There was nothing to study and no data to gather for the first [FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]380,000 years after the "birth" of the universe in the Big Bang.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
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.
There was nothing to study and no data to gather for the first [FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]380,000 years after the "birth" of the universe in the Big Bang.[/FONT]Claiming a cosmologist who has spent his entire professional life studying the big bang and gathering data on it, and using that data to make testable predictions which have consistently been validated... In what way he such a person NOT an authority on the BB?
Eternal universeOf course it can. Einstein did it himself. He never characterized the nature of his constant mind you, but I'd use an ordinary EM field myself.
You really haven't been listening to me. I'm not a "creationist", not a young earth creationist, nor a young universe creationists. For all I know this universe is eternal and it has been here forever and ever and ever. Do you understand my beliefs on this issue?
Plasma physics is not "cartoon physics", it actually works in a lab. EM fields can and do accelerate plasma in controlled experimentation, and plasma redshifts photons on a regular basis in the lab.
Invisible sky entities are "cartoon physics" which is why they never show up in labs on Earth. You can keep your cartoon physics. I'm personally quite happy with empirical lab tested physics thank you very much.
Eternal universeIf so then we should be inundated with black holes by now! Unless of course it is a cartoon universe!
FYI, Schwarzchild's view of GR was similar to that of Einstein, and neither of them supported an infinitely dense 'point' as a valid solution to a GR formula. Schwarzchild models mass in terms of an "incompressible fluid" which specifically forbids the concept of infinite mass.1. As a further example of Einstein’s theory of gravitation I have calculated the gravitational field of a homogeneous sphere of finite radius, which consists of incompressible fluid. The addition “of incompressible fluid” is necessary, since in the theory of relativity gravitation depends not only on the quantity of matter, but also on its energy, and e. g. a solid body in a given state of tension would yield a gravitation different from a fluid.
You claim you've talked to "hundreds" of physicists and that they disagree with you, could it perhaps be that you're simply wrong?Surely you don't think this is the first time I've asked anyone for a method to "test" the idea on Earth in a lab with real control mechanisms do you? I've asked hundreds of astronomers the same question. They can't answer it any better than you can. They can't name a source of dark energy, so they certainly can't name a control mechanism. They certainly never came up with a photon redshift lab experiment based on 'dark energy'.
Instead they insist on pointing to the sky and claiming their trio of invisible friends did it, and "Don't worry about empirical physics".
The problem is that it would literally take an act of God almighty himself to prevent *any* plasma redshift from occurring in space. It occurs in the lab in at least four flavors, and *must* occur in spacetime as well.
Instead of dealing with the facts from the lab, Lambda-CDM proponents ignore the lab results entirely, claim they aren't important or relevant to cosmology theory in a plasma universe, and then proceed to ignore the laws of plasma physics entirely.
I'm not really expecting you to do anything that hundreds of astronomers were incapable of doing, I'm just pointing out that unless you have a magic rabbit in your hat, the idea is completely untestable in the lab.
And you're sure you understand that part?There really isn't anything "physical' about their theory. All they are doing is replacing a zero in a GR formula with a non negative constant, and calling it 'dark energy'. It's math exercise, not a physics experiment.
And the problem would be what? The 'dark matter' was (is) a placeholder term for when they find the mass responsible for the estimated mass. (Doesn't matter if it's a new kind, that you seem to despise, or the regular one)I just presented you with several articles done by the mainstream themselves that showed that they underestimated the number of small stars in a galaxy, discovered the universe is more dusty and twice as bright as they imagined. They just 'discovered' more mass around our galaxy that exists in all the stars in the galaxy. Not only did they find their missing baryonic material, it's located *outside* the main body of mass, and it's positioned perfectly to account for faster galaxy rotation patterns. In other words it's a "fit" with their missing mass needs, but it's composed of ordinary matter.
"Space doesn't expand on earth", there it is again. Do you know what the null hypothesis is?It's possible to test SUSY theory and several simple SUSY theories bit the dust at LHC. Why 'test' if you have no intention of abiding by the results?
It's not possible to test dark energy or inflation because there is no known source and only objects move in the lab. Space doesn't expand on Earth.
