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.
Let me expand a bit on my last comment.
Example -- we have a variety of independent types of evidence pointing to the age of the Earth at around 4.55 bn years, and that is yet another bit of evidence of our star being somewhat older than that. So, a variety of unalike, independent types of evidence.
Why do first and 2nd generation stars matter in the big picture -- because the higher metal content relies on early generations of stars to produce the metal for the next generation.
Lot's of independent types of evidence point to the age of the Universe as being up there in that area well over 10 bn years.
So....if static, it would collapse already, or be in contraction, unless there was a strange new force we haven't figured out holding it up against the gravity.....
We can see both generations of stars -- not just our own local ones with significant metal content, but also we can observe the ones very far away that are low metal and long ago and burning out in very short lifetimes due to their immense size....
Ergo, it cannot be static, or else physics is not just mostly incomplete, but wildly more incomplete even than people like me think... lol
Where is any evidence of a force holding the Universe from collapsing if it is thought to be near static vs the evident age of it over 10 bn years?
"The surprising aspect about the present discovery is that we have detected this Lyman-alpha line in an apparently faint galaxy at a redshift of 8.68, corresponding to a time when the universe should be full of absorbing hydrogen clouds," said Richard Ellis, a professor of astrophysics at University College London, said in a statement.
Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record
Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years
It should also be pointed out that there are serious "issues" with the mainstream's timelines:
Scientists have found a galaxy that’s so far away they shouldn’t be able to see it
Not only are we observing galaxies that look to be too "mature" for their age, we observe Lyman-alpha lines from galaxies when we shouldn't even be able to see such lines according to the LCDM model:
Right, I saw those delightful reports back when they came out. Wonderful stuff. The headlines there a bit sensationalized, but still notable observations.
If your answer is electric repulsion, I think you've got some 'splaining to do. (not about how gravity or electric or magnetic forces work, but the business of where the charge comes from, and why isn't it showing up on smaller scales like galaxies themselves....... It ain't so, bro.)
I did not ask 'why don't planetary systems or galaxies or galaxy clusters collapse?' hah hah. If I did, that would be a much worse than usual typo! Didn't we just discuss galaxy rotation?
That would be some radical physics! lol
But, I asked how could a static *Universe* avoid collapsing? The whole thing.
Contracting under gravity. Our Universe couldn't stay static many billions of years. Too much mass even with zero dark matter. it's got to expand or contract, or expand slowing asymptotically.
As I read more, I can see you've done some reading, and one thought to offer -- this is still an area of exploration, and lots of hypothesis. They are trying to find their way in the dark. It's not reflective of bad physics, usually, but just of exploration.
But....having read articles for decades, it doesn't look to me even slightly like we are likely to have a completion of the enterprise of fundamental physics anytime soon, meaning decades. Most people only read popular science articles of course, and they are totally unaware that in physics *most* of reality is not understood.
We can see both generations of stars -- not just our own local ones with significant metal content, but also we can observe the ones very far away that are low metal and long ago and burning out in very short lifetimes due to their immense size....
I did not ask 'why don't planetary systems or galaxies or galaxy clusters collapse?' hah hah. If I did, that would be a much worse than usual typo! Didn't we just discuss galaxy rotation?
That would be some radical physics! lol
But, I asked how could a static *Universe* avoid collapsing? The whole thing.
Contracting under gravity. Our Universe couldn't stay static many billions of years. Too much mass even with zero dark matter. it's got to expand or contract, or expand slowing asymptotically.
Just the fact that we can observe Lyman-alpha lines from galaxies when we shouldn't even be able to see such lines tends to undermine the credibility of LCMD model. Why are we even able to see those lines if they should be being absorbed in their model?
A lot of stuff simply gets swept right under the rug in mainstream theory. That's not the only such discrepancy either.
EU/PC theory starts at the level of the solar system and it works it's way outward based entirely upon the principles of empirical lab testable physics. It simply incorporates the influences of electricity in a mostly plasma universe.
Kristian Birkeland was actually the first scientist to do real experiments in EU/PC theory over 100 years ago. He and his team built working solar system models in his lab over 100 years ago. Alfven took Birkeland's work and built a cosmology model this is based on circuit theory. It's all based upon working empirical models:
It's technically showing up on *every* scale, from electrical activity in the aurora, to electrical discharges processes on Earth, to the heat source of the sun's corona, and the electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, to larger scale features that we observe throughout our own galaxy and our universe at every scale.
Birkeland predicted that the sun was an electrical generator that worked on the principle of a "transmutation of elements". His work predated our understanding of fusion and fission, but I'm sure he would have embraced fusion had he lived long enough to understand it. Ultimately it's the plasma pinch process in plasma that is responsible for releasing electrical energy in the form of moving kinetic energy and charged particle movement in fusion processes.
Alfven wired the suns together in "circuits" which connect the sun to various planets and which wire the suns together and the galaxies together. It should be noted that even NASA has acknowledged the formation of "magnetic ropes" (current carrying Bennett Pinches in plasma according to Alfven) which form between the planets in our solar system and the sun, and which carry electrical energy into our atmosphere.
Massive Magnetic Ropes Found to Connect Earth to the Sun
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
EU/PC theory is destined to replace *any* theory that must rely upon placeholder terms for human ignorance to explain 95 percent of the universe, including but not limited to LCMD.
I'll warn you upfront that there are actually multiple solar models to choose from in EU/PC theory, including one that is very similar to the standard solar model, but again fusion makes it more of an electrical generator.
Or could it be they simply started with the wrong physics? Even in the BB model the first matter is plasma, supposedly 13+ billion years later it is still 99.9% plasma.
In the laboratory we use particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe its behavior because the electromagnetic forces in plasma dominate over the gravitational forces.
