Is the Universe Really Not Expanding?

[wolram]

http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/flat-universe.html
this may be old news to some of you but it does show a
differant side of the coin

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well I guess according to that all of Quantum physics is wrong too, since it defies OUR common sense.

 

[wolram]

i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?

 

[Mentat]

LOL! Hahahahahahahahahahaha. This is just like the "Evolution is a Lie" website.

Seriously, wimms, they are asking us to deny Relativity, BB theory, and - as Brad mentioned - they might as well ask us to deny QM, too. And they are doing this on the premise that they don't agree with common sense. Well, if every "correct" explanation of the Universe was obvious to common sense, why would we need Science or Philosophy in the first place?

Also, their little example of "space=time" as a mathematical truth is completely flawed. If everything that could be written as an equation were a mathematical truth, than math would have no rules - and would be utterly useless - but obviously this is not the case.

They might as well have said "5/0" is mathematical even though it defies a rule of math (that you never divide by zero).

In short, they are wrong, and for probably many more reasons than I could think of.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wolram
i accept what he is saying is different, but can anyone disprove it?

Certainly.

 

[Phobos]

I think we'll need a cue on which of his many statements you would like disproved. As Mentat said, his fundamental philosophy may be the root of the problem.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Mentat
LOL! Hahahahahahahahahahaha. This is just like the "Evolution is a Lie" website.

Seriously, wimms, they are asking us to deny Relativity, BB theory, and - as Brad mentioned - they might as well ask us to deny QM, too. And they are doing this on the premise that they don't agree with common sense. Well, if every "correct" explanation of the Universe was obvious to common sense, why would we need Science or Philosophy in the first place?

Also, their little example of "space=time" as a mathematical truth is completely flawed. If everything that could be written as an equation were a mathematical truth, than math would have no rules - and would be utterly useless - but obviously this is not the case.

They might as well have said "5/0" is mathematical even though it defies a rule of math (that you never divide by zero).

In short, they are wrong, and for probably many more reasons than I could think of.

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-Albert Einstein

Let's apply it where it is applicable...

 

[Brad_Ad23]

But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?

If you read the first few sentences and understand them, you will know enough to know that the they are utterly rediculous. Pick any that give you pause and we'll tell you why its wrong.

Not that I've read much of the site, but his paper on "GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light" is particularly entertaining. In the first sentence of the abstract he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the way GPS works. In the first two sentences of the introduction he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Michelson-Morely experiment and the nature of light. And that's as far as I got.

The problem here is that the guy just stopped learning after high school physics.

edit: oops, I may have misunderstood your intent, Brad (sorry). Though maybe not applicable to you, I'll leave the point up.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

lol, no problem.

I think you misunderstood me too (I believe we are both arguing the same side here).

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But what if we are not merely marching rank in file, but have studied it and actually understand it and why it works?

Ok tell me the mechanism of gravity? Tell me how all the forces can be physically and causally described by a single force. Tell me what "charm" or "strangeness" actually physically are. Describe to me HOW they work. Tell me how a W particle can transfer a charge of "weakness". And what exactly is "weakness" anyway. Don't just tell me how you balance your books and accounting tables, but tell me how it actually PHYSICALLY works.

If you are not seriously questioning the validity of each and every interpretation of every single piece of data that comes in, and if you are not actively trying to find holes in your own favorite model of physical reality then you ARE merely marching rank and file. If you are not entirely open and actively searching alternative explanations for a theory that is KNOWN to be problematic, then you are playing the part of the stabilization and fossilization of a "Standard Model" which EVERY new theory must fight to overcome.

The "revolution" of Modern Physics was FAR from being revolutionary enough. It merely kludged the "point-particles" with the "wave nature" to give us the schizophrenic paradoxical "wave-particle duality". They should have stripped the theory down to the core and deleted the point particles when they found that they were producing infinities. Instead "renormalizability" is now seen as a pre-requisite for ANY new theory! What a total and complete joke. They are so used to the core errors that they expect that they must be present in any new theory.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well to give you an adequate enough education on many of those subjects would require years, however I will summarize it quickly.


Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. And yes, that is a mechanism, and it is physically relevant and observed.

Charm, strangeness, and weakness are (as I stated in a thread about pentaquarks) merely labels we apply to physical phenomena. They first two refer to quantum states of quarks, in essence there are certain fundamental quantities that, much like charge, are used to describe them. Weakness, again being just a label is not actually transferred. What the weak force does in very short terms, is increase the probability of a particle to decay radioactivly, or for the case of the W bosons (the Z being the first one described), mediates interactions between particles that do not interact via gluons. I.E. by exchanging W bosons, particles can transmute into different particles, or wind up traveling in different directions.


