PDA

View Full Version : The Redshift Distance Relationship



Tim Thompson
2002-Oct-14, 12:13 AM
One of the key aspect of many alternate cosmologies is a powerful desire to do away with the redshift distance relationship. This is prominent, for instance, in the Quasars Far Away (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2378&forum=1&137) thread.

But the redshift distance relationship does not exist in a "vacuum" (of the intellectual type). Why did Hubble (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hubble.html) come up with it in the first place? Because he realized that galaxies of the same type in the Hubble classification of galaxies (http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Galaxies.html) showed brightness correlated with redshift; dimmer galaxies have larger redshift. If one makes the fairly benign assumption that galaxies of the same type are of approximately the same intrinsic brightness (say within a factor of 2 or so), then dimmer means farther away. And so redshift means farther away too. And so the redshift distance relationship was born.

But that's not the only correlation. There are several other indicators of distance. Aside from the well known Cepheid variable stars, there are also surface brightness fluctuations, the Tully-Fisher relation, type Ia supernovae, and a few others.

The relevance here is that they are all correlated together, and especially with redshift. If redshift does not correlate with distance, then how can it correlate so well to several other measured parameters, which also should correlate with distance in the same way?

One cannot speak of throwing out the redshift distance relationship, without also throwing out everything we know about cosmological distances. This point should be adressed, but almost never is addressed, by those who wish to eliminate the correlation between redshift & distance.

Reference: A Critical Review of Selected Techniques for Measuring Extragalactic Distances (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Jacoby/Jacoby_abstract.html), G.h. Jacoby et al., Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 104: 599-662, August 1992.

David Hall
2002-Oct-14, 04:40 AM
I think it's especially strange that some people fight so hard against it, considering that a redshift/distance relationship is also the most logical and intuitively understandable explanation. It's a simple doppler-shift phenomenon showing motion away. What could be easier to grasp?

Every other means to explain it that I've heard has to postulate some unknown or incredibly complicated mechanism to explain what we see. This one is simple, uses a well-known phenomenon, and explains observations perfectly. Why can't people just accept the obvious?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 10:13 AM
You, guys, oversimplify the situation till absurdity. Existence of intrinsic redshifts does not rule out the redshift-distance relation, it simply adds some uncertainty to it. You cannot deny the intrinsic redshifts; after all, a black hole has an infinite intrinsic redshift, so all the intermediate values are necessarily present.
Furthermore, there's no need for a uniformly increasing distance (universal inflation) to account for the cosmological redshifts. Oscillatory motions in the space medium are more than enough for that. A signal sent from an orbiting satellite is both redshifted and extended in duration due to the orbital speed. But it's not necessary to have any specific direction in that motion to cause a redshift - random oscillatory motions of the source or medium have the same net average effect. The medium between the remote source and local observer is affected by the fields of the matter in between, moreover, those fields and matter are moving randomly. While the effect of longitudinal component of medium jitters averages out close to zero, the transverse one accumulates with time in travel. How can you deny such an obvious mechanism - it totally escapes my understanding.
I'm afraid your "holy scripture" says "Doppler only" - and you are out to defeat all the non-compliant heresies. If that's the case, you guys are no better than the worst of religious fanatics...

Kaptain K
2002-Oct-14, 10:52 AM
You cannot deny the intrinsic redshifts; after all, a black hole has an infinite intrinsic redshift, so all the intermediate values are necessarily present.Emphasis added

Not so! There are two discontinuities. One between the maximun for stars and the minimum for neutron stars and the other between the maximum for neutron stars and the infinite redshift of black holes.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 12:54 PM
On 2002-10-14 06:52, Kaptain K wrote:
There are two discontinuities.So stick some "quasars" in between, would you /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Silas
2002-Oct-14, 02:52 PM
I still don't get "intrinsic red-shift." Wouldn't that mess up the H-R diagram?

Silas

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 03:12 PM
On 2002-10-14 10:52, Silas wrote:
I still don't get "intrinsic red-shift." Wouldn't that mess up the H-R diagram?Escaping a heavy dense object means losing energy to it's gravity. This is an example of intrinsic redshift. As long as mass/density are not overly peculiar, the normal distance-redshift relations stand and the "mess" is moderate.

Donnie B.
2002-Oct-14, 03:50 PM
Pardon this question from someone who has a lesser theoretical foundation than some others in this forum, but...

If you're proposing that intrinsic redshift plays a significant role in the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, doesn't that imply that more distant objects are systematically more massive? What could possibly lead one to prefer that explanation to the more conventional Doppler interpretation?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-14, 03:53 PM
Either that, or smaller objects are more massive?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 04:12 PM
A considerable intrinsic redshift must be a relatively infrequent peculiarity. The primary source of redshift is still the distance, intrinsic redshifts are just a "flavouring".

Donnie B.
2002-Oct-14, 04:47 PM
A/B - that seems reasonable enough, and I doubt that there's any controversy about it. Given your feisty posts in other threads, I was assuming you were challenging the redshift/distance correlation. So... never mind... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 04:59 PM
We've had this discussion before.

Agora, your idea about oscillatory fields invalidates the cosmological distance ladder since the intermediary distance measures must be wrong as the oscillations in the field have no effect on distance. This means you have to explain how the high-end of the ladder doesn't offer good measurements for distance.

I'd also bring up gravitational lensing measurements that confirm the redshift distance relation in the current models, but seeing as you are something of a GR-denier as well, I shouldn't waste the space.

What is puzzling is that you still insist on using GR to allow for gravitational redshift; you need to explain where all the mass causing the enormous redshifts is. Intervening mass doesn't cut it as the light will be blueshifted entering the domain and redshifted upon exiting it. I encourage you to look at the literature available on the subject of gravitational redshifts in observations. Specifically, you should consider papers like the following which offer a huge constraint on your intrisic redshift idea:


Title: Detecting the Gravitational Redshift of Cluster Gas

Authors: Broadhurst, Tom; Scannapieco, Evan

Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 533, Issue 2, pp. L93-L97. (ApJ Homepage)

Publication Date: 04/2000

Abstract

We examine the gravitational redshift of radiation emitted from within the potential of a cluster. Spectral lines from the intracluster medium (ICM) are redshifted in proportion to the emission-weighted mean potential along the line of sight, amounting to ~50 km s-1 at a radius of 100 kpc h-1, for a cluster dispersion of 1200 km s-1. We show that the relative redshifts of different ionization states of metals in the ICM provide a unique probe of the three-dimensional matter distribution. An examination of the reported peculiar velocities of cD galaxies in well-studied Abell clusters reveals that they are typically redshifted by an average of ~200 km
s-1. This can be achieved by gravity with the addition of a steep central potential associated with the cD galaxy. Note that, in general, gravitational redshifts cause a small overestimate of the recessional velocities of clusters by an average of ~20 km s-1.

D J
2002-Oct-14, 05:46 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-14 12:59, JS Princeton wrote:
you need to explain where all the mass causing the enormous redshifts is. Intervening mass doesn't cut it as the light will be blueshifted entering the domain and redshifted upon exiting it.

I find that speculative info.(I have not finishing the translation of the text but this part seem interesting.)
http://www.heretical.org/science/redshift.html
Whether gravitational fields result in collisions or perturbations which detract energy from photons or not, Arp postulates a "screen" between us and the object which removes, in discrete amounts, energy from the photons coming towards us. This leads to a model of shells of matter around redshifted objects, but he considers this a very artificial model.

What can be the cause of light from one object being redshifted relative to another, in the many cases of high redshift or otherwise peculiar galaxies interacting with normal, low redshift galaxies? The stars, gas and dust in one object emit light redshifted relative to the other with which it interacts.

This means that, for example, an atom of hydrogen in a high redshifted object, which makes a given transition from one energy state to the other, must emit or absorb a photon of lesser energy than the same atom would in a lower redshifted one. What determines the transition energy between the two atomic states? One factor is the relative charge between the electron and the nucleus. The other factor is the mass of the electron making the transition between two possible orbital states. Measurements of quasar spectra appear to rule out the possibility that the electric charges are different. This leaves only the mass of the electron.

Arp poses the question: Is the mass of the high redshifted object less than that of the low redshifted object?

D J
2002-Oct-14, 06:16 PM
The latest Scientific American, October, 2002, refers to recent discoveries about the webs or filaments and sheets of gas draped between the galaxies.

The article is entitled "The emptiest places," by Evan Scannapieco, Patrick Petitjean and Tom Broadhurst. On page 59 the authors refer to the spectral phemomenon (from Quasars)known as "the Lyman-alpha forest."

This indicates that the light is passing through hundreds of intergalactic gas clouds. But, until recently, measurements were not precise enough to determine what is now discovered.

"Ironically, although neutral hydrogen neatly accounts for the lines, it can constitute only a small fraction of the clouds. Ionized hydrogen and helium must make up the bulk."

Then the authors promote the theory that the gas clouds were re-ionized after the Quasar was formed.

*But one thing for sure, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) is ionized.*<<<

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 07:08 PM
On 2002-10-14 12:59, JS Princeton wrote:
We've had this discussion before.No, we never discussed this particular mechanism.
Agora, your idea about oscillatory fields invalidates the cosmological distance ladder since the intermediary distance measures must be wrong as the oscillations in the field have no effect on distance.I'm not sure you're talking of the mechanism I described. Essentially, this one boils down to the case of randomly deformed waveguide with fixed ends. Distance-redshift relation holds quite nicely.
I'd also bring up gravitational lensing measurements that confirm the redshift distance relation in the current models, but seeing as you are something of a GR-denier as well, I shouldn't waste the space.If you consider me a GR-denier, you're really wasting space. I simply think that GR is an approximate description built over the unknown deeper reality.
What is puzzling is that you still insist on using GR to allow for gravitational redshift; you need to explain where all the mass causing the enormous redshifts is.If you simply calculated total gravitational redshift for uniform matter density of 1 proton per m^3 in flat uniform universe, you'd get about 10^26 meters for z=1...
But this time I only talked about the intrinsic redshifts of objects much denser than a cluster (if quasars are nearby, they must be denser than galaxies).
Intervening mass doesn't cut it as the light will be blueshifted entering the domain and redshifted upon exiting it.Okay, let the light travel through matter-free vacuum, measure time in transit and zero redshift. Then repeat the same, but this time let a big mass traverse at high enough speed near the light path (3D) - the path becomes longer, use another mass - deform the path further, and so on. If interrupting masses and their fields travel in random directions, their effect does not average out to zero in transverse plane. In simple words - the light is dragged by the field, so escape takes longer than entrance.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 08:31 PM
On 2002-10-14 14:16, Orion38 wrote:


"Ironically, although neutral hydrogen neatly accounts for the lines, it can constitute only a small fraction of the clouds. Ionized hydrogen and helium must make up the bulk."

Then the authors promote the theory that the gas clouds were re-ionized after the Quasar was formed.

*But one thing for sure, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) is ionized.*<<<


This is completely tangential to the discussion. If quantum mechanics was changing over IGM scales it would manifest itself in different ways for different coupling constants. As it is, the reshifts are uniform across all species to an incredible precision.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 08:37 PM
How can quasars be nearby if there are absorption features seen in them for identified intergalactic and galactic clouds? The absorption lines in quasars are not simply broadened as you would expect for internal gas clouds that were gravitationally redshifted, they are actually at measured locations.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 08:39 PM
Title:

On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model
Authors:

Bell, M. B.
Affiliation:

AA(Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada, 100 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canada.)
Journal:

The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 567, Issue 2, pp. 801-810. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:

03/2002
Origin:

UCP
ApJ Keywords:

galaxies: individual (NGC 1068), Galaxies: Seyfert, Galaxies: Quasars: General
Abstract Copyright:

(c) 2002: The American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code:

2002ApJ...567..801B


Abstract

It was shown previously from the redshifts and positions of the compact, high-redshift objects near the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 that they appear to have been ejected from the center of the galaxy in
four similarly structured triplets. In this local scenario, they lie at the distance of NGC 1068, a distance much closer than a cosmological interpretation of their redshifts would imply. A large portion of
their measured redshifts would then be intrinsic, and it was found that this intrinsic component decreases with increasing distance from the galaxy. Here some of the consequences of assuming such a
local model for quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are examined. As has been found in several similar cases, the luminosity of the objects increases systematically with the decrease in redshift. The
luminosity change cannot be Doppler-related, and a model in which the luminosities and intrinsic redshifts vary with time is found to fit the data best. This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe. In fact, the observed increase in luminosity with decreasing intrinsic
redshift found here is in reasonable agreement with their prediction. In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies. From the ages of the ejection events in NGC 1068, it is found that in a relatively short time (107-108 yr), the intrinsic redshift component in these objects disappears and their
luminosity approaches that of a normal galaxy. This period, which is much shorter than a Hubble time, may then determine the approximate lifetime of a QSO, and, in this model, QSOs may be the first,
short-lived stage in the life of a galaxy. Perhaps of even more interest is the result that when QSOs are assumed to be local, their generation rate is found to be constant throughout the age of the
universe. There is no need to invoke an epoch of enhanced, high-luminosity QSO production as is required in the cosmological redshift model to explain the apparent bunching-up of high-luminosity
QSOs with redshifts near z=2. Finally, because QSO lifetimes are relatively short (less than 108 yr), an initial event (big bang) is still required to explain the high-redshift galaxies whose intrinsic
redshift component will have long since disappeared. The Hubble expansion is therefore still expected to apply for normal galaxies.

D J
2002-Oct-14, 09:09 PM
JS Princeton
Quote:
The
luminosity change cannot be Doppler-related, and a model in which the luminosities and intrinsic redshifts vary with time is found to fit the data best. This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe. In fact, the observed increase in luminosity with decreasing intrinsic
redshift found here is in reasonable agreement with their prediction. In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies. From the ages of the ejection events in NGC 1068, it is found that in a relatively short time (107-108 yr), the intrinsic redshift component in these objects disappears and their
luminosity approaches that of a normal galaxy. This period, which is much shorter than a Hubble time, may then determine the approximate lifetime of a QSO, and, in this model, QSOs may be the first,
short-lived stage in the life of a galaxy. Perhaps of even more interest is the result that when QSOs are assumed to be local, their generation rate is found to be constant throughout the age of the
universe. There is no need to invoke an epoch of enhanced, high-luminosity QSO production as is required in the cosmological redshift model to explain the apparent bunching-up of high- luminosity
QSOs with redshifts near z=2. Finally, because QSO lifetimes are relatively short (less than 108 yr), an initial event (big bang) is still required to explain the high-redshift galaxies whose intrinsic
redshift component will have long since disappeared. The Hubble expansion is therefore still expected to apply for normal galaxies.
_________________________

I agree totally with that description,

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Arp suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of the object's total redshift.
Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the product of the inherent factor times the velocity factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+z; making its total redshift value, z = 0.378. In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (36%) but rather 37.8%.

The total multiplying factor (1+ zt) is, therefore, made up of two multiplicative factors. Mathematically:
(1+ zt) = (1+ zi) (1+ zv) (1)
where zi is called the "intrinsic red shift of the object" and zv is the "red shift due to velocity of the object".

Consider, as an example, a pair of quasars symmetrically placed on either side of their parent galaxy. Both have the same intrinsic redshift value and their velocity redshift values are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (one is approaching us and one is receding). Let their measured values of total redshift be z1 and z2 respectively. From the above equation we have

(1+ zi) (1+ zv) = (1+ z1)
and (1+ zi) (1- zv) = (1+ z2)
Expanding each yields 1 + zi + zv + zi zv = (1+ z1)
and 1 + zi - zv - zi zv = (1+ z2)
Adding the last two gives 2 + 2 zi = 2+ z1 + z2
Or zi = (z1 + z2)/2 (2)
So the intrinsic redshift value of a pair of symmetrically placed quasars is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual raw measured values.



Example
On pages 15-17 in his book "Seeing Red...", Arp describes a pair of quasars surrounding galaxy NGC 4258. Their observed total red shifts are zt1 = 0.40 and zt2 = 0.65. Assuming they both have identical intrinsic red shift components, Arp calculates the arithmetical average
zi = (0.40+0.65)/2 = 0.525.

He then calculates the velocity red shift component for each via equation (1), above, as follows:
(1+zv1) = (1+zt1) / (1+zi1) = 1.40 / 1.525 = 0.918
or
zv1 = 0.918 – 1 = –0.082

and
(1+zv2) = (1+zt2) / (1+zi2) = 1.65 / 1.525 = 1.082
or
zv2 = 1.082 – 1 = +0.082

The quasar with the negative velocity red shift value is approaching us and the one with positive velocity red shift is receding.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 09:21 PM
On 2002-10-14 15:08, AgoraBasta wrote:
I'm not sure you're talking of the mechanism I described. Essentially, this one boils down to the case of randomly deformed waveguide with fixed ends. Distance-redshift relation holds quite nicely.

Electromagnetics Volume 18, Number 4 July - August 1998 Generalized Telegraphist's Equations for Deformed Waveguides; Laurens Weiss and Wolfgang Mathis, pp. 353.

If you would be so kind as to show how your model fits with the theory, I would be appreciative. I can't understand what kind of nonsense you have in mind from your non-descriptive prose.


If you simply calculated total gravitational redshift for uniform matter density of 1 proton per m^3 in flat uniform universe, you'd get about 10^26 meters for z=1...

Absolutely wrong. http://hem.passagen.se/hav/ich7.htm

Have at it, Agora. Tell us what's wrong with that webpage.


Okay, let the light travel through matter-free vacuum, measure time in transit and zero redshift. Then repeat the same, but this time let a big mass traverse at high enough speed near the light path (3D) - the path becomes longer, use another mass - deform the path further, and so on. If interrupting masses and their fields travel in random directions, their effect does not average out to zero in transverse plane. In simple words - the light is dragged by the field, so escape takes longer than entrance.


No, the path is not longer at all because the mass is travelling 3.0*10^-10 cm/sec slower than the light beam that is going next to it. It averages out to zero because the geodesic is always the shortest distance unless your density is extraordinary and the coincidence of the path is just right. We do not have the case for this on average, in fact, we have just the opposite.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 09:28 PM
On 2002-10-14 16:37, JS Princeton wrote:
How can quasars be nearby if there are absorption features seen in them for identified intergalactic and galactic clouds? If the quasars are born charged, their interaction with IGM may have a lot of peculiarities. The IGM in the area next to them would also be primed by a strong EM pulse during their ejection. If quasars really are some kind of ejecta from parent structure, their chance of being positively electrically charged is close to 100%. If I'm allowed to hypothesize freely, I'd propose that quasars could be born from black holes once increased charge destroys the inner horizon.
The absorption lines in quasars are not simply broadened as you would expect for internal gas clouds that were gravitationally redshifted, they are actually at measured locations.
The "nearby quasars" must be somewhere between a density of a galaxy and a density of a star, i.e. relatively compact objects capable of internal spatially-coherent processes. Ideally, a plasma somewhat similar to that inside a gas laser, but with strong positive charge density, would work out best.

BTW, you've quoted a very nice abstract. Nice to see a serious approach to an alternative model. I only wish the authors added some electric charge into the picture.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 09:35 PM
On 2002-10-14 17:09, Orion38 wrote:

I agree totally with that description,



Then Hubble-flow redshifts are still good for galaxies and clusters. The only problem remains for you to explain where those absorption features come in. While your at it, why is the Seyfert Galaxy comparison bad? Furthermore, one has to take into the account this point from this reference webpage (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-16.html):



Frequent suggestion that the redshifts of QSOs are gravitational doesn't work in any simple model. Species having different ionization potentials ought to exist at different distances from the central source and thus should have different redshifts, but in fact emission lines from all species are observed to have the same redshift.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 09:39 PM
NOw that I've given the local-quasar fans something to cheer about (note: I don't agree with Bell's formulation, but he has some interesting points). Here's another abstract:

Title:

Evidence consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts
Authors:

Liang, En-Wei; Qin, Yi-Ping
Journal:

Publications of the Yunnan Observatory (ISSN 1001-7526), 90, No. 2, p. 16 - 21 (2002)
Publication Date:

00/2002
Origin:

ARI
Keywords:

Quasars, Redshift, Cosmology
Bibliographic Code:

2002PYunO..90...16L


Abstract

We select a sample including 401 sources in which both absorption and emission redshifts are available from the table 1 in Hewitt and Burbidge (1993). The sample is the largest one for the
investigation of the quasar redshifts so far. It is found that most of the absorption redshifts (93.6%) are smaller than the corresponding emission redshifts, and the result is consistent with the
conclusion drawn from a small sample in 1970s. The result indicates that the redshifts of quasars are indeed distance indicators. That is consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar
redshifts.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-14, 09:44 PM
Agora, please, write a paper proposing a mechanism and explain how the absorption redshifts can be created for the given publically available sample of quasars. Don't be shy, get yourself published if you think you have an unsung theory.

I suspect you may be full of hot air.

D J
2002-Oct-14, 09:54 PM
AgoraBasta
Quote:
If I'm allowed to hypothesize freely, I'd propose that quasars could be born from black holes once increased charge destroys the inner horizon.
_______________
Rather than a supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy i found this as a interesting and more probable alternative. (See below) "In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies"
This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe
In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies.

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe. Rather, it is a celestial orb that is over 2 million times the mass of our Sun and currently is seen, to radiate about 20 million times as much energy as our Sun. With a density of more than one ton per cubic centimeter, similar to a white dwarf, it would measure about one solar diameter. This Galactic core mass, known as Sagittarius A*, does not swallow matter to generate its energy. Rather, both energy and matter are spontaneously created within its depths seemingly in blatant violation of the First law of Thermodynamics (see below). The ensuing outward flux of radiation keeps this central "Mother Star" from collapsing.

The gravity potential field around this Galactic core decreases inversely with increasing radial distance (Gp ~ 1/ r), as shown above. Stars, gas, and dust orbit this body with velocities as high as 50% of the speed of light, but do not fall toward it. Gas and dust is instead seen to be moving radially outward from this source. After long intervals, the matter/energy generation process within the Sagittarius A* becomes unstable and it explodes with intense luminosity.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 10:03 PM
On 2002-10-14 17:44, JS Princeton wrote:
Agora, please, write a paper proposing a mechanism and explain how the absorption redshifts can be created for the given publically available sample of quasars.There's too many free parameters to make a decent paper upon the naked idea. The good way to do that would be by making a numerical simulation in a computer model. I don't think that I have time and resources to do that professionally, that's why I post here.
I suspect you may be full of hot air.Thanks for not calling me names, sir.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-14, 10:31 PM
On 2002-10-14 17:21, JS Princeton wrote:
If you would be so kind as to show how your model fits with the theory, I would be appreciative. I can't understand what kind of nonsense you have in mind from your non-descriptive prose.Don't you understand that a waveguide of variable length modulates the frequency or do you just choose to be offensive?
Absolutely wrong.That means that you never tried that primitive calculation or you don't know of how to approach the problem.
http://hem.passagen.se/hav/ich7.htm
Have at it, Agora. Tell us what's wrong with that webpage.A lot of unnecessary assumptions and uninventive straightforward calculation methods. Otherwise - could be workable.
It averages out to zero because the geodesic is always the shortest distance unless your density is extraordinary and the coincidence of the path is just right. Try putting a laser gyro in rotational oscillations around its axis and get a phase shift growing linearly with time (with number of oscillations). (Don't you tell me you don't understand how it's related!)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-14 19:00 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-15, 12:39 AM
On 2002-10-14 18:31, AgoraBasta wrote:
Don't you understand that a waveguide of variable length modulates the frequency or do you just choose to be offensive?

I was abundantly clear that all I need from you is a mathematical illustration of how this waveguide works and what its effects are. I even presented to you the model to use. All you need to do is fill in the pieces. It is a simple request and your offensive response makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.


That means that you never tried that primitive calculation or you don't know of how to approach the problem.... A lot of unnecessary assumptions and uninventive straightforward calculation methods. Otherwise - could be workable.

Please be specific. I gave you my evaluation of your evidence, now you critique it. What could be more clear? (Sheesh! I feel like I'm talking to a creationist!)


Try putting a laser gyro in rotational oscillations around its axis and get a phase shift growing linearly with time (with number of oscillations). (Don't you tell me you don't understand how it's related!)

Spurious. Unless you think that the geocentrists have a point and we're living in a universe that spins around a central earth.

ljbrs
2002-Oct-15, 01:11 AM
Spurious. Unless you think that the geocentrists have a point and we're living in a universe that spins around a central earth.


This is kind of diverging from the main point. However, in order to be a decent amateur astronomer, one must be a Ptolemaic and think of the sky as revolving around the earth overhead. Can you imagine doing a Messier Marathon and simultaneously thinking like a Copernican? C'est impossible! Perhaps some of the Creationist thinking is like Ptolemaic thinking. Without a great amount of thought, reality gets lost because of mere appearances. Simplistic thought is the result and, voila! Creationism!

Sorry for breaking the cadence of the discussion, but I think that creationists have difficulty when it comes to observation of the night sky (or day sky, for that matter). It feeds misunderstanding of science.

Now to go back to the real topic. Sorry for sidetracking the discussion.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-15, 03:15 AM
On 2002-10-14 21:11, ljbrs wrote:
Can you imagine doing a Messier Marathon and simultaneously thinking like a Copernican?
Yes, I believe I can. But only in the past ten years.

D J
2002-Oct-15, 03:17 AM
On 2002-10-14 17:35, JS Princeton wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-10-14 17:09, Orion38 wrote:

I agree totally with that description,



Then Hubble-flow redshifts are still good for galaxies and clusters. The only problem remains for you to explain where those absorption features come in. While your at it, why is the Seyfert Galaxy comparison bad? Furthermore, one has to take into the account this point from this reference webpage (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-16.html):

[quote]
Frequent suggestion that the redshifts of QSOs are gravitational doesn't work in any simple model. Species having different ionization potentials ought to exist at different distances from the central source and thus should have different redshifts, but in fact emission lines from all species are observed to have the same redshift.

Your answers here:(some of them probably)
Evolution of Quasars into Galaxies and its
Implications for the Birth and Evolution of
Matter:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oH_RWhZiTC0C:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf+Narlikar+%26+Das&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf
A schematic summary of the Big Bang (left hand side) versus the more gen-
eral, variable mass solution (right hand side) of the General Relativistic field equations.
The conventional assumption that particle mass,
m, is constant leads to an expanding

universe and collision with the brick wall of observation that redshifts are not primarily
velocity but intrinsically age related. The Machian solution on the right gives redshift (
z)

as a function of age (
t), predicts the correct Hubble constant, turns conventional singu-
larities into creation points of "new'' matter and permits connection ...

Go directly at the bottom of that page to see the equations,return to the top of the page and enjoy!!!

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-15, 04:04 AM
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf
A schematic summary of the Big Bang (left hand side) versus the more gen-
eral, variable mass solution (right hand side) of the General Relativistic field equations.
The conventional assumption that particle mass,
m, is constant leads to an expanding

universe and collision with the brick wall of observation that redshifts are not primarily
velocity but intrinsically age related. The Machian solution on the right gives redshift (
z)

as a function of age (
t), predicts the correct Hubble constant, turns conventional singu-
larities into creation points of "new'' matter and permits connection ...

