|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2006 : 19:58:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
When I think QM or GR, I think "quantum GR". I can't help it, that's simply the way my brain is wired around the idea now. Everything is a "particle" and/or wave if it's "real".
If you're so wedded to QM, then you should be thinking that everything is a particle and a wave, simultaneously. But that still doesn't address the problem of GR being incompatible with QM as things stand now. If they were compatible, and "quantum GR" was a viable alternative, then the search for a GUT would be over and done with. But every one that's been tried so far has so many problems that they're not ready for "primetime" yet.
quote:
Otherwise it's metaphysics.
Well, since there's no evidence for gravitons right now - they're only a prediction of the math of quantum physics, not based on anything "real" - then you should be thinking of them as metaphysics, too. Same thing for anything you might consider to be at the core of the Sun in your model, since you've said that you don't have any evidence for what's in there.
quote:
No, because inflation theory is metaphyics at the moment. No such field or particle exists, and no such field or particle is necessarily "predicted" in GR.
Being predicted by General Relativity isn't the be-all, end-all of physics. General Relativity doesn't, after all, predict the existence of electrons, but you make use of those little buggers every hour of every day.
Inflationary theory was proposed as a possible answer to the horizon and flatness problems faced by Big Bang theory. That's all, Michael. People are working through the physics implied by inflationary scenarios, to see if it will work as a solution. You already know that Guth's original version of inflation got tossed out because it failed to answer the horizon and flatness problems. I'm sure several other versions have been discarded along the way to what we've got now.
And inflation is not wholly without evidenciary support, either: according to Wikipedia,...the first experimental confirmation of some predictions of cosmic inflation theories has been provided by data from the WMAP mission in March 2006. The WMAP polarization data seem to favor the simplest versions of inflation. So, we've seen a phenomenon, created a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis, and the test seems to support the hypothesis. I'm sure the inflationary scientists are all scrambling around trying to continue the Scientific Method by refining their hypotheses about inflation and then come up with further tests of it. That process never ends, even after something becomes a "consensus theory" of a branch of science, like the Big Bang has.quote:
This was *huge* step forward between us Dave. I acknowledge that it takes a lot of inner strength to admit when you're wrong about something. I respect that in someone, and I respect this step.
Your turn, then.
You also wrote:quote:
quote:
I know that this will come as a shock to you but the idea that light is a wave front of particles is NOT Quantum Mechanics, or any other current scientific theory.
Bark, bark
I know this may come as a shock to you, but that is exactly how they behave in two slit experiements.
Uh, no, the two-slit experiments showed that photons are simultaneously waves and particles, not that photons travel as waves of particles.
You also wrote:quote:
There is nothing in slam theory that is "pseudoscience".
Except for the two huge supermassive blackholes (one made out of antimatter, no less); an infinite amount of space, and an infinite amount of time.
You seemed to blow off the thermodynamic objections to an eternal universe, but considering the fact that every GUT under consideration requires that protons decay, an infinite age to the universe implies that we should be seeing the gamma radiation of decaying protons everywhere we look (under the assumption that there would be any protons left in the universe at all). Heck, the heat death of the universe should have already occured, unless you want to posit some sort of energy being added to the universe from "outside" it, but that's extreme metaphysics, right there.
You also wrote:quote:
And what if it shows that the coronal loops begin *underneath* of the photosphere, and STEREO demonstrates the layers are mass separated by weight? Then will you consider the idea seriously, or will you look for some way to rationalize away the evidence?
No, the real question is what will you do if your own personal hypothesis is shown to be wrong, Michael? You've published papers, and have a whole website devoted to your idea. Are you going to retract the papers and shut down your site? Neither furshur nor I nor most other people on the SFN will be inconvenienced in the least by a demonstration that there is a solid surface under the photosphere. You, on the other hand, have put a lot of time and money into being correct.