I do agree (as do most physicists) that the process of renormalization is ad hoc and not good. However, until we perfect the ability of describing interactions that involve non-pointlike particles, we have to do with that model. And as much as I wish the so called "spooky wave-particle duality" was not true, it is, so many experiments verify this unfortuante result.

And I make a note of interest, that most of these websites about Plasma Cosmology all are hostile to the big bang and basically say that b/c it doesn't follow our common sense it is not right. Take some more formal education in the subjects, then come back and evaluate plasma cosmology. If you find it still works, good. Go on to advance it. Due to the nature of science, sooner or later it will take hold. If not, then at least you'll have a better idea why the community accepts the ideas they do.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well to give you an adequate enough education on many of those subjects would require years, however I will summarize it quickly.


Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. And yes, that is a mechanism, and it is physically relevant and observed.

nope. not a mechanism. a quantitative description.

Charm, strangeness, and weakness are (as I stated in a thread about pentaquarks) merely labels we apply to physical phenomena.

Right merely labels applied to phenomena that the model does not have a causal understanding of.

They first two refer to quantum states of quarks, in essence there are certain fundamental quantities that, much like charge, are used to describe them.

And so we have an elaborate scheme of interacting lables with various values (called "force") being exchanged by "force" carriers. The actual "force" exchange process is completely unknown and many of the important numbers have to be plugged in based on experimental data instead of being computable by the model itself from fundamental principles. These values should in principal be computable if the theory has a correct foundation. This accounting scheme is used to make quantitative "predictions" of the static states of the very simplest of systems. Once the systems get very complex and begin to move, the accounting scheme is useless.

Do you call that an understanding?

Weakness, again being just a label is not actually transferred.

The weak force (whatever that means) is transferred by the W boson which is supposedly, what a hundred times the mass of a proton?

What the weak force does in very short terms, is increase the probability of a particle to decay radioactivly,

Don't tell me that you think that an increas in the probability of an event constitutes an understanding of the causal mechanisms of that event?

or for the case of the W bosons (the Z being the first one described), mediates interactions between particles that do not interact via gluons. I.E. by exchanging W bosons, particles can transmute into different particles, or wind up traveling in different directions.

An elaborate accounting scheme to quantify the results of the atom smashing experiments.

I do agree (as do most physicists) that the process of renormalization is ad hoc and not good. However, until we perfect the ability of describing interactions that involve non-pointlike particles, we have to do with that model. And as much as I wish the so called "spooky wave-particle duality" was not true, it is, so many experiments verify this unfortuante result.

You pointed to the problem right there that actually causes the wave-particle stupidity. It is the point-particles themselves. They do not exist in reality. Thus there is no wave-particle duality. There are very complicated quantum reactions between light-waves and atoms that appear particulate because they react in a quantized event, like a lightning flash, but the energy of a light wave is not particulate in itself. The photon is an artifact of the measuring apparatus.

And I make a note of interest, that most of these websites about Plasma Cosmology all are hostile to the big bang and basically say that b/c it doesn't follow our common sense it is not right.

That is not quite correct. The point is that the BBT is full of holes and there is not one bit of evidence to support it. The Plasma Cosmologists simply don't have blind faith in the modern creation myth of science.

Take some more formal education in the subjects, then come back and evaluate plasma cosmology.

I have and I am, thanks.

I would recommend that you take a look behind the curtain and explore the serious alternatives. I have seen both sides.

If you find it still works, good. Go on to advance it. Due to the nature of science, sooner or later it will take hold. If not, then at least you'll have a better idea why the community accepts the ideas they do.

I already know why they accept the ideas. They simply like them. They feel comfortable "knowing" how the first nanosecond of the universe took place. This is the province of religion.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

And those statements are the traditional anti-science statements. Oh the big bad scientists and their conspiracies!.


GR is a mechanism. The curvature of spacetime affects the paths of particles. Learn more about it.

Still looking for what a "casual understanding" is.
And I will point out a lot of the weak force theory was worked out and made predictions that were verified by the atom smashing.

As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile. And I would try to gather more understanding of your pet theory, but I can't seem to find anything but "Plasma cosmology SAYS this and the BB is evil" more or less. In other words, I ahven't encountered any sound math and physical reasoning.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
And those statements are the traditional anti-science statements. Oh the big bad scientists and their conspiracies!.

