Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

The Cadet · May 29, 2015

Michael said:
When the mainstream is reduced to labeling Nobel Prize winning authors a "crackpot", you know there's a problem with the mainstream.

You know how Isaac Newton basically invented both calculus and physics? That was more of a side project. His real interest? Alchemy, and the search for eternal life.
Dr. Mehmet Oz is one of the very best heart surgeons in the world. He also hosts a show propping up essentially all manner of bogus pseudoscientific medical research and was even dragged before congress about it.
Cracked has a whole article on how some Nobel Prizewinners were insane.

Smart people, even people who made incredible advances in their fields, can hold insane ideas. The reason why Alfven's ideas didn't take off was most likely because they did not hold merit. If they held merit, there's absolutely no reason why they would not have gone mainstream.

Michael · May 29, 2015

The Cadet said:
You know how Isaac Newton basically invented both calculus and physics? That was more of a side project. His real interest? Alchemy, and the search for eternal life.

Well, the "transmutation of elements" of Alchemy turns out to be a real process (several of them actually), just not as a result of various chemical reactions. We're still looking for ways to extend human life indefinitely even to this day. Neither idea was really that 'off the wall' based on what we know today, and back then neither idea was a "crackpot" idea.

Smart people, even people who made incredible advances in their fields, can hold insane ideas. The reason why Alfven's ideas didn't take off was most likely because they did not hold merit. If they held merit, there's absolutely no reason why they would not have gone mainstream.

If the ideas that he wrote about do not hold merit, then you or someone else should be able to demonstrate that fact. It's never been done. There are lots of reasons why good ideas are shunned in science, and bad ideas get popular. Popularity alone means nothing in physics. Earth centric maths were once *very* popular in "scientific" circles too.

Even the term 'crackpot' is irrational in this case. The guy literally wrote the book on plasma physics, and most of the known universe (some 98 percent) is in the plasma state. His ideas might be "wrong" for some particular reason, but they aren't 'crackpot' ideas. On the other hand, *inventing* a new force of nature like 'dark energy' simply to explain photon redshift is a bit of a 'crackpot' idea. There is no empirical link between photon redshift and 'dark energy'. The whole cause/effect claim is simply *assumed/invented in human imagination*. Inflation is about as 'crackpot' of a claim as it gets, and that whacky idea can even be traced to the overactive imagination of a single individual (Guth).

lesliedellow · May 29, 2015

Michael said:
Earth centric maths were once *very* popular in "scientific" circles too.

They still are. It provides a perfectly usable model for calculating things like sunset and sunrise.

[serious] · May 29, 2015

Michael said:
It's funny you should say that. The mainstream astronomers gave Hannes Alfven the Nobel Prize in MHD theory, and then promptly ignored everything that he ever said or published about the plasmas of spacetime. Sad actually.

Tesla was also brilliant in his studies of frequency and electricity. He also believed in ghosts and that we could communicate with said ghosts if we found the right frequency. Should we believe in ghosts because he was so brilliant in his legitimate scientific work?

Ultimately, theories stand and fall on their merits, not the names of their adherents.

Michael · May 29, 2015

[serious] said:
Tesla was also brilliant in his studies of frequency and electricity. He also believed in ghosts and that we could communicate with said ghosts if we found the right frequency. Should we believe in ghosts because he was so brilliant in his legitimate scientific work?

Well in that case, certainly not. The concept of ghosts isn't even related to Tesla's field of specialty from the standpoint of demonstrated empirical physics. On the other hand, 99 percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, so Alfven's work in plasma cosmology is certainly within Alfven's realm of expertise.

Ultimately, theories stand and fall on their merits, not the names of their adherents.

True, but sometimes the 'merits' are rather subjective, particularly since the mainstream does not limit themselves to demonstrated empirical physics. Evidently anything goes in the dark ages of astronomy.

Michael · May 29, 2015

Ooops. Double post.

Michael · May 29, 2015

lesliedellow said:
They still are. It provides a perfectly usable model for calculating things like sunset and sunrise.

Point noted.

Justatruthseeker · May 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
You know how Isaac Newton basically invented both calculus and physics? That was more of a side project. His real interest? Alchemy, and the search for eternal life.
Dr. Mehmet Oz is one of the very best heart surgeons in the world. He also hosts a show propping up essentially all manner of bogus pseudoscientific medical research and was even dragged before congress about it.
Cracked has a whole article on how some Nobel Prizewinners were insane.

Smart people, even people who made incredible advances in their fields, can hold insane ideas. The reason why Alfven's ideas didn't take off was most likely because they did not hold merit. If they held merit, there's absolutely no reason why they would not have gone mainstream.

So are you saying we should still believe the Milky-Way is the entire galaxy because the majority of some really smart people believed it was so?

We agree Einstein was incredibly smart with some insane ideas. The biggest one was gravity not being a force at all and instead is the result of a magical nothing being bent.

