Number of Galaxies: Is It Infinite?

[meteor]

There's contantly discussion about if the universe is infinite in size or not. I want to pose the question in another way: Is the number of galaxies infinite? My answer: No

 

[subtillioN]

well of course because infinity is not a number

... but what is YOUR reasoning?

 

[meteor]

Well, my (dodgy) reasoning is that, if there exist an infinite number of galaxies, must exist infinity Earth planets, and then must exist an infinite number of presidents Bush. This can't be possible!

Seriously, I don't have a well elaborate reasoning. I don't know if is even possible to know it. Just checking the opinion of the other members

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
Well, my (dodgy) reasoning is that, if there exist an infinite number of galaxies, must exist infinity Earth planets, and then must exist an infinite number of presidents Bush. This can't be possible!

That is quite excellent reasoning! I can't see how the Universe could allow such an absurdity!



{{{though I do believe in a Universe of infinite extension}}}

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by meteor
Well, my (dodgy) reasoning is that, if there exist an infinite number of galaxies, must exist infinity Earth planets, and then must exist an infinite number of presidents Bush. This can't be possible!

Seriously, I don't have a well elaborate reasoning. I don't know if is even possible to know it. Just checking the opinion of the other members

there is a some part of the discussion which involves mere opinion
and speculation

but there is a parallel discussion that involves models
and involves facts

here is an example. Michael Turner is one of the world's top cosmologists (UChicago, Fermilab Astrophysics Center) and last
year he published a non-technical overview of the rapid change going on in cosmology. the field is radically different from 10 years ago. it's becoming an observational science. the basic numbers and models are stabilizing.

arxiv:astro-ph/0202008

a standard model of the universe is emerging and he describes it.
one feature of the standard model, which he calls the "new cosmology", is spatial flatness. Assuming the underlying mathematical model is General Relativity, this means infinite space.

And an infinite amount of energy spread out in that space. One may assume the energy out beyond the horizon is like what we see----that is some 4 percent of it is visible and collected into galaxies. So an infinite number of galaxies. It is plausible to assume that things beyond the horizon look pretty much like
what we can see. Roughly the same types of galaxies and stars, the same microwave background, and so on. But since we can't see we can't say for sure.

Spatial flatness, implying infinite extent among other things, is in the process of being checked with increasing precision.

People sometimes get the notion that the "singularity" at time zero occurred at a "single point"
but the model does not say this
I think people get this idea because "singularity" sounds like "single". But the singularity (which means a divergence in the GR geometry) occurs over an infinite spatial extent. A singularity in a physical model is usually something to resolve---a gap or flaw in the model. Quantizing GR will probably do away with the famous time-zero singularity and replace it with a continuity at time-zero.
The continuity will be spatially infinite in extent just as now the singularity is spatially infinite.

Some progress has been made already:

Ashtekar "Quantum Geometry in Action: Big Bang and Black Holes"
arxiv:math-ph/0202008

 

[Antiproton]

I think the question you should be asking is what is the
distrubution of the universe. If one assumes the extent of the universe is infinite, and that galaxies are relatively uniformly distrubuted, then it must be safe to assume the number of galaxies infinite (in so far as it makes sense to talk about infinite numbers of objects)

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by marcus

a standard model of the universe is emerging and he describes it.
one feature of the standard model, which he calls the "new cosmology", is spatial flatness. Assuming the underlying mathematical model is General Relativity, this means infinite space.

Fascinating. Is this "new cosmology" at all related to the plasma cosmology models which do suggest much more coherent explanations of the astronomical and planetary data and also suggest a "spatial flatness" and a universe of infinite duration and extent?

for example see www.electric-cosmos.org

How does a universe of infinite extent fit in with a Big Bungle cosmology?

 

[CrystalStudios]

In reality there is no such thing as infinite. Infinite is just something man created, but it doesn't exist in reality - in any form at all.

Futhermore you can't have the big bang and have an infinite universe. The big bang can only create a finite expanding universe.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
In reality there is no such thing as infinite. Infinite is just something man created, but it doesn't exist in reality - in any form at all.

Futhermore you can't have the big bang and have an infinite universe. The big bang can only create a finite expanding universe.

In reality we don't know if the universe is infinite in extent or not. And the big bang is a modern creation myth.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by subtillioN
In reality we don't know if the universe is infinite in extent or not. And the big bang is a modern creation myth.

MYTH? Now how absurd do you sound.

The big bang has been proven in more than 100 independant results. If you think that's a myth then tell me.

EVerytime you sit down in a chair do you fear falling right through the chair?? I didn't think so.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
MYTH? Now how absurd do you sound.

The big bang has been proven in more than 100 independant results. If you think that's a myth then tell me.

EVerytime you sit down in a chair do you fear falling right through the chair?? I didn't think so.

How dogmatic do you sound? and what does gravity have to do with proving the big bang?

