Relativity

[Michael]

For the record: General Relativity theory is a great *empirical* physics theory that is *not* dependent upon inflation or dark energy, nor any variant of a "blunder" theory (non zero constant).

Lambda-CDM requires four acts of faith on the part of the believer that are not required in GR, all claims that defy laboratory support. Furthermore, three of them defy such empirical experimental support for all time. The following claims appear in Lambda-CDM but they are *not* required in GR theory.

Space expands (Never going to be supported in the lab)
Inflation causes space to expand (Never going to be supported in the lab)
Dark energy causes space to accelerate (Never going to be supported in the lab)
Exotic matter makes up most of the universe (SUSY theory got it's butt royally kicked at LHC in 2012, but the hypotheses remain on life support, praying for a miracle in 2015).

I think it's important that everyone realize that Lambda-CDM is *not* GR theory, Lambda-CDM simply tries to ride the coattails of GR theory while it builds a universe made of 95 percent supernatural entities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course I can have it both ways.

No, you can't. The metric expansion of space is "a feature of many solutions" to the GR equations.

Have you ever read Alfven's 'bang' theory? Have you ever read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma"?

Not based in GR. "Hence the evolution of the metagalaxy from the state of the proto-metagalaxy to the present state can be described in a Euclidean framework."

Peratt's book "Physics of The Plasma Universe"?

general relativity, metric, stress-energy tensor, space, spacetime, Einstein... none of these terms appear in the index of the book. This is not a GR-based theory.

I suspect you're looking for one big huge, *singular* published work that combines EM fields inside of a GR formula like you're doing.

I'm hoping to see at least one of the many GR-based models you claim exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

For the record: General Relativity theory is a great *empirical* physics theory that is *not* dependent upon inflation or dark energy, nor any variant of a "blunder" theory (non zero constant).

Gravity is a theory that is not dependent on Earth circling the Sun at a distance of 93 million miles. Does this mean that the Earth does not exist?

Space expands (Never going to be supported in the lab)

It is observed in this lab:

 

[Michael]

No, you can't. The metric expansion of space is "a feature of many solutions" to the GR equations.

We've gone round and around on this issue for days now, and you keep trying to remove the cause (mass/energy) from the effect (curvature of spacetime). You can't do that. You also can't demonstrate any of your claims related to metric expansion of space in real experimentation in the lab. These are therefore *hypothetical* solutions, not demonstrated solutions.

The clear and obvious difference between us in terms of our opinions about GR is that I can empirically demonstrate the type of expansion of objects that I'm describing in ordinary experiments. I can show how that object expansion is related to photon redshift in real experiments too.

You however cannot demonstrate your various claims about GR, metric expansion of space, inflation, DE or DM in a ordinary controlled experiments. I have to simply 'take your word' for it that these are even legitimate "solutions" to start with, and then I have to willingly allow you to simply base your various claims upon a series of affirming the consequent fallacies.

I rejected religion over the same supernatural nonsense for a time in my life about 40 years ago, and I still reject anything with even a whiff of supernatural constructs. After studying EU/PC theory, going back to Lambda-CDM theory for me would be like going back embracing supernatural religious constructs.

Not based in GR. "Hence the evolution of the metagalaxy from the state of the proto-metagalaxy to the present state can be described in a Euclidean framework."

If you mean that a relatively static universe can be explained without GR being front and center, get used to it.

I'm hoping to see at least one of the many GR-based models you claim exist.

This seems to be where the mainstream *insists* that photon redshift be interpreted "space expansion" and that's simply not going to happen. This is probably about the closest I'm going to get at the moment:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

 

[Michael]

Gravity is a theory that is not dependent on Earth circling the Sun at a distance of 93 million miles. Does this mean that the Earth does not exist?

Huh? GR perfectly describes that relationship *without* any blunder claims.

It is observed in this lab:

All you observe in that equipment are redshifted photons. They rest of your supernatural dogma you dreamed up in your head.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again with the bait and switch. GR predicts the expansion of spacetime, not objects with mass.

