
#235
Jul1003, 05:55 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

(in the above I mean those words and phrases simply don't have a meaning, not that those things have zero value) (by the Standard Model, I mean the quantum theory with that name, not whatever you call the standard model) 



#236
Jul1003, 05:58 PM

P: 499

Good job Hurkyl.



#237
Jul1003, 06:35 PM

P: n/a

Fields have no extension? Says who? 


#238
Jul1003, 06:50 PM

P: n/a

But as Planck said it is quite difficult indeed. "new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die"  Max Planck [:D] You people only respect the revolutions after they have happened. You have no clue of the ones currently under way and you don't want to know. 



#239
Jul1003, 07:15 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

Let's consider a simple example of fields f and g on the differentiable manifold R: f: x > 1 / (1 + x^{2}) g: x > (sin x) / x So what is the length of f? What is the distance between f and g? And if you can give me meanings for these, please explain how they have any relation to lengths in R. 



#240
Jul1003, 07:28 PM

P: 199

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question: Since plasmatheory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshiftdistance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site... Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from earth must be younger ? .. right ? [8)] .. but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them. 


#241
Jul1003, 09:21 PM

P: n/a

lol! oh so you simply assume that they have no extension since you have never seen anyone plot it mathematically? Think for yourself man!! Obviously if it exists in space and is not a point then it must have extension. Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time. 


#242
Jul1003, 09:35 PM

P: n/a

No. It's because you seem believe that it is incorrect without studying it. One of my motivations is to see if the people on this site can find holes in it, but I can't get any one to even find it to find the holes. All we seem to do is argue banalities that don't even relate to the model. Oh well. I thought it was an easy read but apparently it is quite difficult for some people to get through. As for the source of the redshift see this: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html and the 3k CBR: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html 



#243
Jul1003, 09:56 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

How would you ascribe an "extension" to: f(x) = 1 / (1 + x^{2}) ? Fields are not points, curves, surfaces, or solids. Fields are an assignment of one or more quantities to every point in space. There is no reason to presume "extent" makes any sense when talking about fields. Sometimes those quantities will come equipped with their own metric, but that metric is internal to the range of quantities and has absolutely no relationship to the metric on space. Measurement of "distance" between quantities has no bearing whatsoever on distances in space... and besides, the metric on the quantities is usually taken to be fixed and unchanging. 


#244
Jul1003, 10:25 PM

P: n/a

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation? [zz)] 



#245
Jul1003, 10:35 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

Crackpots seem to miss the fact that in order to have a testable theory, they have to do more than say "this is how things work"; they have to be able to say "this is how things work and here is the mathematical derivation of quantities you have and will observe". Crackpot theories also tend to be paired with an insatiable drive to show that mainstream physics is incorrect (and their attempts are often laughably poor). The reason is usually clear; their theories are totally inconsistent with the way mainstream physics says things should work, often both in the qualitative aspect and at the fundamental level. Since crackpot physics are often so strongly at odds with the way physics is believed to work, one should argue the "banalities" because it is quite frequently a very quick way to find out that a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent. Crackpots that take up that attempt at proving modern physics incorrect overlook yet another thing; the only way to replace a theory of how the universe works is to produce a model that can make more and better predictions than the old model. This is why there is the demand for precise numerical computations of everything; mainstream physics HAS a model that can compute a great many things, with great accuracy. If your trying to replace an aspect of mainstream physics, but your model can't compute what the current model can compute, then your model is of little use to mainstream physics. This is why revolutions occur so infrequently; it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a model that has everything and a bag of chips; instead tweaks are made to the existing model. So, basically, there are only two ways to get a model seriously considered by mainstream physics: (a) Have a theory that supplements the existing model. (b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict. Incidentally, I do have another hole to poke into the electric sun model. Even if we suppose that the sun had a net positive charged and that is what allows it to resist gravitational collapse... that would not reduce the tremendous pressures in the depths of the sun; pressures strong enough to ignite and sustain fusion in just the same way it happens in the fusion model. (which would subsequently blow the star to smithereens because the combination of electrostatic repulsion and radiation pressure, both strong enough to resist gravity on their own, would completely overwhelm gravity's ability to keep the star together) 



#246
Jul1003, 10:36 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101




#247
Jul1003, 10:41 PM

P: n/a





#248
Jul1003, 10:47 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

A field is mathematics. It appears that you are the one confusing mathematics with reality! (whatever that's supposed to mean) [:D]



#249
Jul1003, 10:51 PM

P: n/a

Ok so this does not apply to plasma physics because you failed to show that the mathematics is incorrect. Well and to be fair, you failed to find the mathematics... well and you failed to even find the explanations... and you failed to understand the theory that you continue to dismiss. 


#250
Jul1003, 11:02 PM

P: n/a





#251
Jul1003, 11:07 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

(a) The heliocentric model explains precisely why the geocentric model was thought to be correct, and makes identical observational predictions. (b) Special relativity explains precisely why newtonian mechanics was thought to be correct, and makes predictions indistinguishable from those of Newtonian mechanics in the domain where Newton has been verified. Special relativity also presented numerous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation. (c) General relativity explains precisely why special relativity and Newtonian gravitation were thought to be correct, and makes predictions indistinguishable from those of the aforementioned theories in the domain where they were verified... corrected a few flaws in the old theories, and has presented numberous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation. (d) Quantum mechanics (relativistic QM) explains precisely why newtonian mechanics (special relativity) was thought to be correct. On the domains where newtonian mechanics (special relativity) have been tested, QM makes indistinguishable predictions. QM has made numerous precise numerical predictions that could be tested by subsequent experimentation. Not one of these theories said "Pah, mainstream physics is wrong, here's how things really are!"; each and every one agrees indistinguishably from the theory it relpaced on the scales the replaced theory was tested. 



#252
Jul1003, 11:12 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

Anyways, if there is some "real" entity that corresponds to the mathematical abstraction we call a "magnetic field"... and that "real" entity has an extent, then would we not ascribe that extent to the "magnetic field" corresponding to that entity? 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Center of gravity (it's not center of mass!!!)  General Physics  28  
the geometric center of the Earth and the center of mass  Classical Physics  9  
u think that the univers is realy expanding?? think again  Cosmology  10  
Can two objects with the same center of mass oscillate about that center?  Introductory Physics Homework  0  
The center of Mass perfectly match the center of Force>  General Physics  9 