Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How?
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.
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?
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?
It's not that the models are wrong, the mainstream simply refuses to use them.
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?
Anything's debatable. The fact remains that a solar panel is not a plug, that's all.That's debatable.
Why would my microwave short out from magical energy?
Did your microwave short out from the electrical energy going to it?[/COLOR]
If you can see an electric universe, you must have magical powers because it's all made up in your mind.If it is electricity there is nothing dark about it. Only to those who are blind and can't see it.
So, this lightning came from one of the universal neurons of the space brain?
That isn't an explanation.
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.No one uses "dark energy" to explain the acceleration of the solar wind.
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?They use it to explain the accelerating expansion of the entire universe.
Yes, intentionally.Why are you conflating the two issues?
The problem is that they *CANNOT* account for those observations which is why they "made something up" to "explain it".Because if the existing models don't correctly account for observations, then they have to be changed because they are wrong.
They refuse to use the methods Alfven used to explain solar phenomenon (electrical current), and continue to peddle something Alfven called "pseudoscience". (magnetic reconnection)How are they refusing to use the existing models?
Yes, it is a place-holder for the observation that the existing models cannot account for the phenomenon.
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.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.
Either I'm not reading correctly but how does EM fields accelerating plasmas have to do with the expansion of the universe
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.and the fact that the stars in galaxies are rotating too fast?
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.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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?This is like me asking about human exploration of space and you talking about algae.
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.
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.
That's another paper that professes to do away with "dark energy" simply by changing the redshift scaling factors.
Wouldn't you expect to see some influence of all this excess energy here in the solar system?
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?
No, I don't actually.
Nature effectively behaves differently at different scales. You don't necessarily expect a phenomenon felt at one scale to make itself known at another.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?