Internet efforts are pretty much worthless, the best you can hope for is change on an individual scale, unless you're doing something big like Facebook or Wikipedia.
What have you published?
arXiv.org Search
You're probably right about the effect of internet debates, but my motive in terms of online debates was really personal education on my part. In the sense that *I* learned a lot, both about standard theory and PC/EU theory, it was well worth my time IMO.
I dunno where it comes from, but didn't you know how theories/hypotheses are made?
Apparently they mostly spring from human imagination.
"Some" ideas, say for instance 'neutrinos', come from ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION in highly controlled conditions. They pose ideas that can be 'empirically' tested in the lab. Some ideas seem to come right from someone's back pocket (inflation) and have no empirical testing method here on Earth. Ideas/hypothesis can come from a wide variety of sources and vary greatly in their ability to be "tested".
It's kind of unfair to compare his special competence with an average astronomer. Also, you seem convinced that he cannot be wrong.
Anyone can be "wrong", but at least his ideas work in the lab. Right or wrong, they have empirical justification (qualification), not simply QUANTIFICATION like mainstream theories. That has benefits over the long haul.
For instance, Birkeland "predicted" as a result of his controlled experiments that solar flares involved 'electrical discharge' processes. Today there is AMPLE evidence to demonstrate that he was correct. Modern "astronomers" tend to have a hard time accepting the E/circuit orientation to plasma physics and therefore they cannot or will not equate "magnetic reconnection" with "electrical discharges", even though they guy that coined the term 'reconnection' (Dungey) equated the 'reconnection" process with "electrical discharges" in various papers. Astronomers know so LITTLE about MHD theory it's scary IMO. Considering that 98+ percent of the KNOWN universe is in the plasma state, that utterly inexcusable IMO.
I think you might need to differentiate between the 'dark energy hypothesis', the 'big bang theory' and the 'hubbles law'.
And the difference between the terms is significant, if you don't know about the difference you might want to read up on it (especially since you're discussing about something that is resting upon these definitions).
I understand the differences actually. Hubble's law for instance is a distance/redshift relationship. It may or may not be tied to tired light, and/or an expansion of objects process, or even a time dilation process. It cannot be related to 'expansion of space' because 'space' doesn't expand, and 'space' isn't even physically defined in the first place.
What is "space" and how would it "expand'? What physical things would 'expand' exactly?
To call your pet theory the only empirical physic out there is close to hubris (just saying).
I don't see how it's "hubris", it's simply empirical fact. Dark energy doesn't show up in the lab. Dark matter is shy around the lab as well. These two items make up more than 95 percent of mainstream theory. That means mainstream theory is 5% empirical physics, and 95 percent metaphysical gap filler. The only 'competing' theory that seems to have any momentum at the moment in PC/EU theory which INSISTS that the ENTIRE universe is composed of the same things we find here on Earth. It's 100% empirical physics. Now of course other theories might come along some day, but how would they be 'better" than 100 percent empirical physics?
By the way, is their hatred similar to yours?
No. It took the time to read and fully understand their beliefs to the best of my ability before attempting to publicly criticize them. I've met a total of 3 astronomers that have read Cosmic Plasma, or even ANY book on MHD theory. I know for a fact that every other EU 'hater' on the internet has never read Alfven's book on how plasma physical processes work in space, or even ANY book on the topic of PLASMA physics. I'm sure that some astronomers specialize in MHD theory (I've met 1), but by and large the group as a whole is really quite clueless about plasma physics. In fact most of the hard core EU haters do NOT even understand BASIC EM theory. Some of them I've talked to for over 7 years and they have NEVER made any effort to educate themselves to Alfven's PC ideas. They slash away from a place of pure ignorance and hide behind pure denial. My dislike of Lambda-religion is born of education. Their hatred of EU/PC theory is driven by pure self imposed ignorance for the most part.
And that's why theories/hypotheses are made. To explain things from scratch, or complete the current ones.
The problem is that to "complete" their redshift "interpretation", they had add 70 percent METAPHYSICAL stuff to their existing theory! In one fell swoop they reduced empirical physics to 5 percent of their entire theory and it was on shaky empirical grounds to begin with! That wasn't "progress' from the standpoint of empirical physics, that was a GIANT step backwards!
I guess that's the primary difference between us. It matters to me. I don't want to personally wallow around in ignorance just "trusting" what any "scientist" has to say. I like to understand how things work, why they work, and it does matter to me.
No, it doesn't put me ahead of the astronomers, you're underestimating the amount of studies required.
Not at all. Most of the 'studying' they've done really amounts to "dark worship". It's not actually "applied physics", is "pure speculation physics". Simply by having a good handle on basic EM theory, you're LIGHT years ahead of MOST astronomers in terms of understanding APPLIED physics. Birkeland knew more about the FUNCTION of the universe 100 years ago than astronomers understand today because he understood CURRENT and plasma and EM theory.
Sorry, my bad. I thought you were writing about the 'dark energy hypothesis'.
The 'hubbles law' explains something that is repeated again and again (the redshift), it doesn't offer an interpretation.