There is much data ignored by the mainstream that shows that it is incorrect. Ever heard of Halton Arp? He showed that the doppler interpretation of the red-shift is erroneous. Also it is well known that Planck radiation of every atom in the ubiquitous interstellar medium can and should emit a ambient radiation temperature of about 3K. see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

see www.electric-cosmos.org for more information

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by subtillioN
How dogmatic do you sound? and what does gravity have to do with proving the big bang?

There is much data ignored by the mainstream that shows that it is incorrect. Ever heard of Halton Arp? He showed that the doppler interpretation of the red-shift is erroneous. Also it is well known that Planck radiation of every atom in the ubiquitous interstellar medium can and should emit a ambient radiation temperature of about 3K. see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

see www.electric-cosmos.org for more information

haha - this guy thinks the BB is a myth

Everyone laugh at him hahahaha!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
haha - this guy thinks the BB is a myth

Everyone laugh at him hahahaha!

Excellent argument! Everybody heckle the non-believer!
[zz)]

A desperate appeal to the mob mentality.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Excellent argument! Everybody heckle the non-believer!
[zz)]

A desperate appeal to the mob mentality.

Yeah well - come on now - your claim is so absurd it isn't worth debating! It's worse than creationism!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Yeah well - come on now - your claim is so absurd it isn't worth debating! It's worse than creationism!

That is a cop-out. If you think it is absurd then explain WHY you think it is such. Otherwise your claim is empty and simply reveals your ignorance of my position.

 

[Tyger]

There's even another possibility

that you don't see mentioned very often. That the Universe is finite and has a boundary, and is always expanding at the boundary. It is not homogenous or isotropic, unless you are located at the "center", where you would have trouble telling it from the standard "Big Bang" universe because it would appear nearly homogenous and isotropic. As space expands away from the boundary it flattens and becomes uniform.

 

[Hurkyl]

well of course because infinity is not a number

Incorrect. It is certainly possible to correctly answer "yes" to queries of the class; "Is the number of X finite?"

How does a universe of infinite extent fit in with a Big Bungle cosmology?

I'm unfamiliar with Big Bungle cosmology, so I can't answer this question.

He showed that the doppler interpretation of the red-shift is erroneous.

Okay. What about gravitational redshift? And you do realize that expanding space would redshift waves passing through it, right?

Also it is well known that Planck radiation of every atom in the ubiquitous interstellar medium can and should emit a ambient radiation temperature of about 3K. see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/ Cosmic.html

It certainly isn't well known to me. I'm not inclined to accept that link as a reputable source due to its absurd treatment on Olber's paradox. If you opt to defend their article, consider also a more serious paradox related to Olber's paradox; we should be observing an infinite amount of EM energy if the universe was infinite and homogenous.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Hukyl - You are fine on all points except one.

Infinite is NOT a number.

There is no such thing as an infinite amount of anything. It does not exist in reality.

 

[Hurkyl]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CardinalNumber.html

The cardinal numbers are a superset of the natural numbers, and are the proper number system in which to express the size of a set. (a.k.a. how many of something there is) The cardinal numbers can be divided into two classes; the natural numbers (a.k.a. finite) and the rest (a.k.a. infinite). I'll admit to being a little harsh and nitpicky, but that decision was directly influenced by the attitude of the one to whom I was responding!


You may well be right that reality is discrete (otherwise, at the very least, there would be an infinite number of points in the universe), but we certainly don't know for sure.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Infinite can be used in math just fine. But it doesn't exist in reality.

Reality math is perfection - and stands above science (which adheres to linguistics).

However all of math is not reality.

For instance the old trickery of continuously steping 1/2 the distance towards an object, mathematically you will never reach it.

That expression stands outside the math of reality.

I reject the claim that infinite as a value of anything exists in reality.

 

[Hurkyl]

For instance the old trickery of continuously steping 1/2 the distance towards an object, mathematically you will never reach it.

If stepping half of the way took one unit of time each time, you would be correct. However, I tend to cover 1 meter in half the time it takes me to cover 2 meters!

If I'm running at 1 meter per second and I want to cover a distance of 16 meters, the "old trickery" only tells me that I can't make it all the way to 16 meters in less than 16 seconds!

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If stepping half of the way took one unit of time each time, you would be correct. However, I tend to cover 1 meter in half the time it takes me to cover 2 meters!

If I'm running at 1 meter per second and I want to cover a distance of 16 meters, the "old trickery" only tells me that I can't make it all the way to 16 meters in less than 16 seconds!

Apparently you have no clue what I said.

THe mathematics I used have nothing to do with time at all whatsoever.

 

[Hurkyl]

THe mathematics I used have nothing to do with time at all whatsoever.

I think they do; it just was not explicit!


In any case, tell me how you would go about mathematically proving:

For instance the old trickery of continuously steping 1/2 the distance towards an object, mathematically you will never reach it.

 

[CrystalStudios]

X is the distance you are from the point you are trying to reach, in the beginning. The function shows your distance as you take steps such that each step cuts your distance from the point before the step, in half.

