohesive argument against dark energy other than your tired "evil magic" nonsense? Amazing. At least there's grounds now to debate now.

You should have started with this argument instead of claiming that anyone believes that dark energy is magic or evil or whatever else. In fact, I even agree with you that "dark energy" might in fact be an already known energy that may be functioning in an unknown or unexpected manner at those scales. As far as it being simple EM radiation, I'd like to see the model for it to explain the observed phenomena such as acceleration of galactic arms, etc.

 

[Michael]

Wow... just wow... Was I finally able to wedge an actual cohesive argument against dark energy other than your tired "evil magic" nonsense? Amazing. At least there's grounds now to debate now.

You should have started with this argument instead of claiming that anyone believes that dark energy is magic or evil or whatever else.

It retrospect you're probably right, but everyone seems to have their own personal definition of "dark energy". It's a bit like a "whack-a-mole" process frankly.

In fact, I even agree with you that "dark energy" might in fact be an already known energy that may be functioning in an unknown or unexpected manner at those scales. As far as it being simple EM radiation, I'd like to see the model for it to explain the observed phenomena such as acceleration of galactic arms, etc.

The only plasma cosmology oriented galaxy computer simulations I've seen were done by Anthony Peratt, a student of Hannes Alfven that works at Los Alamos. Here are some links to his work.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf
DownloadPapers

 

[Michael]

http://journalofcosmology.com/HunterCosmology.pdf

That's another paper that professes to do away with "dark energy" simply by changing the redshift scaling factors.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Great. Solar wind is a "full sphere" phenomenon of plasma acceleration that Birkeland not only "predicted", he actually simulated it in a lab.



I'm likewise unconvinced that "magic energy" is capable of accelerating anything. I know for a fact that an EM field can and does accelerate plasma right here in our own solar system.

So what?

I'm talking about the reaches of intergalactic space and you are talking about the solar system.

This is like me asking about human exploration of space and you talking about algae.

 

[Michael]

So what?

I'm talking about the reaches of intergalactic space and you are talking about the solar system.

Wouldn't you expect to see some influence of all this excess energy here in the solar system?

This is like me asking about human exploration of space and you talking about algae.

I don't follow you. Unless you're claiming the laws of nature are somehow different "out there somewhere", what difference does it make which observation of acceleration we label as 'dark energy'?

I think sandwiches is onto something here since my primary beef with the mainstream position is related to the fact they seem to have already decided that 'dark energy' has never been seen in a lab before. How can they know that? Assuming it's true, aren't you simply "taking it on faith" in this case and tossing out God with the bathwater for the same lack of empirical support?

 

[Nabobalis]

It is the only known force of nature capable of doing such a trick. What other known force of nature is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity?

I don't actually have a problem with the concept of "missing mass" or MACHO forms of "dark matter". I hear however that the "non baryonic" forms of "dark matter" are particularly tasty in the spring. IMO "dark matter" is the least of your metaphysical worries. Inflation! Now there's a metaphysical bad boy right out of human imagination. I can even tell you the individual that "made it up" in his head.

I believe that your cosmology theory is broken and needs fixing. I have no evidence that "magic energy" can accelerate anything, even if it's a placeholder term.

I agree that our cosmology theory is reasonably broken, inflation, dark energy, dark matter. All this implies that our current knowledge is lacking and we are missing something.

But just stating that the EM force is strong doesn't make it an argument. Can I get a break down of the mechanism?

It's not simply being used as a "placeholder term" to designate "we don't know" however as that NASA article demonstrates. They aren't just claiming "we don't know". What they claim is "we're sure something *NEW* is required". The only theory in the whole world that "requires" it is the one theory it's supposed to save. Sorry, that sounds *MIGHTY* fishy from a Plasma Cosmology/EU theory orientation of cosmology. I certainly have no need for it, and I can accept "I don't know" as a valid scientific answer even if the mainstream *needs* a new force of nature to keep their otherwise dead theory alive.

The reason we think that something new is required is simply the fact that our current understanding doesn't allow us to explain it. I agree we have been bolting things on to the Big Band Theory but the reason is that it is currently still the best model we have for the universe. Also it is a simple model and with any simple model, it never works 100% of the time so things get bolted on when we come across something new. Same with any theory/model, from the Free Electron Model to theory of the atom.

That's another paper that professes to do away with "dark energy" simply by changing the redshift scaling factors.

I do have reservation with that paper and the journal but that isn't important right now. But on the issue of explaining dark matter/energy like this, is nothing new. There are many theories that explain it away with the universe and these are studied and get published but science is a slow process and cosmology is not only an expensive research avenue but probably one of the slowest too.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Wouldn't you expect to see some influence of all this excess energy here in the solar system?

No, I don't actually.

I don't follow you. Unless you're claiming the laws of nature are somehow different "out there somewhere", what difference does it make which observation of acceleration we label as 'dark energy'?

Nature effectively behaves differently at different scales. You don't necessarily expect a phenomenon felt at one scale to make itself known at another.

I think sandwiches is onto something here since my primary beef with the mainstream position is related to the fact they seem to have already decided that 'dark energy' has never been seen in a lab before. How can they know that? Assuming it's true, aren't you simply "taking it on faith" in this case and tossing out God with the bathwater for the same lack of empirical support?

No, they are saying that the existing models are sufficiently able to explain everything that has been seen in a lab so far.

But we build things like the LHC to create conditions where the existing models fail.

 

[Michael]

No, I don't actually.

Really? 70+ percent of the universe is supposedly 'dark energy' and has no effect on Earth or anything inside the solar system? Man, you guys seem to buy any unfalsifiable concept as long as it doesn't have term "God" attached to it.

Nature effectively behaves differently at different scales. You don't necessarily expect a phenomenon felt at one scale to make itself known at another.

So if I applied that logic to the topic of God, you'd buy it?

No, they are saying that the existing models are sufficiently able to explain everything that has been seen in a lab so far.

Actually, no. Nothing ever seen in the lab requires the presence of "dark energy". In fact no scientific theory other than Lambda-CDM theory even mentions it.

But we build things like the LHC to create conditions where the existing models fail.

We're also looking to find the last "particle" of matter necessary to complete the "standard particle physics theory". The Higgs is the only particle that hasn't yet been "found". We don't know that any existing models will fail (like standard physics) in favor of speculation (like SUSY theory), so the whole notion that anything will "fail" is speculative at best. You guys seem to have "faith" in many "unseen" things.