Go directly at the bottom of that page to see the equations,return to the top of the page and enjoy!!!


Well, this is an interesting little document, but it doesn't appear to appease the the issue at hand: that being the cosmological distance ladder. In effect, all it says is that there are other predicted sources of redshift, but the values for these predicted sources give a universe that does not a) have a CMB and b) have a coherent theory of dynamics.

I'm sorry, we may wish to argue the points of the Cosmological Principle and the Equivalence Principles (I know Arp doesn't necessarily like these two ideas) in another thread. But if we aren't going to accept them, we really have nothing to start with and are just about as la-de-da as pseudoscientists.

Cosmology has these axioms as inductive reasons. Actually, they were postulated before the observational evidence was gathered, but up until now they are unchallenged axioms. Ah, yes, Agora, we scientists are religious believers in induction, we are!

D J
2002-Oct-15, 04:23 AM
Quote:
In effect, all it says is that there are other predicted sources of redshift, but the values for these predicted sources give a universe that does not a) have a CMB b) have a coherent theory of dynamics.
_____________________
You dont have read this
APEIRON Vol. 5 Nr. 3-4, July-October 1998
Since the large redshifts are predominantly due to young age there is no evidence, and indeed no
place for, recessional velocities and no evidence for an expanding universe. It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium, averaged
through the line of sight to obtain the extreme smoothness which is observed. The CMB is therefore
likely to be the primary reference frame which is such an anathema to conventional relativity

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 09:43 AM
On 2002-10-14 20:39, JS Princeton wrote:
I was abundantly clear that all I need from you is a mathematical illustration of how this waveguide works and what its effects are.Do you want to see (dl)/l=-(df)/f ? I presumed you understand the basics, silly me!
Please be specific. I gave you my evaluation of your evidence, now you critique it.No, you have not. You produced a link to a site where the author arrives at trivial result in a ridiculously complicated way. The trivial result may be expressed as z=(2/3)(pi)(G)(P)(r^2)/(c^2), P is density.
Spurious. Unless you think that the geocentrists have a point and we're living in a universe that spins around a central earth.Your comment is unrelated to the matter discussed. I'll try to reformulate so that even you can understand - no, light does not take the shortest path in moving fields because it is not prescient of the fields' changes.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 09:53 AM
On 2002-10-15 00:04, JS Princeton wrote:
Ah, yes, Agora, we scientists are religious believers in induction, we are! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Not for long now. Those atavisms of archaic Christian Protestantism in secular science will soon be overcome. Such atavisms are characteristic of science in the US only. Now that you have a nice inflow of advanced foreign brains, your dinosaurs of scientific idiocy will die out promptly.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-15, 12:12 PM
On 2002-10-15 05:53, AgoraBasta wrote:
Now that you have a nice inflow of advanced foreign brains, your dinosaurs of scientific idiocy will die out promptly.

Now? You mean we didn't before? Before when?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 02:02 PM
On 2002-10-15 08:12, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Now? You mean we didn't before? Before when?Let's say before late 1980's there were very few Russians and Chinese.

Zathras
2002-Oct-15, 02:09 PM
On 2002-10-15 05:53, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-10-15 00:04, JS Princeton wrote:
Ah, yes, Agora, we scientists are religious believers in induction, we are! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Not for long now. Those atavisms of archaic Christian Protestantism in secular science will soon be overcome. Such atavisms are characteristic of science in the US only. Now that you have a nice inflow of advanced foreign brains, your dinosaurs of scientific idiocy will die out promptly.


Yes, logic is such an obsolete concept, isn't it?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 02:29 PM
On 2002-10-15 10:09, Zathras wrote:
Yes, logic is such an obsolete concept, isn't it?Like in true belief is always illogical?

John Kierein
2002-Oct-15, 07:00 PM
Those who are familiar with my website: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html
know that I hold that the red shift distance relationship holds for galaxies. I believe, however, that quasars and many bright radio sources have an additional intrinsic red shift. I have come to the conclusion that the Compton effect produces a red shift when light interacts with free electrons or other free particles such as positrons or even protons. Thus, if a relatively constant density of ionized hydrogen, which is just free electrons and protons, exists throughout intergalactic space, the red shift distance relationship holds in general. Also, wherever there are large concentrations of free electrons, such as is seen in synchroton radiation sources, there will be intrinsic red shifts. This would certainly be the case for radio bright quasars. Other quasars may also have a large density of free electrons in their atmosphere and produce an intrisic red shift, but not necessarily be radio bright if these electrons are not acelerated because the quasars lack a strong magnetic field. Such strong radio sources as Hercules A also should have an intrinsic red shift.
This intrinsic red shift is clearly demonstrated in the case of the sun. The sun's red shift is intrinsic. It varies from the center to the limb of the sun in exactly the same way as the number of free electrons varies along the line of sight. Compton himself believed that the red shift on the sun was due to the Compton effect for this very reason.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-15, 07:34 PM
You dont have read this
APEIRON Vol. 5 Nr. 3-4, July-October 1998
Since the large redshifts are predominantly due to young age there is no evidence, and indeed no
place for, recessional velocities and no evidence for an expanding universe. It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium, averaged
through the line of sight to obtain the extreme smoothness which is observed

Nope, the smoothness is better by a good three or four orders of magnitude for even the most generous models of line-of-sight averaging. This is what put the nail in the coffin of steady-state.



The CMB is therefore
likely to be the primary reference frame which is such an anathema to conventional relativity


It's not anathema at all. Relativity says you can choose any reference frame you want. The CMB just happens to be convenient because it's fairly uniform.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-15, 07:37 PM
On 2002-10-15 05:43, AgoraBasta wrote:
Do you want to see (dl)/l=-(df)/f ? I presumed you understand the basics, silly me!


This is just pandering. Come on, cough it up! Tell us what you really think. dl/df=-l/f is simply first step in the model I gave you. You need to do better than that to explain non-doppler redshifts.


No, you have not. You produced a link to a site where the author arrives at trivial result in a ridiculously complicated way. The trivial result may be expressed as z=(2/3)(pi)(G)(P)(r^2)/(c^2), P is density.

You have a problem with that result?

[/quote]Your comment is unrelated to the matter discussed. I'll try to reformulate so that even you can understand - no, light does not take the shortest path in moving fields because it is not prescient of the fields' changes.
[/quote]

Then you have a model by which to show this, I assume.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-15, 07:39 PM
On 2002-10-15 15:00, John Kierein wrote:
I believe, however, that quasars and many bright radio sources have an additional intrinsic red shift.


All right, then why are absorption and emission redshifts present the way they are?

D J
2002-Oct-15, 09:14 PM
Quote:
Nope, the smoothness is better by a good three or four orders of magnitude for even the most generous models of line-of-sight averaging. This is what put the nail in the coffin of steady-state.
_____________________
Personaly i dont think this paper talk about the steady stade theory from Boyle.IE They talk rather of a slower expansion of the universe than the conventional model.
Quote:
It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium...
*fit perfectly with the their model.*

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oH_RWhZiTC0C:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf+Narlikar+%26+Das&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The Machian solution on the right gives redshift (
z)

as a function of age (
t), predicts the correct Hubble constant, turns conventional singu-
larities into creation points of "new'' matter and permits connection ...

You dont even take in consideration the equations at the end of the page.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf

Relativity says you can choose any reference frame you want. The CMB just happens to be convenient because it's fairly uniform.

And they include the CMB in their model :
It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium, averaged
through the line of sight to obtain the extreme smoothness which is observed.

Isn`t it the same smootness they are talking about?

D J
2002-Oct-15, 09:18 PM
smoothness = fairly uniform.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 10:04 PM
On 2002-10-15 15:37, JS Princeton wrote:
This is just pandering. Come on, cough it up! Tell us what you really think. dl/df=-l/f is simply first step in the model I gave you.No, it's the thing that sufficiently explains frequency modulation in a waveguide of variable length. Such was the model I gave to you and not the other way around. You may refer to third parties' works - I don't need such references beyond the basic theories.
You have a problem with that result?Why should I? It's a cosmological redshift by gravity in a flat infinite Newtonian/Euclidean universe.
Then you have a model by which to show this, I assume.
There's no need for elaborate models, a traversing mass to which the light appears blueshifted exchanges more energy in gravitational interaction with the light than a "symmetrically" traversing mass to which the light appears redshifted.

John Kierein
2002-Oct-15, 10:29 PM
On 2002-10-15 15:39, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-10-15 15:00, John Kierein wrote:
I believe, however, that quasars and many bright radio sources have an additional intrinsic red shift.


All right, then why are absorption and emission redshifts present the way they are?


Well there are a couple of cases of discrepant absorption and emission line observations in quasars. The first case is for "stand alone" quasars. In these quasars often there are several different red shifts for different elements with the emission lines generally being larger than the absorption lines. This situation is very difficult to explain from a doppler interpretation. Does this mean that some elements are travelling away slower than others or, if you apply Hubble's law to them, that they are at significantly different distances from each other? The models to explain this are complex and hard to make fit with the data. A Compton explanation is that some of the elements are at different heights in the electron cloud and thus have differing amounts of electrons along the line of sight. The case is similar to the solar case.

The second case is where the quasar is associated with a galaxy and seems to have absorption lines in the spectra that are the same as the galaxy's. The doppler explanation is that the quasar is a background object. A Compton effect explanation is similar except the quasar need not be farther than the galaxy. In fact, if the quasar is intrinsically dim and small (stellar size,)as it appears, it is possible that a background galaxy light can be intermingled with a foreground quasar just like the opposite situation.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-15, 10:51 PM
John,
I have a vague idea that a sufficiently dense electron cloud may develop a phonon field more like that of a liquid or solid body. Then a whole lot of resonant scattering effects may be expected to strongly distort the photon spectra.

D J
2002-Oct-16, 02:45 AM
Well, I was hoping for a more structurated rebuttal from member JS Princeton,maybe he is short of arguments,or he is preparing some surprises for us anti-conformism to the traditional model.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 02:43 PM
On 2002-10-15 17:18, Orion38 wrote:
smoothness = fairly uniform.


fairly uniform being 1 part in 10^4 or 10^5 which is much higher than the uniformity afforded by any averaging starlight model. Sorry, that's just the way it is right now.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Oct-16, 04:35 PM
On 2002-10-15 18:29, John Kierein wrote:


On 2002-10-15 15:39, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-10-15 15:00, John Kierein wrote:
I believe, however, that quasars and many bright radio sources have an additional intrinsic red shift.


All right, then why are absorption and emission redshifts present the way they are?


Well there are a couple of cases of discrepant absorption and emission line observations in quasars. The first case is for "stand alone" quasars. In these quasars often there are several different red shifts for different elements with the emission lines generally being larger than the absorption lines. This situation is very difficult to explain from a doppler interpretation. Does this mean that some elements are travelling away slower than others or, if you apply Hubble's law to them, that they are at significantly different distances from each other? The models to explain this are complex and hard to make fit with the data. A Compton explanation is that some of the elements are at different heights in the electron cloud and thus have differing amounts of electrons along the line of sight. The case is similar to the solar case.

The second case is where the quasar is associated with a galaxy and seems to have absorption lines in the spectra that are the same as the galaxy's. The doppler explanation is that the quasar is a background object. A Compton effect explanation is similar except the quasar need not be farther than the galaxy. In fact, if the quasar is intrinsically dim and small (stellar size,)as it appears, it is possible that a background galaxy light can be intermingled with a foreground quasar just like the opposite situation.




No John, there are no discrepencies as you
suggest. These absorption lines that are
intrinsic to the quasar are simply due to
gas being ejected by the quasar into our
line of sight. This mechanism is thought to
be something akin to a wind off an accretion
disk (that surrounds the supermassive
blackhole), and we happen to be viewing the
quasar along that cylindrical wind. Since
that gas is outflowing from the nucleus into
our line of sight, it absorbs light from the
resonance line (from triply ionized carbon
or quadruply ionized nitrogen and even
hydrogen, and many other species) at
wavelengths *shorter* than the
transition's wavelength in the rest frame
of the quasar. So the absorption lines are
blueshifted relative to the emission lines
(and these are really broad absorption
troughs, though not so much broader than the
quasars emission lines),
and therefore one can say that the "redshift"
of these intrinsic absorption lines is less
than that of its emission lines. That does
not argue against anything we know or
understand about quasars or cosmology.

Since the lines of sights to quasars along
angles cutting through this wind are
geometrically few, the so-called "broad
absorption line quasars" are relatively
rare, perhaps just 20% of the overall
population.

JK: a lot of progress in our knowledge and
understanding of quasars and their spectra
has occured over the past 40 years. You might
try boning up on some of it (as I have tried
to do with you over the past few years on
this BB - as quasars are what I do for a
living) before commenting upon something you
know so little about. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As to the other issue in regards to the
so-called "Compton effect" in the sun's
atmosphere: You'll probably never be
convinced that "Kierein scattering" is
not compton scattering, and probably has
no application in this universe. That has
been shown here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html
and elsewhere,

and your idea re. line shifts in the solar spectrum published in 1967 is explicitly
ruled out with the actual physical process
described here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1981A%26A....96..345D&db_key=AST&high=3da9c7fd3312311

and probably elsewhere as well.

That's how we make progress in understanding
the world, JK. When the model doesn't explain
nature - given consideration of ALL known
observational/experimental data, we throw it
into the trash heap, learn from our mistakes
and move on to finding a better one.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-16 12:37 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-16 12:56 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-16 13:04 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 04:44 PM
On 2002-10-15 18:29, John Kierein wrote:
Well there are a couple of cases of discrepant absorption and emission line observations in quasars. The first case is for "stand alone" quasars. In these quasars often there are several different red shifts for different elements with the emission lines generally being larger than the absorption lines. This situation is very difficult to explain from a doppler interpretation.

No, the emission lines can easily be larger than the absorption lines in any number of ways.

1) they are physically ejected relativistic clouds at the same redshift. Ionized gas (as in emission nebula) will occasionally be preferential.
2) Some species are misidentified with other absorption features. These cases have been mostly cleared up.

There really is no "paradoxical" doppler case to speak of. In fact, the paper I quoted shows that the cosmological interpretation seems to hold much better than the intrinsic model.



Does this mean that some elements are travelling away slower than others or, if you apply Hubble's law to them, that they are at significantly different distances from each other?


Indeed, this is the case with many species. With quasar 3c273 we see distinct clouds at a large range of redshifts (from galactic clouds through the Virgo cluster and beyond).



The models to explain this are complex and hard to make fit with the data.


All the models I've seen are straightforward. Which "complex and hard to make fit" models are you talking about from off the top of your head?



A Compton explanation is that some of the elements are at different heights in the electron cloud and thus have differing amounts of electrons along the line of sight. The case is similar to the solar case.
Which ionized cloud are you talking about for stand alone quasars? After all, you seem to believe that quasars are predominately nearby (despite the evidence I gave to the contrary which you didn't bother to consider). How on Earth do they get an ionized cloud if they're all by their lonesome?


The second case is where the quasar is associated with a galaxy and seems to have absorption lines in the spectra that are the same as the galaxy's. The doppler explanation is that the quasar is a background object. A Compton effect explanation is similar except the quasar need not be farther than the galaxy. In fact, if the quasar is intrinsically dim and small (stellar size,)as it appears, it is possible that a background galaxy light can be intermingled with a foreground quasar just like the opposite situation.

But the reality is that we don't see background absorption and emmission from quasars. We only see foreground. No one has addressed this issue of the cosmological quasar deniers on this board. Maybe it's too hard to understand?

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 04:50 PM
No, it's the thing that sufficiently explains frequency modulation in a waveguide of variable length. Such was the model I gave to you and not the other way around. You may refer to third parties' works - I don't need such references beyond the basic theories.

Then you are basically denying the fact that there are other observational corrections for which you have no account. The problem is that the waveguide that is deformed will exhibit effects in the intensity as well as in the frequency. You are asking us to believe that there is some sort of electrodynamic medium intervening in all lines of sight that is uniformly deformed in such a way as to provide for uniform redshift distance relation.

The fact remains that the deformed waveguide you are talking about really is a scale-dependent change in the propagation medium (that is spacetime) which is totally consistent with the Doppler Model. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand parallelism very well.


There's no need for elaborate models, a traversing mass to which the light appears blueshifted exchanges more energy in gravitational interaction with the light than a "symmetrically" traversing mass to which the light appears redshifted.


Ala gravitational lensing. Except if you look at energy density which is the real quantity we're interested in the exchanges are the same.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 04:52 PM
It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium, averaged
through the line of sight to obtain the extreme smoothness which is observed.

Isn`t it the same smootness they are talking about?


As I have stated numerous times in this thread, that explanation has been discounted. If you integrate up the energy you will find the right temperature, but a systematic uncertainty around 10% which cannot be reduced away. That's giving the background temperature the MOST GENEROUS treatment too. If you look at the CMB you will find that the smoothness is far far far better than that. That's why there is no dice.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-16, 07:58 PM
On 2002-10-16 12:50, JS Princeton wrote:
Then you are basically denying the fact that there are other observational corrections for which you have no account. The problem is that the waveguide that is deformed will exhibit effects in the intensity as well as in the frequency. It happens this way - you don't understand the model, then you imagine a contradiction based on your misunderstanding and accuse me of non-understanding. Specifically, for the frequency/intensity to deformation interrelation, it means that the most "appropriate" kind of interrelation is realized to minimize the energy exchange. (Don't jump on the question of how is that so - try thinking first to understand instead of to debunk.)
The fact remains that the deformed waveguide you are talking about really is a scale-dependent change in the propagation medium (that is spacetime) which is totally consistent with the Doppler Model. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand parallelism very well.Now you try to paraphrase my own model and accuse me of not understanding it. Very ingenious indeed. What you refuse to understand, though, is that it all can work quite well without inflation.
Ala gravitational lensing. Except if you look at energy density which is the real quantity we're interested in the exchanges are the same.A la - correct. The rest - wrong. You'd have to try simple qualitative estimations for yourself to believe it (hint - use a highly relativistic limit to reveal a strong effect).

I see that you systematically intend to avoid any attempt of understanding whatsoever I say, but you systematically try to debunk everything that doesn't seem to comply with the standard orthodoxy. Why would you need to read and reply to a lot of stuff you must obviously consider so "crankish"?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-16, 08:16 PM
On 2002-10-16 12:52, JS Princeton wrote:
As I have stated numerous times in this thread, that explanation has been discounted. If you integrate up the energy you will find the right temperature, but a systematic uncertainty around 10% which cannot be reduced away. That's giving the background temperature the MOST GENEROUS treatment too. If you look at the CMB you will find that the smoothness is far far far better than that. That's why there is no dice.Your pet argument is rubbish. Since line of sight averaging still produces a correct temp figure, there no place for another background with the same temp. The seemingly missing smoothness can be readily delivered by ELF/ULF background that effectively stirrs the contents of the quiescent band that you call CMB.

Zathras
2002-Oct-16, 08:23 PM
On 2002-10-16 16:16, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-10-16 12:52, JS Princeton wrote:
As I have stated numerous times in this thread, that explanation has been discounted. If you integrate up the energy you will find the right temperature, but a systematic uncertainty around 10% which cannot be reduced away. That's giving the background temperature the MOST GENEROUS treatment too. If you look at the CMB you will find that the smoothness is far far far better than that. That's why there is no dice.Your pet argument is rubbish. Since line of sight averaging still produces a correct temp figure, there no place for another background with the same temp. The seemingly missing smoothness can be readily delivered by ELF/ULF background that effectively stirrs the contents of the quiescent band that you call CMB.


I have no idea what you mean by stirring, but if you add two spectra of different temperatures, you do not obtain a BB spectrum of some average temperature. Exponentials do not add that way. CMB radiation has a single, sharp temperature definition, and that is something you will never get by combining spectra corresponding to different temperatures.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2002-10-16 16:29 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-16, 09:03 PM
On 2002-10-16 16:23, Zathras wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by stirring...There is an ultra-low frequency band background that has huge spectral and spatial energy density. This ULF background exists mostly in form of magneto-acoustic waves in IGM plasma. It's actually more like fast currents in IGM that smear and stirr directionality in the most transparent and quiescent band of the background by adding a strong averaging mechanism.
Like I said before, the CMB is not there as a standalone thing, it's cut out of the full spectrum of background radiation. By cutting "creatively" one may get whatever shape out of the full picture, including a shape of a unicorn's behind.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 10:39 PM
On 2002-10-16 17:03, AgoraBasta wrote:

Like I said before, the CMB is not there as a standalone thing, it's cut out of the full spectrum of background radiation. By cutting "creatively" one may get whatever shape out of the full picture, including a shape of a unicorn's behind.


No, the CMB IS standalone. It is invariant over all lines of sight. It is also thermal and not an integration.

I know you hate Ockham's razor, Agora, but you're swatting in the dark now.

As to your proposed model, I really can tell you don't understand what you're talking about or you simply can't communicate it well. I understand only what you can write. You refuse to let me interpret your model because you are right and I am wrong. This is the very thing you accuse me of doing! Enough, it's not worth my time.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-16, 10:52 PM
Agora:
Listen carefully:

The CMB is a real signal not a manufactured one. YOu can look at it using your very own microwave telescope if you want. It is not something that is surreptitiously subtracted or a device error. It is real and it is everywhere.

The CMB is thermal. If you look at its energy spectra you will see it follows a Planck Spectrum to the precision of 1 part in 10^5. This means that whatever is creating it is in thermal equilibrium across the sky to that level of precision. Steady state models of integrated starlight (only possible in the steady state with the infinite universe) do not afford a thermal background. The absolute BEST they can do is get a spectra that has an error of 10% NOT 0.00001. That's a huge problem for integrated starlight problems.

The CMB was PREDICTED by the Big Bang before it was observed. There aren't any observations you can point to right now that contradict the expanding universe model. You have to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to explain a universe that isn't expanding and those models have failed.

There are three prongs of the Big Bang. Cosmic abundances, the CMB, and Hubble velocities. They all intersect at a point that indicates an expanding universe. You don't think redshifts are doppler, but you know that redshifts COULD be dopple. You don't think the CMB is thermal radiation but it looks like it to 1 part in 10^4 or 10^5. Big Bang Nuclearsynthesis predicts the relative abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium in a relation that is observed today to coincide with the observed value of the expansion rate as well as the scale factor and the deceleration parameter. This is why I believe the Big Bang. You offer vague attempts at explaining all of these issues away in a variety of "alternative" theories that are not consistent with each other let alone adequate in my "feeble" understanding of your "awesome" intellect. Puleaze!

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-16, 11:41 PM
On 2002-10-16 18:52, JS Princeton wrote:
The CMB is a real signal not a manufactured one.The CMB is a result of subtraction. It is NOT available separately from other constituents of background. Denying this fact is a blunt lie.

overrated
2002-Oct-16, 11:45 PM
On 2002-10-15 10:02, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote]Let's say before late 1980's there were very few Russians and Chinese.


Oh, come on. Are you suggesting that Russians and Chinese have some sort of intrinsic intellectual superiority? Or that the American system of higher education is inferior? Or even, as you implied in an earlier message, that religious belief is the refuge of the ignorant?

I've been reading this thread because it's fascinating, but damn, could we avoid taking poorly aimed potshots at other subjects? What happened to dispassionate discussion?

[edited to add] On the other hand, if you were joking or being sarcastic, my bad: I misinterpreted your tone.
_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-10-16 19:48 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 01:09 AM
On 2002-10-16 19:41, AgoraBasta wrote:
The CMB is a result of subtraction. It is NOT available separately from other constituents of background. Denying this fact is a blunt lie.


Please tell me you understand the idea of signal extraction. Please tell me you understand the fact that if you look everywhere the same BACKGROUND signal can be extracted for the microwave wavelengths available. The subtraction doesn't make the detection of the background any less real. Your noise explanation, however, is an inherently correlative signal and not an actual one.

We've got MAP at the Lagrange Point... it indicates that the Background is the same there. The background is the same end of story.

D J
2002-Oct-17, 01:20 AM
JS Princeton wrote

Orion38 wrote:
It can be argued that the
cosmic microwave background is simply the temperature of the intergalactic medium, averaged
through the line of sight to obtain the extreme smoothness which is observed.


Let me reformulated what i am trying to tell you:
What make you beleive they are talking about a different CMB than the one you are describing, the only difference is in the cause of the CMB.
Big Bang vs Residual Value of all the energetic activity since the existence of the universe distibuted trough the IGM who is constituate of ionized plasma at 99.9%

Quote:JS Princeton wrote
The CMB was PREDICTED by the Big Bang before it was observed.
_______________
So what, that does not rule out other possibility IE see previous quote.

Quote:
There aren't any observations you can point to right now that contradict the expanding universe model. You have to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to explain a universe that isn't expanding and those models have failed.
__________________
Arp give a model,near static expansion doesn`t means no expansion at all,but an expansion at a slower rate
Merging time scales
>
Cascading, episodic
creation
in an
Indefinitely large, old
Universe

SEE the equations at the end of that page
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oH_RWhZiTC0C:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf+Narlikar+%26+Das&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf

Working entirely from observation, Arp sketches a picture of an eternal, infinite, stable universe which continually "unfolds from many points within itself."

http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-16 21:23 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-16 21:29 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-17, 08:01 AM
On 2002-10-16 19:45, overrated wrote:
Oh, come on. Are you suggesting that Russians and Chinese have some sort of intrinsic intellectual superiority? What I meant (over the pun background) was that various traditions have various advantages/disadvantages over each-other. So, yes there is some sort of "intrinsic intellectual superiority" as well as the other way around.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-17, 09:07 AM
On 2002-10-16 21:09, JS Princeton wrote:
Please tell me you understand the idea of signal extraction. ... The subtraction doesn't make the detection of the background any less real. Your noise explanation, however, is an inherently correlative signal and not an actual one.I certainly do understand signal extraction. I had a lot of hands-on experience with that. Your idea that CMB is not a noise component but a "signal" is plainly laughable. A highly isotropic component can be extracted from virtually every noise field; and the minima of any 3D/2D noise field are always highly isotropic, this happens for an obvious reason that the such are always naturally averaged over the greatest volume of the field medium.

To make room for the Doppler redshifts at cosmological distances, you would have to first remove somehow the effects of the gravitational component of the redshift. That would be hard to accomplish since the observed redshifts are a close match to the gravitational redshift.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Oct-17, 03:15 PM
On 2002-10-17 05:07, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote]

To make room for the Doppler redshifts at cosmological distances, you would have to first remove somehow the effects of the gravitational component of the redshift. That would be hard to accomplish since the observed redshifts are a close match to the gravitational redshift.


What the heck are you talking about?
JS Princeton has linked to an article
detailing the effects of GR on the
redshift of objects whose lines of sight
pass through a dense cluster of galaxies:
20-50 km/s, or a systematic bias of 0.000167
in the redshift.