The expansion of space can be observed through telescopes, so no faith is required.

No it doesn't. It predicts the movement of objects of mass which bend spacetime. Without objects of mass spacetime does nothing in and of itself. Because it is not particulate in nature, but is the voltage differential between objects of mass.

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

In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

Therefore the observations show nothing more than matter moving from electromagnetic forces. Just as we observe in the atom, with not a single bit of spacetime, which is nothing, needed.

Not too long ago spacetime never moved at all, it was frozen-in to explain the lightime discrepancies with gravity due to aberration. Then technology advanced and they saw further and due to their incorrect assumptions about Redshift that Hubble warned them about, they couldn't explain galaxies moving at fractions of c, so they try to make it expanding nothing.

That same nothing mainstream needed to be frozen-in just a few years ago. This same expansion we convienently do not observe in the solar system, or galaxies. Just where spacetime supposedly has no matter to make it bend or do anything so can never be tested.

All we see according to mainstream are highly redshifted objects in a 360 degree sphere in every direction. Leading to but one assumption. The Earth, or its near environment, is the center of the Big Bang. Didn't we do away with those theories way back when?

And what is up with the epicycles again?

I really do already have a religion, I do not need another. But mainstream asks me to take it on faith that nothing, does absolutely everything. That nothing is bent by something, then something follows the bent lines of nothing.

At least in my religion nothing doesn't do anything. I have told you what my belief in what God is, a certainly testable hypothesis. In my science nothing doesn't do anything either. Kind of the whole idea behind nothing. Or is that kinda like an electrically neutral particle, violating E=mc^2?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you mean that a relatively static universe can be explained without GR being front and center, get used to it.

But you are not asking them to simply take another scientific view, but to change their beliefs.

None of these assumptions by mainstream has ever been demonstrated in the lab. While redshift due to plasma scattering effects have. I am not sure if they can see where their redshift theory has gotten them. Does one realize the metaphysical brightness of an object they place at the claimed distance *because* of incorrect redshift assumption?

They got the Sun wrong, I certainly doubt anything else they have is worth much more than mainstreams theories on the sun, comets or the solar system. Don't worry, they'll throw in another untestable *theory* to add to the epicycles again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We've gone round and around on this issue for days now

Because you are being deliberately obtuse.

and you keep trying to

Let's forget me for the moment. I quoted Wikipedia: "The metric expansion of space is "a feature of many solutions" to the GR equations."

This is not about me doing anything. This is about what GR predicts in most cases. And what it predicts is space expansion.

I have to simply 'take your word' for it that these are even legitimate "solutions" to start with

You could always, you know, study general relativity. That's what I did. That's why I know that there are many exact solutions to the GR equations that have spatial expansion. If you're pressed for time, I already linked to a Wikipedia page that listed a number of these solutions. Unless Wikipedia is a grand conspiracy, these solutions exist and exhibit spatial expansion.

If you mean that a relatively static universe can be explained without GR being front and center, get used to it.

No, I mean that Alfven assumed Euclidean space. That is not pushing GR to the side. That is throwing it out.

This seems to be where the mainstream *insists* that photon redshift

This is your response to me asking to "see at least one of the many GR-based models you claim exist."

No mainstream is insisting anything. I asked for a GR-based model. Instead of answering my question, you start complaining about mainstream science.

I'm afraid I must conclude that you hid all your models in the Emperor's New Wardrobe.

 

[Michael]

But you are not asking them to simply take another scientific view, but to change their beliefs.

None of these assumptions by mainstream has ever been demonstrated in the lab. While redshift due to plasma scattering effects have. I am not sure if they can see where their redshift theory has gotten them. Does one realize the metaphysical brightness of an object they place at the claimed distance *because* of incorrect redshift assumption?

They got the Sun wrong, I certainly doubt anything else they have is worth much more than mainstreams theories on the sun, comets or the solar system. Don't worry, they'll throw in another untestable *theory* to add to the epicycles again.