You claim you've talked to "hundreds" of physicists and that they disagree with you, could it perhaps be that you're simply wrong?
If you can't even name a source, let alone a control mechanism, it's not "physical".And you're sure you understand that part?
The problem is that they keep claiming it's *not* made of "baryonic matter", when in fact the missing mass identified to date has *all* been made of bayronic matter!And the problem would be what? The 'dark matter' was (is) a placeholder term for when they find the mass responsible for the estimated mass. (Doesn't matter if it's a new kind, that you seem to despise, or the regular one)
If you can't show me that something has any influence on anything, then I'm likely to assume it doesn't exist. I lack belief in faeries and dark energy for exactly the same reason. They don't show up in real labs."Space doesn't expand on earth", there it is again. Do you know what the null hypothesis is?
Since one usually keep within ones group, significantly affecting ratios between agreeing and disagreeing people, I would say that you're a part of a vast minority then.I've talked to quite a few (dozens?) of PC proponents that do agree with me too.
Can't name it, therefore not physical. Not really a logical step to me.If you can't even name a source, let alone a control mechanism, it's not "physical".
They keep claiming that the discovered "baryonic matter" isn't "baryonic matter"? Are you sure it isn't outdated sources?The problem is that they keep claiming it's *not* made of "baryonic matter", when in fact the missing mass identified to date has *all* been made of bayronic matter!
I don't lack belief in faeries, I dismiss then on the grounds of the absence of evidence. I suggest you should as well.If you can't show it to me that something has any influence on anything, then I'm likely to assume it doesn't exist. I lack belief in faeries and dark energy for exactly the same reason. They don't show up in real labs.
I doubt it made no difference, or are you so up to date that you're intimately familiar with the leading research and able to discern that the result has made no impact?I hear you (sort of), but then what is the point of testing SUSY theory at LHC if you intend to keep pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it? At what point does a failed prediction become a failure?
Since one usually keep within ones group, significantly affecting ratios between agreeing and disagreeing people, I would say that you're a part of a vast minority then.
There's no need for it *and* they can't name it. It's a logical inference from the fact that they cannot even tell me where it comes from.Can't name it, therefore not physical. Not really a logical step to me.
No. I'm saying that there is now clear evidence that their galaxy mass estimation techniques are significantly flawed and they desparately need to be updated based on data and revelations from the past 5 years. Pretty much the entire Lambda-CDM theory is based on 'outdated sources' at this point. The past five years have not been good to mainstream theory in terms of validating their beliefs. SUSY theory got put on life support last year, and this year they "discovered" that our galaxy is surrounded by plasma.They keep claiming that the discovered "baryonic matter" isn't "baryonic matter"? Are you sure it isn't outdated sources?
I dismiss dark energy for exactly the same reasons, based on Compton, Stark and plasma redshift.I don't lack belief in faeries, I dismiss then on the grounds of the absence of evidence. I suggest you should as well.
"As most people should"? Why? I have four known causes of redshift to choose from, five if I include *object* (not space) expansions. What do I need dark energy for? It's only apparent use is to save *one* (and only one) otherwise falsified cosmology theory.As for the dark energy and space expansion, I don't have an opinion, as most people should.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-deadI doubt it made no difference, or are you so up to date that you're intimately familiar with the leading research and able to discern that the result has made no impact?
Don't see why not at this time, we're two non-professionals discussing an advanced matter over the internet. If you wanna do it correctly, publish a paper.So you're back to relying upon a fallacy?
We don't know where anything came from if we trace things back enoughThere's no need for it *and* they can't name it. It's a logical inference from the fact that they cannot even tell me where it comes from.
And you seem to think that you know enough of their work to say there's no progress.No. I'm saying that there is now clear evidence that their galaxy mass estimation techniques are significantly flawed and they desparately need to be updated based on data and revelations from the past 5 years. Pretty much the entire Lambda-CDM theory is based on 'outdated sources' at this point. The past five years have not been good to mainstream theory in terms of validating their beliefs. SUSY theory got put on life support last year, and this year they "discovered" that our galaxy is surrounded by plasma.