The only objects that emit significant amount
of light, in the forms of spectral features
from which we measure redshifts, from gas
near a supermassive black hole would be
quasars. These emission lines are emitted by
gas that is far enough away from the SMBH
that any GR redshift is small, and PERHAPS in
some cases shifts the centroid of the far
wings of the line slightly to the red. This
small shift is significantly smaller than the
width of the emission line itself, that is
due to such gas moving in the potential of
the SMBH. This gravitational redshift, coming
from the line emitting gas NEAREST the SMBH
(and the surrounding source of ionizing
radiation), amounts to an additional redshift
of a whopping 0.003-0.01 at most
-- and all this
does is shift the centroid of the very broad
base of the emission line. Let's see, quasar
redshifts range from 0.16 (3C 273) to 6.28.

Of course, maybe you have your own version of
gravitational redshift that finds values as
large as the expansion redshifts.

What's more, the very same quasar phenomenon
takes place at the centers of NEARBY
so-called Seyfert 1 galaxies, where one
can measure their distances independently
of their "redshift", and can easily see
regular old galaxies surrounding the bright
nucleus. Their luminosities are lower and
the masses of their SMBH are typically lower,
but otherwise, by the light they emit from
the IR to the X-rays they are the same
phenomenon as quasars.

And then of course, we measure redshifts of
galaxies from features in the composite
stellar spectrum that has nothing to do with
any SMBH that may or may not be at the
galaxy's center.

The upshot is that we don't mistake the
overall redshift of the quasar or galaxy
with any gravitational one.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-17 11:44 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-17 13:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-10-17 13:53 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-17, 03:34 PM
On 2002-10-17 11:15, Spaceman Spiff wrote: What the heck are you talking about.The same very heck as if the light is gedanken-shone from the centre of the Earth - it gets redshifted by the potential diff GM/r. Apply the same considerations to a uniform flat universe - get a nice match.

I have no problem with the rest of your epistle, though.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Oct-17, 03:47 PM
On 2002-10-17 11:34, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-10-17 11:15, Spaceman Spiff wrote: What the heck are you talking about.The same very heck as if the light is gedanken-shone from the centre of the Earth - it gets redshifted by the potential diff GM/r. Apply the same considerations to a uniform flat universe - get a nice match.

I have no problem with the rest of your epistle, though.


Ok, then I look forward to reading your
contribution to cosmology and general
relativity in the Astrophysical Journal
or the Physical Review Letters. When are
you submitting your article?

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 04:18 PM
On 2002-10-16 21:20, Orion38 wrote:
Let me reformulated what i am trying to tell you:
What make you beleive they are talking about a different CMB than the one you are describing, the only difference is in the cause of the CMB.


Listen very carefully, Orion, your cause for the CMB does not fit the observed model. This is because the integral over the lines of sight of all these temperatures is not able to be a blackbody spectrum to the degree that the CMB is observed to be a blackbody spectrum. This is the fourth time I've explained this in this thread alone. You cannot explain the CMB's isotropy using that model. It doesn't work to that high of a precision.



So what, that does not rule out other possibility IE see previous quote.


One thing you have to admit is that the Big Bang basically explains current observations very well. There are a few QSSers and there's Arp around still pushing for various ideas, but the fact of the matter remains that there is an amazing constraint on their models afforded by the CMB that is not addressed because it is still insisted that somehow the CMB can be explained through an alternative mechanism (as you just tried to do). There has been no attempt... NONE... to do that. Please, show me a formulation that allows for the high precision of COBE data. Or do you deny COBE data?



Arp give a model,near static expansion doesn`t means no expansion at all,but an expansion at a slower rate
Merging time scales

And it doesn't offer the explanations needed for all three pillars. It does not explain any large scale structure observations, any of the supernovae observations, any of the rising temperature of the background observations (by the by, Agora: how does your isotropic universe handle a rising background temperature of the noise at large distances?) There's a lot of observational evidence simply ignored by Arp in favor of interpretive evidence from his pet objects. This is not dispassionate enough for me. Let me see Arp systematically contradict all modern cosmological observational astronomy and then maybe he has a point. Right now, he's just picking and choosing based mostly on his quasar theory which is full of holes in any case.



Cascading, episodic
creation
in an
Indefinitely large, old
Universe


Some of these models actually do not contradict the Big Bang.



Working entirely from observation, Arp sketches a picture of an eternal, infinite, stable universe which continually "unfolds from many points within itself."


Again, no adequate treatment of the CMB. Nor is their any attempt at decent incorporation of GR-cosmology. It is simply not rigorous where it should be.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2002-10-17 12:26 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 04:25 PM
I certainly do understand signal extraction. I had a lot of hands-on experience with that. Your idea that CMB is not a noise component but a "signal" is plainly laughable.


What, praytell, signal has an isothermal noise component to the precision of one part in 10^4? I mean so precise that if you plot the spectra the error bars are smaller than any line thickness that you choose. It is so extremely isotropic as to be breath-taking. Please, read up on COBE and the CMB and explain to me exactly where the signal is that the CMB is the noise for. Don't give me any of this divergant signal nonsense either since we can see plainly that for the lowest frequencies the CMB does not diverge but merely follows the PLANCK spectrum.



A highly isotropic component can be extracted from virtually every noise field; and the minima of any 3D/2D noise field are always highly isotropic, this happens for an obvious reason that the such are always naturally averaged over the greatest volume of the field medium.


Of course, but then you report the left over singals as what? Junk? I mean, you've already extracted the noise.

You can read about exactly how the CMB is noticed and treated. All of the other sources in that area that are not isotropic are dealt with to no objections by anybody but yourself. Do you really not agree with synchrotron radiation? The galactic anisotropy? What? What is your specific beef? Point to the EXACT spot where COBE's spectral extraction started doing junk science. I cannot find it.



To make room for the Doppler redshifts at cosmological distances, you would have to first remove somehow the effects of the gravitational component of the redshift. That would be hard to accomplish since the observed redshifts are a close match to the gravitational redshift.


SSpiff has alreay told you why this argument holds not water.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 04:34 PM
The same very heck as if the light is gedanken-shone from the centre of the Earth - it gets redshifted by the potential diff GM/r. Apply the same considerations to a uniform flat universe - get a nice match.


Okay, we take into consideration the expansion and contraction of space via the Freidmann Equations and measuring conformal units and scale factors. If we do any cosmology where the gravity of the universe becomes important, this "redshift" which is no trivial but otherwise related, can be got at through various distance methods including checking luminosity distances and angular distances where the scale factors change over great lengths due to the dynamics of the Freidmann equations (an Omega_k term, an Omega_m term, and any other Omega term).

Assuming a flat universe Omega_k is zero and you deal solely with Omega_m which will get the "gravitation" contribution exactly right.

The reason your treatment works is because you assume, Agora, a universe that isn't expanding at all. Therefore there is no changing Hubble Parameter or scale factor over time. This is an interesting game to play, but it doesn't match our observations of structure evolution and it certainly doesn't match the CMB.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-17, 05:42 PM
On 2002-10-17 12:34, JS Princeton wrote:
The reason your treatment works is because you assume, Agora, a universe that isn't expanding at all.Which basically means that inflation is not necessary to explain the redshifts.
This is an interesting game to play, but it doesn't match our observations of structure evolution and it certainly doesn't match the CMB.Large-scale structures may be delivered by electromagnetic interaction in a plasma universe in a much more effective way. The "CMB" is then effectively mixed and shaken to utter uniformity by plasma currents.

Zathras
2002-Oct-17, 05:46 PM
On 2002-10-17 13:42, AgoraBasta wrote:
The "CMB" is then effectively mixed and shaken to utter uniformity by plasma currents.


With all of this talk of stirring, mixing and shaking, are you planning on opening up a martini bar?

Please explain once and for all how spectra can be combined through plasma or otherwise to produced a thermal spectrum with a constant temperature.

And don't mention the unicorn's behind.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 06:55 PM
On 2002-10-17 13:42, AgoraBasta wrote:
Which basically means that inflation is not necessary to explain the redshifts.

Be careful there, Agora. Inflation is not the same thing as Hubble Flow. Guth's proposal for inflation can basically be seen as a resolution to a theoretical problem of the flat universe and the problem of Causality and the uniformity of the CMB. The Hubble Flow is not "inflation" in the cosmological sense. They are two different things. Inflation was a period in the history of the universe where the Hubble Flow was so incredibly quick it pushed the majority of our universe outside of the particle horizon.



Large-scale structures may be delivered by electromagnetic interaction in a plasma universe in a much more effective way. The "CMB" is then effectively mixed and shaken to utter uniformity by plasma currents.


I realize you are very interesting in electromagnetic effects upon the cosmological models. Indeed, you are right in assuming that most models do not assume electromagnetic effects. This is due primarily to two assumptions: 1) That gravity is more important. 2) That the universe is mostly empty wrt. electrodynamical fluids (plasmas). You seem to think that cosmological observations indicate that the second point may not be true. This then implies you can deny the general a priori conditions that couple with point 1) and give us the traditional standard model. I, however, do not think that you can make such a claim in isolation. Electromagnetic radiation being the predominate form of observational methodology in the universe means that any proposed interaction would have observational consequences in a wide range of areas.

Let's take the simple example of emission and absorption in a plasma field. The details of such interactions are horrendously complicated as we can end up with such bizarre things as magnetic fields and electron-positron pairs as we approach higher energies. These effects have observable signals that should be present in isotropic distribution around the universe. Moreover, we should have ISM interactions in other areas, not just the normal ions and grains. We would have accelerating features and modes of oscillation that would be utterly bizarre and make any sort of emission or absorption astronomy pointless. I just don't think we're that far off to assume a plasma density in the universe.

D J
2002-Oct-17, 07:23 PM
JS Princeton wrote:
I just don't think we're that far off to assume a plasma density in the universe.
_________________________
Hmm!!
When Was the Gas Ionized?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_firstobj.html
While observations of quasars enable astronomers to infer that the gas was ionized within the first billion years of the universe, we need to observe something more distant than quasars to learn when the gas was first ionized: the cosmic microwave background radiation. Since the cosmic microwave background photons were emitted just three hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, much earlier than the photons from quasars, their properties tell us about the subsequent evolutionary history of the universe. Microwave photons move freely through neutral gas, but they scatter off of ionized gas. This scattering reduces the amplitude of fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background and produces new "polarized" microwave background fluctuations.

*I will waiting until the pubication of the results before making further comments on this topic.*

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

The Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) will make a map of the temperature fluctuations of the CMB radiation with much higher resolution, sensitivity, and accuracy than COBE. The new information contained in these finer fluctuations will shed light on several key questions in cosmology. By answering many of the current open questions, it will likely point astrophysicists towards newer and deeper questions about the nature of our universe.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 07:30 PM
On 2002-10-17 15:23, Orion38 wrote:
JS Princeton wrote:
I just don't think we're that far off to assume a plasma density in the universe.
_________________________
Hmm!!
When Was the Gas Ionized?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/sg_firstobj.html
While observations of quasars enable astronomers to infer that the gas was ionized within the first billion years of the universe, we need to observe something more distant than quasars to learn when the gas was first ionized: the cosmic microwave background radiation. Since the cosmic microwave background photons were emitted just three hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, much earlier than the photons from quasars, their properties tell us about the subsequent evolutionary history of the universe. Microwave photons move freely through neutral gas, but they scatter off of ionized gas. This scattering reduces the amplitude of fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background and produces new "polarized" microwave background fluctuations.

*I will waiting until the pubication of the results before making further comments on this topic.*

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

The Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) will make a map of the temperature fluctuations of the CMB radiation with much higher resolution, sensitivity, and accuracy than COBE. The new information contained in these finer fluctuations will shed light on several key questions in cosmology. By answering many of the current open questions, it will likely point astrophysicists towards newer and deeper questions about the nature of our universe.


Orion! You make me so proud! Finally quoting from a few sources that are legitimate! Plasma density in the early universe I certainly can handle. I wasn't talking about the plasma in the early universe, I was talking about the local universe. The arguments you cite explain exactly why the CMB is so amazing: the observations made from it fit beautifully into a model where the energy density of the universe has been undergoing an evolution over time AND before the time of last scattter (TOLS) there definitely was plasma dynamics going on. Even though reionization occurred after the CMB event, it did not create a plasma.

D J
2002-Oct-17, 07:52 PM
I still believe than the local universe is actually made of 99.9% of ionized plasma.

The source of the reionization was the electrical current generated by the plasma.

The plasma is the basic matter of the universe since the existence of the universe.
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_00.jpg

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_light_010808.html

JS Princeton wrote
The arguments you cite explain exactly why the CMB is so amazing: the observations made from it fit beautifully into a model where the energy density of the universe has been undergoing an evolution over time AND before the time of last scattter (TOLS) there definitely was plasma dynamics going on.
_______________
There is the way the things goes on today...

Doodler
2002-Oct-17, 08:19 PM
JS Princeton, I was curious about a point you made about the Expansion period. By what is meant by "pushing the vast majority of the universe beyond the particle horizon"? Was a large part of the early universe converted to energy by the Expansion? Sorry to dip my toe into a very deep debate, but this is something I had never read about.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-17, 08:41 PM
On 2002-10-17 14:55, JS Princeton wrote:Be careful there, Agora. Inflation is not the same thing as Hubble Flow.Sorry, my bad. I used the word "inflation" intending some moderate pun. Next time I'll try to better word my puns. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
...models do not assume electromagnetic effects. This is due primarily to two assumptions: 1) That gravity is more important.Two things - need of dark matter of arbitrary nature and phenomenological viability of MOND - make me doubt the primacy of gravity, i.e. too much ad hoc stuff required to keep primacy of gravity.
2) That the universe is mostly empty wrt. electrodynamical fluids (plasmas).Keeping all the matter except the neutrinos away from the voids can be easily accomplished by strong B-fields in the voids. A strong but slowly changing B can effectively accelerate neutrinos to very high energies - we get a nice source of heavy dark matter. The E-field inside matter accretions are easily compensated by very modest charge separation.
Electromagnetic radiation being the predominate form of observational methodology in the universe means that any proposed interaction would have observational consequences in a wide range of areas.Not really, since the spectrum must obey the f <sup>-3</sup> law which stems from dimensionality of space. Thus the most EM energy will appear locally (i.e. in smaller features) as quasistatic potential offsets.
Let's take the simple example of emission and absorption in a plasma field. The details of such interactions are horrendously complicated as we can end up with such bizarre things as magnetic fields and electron-positron pairs as we approach higher energies. These effects have observable signals that should be present in isotropic distribution around the universe.The "normal" matter would be naturally expelled to the areas without any strong B-fields. Any such matter, when put into strong B-field, would get promptly decomposed into accelerated particle beams accompanied by gamma bursts. Neutrinos would form fast and dense fluxes permeating the universe. While, most likely, neutrinos can't form real black holes, vortices in their fluxes definitely could create very dense spinners appearing as optical black holes. It would be exactly the fast neutrinos and ULF radiation to make the most of observed density of the universe.
Any residual force fields inside the matter features would be many orders of magnitude below the local "internal" fields. No bizarreness would ever show up.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-17 18:42 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-17, 11:49 PM
On 2002-10-17 15:52, Orion38 wrote:
I still believe than the local universe is actually made of 99.9% of ionized plasma.

The source of the reionization was the electrical current generated by the plasma.


Do you understand what densities plasmas have? These densities are manifestly NOT observed. Reionization didn't occur uniformly either. It occurred due to stellar processes. You don't need plasma at all. Where do you get your numbers? Have you looked into these issues at all?



The plasma is the basic matter of the universe since the existence of the universe.
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_00.jpg


I assume you mean "since the creation of the universe". You realize, of course, that the local part of the galaxy we live in has no intervening plasma. You are beginning to sound a little kooky.



There is the way the things goes on today...


No, there is an observed evolution in the universe over time and space. As we look back in time we see a different universe than today. The universe at recombination or reionization is not the same as today's universe.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 12:02 AM
On 2002-10-17 16:41, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote]Two things - need of dark matter of arbitrary nature and phenomenological viability of MOND - make me doubt the primacy of gravity,

No, Agora. MOND is for another thread. Briefly, MOND is only for mass. Gravity also has an effect on radiation and the dark energy which are totally outside the dark matter problem. Why are you doubting the Freidmann Equation? Did it treat you badly?


i.e. too much ad hoc stuff required to keep primacy of gravity.

What is adhoc about Einstein's Equations?


Keeping all the matter except the neutrinos away from the voids can be easily accomplished by strong B-fields in the voids.

I see what you're saying. Only then we still would have radiation from a plasma dense void which we do not see.

Moreover, the voids are inconsequential on appropriate cosmological distances since the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.



A strong but slowly changing B can effectively accelerate neutrinos to very high energies

Cite?



- we get a nice source of heavy dark matter. The E-field inside matter accretions are easily compensated by very modest charge separation.

But neutrino mass is determined by the flavor mixing matrices and not by the energy imparted on the neutrinos. It's restmass that causes the gravitational contribution NOT relativistic mass.



Not really, since the spectrum must obey the f <sup>-3</sup> law which stems from dimensionality of space. Thus the most EM energy will appear locally (i.e. in smaller features) as quasistatic potential offsets.

This statement doesn't make sense. It's utter jibberish. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase? The first sentence makes sense. The second sentence doesn't follow.



The "normal" matter would be naturally expelled to the areas without any strong B-fields. Any such matter, when put into strong B-field, would get promptly decomposed into accelerated particle beams accompanied by gamma bursts. Neutrinos would form fast

You don't just magically get neutrinos. You only get it where lepton number isn't conserved. Please cite your reactions.



and dense fluxes permeating the universe. While, most likely, neutrinos can't form real black holes, vortices in their fluxes definitely could create very dense spinners appearing as optical black holes.


cite?



It would be exactly the fast neutrinos and ULF radiation to make the most of observed density of the universe.


See note above about "fast" neutrinos. Moreover, realize that energetic neutrinos would be detected in neutrino detectors that are on Earth today as a far stronger source than the solar neutrinos since the more energetic neutrino the higher the cross section. We don't see these neutrinos therefore I think it is safe to assume they don't exist.



Any residual force fields inside the matter features would be many orders of magnitude below the local "internal" fields. No bizarreness would ever show up.


It seems, then, that we have an enormous vacuum energy density in your universe. Perhaps you've unwittingly stumbled across the unified field scaling relation discrepancy. (Excuse me if that sounded sarcastic... it was meant to be).

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 12:06 AM
On 2002-10-17 16:19, Doodler wrote:
JS Princeton, I was curious about a point you made about the Expansion period.

That's the inflation period. The universe is still expanding.


By what is meant by "pushing the vast majority of the universe beyond the particle horizon"?

All it really means is that space expands to such an extent during inflation that most of the universe is thrown out of causal contact and a small part that is in causal contact gets expanded to the size of the horizon (which is determined by the speed of light and the age of the universe). It is a basic statement that is based on far-out physics and explains how the CMB can be so uniform.



Was a large part of the early universe converted to energy by the Expansion? Sorry to dip my toe into a very deep debate, but this is something I had never read about.


Sort of... the layman's explanation of inflation is that the vacuum energy density was dropped and that caused an expansion "push" that made the universe expand EXTREMELY rapidly.

Don't apologize. We only learn by asking questions.

Tim Thompson
2002-Oct-18, 01:10 AM
Well, I'm glad to see that everyone has chimed in one way or another, though we seem to have left behind for a moment the initial topic of redshift & distance.

So, first, let me revisit that idea. There seems to be general agreement that there is some kind of redshift - distance relationship (or at least I haven't seen anybody come out and insist that there is none). But there does seem to be some resistance to the notion that the redshift is entirely cosmological, and an insistance that there must be some kind of "intrinsic" redshift.

We already know that measured redshifts are not entirely "cosmological". The measured redshift is a combination of at least 2 easy to understand components: (1) Hubble expansion ("cosmological") redshift induced by the expansion of the universe, and (2) Doppler ("peculiar" or "local") redshift caused by the 'local' velocity of the galaxy. One of the main reasons for the dispute between the Freedman & Sandage groups over the value of the Hubble constant, even though they use much the same data, is their difference over how they interpret the Hubble vs local components of the redshift.

Nobody has ever made a particularly good argument for believing that there is , or should be, any significant "intrinsic" redshift. Arp's argument is based totally on weak statistics, and so far as I know, he makes no attempt to eve guess at a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift. All the other arguments I have seen are all based on some strange, arbitrary model which might in principle create such a redshift, but for which there is no observational evidence in practice, nor theoretical expectation in principle. So I think the "intrinsic" redshift just isn't there.

Of course, there are also suggestions for "extrinsic" extra redshifts, Kierien's "Compton effect" being the most obvious. But it is an unphysical argument, and contrary to observation, so also carries little weight. When electrons & photons scatter of of each other the energy transfer depends on who has the most in the local center of mass rest frame. It might redshift the photon, but it might also blueshift the photon. This should have the combined effect of "squeezing" the spectrum (redshifting the blue end and blueshifting the red end), and fuzzing the edges of sharp absorption/emission features (because some of the photons at the edge of the spectral line will be slightly redshifted, and some slightly blueshifted). Certainly the former would be obvious and is unseen. The latter might be less obvious, and I can't say for sure that it is not seen.

Now the discussion seems to have drifted off into the ionization state of the intergalactic medium. I don't doubt that the diffuse gas of the intergalactic medium is highly ionized (The Intergalactic Medium (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Madau6/Madau_contents.html), Piero Madau, A review for the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; Quasar Absorption Lines and the Intergalactic Medium (http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/jannuzib.html), Buell T. Jannuzi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories). However, I fail to see why that matters in reference to redshifts.

Orion38: I still believe than the local universe is actually made of 99.9% of ionized plasma. The source of the reionization was the electrical current generated by the plasma.

A comment to which JS Princeton objected. The first sentence is almost certainly correct, or close enough to it not to worry. However, the second sentence does not make physical sense. Electrical current is a plasma (a free flowing stream of electrically charged particles). So how does the plasma create a plasma? What creates the first plasma?

Far more sensible is the standard arguement that the post-recombination neutral universe was reinonized by ionizing radiation (a process consistent with what we see very commonly in our own local galactic medium). See, for instance, in the abstract to the Madau paper (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Madau6/Madau_contents.html): "About half a million years after the Big Bang, the ever-fading cosmic blackbody radiation cooled below 3000 K and shifted first into the infrared and then into the radio, and the smooth baryonic plasma that filled the Universe became neutral. The Universe then entered a 'dark age' which persisted until the first cosmic structures collapsed into gravitationally-bound systems, and evolved into stars, galaxies, and black holes that lit up the Universe again. Some time between redshift of 7 and 15, stars within protogalaxies created the first heavy elements; these systems, together perhaps with an early population of quasars, generated the ultraviolet radiation that reheated and reionized the cosmos." There is nothing physically suspect about this, and detections of the Gunn-Peterson trough at the right redshifts provides observational evidence in support (since it shows that the IGM was once neutral, and at what redshift it ionized; Evidence for Reionization at z ~ 6: Detection of a Gunn-Peterson Trough in a z=6.28 Quasar (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108097), HST/STIS observations of the HeII Gunn-Peterson effect towards HE 2347-4342 (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012193), STIS Observations of He II Gunn-Peterson Absorption Toward Q0302-003 (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812429)).

D J
2002-Oct-18, 01:16 AM
On 2002-10-17 19:49, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-10-17 15:52, Orion38 wrote:
I still believe than the local universe is actually made of 99.9% of ionized plasma.

The source of the reionization was the electrical current generated by the plasma.


Do you understand what densities plasmas have? These densities are manifestly NOT observed. Reionization didn't occur uniformly either. It occurred due to stellar processes. You don't need plasma at all. Where do you get your numbers? Have you looked into these issues at all?

The latest Scientific American, October, 2002, refers to recent discoveries about the webs or filaments and sheets of gas draped between the galaxies.

The article is entitled "The emptiest places," by Evan Scannapieco, Patrick Petitjean and Tom Broadhurst. On page 59 the authors refer to the spectral phemomenon (from Quasars)known as "the Lyman-alpha forest."

This indicates that the light is passing through hundreds of intergalactic gas clouds. But, until recently, measurements were not precise enough to determine what is now discovered.

"Ironically, although neutral hydrogen neatly accounts for the lines, it can constitute only a small fraction of the clouds. Ionized hydrogen and helium must make up the bulk."

Then the authors promote the theory that the gas clouds were re-ionized after the Quasar was formed.

*But one thing for sure, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) is ionized.*<<<


The plasma is the basic matter of the universe since the existence of the universe.
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_00.jpg


I assume you mean "since the creation of the universe". You realize, of course, that the local part of the galaxy we live in has no intervening plasma. You are beginning to sound a little kooky.

read the article and you will see than you are the one beginning to sound a little kooky.


There is the way the things goes on today...


No, there is an observed evolution in the universe over time and space. As we look back in time we see a different universe than today. The universe at recombination or reionization is not the same as today's universe.

But plasma (gas ionized)is still there.

D J
2002-Oct-18, 01:32 AM
Tim Thompson wrote:
A comment to which JS Princeton objected. The first sentence is almost certainly correct, or close enough to it not to worry. However, the second sentence does not make physical sense. Electrical current is a plasma (a free flowing stream of electrically charged particles). So how does the plasma create a plasma? What creates the first plasma?
____________
Maybe this could help you to understand .
One image worth one thousand words!!!

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_02.jpg

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_light_010808.html

How the First Galaxies Were Born
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/spongy_universe_010522-1.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-17 21:35 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 02:20 AM
Thanks Tim for the clarifications. In my haste I admit I didn't read Orion's comments for what they were. I was assuming he was in league with Agora's idea of a plasma that permeated all space in an ether-like fashion. The plasma that does exist is highly concentrated and not spread out. While much of the luminous matter may be in plasma (though by no means 99.9% since a lot of stuff is in the ISM) form, it is not the majority of the volume of the universe.

I have to ask you, though, Orion, do you think the sites you quoted (the last two... I couldn't access the first one) prove your theory that plasma makes plasma? They do not. They are well described by Tim in his post however. You should read a bit more about the reionization of the universe if you think that simply plasma created plasma.

I hold out for hoping that we are simply misinterpreting what you are saying.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 02:22 AM
One more thing, Orion... you realize that ionized particles are not equivalent to a plasma. You also need a high density. The ionized component of matter in the IGM does not a plasma make. It is too diffuse.

D J
2002-Oct-18, 02:47 AM
[quote]
On 2002-10-17 22:20, JS Princeton wrote:
Thanks Tim for the clarifications. In my haste I admit I didn't read Orion's comments for what they were.
The plasma that does exist is highly concentrated and not spread out. While much of the luminous matter may be in plasma (though by no means 99.9% since a lot of stuff is in the ISM) form, it is not the majority of the volume of the universe.