As we've discussed before, embracing EU/PC theory is the ultimate ego fry for everyone. That's it's biggest handicap. When you cut to the chase, it really *is* just a matter of taking on a different empirical scientific view, particularly since EU/PC theory isn't a theistic or atheistic theory in and of itself.

It's also a choice between embracing multiple supernatural constructs vs. embracing pure empirical physics. In that way at least, it's a lot like losing one's religion. You wouldn't think that astronomers would have a tough time of letting go of supernatural constructs, but those supernatural constructs have become the preferred "mathematical play toys" of astronomy.

The *hardest* part however is simply admitting to being wrong, and letting one's ego get friend like an egg. I got a healthy dose of that ego fry myself over an SDO first light image that was published by NASA, after I made some inaccurate assumptions about it. I deserved it too.

That *feeling* however of getting one's ego fried is probably the driving fear factor that prevents the mainstream from embracing empirical change. Frankly however, after seeing the most recent BBSO and IRIS images, they're running out of room to hide. The most recent flux rope observations from SDO, IRIS and BBSO images are simply astonishing in terms of their overall quality compared to technologies prior to 2010. There has been a quantum leap in terms of the quality of solar satellite and ground based solar telescope technology in just the past 3 years. Best yet, technology and time are on our side.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As we've discussed before, embracing EU/PC theory is the ultimate ego fry for everyone. That's it's biggest handicap. When you cut to the chase, it really *is* just a matter of taking on a different empirical scientific view, particularly since EU/PC theory isn't a theistic or atheistic theory in and of itself.

It's also a choice between embracing multiple supernatural constructs vs. embracing pure empirical physics. In that way at least, it's a lot like losing one's religion. You wouldn't think that astronomers would have a tough time of letting go of supernatural constructs, but those supernatural constructs have become the preferred "mathematical play toys" of astronomy.

The *hardest* part however is simply admitting to being wrong, and letting one's ego get friend like an egg. I got a healthy dose of that ego fry myself over an SDO first light image that was published by NASA, after I made some inaccurate assumptions about it. I deserved it too.

That *feeling* however of getting one's ego fried is probably the driving fear factor that prevents the mainstream from embracing empirical change. Frankly however, after seeing the most recent BBSO and IRIS images, they're running out of room to hide. The most recent flux rope observations from SDO, IRIS and BBSO images are simply astonishing in terms of their overall quality compared to technologies prior to 2010. There has been a quantum leap in terms of the quality of solar satellite and ground based solar telescope technology in just the past 3 years. Best yet, technology and time are on our side.

Yes, I've said it before, I give it 4 years before only the die-hards will resist. Probably take 8 to 12 for them. I believe EU/PC are in the process of drafting curriculum for schools. What with most states going to science where one is encouraged to think and present all sides of the issue. One may now bring up alternate ideas as a challenge to traditional lines of teaching. The youth are sciences only hope, after all the ones that can't handle that shake to their ego are gone.

Plus the cost scares them. Isn't cheap to retrain your entire astronomy division. Textbooks being rewritten. But then you got the formation and geology sciences. If the sun and comets isn't correct, then how planets form aren't either.

 

[Michael]

Because you are being deliberately obtuse.

No I'm not, I'm being deliberately "picky" in terms of what supernatural constructs and unsupported claims that I'll allow you to *stuff into* an otherwise perfectly good physics formula. Whatever you can demonstrate via real experimentation, I'll gladly grant you. Whatever you cannot demonstrate in controlled experimentation, I will likely not grant you. It's not obtuse, it's *specific* and related specifically to *demonstrated* (or not) physics.

Let's forget me for the moment. I quoted Wikipedia: "The metric expansion of space is "a feature of many solutions" to the GR equations."

This is not about me doing anything. This is about what GR predicts in most cases. And what it predicts is space expansion.

