Another Problem With Big Bang?

[TV's Frank]

Dark Matter doesn't exist. Its a bullpies theory designed to explain the 90-99% discrepancy between reality and prediction.

When the predictions don't match the measurements by a factor of 10-100, what is it you do?

[ ]You dismiss the theory
[X]You keep using the theory, but correct for the factor 10-100 discrepancy
[ ]You dismiss the measurements


I like plasma cosmology, btw.

Actually, when (confirmed) predictions do not match with observations, you have two options: fix the theory OR add more stuff to the universe (or both!). I will demonstrate with two examples. In both cases the theory under scrutiny is Newton's gravity...

Case 1) Orbit of Uranus. Predictions with Newtonian calculations were not getting the orbit correct. Solution: add a previously-unseen planet, Neptune. Predictions were made for where this new planet should be, observations were made...and there it was!

Case 2) Orbit of Mercury. Again, predictions were not matching observations. A new proposed planet, Vulcan, was not observed, and did not give correct predictions anyway. The answer: fix how gravity works! Enter GR, which correctly described the orbit of Mercury.

In the case of dark matter, it's not so much a discrepency between theory and observation, but between observation and observations. There are multiple ways to "weigh" the universe: counting up galaxies, gravitational lensing, galaxy motions, etc etc. The discrepency is between the "counting up galaxies" approach and ALL the other approaches. I am simplifying this a bit much, of course. The easiest way to resolve this discrepency to assume that the stuff we can see (galaxies, clouds of gas, you and me...) does not make up all the mass in the universe. Hence, some of the matter must be "dark" (either dim or does not interact with light).

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[TV's Frank]

Seems to me that Relativity has rewritten the rules to suit it’s own purposes. Relativity makes the rules, makes predictions based on it’s own rules, then observers and analyses according to it’s own rules. Why am I not surprised that it’s conclusions confirm it’s own predictions? Very easy to be right when you’re your own judge and jury. Sorry to have to say this, but this seems very similar to what theists and general woo believers do.

As I’ve said earlier, just because mathematics says something is possible in abstract theory, it doesn’t mean it’s actually possible in reality. Guess I will never accept anything that is based predominately on mathematics, unless it is backed up by a healthy dose of common sense.

I used to regularly debate with theists, but for the most part have given it up as being a waste of time for both of us. Perhaps it is the same with Relativity. I would be a zillion times more likely to accept Relativity than a God, but unfortunately Relativity is founded on too many things that I cannot accept. It seems you have to accept these things before you can use them to confirm them. I guess I can keep my head in the sand, and you can keep yours in the clouds.

I might not agree with it but I find all this stuff fascinating and have followed this thread with interest. You may be able to criticize BeAChooser for his quality, but you can't fault his quantity.

Cheers and thanks

Apparantly, you did not read my first sentence carefully enough. I was NOT discussing predictions of GR, I was discussing the geometry of curved spaces, developed well before Einstein came along. Unless you are disagreeing that the surface of the earth is curved, then what I have said is absolutely true (i.e., proved in the mathematical sense). You seem happy with plane Euclidean geometry, why not curved-space geometry? The surface of the earth is manifestly not a flat plane, so we should not expect the Euclidean rules of geometry to apply.

Returning to relativity, I entirely agree with you that not every mathematical construct exists in nature, or that every mathemetical development is useful in physics. But holding on to "common sense" in the face of contradicting observations is nonsense. Special relativity is the most heavily tested theory in the history of mankind!! Yes, relativity "makes its own rules and makes predictions based on those rules". That is called "a theory of physics", and is no different in principle from Newtonian mechanics. The tests of relativity, however, do not assume those rules. I do not understand what you mean here. There are many sources available on the history of testing relativity. Could you provide some examples where experimenters "assumed the rules" of relativity?

Do you use a GPS? A GPS cannot be so accurate without taking into account general and special relativity. If these theories are just tested based on "their own rules", and are just fanciful mathematics, then how come your GPS works? How is it so accurate? This is a clear example of SR and GR making predictions in the real world! If the GPS calculations did not include GR, or if GR were wrong, I think it would be obviously very quickly!

And once again, I will remind you of Galileo's experiments. Aristotle's prediction for the behavior of falling masses was based on common sense: heavier objects fall faster. Yet this is not the case in nature. Newtonian mechanics, based heavily on mathematics and NOT common sense, gives the correct prediction.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[ynot]

Apparantly, you did not read my first sentence carefully enough. I was NOT discussing predictions of GR, I was discussing the geometry of curved spaces, developed well before Einstein came along. Unless you are disagreeing that the surface of the earth is curved, then what I have said is absolutely true (i.e., proved in the mathematical sense). You seem happy with plane Euclidean geometry, why not curved-space geometry? The surface of the earth is manifestly not a flat plane, so we should not expect the Euclidean rules of geometry to apply.