I have to ask you, though, Orion, do you think the sites you quoted (the last two... I couldn't access the first one) prove your theory that plasma makes plasma? They do not. They are well described by Tim in his post however. You should read a bit more about the reionization of the universe if you think that simply plasma created plasma.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_light_010808.html
(Click on the first clickable image.)
I have never assuming this,i was refering a link to responding his first question *when this plasma was forming*.I was talking about the Reonization of the plasma and proposed than *maybe* the strong electrical current can be the cause for the reonization.

I hold out for hoping that we are simply misinterpreting what you are saying.
_________________
This is the case.

Quote:
I was assuming he was in league with Agora's idea of a plasma that permeated all space in an ether-like fashion.
_____________
Yes you are right for assuming this.
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-17 22:52 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 03:53 AM
Orion...

You are plain wrong.

A plasma requires a high density.

The universe is not dense.

It may be reionized, but it isn't dense.

D J
2002-Oct-18, 04:16 AM
[quote]
On 2002-10-17 23:53, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion...

You are plain wrong.

A plasma requires a high density.

The universe is not dense.

It may be reionized, but it isn't dense.

___________________
I have the very bad impression than we are engage in a never ending (cosmic) story.

You will need to read some basics
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html
Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy.

Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible. So, in space, plasma remains electrically charged. Thus plasmas carry electric currents and are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Outside the Earth's atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma, and "empty" space has been found to be quite "alive" with a constant flow of plasma.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 08:43 AM
So after writing my hasty missive, I went off to ask the resident plasma physicists whether he thought the ISM was predominately plasma.

Of course it is, he stated.

How can you say such a thing? I demanded. The interactions in the ISM and in the IGM are in a completely different phase regime from the densities of stellar plasmas. Their densities are many orders of magnitude smaller than normal plasmas where the interactions between constituent microphysical particles are much more coupled, the mean free paths are orders of magnitude smaller, and generally the behavoir of the system is different.

While this is true, plasmas have become a sort of catch-all term encompassing all ionized matter in all phase regimes. IMHO this isn't exactly fair in diffuse interstellar and intergalactic space where the ions have such a large mean free path they don't get a chance to be deionized. Truth be told their is a fairly high temperature as well, but the fact of the matter remains that this is a shoddy argument against the big bang. The diffuse "plasma" is some of the most transparent and diffuse stuff around. It would make a far better vacuum than any we can create in our laboratories on Earth.

The point of the matter is that plasma is an ill-gotten term for the most part. We need to be careful about what kind of plasma we're talking about. From an astrochemical perspective of stellar structure, the plasma physics of stars is only related to the "plasma" physics of the IGM/ISM in the most elementary of fashions.

The problem with assuming that ionization implies automatically a plasma is that at extremely low densities charge conservation that is a fundamental property of most of the stellar and even atmospheric plasmas is not the same as in lower densities. Many of the ionized particles in interstellar and intergalactic space do come from plasma equilibrium systems by means of various transports, but the ions are not in such states anymore.

Nevertheless I bow to the whims of nomenclature. Only, seems to me if you want to call it a plasma, perhaps we should also call table salt a plasma. At least its density is of a more comparable order of magnitude.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2002-10-18 04:48 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-18, 09:49 AM
JS,
As plasma density goes down, the plasma frequency (http://www-lep.gsfc.nasa.gov/reiner/plasma_freq.html) goes down. Below this frequency it's plasma, above - mostly not. Your example with table salt doesn't cut the mustard till frequencies high enough to break the crystalline bonds in salt. The plasma frequency of salt may still be higher if you can hold the pressure, so there you get a frequency window where salt is a plasma.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 11:31 AM
Below this frequency it's plasma, above - mostly not.

What do you mean? In terms of reasonance? In terms of waves? Below the plasma frequency there can be no propagated waves. Here (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlasmaFrequency.html) is the derivation of that property.

The problem is with diffuse material you cannot get electron recombinations as easily. It is true that such does happen quite a bit for absorption and emission clouds, but there are also large unionized areas of the universe and areas of the universe that do not have high electron densities but do have high ion concentrations. The low, low plasma frequencies for low densities make these beasts LESS like plasmas since other processes tend to crop up and pollute the physics.


Your example with table salt doesn't cut the mustard till frequencies high enough to break the crystalline bonds in salt. The plasma frequency of salt may still be higher if you can hold the pressure, so there you get a frequency window where salt is a plasma.


All you need for a plasma according to the plasma frequency definition is a free electron density. Not high, true, in table salt, but it still exists. Its magnitude just makes the plasma frequency really low. I don't think table salt should be considered a plasma, but theory doesn't necessarily care what I think.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-18, 12:05 PM
On 2002-10-18 04:43, JS Princeton wrote:
Nevertheless I bow to the whims of nomenclature. Only, seems to me if you want to call it a plasma, perhaps we should also call table salt a plasma.
Maybe we could call blood plasma, or at least part of it

D J
2002-Oct-18, 04:03 PM
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
Nevertheless I bow to the whims of nomenclature. Only, seems to me if you want to call it a plasma, perhaps we should also call table salt a plasma.
____________________________________
I dont understand ,now you compare the SPACE PLASMA to TABLE SALT.Or do you meant there is TABLE SALT in space rather than DUST?Explain.

I hold out for hoping that we are simply misinterpreting what you are saying.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 05:54 PM
Orion:

Plasma as some are defining it in some of your citations is merely nothing but ionized matter. Table salt also happens to be ionized matter, it just doesn't have many free electrons.

Interstellar space can exhibit ions with very low free electron densities as weird as that may sound because space is diffuse. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Obviously an ionic compound is not a plasma, but then why should a diffuse ionized gas be considered a plasma?

Get my drift?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-18, 06:22 PM
On 2002-10-18 13:54, JS Princeton wrote:
There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Obviously an ionic compound is not a plasma, but then why should a diffuse ionized gas be considered a plasma?
Shouldn't you be asking your resident plasma physicist that question, or did your previous post include their answer somehow?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-18, 07:23 PM
On 2002-10-18 13:54, JS Princeton wrote:
Obviously an ionic compound is not a plasma...WHADDA ....?!

JS, please study the subject...

D J
2002-Oct-18, 07:26 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-18 13:54, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion:

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Obviously an ionic compound is not a plasma, but then why should a diffuse ionized gas be considered a plasma?

Get my drift?
_____________________

Ah!I see, you dont understand why a ionized gas is calling a plasma isnt it?

A little history for claryfied this:

On earth we live upon an island of "ordinary" matter. The different states of matter found on earth are solid, liquid, and gas. We have learned to work, play, and rest using these states of matter. Sir William Crookes, an English physicist, identified another, more fundamental, state of matter in 1879. In 1929, Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir gave this state a name, plasma. He borrowed the term from medical science because the matter with which he worked resembled life itself. It formed cells through bifurcation and often acted in a complicated and unpredictable manner. Plasma is defined as an assemblage of charged particles called electrons and ions that react collectively to forces exerted by electric and magnetic fields.

Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, **a plasma most closely resembles the latter**, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is electrically charged particles at high energy.

I hope this help!
I am very surprising than your resident plasma physicist did not explaining you that?

D J
2002-Oct-18, 07:30 PM
More Definitions

When one or more of the outer (valence) electrons are stripped away from an atom we say the atom has become "ionized". It then exhibits a net positive electrical charge, and is called a "positive ion". On the other hand, if an extra electron is added onto a neutral atom, the combination then carries a net negative charge and is referred to as a "negative ion". The electrical forces between dissimilar ions are orders of magnitude stronger than any mechanical force such as that produced by gravity. **An electrical "plasma" is a cloud of ions and electrons** that, under the excitation of applied electrical and magnetic fields, can sometimes light up and behave in some unusual ways. The most familiar examples of electrical plasmas are the neon sign, lightning, and the electric arc welding machine. The ionosphere of Earth is an example of a plasma that does not emit visible light. Plasma permeates the space that contains our solar system. The cloud of particles that constitutes the solar "wind" is a plasma. Our entire "Milky Way" galaxy consists mainly of plasma. In fact 99% of the entire universe is plasma!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-18 15:50 ]</font>

D J
2002-Oct-18, 07:39 PM
Further, further information

Plasmas are common in nature and found nearly everywhere. For instance, stars are predominantly plasma as are most space and astrophysical objects. However, plasmas are also found on Earth where they find a wide range of uses.

All of the following are examples where plasmas are to be found:

Lightning!
The Sun—from Core to Corona
Fluorescent Lights and Neon Signs
Nebulae - Luminous Clouds in Space
The Solar Wind
Primordial Fusion during the evolution of the Universe
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Plasmas
Inertially Confined Fusion Plasmas
Flames as Plasmas
Auroras - the Northern and Southern Lights
Interstellar Space - it's not empty, it's a plasma!
Quasars, Radiogalaxies, and Galaxies—they emit plasma radiation and microwaves
Large Scale Structures of Galaxies—their filamentary and magnetized!
Dense Solid State Matter—when shocked by nuclear explosion or earthquakes, emit both light and radio emission.



However, the full range of possible plasma density, energy(temperature) and spatial scales go far beyond this illustration. For example, some space plasmas have been measured to be less than 10-10 /m3 (13 orders of magnitude less than the scale shown in the figure!). On one extreme, quark-gluon plasmas (although mediated via the strong force field versus the electromagnetic field) are extremely dense nuclear states of matter. For temperature (or energy), some plasma crystal states produced in the laboratory have temperatures close to absolute zero. On the other extreme, space plasmas have been measured with thermal temperatures above 10+9 degrees Kelvin and cosmic rays (a type of plasma with very large gyroradii) are observed at energies well above those produced in any man-made accelerator laboratory.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-18 15:41 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-18, 07:59 PM
On 2002-10-17 20:02, JS Princeton wrote:
Why are you doubting the Freidmann Equation? Did it treat you badly?Try assuming all the matter/mass relativistic in the derivative models.
Only then we still would have radiation from a plasma dense void which we do not see.We do. Gamma and high-energy particles are that radiation.
Cite?Look up the "neutrino magnetic moment".
It's restmass that causes the gravitational contribution NOT relativistic mass.Not true. Those neutrinos would generally travel along closed paths. That makes the mass as good as restmass.
The second sentence doesn't follow.It does. Polarizable matter has to escape B into E.
You don't just magically get neutrinos. You only get it where lepton number isn't conserved. Please cite your reactions.That's really unknown. If the stellar matter is recycled, the neutrinos would accumulate over many cycles.
There a funky site (http://www.to.infn.it/~giunti/NU/) about the neutrino matters with a lot of links to experimental papers. Nice reading there.
...the more energetic neutrino the higher the cross section.That's utter **. There's a maximum in cross-section at equal mass-energies of interaction counterparts, then the cross-section fades off. A beam of 100TeV particles would fly by unnoticed but for its gravity.

D J
2002-Oct-18, 10:23 PM
Tim Thompson wrote:
Nobody has ever made a particularly good argument for believing that there is , or should be, any significant "intrinsic" redshift. Arp's argument is based totally on weak statistics, and so far as I know, he makes no attempt to eve guess at a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift.
___________________________
Some exerpts about a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift from that page

Author
Halton Arp

Max
-
Planck
-
Institut f?r Astrophysik

85740 Garching, German

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oH_RWhZiTC0C:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf+Narlikar+%26+Das&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf

In April 1997 Prof. Yaoquan Chu communicated to me the sensational result shown in Fig. 4.

He had measured the bright X-ray sources around the very active Seyfert NGC 3516. They turned

out to be quasars ordered in redshift, culminating in the most distant, a bright optical and X-ray BL

Lac type object. All six of these quasars fell within
?
20 degrees of the minor axis of NGC 3516 (a

chance, just in this one property, of only 10
?4
of being accidental). As the bottom of the Figure

shows, the redshifts of these six ejecta fit very closely the periodicity which has been known for

quasars for more than 20 years.

Evolution of an Intrinsic Property

If high redshift quasars are physically associated with low redshift galaxies (
z



.01), then the

redshifts cannot be interpreted as recession velocities. Observations of the high redshift objects rule

out gravitational redshifting or "tired light'' effects. If the electrons making the orbital transitions in

atoms of the high redshift object are less massive than those of the observer, however, the emitted

photon will be redshifted. Can this be reconciled with physics as we know it?

Actually the 1922 Friedmann solution of the Einstein field equations of General Relativity
as-

sume
the particle masses comprising matter are constant. A more
general
solution of the field equa-

tion yields:

m = at2

where m is particle mass, t is cosmic time and a is a constant.
Figure 2. An X-ray map
of the area around the
Seyfert galaxy NGC

4235. The very bright

quasar
-
like objects of

z = .334 and .136 are

aligned closely along
the minor axis.

Page 4

Page 138
APEIRON Vol. 5 Nr. 3-4, July-October 1998
With this one simple solution particle masses grow with time, young objects start with high in-

trinsic redshifts and evolve to lower redshift as they age. This is exactly what 30 years of empirical

evidence has required (Arp 1991, Narlikar and Arp 1993).

For example, Erik Holmberg showed in 1969 that companion galaxies concentrated primarily

within
?
35 degrees of the minor axis of disk galaxies. Now as Table 1 shows,
quasars
concentrate

within about
?
20 degrees of the minor axis and reach a 400 kpc extension from the ejecting galaxy

exactly the same extent and alignment as companion galaxies
. As quasars age into companion

galaxies they clearly spread more from the line of initial ejection either by axial precession or gravi-

tational perturbations. Whatever causes the quantized steps in their redshifts, they must become

smaller, however, as their total redshifts become smaller. So they are also continuous in the property

of quantization with age. There should no longer be any reasonable denial that the variable particle

mass theory uniquely fits the observations.

Continuous Creation Replaces Big Bang Theory

The variable mass theory is Machian, not a local theory as Einstein ruefully conceded about

conventional General Relativity. When a new particle is created it sees a very small universe. As

time goes on it exchanges signals within a light sphere which is growing at
c
. As the particle mass

increases electron transitions emit higher energy quanta and the intrinsic redshift decreases.

New matter is created with near zero mass, therefore it is travelling with nearly the signal speed

of the medium, namely the velocity of light. As the particle mass grows, however, its translational

velocity drops in order to conserve momentum. It finally comes to rest near the observed 400 kpc

maximum extension shown in Table 1. This is the same maximum extension quantitatively predicted

*Of course they cannot take Quasars and study them in a laboratory*.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-18, 11:52 PM
Orion: Do you understand that we are talking about plasma frequencies and not about traditional definitions of plasmas you are talking about? You are three or four steps behind. Please read back some posts and try not to jump to unnecessary conclusions.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-19, 12:01 AM
Here's a wonderful webpage for all y'all. We've dealt with Arp before and this deals with Arp again. He has no mechanism, he's strictly an observationalist who enjoys stubbornly refusing (playing the devil's advocate almost) to standard models.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-19, 12:10 AM
On 2002-10-18 15:59, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-10-17 20:02, JS Princeton wrote:
Why are you doubting the Freidmann Equation? Did it treat you badly?Try assuming all the matter/mass relativistic in the derivative models.
Okay. That's fine. You can do that and you still get the same Friedmann Equation.



Only then we still would have radiation from a plasma dense void which we do not see.We do. Gamma and high-energy particles are that radiation.
They may be difficult to observe, but they are observable.



Cite?Look up the "neutrino magnetic moment".

Ridiculously small (http://isnwww.in2p3.fr/munu/munu.html). Try again.



It's restmass that causes the gravitational contribution NOT relativistic mass.Not true. Those neutrinos would generally travel along closed paths. That makes the mass as good as restmass.
Now you're talking nonsense. That changes no part of the stress energy tensor. You have a different understanding of relativity, back it up.


The second sentence doesn't follow.It does. Polarizable matter has to escape B into E.
Patently untrue unless the quadrapole moment is surpressed. You are just speaking platitudes at this point. What's your mechanism? (HINT: you don't have one... you only have your vain attempts to fit an already explained observation).



You don't just magically get neutrinos. You only get it where lepton number isn't conserved. Please cite your reactions.That's really unknown. If the stellar matter is recycled, the neutrinos would accumulate over many cycles.

No lepton number is conserved. A violation of this law has to be made up for in one of the known violations or someone's missing a Nobel.


There a funky site (http://www.to.infn.it/~giunti/NU/) about the neutrino matters with a lot of links to experimental papers. Nice reading there.

Indeed, and all speculative at this point or within the standard model. Unlike your proposals.



...the more energetic neutrino the higher the cross section.That's utter **. There's a maximum in cross-section at equal mass-energies of interaction counterparts, then the cross-section fades off. A beam of 100TeV particles would fly by unnoticed but for its gravity.
[/quote]

All neutrino creating processes we know of occur at a specific energy. This means you don't have a broad spectrum of neutrinos but a well defined one. This means that in order to get more energy out you need more of them. Therefore you get more reactions. But I guess that's all ** now, isn't it Agora?

D J
2002-Oct-19, 12:18 AM
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
Orion: Do you understand that we are talking about plasma frequencies and not about traditional definitions of plasmas you are talking about? You are three or four steps behind. Please read back some posts and try not to jump to unnecessary conclusions.
___________________________________

Well i was refering to this post from you
on page four.I dont see any mention about plasma frequency do you?



On 2002-10-18 13:54, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion:

Plasma as some are defining it in some of your citations is merely nothing but ionized matter. Table salt also happens to be ionized matter, it just doesn't have many free electrons.

Interstellar space can exhibit ions with very low free electron densities as weird as that may sound because space is diffuse. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Obviously an ionic compound is not a plasma, but then why should a diffuse ionized gas be considered a plasma?

Get my drift?

D J
2002-Oct-19, 12:32 AM
Here's a wonderful webpage for all y'all.

Go directly to this topic

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

http://www.planetarymysteries.com/debunkery.html

Exerpts:
PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY

Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.
Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated.
Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!"

And this goes on, and on, and on ....

Is there someone utilising that technique?
Hmmm guess who?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-18 21:14 ]</font>



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-18 22:24 ]</font>

overrated
2002-Oct-19, 02:23 AM
On 2002-10-18 20:32, Orion38 wrote:
Here's a wonderful webpage for all y'all.

Go directly to this topic

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

http://www.planetarymysteries.com/debunkery.html

Exerpts:
PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY

Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.
Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
And this goes on, and on, and on ....

Is there someone utilising that technique?
Hmmm guess who?



Oh, please. This is a little ridiculous. You live in a glass house, Orion38, and you would be well-served to keep the discussion targeted on cosmology and not trying to obfuscate things by throwing rhetorical stones.

D J
2002-Oct-19, 02:32 AM
I just pointing out the futility of discussing with a debunker,and the tactical methodology of a classical debunker,whats wrong with that?

D J
2002-Oct-19, 02:41 AM
[quote]
On 2002-10-18 22:23, overrated wrote:
[quote]

and you would be well-served to keep the discussion targeted on cosmology...
_________________________________
Orion38 wrote,
Quote:
Tim Thompson wrote:
Nobody has ever made a particularly good argument for believing that there is , or should be, any significant "intrinsic" redshift. Arp's argument is based totally on weak statistics, and so far as I know, he makes no attempt to eve guess at a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift.
___________________________
Some exerpts about a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift from that page

Author
Halton Arp

Max
-
Planck
-
Institut f?r Astrophysik

85740 Garching, German

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:oH_RWhZiTC0C:redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf+Narlikar+%26+Das&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf

In April 1997 Prof. Yaoquan Chu communicated to me the sensational result shown in Fig. 4.

He had measured the bright X-ray sources around the very active Seyfert NGC 3516. They turned

out to be quasars ordered in redshift, culminating in the most distant, a bright optical and X-ray BL

Lac type object. All six of these quasars fell within
?
20 degrees of the minor axis of NGC 3516 (a

chance, just in this one property, of only 10
?4
of being accidental). As the bottom of the Figure

shows, the redshifts of these six ejecta fit very closely the periodicity which has been known for

quasars for more than 20 years.

Evolution of an Intrinsic Property

If high redshift quasars are physically associated with low redshift galaxies (
z



.01), then the

redshifts cannot be interpreted as recession velocities. Observations of the high redshift objects rule

out gravitational redshifting or "tired light'' effects. If the electrons making the orbital transitions in

atoms of the high redshift object are less massive than those of the observer, however, the emitted

photon will be redshifted. Can this be reconciled with physics as we know it?

Actually the 1922 Friedmann solution of the Einstein field equations of General Relativity
as-

sume
the particle masses comprising matter are constant. A more
general
solution of the field equa-

tion yields:

m = at2

where m is particle mass, t is cosmic time and a is a constant.
Figure 2. An X-ray map
of the area around the
Seyfert galaxy NGC

4235. The very bright

quasar
-
like objects of

z = .334 and .136 are

aligned closely along
the minor axis.

Page 4

Page 138
APEIRON Vol. 5 Nr. 3-4, July-October 1998
With this one simple solution particle masses grow with time, young objects start with high in-

trinsic redshifts and evolve to lower redshift as they age. This is exactly what 30 years of empirical

evidence has required (Arp 1991, Narlikar and Arp 1993).

For example, Erik Holmberg showed in 1969 that companion galaxies concentrated primarily

within
?
35 degrees of the minor axis of disk galaxies. Now as Table 1 shows,
quasars
concentrate

within about
?
20 degrees of the minor axis and reach a 400 kpc extension from the ejecting galaxy

exactly the same extent and alignment as companion galaxies
. As quasars age into companion

galaxies they clearly spread more from the line of initial ejection either by axial precession or gravi-

tational perturbations. Whatever causes the quantized steps in their redshifts, they must become

smaller, however, as their total redshifts become smaller. So they are also continuous in the property

of quantization with age. There should no longer be any reasonable denial that the variable particle

mass theory uniquely fits the observations.

Continuous Creation Replaces Big Bang Theory

The variable mass theory is Machian, not a local theory as Einstein ruefully conceded about

conventional General Relativity. When a new particle is created it sees a very small universe. As

time goes on it exchanges signals within a light sphere which is growing at
c
. As the particle mass

increases electron transitions emit higher energy quanta and the intrinsic redshift decreases.

New matter is created with near zero mass, therefore it is travelling with nearly the signal speed

of the medium, namely the velocity of light. As the particle mass grows, however, its translational

velocity drops in order to conserve momentum. It finally comes to rest near the observed 400 kpc

maximum extension shown in Table 1. This is the same maximum extension quantitatively predicted

*Of course they cannot take Quasars and study them in a laboratory*.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-18 22:45 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-19, 12:32 PM
On 2002-10-18 20:10, JS Princeton wrote:


[quote]Only then we still would have radiation from a plasma dense void which we do not see.We do. Gamma and high-energy particles are that radiation.
They may be difficult to observe, but they are observable.And they are observed. So what's your problem?

Look up the "neutrino magnetic moment".
Ridiculously small (http://isnwww.in2p3.fr/munu/munu.html). Try again.They have almost infinite time to accelerate. Nothing ridiculous here. It's you who should try better.

Those neutrinos would generally travel along closed paths. That makes the mass as good as restmass.
Now you're talking nonsense. That changes no part of the stress energy tensor. You have a different understanding of relativity, back it up.I'm afraid it's you who deals with the la-la-land conceptions. Energy of a standing wave gravitates just as well as matter does.


Polarizable matter has to escape B into E.
Patently untrue unless the quadrapole moment is surpressed. You are just speaking platitudes at this point.OK, you don't get it. Try it simpler - charges and dipoles get sucked into E-field. Get it now?

...lepton number is conserved.So what? A neutrino-antineutrino cross-sections are lower yet than that of neutrinos to other matter, so they can co-exist long enough to accumulate in different loop fluxes. This (http://www.icrc1999.utah.edu/~icrc1999/root/vol4/o3_2_30.pdf) is not exactly related to my ideas, but still has some interesting speculations on cosmological neutrinos along with some relevant cross-sections.


There's a maximum in cross-section at equal mass-energies of interaction counterparts, then the cross-section fades off. A beam of 100TeV particles would fly by unnoticed but for its gravity.
All neutrino creating processes we know of occur at a specific energy. This means you don't have a broad spectrum of neutrinos but a well defined one. This means that in order to get more energy out you need more of them. Therefore you get more reactions. But I guess that's all ** now, isn't it Agora?
So I easily debunk your erroneous statement on the cross-sections, and now you try to weasel out through an ad hoc assumption of the neutrino spectra?
First, neutrino energies may be whatever, they don't come in narrow spectrum lines.
Second, if my ULF background model is correct, they can be accelerated to indefinitely high energies over indefinetely long time and distance.

Aldrin
2002-Oct-19, 06:06 PM
The Redshift Distance Relationship?

When we say a Quasar is at 12 billions light year from us this implying the light we see from that Quasar took 12 billions light years to travel,in other words we see the Quasar like it was 12 billion years in the past.
So where is located this Quasar right now?

D J
2002-Oct-19, 06:56 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-19 14:06, Aldrin wrote:
The Redshift Distance Relationship?

When we say a Quasar is at 12 billions light year from us this implying the light we see from that Quasar took 12 billions light years to travel,in other words we see the Quasar like it was 12 billion years in the past.
So where is located this Quasar right now?
____________________________

Very good question, so the only utility for The Redshift Distance Relationship is to tell us where an object was located... *in the past.*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-19 14:57 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Oct-19, 10:35 PM
Me: A comment to which JS Princeton objected. The first sentence is almost certainly correct, or close enough to it not to worry. However, the second sentence does not make physical sense. Electrical current is a plasma (a free flowing stream of electrically charged particles). So how does the plasma create a plasma? What creates the first plasma?

To which Orion38 responded ...

Orion38: Maybe this could help you to understand. One image worth one thousand words!!!

And Orion38 provides some links:
A Schematic outline of the Cosmic History (http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_02.jpg) (A jpeg image), and a couple of links from space.com that I won't include here, because I object to all the cookies & pop-up ads. If you want to bother, they are in a post on page 4 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2431&forum=1&start=75).

Now I point out that Orion38 thinks the reionization was caused by some kind of current flow (which prompted me to ask the question, since current is a plasma). on the other hand, I argue that reionization occured due to ionizing radiation from the first generation of collapsed objects (i.e., primordial stars).

The jpeg image provided by orion38 is a picture of the process that I have described, and has nothing to do with the idea of "current flow" generating the reionization, as per Orion38 (ther space.com webpages are likewise supportive of the "standard' argument).

So, I fail to see the point, since the sources provided by Orion38 argue rather clearly against his own point of view.

Also see The Reionization of the universe by the First Stars (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0010467), A. Loeb & R. Barkana, Annual review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39: 19-66, 2001; In the Beginning: The First Sources of Light and the Reionization of the Universe (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0010468), R. Barkana & A. Loeb, Physics Reports 349(2): 126-238, July 2001.

Me: Nobody has ever made a particularly good argument for believing that there is , or should be, any significant "intrinsic" redshift. Arp's argument is based totally on weak statistics, and so far as I know, he makes no attempt to even guess at a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift.