Here is the function that proves it:

X(Y) = (.5 to the power of Y) times (X)

So, if one was to reach the point you are originally a distance of X from - then one would need to find a value for Y in the function that results in:

X(Y) = 0


And there is none. Thus if you continuously take steps that "half" your distance to a certain point, you can never reach it.

Furthermore - The function is conjoured just now - so if I am mistaken it is a fault of my function. The logic still stands.

 

[subtillioN]

Okay. What about gravitational redshift? And you do realize that expanding space would redshift waves passing through it, right?

Wrong. The expansion of space would be imperceptible because we are embedded in space. The whole premise is ludicrous.

It certainly isn't well known to me. I'm not inclined to accept that link as a reputable source due to its absurd treatment on Olber's paradox. If you opt to defend their article, consider also a more serious paradox related to Olber's paradox; we should be observing an infinite amount of EM energy if the universe was infinite and homogenous.

So, in other words you have no argument against it? It gives a simple explanation of the MBR and you cannot dispute it so you find something that you don't agree with and simply call it absurd.

Olber's Paradox does not take into account the fact that there is much intersteller gas and dust to absorb and re-emit the radiation as 3K heat. Quite simple really.

 

[Hurkyl]

Wrong. The expansion of space would be imperceptible because we are embedded in space. The whole premise is ludicrous.

It would manifest itself as a tendency for things to expand. Things like solar systems or atoms are self-correcting so their actual sizes would not increase as the universe expands (in a classical picture, it would manifest as a slight force), but something like an intergalactic light wave or cosmic microwave background radiation is not self-correcting, and the expansion of the wave causes redshifting.

So, in other words you have no argument against it? It gives a simple explanation of the MBR and you cannot dispute it so you find something that you don't agree with and simply call it absurd.

Correct, at that moment I had no argument against it. I had not yet attempted to formulate one. I brought up Olber's paradox because it was so blatant.

Olber's Paradox does not take into account the fact that there is much intersteller gas and dust to absord and re-emit the radiation as 3K heat. Quite simple really.

Yes; which is why it's astonishing that the link you gave didn't bring that up.

It is curious why it's 3K nearly everywhere, instead of having a temperature gradient where gas steadily cools as it gets further and further away from galaxies. It's curious enough that in my mind it's a serious flaw in the model.


But as I mentioned, there's a more serious version of Olber's paradox which this explanation does not solve. The energy received from a star drops off as the square of the distance from the star... but the number of stars at a particular distance increases as the square of distance. Add up all of the energy received from all of the stars, and you predict that we should be observing an infinite amount of energy, if the unvierse was eternal, infinite, and homogeneous.

 

[Hurkyl]

Thus if you continuously take steps that "half" your distance to a certain point, you can never reach it.

But it wasn't a complete depiction of my motion anyways. Your reasoning is only valid when my distance from my goal is in the interval (0, X]; not when it's in the interval [0, X]. Your argument only tells me that over the period of my motion where my distance is (0, X], I cannot have reached my goal.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It would manifest itself as a tendency for things to expand. Things like solar systems or atoms are self-correcting so their actual sizes would not increase as the universe expands (in a classical picture, it would manifest as a slight force), but something like an intergalactic light wave or cosmic microwave background radiation is not self-correcting, and the expansion of the wave causes redshifting.

On one hand BBT says to ignore the relative motions of galaxies at the edges of the visible Universe moving through space near light speed according to the doppler interpretation of red-shift. It says that these speeds do not violate relativity because it is only space itself that is expanding. On the other hand it can say that the expansion of space can cause physical relativistic effects within space seen in the red-shift. So which is it? Is the expansion of space exempt from the laws of physics within it or is it not?

Yes; which is why it's astonishing that the link you gave didn't bring that up.

Did you read the article? What I said about the paradox is pretty much what it says as well.

It is curious why it's 3K nearly everywhere, instead of having a temperature gradient where gas steadily cools as it gets further and further away from galaxies. It's curious enough that in my mind it's a serious flaw in the model.

The gas is EVERYWHERE and there are galaxies in every line of sight.

 

[Hurkyl]

Did you read the article? What I said about the paradox is pretty much what it says as well.

Yes I did, and I just re-read it. The article does not say that interstellar gas is blotting out the light from the infinite number of stars.

On one hand BBT says to ignore the relative motions of galaxies at the edges of the visible Universe moving through space near light speed according to the doppler interpretation of red-shift. It says that these speeds do not violate relativity because it is only space itself that is expanding. On the other hand it can say that the expansion of space can cause physical relativistic effects within space seen in the red-shift. So which is it? Is the expansion of space exempt from the laws of physics within it or is it not?

This is fairly confusing...

General Relativity says that variations in space-time can change the frequency of a photon passing through it.

Inflationary models predict that the majority of space has a quality that will result in the redshifting of light.

Why would near light speeds violate relativity anyways?

According to General Relativity, the expansion of space (and all of the other dynamics of space-time) is governed by Einstein's field equations.