Fine, just don't expect me to agree with you when people who are more educated in the matter don't.I dismiss dark energy for exactly the same reasons, based on Compton, Stark and plasma redshift.
Most people don't know enough about physics to have an educated opinion in the matter. I don't believe you when you claim the situation is that dire."As most people should"? Why? I have four known causes of redshift to choose from, five if I include *object* (not space) expansions. What do I need dark energy for? It's only apparent use is to save *one* (and only one) otherwise falsified cosmology theory.
So articles are examples of the leading research now?Is Supersymmetry Dead?: Scientific American
Evidence of dark matter? It could be - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News
Despite the failures of SUSY theory in the lab last year and this year, they were pointing at the sky as late as last August and claiming WIMPS did it. That's just more of the same nonsense based on a form of pure denial. Had SUSY theory been *verified* at LHC, it would make sense for them to continue to claim WIMPS did it, but since several simple SUSY theories were falsified, how is that not an act of pure denial of scientific fact?
Unlike the plasma cloud around the galaxy, this observation isn't even in the right place to be of any help in locating "missing mass" that might be helpful to mainstream theories, and the concentration of current in the core of the galaxy makes it much more likely that the observation in question is related to currents around the jets of heavy objects, not "dark matter".
Don't see why not at this time, we're two non-professionals discussing an advanced matter over the internet. If you wanna do it correctly, publish a paper.
We don't know where anything came from if we trace things back enough
And you seem to think that you know enough of their work to say there's no progress.
Fine, just don't expect me to agree with you when people who are more educated in the matter don't.
Most people don't know enough about physics to have an educated opinion in the matter. I don't believe you when you claim the situation is that dire.
So articles are examples of the leading research now?
I don't know why you're trying to force people, who don't know enough to form an educated opinion on their own, to take a stance in the matter.
I wouldn't try to tell people they should make Laplace transformations instead of standard matrix operations to solve dual differential equations or the other way around unless I expect them to know what I'm talking about in detail.
Yes.They've ignored five of them so far. Do you figure another would help?
No. Because along with the answer "God did it" comes a lot of luggage. I'm fine with you saying "God did it", just don't expect me to do anything special because of your claim.I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. If I claimed EM fields did it, I could explain how to create and control an EM field. You can't do either with "dark energy', or with inflation, or with 'dark matter'. I just have to "take your word for it". Would you take me word for "God did it"? If not, why not?
Are you certain? You're not just checking the same article again and again?They haven't bunged even a single percentage point in over five years. When should I expect to see "progress" in terms of real number changes?
Plasma redshift isn't everything.You can't demonstrate that astronomers are actually more educated in plasma redshift. I'd bet money they couldn't on average name even three of the four plasma redshift options I listed for you. What makes you think they are more educated in *non standard* theories?
You seem to think everything hinges on the redshift. That's not how I perceive it.The fact they don't include *any* plasma redshift effect in their calculations would suggest that they actually know a lot *less* about plasma physics than you give them credit for, and Alfven called their ideas "pseudoscience". I don't see any evidence at all that they actually are more educated in plasma physics. They are mostly educated in the 'dark' arts of one scientific theory, one that has been a dismal failure in the lab.
Again, that's your assertion. Why would I name an additional use for the dark energy when I barely know the use in the first place? I say, leave that to the professionals.Name one other scientific use for "dark energy" other than to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. They haven't included *any* amount of plasma redshift into their calculations. It's definitely that dire.
Not a rocket scientist no, but at the least somewhat versed in physics. There could be a lot of reasons, some more or less obvious, to not include plasma redshift (if they've excluded it entirely as you claim, which I doubt).Personally I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to see the failures of mainstream theory. The flaws seem quite obvious to me and they seem as though they should be rather obvious to most folks. They can't demonstrate their claim, and in fact they haven't any evidence of the validity of their claims. They not only lack the ability to demonstrate their claim about a dark energy camera, there are at least *four* known causes of plasma redshift they have never taken into consideration in any of their maths! It is physically impossible for there to be no amount of plasma redshift with all that plasma/photon interaction in space. It would take a 'miracle' for no plasma redshift to take place. I thought you said you didn't believe in God and miracles?