And to this, once again Orion38 responds:

Orion38: Some exerpts about a physical mechanism for creating the extra redshift from that page

The excerpts are from an HTML-ized version of a PDF paper by Arp, "Evolution of Quasars into Galaxies and the Implications for the Birth and Evolution of matter (link to PDF download of Arp's paper (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf), the HTML-ized page is badly formatted and almost impossible to read). The paper was published in "Apeiron (http://redshift.vif.com/)" ("Studies in infinite nature"), the editorial board (http://redshift.vif.com/Editorial%20Board.htm) of which includes Halton Arp & Tom Van Flandern.

The contents of the paper do nothing to offset the weakness of Arp's argument. Just because he think's he is right does not make it so. As his own paper clearly shows, it's all about the probability of certain quasar-galaxy alignments. Arp produces some examples of what he considers alignments too improbable to accept as the random occurances one might expect on a crowded sky. But as I have already pointed out before, Arp's ability to get the probabilty right is questionable, since he has already slipped up by some 10 or more orders of magnitude (Quasars near companion galaxies - A comment on Arp's statistics, I.W.A. Browne, Astrophysical Journal 263: L7-L8, December 1, 1982).

Remember that as far as Arp is concerned, if the quasars are within 20 degrees of line-up (for a total allowed opening angle of 40 degrees), they are "aligned". That's already 11% of the total angle space of 360 degrees, but since there is no preferred orientation, the effect is to carve out an even larger chunk of angle-space, a-prori! That consideration alone has to call "improbable" into question.

And as for the "connections", proving that galaxies & quasars are physically connected, it's all simple imagery. But a picture cannot by itself necessarily distinguish between objects that are aligned one in front of the other, or in physical contact. Nore information is needed. As I have already demonstrated previously (see my post near the bottom of this page (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2378&forum=1&start=50), in another thread), we can tell that Markarian 205 is behind NGC 4319, shining through it and not connected, and we can tell that NGC 7320 is probably not a member of Stephan's Quintet, due to the lack of tidal deformation. As Arp's improbable alignments are studied, they fall away from significance.

Arp does suggest a mechanism for generating the intrinsic redshift, but it is incompatible with physics as we know it, a conjecture, really, and no more. He proposes that matter is created with variable mass, and that the redshift decreses as the mass decreases over time. High mass quasars evolve into low mass (and low redshift) galaxies. The creation of matter in the ejection event comes from the Hoyle/Narlikar idea of quasi steady state cosmology (see Standard cosmology and alternatives: A critical appraisal, J.V. Narlikar & T. Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39: 211-248, 2001; Dynamics of ejection from galaxies and the variable mass hypothesis, J.V. Narlikar et al., International journal of Modern Physics D, 11(2): 245-257, February 2002).

The fact remains that Arp's arguments, and Narlikar's are weak, and the majority of astronomers have very good reasons not to believe their hypotheses. This is not a matter of "censorship", or some politically motivated maintenance of the status-quo. Arp & Narlikar have an argument, and present it in the open literature. It's just that their argument is weak, and therefore few people believe it.

Aldrin: When we say a Quasar is at 12 billions light year from us this implying the light we see from that Quasar took 12 billions light years to travel, in other words we see the Quasar like it was 12 billion years in the past. So where is located this Quasar right now?

Curiously, "right now" is a devilsh hard thing to understand in relativity, since what constitutes "now" rather depends on the observer, as does what constitutes "time" itself. And there are cosmological hypotheses which do away with "time" altogether, asif it were some illusion. About the best answer one can give is that the quasar "right now" is "thataway", pointing roughly in the direction of the quasar.

Try "The ABC's of Distance (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm)" and the "Many Distances section (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#MD) of his Cosmology Tutorial (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm). There is even a Javascript calculator (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html) which calculates the various different distances, given some input parameters. I think that the "12 billion years" from your question, the kind of distance we usually see reported, is in fact the light travel time (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#DT).

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-19, 10:45 PM
That's right, Orion, cosmology actually is a measurement of the way things were, but we can predict the way things will be by applying physical axioms of continuity and equivalence etc. Where the quasar is now is subject to the whims of the way the model presents itself. It is a theoretical and not an observational statement.

Re: ions vs. plasmas

It is really quite simple. You can define a plasma in two ways: 1) An ion gas in equilibrium with its free electrons gas. 2) Ionized matter. There is a level of subtlety in whether or not definitions 1 and 2 are equivalent. That is all I was saying. You may say that a neutral salt is not a plasma because it doesn't fall in the rigorous definition of 1), but it actually does via the plasma frequency idea of being continuous down to whatever frequency you so desire. Does that make sense to you? Plasma frequency is incoporated into the discussion because Agora thought it germane. It may be, but it doesn't solve the nomenclature problem I was hinting at.

Now, Agora, are you saying the cosmic gamma rays are the explanation for your void fluid? I'm trying to pin down exactly what your model is... let me see if I understand. Please correct me.

There is

a) something in empty space that takes energy away from photons by either electromagnetic or gravitational processes in such a way that it gives a redshift distance relationship.

b) this stuff is observed through cosmic gamma rays and in the cosmic microwave background as a noise shift.

c) the gravitational redshift model is right in your formulation but wrong in mine. In other words, the density of 1 proton per meter^3 adequately explains the Hubble Flow.

d) Quasars are not far away. They are nearby objects that have intrinsic redshifts that must be due to their gravitational redshifts.

e)The CMB is adequately explaines as noise even though it drops off as a Planck distribution. Since we get it by subtracting known sources of microwaves the measurement itself is suspect.

f) There are a lot of neutrinos that have an enormous mass... more than have been observed at any of the neutrino observatories around the world. They are a significant source of redshifting the background even though they are almost non-interacting particles and nearly relativisitc.

These are the arguments I'm hearing from your side. Is that just about right?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-19, 11:09 PM
On 2002-10-19 18:45, JS Princeton wrote:
These are the arguments I'm hearing from your side. Is that just about right?You have a genuine talent for getting *everything* wrong. You may expect a detailed (and highly sarcastic) answer tomorrow. (I still have to sleep, you know...)

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Oct-20, 04:22 AM
On 2002-10-19 19:09, AgoraBasta wrote:
You may expect a detailed (and highly sarcastic) answer tomorrow.

Just a note from the moderator: I wouldn't do that if I were you. I am on the verge of locking this thread due to the rising tempers. I am not singling out you; this is a comment for everyone.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-20, 04:11 PM
On 2002-10-20 00:22, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Just a note from the moderator: I wouldn't do that if I were you. I am on the verge of locking this thread due to the rising tempers. I am not singling out you; this is a comment for everyone.
OK, you're the Boss. While I post here, I comply.

So here goes a non-sarcastic reply -

a) something in empty space that takes energy away from photons by either electromagnetic or gravitational processes in such a way that it gives a redshift distance relationship.Yes, it's a gravitational mechanism, exactly the same way as it would be if light travelled from the centre of a massive body.

b) this stuff is observed through cosmic gamma rays and in the cosmic microwave background as a noise shift.No special stuff is required for a gravitational mechanism, yet voids can host some fluids of electrodynamic and/or magnetic properties.

c) the gravitational redshift model is right in your formulation but wrong in mine. In other words, the density of 1 proton per meter^3 adequately explains the Hubble Flow.You have pointed out two basic models - the "shell universe" and gravitational redshift in a Freidmann model. The "shell" model may be almost correct, but the "shell" itself is completely unnecessary, and the author's calculations are done in an uninventively straightforward way. The Freidmann Equation is incompatible with the dominant EM energy density in the f<sup> -3</sup> non-thermal component.
The density of 1 proton per meter^3 in a flat infinite Newtonian universe adequately explains the phenomenon dubbed "Hubble Flow".

d) Quasars are not far away. They are nearby objects that have intrinsic redshifts that must be due to their gravitational redshifts.I don't know if they are far or nearby. A plasmoid of sufficient density can well be constructed in a thought experiment, that would be dense enough to have high enough intrinsic gravitational redshift while having also an effective plasma frequency below their visible emissions (i.e. translucent for their own light). I don't know how well such a plasmoid would mimic the observed quasars.

e)The CMB is adequately explaines as noise even though it drops off as a Planck distribution. Since we get it by subtracting known sources of microwaves the measurement itself is suspect.This CMB matter has to be put to rest once and for all. A typical black-body spectrum readily appears in various situations. A simplest example of such case would be an interaction of broadband noise spectrum with plasma. Starting from highest freq components - components far above plasma frequency see just a transparent gas, components around the plasma frequency are effectively absorbed by plasma and re-radiated as a thermal spectrum, components below the plasma frequency are partly reflected and partly transformed into sound waves in plasma, components far below the plasma frequency transform into macroscopic charge separation and matter currents in plasma, those currents in the medium act to homogenize the mix over the time duration. But that was only an example. A thermal-alike spectral component appears every time an f<sup> -n</sup>-type spectrum noise is merged with any other noise spectrum present in a medium - this is because these two spectra get a mechanism for thermodynamical energy exchange exactly in the frequency area where their spectral density plots intersect.
The specific case of CMB happens at intersection of the low frequency f<sup> -3</sup> non-thermal component with the quantum background and with the white noise spectrum of the active component of vacuum impedance.

f) There are a lot of neutrinos that have an enormous mass... more than have been observed at any of the neutrino observatories around the world. They are a significant source of redshifting the background even though they are almost non-interacting particles and nearly relativisitc.If there really are tons of fast neutrinos, they must concentrate in voids and get sucked out of matter features. In my "model", the voids are the areas where the B-component of non-thermal ULF cosmological background is predominant, large features of luminous matter are the areas where the E-component of that background radiation is dominating. It's not necessarily the neutrinos, it could be any electrically neutral non-polarizable matter of non-zero magnetic moment. Such matter particles would travel along closed paths near the maxima of B-field force lines.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-20 13:30 ]</font>

D J
2002-Oct-20, 10:48 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-19 18:35, Tim Thompson wrote:
Me: However, the second sentence does not make physical sense. Electrical current is a plasma (a free flowing stream of electrically charged particles).
__________________

Free electrons circulating(electricity) in a copper wire cannot be considerd as a plasma as describe here:
**An electrical "plasma" is a cloud of ions and electrons** that, under the excitation of applied electrical and magnetic fields, can sometimes light up and behave in some unusual ways. The most familiar examples of electrical plasmas are the neon sign,lightning,
The ionosphere of Earth is an example of a plasma that does not emit visible light.

Quote:
So how does the plasma create a plasma? What creates the first plasma?
_________________________
Really i dont see the point because we were talking about the reionization ,and what leads me to believe strong electrical current have a role to play is exactly because Space Plasma is stongly electrical by nature.And have a role to play in the formation of proto galaxies leading in the process of the reionization...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm

To which Orion38 responded ...

Orion38: Maybe this could help you to understand. One image worth one thousand words!!!

And Orion38 provides some links:
So, I fail to see the point, since the sources provided by Orion38 argue rather clearly against his own point of view.

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_02.jpg
___________
This was to showing to JS Princeton the fact than the *Plasma a ionized gas was present since the biginning and is still present.*
This is the only clear reference i found to claryfied this point so the image include the big bang,IE(Merging Point)in my point of view.<<
After came the episode where JS compare the space Plasma to ionized table salt...Frequencies....

Edited for minor correction.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-20 23:23 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Oct-21, 07:42 PM
Orion38: Really i dont see the point because we were talking about the reionization, and what leads me to believe strong electrical current have a role to play is exactly because Space Plasma is stongly electrical by nature. And have a role to play in the formation of proto galaxies leading in the process of the reionization ...

Well, the point is that somewhere along the line we need to leave behind the part where we "believe" this or that, and get around to the business of finding out if what we believe is in fact the way things are (or were).

So, you think there must be currents because plasmas are "electrical in nature" And so would we all agree, there will be currents after there is a plasma. But what about before there is a plasma? If there is a reionization, then there must have been an unionization somewhere along the line, so things can be set up for the reionization.

But if there is an electrical current, then there must already have been a reionization, otherwise where do the elctrons that make up the current come from?

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? The current or the reionization? Physics as we know it does not allow the current to come before the ionization, but does allow for the reverse. And we have a perfectly good mechanism to accomplish this, namely ionizing ultraviolet radiation from the first generation of stars.

You can believe whatever you like, but there are no viable physical models that explain how the current can come before the process that creates the current.

Likewise, the Galaxies & Stars webpage (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm) from electric cosmos is simply an invented fanatasy, far removed from any actual physics. One cannot make galaxies, or anything that looks like them, in that way. Meanwhile, the structure, dynamics & evolution of galaxies falls well within the scope of standard physics (see, for instance, Galaxies in the Universe: An Introduction, Linda S. Sparke & John S. Gallagher III, Cambridge University Press, 2000).

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-21, 08:47 PM
On 2002-10-21 15:42, Tim Thompson wrote:
Physics as we know it does not allow the current to come before the ionization, but does allow for the reverse. Physics works differently. So you have gas which is a nice dielectric, then you apply a growing E-field to that, a displacement current (which is a mere polarization) in that dielectric flows while the field's value is changing, then some kind of discharge (actual type depends on density) happens producing ionization, then stronger currents happen acting to kill the E-field. By this mechanism the energy of the E-field is transformed into potential energy of charge separation in resultant plasma and into B-fields of the currents (plus some less important kinds of energy transmogrifications).
Thus, currents and ionizations get into equlibrium with EM fields in the medium. It's then nonsensical to ponder the question of primacy of ionization or current or associated EM background.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-21 16:49 ]</font>

D J
2002-Oct-21, 09:06 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-21 15:42, Tim Thompson wrote:
Orion38: Really i dont see the point because we were talking about the reionization, and what leads me to believe strong electrical current have a role to play is exactly because Space Plasma is stongly electrical by nature. And have a role to play in the formation of proto galaxies leading in the process of the reionization ...

Well, the point is that somewhere along the line we need to leave behind the part where we "believe" this or that, and get around to the business of finding out if what we believe is in fact the way things are (or were).

So, you think there must be currents because plasmas are "electrical in nature" And so would we all agree, there will be currents after there is a plasma. But what about before there is a plasma? If there is a reionization, then there must have been an unionization somewhere along the line, so things can be set up for the reionization.

But if there is an electrical current, then there must already have been a reionization, otherwise where do the elctrons that make up the current come from?
____________
This is a legetimate question:
in the universe, cells of differing types of plasmas play the role of the energy storing capacitors.So the current was stored
there.
Whereas the plasma universe is composed of cells of plasma of differing consituencies (the capacitors) measured in hundreds of megaparsecs and the discharge time may be measured in billions of years.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/lab_astro.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

Quote:
When the plasma was formed .(sigh)!
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_reionexplbig_02.jpg

Dont forget the big bang in my point of view is a Merging Point.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-21 17:17 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Oct-21, 11:58 PM
AgoraBasta: Physics works differently. So you have gas which is a nice dielectric, then you apply a growing E-field to that, ...

Yes, we all know about all of this. But where does the E-field come from? Physics doesn't work all that differently, that the E-field just appears without a cause. That's the whole point of everything I've been saying. You get an E-field by charge separation. So where does the E-field come from if the charges aren't already separated?

Orion38: This is a legetimate question: in the universe, cells of differing types of plasmas play the role of the energy storing capacitors. So the current was stored there. Whereas the plasma universe is composed of cells of plasma of differing consituencies (the capacitors) measured in hundreds of megaparsecs and the discharge time may be measured in billions of years. ... Don't forget the big bang in my point of view is a Merging Point.

Now we have a picture that differs radically from the standard picture. In your view, I assume there never was a "reionization", because there never was a time when the universe was neutral (else there would be no plasma cells).

When I look at the universe, I can't see those plasma cells. Where are the boundaries? Indeed, what are the boundaries, and by what mechanism do they confine the plasma, and the current? Where do the fields come from that make currents happen?

The big problem here is that all of the plasmas we normally deal with in any astrophysical setting are either charge neutral, or very nearly so. There is no significant charge separation observed, which means no large E-fields. So the models you propose don't match up with observations.

D J
2002-Oct-22, 12:48 AM
Quote:
The big problem here is that all of the plasmas we normally deal with in any astrophysical setting are either charge neutral, or very nearly so. There is no significant charge separation observed, which means no large E-fields. So the models you propose don't match up with observations.
___________________
Students are taught that any separation of charge in space is quickly neutralized as electrons rush to neutralize the charge imbalance. As a result, electricity in space is almost never mentioned, except as a transient effect. So no astrophysicist would think to ask the question of whether there is a steady interplanetary electric field. They have not "examined every mechanism and theory."

It is always assumed that there is a source of electrons to meet any deficiency and that they can be supplied faster than the charging process. However, space is a far better vacuum than any we can achieve on Earth, so the assumption that there are sufficient electrons available may not be true. And where there are sufficient electrons, in their rush to neutralize the electric field they may undergo the magnetic “Z pinch” effect that cuts off the current at some maximum value before recovering and beginning the cycle once more. In fact, observations of energetic activity in space on all scales show this kind of “bursty” behavior. The most recent example came from Jupiter and was reported by Scientific American on March 4 as “a mysterious X-ray ‘hot spot’ that flares up like a beacon every 45 minutes.” We produce X-rays every day in industry and medicine by using electrical discharges. Why would Nature do it any other way?

Quote:
When I look at the universe, I can't see those plasma cells.
____________

The latest Scientific American, October, 2002, refers to recent discoveries about the webs or filaments and sheets of gas draped between the galaxies.

The article is entitled "The emptiest places," by Evan Scannapieco, Patrick Petitjean and Tom Broadhurst. On page 59 the authors refer to the spectral phemomenon (from Quasars)known as "the Lyman-alpha forest."

This indicates that the light is passing through hundreds of intergalactic gas clouds. But, until recently, measurements were not precise enough to determine what is now discovered.

"Ironically, although neutral hydrogen neatly accounts for the lines, it can constitute only a small fraction of the clouds.>>>> Ionized hydrogen and helium must make up the bulk."<<<<<<

Then the authors promote the theory that the gas clouds were re-ionized after the Quasar was formed.

*But one thing for sure, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) is ionized.*<<<

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-22, 08:45 AM
On 2002-10-21 19:58, Tim Thompson wrote:
But where does the E-field come from?The field existed eternally in equlibrium with the charge separation in the universe of plasma. The low-frequency non-thermal EM background is very strong in our universe. If you extrapolate the existing data toward zero frequency, you may get the idea of plasma universe where gravity is mostly irrelevant on cosmological scale. Such universe would be absolutely stable and quasistatic as balance between radiation and charge separation would preserve the matter and energy densities. All energy and matter would be effectively recycled in simple process - old matter is accelerated to high energies in ULF EM backround and turned into fresh matter in high-energy collisions, then matter radiates its excessive energy supply and turns into the old matter again; high energy EM radiation is downshifted through various scatterings, re-radiations and gravity back into the ULF background; the cycle repeats ad infinitum.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-22, 08:42 PM
Agora...

DO you realize for your fluid to work it has to have a charge to mass ratio much off by a factor of 10^30 or so from the charge to mass ratio of the electron? Electrodynamics means that appart from cataclysmic events, the normal shape of the universe when considering an electromagnetic force dominated regime in equilibrium will require a either neutral species which will only show up by means of a small deviation from flat (a charge imbalance that must be maintained as uniform throughout the universe in order for the redshift distance relationship to be maintained.)

Herein lies the problem. Because the electromagnetic force is so much greater, it requires a universal fluid that is only slightly ionized and therefore opaque to light.

D J
2002-Oct-22, 09:44 PM
[quote]
On 2002-10-22 16:42, JS Princeton wrote:
Agora...

Herein lies the problem. Because the electromagnetic force is so much greater, it requires a universal fluid that is only slightly ionized and therefore opaque to light.
_______________________
Just a remember The Space Plasma is not a fluid: but Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, **a plasma most closely resembles the latter**, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is electrically charged particles at high energy.
Plasma dont need to be dense to be effective

Basic Properties

Modes of Operation

There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate:

Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode.
Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona.
Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere.

In all three modes of operation, plasmas emit measurable electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency noise). At any given time, the current density (Amps per square meter) existing in the plasma, determines which particular mode a plasma is operating in. The atomic structure of the gas that became ionized to form the plasma in the first place also is a factor in this.

Double Layers

One of the most important properties of any electrical plasma is its ability to "self-organize" - that is, to electrically isolate one section of itself from another. The isolating wall is called a double layer (DL).
More detail here
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm
___________________

In fact the plasma is the mysterious *dark* matter:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm
I will let Agora responding to the first part of your question.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-22, 10:02 PM
On 2002-10-22 16:42, JS Princeton wrote:
DO you realize for your fluid to work it has to have a charge to mass ratio much off by a factor of 10^30 or so from the charge to mass ratio of the electron?The ratio must be about 10^25 times SMALLER than that of electron's - that's for a pure electrostatic component keeping all the EM energy.
Electrodynamics means that appart from cataclysmic events, the normal shape of the universe when considering an electromagnetic force dominated regime in equilibrium will require a either neutral species which will only show up by means of a small deviation from flat (a charge imbalance that must be maintained as uniform throughout the universe in order for the redshift distance relationship to be maintained.)That's right. The universe is made mostly of the voids where only the stuff like neutrinos may survive. Accretions of bright matter form cells secluding the voids, these accretions are wrapped in somewhat rarefied plasma about the density of ISM. Voids are dominated by magnetic component, accretions - by the electric one. Voids and accretions must form since the natural shape of the EM spectrum in such a medium is 1/f^3. Within the matter accretions the EM energy is mostly in form of magnetoacoustic waves, macroscopic charge separation (polarization) and currents. The redshift is still mostly gravitational.
Herein lies the problem. Because the electromagnetic force is so much greater, it requires a universal fluid that is only slightly ionized and therefore opaque to light. No problem here at all. There's a natural separation of fluid densities between voids and accretions. The EM energy is spread between a few basic forms - the EM waves, quasistatic polarization, magnetoacoustic waves and electric currents - all depending on the frequency of background components, size of a relevant feature and plasma density. All matter may be fully ionized. Upon cooling and recombination, matter escapes into voids, accelerates and smashes back into accretions - thus the matter is refreshed.

[a later addition]

There certainly are objects where plasma density is high enough to be opaque to light, those are dense bodies like stars. Transparency of plasma is a function density and radiation frequency, we've been through that already while discussing the plasma frequency. As we go down in frequency, the more areas of space become opaque, but this opaqueness is exactly the result of interactions of EM background with matter. For every large feature size there's a frequency band of wavelengths longer than that size. Consider a blob of plasma interacting with the broadband EM background - for the frequencies above the plasma frequency the blob is transparent, for frequencies below c/diameter the blob acts as a body, the energy components of frequencies in between actively exchange energy with the matter of the blob. Being polarizable matter, the blob sticks to the local maxima of the E-field of the components of EM background whose wavelengths are greater than the blob's diameter. If we start from absolutely uniform isotropic plasma, we need to justify it's separation into blobs or other features of varying density - this task is easily accomplished by the acoustic energy in the medium providing density non-uniformities. Thus a uniform plasma inevitably separates into features of various sizes, and every feature size exists in equilibrium with associated frequency components of the EM background. A self-organization from a uniform mix is a natural property of plasma.

I think it's absolutely necessary to admit the possibility of a quasistatic plasma cosmology. Proving or disproving the primacy of EM/plasma nature of our real universe hangs on observation of the lowest frequency bands of the "non-thermal" EM background. Extrapolation of the so far available data points toward a strongly electrodynamic universe, where gravity is still very important as a medium-range force defining the inner structure of some matter accretions and a long-range factor providing cosmological redshifts and a mechanism participating in energy turnover, but no more than that.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-23 08:24 ]</font>

jeffocal
2002-Oct-22, 11:18 PM
<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a> postulates a portion of the energy loss associated with the redshift is directly converted to mass component of space. The symmetrical nature of experimental verified equation E=mc^2 clearly indicates that this is possible because it defines the symmetrical equivalence between mass and energy. When the mechanism define by Shadows for this conversion is viewed in terms its ability to define a quantum theory of gravity it’s validity is difficult to refute. Therefore if one cannot refute the mechanism defined by Shadows for conversion of the energy loss associated with the redshift to the mass component of space one would have to reevaluate the magnitude of the distance relationships associated with the redshift. Your comments regarding this and all other aspects of the Shadows paper will greatly be appreciated.

Jeff An Imagineer (http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/Imagineering.htm)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: An Imagineer on 2002-10-22 19:53 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-23, 04:43 PM
Agora:

You are basically proposing a high-density plasma in most areas where we don't see them except to indulge your anti-recessional velocity prejudice. Sure, I can accept that you might have a case that you could construct a complex arrangement such that the B-fields in the voids and the E-fields in the accretions exactly balanced out to create a uniformly energetic field. However, such a field has no a priori reason for existing and cannot show evolution less you see some sort of inconsistency with the redshift distance relation.

The entire ensemble has to be generally in thermal equilibrium which is impossible because it permeates all space and it also has to has to depress structure formation in some way so that we don't all sit in much more dense areas than we do today. Namely, since you don't have an expanding universe, you have a gravitational stress that has to be compensated for by some other force that keeps the universe in a type of hydrostatic equilibrium. I assume you want this electrodynamical fluid to do this, but it's charge separation is so much smaller than a fully ionized gas (10^25 lower than the electron's charge to mass ratio) that I can't see where the repulsion is coming from.

Maybe you think it's a fermi repulsion of some sort? Maybe your inclined to revive a cosmological constant that is somehow endemic to space (as opposed to being dark energy in the standard model)? How does your static universe exist?

Please, enlighten us.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-23, 06:00 PM
On 2002-10-23 12:43, JS Princeton wrote:
Please, enlighten us.And what, pray tell, have I been doing in all my posts? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

What I say is simply this - every large enough matter sample has an average off-balance electric charge directly proportional to its mass, associated EM background then has to have the 1/f^3 spectral density.
Any expansion is then resisted by electrostatic forces, any contraction is resisted by EM radiation density; i.e. expansion/contraction acts against the equilibrium of EM radiation and Coulomb fields energies, i.e. expansion dilutes radiation and pumps static fields; they try to get back into equilibrium, which requires contraction/expansion. Universe reacts to expansion/contraction as a rubber ball. Thus, expansion/contraction requires source/sink of energy, the greater the more off-balance charge in the matter. All matter has to stay ionized to be able to hold the EM energy density, and in order to neglect gravity the average density of the off-balance charge has to be above 10 electrons per mole of fully ionized plasma, which means the average charge/mass ratio has to be above 10^-25 of that of the electron's charge/mass ratio.