I am not claiming that there is a conspiracy, just that there is a willfull ignorance.

GR is a mechanism. The curvature of spacetime affects the paths of particles. Learn more about it.

you have simply accepted abstraction for mechanism.

Still looking for what a "casual understanding" is.
And I will point out a lot of the weak force theory was worked out and made predictions that were verified by the atom smashing.

Mathematics can be very powerful even when there is no understanding of what the math means.

As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile.

I know plenty about both sides of the debate. Just because i am not a quantum accountant does not mean I don't understand the theory.

And I would try to gather more understanding of your pet theory, but I can't seem to find anything but "Plasma cosmology SAYS this and the BB is evil" more or less. In other words, I ahven't encountered any sound math and physical reasoning.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

The highest mountain of all to overcome is ones own preconceptions

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
As I said, until you gain more of an understanding of what you are actually going against, the debate is futile.

You can't truly know a theory unless you know a comparable alternative. Until then there is simply no reason to question your own beliefs. ... but until you question your own beliefs there is no reason to learn any alternative.

You have to break the ranks to even know that you are in a single file line going nowhere.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Umm...kinda embarassing for your site there but:

Problems with the Thermonuclear (Fusion) Model
1. Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux.
Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but less than half the number required if the fusion reaction really is the main source of the Sun's energy production. But, the negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos "must have" has occurred. As a result of this effort, it has just (June 2001) been announced by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change "flavor". This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously. However, several important questions remain to be answered about the method that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions. Of course, whether neutrinos actually do change "flavor" or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of the Electric Sun model. The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface and not by nuclear fusion, but by electric arc discharge. So, there is no "missing neutrino" problem for the electric Sun model. The low neutrino flux that is observed is perfectly consistent with the ES model. (See the section on Temperature Minimum and Fusion in the Electric Sun hypothesis description below). There is a detailed analysis of the Sudbury announcement on the next page.

That problem was resolved awhile ago. It was found that neutrinos do indeed have mass by several accelerators, and it was indeed detected that neutrinos can change. In fact, ones were discovered in the process of changing.

Also, the accelerationg of the solar wind? That's just good old F=ma. A force applied to any mass will cause an acceleration. nothing new there.

Why Does the Sun Rotate Faster at its Equator than at Higher Latitudes

This is because the sun has angular momentum. As the sun rotates, it bulges, and has more mass there. Since the sun is a plasma, not a solid like earth, it is like a fluid and hence will rotate a bit slower than at higher latitudes where there is less mass resisting motion.

And again, another big problem is the density of these plasmas. In order to not create any discernable effect on spacecraft , the density would have to be exceedingly low (as it is) and at such far distances, the EM force is simply too weak.

But hey, if the sun is a giant voltage drop, what is the earth? How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass? And why doesn't the pressure such a mass creates cause fusion to occur? Oh wait, it does, because the solar model is indeed correct.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Umm...kinda embarassing for your site there but:

Ummm not really. You haven't even gotten into the model. You are stuck trying to explain where the standard model went wrong. If you can figure it out, by all means write it up and send it into get published!

That problem was resolved awhile ago. It was found that neutrinos do indeed have mass by several accelerators, and it was indeed detected that neutrinos can change. In fact, ones were discovered in the process of changing.

Those results are interpretations of the data and the Plasma Model does not rely on those hypothetical neutrino changes whatsoever.

Also, the accelerationg of the solar wind? That's just good old F=ma. A force applied to any mass will cause an acceleration. nothing new there.

Obviously but what force do you think is applied to the particles to make them accelerate? How do you think the solar wind could completely stop for a day when the sun continues to shine? The solar wind is supposed to be coming from the nuclear fusion processes which also generate the electro-magnetic energy. How can the fusion processes stop generating the solar wind and yet continue to emit em radiation?

The standard model is at a loss to explain this as well.

This is because the sun has angular momentum. As the sun rotates, it bulges, and has more mass there. Since the sun is a plasma, not a solid like earth, it is like a fluid and hence will rotate a bit slower than at higher latitudes where there is less mass resisting motion.

You said it right there. The sun is a plasma. Only a plasma model can account for the distribution of angular momentum.

If you figure this one out in quantitative detail then you are one step beyond the standard model.

And again, another big problem is the density of these plasmas. In order to not create any discernable effect on spacecraft , the density would have to be exceedingly low (as it is) and at such far distances, the EM force is simply too weak.

