Ygrene Imref
Well-Known Member
Many of us who are physicist, mathematicians or philosophers categorically disagree with Higgs in general. And, the disconnection of prediction and emperical result further that suspicion.
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.
Yeah, it's a good point. I personally don't have any 'faith' in the multiverse theories as a way to explain the truly "fine-tuned" and "unnatural" (quoting physicists) situation with the Higgs Boson, which is a sort of lynch pin for this physics we have, and thus this Universe as it is.
Yes of course motion prevents collapse in a system about the center of gravity so long as the object is outside of the event horizon.
That works obviously for any portion, *sub*part of the Universe, as distinct from the Universe as a whole. It doesn't work (not so far as I understand) for the Universe as a whole,
except in the obvious way of expansion that continues, or attenuates to asymptotic, or eventually becomes contraction.
I'm still thinking on whether current flows can over long time allow some equilibrium, countering gravity, in your notion of a static Universe.
Not so sure that can work, actually, but still thinking over it, and don't know if it will take hours or days or months, lol.
One early question that happens right off is how are the currents just the right amount. More likely they'd be a different amount -- either too much, causing accelerating expansion, or too little, merely participating with gravity as a jr. partner.
Absolutely. There are three different EU/PC solar models to choose from for instance, and they cannot all be correct. We can however put at least two of them to the test in the lab and pick the one that best matches observations from space. To my knowledge, only Birkeland and his team ever did that with all the various models and they picked a cathode solar model, and it does work in the lab:
If it can be tested and verified in the lab, it can also be tested and falsified in the lab. I personally think that the SAFIRE experiments will ultimately falsify the anode solar model for instance, particularly if and when they ever get around to switching the polarity.
Rotation, that's one thing. Lensing is another of course. Now, my view is very neutral. I've got no theory I prefer, but we have something to explain --
I can offer you a distillation from many hundreds of articles up on the level of phys.org and scientific american and similar sites about 'dark matter' that may be informative.
"Dark natter" is really merely a name for what isn't yet understood -- what stuff/thing/force is causing 3 phenomena. Rotation as you've got a hypothesis for is only one -- (for other readers: Galaxies thought to be rotating in a more flat than expected curve, areas far from the centers orbiting *much faster* than they should just from ordinary gravitation from ordinary matter that was estimated to be there.)
But unexplainable by gravity alone unless you add what, 27% Fairie Dust? Again, only one thing causes rotation in the laboratory, magnetic fields.I don't think we should presume the 'flat' rotation curves are precisely flat though! The one I saw yesterday wasn't exactly flat, only vaguely close to flatish over a stretch, with some curves also. That they are flatter than expected was the thing to motivate seeking out why.
Why, only magnetism causes it in the laboratory.Of course, one can make a variety of hypotheses for the unknown mass/gravitation causing the rotation curves, and examine a number of them.
And yet we have plasma halos surrounding those galaxies with up to twice the mass of the galaxy themselves. What gravitational lensing? Ahh, you mean refraction of light in those plasma halos that surround every galaxy confused to be gravitational lensing before they knew those plasma halos existed.But, next is gravitational lensing by a galaxy of more distant background objects -- where the galaxies doing the lensing are bending light more than they were expected to from the estimated ordinary matter they have in them.
I am sure Micheal has already shown you the falsity of their mass models. As long as you keep ignoring the attraction between electric current pairs and keep only thinking of gravity there will be no answer.The 3rd is in grouping of galaxies -- it's thought they are grouping together more/sooner than they should from mutual gravitation just from ordinary matter. What is causing them to fall together into groups so quickly vs just gravitation based on the normal matter they are thought to have.
Just electric currents. Look up the Lorentz force, the force E based his equations of gravity on.uThat doesn't mean the unknown gravitation source has to be an exotic new form of matter. Maybe. Maybe not.
Won't matter as long as the electrical interactions are ignored by mainstream.Michael is pointing out a guess that the various increased amounts of normal matter found might be able to add up a lot. That's an unknown to me. How much do they add up? Good question.
No, what is evident is as you pointed out, ""Dark natter" is really merely a name for what isn't yet understood" to which I agree since cosmologists don't understand the first thing about plasma, even if it is 99.9% of the universe. Nor do they understand the first thing about electromagnetism. They still call those Birkeland Currents we have known about for over 200 years magnetic ropes. They spent over 40 years ridiculing Birkeland because they thought electric currents couldn't exist in space. One and all were proved wrong, but they still refuse to use the correct terminology. They call plasma "gas" and once in awhile call it plasma. Which shows how they think about it, as being merely "gas". Now they finally admit to those electric currents in space they are observing everywhere, they just don't do anything is all.So, see, you can't say it's 'fairy dust' -- the gravitation is evident, just observed.
Agreed, 96% of them.Of course there could be fairy dust like hypotheses among the various that will end up in the trash bin.
Because business as usual is ignore the plasma and electric currents and promote Fairie Dust in their "gravity only" heliocentric viewpoint of epicycles.It's normal to have a lot of hypotheses fall into the trash bin. That's only business as usual.
And yet the EU/PC has reproduced almost everything we see in space in the laboratory. Not saying we have produced planets etc, but the features found on them, to the aurora, to the corona of the sun, to model galaxies, to galactic jets, to solar flares, to -gasp here- black holes.The problem with cosmology and astrophysics is that many of the environments are not reproducible in the lab - and the cosmos is dynamic.
That poses a problem for theory and axiom if you are a scientific/philosophical purist - demanding that any theory or discovery be tested and reproducible in a laboratory so we that a layperson can come along and do everything you did, confirming the results.
Instead, we just have credibility based on grant money, the word of a scientist and status, more than laboratory reproductikn.
Thi Higgs was conveniently created by smashing things together and lo and behold, a higher mass particle, cough, something appeared for a millionth of a microsecond, before dissolving back into the original particles constituent components.Many of us who are physicist, mathematicians or philosophers categorically disagree with Higgs in general. And, the disconnection of prediction and emperical result further that suspicion.
I have that program too, but you know the orbits are not realistic don't you? Going to attach a video, mind you I do not agree it is a vortex, it's a spiral or helix, nor his viewpoints. I include it only because it is a true representation of our planetary motions.ah, but I know my newtonian mechanics, lol You won't ever need to spend a second typing this kind of thing: "In a pure vacuum universe with just two mass objects in motion, they might orbit a common center of mass indefinitely. If we add plasma in there or generate friction in some way, they may *eventually* merge, but that could take eons depending on the circumstances."
(Please forgive me for the thing a couple of days ago comparing to a certain infamous old idea)
I used to program my computer back in the 1980s to simulate orbits. Speaking for which, for a more fun moment, have you ever tried the awesome orbital simulation software "Universe Sandbox 2"? You can model the solar system accurately, and with as small a time scale increment as you like, and then send in a rouge planet, etc., and it's just some serious fun.
Thi Higgs was conveniently created by smashing things together and lo and behold, a higher mass particle, cough, something appeared for a millionth of a microsecond, before dissolving back into the original particles constituent components.
I could smash bubblegum together at that velocity and get a higher mass mess for a microsecond before it disintegrated into little parts. Doesn't mean I've discovered anything.
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?