Zathras
2002-Oct-23, 06:11 PM
On 2002-10-23 14:00, AgoraBasta wrote:


On 2002-10-23 12:43, JS Princeton wrote:
Please, enlighten us.And what, pray tell, have I been doing in all my posts? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

What I say is simply this - every large enough matter sample has an average off-balance electric charge directly proportional to its mass, associated EM background then has to have the 1/f^3 spectral density.
Any expansion is then resisted by electrostatic forces, any contraction is resisted by EM radiation density; i.e. expansion/contraction acts against the equilibrium of EM radiation and Coulomb fields energies, i.e. expansion dilutes radiation and pumps static fields; they try to get back into equilibrium, which requires contraction/expansion. Universe reacts to expansion/contraction as a rubber ball. Thus, expansion/contraction requires source/sink of energy, the greater the more off-balance charge in the matter. All matter has to stay ionized to be able to hold the EM energy density, and in order to neglect gravity the average density of the off-balance charge has to be above 10 electrons per mole of fully ionized plasma, which means the average charge/mass ratio has to be above 10^-25 of that of the electron's charge/mass ratio.


In a previous post, you indicated that you believe in magnetic monopoles: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2190&forum=1.

Don't you know that the existence of magnetic monopoles necessarily requires the absolute quantization of charge, so that there can be no variation in charge? This is shown by calculating the angular momentum in an charge-magnetic monopole configuration.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-23, 06:19 PM
On 2002-10-23 14:11, Zathras wrote:
Don't you know that the existence of magnetic monopoles necessarily requires the absolute quantization of charge, so that there can be no variation in charge?What?! So I can't have 10 electrons more in one mole than I have in another? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif ... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-23, 06:21 PM
On 2002-10-23 14:00, AgoraBasta wrote:
And what, pray tell, have I been doing in all my posts?
I thought you were hard at work with that lawn spreader (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2493&forum=1&start=16). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-23, 06:26 PM
On 2002-10-23 14:21, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I thought you were hard at work with that lawn spreader (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2493&forum=1&start=16). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif It's exactly the same thing in different perspectives. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-24, 10:01 PM
On 2002-10-23 14:00, AgoraBasta wrote:


On 2002-10-23 12:43, JS Princeton wrote:
Please, enlighten us.And what, pray tell, have I been doing in all my posts? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Playing games, as far as I can tell. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



What I say is simply this - every large enough matter sample has an average off-balance electric charge directly proportional to its mass, associated EM background then has to have the 1/f^3 spectral density.

Cite.



Any expansion

Any and all?



is then resisted by electrostatic forces, any contraction is resisted by EM radiation density; i.e. expansion/contraction acts against the equilibrium of EM radiation and Coulomb fields energies,

And these are necessarily the dominant forces in the universe?


i.e. expansion dilutes radiation and pumps static fields; they try to get back into equilibrium, which requires contraction/expansion. Universe reacts to expansion/contraction as a rubber ball.

Assuming that charge separation can be acheived to an extent such that the gravitational charge balance due to mass and energy is outweighed by the electromagnetic forces displayed. Of course, then there are those pesky things called charge conservation laws... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



Thus, expansion/contraction requires source/sink of energy,

Only a local expansion/contraction. Global expansion or contraction is well-allowed by Einstein equations. See Weinberg's General Relativity text, p. 614.



the greater the more off-balance charge in the matter. All matter has to stay ionized to be able to hold the EM energy density

you succeeded in omitting an important point: the ionization must be done on cosmological distance scales and not locally. A local change in charge density is not asymmetric enough radially to counteract the exceedingly asymmetric gravitational forces.


, and in order to neglect gravity the average density of the off-balance charge has to be above 10 electrons per mole of fully ionized plasma,

That's right. For every mole of particles we see, there should be ten unbalanced electrons whose charge is balanced at cosmological distances (lest they recombine).


which means the average charge/mass ratio has to be above 10^-25 of that of the electron's charge/mass ratio.


And, more importantly, has to carry a net electric charge over local scales.

Hmm...

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-24, 11:14 PM
JS,

Lest you fail to notice it, I paraphrase - the mechanism I described is essentially the same thing that keeps any mono- and polycrystalline matter together; i.e. very much alike the chemical bonds. It obviously works for solids...

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-25, 04:52 AM
Agora... when did you decide the universe was a solid?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-25, 06:11 PM
On 2002-10-24 18:01, JS Princeton wrote:
Cite.No need citing. It's a result of simple analysis of the off-balance fluctuations of energy density in a 3D gaseous medium.
And these are necessarily the dominant forces in the universe?Not necessarily, yet judging from implied density of low-freq background - yes.
Of course, then there are those pesky things called charge conservation laws...Overall electric neutrality is highly desired. Otherwise - we definitely are expanding.
Only a local expansion/contraction. Global expansion or contraction is well-allowed by Einstein equations.Large-scale EM interactions don't care of the nature of expansion/contraction. For the Einstein eqns to be applicable, you need the primacy of gravity.
you succeeded in omitting an important point: the ionization must be done on cosmological distance scales and not locally. A local change in charge density is not asymmetric enough radially to counteract the exceedingly asymmetric gravitational forces.Yes, I need exactly the non-vanishing "background" charge separation on all scales in equilibrium with 1/f^3 radiation. The asymmetry of gravity would be of no importance save EM is strong enough. The wavelengths of that 1/f^3 thingie must extend to all distance scales till infinity.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-25, 08:29 PM
On 2002-10-25 14:11, AgoraBasta wrote:
No need citing. It's a result of simple analysis of the off-balance fluctuations of energy density in a 3D gaseous medium.
Cool. We're not interested in the cite anyway, we're interested in the simple analysis--which would have been at the cite site. What is it?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-25, 08:41 PM
On 2002-10-25 16:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Cool. We're not interested in the cite anyway, we're interested in the simple analysis--which would have been at the cite site. What is it?You should be able to do it yourself. After all, kids used to do it at school...

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-26, 02:20 AM
No need citing. It's a result of simple analysis of the off-balance fluctuations of energy density in a 3D gaseous medium.
Ah yes! The things kids used to do in school! Do you find it hard that everybody on this board is so much more stupid than ye? I never did off-balance fluctuations of energy density in a 3D gaseous medium and arrived at a noise component larger than a signal component of 1/f^3. You need to provide some documentation and proof. Period.

Not necessarily, yet judging from implied density of low-freq background - yes.

Which is a signal and not noise on another signal. Please, let's get this straight once and for all.


Overall electric neutrality is highly desired. Otherwise - we definitely are expanding.

Except you are no longer in that regime when you have a net charge that provides for your electrodynamic fluid. As I showed, you need a net charge that is separated at least enough so that it is asymmetrical over cosmic distances. Thus a net charge of your fluid over locality. The overall universe is still probably electrically neutral, though not necessarily since you don't have a mechanism for the initiation of any of these things (only an a priori "God did it" steady state universe).



Large-scale EM interactions don't care of the nature of expansion/contraction. For the Einstein eqns to be applicable, you need the primacy of gravity.

Patently untrue. The Einstein equations will work fine for EM interactions. That is why there's a stress energy tensor!


Yes, I need exactly the non-vanishing "background" charge separation on all scales in equilibrium with 1/f^3 radiation. The asymmetry of gravity would be of no importance save EM is strong enough. The wavelengths of that 1/f^3 thingie must extend to all distance scales till infinity.


Yet, you have shown no viable model that allows for this, only saying, "it's obvious... a student can derive it."

Nonsense. That's all I have to say.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-27, 03:57 PM
On 2002-10-25 22:20, JS Princeton wrote:
...1/f^3. You need to provide some documentation and proof. Period.OK, start with Brown noise (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BrownNoise.html), get noise potential field density U as 1/f^2, then as q/r~U get q/r~1/f^2 for a given freq component, further as r=c/f for the respective freq component derive qf~1/f^2 -> 1/f^3=const for a constant test charge. Thus a "mechanical" Brownian 1/f^2 noise corresponds to the EM 1/f^3 noise.
Which is a signal and not noise on another signal. Please, let's get this straight once and for all.You've got some strange ideas about signal/noise nature. Every noise is a superposition of signals having physical causes. One *may* consider noise as such a superposition, but such *approach* is hardly sane.
Except you are no longer in that regime when you have a net charge that provides for your electrodynamic fluid.All matter in the universe is ionized, exceptions are very rare and insignificant. Thus ULF radiation always has a source of charge to stay in equlibrium with.
...you don't have a mechanism for the initiation of any of these things (only an a priori "God did it" steady state universe).So if universe is created in a BB - it's OK, and if it existed eternally it's God's act? That's a horribly perverted argumentation...

Patently untrue. The Einstein equations will work fine for EM interactions. That is why there's a stress energy tensor!Show me where's the T in any flavour of cosmological equations. There's no decent connection between the field and cosmological eqns. In fact, that ugly "cosmological constant" is nothing constant - it must be a function of time and distance, so all existing solutions are uniformly junk.
Nonsense. That's all I have to say.Yes, your reply was quite a nonsense. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-27 13:13 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-27, 08:21 PM
On 2002-10-27 10:57, AgoraBasta wrote:
start with Brown noise (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BrownNoise.html), get noise potential field density U as 1/f^2, then as q/r~U get q/r~1/f^2 for a given freq component, further as r=c/f for the respective freq component derive qf~1/f^2 -> 1/f^3=const for a constant test charge. Thus a "mechanical" Brownian 1/f^2 noise corresponds to the EM 1/f^3 noise.

Agora, no one is arguing that a "brown noise" component doesn't exist. Just because an endemic random walk noise occurs in systems does not mean you have adequately explained the micorwave background which a) does not diverge as does the brown noise and b) has not mechanism by which it can be noise that you have provided documentation for.

Again, please give us a single citation that will allow us to see what you are talking about... specifically the CMB being a 1/f^3 noise feature for some process of your electrodynamical fluid in space. If it is as simple as you seem to think it is, there should be plenty of people who have published on the topic.


You've got some strange ideas about signal/noise nature. Every noise is a superposition of signals having physical causes. One *may* consider noise as such a superposition, but such *approach* is hardly sane.

Either you are having trouble understanding English or are simply ignoring my comment. A noise component can be extracted from signal. I am asking, what signal is the CMB extracted from? You have made a claim it is subtracted, now back it up with more than that spurious microwave plot of various sources you offerred in the other thread.


All matter in the universe is ionized, exceptions are very rare and insignificant. Thus ULF radiation always has a source of charge to stay in equlibrium with.

This I have no argument with, but it doesn't explain your effect. A local asymmetry that is balanced out on the global scale will not show energy changes over an integrated line of sight. This asymmetry must be greater than ionization of the universe as your dynamic fluid needs to show energy loss/absorption. The only way to do this is for the fluid to have a net charge equal to the charge/mass ratio I quoted.


So if universe is created in a BB - it's OK, and if it existed eternally it's God's act? That's a horribly perverted argumentation...

No. We really don't have a way of pinpointing God's action. One can argue theistically from either model. This is a red herring.

[/quote]Show me where's the T in any flavour of cosmological equations. There's no decent connection between the field and cosmological eqns.[/quote]

It's very simple, you have it in both the continuity equation (derivative of the density is equal to a combination of the components of the stress energy tensor) and the Freidmann Equation which is a direct solution to Einstein Equations that involved the stress energy tensor. You don't have to take my word for it, though. read here (http://www.asu.cas.cz/~had/cosm2.ps).



In fact, that ugly "cosmological constant" is nothing constant - it must be a function of time and distance, so all existing solutions are uniformly junk.

No, this is not true. As a scalar the lambda term in Einstein's Equations does not change local energy conservation. You can have a constant "cosmological constant" and only see the effects at late time (as is suggested today). Another option is a w (where density is equal to w*pressure) that is between -1/3 and -1 and therefore does vary with time and distance. Both of these solutions are tenable and are being tested as possibilities. So, no, they aren't junk at all.


Yes, your reply was quite a nonsense. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Let's leave it to the impartial reader, shall we?

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-27, 10:25 PM
On 2002-10-27 15:21, JS Princeton wrote:
Agora, no one is arguing that a "brown noise" component doesn't exist. Just because an endemic random walk noise occurs in systems does not mean you have adequately explained the micorwave background which a) does not diverge as does the brown noise and b) has not mechanism by which it can be noise that you have provided documentation for.

Again, please give us a single citation that will allow us to see what you are talking about... specifically the CMB being a 1/f^3 noise feature for some process of your electrodynamical fluid in space. If it is as simple as you seem to think it is, there should be plenty of people who have published on the topic.Once again you are changing the topic. I was not talking any smallest thing CMB'ish in my post.
Now that you've had to admit the reality of 1/f^3 radiation (that's in good agreement with it's 1/f^2 (http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/comment/) parent), you must admit existence of currents (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0107079) in the electrodynamical fluids in space. So you have a nice mechanism to effectively stir a line-of-sight averaged background in the quiescent band.
Either you are having trouble understanding English or are simply ignoring my comment. A noise component can be extracted from signal. I am asking, what signal is the CMB extracted from?Understanding is not my problem. I was NOT discussing CMB in my post. Yet, CMB is extracted from the full background spectrum.
It's very simple, you have it in both the continuity equation (derivative of the density is equal to a combination of the components of the stress energy tensor) and the Freidmann Equation which is a direct solution to Einstein Equations that involved the stress energy tensor. You don't have to take my word for it, though. read here (http://www.asu.cas.cz/~had/cosm2.ps).I'll produce my judgement on your link a bit later.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-28, 06:14 AM
The second link you provided, Agora, is about electromagnetic effects due to an inhomogeneous system on a global scale. This means you must be quarrelling with the Cosmological Principle. Perhaps this is the case, however, then you've opened the door to a huge range of alternative cosmologies of which yours is just an incidental addition too. Specifically, violation of the Cosmological Principle runs counter to the vast majority of the direction of modern-day cosmology.

You may have a point that the Cosmological Principle should be looked at. However, there are investigations going on as we speak into the homogeneous and isotropic nature of the universe. If you have a quarrel with the way these studies are being done then you should pipe up. Otherwise, you are simply barking up the wrong tree.

The point is, in order to have your effect you need an inhomogeneity that results in your electric currents and magnetic fields. This would be an exciting find, but does not have any observational evidence to support it. Until recently, you could have balked at that last statement saying that homogeneity didn't have any observational support either, except now with deep field imaging and better sky surveys we have ample evidence for a homogeneous distribution.

More than that, the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum show local anisotropies at the exact frequencies of the correlations that occur in large scale structures (to a threshhold of about 10% or so). This would all just be one big coincidence in your model as the CMB is nothing more than averaged emission (which cannot be as smooth as the CMB is observed to be... please read up some more on this subject Agora since you obviously have a bias against the observational techniques used to obtain the spectra).

It is all well and good to quote from condensed matter papers and talk about universal signal/noise phenomena, but no one is going to take seriously a theory whose implications are simply said to be "obvious" and no derivations of the exact conditions that mimic the Big Bang universe with a thermal CMB and a Hubble Recession and all matter of cosmological models intersecting in the same regime (including, for example, the primordial nucleosynthesis). The Big Bang, to you, is simply a misinterpretation of the data because you can think of alternative options that would somehow conspire to give the same "answers". That you haven't been able to articulate these models in rigorous detail is rather telling.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-28, 02:20 PM
On 2002-10-28 01:14, JS Princeton wrote:
The second link you provided, Agora, is about electromagnetic effects due to an inhomogeneous system on a global scale. This means you must be quarrelling with the Cosmological Principle. It also talks about electromagnetic effects due to coloured noise in a homogeneous system on a global scale, which situation is quite equivalent. So no, I'm not quarelling with Cosmological Principle. In a steady state in equilibrium with the ULF coloured background, all inhomogeneities must stay local, i.e. pertaining to the specific scale, exactly as it appears in our universe.

Furthermore, regarding the earlier discussion concerning the T, notice that its contribution can't reduce to energy density and pressure in a cosmological eqn in case of strong EM radiation, especially so in case of a red-coloured bath when "pressure" is undefinable.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-29, 02:21 AM
On 2002-10-28 09:20, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote] It also talks about electromagnetic effects due to coloured noise in a homogeneous system on a global scale, which situation is quite equivalent.

I could not find the relevant quote in the document you provided. Can you please spell it out for us?



So no, I'm not quarelling with Cosmological Principle. In a steady state in equilibrium with the ULF coloured background, all inhomogeneities must stay local, i.e. pertaining to the specific scale, exactly as it appears in our universe.


On this, finally, we agree.



Furthermore, regarding the earlier discussion concerning the T, notice that its contribution can't reduce to energy density and pressure in a cosmological eqn in case of strong EM radiation, especially so in case of a red-coloured bath when "pressure" is undefinable.


I don't think that is true. Pressure is defined for radiation just as well as it is defined for massive particles. We do have an energy density and a comoving volume, so we have a definable pressure by simple thermodynamics. This is to be expected since the Einstein equations reduce to local energy conservation, as I said earlier.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-29, 11:04 AM
On 2002-10-28 21:21, JS Princeton wrote:
I could not find the relevant quote in the document you provided. Can you please spell it out for us?quoting the source -
Moreover in all our models to obtain unidirectional current we require external white noise fluctuations as opposed to various models for homogeneous systems where application of colored noise (correlated noise) is must. For example, earlier models of thermal ratchets driven by colored noise in a small correlation time expansion (or in the unified colored noise approximation for arbitrary time) become identical to a Brownian particle moving in an inhomogeneous medium with space dependent diffusion coeffcient [59]. The interesting idea of relative stability of states, which affects current, in the presence of temperature nonuniformity which is central to our treatment, however, has not received the attention it deserves in the area of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. We remark that we do not require the periodic potential field of the system to be ratchetlike nor do we require the fluctuating force to be a colored noise to obtain macroscopic current. Thus we have put the problem of macroscopic unidirectional motion in nonequilibrium systems on a more general footing.


The reason why I pointed towards this particular paper instead of some other dealing specifically with the coloured noise, is that here they present the most general case. Starting from a homogeneous system with white noise, the system acts to make the noise coloured by fluctuations in homogeneity; then the coloured noise effectively creates currents. Finally, the system reaches a kind of equilibrium between the density of the noise spectrum and matter currents.



Pressure is defined for radiation just as well as it is defined for massive particles. We do have an energy density and a comoving volume, so we have a definable pressure by simple thermodynamics. Pressure can be defined for a single spectral component or for a limited integral spectrum. If the spectrum integral diverges at zero frequency, pressure becomes a function of sample volume size and shape. Effective energy density also becomes a function of size and shape of the test volume. Even the idea of "comoving volume" fails, since size of that volume must depend on the lowest considered spectral component, so changing its size changes integration range - and here more and more macroscopic currents come into play as the lower spectral components are integrated.

A universe turns into a system of dissipative oscillators with rectifying nonlinearity, which nonlinearity allows for energy transport from the ULF band back into the higher freq bands by energy of the matter currents, creating a steady state energy-recycling system.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-29 10:26 ]</font>

Spaceman Spiff
2002-Oct-29, 04:50 PM
All I can see is lots of "scientific babble", and waving of hands. However, I am awaiting an answer to my question I posed in an earlier post here. When can I expect to see your "scientific model" of the universe published in the Astrophysical Journal or the Physical Review Journal?

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-29, 08:36 PM
On 2002-10-29 06:04, AgoraBasta wrote:
Moreover in all our models to obtain unidirectional current we require external white noise fluctuations as opposed to various models for homogeneous systems where application of colored noise (correlated noise) is must.

This I read as well, but it doesn't apply well to an isotropic system. In order to pass the test for homogeneity, we must have colored noise, which doesn't bode well for your model of a stirctly divergant 1/f^3 band. Your model is constrained to be dependent upon the Hubble-Distance relationship. Having a noise-noise correlation function ruins any ability you might have for having a solution unless your correlations are not simply reduceable (that is highly oscillatory for all degrees of freedom). If there is such an oscillating function down to low frequencies, then I don't see how you can possibly say the universe is isotropic. We should see incredible anisotropies in the signal due to the colored noise.



For example, earlier models of thermal ratchets driven by colored noise in a small correlation time expansion (or in the unified colored noise approximation for arbitrary time) become identical to a Brownian particle moving in an inhomogeneous medium with space dependent diffusion coeffcient.

This, to me, is the heart of the matter. Here we basically see the authors spelling out in plain language the fact that the system does not look simultaneously homogeneous and isotropic.



The interesting idea of relative stability of states, which affects current, in the presence of temperature nonuniformity which is central to our treatment, however, has not received the attention it deserves in the area of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. We remark that we do not require the periodic potential field of the system to be ratchetlike nor do we require the fluctuating force to be a colored noise to obtain macroscopic current.


In other words, as long as you assume nonuniformity there are solutions which allow you to have currents.



Thus we have put the problem of macroscopic unidirectional motion in nonequilibrium systems on a more general footing.


But, of course, we are talking about equilibrium sources since the instabilities cannot be on the global scale.



The reason why I pointed towards this particular paper instead of some other dealing specifically with the coloured noise, is that here they present the most general case. Starting from a homogeneous system with white noise, the system acts to make the noise coloured by fluctuations in homogeneity; then the coloured noise effectively creates currents.


Fine and dandy, but that system is not the one we observe because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.



Finally, the system reaches a kind of equilibrium between the density of the noise spectrum and matter currents.


Right, but there's no indication that this can explain a microwave Planck spectrum (which cannot be an integral over non-causally connected lines-of-sight as proved in Sandage papers).



Pressure can be defined for a single spectral component or for a limited integral spectrum. If the spectrum integral diverges at zero frequency, pressure becomes a function of sample volume size and shape.

That's right. That's endemic to gravity in the form of the Einstein Equations. Think of its mass-analog. You can have an increasingly dense material that has a divergant spectrum integral but still gives a simple solution to the Einstein Equations. That's the first solution, in fact!



Energy density also becomes a function of size and shape of the test volume. Even the idea of "comoving volume" fails, since size of that volume must depend on the lowest considered spectral component, so changing its size changes integration range - and here more and more macroscopic currents come into play as the lower spectral components are integrated.

No, it doesn't matter since the energy drops off much faster than the volume. You are basically taking a limit of a normalizing fraction as two quantities go to infinity, but the denominator quantity (the energy) goes to zero much more quickly than the numerator for the comoving space we consider (generally, the section traversed by light rays of comoving time that is equal to the integral of the local time divided by the scale factor for the two end point epochs we are considering).



A universe turns into a system of dissipative oscillators with rectifying nonlinearity, which nonlinearity allows for energy transport from the ULF band back into the higher freq bands by energy of the matter currents, creating a steady state energy-recycling system.


No, the equations have unique solutions even for a low-energy thermal bath. I don't care how many photons you want to cram in, they still are confined by the Einstein Equations which involve simply derivatives of T.

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-29, 11:49 PM
On 2002-10-29 15:36, JS Princeton wrote:
If there is such an oscillating function down to low frequencies, then I don't see how you can possibly say the universe is isotropic.
That's easy - our plasma has two components of very different masses, so electrons are the stuff that mostly engages in electric currents. Charge density anisotropy does not translate into mass anisotropy. Furthermore, we have agreed that charge to mass density ratio of no more than 10^-25 is quite sufficient to make universe basically electrodynamical.

This, to me, is the heart of the matter. Here we basically see the authors spelling out in plain language the fact that the system does not look simultaneously homogeneous and isotropic.
Neither is our universe completely homogeneous and isotropic. Take a look at this simulation from a nice and very elaborate article (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202318) by decent BB orthodoxes -
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/cosmic_web.jpg


Fine and dandy, but that system is not the one we observe because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
Sorry, this is exactly what we observe. There are well-shaped features at every observed scale size in our universe. But anisotropy and inhomogeneity are limited so that not to ruin the global isotropy and homogeneity.

...there's no indication that this can explain a microwave Planck spectrum (which cannot be an integral over non-causally connected lines-of-sight as proved in Sandage papers).
Can we have it one thing at a time? I promise to slay the CMB some time later.

You can have an increasingly dense material that has a divergant spectrum integral but still gives a simple solution to the Einstein Equations. That's the first solution, in fact!
Slightly disquieting then is the position of this humble observer - that's below the horizon.

No, it doesn't matter since the energy drops off much faster than the volume.
Nope. Integral density of energy flux from the 1/f^3 spectrum translates into integral energy density over the volume that grows as diameter of the sample volume, i.e. the integral energy over the effective band/volume grows as diameter^4 while volume is diameter^3.
You forget to account for the "flux" nature of the spectral density thingie.

No, the equations have unique solutions even for a low-energy thermal bath.Show me the solution for the electron/proton plasma in 1/f^3 bath. (I'm afraid it's never been developed.)

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-31, 05:46 PM
That's easy - our plasma has two components of very different masses, so electrons are the stuff that mostly engages in electric currents. Charge density anisotropy does not translate into mass anisotropy. Furthermore, we have agreed that charge to mass density ratio of no more than 10^-25 is quite sufficient to make universe basically electrodynamical.

You are only half-right. Any plasma you care to make has to have a global anisotropy. That means, over the distance that curvature would become important (if not for the fact the forces associated with electromagnetism were dominant) you have to have a charge imbalance. This means free, unpaired electrons over distances that are much larger than tradidtional models. You need to have some mechanism for maintaining such a stability since charge conservation naturally follows from any global homogeneity/isotropy.



Neither is our universe completely homogeneous and isotropic. Take a look at this simulation from a nice and very elaborate article (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202318) by decent BB orthodoxes.

No, the local anisotropies are very important, however they obviously don't work for your model as we can calculate the global ionization over cosmic scales (usually given the designation a(t) or R(t) in cosmology texts) and we find charge conservation, not inhomogeneity of the kind we're talking about. You have a plasma for your model to work that looks VERY different from these models and observations.



Sorry, this is exactly what we observe. There are well-shaped features at every observed scale size in our universe.


Untrue. There is an upper-limit to structure at the super-cluster level. Beyond that limit there are no structures. You can get filaments, walls, and voids, but you can't get structure bigger than that. What's interesting about this observation is that it is the same scale as the first peak in the angular correlation function of the CMB. This is what is so amazing about the CMB with respect to the Big Bang. I realize you don't wish to deal with the CMB, but the CMB is what has sealed the deal for most cosmologists in regards to Big Bang models. That's why I am appealing to it so often.



But anisotropy and inhomogeneity are limited so that not to ruin the global isotropy and homogeneity.


That's right, and your model has to have the charge separation on a global scale otherwise we would see no effect. If the model had no charge separation on the local scales, we could see no energy-change in background spectra. There would be no redshift-distance relation for a static universe.



Slightly disquieting then is the position of this humble observer - that's below the horizon.


Horizons are extremely important in cosmology. Including the event horizon defined by the amount of time the universe has been in existence.



Nope. Integral density of energy flux from the 1/f^3 spectrum translates into integral energy density over the volume that grows as diameter of the sample volume, i.e. the integral energy over the effective band/volume grows as diameter^4 while volume is diameter^3.

But this is not a good approximation because your divergeance is occurring outside of locality. It's a non-linear problem at this point and the integral is not trivial if you are taking it to the point where it seems to diverge. What ends up happening as you go to large and large volumes is that you have to take into account the off-diagonal terms since the Minkowski approximation is no longer valid. The solution becomes that low energy photons must not diverge, but rather are fit in a delta-function fashion to the low end to prevent the singularity in the energy. This is the same thing that occurs when calculating the energy density due to an isolated charge in classical electrodynamics.