The reason why Alfven's ideas didn't take off were because other people resisted them because of politics, even if later they were the ones proved wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

"After Kristian Birkeland first suggested in 1908 that "currents there [in the aurora] are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space," the story appears to have become mired in politics. Birkeland's ideas were generally ignored in favor of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman....

...proof of Birkeland's theory of the aurora only came after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Chapman_(mathematician)

"He disputed and ridiculed the work of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven, later adopting Birkeland's theories as his own."

So for 40 years he ridiculed and kept Birkeland's and Alfven's theories from prospering, then after Birkeland dies adopts their theories as his own and drives them into Fairie Dust land because he never understood them to begin with.

So what is keeping those same theories from becoming mainstream since you know Birkeland's and Alfven's theories were correct back in 1963? Politics? But because they still ridicule Birkeland's and Alfven's theories, mainstream still hasn't really adopted them as their own, have they? And hence they find themselves constantly surprised and the textbooks all wrong.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025

Why? Because they still ignore those Birkeland Currents connecting sun and earth as having any effect than to just cause "bursty" outbursts.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

Justatruthseeker · May 30, 2015

lesliedellow said:
They still are. It provides a perfectly usable model for calculating things like sunset and sunrise.

Except we do not calculate sunrise and sunset based upon an earth centered model anymore. We calculate it based upon the earth revolving around the sun and the fact light takes 8 minutes to reach earth. Because one might have at one time used a earth centered model to get similar results, doesn't change the fact we know those models were wrong.

The question is, is it ok to still use incorrect models even if you know they are wrong, simply because they may give the appearance of being correct in a limited setting?

lesliedellow · May 31, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Except we do not calculate sunrise and sunset based upon an earth centered model anymore.

That shoes you know nothing about how the calculation is done, doesn't it?

[serious] · Jun 2, 2015

Michael said:
Well in that case, certainly not. The concept of ghosts isn't even related to Tesla's field of specialty from the standpoint of demonstrated empirical physics. On the other hand, 99 percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, so Alfven's work in plasma cosmology is certainly within Alfven's realm of expertise.

True, but sometimes the 'merits' are rather subjective, particularly since the mainstream does not limit themselves to demonstrated empirical physics. Evidently anything goes in the dark ages of astronomy.

His Nobel prize was for magnetohydrodynamics. His work on magnetohydrodynamics was found to be worthy not just of recognition, but recognition at the highest levels. If he tried to apply plasmas as a tool to explain the large scale structure of the cosmos, that is a claim that must be judged separately than the behavior of magnetohydrodynamics on the scales he was previously working with.

likewise, Tesla has been honored for his work with electricity and harmonics. When he tried to apply that to communication with the dead, those claims were judged independently of his prior work.

Michael · Jun 2, 2015

[serious] said:
His Nobel prize was for magnetohydrodynamics. His work on magnetohydrodynamics was found to be worthy not just of recognition, but recognition at the highest levels. If he tried to apply plasmas as a tool to explain the large scale structure of the cosmos, that is a claim that must be judged separately than the behavior of magnetohydrodynamics on the scales he was previously working with.

"Judged" in what way? You mean someone found a mathematical mistake in his work, or they simply blew if off without a second thought, or worse yet, haven't bothered to even read it?

Lets get real. Even *before* 2012, we knew that 99 percent or so of the known universe is found in the "plasma" state. In 2012, they found more mass in the form of high temp plasma surrounding every galaxy than exists in the galaxy mass itself. At *least* 99 percent of the *known* universe is in the plasma state. It makes sense then to look and see how the *very first plasma physicist* actually describes and explains a plasma universe.

In my experience, most astronomers don't even understand his work, or haven't read his work. They've never cited any actual mathematical error in *any* of his *hundreds* of published papers, or his books on this topic. I'm not sure how they could possibly 'judge' something they've typically never even read.

likewise, Tesla has been honored for his work with electricity and harmonics. When he tried to apply that to communication with the dead, those claims were judged independently of his prior work.

But that's a *completely* different topic, that's necessarily *unrelated* to his field of expertize *unless* he can show some empirical link between them in a lab.

Every single one of Alfven's beliefs, and all his cause/effect claims can and/or have been tested in a lab. Peratt even used code to simulate a lot of his work on computers.

What exactly did they 'judge' about his work, and what error did they find?

IMO it's *irrational* to ignore his work, but they do.

Instead they play around with their menagerie of invisible (ghost like) supernatural constructs, and they utterly ignore every single 'failed test' of their claims. They really don't even understand their *own* theories and claims as evidenced by the fact that not a single one of them can even name a source of dark energy, let alone explain a way to 'control' it, or demonstrate that it has some effect on a photon in a lab.

Michael · Jun 2, 2015

Telsa couldn't demonstrate that ghosts even exist, let alone that he could communicate with them via EM fields. Like Tesla's ghosts, the mainstream cannot even demonstrate that their "dark energy' ghost even exists to begin with, let alone that it has some effect on gravity, or mass, or photons. It's all an *assumed* and *faith based* cause/effect claim to start with, just like Tesla's ghosts.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 6, 2015

Michael said:
Telsa couldn't demonstrate that ghosts even exist, let alone that he could communicate with them via EM fields. Like Tesla's ghosts, the mainstream cannot even demonstrate that their "dark energy' ghost even exists to begin with, let alone that it has some effect on gravity, or mass, or photons. It's all an *assumed* and *faith based* cause/effect claim to start with, just like Tesla's ghosts.