Now we understand that gravitational theories can explain our planetary system with a 98% accuracy without any need for ad hoc hypotheses. But once you attempt to apply it beyond the solar system as the dominating force, suddenly 96% ad hoc theory must be added to it. But when gravitational forces were believed to dominate everywhere, they actually believed back then that 99% of the universe was non ionized matter and only 1% plasma. Now we understand it is the exact opposite.
Could it be that what they believe to be the dominating force in the universe in reality is but a minor contributor and overpowered by the electromagnetic forces in the vast reaches of space? But since they try to sledgehammer it to fit anyways end up requiring those 96% ad hoc theories to make the numbers add up simply because they applied the wrong physics from the start as the dominating force?
Or could it be they simply started with the wrong physics? Even in the BB model the first matter is plasma, supposedly 13+ billion years later it is still 99.9% plasma.
In the laboratory we use particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe its behavior because the electromagnetic forces in plasma dominate over the gravitational forces.
Now we understand that gravitational theories can explain our planetary system with a 98% accuracy without any need for ad hoc hypotheses. But once you attempt to apply it beyond the solar system as the dominating force, suddenly 96% ad hoc theory must be added to it. But when gravitational forces were believed to dominate everywhere, they actually believed back then that 99% of the universe was non ionized matter and only 1% plasma. Now we understand it is the exact opposite.
Could it be that what they believe to be the dominating force in the universe in reality is but a minor contributor and overpowered by the electromagnetic forces in the vast reaches of space? But since they try to sledgehammer it to fit anyways end up requiring those 96% ad hoc theories to make the numbers add up simply because they applied the wrong physics from the start as the dominating force?
Most of the hypothesis about galaxy formation and such are very much like hypothesis within the framework of Evolution -- some more substantial, akin to "punctuated equilibrium", as envisioned likely having some correct pieces (along with missing and wrong pieces) -- there are so many hypothetical models in astrophysics, and many have to be at least partly or mostly wrong when many address the same thing, etc., but the broader framework...bag...the hypotheses are inside of, like evolution, or even something like Cosmological expansion -- that framework/bag seems to have some realness in it's fabric. Completely apart from whatever errors in various hypotheses are tossed into the bag at some point in time.
?? --> Galaxies forming earlier than many thought possible? Ok, that's just a typical weekly bit of news it seems. It's not a big deal to find out a popular hypothesis is wrong.
But, completely toss out cosmological expansion? That's almost like (ok, it's isn't really) claiming the Earth is flat (ok, hyperbole. Sorry!).
We can see it's expanding via 'cosmological redshift' -- a hypothesis that is elegant and accurately consistent with observations.
Just observations, explained elegantly.
We tend to use Occam's razor.
If you want what is actually a more elaborate model/bag/framework, you will reasonably face a lot of questions.
Basic questions that arise. Of course, just redshift of full spectra sets alone is likely very hard to explain in a new way! But, let's put it aside for a moment.
Let me look at the static (not contracting or expanding) Universe notion for the moment. The Universe in rough equilibrium (or nearly) of forces, over billions of years.... wow!
Like: If the galaxy as a whole is creating one-sided charge -- an entire galaxy becoming charged or a group becoming charged, in order to balance out gravity.... -- such as an excess positive or excess negative, shouldn't the excess charge push it apart?
The charge if effective on a cosmic scale would actually destroy the galaxy or cluster!
But clusters, galaxies are not pushed apart,
thus evidently any charge is *not* on a truly powerful scale.
It's worse though. I doubt even just less force (even much less than needed for a static Universe) -- even if the scale is smaller it would *still show up in interactions* on the smaller scales -- what we call gravitational interactions, orbits, etc. -- which are *already accurately following General relativity with precision to the limit we can measure*, right? Where's the current General Relativity model of orbits failing to be accurate?
Where's the observation? (see my response below about the precession of Mercury for example of the accuracy we now can have)
In other words, there cannot be the kind of excess charge in a typical star's system that has any significance at all as compared to gravity we can deduce simply from observation of orbits to date, right?
This is already established in our own solar system I know. We do simulations using General Relativity, of the solar system. Mercury precesses as predicted by General relativity, to fantastic accuracy.
We already see that orbits in our own solar system follow General Relativity down to a fantastically high degree of precision. Ergo, no excess charge of significance affects any celestial interaction in a typical star system. Just gravity.
etc.
Basic questions that arise. Of course, just redshift of full spectra sets alone is likely very hard to explain in a new way! But, let's put it aside for a moment.
Ok, then your next step is to try to disprove this hypothesis, right? Treat it with respect as a hypothesis, using the scientific method -- trying to disprove it with observations.
I will consider helping you, trying to find possible disproving observations, out of respect for the idea as an interesting hypothesis worth testing.
What is the charge generator, precisely? How does the charge generator remain stable instead of self-destructing?
Definitely ionized gasses are affected by magnetic fields, etc, and all of that happens by the known equations, the standard stuff, presumably.
Something worth noting, even thought it is somewhat an aside, but it could be useful to know -- the precession of Mercury for example, according to the prediction of General Relativity alone, with no other forces, can be easily simulated on computer, and then the simulation compared to the precise orbital observation. That's far, far more exact than a level like only 98 or 99%, eh. Now, it's not a 2 body problem, because the other planets are tugging on Mercury. But now we have the computing power to do the whole solar system and then compare. Look at the results in the table here:
Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia
Just trying to point out the level of accuracy is high -- about 1 part in 1000, 99.9% -- and that's useful to know/remember later when considering and/or testing competing theories out on a larger scale, that high accuracy can be calculated and observed and compared. It's just crunching the numbers on fast computers from the theory, and then comparing the prediction to direct observation, with precision that is very high.
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?