Show me the solution for the electron/proton plasma in 1/f^3 bath. (I'm afraid it's never been developed.)


Here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9801/9801035.pdf) the action has a term that goes as the gradient of the 1/f^2 radiation. This will translate into your 1/f^3 bath. Interestingly you see that the radiation equilibrium ensures an unstable solution with a black hole. This isn't necessarily a universally true statement, but it supports my comments that you can't simply treat the integral as becoming 1/f^4.

D J
2002-Oct-31, 07:54 PM
JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
There is an upper-limit to structure at the super-cluster level. Beyond that limit there are no structures. You can get filaments, walls, and voids, but you can't get structure bigger than that.
______________________
Structure of the Plasma Universe

These currents, Alfvén thought, should give the universe a cellular and filamentary structure. At the time of this suggestion, supporting evidence in the form of huge filaments, sheets, and walls of galaxies were unknown.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/graphics.astro/S&T.fixedfilaments.jpg

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/graphics.astro/S&T.3fils.bw.jpg

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe.intro.html

Modern plasma space science has been heavily influenced by the earlier research of Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland. At the turn of the century he suggested that electrical currents due to "corpuscular rays" (plasma) from the Sun caused the aurora borealis. Such currents were considered impossible until they were discovered by an artificial satellite in 1974. Enormous Birkeland currents connecting Jupiter and its moon Io were recorded by the Voyager spacecraft in 1979.

In 1984 Farhad Yusef-Azdeh, Don Chance, and Mark Morris found an example of Birkeland currents on a galactic scale. Working with the Very Large Array radio telescope, they discovered an arc of radio emission some 120 light-years long near the center of the Milky Way. The structure is made up of narrow filaments typically 3 light-years wide and running the full length of the arc (see the image above). The strength of the associated magnetic field is 100 times greater than previously thought possible on such a large scale, but the field is nearly identical in geometry and strength with computer simulations of Birkeland currents in studies of galaxy formation.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/peratt1.gif
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/peratt2.gif
Peratt used an extremely large computer to apply the Maxwell - Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces produced by, and the interactions between, electric and magnetic fields) to each of a huge ensemble of charged particles. He calls this Particle in Cell (PIC) simulation. His results are almost indistinguishable from astroimages of actual galaxies.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe.intro.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-31 14:59 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-31, 10:01 PM
So, right, Orion. Everything you posted backs up my comments. Superclusters are the largest structures we see. They are not, however, virialized (which is what you would expect from steady-state or static universe models).

The galactic scales are miniscule compared to the scales we are dealing with. Galaxies in cosmology (or more correctly dark matter halos) can be consdered to be point-like objects in cosmologial large scale structure models.

D J
2002-Oct-31, 10:51 PM
On 2002-10-31 17:01, JS Princeton wrote:
So, right, Orion. Everything you posted backs up my comments. Superclusters are the largest structures we see. They are not, however, virialized (which is what you would expect from steady-state or static universe models).

The galactic scales are miniscule compared to the scales we are dealing with. Galaxies in cosmology (or more correctly dark matter halos) can be consdered to be point-like objects in cosmologial large scale structure models.


Well, if you look at the links i provides you realise this is the description of the Plasma Universe Structure,and could exist without the Bing Bang model.You can call this model Merging Point of creation produce by the colliding of two Birkeland currents resulting in the creation of galaxies like presented in this model.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/crab_pulsar_020919.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/peratt1.gif
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/peratt2.gif
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe.intro.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-31 17:53 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-10-31 17:57 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Oct-31, 10:58 PM
On 2002-10-31 12:46, JS Princeton wrote:
Any plasma you care to make has to have a global anisotropy. That means, over the distance that curvature would become important (if not for the fact the forces associated with electromagnetism were dominant) you have to have a charge imbalance. This means free, unpaired electrons over distances that are much larger than tradidtional models. You need to have some mechanism for maintaining such a stability since charge conservation naturally follows from any global homogeneity/isotropy.
Well, in order to get constant spatial energy density of Coulomb field (in generally flat space), we'd need the density of charge inhomogeneity to fall as 1/r. That would translate into a classic Brown 1/f^2 bath, whose spatial energy density is obviously non-divergent. If density of charge inhomogeneity is only slightly falling with distance - the energy density is non-divergent any more; i.e. if the 1/f <sup>n</sup> has n<3 by any small margin - we get non-divergent energy.
Furthermore, the global charge separation is not even necessary - closed current loops can still radiate quite happily when charge separation finally has to fade.

There is an upper-limit to structure at the super-cluster level. Beyond that limit there are no structures. You can get filaments, walls, and voids, but you can't get structure bigger than that.
OK, if so, then the EM spectrum has to change from 1/f^3 to 1/f^2 when c/f equals largest feature size. Thus, if the primary interaction is electromagnetic till that size, then such primacy only stops growing but never fades.
(And, btw, it rather seems that larger and larger structures are being steadily found...)

There would be no redshift-distance relation for a static universe.
Static universe inevitably has to have gravitational redshift.

But this is not a good approximation because your divergeance is occurring outside of locality. It's a non-linear problem at this point and the integral is not trivial if you are taking it to the point where it seems to diverge.
These arguments can stand if the universe is expanding/contracting and/or globally curved.
I intend to argue for a model that has neither of those properties, and then I intend to prove stability of such solution.

Interestingly you see that the radiation equilibrium ensures an unstable solution with a black hole. This isn't necessarily a universally true statement, but it supports my comments that you can't simply treat the integral as becoming 1/f^4.
OK, but more importantly, it argues for instability of singularities in case of slow perturbations, which supports my case of flattening effect of ULF baths.

Believe me, I honestly see no way for our universe to escape a flat and steady state, given the apparent grandeur of EM interactions in the universe.

P.S. Those EM interactions, when bluntly plastered over the BB model, have to significantly accelerate the evolution of features in the BB model universe...

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-02, 08:09 PM
On 2002-10-31 17:51, Orion38 wrote:

Well, if you look at the links i provides you realise this is the description of the Plasma Universe Structure,and could exist without the Bing Bang model.You can call this model Merging Point of creation produce by the colliding of two Birkeland currents resulting in the creation of galaxies like presented in this model.



Not quite, Orion. Why should there be an upper limit to the size of structure?

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-02, 08:22 PM
On 2002-10-31 17:58, AgoraBasta wrote:

P.S. Those EM interactions, when bluntly plastered over the BB model, have to significantly accelerate the evolution of features in the BB model universe...


This is the heart of the matter. The fact remains that such interactions are not observed except by plastering them over the existing model and then trying to "explain away" the observations.

You fail to realize that electromagnetic interactions are simply accounted for in many models of gravity but are, in most systems, negligible because of the problem of charge separation. You can try to get around it by creating dynamic stabilities (currents, and the like), but then you need an external energy source. We either have a universe that has a net-charge of zero through the local reference frames or we have a universe that has a net-charge through the local reference frames. You haven't shown any reason why we should believe the latter, and indeed, I don't think you believe the latter exists. Except then you have no mechanism for your electromagnetic fields. All you have are ionized gases of very diffuse material in the ISM and the IGM as well as occassional stars. Frankly, the universe to a very good approximation is made up of vacuum and dark matter which, as weird as it sounds, explains all available observations. The onus is on you to explain which ones it doesn't explain.

You are right when you say a static universe would have a gravitational redshift. Only, then, for the redshift distance relationship to hold the redshift would be far greater for the objects (cf. Weinberg 79-83) and indicate that our redshift-distance relationship was WAY OFF or there was a lot more matter that we didn't see in between. Of course, you also want some complex electromagnetic interaction to cause a scalar shift in the features as well, which you haven't outlined as possible. These are the major stumbling blocks of your theory.

Flat, indeed, is a preferred state for the universe (in fourspace, not three of course). That is only a theoretical and anthropomorphic constraint from a universe that has existed for a long time and a slightly Galilean principle of non-specialness in time and space. Static, though, is not necessarily desired. Why should it be? What gut feeling do you have other than you hate the idea of the universe changing size because you feel it appeals to God that makes you so prejudiced and angrily opposed to such an option?

Frankly, I understand the evidence for the Big Bang, and I don't understand the evidence for your realized universe. Until you can convince me otherwise, I'm sticking to the tried and true.

D J
2002-Nov-02, 08:52 PM
On 2002-11-02 15:22, JS Princeton wrote:
[quote]

This is the heart of the matter. The fact remains that such interactions are not observed except by plastering them over the existing model and then trying to "explain away" the observations.

You fail to realize that electromagnetic interactions are simply accounted for in many models of gravity but are, in most systems, negligible because of the problem of charge separation. You can try to get around it by creating dynamic stabilities (currents, and the like), but then you need an external energy source. We either have a universe that has a net-charge of zero through the local reference frames or we have a universe that has a net-charge through the local reference frames. You haven't shown any reason why we should believe the latter, and indeed, I don't think you believe the latter exists. Except then you have no mechanism for your electromagnetic fields.


Good reference article about charge separation in space:
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_charge.htm

Interstellar Plasma Verified

IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html

D J
2002-Nov-02, 08:57 PM
On 2002-11-02 15:09, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-10-31 17:51, Orion38 wrote:

Well, if you look at the links i provides you realise this is the description of the Plasma Universe Structure,and could exist without the Bing Bang model.You can call this model Merging Point of creation produce by the colliding of two Birkeland currents resulting in the creation of galaxies like presented in this model.



Not quite, Orion. Why should there be an upper limit to the size of structure?


Why not?

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-03, 02:09 AM
You seem to miss the point, Orion. If you want to have a universe of finite time you have to have an upperbound on structure due to dynamical constraints. If you wish to propose something else you should have an equally good explanation for why structure isn't on a ladder of infinite progression instead of getting stuck at the supercluster level which is indeed large but not irreducibly so. See, Orion, you have to explain why your theory takes into account ALL the available observations that fit into the Big Bang model, not just some of them.

Your ISM link is for the most part true, but the conclusion is not that electromagnetic interactions dominate in the cosmos. Your first link is almost a parody of itself. It states:


n immeasurably small surplus of one electron or proton in a volume measured in cubic meters is all that's necessary for a weak electric field to exist in deep space. That electric field will drive an electric current, which will generate a magnetic field that interacts with the fields of other currents.

The calculation that determines this "immeasurably" small excess was done in this thread. It is not immeasurable in the least, but actually a rather staggering charge separation away from unity that we just don't see. This is the problem when philosophers just gloss over "theories" without providing evidence.

Here he states his case most stupidly:


We see them in lightning. We see them as the balls of arc discharges we call stars. We see them as the filigreed bubbles and cones of neon-tube-like glow discharges we call planetary nebulas. We see them in the forms of spiraling galactic arms and of pencil-thin beams of galactic jets. We see them at the largest scale we can observe, that of superclusters of galaxies. The initial condition of the observed universe is that of charges already separated.

Yet, there is no model prediction that he bases this on. His statement later that gravity is "40 orders of magnitude too weak" is utter ad hoc idiocy. All he's stating is how much stronger electromagnetic forces are than gravity. However, that doesn't mean that they necessarily dominate since electromagnetic charges are in unstable equilibrium when separated for longer periods of time. If you want an old steady state universe you cannot have a charged universe. If you have an extremely young universe you might be able to swing it, but the place would have to be far more dense and far more dramatic than we observe. There would be no supporting life on Earth if the sun were powered by ionization potential energy. Such a theory is just so out-there as to be absurd. The author admits as much in his first paragraph.

D J
2002-Nov-03, 04:09 AM
[quote]
On 2002-11-02 21:09, JS Princeton wrote:
You seem to miss the point, Orion. If you want to have a universe of finite time you have to have an upperbound on structure due to dynamical constraints. If you wish to propose something else you should have an equally good explanation for why structure isn't on a ladder of infinite progression instead of getting stuck at the supercluster level which is indeed large but not irreducibly so. See, Orion, you have to explain why your theory takes into account ALL the available observations that fit into the Big Bang model, not just some of them.

That was done with Arp model:
Quasars are associated on the sky with both BL LAC objects and faint galaxy clusters. BL LAC objects are morphologically intermediate between quasars and galaxies, with redshifts intermediate between quasars and faint cluster galaxies. Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently, they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.

http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-03, 04:43 AM
That was done with Arp model:
Quasars are associated on the sky with both BL LAC objects and faint galaxy clusters. BL LAC objects are morphologically intermediate between quasars and galaxies, with redshifts intermediate between quasars and faint cluster galaxies. Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently, they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.


Completely inconsistent with the view of quasars being related to galaxies. I don't understand how this can be said to be "Arp's view" since I was under the impression that he believes quasars to be nearby objects associated with parent galaxies. The evolution of quasars into BL LACs is much more of a standard theory model.

Taking what I can only assume to be a standard theory model, quasars and BL LACs are SMALL not large. They cannot "break up" into clusters and galaxies when they are the size of our solar system. Your scaling doesn't make any sense. Finally, appealing to quasars still doesn't answer the question of why there is no structure larger than superclusters in a steady state universe that is infinite in extent.

Please try again.

D J
2002-Nov-03, 04:44 AM
On 2002-11-02 21:09, JS Princeton wrote:


Yet, there is no model prediction that he bases this on. His statement later that gravity is "40 orders of magnitude too weak" is utter ad hoc idiocy. All he's stating is how much stronger electromagnetic forces are than gravity. However, that doesn't mean that they necessarily dominate since electromagnetic charges are in unstable equilibrium when separated for longer periods of time. If you want an old steady state universe you cannot have a charged universe.
[/quote]
Quote:
Yet, there is no model prediction that he bases this on
________________________
Wrong look to the pictures the universe itself is the model.

http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_charge.htm
The problem is not that of supplying the energy to ionize neutral matter. The problem is that of dissipating the energy of already ionized matter. It's the act of neutralizing existing separations of charges that provides the prodigious energy driving and shaping the universe. After seeing that the universe is already electrified, a calculation on the back of another envelope shows that gravity is too weak--by about 40 orders of magnitude!-- to account for the observed structure, movement, and dissipation of energy. It's the gravity universe that's impossible.

D J
2002-Nov-03, 05:18 AM
On 2002-11-02 23:43, JS Princeton wrote:


That was done with Arp model:
Quasars are associated on the sky with both BL LAC objects and faint galaxy clusters. BL LAC objects are morphologically intermediate between quasars and galaxies, with redshifts intermediate between quasars and faint cluster galaxies.>>>> Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently, they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.>>>>>


Completely inconsistent with the view of quasars being related to galaxies.

*Arp explain why but you dont read it see <<< above *

I don't understand how this can be said to be "Arp's view" since I was under the impression that he believes quasars to be nearby objects associated with parent galaxies. The evolution of quasars into BL LACs is much more of a standard theory model.
Quote:
Taking what I can only assume to be a standard theory model, quasars and BL LACs are SMALL not large. They cannot "break up" into clusters and galaxies when they are the size of our solar system. Your scaling doesn't make any sense.
________________________
When they age suffiancy they became galaxies
in Arp point of wiew,
Arp suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.
http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Quote:
Finally, appealing to quasars still doesn't answer the question of why there is no structure larger than superclusters in a steady state universe that is infinite in extent.

Please try again.

This is the way things are.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 00:21 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-03, 03:03 PM
Orion: While Arp's unorthodox view of quasars moving outward and turning into BL LACs (as opposed to the other direction in the standard model) allows for a limited amount of growth, the paper I read by Arp does not advocate that structure was created by quasars. You are just plain wrong. He argues that quasars become BL LACs, but nothing more. This doesn't indicate they become galaxy clusters or superclusters. To argue such is just arguing from ignorance of even Arp's unconvential theories.

As I said before, try again.

D J
2002-Nov-03, 04:18 PM
On 2002-11-03 10:03, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion: While Arp's unorthodox view of quasars moving outward and turning into BL LACs (as opposed to the other direction in the standard model) allows for a limited amount of growth, the paper I read by Arp does not advocate that structure was created by quasars. You are just plain wrong. He argues that quasars become BL LACs, but nothing more. This doesn't indicate they become galaxy clusters or superclusters.To argue such is just arguing from ignorance of even Arp's unconvential theories.

Arp words in the text:
Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently,{the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy} they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.
He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.
This suppose he talk about more than one object.
Like i said before you dont read the text.

I want to see your explaination on how gravity works to make cluster and supercluster in a expansion universe where all the things goes away from each other?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 11:22 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-03, 10:10 PM
On 2002-11-03 11:18, Orion38 wrote:
Arp words in the text:
Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently,{the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy} they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.

Keyletter in the last statement being "s". Arp is arguing that quasarS PLURAL become clusters of galaxies... not ONE quasar becoming a cluster of galaxies. This is a very different picture from the one you are illustrating.

Quasars are accumulating matter on their way out, according to Arp, just the same way that we see Dark Matter Halos doing in theoretical simulations (albeit in a slightly different manner). Arp's formulation is actually closer to a standard model than your twist of it. I do read the literature, but I think you are not understanding it.



I want to see your explaination on how gravity works to make cluster and supercluster in a expansion universe where all the things goes away from each other?


Not just MY explanation, but the standard explanation. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Here (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec26.html) is an example. I'll post more if you are interested.

D J
2002-Nov-03, 11:00 PM
On 2002-11-03 17:10, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-03 11:18, Orion38 wrote:
Arp words in the text:
Evidently, when quasars have aged sufficiently,{the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy} they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.

Keyletter in the last statement being "s". Arp is arguing that quasarS PLURAL become clusters of galaxies... not ONE quasar becoming a cluster of galaxies. This is a very different picture from the one you are illustrating.

Quasars are accumulating matter on their way out, according to Arp, just the same way that we see Dark Matter Halos doing in theoretical simulations (albeit in a slightly different manner). Arp's formulation is actually closer to a standard model than your twist of it. I do read the literature, but I think you are not understanding it.

**Hmmm,that seem rather than this is you are just understanding Arp version.After i have explaining it over and over.Yes there was a S missing somewhere but the last sentence *they become BL LAC objects which later break up into clusters of faint galaxies.Imply than there is a S missing to the word Quasar,as you illustrate so well.**
__________________
I want to see your explaination on how gravity works to make cluster and supercluster in a expansion universe where all the things goes away from each other?


Not just MY explanation, but the standard explanation. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Here (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec26.html) is an example. I'll post more if you are interested.

[/quote]
Quote from your link
Hot Dark Matter vs. Cold Dark Matter :

Each scenario of structure formation has its own predictions for the appearance of the Universe today. Both require a particular form for dark matter, a particular type of particle that makes up the 90% of the Universe not visible to our instruments. These two forms of dark matter are called Hot and Cold.
_________________
As expected Gravity only can`t account for the formation of clusters or superclusters without the intervention of the mysterious dark matter.
Here is the explaination:
In 1933 astronomer Fritz Zwicky announced that when he measured the individual velocities of a large group of galaxies known as the Coma cluster, he found that all of the galaxies that he measured were moving so rapidly relative to one another that the cluster should have come apart long ago. The visible mass of the galaxies making up the cluster was far too little to produce enough gravitational force to hold the cluster together. So not only was our own galaxy lacking mass, but so was the whole Coma cluster of galaxies.

MACHOs, WIMPs & MOND

At first, cosmologists decided to leave Newton's laws inviolate and to postulate the existence of some "invisible, unmeasureable, dark" entities to make up the missing mass. Apparently it never ocurred to anyone to go back and examine the basic assumption that only gravity was at work in these cases. It was easier to "patch up" the theory with invisible entities. (Remember the invisible gnomes in my garden?) To quote Astronomy magazine (Aug. 2001 p 26):

"What's more, astronomers have gone to great lengths to affectionately name, define, and categorize this zoo of invisible stuff called dark matter. There are the MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) - things like ... black holes, and neutron stars that purportedly populate the outer reaches of galaxies like the Milky Way. Then there are the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which possess mass, yet don't interact with ordinary matter - baryons such as protons and neutrons - because they are composed of something entirely foreign and unknown. Dark matter even comes in two flavors, hot (HDM) and cold (CDM)....."

1. Cold dark matter - supposedly in dead stars, planets, brown dwarfs ("failed stars") etc.
2. Hot dark matter - postulated to be fast moving particles floating throughout the universe, neutrinos, tachions etc.

"And all the while astronomers and physicists have refined their dark matter theories without ever getting their hands on a single piece of it. But where is all of this dark matter? The truth is that after more than 30 years of looking for it, there's still no definitive proof that WIMPs exist or that MACHOs will ever make up more than five percent of the total reserve of missing dark stuff."

Of course, the second possibility mentioned above (that the outer stars rotating around galaxy cores do not obey Newton's Law of Gravity) was thought to be impossible. But the first alternative - the fanciful notion that 99% of the matter in the universe was "invisible" - began to be worrisome too. It was stated that WIMPs and MACHOs were in the category of particle known as "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories" (FAIRIE DUST). Even such an august authority as Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles has been quoted as saying,
"It's an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical..."

Conclusion

Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation. The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell’s equations are! Why do astronomers grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one?
A must to read for enlighten you!
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 18:16 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 18:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 18:43 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-03, 11:57 PM
MOND has a very hard time explaining why Dark Matter shows up in gravitational lensing and in cluster gas dynamics. The MOND proponents claim to have these things figured out, but I haven't seen them. Notice how smoothly you switched subjects from saying you don't understand how structure came into being to attacking Dark Matter? You really have to attack all manner of observations in order to be as defiant a cosmologist as you are trying to be. You should read up a bit on current Dark Matter explorations. They are really quite interesting. Also there are plenty of threads on this very board that deal with the subject. Happy searching.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 12:00 AM
Appealing to Maxwell's Equations does no such thing as you so glibly claim. As ionized as the diffuse material may be, it cannot be ionized enough to create the dynamics needed. Period. Your site is nonsense as it has no competent theoretical backing that I can see. Show me some calculations and I might listen.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-04, 12:20 AM
JS,
Try really reading that "electric cosmos" site (http://www.electric-cosmos.org) that Orion quotes so devotedly. It's easy reading, quite a fun at times and not all velikovskian babble. Some ideas there seem very bright, actually...

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 02:17 AM
I try, Agora, but I come across such patently false statements such as these:



Spectral analysis of the region between the quasars indicates they are connected to the galaxy by streams of Hydrogen gas (plasma). This plasma has
the same extremely high redshift value as do the quasars. So, what we actually have are four newly formed quasars symmetrically positioned around the
active nucleus of a barred spiral galaxy. There is no mirage. No relativistic magic is needed to explain what we see happening in front of our eyes.

and I can't get past them. I have worked with data from the Einstein Cross and I can tell you that none of these "connections" exist. I'm at a loss as to what to do when conclusion after conclusion are drawn from faulty data analysis with no supporting evidence other than blanket statements that are written as though they were the God's of observational astronomy.

Contrast that, if you will, to any paper that is published in the field. What you will find is cross referencing and DATA SETS that you or I can look at to see if it makes sense. Sometimes the conclusions make sense, sometimes they don't. In the "electro-cosmos" site, it's just impossible to tell.

D J
2002-Nov-04, 03:18 AM
Hmmm,there is some BIG FLAWS in the Big Bang theory...like presented below.I know I have to repeat again because JS don`t realise this:
"Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation.** The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms)**. The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)<<<"

On 2002-11-03 17:10, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-03 11:18, Orion38 wrote:

I want to see your explanation on how gravity works to make clusters and superclusters in a expansion universe where all the things goes away from each other?


Not just MY explanation, but the standard explanation. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Here (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec26.html) is an example. I'll post more if you are interested.

[/quote]
Quote from your link
Hot Dark Matter vs. Cold Dark Matter :

Each scenario of structure formation has its own predictions for the appearance of the Universe today. Both require a particular form for dark matter, a particular type of particle that makes up the 90% of the Universe not visible to our instruments. These two forms of dark matter are called Hot and Cold.
_________________
As expected Gravity only can`t account for the formation of clusters or superclusters without the intervention of the mysterious dark matter.
Here is the explaination:
In 1933 astronomer Fritz Zwicky announced that when he measured the individual velocities of a large group of galaxies known as the Coma cluster, he found that all of the galaxies that he measured were moving so rapidly relative to one another that the cluster should have come apart long ago. The visible mass of the galaxies making up the cluster was far too little to produce enough gravitational force to hold the cluster together. So not only was our own galaxy lacking mass, but so was the whole Coma cluster of galaxies.

MACHOs, WIMPs & MOND

At first, cosmologists decided to leave Newton's laws inviolate and to postulate the existence of some "invisible, unmeasureable, dark" entities to make up the missing mass. Apparently it never ocurred to anyone to go back and examine the basic assumption that only gravity was at work in these cases. It was easier to "patch up" the theory with invisible entities. (Remember the invisible gnomes in my garden?) To quote Astronomy magazine (Aug. 2001 p 26):

"What's more, astronomers have gone to great lengths to affectionately name, define, and categorize this zoo of invisible stuff called dark matter. There are the MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) - things like ... black holes, and neutron stars that purportedly populate the outer reaches of galaxies like the Milky Way. Then there are the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which possess mass, yet don't interact with ordinary matter - baryons such as protons and neutrons - because they are composed of something entirely foreign and unknown. Dark matter even comes in two flavors, hot (HDM) and cold (CDM)....."

1. Cold dark matter - supposedly in dead stars, planets, brown dwarfs ("failed stars") etc.
2. Hot dark matter - postulated to be fast moving particles floating throughout the universe, neutrinos, tachions etc.

"And all the while astronomers and physicists have refined their dark matter theories without ever getting their hands on a single piece of it. But where is all of this dark matter? The truth is that after more than 30 years of looking for it, there's still no definitive proof that WIMPs exist or that MACHOs will ever make up more than five percent of the total reserve of missing dark stuff."

Of course, the second possibility mentioned above (that the outer stars rotating around galaxy cores do not obey Newton's Law of Gravity) was thought to be impossible. But the first alternative - the fanciful notion that 99% of the matter in the universe was "invisible" - began to be worrisome too. It was stated that WIMPs and MACHOs were in the category of particle known as "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories" (FAIRIE DUST). Even such an august authority as Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles has been quoted as saying,
"It's an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical..."