Returning to relativity, I entirely agree with you that not every mathematical construct exists in nature, or that every mathemetical development is useful in physics. But holding on to "common sense" in the face of contradicting observations is nonsense. Special relativity is the most heavily tested theory in the history of mankind!! Yes, relativity "makes its own rules and makes predictions based on those rules". That is called "a theory of physics", and is no different in principle from Newtonian mechanics. The tests of relativity, however, do not assume those rules. I do not understand what you mean here. There are many sources available on the history of testing relativity. Could you provide some examples where experimenters "assumed the rules" of relativity?

Do you use a GPS? A GPS cannot be so accurate without taking into account general and special relativity. If these theories are just tested based on "their own rules", and are just fanciful mathematics, then how come your GPS works? How is it so accurate? This is a clear example of SR and GR making predictions in the real world! If the GPS calculations did not include GR, or if GR were wrong, I think it would be obviously very quickly!

And once again, I will remind you of Galileo's experiments. Aristotle's prediction for the behavior of falling masses was based on common sense: heavier objects fall faster. Yet this is not the case in nature. Newtonian mechanics, based heavily on mathematics and NOT common sense, gives the correct prediction.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

I’m not trying to disprove anything here. I’m trying to understand why a lot of educated, clever and intelligent people are happy to accept certain things that I have trouble accepting. Of course the simple answer could be that I’m not sufficiently educated, clever or intelligent. I don’t particularly care who came up with the things or what they are called. I don’t automatically adopt other peoples acceptance of things (regardless of how educated, clever, intelligent and numerous they are) if that acceptance requires me to abandon what I perceive to be reality, actuality, factual, truth, honesty, common sense or whatever label you want to give it. If any theory or mathematical system requires that I accept that a triangle can be drawn on the surface of a sphere, then I have a problem in accepting that theory or system. My reasoning why I can’t accept that a triangle can be drown on the surface a sphere is shown below. Apparently my reasoning is wrong. I would appreciate an explanation of how and where it's wrong.

1. A triangle consists of three straight lines.
   
2. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
   
3. The shortest distance between diametrically opposed points on a sphere is the line of the diameter.
   
4. A line on the surface of a sphere is a curved line.
   
5. A triangle cannot therefore be drawn on the surface of a sphere.
   

 

[Hokulele]

I think one of the issues with the whole triangle bit is that you are using a slightly different definition of triangle than the one most mathematicians use. Here is a web page showing how to identify triangles.

I am not suggesting that your definition is wrong, but that it is merely a subset of the entire category of triangles. It's kind of like saying that all squares are rectangles, and therefor all rectangles must have sides of equal length.

 

[TV's Frank]

I’m not trying to disprove anything here. I’m trying to understand why a lot of educated, clever and intelligent people are happy to accept certain things that I have trouble accepting.

A lot of people accept relativity because it makes predictions that agree with experiment. Relativity makes your GPS work correctly. Are you saying that GPS does not work correctly?

Also, I would still like an example of an experiment, used to determine the validity of relativity, that assumed relativity was right, as you claimed.

Of course the simple answer could be that I’m not sufficiently educated, clever or intelligent. I don’t particularly care who came up with the things or what they are called. I don’t automatically adopt other peoples acceptance of things (regardless of how educated, clever, intelligent and numerous they are) if that acceptance requires me to abandon what I perceive to be reality, actuality, factual, truth, honesty, common sense or whatever label you want to give it. If any theory or mathematical system requires that I accept that a triangle can be drawn on the surface of a sphere, then I have a problem in accepting that theory or system. My reasoning why I can’t accept that a triangle can be drown on the surface a sphere is shown below. Apparently my reasoning is wrong. I would appreciate an explanation of how and where it's wrong.

A triangle consists of three straight lines.

So far, so good.

A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

Although this is only strictly true in Eulcidean geometry, we'll go with it here.

The shortest distance between diametrically opposed points on a sphere is the line of the diameter.

Here's the flaw. The line of the diameter isn't exactly on the sphere, is it? We are confining ourselves to draw lines on the two-dimensional surface of the earth. Yes, if a third dimension is available, we can make a "shortcut", but let's keep ourselves to the 2-dimensional surface, where there are no shortcuts. The shortest path between two points on the surface of a sphere is a geodesic.