I don't get what you are trying to say here. The EM force is too weak for what exactly?

But hey, if the sun is a giant voltage drop,

You are quite confused on this one. Where does it say that the sun is a giant voltage drop?

what is the earth?

Obviously NOT the sun. What is your point?

How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass?

According to the model it is electro-static repulsion of the internal structure of the atoms. The problem is how the standard model can claim that gravity (which is ~35 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism) can overcome the electrostatic repulsion whatsoever.

And why doesn't the pressure such a mass creates cause fusion to occur? Oh wait, it does, because the solar model is indeed correct. [/B]

Why does the neutrino count vary inversly wrt the sun-spot count? Because the fusion is taking place in the surface plasma processes of which the sun-spots are empty.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
How does the sun keep from collapsing under its immense mass?

Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight?
How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself? 3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface toward the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained.
The answer is best stated by physicist Wal Thornhill:
"The electric star model makes the simplest assumption - that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense."

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse.

3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars. The real answer in this case is also electrical in nature. And no "missing matter" or "dark energy" is required.

 

[wolram]

hi, i find this all very disturbing, what would happen if you were tutored by the author of this link, would everyone be trying to disprove what is curently accepted, or would you go out of your way to find a new theory that is testable?
it takes a clever person to formulate a new theory
it takes a clever person to prove it mathmaticaly
it takes a genius to disprove both.
thats my view stupid as it may sound

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by wolram
hi, i find this all very disturbing, what would happen if you were tutored by the author of this link, would everyone be trying to disprove what is curently accepted, or would you go out of your way to find a new theory that is testable?

Isn't that the same thing? Doesn't science evolve by generation and falsification of hypothesis'? It does in theory, but in reality people hold tight to their theories long after they have been falsified. BBT is a case in point. The Doppler interpretations of the Hubble Red-shift have long since been falsified, thus removing any evidence whatsoever for an expanding universe. Does this knowledge make its way into the tight circle of the established cosmologists? Not even close. They refuse to believe it even when they are forced to see it. They have long since closed their eyes to observational falsification and now rely exclusively on abstract mathematics as proof of their theories.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Long since been falsified by one individual while the rest of the community uses it and makes accurate predictions. I suspect it is not the community who is wrong here.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Long since been falsified by one individual while the rest of the community uses it and makes accurate predictions. I suspect it is not the community who is wrong here.

Accurate predictions such as what? Remember that these predictions must be exclusive to the theory in question in order to give any extra validity to that theory. You have to compare the predictive power of the theories side-by-side to make any judgements and this means learning BOTH theories.

The maps based on the Doppler interpretation of red-shift are known to be flawed. Is that an accurate prediction or is that a falsification?

 

[wolram]

