Center of the Univers

Hurkyl

I've never seen anyone suggest defining area or volume for a field... nor define length in a way that has anything to do with lengths in space.

Let's consider a simple example of fields f and g on the differentiable manifold R:

f: x -> 1 / (1 + x²)
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.


Which seems to me precisely how hydr0matic used the word. [;)]


Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

Hydr0matic

"you people" ? [s(] .. So you presume that I'm narrow-minded just because I don't believe plasma-"theory" is correct ? Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded [:D] [;)].

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question:

Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance 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.

subtillioN

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.

Show me a success of a theory and I'll consider it. Until then, I'll continue my path towards learning what I need to be able to study LQG.

I am tired of showing it to you and you just ignoring it.

Go your own way and don't bother with this Plasma Cosmology nonsense. I don't need to waste any more time.

subtillioN

No. It's because you seem believe that it is incorrect without studying it.

Be honest, do you consider yourself open to the possibility that plasma-"theory" might be incorrect ?

Yes I certainly do and I believe that ALL theories are incorrect to a degree. Some more than others.

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.

Yes, old people are very set in their ways. I'm 21 on the other hand and very open to new good ideas. I haven't read a lot of plasma-"theory", but at first glance, it doesn't qualify as such.

on first glance? you proved my point...

I don't understand how you can be so confident in your beliefs. You seem deluded [:D] [;)].

This is because you don't know what my beliefs are. They are quite different from yours I can assure you that.

Anyway, I think I'll try and jump in now... First question: Since plasma-theory dismisses the expansion of space, how does it explain the redshift-distance relation ? I didn't seem to find that answer on the site...

The velocity to distance maping is proven to give incorrect results. See: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

As for the source of the red-shift see this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and the 3k CBR:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

Since there's only an inherent and a velocity component, then objects further away from earth must be younger ? .. right ? [8)] ..

Well that is what BBT says, but the fact is that the galaxies at the very limits of perception are exactly the same statistically as those in our immediate vicinity. This gives those "edge" galaxies time for a mere 2 or 3 rotations since the big bang.

for but that doesn't make sense, because if the objects furthest away were very young, we wouldn't be able to see them.

Well I don't get your point here except maybe that there should be "embryonic" galaxies (if any at all) at the "edges" of the known Universe instead of fully mature ones containing the older second generation blue stars.

Hurkyl

Open your mind to the alternatives. [:)]

How would you ascribe an "extension" to:

f(x) = 1 / (1 + x²)

?

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.


I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time! [;)]

subtillioN

Why would I ascribe extension to an equation?

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.

You are confusing mathematics with reality.

I'm tired of you thinking you've showed successes when you've showed only speculation. Go away and don't bother us with your Plasma Cosmology nonsense. You don't need to waste any more time! [;)]

[zz)]

Hurkyl

As I stated before, there is little in which to punch a hole.

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)

Hurkyl

Because that equation is an example of a field. You said fields have extent, didn't you?


How so?

subtillioN

"Because that equation is an example of a field."

Hurkyl

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

subtillioN

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.

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,

Just as the copernican model was inconsistent with the way physics thought things work... and not to mention relativity theory and quantum mechanics....

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.

You never debated the theory at all. You got lost in pointless details that were about the STANDARD model. you never discussed the internal properties of the Plasma model whatsoever.

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.

such as Plasma cosmology which can explain many things that the standard model can't.

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.

so nothing revolutionary please... we like it just the way it is...

(b) Have a theory that (precisely and numerically) predicts (nearly) everything the existing model can predict.

How about one that predicts and explains much more?

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)

That is a joke right? How can you prove mathematically that this would happen. Give me a break. PURE erroneous speculation.

subtillioN

I am talking about a REAL field in REAL space such as a magnetic or electric field. Do you really think that a REAL field is made out of numbers and equations?

Hurkyl

But there are differences!

(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.


One could ask the same thing about all of your posts.

Hurkyl

A field one of many mathematical abstractions that describe our observations. What we call a "magnetic field" is most certainly something made out of numbers and equations.

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?

subtillioN

So does the Plasma model, but you wouldn't know that.

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.

Are you crazy? QM degutted the whole of physics and Relativity said that experiential reality is useless to understand the nature of space and time.

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.

Oh, so then the sun does sometimes revolve around the earth... what at particular scales??

subtillioN

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?

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?

What is your point with this one? Of course if something is real then it has extension.

Hurkyl

Learn some history.


I am using the term "Plasma Cosmology" to refer to the theory you are postulating as the correct theory, because that is the name you have been using in juxtaposition with your theory. If that is a misnomer (and let me know), I will start refering to your theory as a "Sorce Theory". Incidentally, is there a website for your theory? I have noticed that your statements are at odds with the electric cosmos website on some points.



I seem to remember you accusing others of this earlier in this very thread because they weren't clearly seperating mathematical entities from physical reality. [;)]


Actually, I'm a mathematician. I know precisely the logical status of mathematical entities. As you were so keen to point out earlier in this thread, mathematical entities (we were talking about curvature earlier, now we're talking about fields) are not physical objects; they are merely mathematical models intended to describe and predict observations.


My point is exactly what I asked. Why would something real have extension?