Why don't you put some more detail into the predictions you've made? The first,The first key prediction of a Birkeland solar model is the position of the base of the coronal loops in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. In a Birkeland solar model, the base of the coronal loops begin at the solar surface. According to the heliosiesmology data from Stanford, the solar surface is located roughly 4800KM *below* the surface of the photosphere. On the other hand, according to Lockheed Martin and current gas model theory, the base of the coronal loops originate in the lower corona or the "transitional region", far *above* the surface of the photosphere. This is a key difference between the two solar models and only one of these "interpretations" can be accurate. Doesn't actually define what the "base" of a coronal loop is. Are you talking about the "footpoints," or something else? The current standard model, after all, suggests that the magnetic fields which create the loops start some 200,000 km below the photosphere, and sunspots - right on the "surf |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 20:36:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Well, I clearly we're having problems with redshift, then. I don't think I explained my understanding correctly-- and if anyone else understands and wants to jump in, please do!-- so I'll try again.
Well, keep in mind I think that you grasp the concept relatively correctly. I think it's more a matter of you better understanding the model I'm proposing. I do think there is a "relative" expansion issue you're missing and I'll try to explain as I get to that part.
quote:
First off, I get your idea of the police cars. The problem I see with it is that it only fits the data if we assume that we are right at that center point from where all the police cars are speeding off. Then, yes-- I think it would fit. (Though not really, since two cars next to each other would be moving apart at a different rate than two cars moving apart at right angles.)
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm quite explaining this adequately. You are correct about the different rates for the different angles. There should be some difference in redshift rates based on angles, though it might be difficult to discern this without a stereoscopic view of space that was in rather fine detail. You'd probably need a bank of computers like a SETI type program to analyse all the data. In the end, I would expect to see redshift differences between a galaxy in our "cluster" vs. one that is traveling at right angles or at 180 degrees. Regardless of which galaxy were sitting in however, and regardless of what timeline were talking about, the movement away from other galaxies should be discernable in the redshift. As long as everything is moving away from a single spacetime event at 0,0,0,0, every other galaxy should look redshifted except perhaps those galaxies that are in our immediate cluster, meaning they are traveling a course that is nearly parallel to our own trajectory.
quote:
Anyhow, all of this is to say that my understanding of redshift sees everything moving away from everything (on a cosmic level) at a rate put forward by Hubble.
Well, that expansion rate is correct, and I would agree with it as well (mostly), but galaxies in certain clusters or groups do not necessarily separate from other galaxies in the same clusters and groups. The common rate of acceleration is rate we are all accerating away from coordinates 0,0,0,0. It is not necessarily that every galaxy travels accelerates away from us as the Hubble constant. Galaxies on a similar trajectory actually collide into one another and "merge" due to the forces of gravity pulling them together over time.
For instance our own closest neighbor is Andromeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
It may be that our galaxy will ultimately merge with that galaxy since our trajectories from 0,0,0,0 are similar and gravity is pulling them closer together over time. There is also evidence that our galaxy has already merged with other galaxies and is still merging with smaller remnants of galaxies. The main point here is that not every galaxy moves away from every other galaxy at the Hubble constant. Rather every galaxy moves away from coordinates 0,0,0,0 at the Hubble constant.
quote:
But that's my point-- before you can get to the point of studying something, you have to work out ideas about how you can test it! I don't think it works like "we can explain the horizon problem and the flatness problem with this new thing called inflation, which we'll test by doing X..." Instead, it seems that people see problems, and work through various means of explaning how to resolve them, and then spend time fine-tuning this explanation (looking for flaws, asking how it works, etc.) and along the way, and coupled with ever-advancing technology, etc., devise a way to test it. It seems clear that we're in an early stage in this process and we're probably a ways away from actually testing it.
Well, according to Dave's description of inflation we'll never be able to test it because even expansion forces are somehow shy around matter. If that's the case, and this is true of expansion, then it becomes an unfalsifyable position and falls *outside* of the realm of science. Assuming someone comes up with a test and demonstrates the field and particle, I'm more than happy to consider the idea. Since particle physics does not predict it, or need it to function, and QM does not predict it or need it to function and GR does not need this field to function correctly, I see no reason to believe it exists, until I see *observational evidence* to support it.
quote:
Later, you said:
quote:
But my point wasn't to highlight this dichotomy you've presented. Rather, it was to stress the time factor. And not time in any abstract sense, but in the very human sense. It takes time to work things out. I brought your solar theories up because I seem to recall that in some thread you stated something to the effect that "well, when such-and-such telescope returns its data, we'll see..."-- in other words, in time, we'll be able to test my idea. But we can't just yet.