The gas is EVERYWHERE and there are galaxies in every line of sight.

So? That's no reason why there shouldn't be temperature differentials.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Yes I did, and I just re-read it. The article does not say that interstellar gas is blotting out the light from the infinite number of stars.

No it says that the radiation is absorbed and re-emited as 3K heat.

This is fairly confusing...

The confusion is inherent in the absurdity of BBT.

So? That's no reason why there shouldn't be temperature differentials.

The reason is that the matter emits Planck radiation at a specific frequency. Read the article. It tells you that.

 

[Hurkyl]

The confusion is inherent in the absurdity of BBT.

I suspect the more likely explanation is that your confusion about BBT and GR is carrying through to your posts.

The reason is that the matter emits Planck radiation at a specific frequency. Read the article. It tells you that.

It says:

From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter.

It does not explain why most of the matter in the universe should be 3 K.


Also, you still have not explained why we observe only a finite amount of radiation and not infinite.

 

[The Grimmus]

Originally posted by meteor
There's contantly discussion about if the universe is infinite in size or not. I want to pose the question in another way: Is the number of galaxies infinite? My answer: No

Wouldent that really relay on if matter is infinite or finite

Originally posted by CrystalStudios
For instance the old trickery of continuously steping 1/2 the distance towards an object, mathematically you will never reach it.

That expression stands outside the math of reality.

I reject the claim that infinite as a value of anything exists in reality.

yea if you think about it you will never reach that area if you take perfect steps. A quark has an infinite amount of points on i just becuase it is one of the smallest units dosent mean you can't move half of it

 

[meteor]

Subtillion, if plasma cosmology don't believe in neutron stars, what is the explanation that it gives to the pulsars?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl It does not explain why most of the matter in the universe should be 3 K.

It certainly does just that right in the first paragraph.

" It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required. "

So the basic laws of physics state that the interstellar matter should emit em radiation "characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter". Now if this matter is in constant bombardment by electromagnetic radiation it is obvious that it is bound to absorb some of this radiation which will raise the absolute temp above absolute zero. So we have slightly thermalized matter emitting Planck radiation characterized by its temp.

How much simpler can you get for an explanation of the 3K CBR?

Also, you still have not explained why we observe only a finite amount of radiation and not infinite.

Ok first you tell me why on Earth you would expect it to be infinite?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
Subtillion, if plasma cosmology don't believe in neutron stars, what is the explanation that it gives to the pulsars?

To fully understand the following quoted passage I recommend reading this short examination of the plasma model of the sun found here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

...and then read this short explanation of the entire Hertzsprung Russel diagram:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm


The following is extracted from the above link:

>>

Pulsars

Although pulsars do not occupy a specific place in the HR diagram, it is worth noting that they, too, have characteristics that are most comfortably explained via the ES model. Pulsars are stars that have extremely short periods of variability in their production of EM radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions) . When they were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, this official explanation became untenable. Instead, the concept of the "neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.
But, one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the “zone of stability”. This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that when we consider all the natural elements (and the heavy man made elements as well), there is a requirement that in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, a certain number of proton-electron pairs are required. Indeed, in 1935 Hidekei Yukawa postulated that neutrons and protons were bound by the very rapid exchange of a nuclear particle called a pi meson. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio SPONTANEOUSLY UNDERGO RADIOACTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio.

Flying in the face of this fact, mainstream astrophysicists continue to postulate the existence of stars made up of solid material consisting only of neutrons, "Neutronium". This is yet one more example of Fairie Dust entities fantasized by astrophysicists to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. The “neutron star” is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena. A nucleus or “charge free” atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word “neutronium” will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously.

Perhaps some astronomers have begun to realize "Neutronium" is embarrassingly impossible. In any event, a less easily falsifiable entity has now been proposed. Wal Thornhill has written about this latest mainstream explanation of pulsar emissions:

"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"
"Strange matter"! Yet another ad hoc fictional invention! They have been getting away with this kind of nonsense for decades. How ludicrous does it have to get before some responsible astronomer cries out that this Emperor Has No Clothes On?
Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the "duty cycle" is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years. Therefore, I was pleased when I saw the following announcement:

Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known." [Italics added]

It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs.

<<

 

[Hurkyl]

" It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required. "

(emphasis mine)

The article says that we observe the matter at 3K, and happily mentions that we observe a 3K spectrum corresponding to the matter at 3K. It does not explain why the matter should be at 3K in the first place...

Now if this matter is in constant bombardment by electromagnetic radiation it is obvious that it is bound to absorb some of this radiation which will raise the absolute temp above absolute zero. So we have slightly thermalized matter emitting Planck radiation characterized by its temp.

The basic laws of heat transfer would also demand that the further a region of space is from a heat source (such as a star), the cooler that region of space has to be.

So the only option I can see that you could be presuming is that the reason the matter is at 3K is because of constant bombardment from the 3K CBR... but the 3K CBR is the reason the matter is at 3K... you've ran into circular reasoning!