No. Actually the formulas predict "spacetime" (as in object movement) expansion *or contraction*, and only *some* (entirely hypothetical at the moment) so called "solutions" to the equations allow for just about "anything goes" in terms of what the metric might do or not do. In the lab however the metric doesn't do any expanding nor contracting. About the only thing it *doesn't* "predict" all by itself is a perfectly *stable* universe, unless of course you'd like to embrace the concept of infinity, in which case it's all "balanced out" at any point in infinity. Even the notion of what GR theory "predicts" or doesn't predict is "questionable", particularly if we don't limit ourselves to what it does in the lab.

You could always, you know, study general relativity. That's what I did.

I've studied it enough to understand the differences between a blunder theory and the core GR theories that Einstein taught to his students. I understand it's limitations in terms of what can and *cannot* be demonstrated empirically in controlled experimentation as well.

That's why I know that there are many exact solutions to the GR equations that have spatial expansion.

And some that don't.

If you're pressed for time, I already linked to a Wikipedia page that listed a number of these solutions. Unless Wikipedia is a grand conspiracy, these solutions exist and exhibit spatial expansion.

Apparently you're content on just *assuming* that every so called "solution" to a math problem results in a *real* physics solution. That isn't always the case. I don't question that there are such mathematical constructs related to GR, I question whether *those specific* mathematical constructs are true. The constructs (like time dilation) that you can demonstrate, fine. The constructs you cannot demonstrate (spacial wobble as you put it), aren't likely to impress me much. I've seen GR theory hacked and kludged now for the better part of 3 decades.

No, I mean that Alfven assumed Euclidean space. That is not pushing GR to the side. That is throwing it out.

The notion of "expanding space" becomes meaningless in a plasma universe. Plasma is *everywhere*, and there is no place in the universe where mass/energy does not exist. There's no magical place between galaxies where "space expansion" can take over, because everywhere in the universe there is matter and energy in abundance.

I'd have to grant you that GR theory isn't even the first tool of choice in describing a physical body that is mostly (99+ percent) plasma. MHD theory and circuit theory were Alfven's first tools of choice for *entirely obvious* reasons. That isn't to say that GR theory *cannot* be incorporated into a theory that is mostly based on circuit theory in plasma, and/or MHD theory, but it's not likely to be *the most important factor* when describing a plasma universe.

I'm afraid I must conclude that you hid all your models in the Emperor's New Wardrobe.

I suppose my references weren't particularly helpful while I was at work, and I probably deserved that. Here, try this one:

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

[Michael]

Yes, I've said it before, I give it 4 years before only the die-hards will resist. Probably take 8 to 12 for them.

I hope that you're right about the timing, but alas it sounds a wee optimistic from my jaded perspective. The last LMSAL meeting on solar physics was on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" inside of "current sheets" no less, as though Alfven's double layer paper was never written and it didn't make their MR claim obsolete and unnecessary in all current carrying environments. If they can ignore a genius like Birkeland for 100 years, and hand Alfven a Nobel Prize in plasma physics and then promptly ignore him for decades, I could easily be dead and buried by the time the mainstream figures out that the high energy atmospheric behaviors of the sun are driven by electrical current, not simple magnetism.

Honestly however, after seeing those last IRIS images and the most recent BBSO images and seeing all the new SDO wavelengths, and high cadence images, it's clearly just a matter of time now. The current carrying flux ropes are the key IMO. They leave their unmistakeable heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere in SDO images. They can be observed in the new IRIS images too. I'm also really looking forward to the new BBSO images as well. This should be an exciting next few years in solar physics, but based on the topic of the last LMSAL email I received, they are still going in magnetic circles.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No. Actually the formulas predict "spacetime" (as in object movement) expansion *or contraction*

Einstein and Wikipedia disagree with you. Cosmological GR solutions include space expansion (or contraction), and it requires fairy dust (Einstein's blunder) to make a static universe.

I'd have to grant you that GR theory isn't even the first tool of choice in describing a physical body that is mostly (99+ percent) plasma.