Well, I hear you. Then again, this is exactly why I put some testable STEREO predictions on the table. I picked a couple of them that I felt were the most important so that we can test these predictions. So far I've yet to hear any testable predictions that we might use to see if inflation or expansion actually exists. I can explain the Hubble constant in terms of acceleration in an electromagnetic field without needing to "discover" other types of fields and particles than those we already have found or theorized in particle physics.
If you accept that it "takes time" to work things out, then should we allow for it to "take some time" for those that believe in a static universe to explain redshift in a new way, or for slam theory to work out some details? I see no particular value in "assuming" an outcome here, and I see every reason to "open our minds" to other options both inside the classroom and outside the classroom.
[quote]Why can not inflation be the same way? Why can not some people be thinking that if some new avenue of X-- where X is a branch of math or physics or whatever-- is developed, they could test for inflation, and then have them spend years (+) developing X??
Anything is possible. Observation separates theory from reality. Theory based on math alone is not necessarily worth the papers it's printed on, regardless of the "correctness of the math", unless there is some observation support for the idea, and other options have been eli |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 20:49:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You've spent months here making regular references to a solid surface and an iron shell on the Sun, Michael.
Yes, and I've spent months clerifying the model in some detail including pointing out it's a non-homogeneous crust that is only "predominantly" made of metals. You keep trying to oversimply what I've said, and you've been around long enough to know better.
quote:
I called it a solid metal surface to give you the benefit of the doubt. Birkeland's terrella was made from brass, and your notion of "Birkeland's solar model" apparently has a surface of some combination of generally metallic materials you usually refer to as iron, often claim contains some amount of nickel (and sometimes other usually unnamed elements), but which you've never stated includes any brass.
If you were listening I've compared to the earth's crust in the sense it's non homogenous, and the crust itself is only predominantly metal. There are other elements as well. Birkeland used aluminum spheres too, but I'm not trying to suggest either of us was trying to claim the surface was homogeneous. That would not be a requirement in his work or in mine.
quote:
But the point is, Kristian Birkeland never suggested "the entire crust is composed of metals",
I agree. It wasn't a requirement in his experiments, it was just easier to work with the materials he used.
quote:
nor did he ever suggest "the surface crust has a predominance of metals".
Ok, so? He never claimed it could not contain a predominace of metals either.
quote:
Whether there is a difference in those concepts is irrelevant to the fact that Birkeland didn't say either such thing about the Sun, nothing of similar meaning or intent, not one word about a crust or solid surface of any sort. He didn't actually present any solar model at all, and for that matter, neither have you, Michael.
So as long as you hear no model, see no model and deny the model exists, it doesn't exist? So what happens if I'm right about the mass separated layers of plasma and the location of the base of the coronal loops in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. Will you still deny I have made any predictions with any solar models too?
quote:
We all understand that your communication skills are grossly deficient which prevents you from being able to make a cogent point.
I don't seem to have much trouble communicating with most folks here GeeMack. Those that don't want to hear me or intentionally go out of their way to oversimplify what I've said seem to have no problem building strawmen out of what I've said, but most folks understand the model if they want to.
quote:
But you could avoid a lot of ambiguity and misunderstanding by creating and presenting an actual solar model, a mathematical description of the Sun which describes its luminosity, material composition, opacity, etc. Obviously after all these months you'd still rather just whine and complain than do the necessary work. Without presenting any solar model, as you never have, you can't honestly claim to be presenting Birkeland's solar model.
I have simply used the luminosity figures from standard theory, and would describe it is similar mathematical terms in terms of size and shape ect as standard theory. The size I would agree to relates to the size of the sun at the surface of the photosphere. I would put the actual surface at .993 and I would suggest the suns plasma are separated by weight, with calcium sitting on the surface, silicon, neon, helium and hydrogen. These are all testable predictions with STEREO data by the way. I've even explained how sunspots form, solar moss, solar rain, the 11 year solar cycle etc. You go ahead though and claim I've never put forth a model if you like. Burying your head in the sand won't make my website go away. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 20:54:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Only if you remain stationary in the center of the circle of cars. That's the "privileged position" Dave was talking about.