Ok first you tell me why on Earth you would expect it to be infinite?

I did. See:

The energy received from a star drops off as the square of the distance from the star... but the number of stars at a particular distance increases as the square of distance.

I'm presuming that you believe in an eternal, infinite, homogeneous universe. (If you don't, please explain the shape of the universe as you believe it to be)

The rate of electromagnetic energy emitted by a star is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from a star. However, due to homogeneity, the number of stars at a particular distance is proportional to the square of the distance. Thus, the energy received from stars at a particular distance is constant; it does not taper off as distance increases. Therefore, if the universe is infinite and eternal, the energy we are receiving right this instant from all of the stars in the universe is infinite.


Anyways, here are some factual errors at electric-cosmos (I'll ignore the historical errors):

The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current.

Magnetostatic field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, just like with electrostatics and classical gravitation.

The author has made an amateur error of confusing the formula for the magnetostatic field from a wire of infinite length with the field generated by source elements.



Anyways, there is a fatal flaw in electromagnetic theories of cosmology; negatively charged bodies react in the opposite way from positively charged bodies, and neutral bodies don't react at all! The site does not seem to address this problem whatsoever.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus.

Those observations haven't been performed when the neutrons are under the influence of the gravitation of 1.4 solar masses packed into a sphere of radius 10 miles!

In fact, a web search on the word “neutronium” will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description.

Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(emphasis mine)

The article says that we observe the matter at 3K, and happily mentions that we observe a 3K spectrum corresponding to the matter at 3K. It does not explain why the matter should be at 3K in the first place...

The phenomenon is a consequence of BASIC physics. I can help you understand no further. Either you get it or you don't want to.

The basic laws of heat transfer would also demand that the further a region of space is from a heat source (such as a star), the cooler that region of space has to be.

In the vast reaches of space this distance is irrelevant. The 3K radiation is a cumulative effect of the ubiquitous em radiation in the interstellar medium. This medium is quite wide spread and homogenous and is not in contact with a single heat sorce. The heat sorce is the ambient radiation in interstellar space.

So the only option I can see that you could be presuming is that the reason the matter is at 3K is because of constant bombardment from the 3K CBR... but the 3K CBR is the reason the matter is at 3K... you've ran into circular reasoning!

Sorry but I explicitly stated where this radiation comes from and you chose to ignore it.

Magnetostatic field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, just like with electrostatics and classical gravitation.

The author has made an amateur error of confusing the formula for the magnetostatic field from a wire of infinite length with the field generated by source elements.

Explain to me how this "error" makes a difference in the model? [[ mind you the authors of this theory are electrical engineers. ]]

Anyways, there is a fatal flaw in electromagnetic theories of cosmology; negatively charged bodies react in the opposite way from positively charged bodies, and neutral bodies don't react at all! The site does not seem to address this problem whatsoever.

Please explain your point. What neutral bodies are you talking about?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Those observations haven't been performed when the neutrons are under the influence of the gravitation of 1.4 solar masses packed into a sphere of radius 10 miles!




Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

Either way neutronium and neutron stars are purely hypothetical entities and the plasma model doesn't require any such hypothetical forms or states of matter.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

Check out this blatant misrepresentation of the facts!

From Wikipedia:
>>
Neutronium is the informal term for an extremely dense phase of matter which occurs only in the intense pressure found in the core of neutron stars. For reasons that will be explained below, it is not often used in the scientific literature of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
<<

"Found in the core of Neutron Stars"? Has anyone ever gone looking in the core of a Neutron Star? Has anyone ever actually even seen a Neutron Star? [[[ The answer is "no" for both of those questions BTW ]]]

This type of confused verbiage is why Physics buffs have such a tough time distinguishing between theory and observational data.

Physics is in a sad state indeed!

 

[Hurkyl]

The phenomenon is a consequence of BASIC physics. I can help you understand no further. Either you get it or you don't want to.

?

What phenomenon?

It is true that matter emits radiation in accordance with it's temperature. I understand that much. What is the mechanism that keeps intergalactic gas at this exact temperature, no more, no less?

The heat sorce is the ambient radiation in interstellar space.

What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies. I've already demonstrated that presuming it's the CMB leads to a circular argument. So just what is this ambient radiation you like to keep talking about and why should it exist?

Sorry but I explicitly stated where this radiation comes from and you chose to ignore it.[/qutoe]

If that's what you need to believe, so be it.

Explain to me how this "error" makes a difference in the model? [[ mind you the authors of this theory are electrical engineers. ]]

It demonstrates the site is not credible. Like you asked I have ignored all of the blatant errors that weren't directly related to science. Well, they get the science wrong too.

Please explain your point. What neutral bodies are you talking about?

All of them. I don't need to explain basic EM to you, do I?

Either way neutronium and neutron stars are purely hypothetical entities and the plasma model doesn't require any such hypothetical forms or states of matter.