Right, your models discard GR. Just as I thought.

I suppose my references weren't particularly helpful while I was at work, and I probably deserved that. Here, try this one:

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

This is not a GR-based model of a plasma universe. This is more complaining about the mainstream. Furthermore, the mainstream has not replicated Lerner's results. Quite the contrary, measurements of the Tolman brightness test both before and after Lerner come to the conclusion that "the universe expands".

 

[Michael]

Einstein and Wikipedia disagree with you. Cosmological GR solutions include space expansion (or contraction), and it requires fairy dust (Einstein's blunder) to make a static universe.

As it relates to topics in astronomy, I'm quite used to being in disagreement with Wiki. In fact I've been involved in debates at JREF where I used WIKI references on magnetism to make my point, only to have astronomers go in and actually change the exact quotes on the WIKI page that I was using in the middle of our debate.

In the lab however, physics *always* agrees with me.

Right, your models discard GR. Just as I thought.

No they don't discard the effects of gravity. They just put GR theory into it's proper perspective, and they typically do not treat gravity as the *most important* force of nature in a mostly plasma universe.

The cosmology models that involve plasma physics and MHD theory, and models that are related to plasma physics are more likely to *accurately* describe a mostly plasma universe. When plasma physics cannot explain something by itself, GR theory can fill in those missing pieces.

This is not a GR-based model of a plasma universe. This is more complaining about the mainstream.

It's both. It's a paper that uses GR theory and observations of objects in space to demonstrate that we live inside of a *static* universe, not an expanding one.

Furthermore, the mainstream has not replicated Lerner's results. Quite the contrary, measurements of the Tolman brightness test both before and after Lerner come to the conclusion that "the universe expands".

Ya, but I've seen the way the mainstream fudges the numbers using their kludged, metric expanding blunder theory. The problem is that there are a billion different subjective ways to interpret *uncontrolled observations* from spacetime. From the standpoint of mathematics alone, it's all in how you put the mathematical models together, and which assumptions one starts with.

The only way to take that human subjectivity out of the various math equations is to rely upon empirical laboratory experiments to verify any and all claims. If the claims don't pass the experimentation whiff test, they don't pass.

I'm "comfortable" with my empirical position. It's not as though you can demonstrate space expansion, or any other of the supernatural claims in a lab. If you could, they wouldn't be 'supernatural' claims to begin with. Dark energy is sort of the poster child however of pure supernatural ad hoc gap filler. Once the supernova data came in, the mainstream desperately needed a supernatural construct with negative pressure attributes to save their otherwise falsified theory from certain empirical death. Sure enough, they whipped one up right on the spot, and away they went stuffing it into another kludged 'blunder' theory.

Now that the Planck data sets show hemispheric differences that should not exist in the data set according to inflation theory, rumor has it that a new ad hoc entity called curvatons is being whipped up to save the day yet again.

After three decades of this nonsense, I'm getting tired of a the same metaphysical process playing out over and over again. They always *assume* expansion, and they always just "make up" whatever fudge factors they require to prop up that claim, regardless of the data set.

PC/EU theory doesn't even start with such a premise. It simply applies the laws of *known* plasma physics to a *mostly plasma universe*. Whatever it actually *can explain* with physics, it seeks to explain. Whatever it cannot explain via pure physics, it seeks to ignore for the time being. An honest *I don't know* is utterly acceptable in EU/PC communities. It's not like we get to invent new ad hoc forces of nature on the fly, or that we have some agenda about *how* the universe works. We simply attempt to explain what we can via plasma physics *and gravity*, and there is no formal dogma in EU/PC theory other than perhaps: "Thou shall not fudge the numbers with supernatural constructs". That's actually the key difference between the mainstream and the EU/PC community. There is no particular agenda in the PC/EU community, just an honest desire to start applying the principles of plasma physics to a mostly plasma universe to see what we actually *can* explain via pure empirical physics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No they don't discard the effects of gravity.