A line on the surface of a sphere is a curved line.

No. The line is not curved, the surface itself is curved. A geodesic (the line you make, say, driving from one place to another) is completely straight for a given surface. It is the shortest path (on the surface) from one place to another.

A triangle cannot therefore be drawn on the surface of a sphere.

I think the problem you are having is with the notion of "straightness". I don't think it means what you think it means. For more information on the notion of straight lines, wikipedia is, as usual, your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

 

[ynot]

I think one of the issues with the whole triangle bit is that you are using a slightly different definition of triangle than the one most mathematicians use. Here is a web page showing how to identify triangles.

I am not suggesting that your definition is wrong, but that it is merely a subset of the entire category of triangles. It's kind of like saying that all squares are rectangles, and therefor all rectangles must have sides of equal length.

Thanks - I can’t see anything on the linked page that that is any different from my definition of triangles.

I don’t agree that “It's kind of like saying that all squares are rectangles” in any way. A square has all sides of equal length and an oblong has opposite sides of equal length (never all sides). Both are independently identifiable and one is never the other. I’m baffled by your claim!

 

[Yllanes]

1. A triangle consists of three straight lines.
2. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

OK.

The shortest distance between diametrically opposed points on a sphere is the line of the diameter

No, because the diameter is not on the sphere. The interior and exterior of the sphere don't exist, only its surface does. The shortest path is actually an arc of a circle that has a diameter equal to the diameter of the sphere (such as a meridian, but not a parallel).

A line on the surface of a sphere is a curved line.

Yes, but with your definition of 'straight', a line can be curved and straight at the same time (this is why instead of straight lines we talk about geodesics)

 

[ynot]

A lot of people accept relativity because it makes predictions that agree with experiment. Relativity makes your GPS work correctly. Are you saying that GPS does not work correctly?

So the end justifies the means? In the interest of keeping things as simple as possible, I would rather not address the GPS issue at present.

Also, I would still like an example of an experiment, used to determine the validity of relativity, that assumed relativity was right, as you claimed.

Ummmm . . . GPS?

Here's the flaw. The line of the diameter isn't exactly on the sphere, is it? We are confining ourselves to draw lines on the two-dimensional surface of the earth. Yes, if a third dimension is available, we can make a "shortcut", but let's keep ourselves to the 2-dimensional surface, where there are no shortcuts. The shortest path between two points on the surface of a sphere is a geodesic.

Not sure if it’s the “flaw” but it’s certainly the crux of my “problem”. I don’t see that it matters if the line is on the sphere, imbedded in the sphere or hovering above it. If it conforms to the shape of the sphere, it’s curved.
The royal “We” doesn’t include me. I can see no reason to confine ourselves to a 2-dimensional surface. In fact to do so is to require me to “abandon what I perceive to be reality, actuality, factual, truth, honesty, common sense or whatever label you want to give it.” I can find no evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D. In other words, 2D is and abstract concept that cannot exist independent from the reality of 3D existence. The 3D “shortcut” is always available and I can see no reason to ever discount it.

No. The line is not curved, the surface itself is curved. A geodesic (the line you make, say, driving from one place to another) is completely straight for a given surface. It is the shortest path (on the surface) from one place to another.

So if a multitude of lines were formed in to a sphere it wouldn’t be curved? Seems as silly as Hokulele suggesting that squares can be described as oblongs.

I think the problem you are having is with the notion of "straightness". I don't think it means what you think it means. For more information on the notion of straight lines, wikipedia is, as usual, your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

As I have defined “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points”. In the reality of 3D existence, a direct route is always possible. An indirect route therefore is never the shortest distance.

 

[ynot]

OK.

2 out of 4 ain’t bad

No, because the diameter is not on the sphere. The interior and exterior of the sphere don't exist, only its surface does. The shortest path is actually an arc of a circle that has a diameter equal to the diameter of the sphere (such as a meridian, but not a parallel).)

I can’t agree. In the reality of 3D existence the interior and exterior of the sphere always do exist. What doesn’t exist is the 2D abstract theory that only the surface exists

Yes, but with your definition of 'straight', a line can be curved and straight at the same time (this is why instead of straight lines we talk about geodesics)

I don’t see how. To me that is what you are claiming. Could you please explain what you mean.

ETA - Yes, a line can be straight in one plane and curved in another. But this is a curved line, not a straight one.

 

[Taffer]

Were what you say true, ynot, then the shortest distance between two points in 3 dimensional space should be described in 4 dimensions, as "the shortcut always exists".