No, there is no "priviledged position". Every car will move away from every other car regardless of which car you're sitting in.
quote:
For your model to be accurate, you need to explain why the Earth would form dead center in the middle of the slam site.
It's not which is why there are local galaxy groups and clusters. If earth was at the center of the slam site then Andromeda should also be speeding away from us.
quote:
If the Earth was speeding away from the site of the slam with all the other exploded material (riding in one of the police cars), then all the other galaxies would not be red-shifted the same wavelength.
They aren't all redshifted the same wavelength.
quote:
So, no, Michael, BS doesn't even come close to explaining the data.
Ya, actually it does. Study the Andromeda galaxy and then talk to me about how earth is the center of anything. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 21:02:44 [Permalink]
|
Ok, Michael, I guess I have to bow out. Because we've reached a point now where you've said:
quote:
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm quite explaining this adequately. You are correct about the different rates for the different angles. There should be some difference in redshift rates based on angles, though it might be difficult to discern this without a stereoscopic view of space that was in rather fine detail. You'd probably need a bank of computers like a SETI type program to analyse all the data. In the end, I would expect to see redshift differences between a galaxy in our "cluster" vs. one that is traveling at right angles or at 180 degrees. Regardless of which galaxy were sitting in however, and regardless of what timeline were talking about, the movement away from other galaxies should be discernable in the redshift. As long as everything is moving away from a single spacetime event at 0,0,0,0, every other galaxy should look redshifted except perhaps those galaxies that are in our immediate cluster, meaning they are traveling a course that is nearly parallel to our own trajectory.
And this is where I think I'm running into a problem. Because it doesn't seem to jibe with what I'm reading elsehwhere. Unfortunately, I'm now lacking the resources and knowledge to do further research. I mean, if we were debating some aspect of Sumerian, or Babylonian law, I'd be down with it. But in terms of redshift, I simply cannot hope to search through websites and books to find the right math or whatever that will better clarify what I'm understanding (or markedly prove it wrong!)
If someone else out there who's seeing things like I'm seeing them but who has a better grasp of such things is out there, please feel free to add to this!!
On to other things--
quote:
Well, according to Dave's description of inflation we'll never be able to test it because even expansion forces are somehow shy around matter. If that's the case, and this is true of expansion, then it becomes an unfalsifyable position and falls *outside* of the realm of science. Assuming someone comes up with a test and demonstrates the field and particle, I'm more than happy to consider the idea. Since particle physics does not predict it, or need it to function, and QM does not predict it or need it to function and GR does not need this field to function correctly, I see no reason to believe it exists, until I see *observational evidence* to support it.
Well, keep in mind that Dave-- as smart as he is-- isn't the final authority on cosmic inflation. My guess is that you're going to have to go after some slightly bigger foes in the field of cosmology before you slay the inflation beast. But again, your attitude towards inflation seems odd. Indeed, the constant reference to QM or GR not predicting it is unusual. My understanding is that inflation has nothing to do with either. QM doesn't predict my wasting 2 hours playing Urban Dead, but so what? It also didn't predict that Italy would win the World Cup (Forza Italia!), but again-- so what? Next time, when betting on the world cup, I'll use different predictors! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 21:03:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
No, there is no "priviledged position". Every car will move away from every other car regardless of which car you're sitting in.
Some cars will be more or less traveling in your direction, diverging by only slight degrees, while other cars will be speeding away in the completely opposite direction. Not all cars will be moving away at the same speed based on their specific location around you.
quote:
They aren't all redshifted the same wavelength.
No, but they are distributed evenly in all directions. This is what BS theory cannot explain. If your theory were true, we should literally be able to "see" the direction where the slam occurred. This is not the case, meaning the only place we could be is at the locus of the explosion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/10/2006 21:34:05 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 21:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
So as long as you hear no model, see no model and deny the model exists, it doesn't exist?
No, as long as you refuse to present a solar model it doesn't exist. You've continued to incorrectly claim that you're presenting Birkeland's solar model. You're not. There is no "Birkeland solar model" because Kristian Birkeland never presented a solar model. It's as simple as that. You're apparently under the mistaken impression that one of his published descriptions of some terrella experiments amounts to a solar model. But it's not. It's a description of an experiment.