True, but we can demonstrate electric charge has some effect on gravity or mass,

[serious] · Jun 6, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
True, but we can demonstrate electric charge has some effect on gravity or mass,

In the same way that wing shape affects gravity or mass?

Electric charge doesn't change mass or gravity. It can generate a force that can counteract the force of gravity just like lift from a plane's wings do.

DogmaHunter · Jun 6, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
More dogma's in astronomy slowly falling away.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

So things may not be as far as we believed, which means redhsift certainly isn't a velocity and distance indicator as currently believed. Which may mean there isn't as much dark energy - which of course does away with more dark matter. And shouldn't the sizes of black holes and numbers also go down - since not as much mass is now needed to counteract the absent dark energy. And the now absent dark matter as well?

But rest assured - even if they have been wrong for the last 80 years, this time they for sure got it right.

Or on to the next paradigm.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

You really are against learning and progress, aren't you?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 6, 2015

[serious] said:
In the same way that wing shape affects gravity or mass?

Electric charge doesn't change mass or gravity. It can generate a force that can counteract the force of gravity just like lift from a plane's wings do.

Says the man that does not even understand E=mc^2.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 6, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
You really are against learning and progress, aren't you?

Just against Fairie Dust. I have no problem with supernova not being as we thought they were - and that all assumptions based upon an incorrect belief being wrong. Do you? Or do you prefer to live in the age of gas lights and not participate in that learning and progress?

It's not my fault your pre-conceived beliefs in redshift is incorrect, and so as science advances old theories get falsified and learning and science progresses. But you want us all to stay in the same state of knowledge we were in before, despite all the inconsistencies. So which one of us is really against learning and progress, since only one of us is pretending science isn't advancing and showing us new things, while asking us to continue with the same old tired beliefs we held before that advancement???

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

[serious] · Jun 6, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Says the man that does not even understand E=mc^2.

Let me guess, you are assuming that because electric charge can exert a force within an electric field, it is an energy in terms of E=mc^2?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 6, 2015

[serious] said:
Let me guess, you are assuming that because electric charge can exert a force within an electric field, it is an energy in terms of E=mc^2?

Who me? I propose no such thing, it's accepted fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt
"Historically, the electron volt was devised as a standard unit of measure through its usefulness in electrostatic particle accelerator sciences because a particle with charge q has an energy E = qV after passing through the potential V; if q is quoted in integer units of the elementary charge and the terminal bias in volts, one gets an energy in eV...

...By mass–energy equivalence, the electronvolt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where units of mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c2, where c is the speed of light in vacuum (from E = mc2). It is common to simply express mass in terms of "eV" as a unit of mass, effectively using a system of natural units with c set to 1...

...A photon with a wavelength of 532 nm (green light) would have an energy of approximately 2.33 eV. Similarly, 1 eV would correspond to an infrared photon of wavelength 1240 nm or frequency 241.8 THz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

"The electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Background

"In a collision process where all the rest-masses are the same at the beginning as at the end, either expression for the energy is conserved. The two expressions only differ by a constant which is the same at the beginning and at the end of the collision. Still, by analyzing the situation where particles are thrown off a heavy central particle, it is easy to see that the inertia of the central particle is reduced by the total energy emitted. This allowed Einstein to conclude that the inertia of a heavy particle is increased or diminished according to the energy it absorbs or emits."

But I guess you really didn't understand "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"The Lorentz transformation of the electric field of a moving charge into a non-moving observer's reference frame results in the appearance of a mathematical term commonly called the magnetic field. Conversely, the magnetic field generated by a moving charge disappears and becomes a purely electrostatic field in a comoving frame of reference...

.... Maxwell's equations are thus simply an empirical fit to special relativistic effects in a classical model of the Universe. As electric and magnetic fields are reference frame dependent and thus intertwined, one speaks of electromagnetic fields. Special relativity provides the transformation rules for how an electromagnetic field in one inertial frame appears in another inertial frame."

You are just proceeding down the wrong road is all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation

"In theoretical physics, a mass generation mechanism is a theory that describes the origin of mass from the most fundamental laws of physics. Physicists have proposed a number of models that advocate different views of the origin of mass. The problem is complicated because mass is strongly connected to gravitational interaction, and no theory of gravitational interaction reconciles with the currently popular Standard Model of particle physics."

It's not my fault you refuse to accept standard physics and prefer a theory that has no basis in the data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
"In the Standard Model, the phrase "Higgs mechanism" refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking.[1] The Large Hadron Collider at CERN announced results consistent with the Higgs particle on March 14, 2013."

Redshift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc., etc.

SO COOL

Contributor

Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Code Monkey

Newbie

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency