#253
Jul1003, 11:23 PM

P: n/a

We know why the Standard Model is thought to be correct even though it has so many errors that are fixed by the plasma model. It is Physicists are reluctant to throw their lifetime of training out the window. Plasma Physics is built on laboratory physics NOT new unconfirmed physics. It does not say mainstream physics is incorrect. I am saying that, yes, but Plasma Cosmology does not say that whatsoever. It is simply using a different branch of MAINSTREAM laboratory physics to explain cosmological phenomena. Don't get my Sorce Theory unified field mixed up with plasma cosmology here. They are not even close to the same thing. 


#254
Jul1003, 11:26 PM

P: n/a

Like I said you are confusing mathematics with reality, but then so is Quantum Mechanics and everything you have been taught... so who could blame you? 



#255
Jul1003, 11:41 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101





#256
Jul1003, 11:42 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

Incidentally



#257
Jul1003, 11:58 PM

P: n/a

ok i will continue to do so. Thanks for the tip!![;)] Plasma Cosmology fits qualitatively with Sorce Theory but the basic Plasma Physics would acquire different rootlevel explanations. Please tell me where my statements are at odds with Plasma Cosmology. I am quite curious. 



#258
Jul1103, 12:09 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

You seemed to imply that the theory you had been postulating was not Plasma Cosmology, and that I had gotten confused in thanking that it was. I was attempting to clarify just what the case is. The other aspect to being a mathematician is whie I realize that mathematical entities are abstractions used to describe and predict observations, I also realize that all possible theories are abstractions (whether mathematical or not) that are used to describe and predict theories. Of course, each theory comes with a class of things we're supposed to imagine as real (but are, of course, still just abstractions). A causal explanation is merely an explanation of a phenomenon in terms of things we're supposed to consider real. 


#259
Jul1103, 12:28 AM

P: n/a

Well I have been stating that there are serious problems with Physics in general and that is not the position of Plasma Cosmology which only takes issue with cosmology. 



#260
Jul1103, 12:51 AM

P: 499




#261
Jul1103, 01:11 AM

P: n/a

Good questions
BTW it is known that superfluids can transmit tansverse waves so polarization of light is not a problem. It is just that the transverse waves of polarized light are not shear waves, they are fourdimensional wavepatterns faithfully reproducing (in the non inertiallydissipative fluid) the "shape" of the source or filter. These patterns are such that if a suitable similar pattern is then encountered the wavepatterns crossinterfere and cancel out. 


#262
Jul1103, 02:05 AM

P: n/a




#263
Jul1103, 04:31 AM

P: n/a

From: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html
Max Born. Nobel prize for Physics...Together with scientists like Regner, Nernst (the father of the third law of thermodynamics), FinlayFreundlich and Louis de Broglie, Born advocated a third model of the universe that helped lay the foundations of a cosmology that today forms the bulkwork of the Plasma Universe. Born, in a 1953 edition of Nachrichten, called brought forth the seriousness of FinlayFreundlich's fewdegree temperature prediction for interstellar space and suggested radio astronomy as an arbitrator between expanding and infinite cosmologies, noting that they differed orders of magnitude in energy density. It is noteworthy that Born's manuscript was printed 12 years before the Penzias–Wilson radioastronomy measurement. We quote from the opening of Born's paper: [in german so I didn't bother posting it] 



#264
Jul1103, 10:14 AM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,803

Here is e.g. post #14 in this thread, 5 July:
CrystalStudios presented the Common Misconceptionarguing that because (according to the standard picture) the universe is expanding it must therefore be finite. This is a fallacy. Space can be infinite (as ordinary Euclidean flat space is) and yet be expanding. All one needs is a timedependent scale factor a(t) in the metric. Indeed this is what the standard picture has. Eh responded with, among other remarks, the post quoted above. Several people invoked the bad analogy of an expanding balloon. A better analogy is a rising loaf of breadif it is an infinite loaf of raisin bread that is expanding then the raisins (galaxies) are getting farther apart and being approximately uniform (as far as we can tell) and infinte, it has no center because of largescale homogeneity (which is observed) there is just no way to define a center this is as close to the standard Big Bang model as I can get without writing the Friedmann equations and the formula for the metric To return to topic, does anybody here think the U is finite? Does anybody here think it has a definable center? 


#265
Jul1103, 10:31 AM

P: n/a

And others (namely me) presented the falsification of the evidence that the universe is expanding at all... but enough of that observational falsification nonsense, lets see what the math says. [;)] [;)] 



#266
Jul1103, 11:21 AM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,803

But anyway you, sub, have replied that you do not consider the U finiteor the idea of a Universecenter as making sense. I believe I have seen a lot on this post about what you think and what I am wondering is what some of the OTHER people think about the main topic issues. Is there anybody on this thread who thinks the mainstream model of cosmology makes the U finite? does anybody think that cosmologist's prevailing picture is that it somehow resembles the finite expanding surface of a balloon? 



#267
Jul1103, 11:53 AM

Mentor
P: 22,001

I am one of the people who initially fell into the trap of a finite universe. If I understand correctly now, you COULD say that SPACE is finite in one specific slice of time, but when you define the UNIVERSE it must include all time, therefore all space that will ever exist. Hence, infinite universe. Marcus, I still prefer the balloon analogy though  your loaf of bread analogy isn't bad for looking at a small piece of the universe (small part of the bread), but when you look at the whole thing, it implies boundaries, whereas the balloon analogy does not. Incidentally, maybe I'll go off topic again (though if 90% is spent off topic, is that topic really off topic?): The debate between mathematics and physical reality has always been around, but it got much more heated with the advent of QM. Many people are uncomforable with the implications of the math and as such reject the idea that the math represents physical reality. But as a scientist you can't reject something because its implications aren't what you would LIKE the universe to look like. subtillioN, you're falling into that trap. Like it or not, QM is al about wave functions and probability. And despite the discomfort of many of the scientists who discovered/invented/derived it, the math behind QM *WORKS*. Its an uncomfortable thought that you can't know exacly what an electron is going to do  or you can even observe that it must have been in two places at once. But it *IS* a physical reality. Not even Einstein was immune to this  he was so uncomfortable with the implications of his own work that he tried to invent other implications that were not supported by his own theories and he tried to construct a new theory that fit his view of what he would have LIKED the unverse to be. But he eventually accepted that his equations did indeed fit with physical reality. Generally the debate between math and physical reality starts with people being uncomfortable with the implications of their equations and ends when those implications are observed. You *HAVE* to accept it is a physical reality if you observe it. To not is selfdelusion. 



#268
Jul1103, 12:17 PM

P: 683





#269
Jul1103, 12:50 PM

P: 915

I like this idea becuse I can provide an explanation for the appearance of the universe: a quantum fluctuation (or something akin). The idea of an infinite universe appearing from nothing has no explanationtherefore I don't like the idea I've noticed that here many people is scared of the idea of a boundary.Why? I can't give any prove of that a finite universe is correct. It's only my hunch. I can be totally wrong 



#270
Jul1103, 12:57 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,803

Hi Russ,
I try always to remember to say INFINITE loaf of bread, so no boundaries. At any one moment the picture is just our old familiar Euclidean 3D space. To me infinite 3D Euclidean space is as comfortable as an old pair of shoes. Europeans have been using it as a model for centuries without feeling the need to imagine boundaries. The old x,y,z coordinate system that generations of us have used. It is really a relief that cosmologists have gotten back to picturing space (at any one instant of time) that way. It is deeply rooted in our culture and in common sense. So the accepted picture agrees with conservative common sense in that way. The 1916 equation of GR, unfortunately, has no stable solution unless that space is either expanding or contracting. But to me this is only a small matter. The Einstein equation is relatively simple and beautiful and fits observations out to many decimal places to most people's (not sub's!) satisfaction. I would not like to have to throw it out. And it says we must assume at least some very gradual expansion in order to get stability. In this one little detail there is disagreement with traditional common sensewhich causes a lot of noise and ruckus (from certain people!) But personally this does not bother me. I do not know any better model of gravity that one could use in place of 1916 GR, although there are strenuous efforts going on to construct alternative models they are as yet unfinished and untested. So I am content to stick with old 1916 GR which explains observed effects so welleven tho to get stability one must assume at least a very gradual expansion. (Dynamic things have a hard time keeping still and space is dynamic.) And hey, by a weird coincidence, astronomers observe redshifts that FIT with the model that has a bit of expansion in it. So I feel pretty comfortable about this as if it is commonsensical and in line with ageold traditional infinite x,y,z spaceonly with the slight adjustment of a gradually growing scalefactor a(t). But I think everyone else should go ahead and believe anything they want, even Astrology or Hindu Cosmology or Plasma Syrup with Angels Swimming thru the Aetherial Medium. As you say about the popular rejection of mathematical models, it is "selfdelusion", but that is OK. I share your pragmatic approach: to provisionally accept equationbased models at long as they appear WORKeven if some unintuitive or untraditional details are involved. Inserted are a couple of comments marked with *** 


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 