Your statement that some aspects of your wild guesses correspond to particular aspects of the current standard solar model does not constitute your having presented a solar model. Your written descriptions of what you think you see in satellite imagery doesn't constitute presenting a solar model. And as long as you continue to avoid providing a comprehensive mathematical description of the thermal properties, material composition, opacity, luminosity, etc. of the Sun, then you will not have presented a solar model either. But if you ever do get back to posting in the Surface of the Sun thread, it would be interesting to see you give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 21:50:43 [Permalink]
|
The privileged position problem, Michael, is that as your observable universe becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the entire universe, then where you are in the great sphere of zillions of police cars does make a difference in what you'll see. The ancient Greeks measured the radius of the Earth by assuming that rays of sunlight were so close to parallel to each other that it wouldn't much affect their measurements. And they were right. At Earth's orbital radius, the "redshift" that two "nearby" photons would "see" for each other would be very small.
So, given that you've posited that we'll keep finding galaxies the farther out we look, you're saying that the Big Slam certainly occured much farther back in time than 13.7 billion years. But right now, our telescopes don't resolve anything that far away (let's call it 10 billion light years). If that 10 billion light years is just 1% of the total radius of the "Big Slam" explosion, and we are close to the outer "edge" of it, then the arctangent of 10/1,000 says that we can look at, at most, just 1.15° of the "exploded" material (a radius of 0.573°), which is so small that the redshifts of even the farthest galaxies we can see should be very close to zero, because all the galaxies we can see would be moving in nearly parallel paths. But that isn't the case, and we've got plenty of examples of galaxies redshifted so much that they're travelling away from us at more than 94% of the speed of light.
The problem gets worse if the "explosion" is larger, and the problem only goes away entirely when we're near the center of the whole explosion.
Note that we'd still see redshifts generally evenly distributed all around us even if we were near the extreme edge of an explosion 10,000 times larger than our telescopes can see. In other words, all of the measured redshifts of objects 2 billion light years away would all pretty much be the same, and the redshifts of objects farther away than that would be larger, while the redshifts closer in would be smaller. The problem is that the measured redshifts in such an extreme scenario would all be very, very, very close to zero, regardless of how fast the whole observable "clump" was moving.
I'll run some more numbers tomorrow, to see if I can make better examples. A graphic or two might help, as well, I'm sure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 22:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you're so wedded to QM, then you should be thinking that everything is a particle and a wave, simultaneously.
Which is exactly how I see it, and that is why I asked you about carrier particles and if you meant carrier particles. That's exactly how my original comment about gravitons got into the conversation.
quote:
But that still doesn't address the problem of GR being incompatible with QM as things stand now. If they were compatible, and "quantum GR" was a viable alternative, then the search for a GUT would be over and done with. But every one that's been tried so far has so many problems that they're not ready for "primetime" yet.
Agreed, but as I explained, I have "faith" that a solution will be found at some point. Unlike you, I don't see "faith" as a dirty word. Sometimes optimism is warranted, and in this case a lot of brilliant minds seem to share a faith similar to my own. The quest for the holy grail of science continues even as we speak.
quote:
Well, since there's no evidence for gravitons right now - they're only a prediction of the math of quantum physics, not based on anything "real" - then you should be thinking of them as metaphysics, too.
The primary difference here is that these waves/particles are predicted in QM and particle theory. Nothing in particle theory or QM predicts "inflaton fields".
quote:
Same thing for anything you might consider to be at the core of the Sun in your model, since you've said that you don't have any evidence for what's in there.
Ya, but I'm not trying to sell you on any particular core and even I'm open to several ideas. I'm not trying to suggest you *must* interpret the core in one particular way.
quote:
Being predicted by General Relativity isn't the be-all, end-all of physics.
Well Dave, cumulatively speaking, GR, QM and particle physics are the "be-all, end-all" of physics. Outside of that, it's metaphysics.
quote:
General Relativity doesn't, after all, predict the existence of electrons, but you make use of those little buggers every hour of every day.