Canadian Who's Who
2001 Edition
MARMET, Paul, O.C.,D.Sc.; physicien, éducateur, né Lévis, Qué, 20 mai 1932; f. Albert et Corinne (Filteau) M. (décédés); e. Univ. Laval B. Sc. 1956, D. Sc. 1960: CSIRO Melbourne, Australia Postdoctoral 1960-61; ép. Jacqueline f. Albert Côté (dé.) 6 Juin 1959; enfants: Louis, Marie, Nicolas, Frédéric; Prof Adjoint, Dept. Physique Université d'Ottawa 1991-99; enseignement en physique, Coll. Univ. Laval 1958-60; Asst. de recherche CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia 1960-61; prof. auxiliaire, Univ. Laval 1961, prof. agrégé 1966, prof. chercheur 1974-77, prof. titulaire 1970-84; Agent de recherche senior, Institut Herzberg d'astrophysique, Conseil National de recherches 1984-91; Dir. du Lab. de Physique Atomique et Moléculaire 1967-82; année sabbatique au service de Chimie, Université de Liège, Belgique 1967; mem. co-fondateur du Centre de recherche sur les atomes et les Molécules (CRAM), bureau de direction 1967-69; mem. du Comité de subventions du Gouvernement du Qué. 1975; Comité des subventions du C. N. R. C. 1971-74, représentant Canadien, Union Internationale de Physique pure et appliquée 1976-79; Comité d'Organisation des IPEAC Paris 1977 et Tokyo 1979 (Organisateur du IV Congrès International de la Physique des Collisions Atomiques et Ioniques, Qué. 1965); Officier de l'Ordre du Canada, 1981; Médaille Herzberg de l'Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens 1971; Prix Rutherford de la Société Royale du Can. 1960; Médaille Pariseau (ACFAS) 1976; Service Award Soc. Royale d'Astronomiedu Can.; Prix Concours Scientifique de la Prov. de Qué. 1962; Bourse Post-doctorale du CNRC Melbourne 1960, 3 bourses graduées 1957-59; co-auteur High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications1969; AuteurA New Non-Doppler Redshift 1981; Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution 1993; Einstein`s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics 1997; articles nombreux; mem, Conseil de Dir., Comm. de Contrôle de l'Énergie Atomique du Can. 1979-84; mem. Société Royale du Canada; Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens Vice Prés. 1979-81, Prés. 1981-82;
Canadian Who's Who
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 700,
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M4Y 2W8
Canadian Who's Who
2001 Edition
MARMET, Paul, O.C.,D.Sc.; physicien, éducateur, né Lévis, Qué, 20 mai 1932; f. Albert et Corinne (Filteau) M. (décédés); e. Univ. Laval B. Sc. 1956, D. Sc. 1960: CSIRO Melbourne, Australia Postdoctoral 1960-61; ép. Jacqueline f. Albert Côté (dé.) 6 Juin 1959; enfants: Louis, Marie, Nicolas, Frédéric; Prof Adjoint, Dept. Physique Université d'Ottawa 1991-99; enseignement en physique, Coll. Univ. Laval 1958-60; Asst. de recherche CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia 1960-61; prof. auxiliaire, Univ. Laval 1961, prof. agrégé 1966, prof. chercheur 1974-77, prof. titulaire 1970-84; Agent de recherche senior, Institut Herzberg d'astrophysique, Conseil National de recherches 1984-91; Dir. du Lab. de Physique Atomique et Moléculaire 1967-82; année sabbatique au service de Chimie, Université de Liège, Belgique 1967; mem. co-fondateur du Centre de recherche sur les atomes et les Molécules (CRAM), bureau de direction 1967-69; mem. du Comité de subventions du Gouvernement du Qué. 1975; Comité des subventions du C. N. R. C. 1971-74, représentant Canadien, Union Internationale de Physique pure et appliquée 1976-79; Comité d'Organisation des IPEAC Paris 1977 et Tokyo 1979 (Organisateur du IV Congrès International de la Physique des Collisions Atomiques et Ioniques, Qué. 1965); Officier de l'Ordre du Canada, 1981; Médaille Herzberg de l'Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens 1971; Prix Rutherford de la Société Royale du Can. 1960; Médaille Pariseau (ACFAS) 1976; Service Award Soc. Royale d'Astronomiedu Can.; Prix Concours Scientifique de la Prov. de Qué. 1962; Bourse Post-doctorale du CNRC Melbourne 1960, 3 bourses graduées 1957-59; co-auteur High Resolution Electron Beams and their Applications1969; AuteurA New Non-Doppler Redshift 1981; Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution 1993; Einstein`s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics 1997; articles nombreux; mem, Conseil de Dir., Comm. de Contrôle de l'Énergie Atomique du Can. 1979-84; mem. Société Royale du Canada; Assn. Canadienne des Physiciens Vice Prés. 1979-81, Prés. 1981-82;
Canadian Who's Who
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 700,
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M4Y 2W8

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Long since been falsified by one individual while the rest of the community uses it and makes accurate predictions. I suspect it is not the community who is wrong here.

A falsification is a falsification and Arp has the photos to prove it.

...left...right...left...right...

 

[Hurkyl]

Those results are interpretations of the data and the Plasma Model does not rely on those hypothetical neutrino changes whatsoever.

Can the plasma model derive the neutrino flux? (I mean the quantitative value, not merely its existence)

You said it right there. The sun is a plasma. Only a plasma model can account for the distribution of angular momentum.

If you figure this one out in quantitative detail then you are one step beyond the standard model.

Astronomers know the sun is a plasma. They just reject the absurd hypothesis that plasma dynamics are the source of all of the sun's properties.

According to the model it is electro-static repulsion of the internal structure of the atoms. The problem is how the standard model can claim that gravity (which is ~35 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism) can overcome the electrostatic repulsion whatsoever.

10^35 times zero is still zero. Don't forget that there's just as much electrostatic attraction as there is repulsion.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can the plasma model derive the neutrino flux? (I mean the quantitative value, not merely its existence)

yes, precisely. It varies inversely with the sun-spot density thus suggesting strongly that the neutrinos are generated at the surface through the z-pinch effect in the double-layer plasma arcs.