True. FYI, I'd accept a 'tired light' explanation for Hubble's law, and even a time dilation explanation for Hubble's law. What I won't accept is a "space expansion" explanation for Hubble's law because I A) have no evidence space does any "expanding" and B) space isn't physically defined, and C) there's no EVIDENCE to support that claim.
The background radiation is a separate issue compared to the dark energy.
There's a gamma ray background too. Why point to ONE type of background radiation and try to to claim that particular one represents the average temperature of the WHOLE universe? FYI, the early "predictions' of the temperature of spacetime based upon the effect of STARLIGHT on atoms in space was actually MUCH closer to that background temperature (assuming that's what it actually is) than early BB "predictions". Early BB prediction were off by nearly a whole OOM, whereas the starlight predictions were within a single degree as I recall.
The empirical testing would be measuring the background radiation in this case, which has been done.
Why did you ASSUME that this ONE wavelength is the ONLY relevant background wavelength? What about that gamma ray background? Did BB theory "predict" that one too? If not, why not?
Of course all of them cannot be at it, you're underestimating the amount of people working with astronomy.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not a 'huge' community.
You mean the way you're totally supporting your option, not accepting anything against it? (That's the impression I'm getting)
You're right about the 'impression/feeling' of hitting a brick wall, it's a similar experience to what you're feeling from me about now toward mainstream theory.
The problem from my perspective is one of a lack of qualification of their ideas. They typically attempt to ignore that problem via QUANTIFICATION. In other words, they keep ignoring the basic objection (lack of qualification) and go right back to trying to justify their claims strictly with math alone. I've already learned that not a single astronomer can tell us where 'dark energy' might even come from. I can't simply ignore the basic objection so where does that leave me?
The "weaknesses" of PC theory tend to relate to a lack of 'quantification' but then that isn't ALWAYS true in each case.
If the current one is correct, forever, if it's not, a tad shorter (as in, I dunno).
I'd personally rather work on PC theory rather than to wallow around in the dark ages of astronomy today. Whatever those "dark" terms represent to astronomers, they do NOT represent any sort of 'explanation" or any sort of 'knowledge' about our universe. They're a blatant GUESS at best case. Plasma physics however works in the lab. It must also work in space and most of the known matter of spacetime is composed of matter in the plasma state. IMO that makes PC theory worth the effort and eventually the behaviors of plasma MUST be able to explain what we observe in space IMO. Whatever the 'dark' stuff might be, it's most likely related to normal things and normal plasma processes.
Fixing is how it's done. If you expect anyone to get everything done correctly in the first time, you're in for a letdown.
From my perspective, adding 70 percent metaphysics isn't a "fix". That was definitely and let down, and it was pretty much the 'last straw' in terms of my personal faith in mainstream cosmology theory. I'm seen two ad-hoc handwaves tossed into what USED to be a form of pure empirical physics in my lifetime. That just smacks of "religion" to me, and I'm actually not a huge fan of 'religion' per se. Even what passes for "Christian" dogma in some circles is quite offense to me personally.
Also, annoyed doesn't explain why you're pushing it so hard and always returning to the topic.
I guess I'm just comparing theories in my mind.
So you don't know how to grade them? A good start would be not to proclaim one as completely failed.
It's failed to produce anything that even REMOTELY resembles "empirical" physics. Big bang theory has FAILED a LOT of "predictions" that I've seen it make. For instance it used to 'predict' that the universe was gradually slowing down over time. Their 'fix'/solution to that problem? Magic dark energy!
Also, I doubt you know enough about all models/hypotheses/theories/laws to pass proper judgment (especially since you're confusing a whole lot of them).
I'm sure I'm being way too sloppy with my verbiage, but I have debated these ideas for quite some time now, and I do understand the ideas pretty well.
An advice would be to organize your arguments and what you're arguing against, that would make it a lot easier for both you and everyone else.
Ok.
'The last time' isn't really correct, the work is continuous.
Ok, how about 'the last time any percentages of matter/energy changed, it move MORE toward the 'metaphysical' and further away from plasma physics.
You're good to go as long as you go at it with an open mind yourself.
I try to keep an open mind, really I do. I'm open to them finding some real PHYSICAL cause for "dark matter' (like that paper on the plasma around the galaxy) and 'dark energy' (EM FIELDS perhaps?), but whatever forces/forms of matter these terms represent, they have actually yet to be "properly identified". If and when that happens, I'm sure it will move them closer to plasma physics like that paper on plasma being a possible source of extra matter. Such a change in their theory (identifying a "dark" thingambob) would certainly make their ideas seem more attractive to me. That hasn't happened over that past three decades mind you, in fact it's gotten worse from my perspective, but I'm open them actually figuring out what that "dark' stuff really is.
So. A final tip would be to organize everything.
List the theories, hypotheses and laws. Know what each and everyone says.
Then go swinging with the arguments, preferably using the list to make your arguments easy to follow.
I had a few more ideas, but forgot them (damn you Youtube!).
I appreciate the feedback. Thanks.