I imagine so. Then again GR was not necessily intended to explain interactions at a subatomic level. It's not surprising then that it doesn't talk a lot about subatomic physics, nor would I expect it to. QM on the other hand is all about interactions of subatomic particle waves of energy. I would expect it to me more complete in that sense. Particle physics is also very specific. Between all three, I would expect to see evidence for or predictions for anything that might actually exist in "reality" as we currently understand it.
quote:
Inflationary theory was proposed as a possible answer to the horizon and flatness problems faced by Big Bang theory. That's all, Michael. People are working through the physics implied by inflationary scenarios, to see if it will work as a solution. You already know that Guth's original version of inflation got tossed out because it failed to answer the horizon and flatness problems. I'm sure several other versions have been discarded along the way to what we've got now.
And frankly IMO, all of the "inflation" aspects of BB theory should be "tossed out" unless evidence for inflaton fields can be demonstrated. I see nothing mentioned of them in GR or QM, so obviously these fields of science work just fine without them.
quote:
And inflation is not wholly without evidenciary support, either: according to Wikipedia,...the first experimental confirmation of some predictions of cosmic inflation theories has been provided by data from the WMAP mission in March 2006. The WMAP polarization data seem to favor the simplest versions of inflation. So, we've seen a phenomenon, created a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis, and the test seems to support the hypothesis. I'm sure the inflationary scientists are all scrambling around trying to continue the Scientific Method by refining their hypotheses about inflation and then come up with further tests of it. That process never ends, even after something becomes a "consensus theory" of a branch of science, like the Big Bang has.
It all depends on how you insist on "interpreting" that specific set of data. I see no evidence that it *must* favor an inflation explanation. You'll need a lot more evidence than one kind of data that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
quote:
Uh, no, the two-slit experiments showed that photons are simultaneously waves and particles, not that photons travel as waves of particles.
How do you discern any difference between these two statements based on the results of these experiments, and the current limits of our technologies?
quote:
Except for the two huge supermassive blackholes (one made out of antimatter, no less); an infinite amount of space, and an infinite amount of time.
Dave, we exist. How did we get here? Something has certainly existed forever, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. The laws of thermodyamics insist that something predated any sort of "creation myth" we might put faith in. I see no reason to believe that space and time are finite. I certainly see no "compelling" evidence to convince me otherwise. We have lots of examples of supermassive black holes in our own universe, and antimatter is a natural consequence of QM, particle physics and Einsteins notion of GR and energy. I'm not really "reaching" beyond the bounds of currently understood physics, and my examples are simply scaled up examples of things we know exist in nature.
Keep in mind that I suggested all along that these are black hole "systems", suggesting some mass exists outside of the singularity. If we want to get technical, there need not have be |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 22:30:46 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 22:25:46 [Permalink]
|
| I'm headed for bed now. I'll take up the redshift issues in the morning. For now, suffice to say, there isn't a priveledged position, and in slam theory nothing travels faster than the speed of light meaning our universe is actually considerably older than it would be in bang theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 22:46:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
No, as long as you refuse to present a solar model it doesn't exist.
I thought I'd respond to this post before I head off to bed
Despite your protestations about the incompleteness of the model I've presented, I am not required to pony up a "complete" solar theory that is put together to your personal specification and expectations. The satellite observations that I've amassed only allow me to predict so much, and understand so much about solar activity. I don't yet completely understanding how our solar system interacts with the rest of the unviverse in terms of current flow, particle flow, etc. I'm only starting to get my feet wet in plasma cosmology. More importantly, no single individual could hope to answer every possible question reguarding a solar model. Many answers will have to wait until early predictions have been confirmed and noted, and other people have joined the cause. I don't expect to do all the work myself nor is it reasonable for you to expect me to do it all myself or to live up to your personal expectations.
quote:
You've continued to incorrectly claim that you're presenting Birkeland's solar model. You're not. There is no "Birkeland solar model" because Kristian Birkeland never presented a solar model. It's as simple as that. You're apparently under the mistaken impression that one of his published descriptions of some terrella experiments amounts to a solar model. But it's not. It's a description of an experiment.