 

[Hokulele]

Seems as silly as Hokulele suggesting that squares can be described as oblongs.

Just for the record, I stated that squares are rectangles, not oblongs. That was your addition.

 

[TV's Frank]

So the end justifies the means? In the interest of keeping things as simple as possible, I would rather not address the GPS issue at present.

By all means, address the GPS issue.

Ummmm . . . GPS?

GPS is not an experiment used to test relativity. Please, read my posts more carefully. I get very irked when crucial statements are ignored. There have been numerous experiments specifically designed to test relativity. Once we confirmed that relativty was correct, we could use it in applications.

So, please identify an experiment, that was used to test relativity, that assumed relativity was correct. Please.

Not sure if it’s the “flaw” but it’s certainly the crux of my “problem”. I don’t see that it matters if the line is on the sphere, imbedded in the sphere or hovering above it. If it conforms to the shape of the sphere, it’s curved.
The royal “We” doesn’t include me. I can see no reason to confine ourselves to a 2-dimensional surface. In fact to do so is to require me to “abandon what I perceive to be reality, actuality, factual, truth, honesty, common sense or whatever label you want to give it.” I can find no evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D. In other words, 2D is and abstract concept that cannot exist independent from the reality of 3D existence. The 3D “shortcut” is always available and I can see no reason to ever discount it.



So if a multitude of lines were formed in to a sphere it wouldn’t be curved? Seems as silly as Hokulele suggesting that squares can be described as oblongs.


As I have defined “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points”. In the reality of 3D existence, a direct route is always possible. An indirect route therefore is never the shortest distance.

You have forgotten the rules of the game we are playing. You were upset that Richard Feynman drew a triangle on a sphere. Not in or through. On. I know that I can go through the earth. I know the universe if 4 dimensional (you forgot time). But we are describing how to draw lines on the surface. On. On. On. On. When we confine ourselves to draw on the surface of a sphere, we limit ourselves to 2 dimensions: latitude and longitude.

The earth: 3 dimensional.
The surface of the earth: 2 dimensional.
Lines drawn on the surface of the earth must stay on the surface, or, by definition, they are no longer drawn on the surface!

Tell me: did you read the link about geodesics before, or even after, forming your reply?

If I go through the earth to draw a triangle, then I am no longer drawing lines on the surface of the earth: I am now drawing lines on a plane that intersects the surface of the earth.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[TV's Frank]

Oh, I almost forgot! BeAChooser, I'm still waiting those 4 predictions of plasma cosmology, so we can compare to observations!

 

[ynot]

Just for the record, I stated that squares are rectangles, not oblongs. That was your addition.

So you did. My mistake - very sorry. What you said still doesn’t make any sense to me however.

 

[ynot]

By all means, address the GPS issue.




GPS is not an experiment used to test relativity. Please, read my posts more carefully. I get very irked when crucial statements are ignored. There have been numerous experiments specifically designed to test relativity. Once we confirmed that relativty was correct, we could use it in applications.

So, please identify an experiment, that was used to test relativity, that assumed relativity was correct. Please.




You have forgotten the rules of the game we are playing. You were upset that Richard Feynman drew a triangle on a sphere. Not in or through. On. I know that I can go through the earth. I know the universe if 4 dimensional (you forgot time). But we are describing how to draw lines on the surface. On. On. On. On. When we confine ourselves to draw on the surface of a sphere, we limit ourselves to 2 dimensions: latitude and longitude.

The earth: 3 dimensional.
The surface of the earth: 2 dimensional.
Lines drawn on the surface of the earth must stay on the surface, or, by definition, they are no longer drawn on the surface!

Tell me: did you read the link about geodesics before, or even after, forming your reply?

If I go through the earth to draw a triangle, then I am no longer drawing lines on the surface of the earth: I am now drawing lines on a plane that intersects the surface of the earth.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

Sorry but you have it wrong. I’m not upset that that Richard Feynman drew a triangle on a sphere. I cringe that he claims he can. In my opinion he can’t and he doesn’t. I don’t accept that what he draws is a triangle.

I didn’t forget time. Seems you forgot I don’t accept Relativity. I’m not sure (regardless of whether I accept Relativity or not) that I accept time as a dimension. That’s why I wrote “I can find no evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D”. As I can’t find any evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D, I don’t see why I should consider anything in an impossible 2D state.

I had a brief look at the link to geodesics. It’s a bit like a theist handing me a bible. You expect me to find answers from a source that I don’t accept is valid. For me, the evidence has to come from the outside in, not the inside out. The solution can’t come from the conclusion.