When theory predicts something, derives its properties, and entities are observed in space that have those properties, I tend not to use the word "hypothetical" to describe them.

"Found in the core of Neutron Stars"? Has anyone ever gone looking in the core of a Neutron Star? Has anyone ever actually even seen a Neutron Star? [[[ The answer is "no" for both of those questions BTW ]]]

This type of confused verbiage is why Physics buffs have such a tough time distinguishing between theory and observational data.

Physics is in a sad state indeed!

Are you serious?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
?

It is true that matter emits radiation in accordance with it's temperature. I understand that much. What is the mechanism that keeps intergalactic gas at this exact temperature, no more, no less?

ambient radiation

What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies.

Your reasoning was faulty.

I've already demonstrated that presuming it's the CMB leads to a circular argument.

It is not circular whatsoever.

It demonstrates the site is not credible. Like you asked I have ignored all of the blatant errors that weren't directly related to science. Well, they get the science wrong too.

That is a cop out for not wanting to get into the meat of the theory. If you can't debunk it just admit it instead of attacking some meaningless detail which is inconsequential to the actual theory.

All of them. I don't need to explain basic EM to you, do I?

The sun is not a neutral body. It is MASSIVELY positively charged. That is what accounts for the fact that the positive ions of the solar wind speed up as they leave the sun. The Standard Model simply has no explanation for that well observed phenomena.

When theory predicts something, derives its properties, and entities are observed in space that have those properties, I tend not to use the word "hypothetical" to describe them.

They are hypothetical nonetheless.

Are you serious?

You are a case in point. You BELIEVE that the BBT and the Standard Model are actually proven without a doubt.

 

[meteor]

The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

Please elaborate why they can't be so regular and put it in terms of the Plasma Cosmology model of stars otherwise it does not take the full theory into account. If you mix and match the two theories then of course you are going to end up with a non-functional model. So if we are going to debate it then dig in and learn the plasma model of stars first and debate its flaws once you have learned the model.

 

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies.

Originally posted by Subtillion
Your reasoning was faulty.

How so? If the interstellar gas was being heated by ambient radiation from galaxies, it would require the temperature gradients I discussed. Gas nearer to galaxies would receive more ambient radiation than gas further from galaxies. Basic heat transfer.

[Presuming it is the CMB] is not circular whatsoever.

Ok, then how would you characterize:

Interstellar gas at 3K at is emitting the 3K CMB.
The 3K CMB is heatting the interstellar gas to a temperature of 3K.


You've still avoided saying precisely what you mean by ambient radiation.

That is a cop out for not wanting to get into the meat of the theory.

What meat? All the website has is its credibility... and it doesn't have much of that. Ignoring the misguided blasting of mainstream physics and the blatantly erroneous historical commentary, the website is primarily a list of qualitative guesses as to how things might work. There is not one thing on that website I can look at and say "Hrm, I can test this claim based on the observational information of object X". This is your standard crackpot fare; don't provide anything falsifiable and proclaim triumph when nobody falsifies your theory.

It is MASSIVELY positively charged.

Then why don't negatively charged objects here on Earth fly up towards the sun, and positively charged objects here on Earth fly the other way? After all, the electrostatic force is 35 orders of magnitude greater than that of gravity.

The Standard Model

Just FYI, "The Standard Model" is a particular (successful) theory from quantum physics, it is somewhat confusing to use the phrase the way you have been.

You are a case in point. You BELIEVE that the BBT and the Standard Model are actually proven without a doubt.

[?]

How is this even related to your tirade about the use of the word "found"?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How so? If the interstellar gas was being heated by ambient radiation from galaxies, it would require the temperature gradients I discussed. Gas nearer to galaxies would receive more ambient radiation than gas further from galaxies. Basic heat transfer.

Ok and so there is a higher degree of temperature in those regions that is excluded from the 3K survey. The 3K radiation from behind this galaxy would however be present.

Ok, then how would you characterize:

Interstellar gas at 3K at is emitting the 3K CMB.
The 3K CMB is heatting the interstellar gas to a temperature of 3K.

I would call that your confusion because that is not at all what I said. Also, why wouldn't the 3k CMB, once emitted, contribute to the ambient radiation that is again absorbed and re-emitted? Some processes ARE aptly described as cyclical.

You've still avoided saying precisely what you mean by ambient radiation.

Ambient radiation is the collective radiation from ALL sources including the 3k CMB.

What meat? All the website has is its credibility...

Wrong. These are theories. You have simply not taken the time to learn them and continue to mischaracterize and mis-understand them. Your comments about negative and positive objects only proves that you don't know the theory.

Ignoring the misguided blasting of mainstream physics and the blatantly erroneous historical commentary, the website is primarily a list of qualitative guesses as to how things might work.

You can claim this all you want but you have so far failed to yet understand the theories as is evident in your posts.

If you are going to criticize something it helps to understand it first.

There is not one thing on that website I can look at and say "Hrm, I can test this claim based on the observational information of object X".