His work is far more important than you seem to realize. He created a working solar model in his lab that closely resembles modern satellite images. He used this working model to create and explain the predictions he made about the electrical interactions between the sun and the earth. You can continue to deny all this if you like, but you can't remove his writings from the historical record. Furthermore I have no personal desire to try to usurp his work or take the entire credit for these ideas. His work was highly important and highly relevant to these ideas and concepts and it represents the beginnings of the solar theory that I continue to work on today. He's as important to this solar theory as Galileo was to gas model theory.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 22:47:17 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 05:15:12 [Permalink]
|
Michael, when you address the redshift question keep in mind this:
Observational data shows that based on the red shift of far distant galaxies (ie not local galaxies) you would find that we are the center of the universe. That is to say that all of the distant galaxies are moving way from us in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from earth). The BB theory says that if we were instead on one of those far distant galaxies say 10 billion light years away we would find that that galaxy also appears to be the center of the uuniverse. That is to say the inhabitants of that galaxy would measure that all of the far distant galaxies were moving away from them in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from the galxy).
The BS theory would not show this - it would show that some galaxies at the same distance from earth would have different red shifts.
This is a major point of the BB theory -
You can not point to a region of space and say, "that is where the center of the universe is". Wherever you take measurements in the universe that would appear to be the center of the universe. In other words, it would always appear that you are the center of the universe, no matter where you are.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 06:03:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael, when you address the redshift question keep in mind this:
Observational data shows that based on the red shift of far distant galaxies (ie not local galaxies) you would find that we are the center of the universe. That is to say that all of the distant galaxies are moving way from us in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from earth). The BB theory says that if we were instead on one of those far distant galaxies say 10 billion light years away we would find that that galaxy also appears to be the center of the uuniverse. That is to say the inhabitants of that galaxy would measure that all of the far distant galaxies were moving away from them in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from the galxy).
The BS theory would not show this - it would show that some galaxies at the same distance from earth would have different red shifts.
This is a major point of the BB theory -
You can not point to a region of space and say, "that is where the center of the universe is". Wherever you take measurements in the universe that would appear to be the center of the universe. In other words, it would always appear that you are the center of the universe, no matter where you are.
This is my understanding of what redshift is, too... |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 07:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist, I read your posts and feel that what you said was consistent with my understanding of the BB theory. I thought you presented the information in a very clear manner. Unfortunately, Michael did not seem to understand the points that you were making.
My post was simply a rehash of what you said with maybe a slightly different slant to see if that would help him to understand. I think it is fine to disagree with the BB theory (or any theory for that matter) but you should at least understand a theory before you say you disagree with it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 09:01:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Some cars will be more or less traveling in your direction, diverging by only slight degrees, while other cars will be speeding away in the completely opposite direction. Not all cars will be moving away at the same speed based on their specific location around you.
And indeed, this is what we see. Andromeda is not speeding away from us, whereas in some cases the redshift suggests a differential that is a significant percentage of the speed of light. The only real difference in any of the views from any galaxy will be based on the "positioning" of the galaxy relative to all the other galaxies that were spit out of the event.
quote:
No, but they are distributed evenly in all directions. This is what BS theory cannot explain. If your theory were true, we should literally be able to "see" the direction where the slam occurred. This is not the case, meaning the only place we could be is at the locus of the explosion.
All this would suggests is that the Milky Way isn't positioned on the leading edge of the explosive discharge. Let's expand this expanding car analogy just a bit. We need to create a "vast singularity" kind of scenario. Imagine that this ring of explanding police cars is fed from a parking garage below. As one car speeds off in a particular direction, a car comes up from the garage to take that cars place, perhaps 20 seconds later. Everytime a police car leaves the ring, another car from below comes to take his place and this process continues until all the cars are out of the garage. Our car was somewhere in the middle, not at the leading edge, and not the end. Furthermore, there is a scale (size) issue here. We aren't necessily anywhere near the "center" per se, it's just that our car left the garage a lot later than some of them. We only see the galaxies that are still in our field of view. Once the difference in speed between two galaxies exceeds the speed of light, we are no longer able to see them. In theory, we should see a "range" of redshifting that shows almost no redshift from neighboring galaxies like Andromeda, to redshifted galaxies that should be close to the speed of light. We only "appear" to be near the center of what is a "very" large event and may have taken place over a reasonably long period of time. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