 

[Hokulele]

So you did. My mistake - very sorry. What you said still doesn’t make any sense to me however.

No worries.

Maybe the Wiki article can better explain the relationship between squares, rectangles, and oblongs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangle

One of the odd things about mathematicians and scientists, is that they are often very picky about definitions. As you have already seen, even a simple word such as "straight" can have connotations that are different from what you see in other types of writing. Although it is a good thing in any type of writing, being very clear is even more important in science writing. Hopefully this clears a few things up. If not, let me know.

 

[BeAChooser]

You are only quoting from places like space.com and similar, never from actual papers, so you are getting only strawmen and poorly worded results.

So all my sources are just strawmen and poorly worded results? And none are peer reviewed academic papers? If you want to claim that when readers can easily see for themselves by reading this thread that's not true, I'm ok with that.

By the way, you aren't quoting ANYTHING ... just making claim after claim that I show to be untrue. That works for me, too.

you seem to imply plasma cosmology is a complete, finished theory, that already explains everything.

That's not what I'm saying, as I think any intelligent reader can see. How could it be a complete and finished theory when so little resources have been spent on it over the years compared to the amazing Big Bang. But in terms of explaining what is going on out there, it does seem to do a much better job already, without resorting to all manner of kludge and fantasy object.

Quote:
"It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."

How does plasma cosmology explain this precise object? You are always claiming it explains everything, but have provided no hard data. We don't exactly know how these supermassive black holes form, but we know they are there.

Well, first of all, plasma cosmology would argue that's not a black hole. They can explain the jets via far more mundane and provable physics ... physics they've demonstrated in the lab. Big Bang astrophysicists only INFER that the object is a black hole (which of course they've never actually seen or created) with the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way at the extreme edge of the universe. And how did they do that?

The article I cited states that "Determining a precise mass for the black hole found by Romani's team, dubbed Q0906+6930, is a bit tricky though since it's so far away. ... snip ..., The black hole, called a blazar because it spews jets of radiation in roughly the direction of Earth, sits at the center of a galaxy about 12.7 billion light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major. ... snip ... Because the blazar is so distant, there are no nearby neighbors to scan for potential gravitational effects, and much of its radiation is absorbed by gas and dust lying between it and the Earth, Romani said. "It really is too far away to do a direct orbital measurement to help determine its mass," Romani said, adding that he and his colleagues had to estimate the mass based on a quantitative method that includes measuring particle velocity and the Doppler shift of its infrared emission lines."

Based on the above description, does anyone here understand how they arrived at the mass estimate? Well, I delved further and found they used something called the "virial relation" ... which it turns out is redshift dependent and ignores what plasma cosmologists have been saying for decades about the cause of motions in things like spiral galaxies. And if the redshift measure of distance to quasars (and this object is stated to be a quasar in numerous sources) is suspect (as I've already demonstrated in this thread) then the mass claimed for the object and its distance must be suspect too.

Even more suspicious is that Zwicky first proposed the existence of "dark matter" by applying the virial theorem. If after more than 30 years, we still haven't found any proof of that substance, perhaps we should be reexamining the root theorem that was used?

Then provide some link where they explain this object.

I have. You just haven't bothered to read anything I've posted or linked. I tell you what ... use your browser. Look up plasmoids, fusion focus devices and z-pinches. Or are you too lazy?

Everyone knows from a long time ago that neutron stars and similar objects create jets (have you heard the term pulsar?)

Neutron stars? You actually believe there are stars made entirely of neutrons ... neutronium ... a substance that science here on earth suggests is completely unstable because neutrons by themselves are unstable? And you really think that stars can rotate at the sort of speeds that are claimed for pulsars and remain intact? 38,000 RPM? Really? ROTFLOL!

Plasma cosmologists have offered explanation for the observations that caused Big Bang astronomers to invent the notion of the neutron star that don't require such silliness.

Here's the more likely explanation: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060123nebula.htm . Perhaps pulsars are electrical activity between binary stars or a plasma focus.

Here's a recent image from the Hubble Telescope of the Crab Nebula, which contains a pulsar.

Notice the "knot". That might be a binary star companion or it might be part of the jet. If you look at the shape of the plasma cloud around the pulsar and the orientation of the jet, however,

what you see is a homopolar motor, a electrical circuit concept first developed by Faraday that plasma cosmologists have applied to explain galaxies and stars. At the center of these objects, plasma cosmologists say there is the equivalent of a plasma focus, a device that plasma physicists have created and studied extensively in labs here on earth.