Astronomers know the sun is a plasma. They just reject the absurd hypothesis that plasma dynamics are the source of all of the sun's properties.

And so they retain the inability to explain the data which is easily explained by the PLASMA model of the PLASMA sun.

10^35 times zero is still zero. Don't forget that there's just as much electrostatic attraction as there is repulsion.

lol... oh ok...

 

[wolram]

to date there is no right or wrong only theories, the one thing i have noticed is the chose post grads have is very limited, they have to go where the mony is, what does this do for science?
if for one moment you could all sit back and think,"what do i know that is a irifutable fact in science "and be willing to stand by your convictions,i will bet that the "comunity "will refute it.
but I am stupid so don't listen to me.

 

[Hurkyl]

yes, precisely. It varies inversely with the sun-spot density thus suggesting strongly that the neutrinos are generated at the surface through the z-pinch effect in the double-layer plasma arcs.

How was this law derived? What's the coefficient of proportionality? How was the coefficient of proportionality derived? And why did you imply last time I asked about neutrinos that they are formed from actual fusion occurring in the sun?

And if the plasma model is consistent with the number of observed neutrinos... but neutrino mixing turns out to be correct... wouldn't that point out a flaw in the plasma model?

lol... oh ok...

So you consider laughing an appropriate response? I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time you post something I think absurd.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How was this law derived?

It is not a law it is an observation.

why did you imply last time I asked about neutrinos that they are formed from actual fusion occurring in the sun?

Because they actually ARE. The fusion is occurring at the surface not in the interior.

And if the plasma model is consistent with the number of observed neutrinos... but neutrino mixing turns out to be correct... wouldn't that point out a flaw in the plasma model?

Can you explain to me how that would constitute a flaw? It would merely effect the laws of the fusion reaction itself. The Plasma model uses those same laws to correctly predict the observed number of neutrinos from the sun. The standard model fails to predict the number so they invented the notion of flavor change to retro-fit the data.

So you consider laughing an appropriate response? I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time you post something I think absurd.

Do you suppose that there is a net force of electrical attraction leading to collapse inherent in the atoms? The forces are balanced. To unbalance them you end up with a net force of repulsion.

Do you understand the huge difference in the strength of the forces as anything other than a number?

 

[Hurkyl]

It is not a law it is an observation.

If a law cannot be derived from a model, then observations in accordance with that law cannot be considered evidence for that model. You can say z-pinching ignites fusion all you want... but if you cannot derive precise numerical results from the basic principles of your theory, then you cannot argue observed results support the model.

You're still at the "Hey, this could be a possibility" stage, not at the "Hey look at me, I got proof this is right" stage.

Can you explain to me how that would constitute a flaw?

Since we've now established that the electric sun model does NOT give a precise numerical prediction of neutrino flux, this part of my argument is irrelevant.

Do you understand the huge difference in the strength of the forces as anything other than a number?

The difference is a number.


Electric charges try very hard to arrange themselves so that net electric charge is zero. A website with no credibility is not going to convince me without proof that this tendency is not only suspended in the interior of the sun... but it happens in just the right amount so that the sun doesn't blow itself apart.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If a law cannot be derived from a model, then observations in accordance with that law cannot be considered evidence for that model.

What? The fact has been observed period. What more evidence do you need?

You can say z-pinching ignites fusion all you want... but if you cannot derive precise numerical results from the basic principles of your theory, then you cannot argue observed results support the model.

Z-pinching has been observed and there are quantitative exlanations of it. Go learn plasma physics if you want the laws and numbers.

You're still at the "Hey, this could be a possibility" stage, not at the "Hey look at me, I got proof this is right" stage.

This is not my theory. It is a quantitative and a qualitative theory and if you want the quantitative details then study it more.

Since we've now established that the electric sun model does NOT give a precise numerical prediction of neutrino flux, this part of my argument is irrelevant.

Your assumption is incorrect. The precise value comes directly from nuclear science of the fusion going on in the Z-pinch effect. The number has been OBSERVED and quantified and it matches inversly to the sun-spot number. Can the standard model explain that? Not even close.

The difference is a number.

No the difference is a ratio and a huge one at that.

Electric charges try very hard to arrange themselves so that net electric charge is zero. A website with no credibility is not going to convince me without proof that this tendency is not only suspended in the interior of the sun... but it happens in just the right amount so that the sun doesn't blow itself apart.

Again demonstrate the flaws in the model instead of quibbling about these banalities.