And there is not one part of the theory that you have successfully argued against. So why should I simply take your word that you have even understood it yet? Especially when you continue to misunderstand its basics.

This is your standard crackpot fare; don't provide anything falsifiable and proclaim triumph when nobody falsifies your theory.

Another baseless claim.

Then why don't negatively charged objects here on Earth fly up towards the sun, and positively charged objects here on Earth fly the other way? After all, the electrostatic force is 35 orders of magnitude greater than that of gravity.

Did you know that the Earth has its own electric and magnetic field? Did you know that the Earth is much closer to us than the sun is? I wonder if you can figure it out from those simple clues?

Just FYI, "The Standard Model" is a particular (successful) theory from quantum physics, it is somewhat confusing to use the phrase the way you have been.

Having studied physics for fifteen years I do know a bit about the Standard Model, thank you. Having studied the alternative models as well, however, I can see Physics from another perspective too. As Feynman said, any good physicist should understand several models for any given set of data. A different perspective on the matter makes a huge difference on what looks credible and what doesn't.

How is this even related to your tirade about the use of the word "found"?

The whole point was that physics often talks as if its theories are absolutely proven and in this case as if we have actually gone looking inside a neutron star and found neutronium. This leads people like you to assume the same. That is why you refuse to look at the falsifications of the interpretations.

 

[subtillioN]

The following is a list of phenomena that is unexplainable by the fusion model of the sun. All of these phenomena are EASILY explained by the plasma model and in fact they are a natural obvious consequence of the model.

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


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...

2. Convection of Energy Up from the Core
The accepted view of how the sun transports its energy from its central core outward to its surface is the mechanism dubbed "non stationary convection." The granules that are visible on the photosphere are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that penetrate down toward the core. Supposedly, heat (energy) is smoothly transported outward from the core in this "convection zone" via these tubes. This convection process is said to take hundreds of thousands of years. But then, why do the "granules" change shape and even disappear in a period of hours? There are some additional problems with this idea.


3. Temperature Minimum below the Corona
Any typical source of radiant energy is expected to obey an inverse square law. That is to say, the farther we get away from it, the less energy we receive per unit area. A wood stove is hottest at its core, a bit less on its outside surface, and as we backup away from it, we feel continually less and less radiant energy on each unit area of our body. This analogy was used in the cover article in the Scientific American; June 01, 2001 entitled "THE PARADOX OF THE SUN'S HOT CORONA" by Bhola N. Dwivedi and Kenneth J.H. Phillips to describe the problem of the 2 million Kelvin temperature of the Sun's lower corona: "It is as though you got warmer the farther away you walked from a fireplace."
Near the Sun's surface, its atmosphere is coolest - the photosphere - only about 6000K! (And cooler yet at the deepest part of its sunspots.) But then, as we go farther away from the photospheric surface, the temperature of the atmosphere first begins to rise smoothly and then abruptly jumps wildly to about 2 million K in the tenuous lower corona. If radiant energy is produced at the core and radiated at the tops of those convection columns (as per the fusion model) this wide temperature leap is not easily explained - certainly not without reference to the electric phenomena that are obviously occurring.
...
4. Acceleration of the Solar "Wind" Ions
The positive ions that are the main constituent of what mainstream astronomers euphemistically call the solar "wind" move faster and faster the farther away from the Sun they get. They accelerate! Nothing in the fusion model predicts nor explains this observed phenomenon. One orthodox explanation that has been put forward is that photons collide with the ions and accelerate them. However, as of May 2000, mainstream astronomy still had no real explanation for this observed phenomenon (nor for the temperature minimum):
Dr. Peter T. Gallagher from the Big Bear Solar Observatory presented
a seminar on Observations and Modeling of the Corona and Solar
Wind. "Understanding the physics of coronal heating and solar wind
acceleration remains one of the unsolved problems of solar physics.
It is believed that the corona is heated by either high frequency MHD
waves or by many small scale reconnections, but the exact heating
mechanisms and how they relate to the acceleration of coronal plasma
are still uncertain." [Italics and underlining added]


Figure 2. (b) Solar wind speeds as a function of radial distance from the Sun.

Any student of physics who has heard of electric charge and electric fields, knows that the easiest way to get electrically charged particles to accelerate is to apply an electric field to them. The acceleration of the positively charged solar "wind" particles is clearly an electrical phenomenon. It is accurately predicted by the Electric Sun model.

5. Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size
There is experimental evidence that the Sun vibrates in a way that throws doubt on both the assumed convection process for heat transportation and the thermonuclear reaction itself. Bear in mind that the standard model requires the transportation of energy to take hundreds of thousands of years to go from the core to the surface in those 150,000 mile long columns. But:
There is a fluctuation with a 27 day 43 minute period observed in the stream of particles emanating from the sun. Why?
In the 1970's the Sun was observed to be oscillating in brightness with variable cycles lasting from a few minutes to nearly one hour. How?
Russian investigators found a periodic rise and fall of the entire solar surface, the amplitude of which was 10 kilometers in height. Why and how?
The sun actually expands and contracts in size (diameter) with a periodicity of 160 minutes. This periodicity of two hours and forty minutes is impossible for mainstream theorists of "helioseismology" to explain.
In order to make mathematical models of the Sun's interior tally with experimental data, a lower value for G, Newton's gravitational constant, has to be used. (See: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992814).