In a plasma focus device a plasmoid forms and stores energy at the focus of a discharge. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies.

It all fits. No need for Big Bang magic.

Here's another case that suggests a plasma focus is the source of the radiation from neutron stars/pulsars. Remember pulsars supposedly start out as supernova. But what are supernova? Even the standard models explanation of that is in doubt due to the following data and the work of plasma cosmologists. You'd be wise to read the following. It shows data that only plasma cosmologists seem able to explain about supernova observations using their electric sun and z-pinch models. You'd be wise to look at it because your going to be seeing a lot more of it in the future.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1 "24 August 2005, Supernova 1987A Decoded"

The above source also notes that "Plasma cosmologists have not ignored the pulsar, sometimes found in a supernova remnant. Healy and Peratt in “Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory and Experiment,” concluded, “the source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive either from the pulsar’s interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit.... [O]ur results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.” In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation. "

Here's the peer reviewed article that is mentioned above by Healy and Peratt: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf. Take a look at it. It demolishes the neutron star explanation and provides another ... one consistent with the tenants of plasma cosmology.

Here's another peer reviewed paper on this subject and particular case by some different scientists ... who reach the same conclusion:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 " "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"

I'm tired of all these examples, because they are pointless.

I'm sure you are. You tired of the examples the moment I actually started citing sources to prove you are wrong about astrophysicists upholding the laws of electromagnetism. But you go ahead and keep your head in the ground, Yllanes.

Mainstream physicists violate Maxwell's equations (you need a link to a paper that does that, it is not enough with a series of analogies for laymen).

Go ahead, Yllanes ... just provide a source that shows scientists demonstrating in an experiment reconnecting magnetic field lines in the manner postulated in astrophysics. That should be easy to do if doing that doesn't violate the laws of magnetism as they've been understood all the way up until the time astrophysicists started claiming magnetic lines could "reconnect".

Here's all I could find to help you out: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/380.pdf "Introduction to Plasma Physics: ... snip ... The Sweet-Parker reconnection ansatz is undoubtedly correct. It has been simulated numerically innumerable times, and was recently confirmed experimentally in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) operated by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 37 The problem is that Sweet-Parker reconnection takes place far too slowly to account for many reconnection processes which are thought to take place in the solar system. For instance, in solar flares S ? 10^^8, VA ? 100 kms^^?1, and L ? 10^^4 km. According to the Sweet-Parker model, magnetic energy is released to the plasma via reconnection on a typical time-scale of a few tens of days. In reality, the energy is released in a few minutes to an hour. Clearly, we can only hope to account for solar flares using a reconnection mechanism which operates far faster than the Sweet-Parker mechanism. One, admittedly rather controversial, resolution of this problem was suggested by Petschek. ... snip ... It must be pointed out that the Petschek model is very controversial. Many physicists think that it is completely wrong, and that the maximum rate of magnetic reconnection allowed by MHD is that predicted by the Sweet-Parker model. In particular, Biskamp wrote an influential and widely quoted paper reporting the results of a numerical experiment which appeared to disprove the Petschek model. ... snip ... Probably the most powerful argument against the validity of the Petschek model is the fact that, more than 30 years after it was first proposed, nobody has ever managed to simulate Petschek reconnection numerically (except by artificially increasing the resistivity in the reconnecting region—which is not a legitimate approach)."

30 years and still no demonstration of the reconnecting magnetic lines with the characteristics claimed to explain astronomical observations! Well I guess we should expect so much. Afterall, they've been looking for Dark Matter for more than 30 years too. But in that case, I guess that's not a "powerful argument" against their existence? ROTFLOL!

Here's another even later source on the above case which again proves your understanding of this subject is wrong and that I am right. Classical electromagnetism does not allow for the magnetic reconnection claimed by astrophysicists to be occurring in the sun and other stellar objects (like imagined black holes):

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/archives/19990327/bob1.asp "Although suspecting that reconnection plays a leading role in the solar drama, theorists have struggled for decades to explain how. Plasmas, especially on the sun, are wispy gases, but the magnetic fields threading through them make them behave as if they were viscous fluids, flowing and intermingling slowly. According to the classical theory of plasmas, magnetic field lines cannot reconnect or, at best, can do so only at a stately pace because of this viscosity. This model is obviously incomplete because it would require millions of years for solar flares to release the energy they expel in minutes or hours. ... snip ... The results of the Princeton experiments don't quite match any of the theories of reconnection advanced so far, Yamada explains. As described in the April 13, 1998 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, he and his colleagues see reconnection taking place at a pace much faster than classical theory would allow but still only a hundredth of the rate required to explain solar flares. Also, within the turmoil of the spheromaks' collision, they see no evidence of shock waves. Uncertain how to explain their findings, the Princeton researchers suggest that they may have discovered a new phenomenon that none of the previous theories included. It's a turbulence in the plasma that would increase interactions between plasma particles and thereby promote reconnections."