 

[Hurkyl]

What? The fact has been observed period. What more evidence do you need?

The observation is not evidence that the electric sun model is right.

Z-pinching has been observed and there are quantitative exlanations of it. Go learn plasma physics if you want the laws and numbers.

My studies are currently directed into differential geometry / lie groups with the immediate intention of gaining more than a casual understanding of general relativity.

Anyways, I don't doubt Z-pinching has been observed and there are quantitative explanations of it. I'm doubting that, from there, you can make precise quantitative predictions of things like neutrino flux from the sun.

This is not my theory. It is a quantitative and a qualitative theory and if you want the quantitative details then study it more.

If and when I do, it will be from respectable sources, not crackpot sites.

Your assumption is incorrect. The precise value comes directly from nuclear science of the fusion going on in the Z-pinch effect. The number has been OBSERVED and quantified and it matches inversly to the sun-spot number. Can the standard model explain that? Not even close.

Which is why cosmologists are considering incorporating plasma physics into their models... NOT throwing away their (mostly successful) theories in an attempt to rewrite everything in terms of plasmas.

Again demonstrate the flaws in the model instead of quibbling about these banalities.

The flaw is that it is asserting that charges don't behave the way they usually do, without proof.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The observation is not evidence that the electric sun model is right.

If one model easily explains a set of data and the other is at a total loss to explain it what does that say?

Anyways, I don't doubt Z-pinching has been observed and there are quantitative explanations of it. I'm doubting that, from there, you can make precise quantitative predictions of things like neutrino flux from the sun.

Doubt all you want, but your doubt does not constitute an argument.

If and when I do, it will be from respectable sources, not crackpot sites.

Your little pidgeon-holes and categories conveniently enable you to escape from learning anything contrary to your faith.

Which is why cosmologists are considering incorporating plasma physics into their models... NOT throwing away their (mostly successful) theories in an attempt to rewrite everything in terms of plasmas.

Well that is a start at least, but it amounts to more retro-fitting and cannibalizing of a perfectly coherent and explanitory model.

The flaw is that it is asserting that charges don't behave the way they usually do, without proof.

Please explain that one in more detail.

 

[Hurkyl]

If one model easily explains a set of data and the other is at a total loss to explain it what does that say?

And how does one go about deriving from the electric sun model that neutrino flux should be inversely proportional to sunspot density?

Doubt all you want, but your doubt does not constitute an argument.

So?

Your little pidgeon-holes and categories conveniently enable you to escape from learning anything contrary to your faith.

Those who live in glass houses...

Well that is a start at least, but it amounts to more retro-fitting and cannibalizing of a perfectly coherent and explanitory model.

Which has no proof of correctness.

Please explain that one in more detail.

That electric charge tends to organize itself to form neutrally charged structures.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And how does one go about deriving from the electric sun model that neutrino flux should be inversely proportional to sunspot density?

What difference does it make to the theory when the inverse proportionality is observed?

This is another diversionary tactic. You want to know the math go ask a plasma physicist.

So?

lol

are you going to make any arguments about the theory or what?

Which has no proof of correctness.

You have been saying that from before you knew anything about it.

The fact is that it can explain more data than the standard model can so it has more "proof".

I wonder if you are ever going to understand the theory well enough to debate it.

That electric charge tends to organize itself to form neutrally charged structures.

The fact is that the neutrino flux density suggests strongly that the fusion is taking place in the double layer not in the depths of the sun.

The idea that the gravity of the plasma can overwhelm the electrical repulsion is a completely hypothetical concept. We have nerver observed such a process and the data does not support the hypothesis.

 

[Hurkyl]

What difference does it make to the theory when the inverse proportionality is observed? This is another diversionary tactic. You want to know the math go ask a plasma physicist.

Plasma physicists don't appear to endorse the model you describe. For instance, consider this page hosted by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory:

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/

While we're discussing plasma physics, check out this excerpt from the pppl page at http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/magnetic_reconnect.html

Magnetic reconnection is the breaking and topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines in a plasma. It is one of the most fundamental processes of plasma physics and has important relevance to fusion research, as well as to the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere and solar flares. It may also play a key role in heating the plasma in the solar atmosphere, or solar corona.

(I don't remember in which thread you claimed that such notions were nonsensical fancies of astronomers who know nothing about electrodynamics)


And Auburn University cautions strongly about using terrestrial experiments to model interstellar plasmas at http://www.physics.auburn.edu/~plasma/basic/spacelab/simulate.html

(and this site too states that fusion occurs in the core)

The fact is that it can explain more data than the standard model can so it has more "proof".