The results of "helioseismology" (the study of these pulsations) are also consistent with a model wherein the Sun is an iso-dense sphere of gas that supports, on its outer surface, an electric arc discharge powered externally, electrically.
It should be noted that the science of seismology as practiced here on Earth (e.g., to find underground oil deposits) is an active process. A downward shock is initiated and the reflected sound is analyzed. Solar helioseismology is passive. There is no way to "shock" the Sun. We simply "listen" to the ongoing low frequency variations in the natural electromagnetic radiation that the Sun emits. It is not a "cause and effect" experiment. The analysis of these passive signals is much more open to interpretation than it is in geo-seismology.

[ In May of 1999 the solar wind completely stopped for about two days. There are also periodic variations in the solar wind. The transistor-like mechanism described above is certainly capable of causing these phenomena. The fusion model is at a complete loss to explain them.]

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

This is yet another question that the accepted thermonuclear model has no answer for. As we will see, the homopolar motor - generator proposed by Thornhill and indirectly proposed by Alfven predict exactly this kind of behavior.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

You say that "Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars", well that is quite wrong. It is well known that energy tends to be released in quantized bits. Even a lightning bolt is always a series of imperceptibly fast, regular discharges. The text of the article goes on to say this, "Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years."


"Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the "duty cycle" is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years. Therefore, I was pleased when I saw the following announcement:

Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known." [Italics added]

It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs"

 

[meteor]

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...

I'm only going to deal with this by the moment
There are tree flavours of neutrinos: the muonic, the electronic and the tauonic. Detectors here in Earth were prepared to detect only electronic neutrinos
The lack of neutrinos observed have been yet explained: Some of the electronic neutrinos emitted by the sun change its flavour to electronic or tauonic during its voyage to erth. This is why are not detected

 

[Hurkyl]

I would call that your confusion because that is not at all what I said. Also, why wouldn't the 3k CMB, once emitted, contribute to the ambient radiation that is again absorbed and re-emitted? Some processes ARE aptly described as cyclical.

The questions are:

(a) Why should it be there in the first place?
(b) Why is it so uniform?
(c) Why hasn't an eternity of radiation from stars and galaxies warmed interstellar gas beyond 3K?

Your comments about negative and positive objects only proves that you don't know the theory.

You're right, I don't know the theory. The website only gives some qualitative assertions (oh, it explains this! and this too!) and does not make any attempt at presenting a solid foundation for anything. Thus, the only reason I have to believe any of its claims are its credibility.

If you are going to criticize something it helps to understand it first.

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Did you know that the Earth has its own electric and magnetic field? Did you know that the Earth is much closer to us than the sun is? I wonder if you can figure it out from those simple clues?

No, I can't. I am having difficulty trying to imagine how Earth's electric field could be structured so it magically cancels out the Sun's electric field every on the Earth's surface, everywhere we've been inside the Earth's surface, everywhere in Earth's atmosphere, everywhere in the space around Earth where we have orbiting satellites, and even along the trajectories of probes we have sent far from the Earth. Even better, not only does the field have to have all of these magical properties, but it has to remain unchanged as the Earth rotates, and as its distance from the sun varies in its orbit!

Sorry, vague implications do not a proof make.

Having studied physics for fifteen years...

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that when you are using the phrase "The Standard Model", you do not seem to be referring to the theory named "The Standard Model", which means that your you're adding unnecessary confusion to your statements.

The whole point was that physics often talks as if its theories are absolutely proven and in this case as if we have actually gone looking inside a neutron star and found neutronium. This leads people like you to assume the same. That is why you refuse to look at the falsifications of the interpretations.

People use the word "found" all the time for things they didn't dig up in their back yard with a shovel. Contrary to your low opinion of me, I am quite aware that physicists don't go digging up neutron stars looking for neutronium.



I'm far from an expert on Solar dynamics, but I do have comments on your posts about it:

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...

Neutrino mixing. Duh. Even the website mentions it. (a.k.a. changing flavour)


Incidentally, I'm curious how the electric sun model generates any neutrinos whatsoever.

The accepted view of how the sun transports its energy from its central core outward to its surface is the mechanism dubbed "non stationary convection." The granules that are visible on the photosphere are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that penetrate down toward the core. Supposedly, heat (energy) is smoothly transported outward from the core in this "convection zone" via these tubes. This convection process is said to take hundreds of thousands of years. But then, why do the "granules" change shape and even disappear in a period of hours? There are some additional problems with this idea.

Why wouldn't they? I haven't read anything on heliodynamics that suggest physicists think there should be tubes that remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years; it's a turbulent fluid flow.