Now the first source indicated that the experiments confirm that reconnection occurs at the stately pace allowed by classical theory. The second source says this too. But when the second source states "This model is obviously incomplete because it would require millions of years for solar flares to release the energy they expel in minutes or hours", perhaps they are mistaken because they simply ignore what plasma cosmologists and electric sun theorists have been trying to tell them is the source of solar flare energy for decades. And that model doesn't require magnetic reconnection. It's already been demonstrated in the laboratory many times.

Quote:
The moment of the singularity is not part of the Big Bang. But I thought Cuddles claimed that anything after that moment wasn't part of the theory. Perhaps you two should consult one another.

This doesn't make sense. Cuddles said the same as I did, that the fact that the universe is expanding is based on observations and implies that the universe was smaller in the past.

You said "he existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model". Cuddles said "Dark matter is not the big bang. Dark energy is not the big bang. Rotational curves are not the big bang. Nothing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on the big bang." What's that leave?

Quote:
If the electric model for stars is correct (and it seems to be the only one that actually explains the observations), stars will be charged bodies.

Well, they are not, so the premise for all that follows is already wrong. If stars were charged bodies, we would know.

By all means, prove that. Provide a source describing the experiment that determined the sun is electrically neutral. That it's charge has been measured. That we know this, as you claimed. I bet you can't. You are just making things up or regurgitating the ASSUMPTIONS of astrophysicists.

Black holes can have charge. Charged black holes are called Reisser-Nördstrom black holes.

A Reissner-Nordström black hole has ZERO angular momentum ... in other words it doesn't spin ... it doesn't rotate ... as is assumed in all of the cases of stellar black holes we've been discussing. Sorry, that just doesn't apply. So my challenge to you remains. If the electric sun people are right and stars are charged bodies, how could they produce the black holes that Big Bang astronomers claim are everywhere *out there*? It's a paradox. Maybe we should actually do an experiment to see if the sun is charged. The results could falsify black holes, as employed by astrophysicists.

 

[BeAChooser]

To do this you need to understand at least the basics of relativity, which you don't apparently.

You don't know what I know about relativity. I haven't said anything one way or the other about it. Because that's not the focus on this thread. But I have proven that the father of relativity said black holes are not part of the theory and any theory that includes them is wrong. Or words to that effect.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've done nothing of the sort. I've specifically stated you should not jump to conclusions, which is exactly what you have done, by claiming "the big bang theory is dead".

Personally, I will wait to see what others have to say about it.

Well I tell you what ... when others make a response in a peer reviewed journal that show the peer reviewed paper I linked is wrong, you link us to it here. Now don't forget.

By the way, I have one comment about your statement. The folks that have really been jumping to conclusions are the Big Bang proponents who've simply ignored what plasma experts have been trying to tell them for decades, and hastily accepted all manner of magical particle, force, energy, interaction and event in order to save Big Bang.

 

[BeAChooser]

why can't you provide 4 simple numbers?

You going to start that too? I have to warn you, it's a symptom of desperation.

I'll give you the same answer I gave TV's Frank and see if you have the guts to actually respond to what I wrote in response to his demand:

*********

Originally Posted by TV's Frank
If I were to go out and measure the spatial curvature of the universe, what does plasma cosmology predict to be the answer?

Just what it is ... without the need for inflation or any other wacky, unexplainable nonsense. Now here was my challenge to Frank (and now you Taffer)... tell our readers how many different models of inflation the Big Bang priesthood has dreamed up over the years ... because one magical gnome was not enough to fit the data.

Originally Posted by TV's Frank
If I go looking for CMB anisotropies, at what multipole should I find the largest peak?

If I look for spectral index of CMB fluctuations, what does plasma cosmology say I will find?

As I responded to Frank, the latest observational data from astronomers suggests the CMB is not coming from behind galactic clusters like he and the Big Bang assume. Here was the source I cited to back that up:

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal. Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment." "Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation." And there was this little tidbit at the end of that article: "Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant."