Um, I think you massively misunderstand the point of this particular thread. I'm simply pointing out the irrational nature of claiming to have built a "dark energy camera". I'm not obligated to defend anything in this thread. The mainstream is obligated to make their case in court, and they haven't got a prayer's chance in hell of ever doing that in a controlled experiment in a courtroom setting.
I've answered it several times now actually. It's probably stable due to persistent EM fields and momentum. Gravity doesn't cause the Earth to immediately fall into the sun. Momentum and kinetic energy play a vital role in stability, not just gravity. It's also entirely possible that we live inside of an infinite universe and gravity is simply "balanced" over distance.
If you make any positive claims about anything, you are indeed required to provide a defense.
Describe how persistent EM fields and momentum prevent the universe from collapsing in detail please. What you;ve done provides no more understanding than a technobabble explanation from an episode of Star Trek.
astronomers are such full of baloney. I have a hard time even believe scientists.
Yes.
Then you understand my position with "dark energy". It's comes with a ridiculous amount of baggage and it ultimately ignores the laws of plasma physics. In real plasma, redshift happens.No. Because along with the answer "God did it" comes a lot of luggage. I'm fine with you saying "God did it", just don't expect me to do anything special because of your claim.
Nope. I read Arxiv papers every week. I've yet to see any that address the obvious flows in mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques as it relates to incorporating those newer findings. The same thing (nothing) is going on in solar physics due to the SDO helioseismology findings that falsified mainstream convection predictions. They simply don't want to discuss these new findings much. It's not comfortable anymore.Are you certain? You're not just checking the same article again and again?
It is everything in terms of dark energy. If plasma redshift occurs in space, then there is no need for dark energy or inflation, or even a need for any sort of expansion theory.Plasma redshift isn't everything.
No, it's not weird to not mention alternative theories, particularly in this hostile environment. Go take a gander at what passes for "science" over at Cosmo Quest. If you don't toe the line, you get put on public trial. It's witch hunt central over there, and the whole mentality is that of a cult. They obviously do *not* take kindly to anyone that actually questions their dogma openly.I think they're more educated in non standard theories because they work within the field. It would be weird to not mention alternative theories.
That is however the only issue as it relates to "expansion" theory. Every expansion theory is based on the premise that plasma redshift does not occur. There is *no*, as in ZERO allowance for any type (not even one) of plasma redshift to occur and still claim "dark energy did it". If Holushko's model is correct, then there is no need for *any* expansion to explain redshift, and there is therefore no need for either inflation or dark energy. They become useless and irrelevant.You seem to think everything hinges on the redshift. That's not how I perceive it.
Do you know how many times I've heard a YEC try to tell me that their pastor understood the Bible better than I do, and I should leave it to the "experts"? Sorry, but I'm a "hands on" (information, not ignorance is bliss) kind of guy. You'll have to do better than that, particularly since they don't incorporate *any* plasma redshift in their models. Anytime someone starts to defy the laws of physics, in this case plasma physics, I start to wince.Again, that's your assertion. Why would I name an additional use for the dark energy when I barely know the use in the first place? I say, leave that to the professionals.
Just try to find a Lambda-CDM paper that includes some amount of plasma redshift in *any* form! Your "experts" tend to specialize in some field of research, sometimes one that doesn't necessarily involve a lot of knowledge about plasma physics. Since they as a whole are essentially in pure denial of plasma physics at this point (plasma redshift happens), and their claims about 'reconnection' are "pseudoscience" according to the author of plasma physics theory, your claims about their "expertize" ring a wee hollow IMO.Not a rocket scientist no, but at the least somewhat versed in physics. There could be a lot of reasons, some more or less obvious, to not include plasma redshift (if they've excluded it entirely as you claim, which I doubt).
astronomers are such full of baloney. I have a hard time even believe scientists.
That's fine. Don't believe us when we talk about antibiotics, vaccines, clean water, and clean food... We'll see how long it takes you to believe us without such things at your disposal.
Read the article carefully! In a universe that has existed forever there should be more black holes since more are created than have evaporated.Nope. Even Black holes evaporate over time according to Hawking.
Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And that assumes that black holes A) exist as an infinite density object, which isn't actually likely, nor is it a prediction of GR theory.
General Relativity.
Apparently Hilbert made a mathematical error and the mainstream never caught the error. Instead they erroneously attributed an "erroneous solution" to Schwarzschild, when in fact Schwarzchild's paper and his solution actually forbids an infinitely dense point source. In fact, r isn't even a "radius" in the first place in Schwartzchild's original paper.
Then don't. It's that simple.I don't see how. Holushko, Ari and Ashmore have written about plasma redshift far more eloquently than I might. It's not even my primary field of interest in astronomy.
There's no luggage. They can revise it all they want without it affecting me in the slightest.Then you understand my position with "dark energy". It's comes with a ridiculous amount of baggage and it ultimately ignores the laws of plasma physics. In real plasma, redshift happens.
And arxiv contains all papers released on the matter, including research that hasn't been completed? How long would it take, in your eyes, to publish a papers that would radically change something? (In my eyes that would take a while, since they would have to amass a lot of evidence that their position is correct)Nope. I read Arxiv papers every week. I've yet to see any that address the obvious flows in mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques as it relates to incorporating those newer findings. The same thing (nothing) is going on in solar physics due to the SDO helioseismology findings that falsified mainstream convection predictions. They simply don't want to discuss these new findings much. It's not comfortable anymore.
If plasma redshift occurs in space there's no expansion? You know that's a false conclusion. That conclusion would be correct if expansion was excluded as a redshift source, not the way you put it.It is everything in terms of dark energy. If plasma redshift occurs in space, then there is no need for dark energy or inflation, or even a need for any sort of expansion theory.
Or perhaps you did what you do here on the forum, you dismiss arguments laid before you.No, it's not weird to not mention alternative theories, particularly in this hostile environment. Go take a gander at what passes for "science" over at Cosmo Quest. If you don't toe the line, you get put on public trial. It's witch hunt central over there, and the whole mentality is that of a cult. They obviously do *not* take kindly to anyone that actually questions their dogma openly.
You're working under the assumption that the redshift can be explained, in whole, by plasma.That is however the only issue as it relates to "expansion" theory. Every expansion theory is based on the premise that plasma redshift does not occur. There is *no*, as in ZERO allowance for any type (not even one) of plasma redshift to occur and still claim "dark energy did it". If Holushko's model is correct, then there is no need for *any* expansion to explain redshift, and there is therefore no need for either inflation or dark energy. They become useless and irrelevant.
The difference is the luggage.Do you know how many times I've heard a YEC try to tell me that their pastor understood the Bible better than I do, and I should leave it to the "experts"? Sorry, but I'm a "hands on" (information, not ignorance is bliss) kind of guy. You'll have to do better than that, particularly since they don't incorporate *any* plasma redshift in their models. Anytime someone starts to defy the laws of physics, in this case plasma physics, I start to wince.
Then write a paper instead of whining on a forum.Just try to find a Lambda-CDM paper that includes some amount of plasma redshift in *any* form! Your "experts" tend to specialize in some field of research, sometimes one that doesn't necessarily involve a lot of knowledge about plasma physics. Since they as a whole are essentially in pure denial of plasma physics at this point (plasma redshift happens), and their claims about 'reconnection' are "pseudoscience" according to the author of plasma physics theory, your claims about their "expertize" ring a wee hollow IMO.
If it is that simple, write a paper. You'll get critics on what you've done wrong, revise the paper, present it again and continue until you've gotten the recognition you think you deserve.In terms of the physics, plasma redshift is a valid mathematical alternative, and more importantly a valid empirical alternative to both dark energy and inflation. Plasma redshift kills two metaphysical birds with one empirical stone. The only remaining metaphysical entity of Lambda-CDM theory is the CDM, but recent finds of plasma around the galaxy demonstrates that the missing mass need not be cold, nor dark. All three metaphysical entities in mainstream theory can be explained and replaced with ordinary plasma and ordinary processes in plasma, including plasma redshift. Why would I cling to three metaphysical claims when all three can all be replaced with ordinary plasma physics?
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?