Gravity is not the same as GR

They just put GR theory into it's proper perspective

By which you mean they ignore it in their models.

Whatever it cannot explain via pure physics, it seeks to ignore for the time being.

Boy, now there's a sure strategy for success...

You whine incessantly about the ingredients of the mainstream model, but at least it provides an explanation of the observed phenomena (Y'know... sorta the purpose of science) rather than ignoring anything inconvenient, like the fact that your idea about EM forces holding the nucleus together can't possibly work.

 

[Michael]

Gravity is not the same as GR

True. There are many theories to explain the physical effects of gravity, and GR theory is but one of them.

By which you mean they ignore it in their models.

No, Lerner didn't ignore it in his model of a static universe, he used GR theory to demonstrate his point in fact.

What they don't do however is assume that gravity is the *only* important thing in spacetime. Spacetime is also *full of moving charged particles* that create EM fields as they move. Those EM field influences are simply 'more important' in some instance (like solar flares) than mere "gravity". Gravity alone doesn't actually explain solar flares, or solar wind, or electrical discharges in the atmospheres of any objects in our solar system.

Boy, now there's a sure strategy for success...

It's simply an honest appraisal of where things stand at the moment and and honest "I don't know". As a self professed atheist, surely you can appreciate the need for an honest admission of 'I don't know' rather than simply 'making up' anything to fill in the gaps?

You whine incessantly about the ingredients of the mainstream model, but at least it provides an explanation of the observed phenomena (Y'know... sorta the purpose of science) rather than ignoring anything inconvenient, like the fact that your idea about EM forces holding the nucleus together can't possibly work.

Solar physicists *ignored* their so called "neutrino problem" for decades until they could demonstrate the cause. Pots and kettles I'm afraid.

EU/PC theories (plural) offer various plasma redshift concepts to explain cosmic redshift, and inelastic scattering occurs in the lab. That's not even accounted for in Lambda-CDM! What you're also calling an 'explanation' isn't much of an 'explanation'. The mainstream cannot name a source of so called 'dark energy'. They cannot demonstrate a way to control it. They cannot demonstrate it has any effect on "space" or "spacetime". The whole claim is one giant affirming the consequent fallacy that is utterly devoid of experimental support. What kind of an 'explanation' is that?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, Lerner didn't ignore it in his model of a static universe, he used GR theory...

No his model is Euclidean: "TEST OF EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE"

 

[Michael]

No his model is Euclidean: "TEST OF EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE"

He compared *both* options and picked the one that "best fit" the data!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

By which you mean they ignore it in their models.


Boy, now there's a sure strategy for success...

There's a kettle calling the pot black for sure.

Sort of like mainstream ignores the fact that 99% of the universe is Plasma? Then requires 96% Fairie Dust to make up for what they ignore? Sort of like they ignore that GR does not need one speck of Fairie Dust to decribe the solar system, but doesn't work at galactic scales in the slightest?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gravity is not the same as GR.

True, in GR gravity is not a force at all and does not exist. Violates cause and effect as well.

There are indeed many theories on Gravity as Michael said, yet it and one other force remain almost completely unknown, because they are the same force.

Now Weber's Electrical Law describes gravity well, there's one you might look into. Ahhh, never mind, I forgot, mainstream is still too busy attempting to take this force out of the atom to bother trying to put it into their cosmology.

They will continue to scratch their heads and wonder why they can't unite the micro and macro though, while attempting to strip the micro of the very force they ignore in the macro.

For 100 years mainstream has continually searched for a non-electrical model of the atom, and time after time have only confirmed it. How do you expect to unite the two theories if you don't put this same force in both of them?

Isn't 100 years of constant falsifications of non-electrical models and confirmation of the electrical model enough already? Put what you can't take out of the micro into the macro and all will be well. The Fairie Dust will settle and astronomical science will advance again.

I do understand, that Fairie Dust glitters brightly. I was caught up with the View Master for over 40 years. It's not an easy thing to let go, but it's needed in this age of technology.