As I said to Frank, maybe the cosmic background radiation isn't coming from where you think? And that's what plasma cosmologists have been saying. They propose that the CMB results from local fields and currents that scatter microwave radiation from the pervasive plasma source. That's why I told Frank that if he didn't have an explanation for the above observation, his numbers might mean next to nothing. Do you have an explanation Taffer? Or you just going to beg off and say you aren't an astronomer, again?

Originally Posted by TV's Frank
If I go looking at the distribution of matter in the universe, what are the RMS fluctuations in 8 Mpc spheres?

As I told Frank, this question is truly hilarious when his experts are basing their numbers on a claim that 20% of the matter in the universe is invisible, non-interacting (except for gravity) and undetermined (because they can't seem to find it despite 30 years and thousands of mega-dollars trying). The model he supports assumes 5 TIMES more matter than ordinary matter (the stuff that obeys physics as we know it here on earth).

Because it is almost laughable to think a quantity based on such assumptions can be right, I asked him in return, which came first? The observations or the dark matter? And I'll add now, that if quasars are shown to not be distant objects, how will that affect the estimate for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and the resulting numbers he's asking for above? You have an answer, Taffer? Hmmmm?

***********

Here's what else TV's Frank doesn't want to talk about and why he's put forth his 4 number challenge ... or should I say distraction? How about you, Taffer? You want to discuss any these in detail?

Observations now show Big Bang cosmology's claim that higher redshifts only imply farther distances is wrong. Most of what they claim to be the farthest objects in the universe may be comparatively close. Which makes some of the numbers TV's Frank thinks he knows wrong.

The age of certain stars in it (according to mainstream astrophysics theory) is considerably older than Big Bang's *number* for the age of the universe ... even assuming the redshift relationship applies to all objects out there (which it clearly doesn't) and assuming dark energy exists.

It is utterly ridiculous is the Big Bang claim that 96% of all the mass and mass-equivalent in the universe is dark matter and dark energy ... *something* which astrophysicists, after 30 years of expensive search, have completely failed to turn up. Without this immense kludge, their whole model simply collapses. Instead, when further observations suggest those entities don't exist (like the example in this thread's subject article), they immediately add new magical gnomes to the model to explain it instead of doing the logical thing and reexamining their base assumptions.

Observations of strings of galaxies make structures that according to mainstream astronomers could not possibly have formed from gravity in the time the Big Bang community says the universe has existed. Mainstream astronomers are worried ... but not TV's Frank. How about you, Taffer. You worried?

Big Bang predicts the flatness of the universe but doesn't mention all the kludges that have been necessary to make the model fit what we see ... not the least of which is *inflation* which has now been proposed in at least half a dozen flavors.

Observations show the process the Big Bang community claims for the formation of heavy elements isn't correct. How bad is their understanding of stars and how they work? They can't even explain most of the phenomena observed on the surface of the sun without resorting to claims of further magic in the way of new magnetic phenomena that Hannes Alfven and electrical engineers who understand such physics say are nothing more than fantasy ... phenomena that have never been demonstrated in an earth based lab.

**************

Maybe what you should do is attempt to address this, Taffer:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...t+element+abundance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, April 2002"



***********

Inferring things doesn't make it magical.

But inferring things that are unlike anything we've actually encountered before does make it magical. Especially when you still insist your thing exists after 30 years of unsuccessful, expensive search for it.

Quote:
I asked you to define what it is. Can you?

Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I wouldn't even bother to try.

I didn't think you'd be able to. ROTFLOL!

What law of gravity are we using, now? I must have missed where we explained what gravity was.

But you can experiment with the gravity forces acting between ordinary matter here on earth. Can you do that with dark matter? Hmmmmmm?

Since string theory is not the big bang theory, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

I guess you are unaware that string theory is being called on to explain inflation. Oh let me guess, you don't think inflation is part of the Big Bang theory either. Right?

By what basis do you presume that everything in the universe can be nicely detected by our current level of technology?

So you are going to fall back on claiming we haven't the technology to detect these dozen or so magic gnomes Big Bang cosmologists have created? So can the Pope use that same logic ... that you haven't the technology to detect God?

Quote:
Do you?

Given that I "perform science" every day, and I am qualified to do so, I think it's pretty safe to say I do.

Well that's a nice CLAIM.

And yet you cannot provide 4 simple numbers?

You not going to debate me either, if I don't give you 4 numbers? ROTFLOL!

Where are the peer reviewed articles which make predicitions which can be varified?

I suggest you reread this thread. You'll find a lot of peer reviewed articles cited and predictions given. But you have to read them and there's your problem. You won't. Because you haven't so far. And that's my prediction.