But can it make precise numerical calculations from initial assumptions?

We have nerver observed such a process and the data does not support the hypothesis.

Sure it does.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Plasma physicists don't appear to endorse the model you describe. For instance, consider this page hosted by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory:

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/

Not all of them do of course and I never said that they did. Not all physicists endorse the BBT either. So what?

While we're discussing plasma physics, check out this excerpt from the pppl page at http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/magnetic_reconnect.html

(I don't remember in which thread you claimed that such notions were nonsensical fancies of astronomers who know nothing about electrodynamics)

? what on Earth are you talking about. I never said that those ideas that you quoted are nonsense. If you can find the misinterpreted post of mine let me know.

And Auburn University cautions strongly about using terrestrial experiments to model interstellar plasmas at http://www.physics.auburn.edu/~plasma/basic/spacelab/simulate.html

(and this site too states that fusion occurs in the core)

So what does this have to do with the model I was talking about? Another diversion? Can't debate the Plasma Cosmology model?

But can it make precise numerical calculations from initial assumptions?

Yes indeed it can. You would know this if you dared to actually learn the model.

Sure it does.

go on... explain just how it explains the proportionality with the sun-spots.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not all of them do of course and I never said that they did. Not all physicists endorse the BBT either. So what?

I spent half an hour looking for a reputable website that had something similar to the electric sun model. I could find none. Can you point me to one, or am I right in suspecting none exist?

So what does this have to do with the model I was talking about? Another diversion? Can't debate the Plasma Cosmology model?

You attempt to gain support from extrapolation from experiments on terrestrial plasmas. Analogy with the properties of terrestrial plasmas is the sole motivation given on the electric-cosmos website.

Yes indeed it can. You would know this if you dared to actually learn the model.

And where can I find the model?

go on... explain just how it explains the proportionality with the sun-spots.

I'm curious as to how this relates to my assertion that electric charge tends to organize itself to form neutrally charged structures.

 

[russ_watters]

Aww c'mon, the GPS thing is far more entertaining than that electric sun crap.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I spent half an hour looking for a reputable website that had something similar to the electric sun model. I could find none. Can you point me to one, or am I right in suspecting none exist?

So you are giving up on Plasma Cosmology?

You attempt to gain support from extrapolation from experiments on terrestrial plasmas. Analogy with the properties of terrestrial plasmas is the sole motivation given on the electric-cosmos website.

What? The sole motivation is to build a more solid understanding of cosmology.

And where can I find the model?

You can't... give up

I'm curious as to how this relates to my assertion that electric charge tends to organize itself to form neutrally charged structures.

There is zero evidence that the fusion happens in the core and there is evidence that it happens at the surface.

 

[Hurkyl]

What? The sole motivation is to build a more solid understanding of cosmology.

I was speaking about the motivation to choose that theory amongst the assortment of alternatives.

There is zero evidence that the fusion happens in the core and there is evidence that it happens at the surface.

(response in other thread)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I was speaking about the motivation to choose that theory amongst the assortment of alternatives.

Oh that is easy. Because it solves the mysteries that the standard model cannot explain... and I suppose I will have to list them again or can you read or even remember?

 

[Hurkyl]

I suppose I will have to list them again or can you read or even remember?

I remember. And I remember objecting because solving the mystery implies being able to generate precise numerical calculations which your website does not provide.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I remember. And I remember objecting because solving the mystery implies being able to generate precise numerical calculations which your website does not provide.

That website does not provide all the calculations nor does it give the whole of our knowledge of Plasma Physics. Did you really expect it to? How many small introductory websites do you know of that give every bit of quantitative knowledge about a theory?

This is meant to be a qualitative and slightly quantitative overview of the theory not the complete and total content of every single bit of information about the theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

I believe I have asked you to provide the details; you could have said them yourself or redirected me to a less elementary website.

I believe it was I who first pointed out that the information on that website is just as useless in understanding anything as reading a pop media layperson's book on a mainstream physical theory.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I believe I have asked you to provide the details; you could have said them yourself or redirected me to a less elementary website.

I believe you will have to buy a book for that.

I believe it was I who first pointed out that the information on that website is just as useless in understanding anything as reading a pop media layperson's book on a mainstream physical theory.

It is a detailed and very adequate introduction to the theory. I figured that was the obvious place to start. I didn't realize that you were ready to devote months or years to the study of Plasma Physics! But good for you!