The universe is not expanding

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #26
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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 existance)



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.
 
  • #27
subtillioN
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can the plasma model derive the neutrino flux? (I mean the quantitative value, not merely its existance)


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...
 
  • #28
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
557
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 im stupid so dont listen to me.
 
  • #29
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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 occuring 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.
 
  • #30
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 occuring in the sun?
Because they actually ARE. The fusion is occuring 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?
 
  • #31
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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 tendancy 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.
 
  • #32
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 tendancy 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.
 
  • #33
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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/ [Broken]

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

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
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/ [Broken]


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 [Broken]



(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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #40
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
Aww c'mon, the GPS thing is far more entertaining than that electric sun crap.
 
  • #41
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.
 
  • #42
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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)
 
  • #43
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?
 
  • #44
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
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.
 
  • #47
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!!! :wink:
 

Related Threads on The universe is not expanding

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
17K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top