Conclusion

Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation. The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell’s equations are! Why do astronomers grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one?
A must to read for enlighten you!
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-03 23:15 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 05:31 AM
No, Orion, I saw your flawed post the first time. Obviously you aren't familiar with the other observational evidences for dark matter that I posted about. Frankly, you haven't shown me anything that will make me believe that your pet-site has anything more than unsubstantiated claims about mysteries that the present model is grappling with. It's just asinine to say that mysteries make the model bad and that if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well. It just doesn't happen that way. Agora has been arguing the same thing, but I just don't see the evidence for what you're arguing, nor do I see it evinced in any theoretical treatment you've offered. It just isn't there. I looked through your site and saw inconsistancies, half-truths, and lies about the current state of the standard theory. I can only conclude that the devil's advocate game is just that, a game, and not really interested in advancing science along except by means of play "nyah nyah you can't solve it" naysayer. Well, that's just childish.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-04, 02:17 PM
On 2002-11-02 15:22, JS Princeton wrote:
You fail to realize that electromagnetic interactions are simply accounted for in many models of gravity but are, in most systems, negligible because of the problem of charge separation. You can try to get around it by creating dynamic stabilities (currents, and the like), but then you need an external energy source.
I obviously don't need any external energy source. If I start with charge separation, I get 1/f^n background in equilibrium with it; if I start with the 1/f^n background, I get local charge separation to balance out the radiation.
As the matter density in the universe is very low, there must be a size limit for 3D matter structures, then the structures have to reduce the effective dimensionality, first to 2D walls and further to 1D filaments. Effectively 1D structures can exist then on all greater size scales, universe then looks as a thin wire mesh with emf sources spread in the resistive material of the "wires". Thus on the largest imaginable scale we always have an active "antennae" mesh with broadband electric currents flowing in it; and the greater the scale - the greater wavelength radiative field couples to such antenna mesh.

Frankly, the universe to a very good approximation is made up of vacuum and dark matter which, as weird as it sounds, explains all available observations. The onus is on you to explain which ones it doesn't explain.
That dark matter is mostly an exotic unobservable as of yet stuff. Its existence was initially inferred from the rotation curves of galaxies. Electrodynamical galaxy models need no dark matter and fit observation nicely. Why should we not extend electrodynamical models up the scale?

You are right when you say a static universe would have a gravitational redshift.
Yes, and that redshift is very close to the observed one that is deceptively called "Hubble Flow". For the majority of objects observed, the internal gravitational redshift is small compared to cosmological gravitational redshift. That's a trivial result, no elaborate modelling needed.

Static, though, is not necessarily desired. Why should it be?
That's because simple models are possible that explain how it can exist and be a self-regenerating system with a cyclic energy/matter turnover. No BB-type inconsistencies at the initial state have to be fantasized.

Frankly, I understand the evidence for the Big Bang, and I don't understand the evidence for your realized universe.
There's one common body of evidence, the rest is theories and fantasies. My model, though not yet fully developed, needs no fantasies. If we ever get enough professionals thinking in direction of a steady-state electrodynamical model, it would promptly get a nice academic gloss. But simple logical models allow for too little of that deliberate fantasizing, the oh-so-dearly beloved of BB cosmologists.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-04, 02:41 PM
On 2002-11-03 21:17, JS Princeton wrote:
I try, Agora, but I come across such patently false statements such as these: (...) and I can't get past them.
That's very true. All of them tend to pile a stinky heap of garbage atop a few decent ideas, essentially nullifying their own credibility.
Yet, a few gems here and there may be filtered out. Here's one more site (http://www.electric-universe.de) following the same paradigm; once again - a few good ideas plus some garbage and some blunders all expressed in horribly broken English. But "a few gems" really are there, believe me.

D J
2002-Nov-04, 06:31 PM
On 2002-11-04 00:31, JS Princeton wrote:
Frankly, you haven't shown me anything that will make me believe that your pet-site has anything more than unsubstantiated claims about mysteries that the present model is grappling with. It's just asinine to say that mysteries make the model bad and that if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well. I can only conclude that the devil's advocate game is just that, a game, and not really interested in advancing science along except by means of play "nyah nyah you can't solve it" naysayer. Well, that's just childish.

Not only they describe
about mysteries that the present model is grappling with,but they have the solution to solve it.(See the problem and the solution here.}
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

Quote:
it's just asinine to say that mysteries make the model bad and that if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well.
_________________
Do it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-04 14:07 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 10:29 PM
On 2002-11-04 13:31, Orion38 wrote:

Not only they describe
about mysteries that the present model is grappling with,but they have the solution to solve it.(See the problem and the solution here.}


Well, that's a load of baloney if I ever saw any. I do not see how the author states a dynamical law of electromagnetic forces and then miraculously jumps to the conclusion that the dark matter is solve. It is not. There is nothing of substance on the page you quoted, Orion. It's just swimming in its own crapulence.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 10:45 PM
On 2002-11-04 09:17, AgoraBasta wrote:
I obviously don't need any external energy source. If I start with charge separation, I get 1/f^n background in equilibrium with it; if I start with the 1/f^n background, I get local charge separation to balance out the radiation.

No, the 1/f background cannot have an integrable effect because the NOISE is a random walk and not directed.



As the matter density in the universe is very low, there must be a size limit for 3D matter structures, then the structures have to reduce the effective dimensionality, first to 2D walls and further to 1D filaments. Effectively 1D structures can exist then on all greater size scales, universe then looks as a thin wire mesh with emf sources spread in the resistive material of the "wires". Thus on the largest imaginable scale we always have an active "antennae" mesh with broadband electric currents flowing in it; and the greater the scale - the greater wavelength radiative field couples to such antenna mesh.


This is the most intriguing thing you've had to say yet, but it still doesn't change the fact that the effect is ridiculously small. This is a simple result of the fact that we see no electromagnetic radiation in any band but the lowest energies. Trust me, ionized stuff radiates in more than simply the microwave. That's how we get at the Microwave foreground in the first place to do that subtraction you seem to hate so much.



That dark matter is mostly an exotic unobservable as of yet stuff. Its existence was initially inferred from the rotation curves of galaxies. Electrodynamical galaxy models need no dark matter and fit observation nicely.

Please show me how this is done. I have not seen a decent theoretical treatment of this that is tied to any observational evidence.


Why should we not extend electrodynamical models up the scale?

Simply because we don't see any evidence that the stuff is there at the levels you need.


Yes, and that redshift is very close to the observed one that is deceptively called "Hubble Flow". For the majority of objects observed, the internal gravitational redshift is small compared to cosmological gravitational redshift. That's a trivial result, no elaborate modelling needed.


We've had this conversation before. Look into gravitational redshift. Your numbers are off. Way off.



That's because simple models are possible that explain how it can exist and be a self-regenerating system with a cyclic energy/matter turnover. No BB-type inconsistencies at the initial state have to be fantasized.


No, only inconsistency of the mechanism for spontaneous generation. What's worse a problem of initiation or magic unending creation? I pick the latter as being the most problematic.



There's one common body of evidence, the rest is theories and fantasies. My model, though not yet fully developed, needs no fantasies.

Except for the electrodynamical fluid that is not observed except by weird absorptions to create the redshift distance relationship. That's fanciful.



If we ever get enough professionals thinking in direction of a steady-state electrodynamical model, it would promptly get a nice academic gloss. But simple logical models allow for too little of that deliberate fantasizing, the oh-so-dearly beloved of BB cosmologists.


Well, it's your job to convince, not mine.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-04, 10:47 PM
On 2002-11-04 09:41, AgoraBasta wrote:
Here's one more site (http://www.electric-universe.de) following the same paradigm; once again - a few good ideas plus some garbage and some blunders all expressed in horribly broken English. But "a few gems" really are there, believe me.


Unfortunately, the gems seem to be in stellar astrophysics and the garbage is all in cosmology. This means that we are back to where we started looking for a consistent model for you, Agora.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-04, 10:55 PM
On 2002-11-04 17:47, JS Princeton wrote:
Unfortunately, the gems seem to be in stellar astrophysics and the garbage is all in cosmology.Quite right. That's why I have to devise my own pet cosmology models. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Zathras
2002-Nov-04, 10:56 PM
This means that we are back to where we started looking for a consistent model for you, Agora.


I just found one! It's called the "Big Bang theory!"
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

D J
2002-Nov-04, 11:10 PM
On 2002-11-04 17:29, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-04 13:31, Orion38 wrote:

Not only they describe
about mysteries that the present model is grappling with,but they have the solution to solve it.(See the problem and the solution here.}
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm


Well, that's a load of baloney if I ever saw any. I do not see how the author states a dynamical law of electromagnetic forces and then miraculously jumps to the conclusion that the dark matter is solve. It is not. There is nothing of substance on the page you quoted, Orion. It's just swimming in its own crapulence.


You loosing control and the game are you Seeing Red.The goal here is not to explaining the Dark Matter baloney.But finding the solution to the problem.They have the solution you don`t have even a beginning of a clue you know why:** It's not that Newton's Law is wrong. It is just that in deep space it is totally overpowered by the Maxwell-Lorentz forces of electromagnetic dynamics.**
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

YOU HAVE LOOSING THE GAME PAINFULLY
I will give you another chance, prove us they are wrong.You said * if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well.*
SO DO IT.

Tim Thompson
2002-Nov-04, 11:15 PM
I've been distracted by work, but would like to make a salient point.

Orion38: Hmmm,there is some BIG FLAWS in the Big Bang theory ... like presented below. I know I have to repeat again because JS don`t realise this: "Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation.** The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms)**. The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)<<<"

Here is my point: Whether the correct solution is "dark matter", "MOND", or something else, is not relevant to the validity of Big Bang Cosmology. They are unrelated questions, so there is no meaning to be had in trying to argue that this is a weakness in Big Bang Cosmology.

Here is the explanation. If the luminous matter traced the mass of the galaxy, and the gravitational potential had the usual 1/r shape (for a 1/r^2 force), then the rotation curve should fall off (slower velocity) with distance from the center of the galaxy. The fact that observation shows contrary behavior indicates that one of the two "if's" is wrong.

The Fritz Zwicky "dark matter" solution is the most obvious first guess. There's more stuff out there that we can't see, which has the usual gravity about it. Maybe white dwarfs, black dwarfs, brown dwarfs, planets, clouds, or some mixture of them, or something else. In this case, "exotic" solutions, such as non-baryonic dark matter are not needed. Any old ordinary matter will do, with "dark" being the only required property. What's so bizzare about that? Why does everything have to "shine"? What fundamental property of the universe absolutely prohibits something from being dark?

The MOND hypothesis works on the other "if", arguing that the gravitational potential does not have the usual 1/r shape, and the force does not therefore have the usual 1/r^2 shape. The MOND hypothesis argues that the shape is slightly different. For the most part, this hypothesis can explain just about everything that the more common "dark matter" hypothesis explains, but it is not as attractive (no pun intended) to astronomers, since dark matter is a much easier idea to understand, and certainly is not an exotic solution (see Modified Newtonian Dyanmics as an Alternative to Dark Matter (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204521), Sanders & McGaugh, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 40: 263-317, 2002).

So, the competition here is over the shape of the gravitational potential. Is it Newtonian, or is it slightly non-Newtonian? Personally, I don't see any point in getting bothered over which is which, I don't doubt that it will all get sorted out in time.

But what has the dispute got to do with the Big Bang? Nothing, so far as I can tell. The foundation of Big Bang cosmology is the expanding universe. That idea works just fine, whether the potential is Newtonian, or the matter is dark, or what-have-you. In fact, if you look at the literature, you will find that there are no references anywhere to anything fundamentally tied to the expanding universe or the Big Bang.

The requirement for "exotic", non-baryonic dark matter comes from the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. However, as exotic as the solution my seem, what is offensive about it? What fundamental rule of nature absolutely requires all matter to be baryonic? Why is non-baryonic matter not allowed?

So, from where I see it, the universe can bang & expand, whether matter is dark, or non-baryonic, or has a funny looking gravitational potential. None of these hypotheses interfere with the fundamental idea of a Big Bang universe, and are therefore irrelevant to the question of validity of Big Bang cosmology.

D J
2002-Nov-04, 11:28 PM
On 2002-11-04 18:15, Tim Thompson wrote:
I've been distracted by work, but would like to make a salient point.

So, from where I see it, the universe can bang & expand, whether matter is dark, or non-baryonic, or has a funny looking gravitational potential. None of these hypotheses interfere with the fundamental idea of a Big Bang universe, and are therefore irrelevant to the question of validity of Big Bang cosmology.


Lets see some very good salient points.

The Case Against the Big Bang
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html

The Case for Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 01:26 AM
. . .
But what has the dispute got to do with the Big Bang? Nothing, so far as I can tell. The foundation of Big Bang cosmology is the expanding universe. That idea works just fine, whether the potential is Newtonian, or the matter is dark, or what-have-you. In fact, if you look at the literature, you will find that there are no references anywhere to anything fundamentally tied to the expanding universe or the Big Bang.
. . .
So, from where I see it, the universe can bang & expand, whether matter is dark, or non-baryonic, or has a funny looking gravitational potential. None of these hypotheses interfere with the fundamental idea of a Big Bang universe, and are therefore irrelevant to the question of validity of Big Bang cosmology.


Actually, the shape of the gravitational well can have a lot to do with the bang. General Relativity requires gravity to closely approximate a 1/r^2 force for galactic and cosmological distances. You change that, and you change GR.

This would require, for example, a different calculation of the age of the universe from the Hubble parameter, as the Friedmann metric would be altered. I believe that the calculations would show that the universe is younger than current estimates estimates, if the data cannot be completely explained by dark matter. This is because the deceleration due to gravity would occur more quickly, if the gravitational potential died out more slowly at the longer distances (which is what the velocity curves show now).

But no, you would still not get a 6,000 year old universe out of it.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 01:34 AM
On 2002-11-04 18:28, Orion38 wrote:


On 2002-11-04 18:15, Tim Thompson wrote:
I've been distracted by work, but would like to make a salient point.

So, from where I see it, the universe can bang & expand, whether matter is dark, or non-baryonic, or has a funny looking gravitational potential. None of these hypotheses interfere with the fundamental idea of a Big Bang universe, and are therefore irrelevant to the question of validity of Big Bang cosmology.


Lets see some very good salient points.

The Case Against the Big Bang
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html

The Case for Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html



From the linked site:


I had predicted a while back that other highly electrical entities, such as pulsars and HH objects, should also exhibit redshift. I was later shown an article which reported that a pulsar was observed as having a redshift. If HH objects turn out to have a redshift, then an electrical cause of redshift is beyond doubt.


This is ridiculous. Does the remnant in the Crab Nebula have a redshift? No. Do 99.9% of observed pulsars have a redshift? No. He tries to make the case that the redshift is caused by highly electric objects (whatever that means), but the vast majority of one of his classes of such objects exhibits no such redshift. Sounds like a pretty clear disproof of his ideas.

Tim Thompson
2002-Nov-05, 01:54 AM
Orion38: Lets see some very good salient points. The Case Against the Big Bang (http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html).

Strong language, but weak thinking, are featured on the chosen website. I don't see any salient points.

Consider the first conclusion: "The CMB should have been no longer held as proof of the theory, but it still is." The justification is that the actual measured background temperature was rather lower than the predicted temperature. But that is not an argument worthy of any consideration at all. The reason is that there was no fixed theory from which to derive the expected background temperatures, so the scientists just guessed. There is no matter of presentable fact which makes the 3K background temperature any kind of problem for Big Bang Cosmology (BBC).

Also note the neat trick of changing everything into energy units and complaining about the factors of thousands by which the original guess was off. But that's only a propaganda ploy, to make the numbers look bigger and more impressive to the ill-informed. The reality is that there was no theoretical basis for deriving the energy either, that's why they had to guess.

In fact, it is under any circumstances quite impossible to guess the temperature or energy any closer than was done. Does that mean the theory is wrong or weak? It does not. It means that there are intitial conditions which are either unknown or unknowable. It is wrong to translate this lack of knowledge into an enshrined truth (that BBC is false).

It is also incorrect to imply that earlier, non BBC cosmologies, derived the same background temperature. The intended (but unstated) reference is to the estimation made by Sir Arthur Eddington in his book The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926, 1930; chapter 13, "Diffuse Matter in Space"). I just happen to have Eddington's book right here in my office. Eddington derived an expected temperature of 3.18 degrees K, as the blackbody temperature corresponding to his anticipated stellar luminosity energy density. However, Eddington's estimation was local. His computed temperature should be true only in the local solar neighborhood, inside the galaxy. His computation was also not spectral. So, as Eddington himself pointed out, the observed temperature should deviate strongly from this value at various wavelengths.

Eddington's derived value is in fact well below the true temperature of the local interstellar neighborhood, where things are much closer to 10 to 100 Kelvins. The temperature in intergalactic space, where the starlight energy density will be far lower, should also be much lower than Eddington's estimate. But, in BBC, the background temperature should be a function of redshift, getting higher with larger redshift. So which is it?

The cosmic microwave background temperature has been measured as a function of redshift, and is seen to obey the theoretically expected relationship. See Prospects for constraining cosmology with the extragalactic cosmic microwave background temperature (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108260), LoSecco, Mathews & Wang, Physical Review D 64: 123002, 30 October 2001; Cosmic microwave background temperature at galaxy clusters (http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208027), E.S. Battistelli et al., scheduled for publication, Astrophysical Journal 580: December 1, 2002.

Despite the claims to the contrary in the given website, the CMB temperature is very strongly consistent with BBC. It is in fact one of the 3 main observational features of the theory, and stands up well to the ill considered criticisms of that webpage. It should be, and is properly used as, "proof" of the validity of BBC

I don't have time to do more now. I'll try again maybe tomorrow or something. But I will say that other criticisms on that webpage are no better. I can, and do confidently say that, if this is the best you can come up with, then you might as well find something better to do.

D J
2002-Nov-05, 03:14 AM
Tim Thompson wrote:
Quote:
There is no matter of presentable fact which makes the 3K background temperature any kind of problem for Big Bang Cosmology (BBC).
_______________________
You need to read the other part related to the subject:
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html
Other Problems

Large-scale Structures and the Age Paradox

This has been a major objection against the BBT. According to the theory, the universe started out homogeneous and should still be like that today. However, astronomers R. Brent Tully and J. R. Fischer discovered huge galactic agglomerations in the 1980s. They used a method of determining galactic distances other than the R=D ruler, named after them (the Tully-Fischer relation), to make a 3-D map of the universe within a billion light year radius. These structures, termed supercluster complexes, could not have formed in the time since the Big Bang, even when invoking the most liberal age estimates of the BB universe (about 20 billion years). These large structures, which span a colossal size (up to about 650 million light years in radius and 1 billion light years long for the largest ones), would take anywhere from 60 to 100 billion years to form, judging from their speed (which the T-F relation determines to be no more than 1000 km/s for any object regardless of distance) and their gravitational interactions. So these structures are simply too old for the Big Bang and directly contradict the assumed homogeneity of the BB universe. Tully made a movie showing the layout of these complexes in 3-D, and can be seen here.
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/VR/grants/virdir/tully/rptully1light2.mpeg
Even if they weren't problematic with the universe's age, as Tully himself said to me once (more on this later), they will still cause other problems. As I noted before, the CMB needs irregularities of one part in 1000 to form even small structures like galaxies, but irregularities of only one part in 100,000 are observed. Galactic clusters, which are acknowledged by everyone, should cause irregularities much greater than 1 part in 1000, so the Supercluster complexes should make the CMB extremely irregular. Also, the observed blackbody spectrum as observed by COBE was in perfect agreement with theory (within 0.03% accuracy). This was thought of as great for the BBT, but this wasn't good enough to fit in superclusters. The energy required to both start and stop the motion of matter in the universe in the time since the Big Bang in order to form these structures should cause the observed blackbody radiation to be distorted a significant amount, yet it is a perfect blackbody spectrum. Furthermore, the spectrum is what would be expected from a flat universe--that is, a universe where Omega equals one. This is what is known as the "flatness problem" (for more on this, see below).
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmopics/cobebb.gif
Figure 3. The observed blackbody spectrum as observed by COBE. It is in complete aggreement with the predicted blackbody
curve. The creation of large scale structures in the time since the Big Bang should cause it to be distorted, which it is plainly not.

Also, if the large-scale structure of the universe wasn't a big enough problem, the "official" age of the BB universe keeps shrinking. According to recent estimates, the universe should be no older than about 13.5 to 15 billion years, and some estimates are as low as 8 to 10 billion years. According to standard theories, stars that make up globular clusters in our own galaxy are in the order of 15 to 18 billion years old. So not only are the supercluster complexes too old (and it also seems reasonable that some of the larger normal clusters are too big to have formed in such a short time), but stars in our own Milky Way are too old.
Many such attempts have been made to fix the problem of large-scale structure, such as the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (another 2-D "pie-in-the-sky" diagram like the famous one showing the Virgo cluster), a map of galaxies using redshift that is seen in a few sources, like Steve Hawking's newest book. Its results gave some Big Bangers a reason to argue against Tully's complexes. However, as we have seen, the redshift ruler is a poor method, in fact the wrong method, of mapping the universe. Other attempts invoke cosmic strings, dark matter, expanding space, and a number of ad hoc ideas to create supercluster complexes. Some people, like Tully himself as I mentioned just above, argue that large scale structure is not a problem. This is just flawed logic. No method known can create these structures in the 15 billion years since the supposed beginning of the universe. Saying that they pose no problem towards the "official" age of the universe is much like a young-Earth creationist saying that although many of the Earth's features seem to be millions or even billions of years old, it is a minor problem that doesn't change the fact that the world is only 6000 years old **Hmmm Zathras**<<<(note: for some info on young-Earth creationism, see the appendix). It helps to have some kind of substantial evidence to back up such statements. As far as this age paradox is concerned, no valid attempts at refutation of this problem have been made to this day. Ironically, the redshift=distance relationship so important to the BBT results in large-scale structure. Remember the aforementioned concentric shells of quasars and galaxies? Well, they too require too much time to form to fit with the BBT.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-04 22:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-04 22:34 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-05, 02:21 PM
On 2002-11-04 18:10, Orion38 wrote:
Not only they describe
about mysteries that the present model is grappling with,but they have the solution to solve it.(See the problem and the solution here.}


This is getting a bit out of hand. Listen, Orion, as I said previously there is NO SOLUTION presented in the link you provided. None. All it appeals to is "mysterious physics" which brings me to my next point.



You loosing control and the game are you Seeing Red.

Absolute and utter Malarkey, Orion. You have a hard time even understanding what we're talking about. What "game" am I losing? I have asked you for a model, you provide a website that amounts to little more than a "glurge" of "mysterious physics". That's not an explanation, that's pie in the sky and wishful thinking by people with their heads stuck in the sand.


The goal here is not to explaining the Dark Matter baloney.But finding the solution to the problem.They have the solution you don`t have even a beginning of a clue you know why:** It's not that Newton's Law is wrong. It is just that in deep space it is totally overpowered by the Maxwell-Lorentz forces of electromagnetic dynamics.**
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm


Then explain to me why this page you repeat over and over again like a broken record makes no attempt at explaining hot gas measurements which provide another probe into the dark matter. Why doesn't it address weak lensing? Why is it based on nothing but pseudoscience and why doesn't it have any testable theory presented? Why is there no grappling with the dynamical and kinematic models of dark matter halos and large scale structure? Why doesn't it begin to address formalizing its model quantitatively? I'll tell you why: the authors don't know or don't care to mention any of those things. This is why I reject your website.



YOU HAVE LOOSING THE GAME PAINFULLY


This sounds like a poorly translated video game instruction manual.



I will give you another chance, prove us they are wrong.You said * if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well.*
SO DO IT.


You misunderstand completely the point of my statement. READ my post and you'll see I'm accusing your side of saying "if only they used my mysterious physics everything would work out well." You have mysterious physics in your electric cosmos. I don't see where it comes from. The onus is on you to explain it. I have offered my explanation in the form of the standard model... no "mystery" physics at all: only the most straightforward dealings with dynamics and kinematics. What you present is a lot of people throwing tantrums and saying they had an idea that they can't describe rigorously so they'll just put out a website where they know they can be published because they certainly can't get published in any respected journal.

Sorry, that's a bit much.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-05, 02:26 PM
Orion, can you perhaps simply post the websites and not quote huge lengths of them? It's nearly impossible to wean out what your comments are (you actually have very few).

There are problems WITHIN the standard theory of the Big Bang. They are not insurmountable, nor do they conflict with the basic premises as of yet. They are simply the normal growing pains of any model or theory. We are not perfect, we can only use the data we have and try to construct the history as best we can. So far we know we are doing a good job from three different areas: CMB, Hubble Flow redshifts, and nuclearsynthesis. There is also use of large and small scale structure, supernova surveys, relic measurements, and other features that are important in constraining the model. Some of what Orion has to "quote" is true about the problems within the paradigm. None of the actual stuff Orion is talking about invalidates Big Bang.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 03:44 PM
On 2002-11-04 17:45, JS Princeton wrote:
No, the 1/f background cannot have an integrable effect because the NOISE is a random walk and not directed.
This notion has been provisionally debunked in quotes and links above in the thread.

This is a simple result of the fact that we see no electromagnetic radiation in any band but the lowest energies.
Lowest photon energies, but highest energy flux density that is.

Please show me how this is done. I have not seen a decent theoretical treatment of this that is tied to any observational evidence.
There were numerical simulations referenced at that electric-cosmos site you despise so much.
But really, it's as simple as understanding that flat rotation curve requires additional cohesion, which cohesion is provided by local polarization of galactic matter. Similar process must work for the rings of Saturn, only that there electrization happens through residual mechanical friction.

Simply because we don't see any evidence that the stuff is there at the levels you need.
We see the ULF backround at all scales measured so far.

We've had this conversation before. Look into gravitational redshift. Your numbers are off. Way off.
They are exactly on the money! One proton per m^3 produces the observed redshift. You have never refuted the figure.

What's worse a problem of initiation or magic unending creation? I pick the latter as being the most problematic.
Just as any other creationist out there...

Except for the electrodynamical fluid that is not observed except by weird absorptions to create the redshift distance relationship. That's fanciful.
Those fluids are mostly contained in matter structures hence don't interfere too much.

Well, it's your job to convince, not mine.
My will to explain is not enough, your will to understand is also desirable. So far you've shown mostly the will to debunk.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 05:39 PM
On 2002-11-05 10:44, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-11-04 17:45, JS Princeton wrote:

We've had this conversation before. Look into gravitational redshift. Your numbers are off. Way off.


They are exactly on the money! One proton per m^3 produces the observed redshift. You have never refuted the figure.


No way. Gravitational redshift works both ways--because you can have a gravitational blueshift as well! The photon becomes red shifted as it moves away from the particle, but it becomes blue-shifted first as it approaches the particle. There will be some local anisotropies, (because the gravitational well might change shape as the photon moves through it) but it should be clear that on the average there will be no net red shift due to gravitation.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 06:47 PM
On 2002-11-05 12:39, Zathras wrote:
...it should be clear that on the average there will be no net red shift due to gravitation.
With knowledge so profound, why don't you join the glorious ranks of flat-earthers? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 06:52 PM
On 2002-11-05 13:47, AgoraBasta wrote:


On 2002-11-05 12:39, Zathras wrote:
...it should be clear that on the average there will be no net red shift due to gravitation.
With knowledge so profound, why don't you join the glorious ranks of flat-earthers? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


If you think you have a right to be so snide, explain why there would be more gravitational redshifting than blueshifting in a fairly isotropic manner.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 07:06 PM
Zathras,
Imagine light travelling from the centre of the Earth to the surface through some sort of imaginary tunnel. That light has to climb against the gravity potential that grows as r^2; moreover, that potential only depends on the mass "below" the current coordinate and doesn't depend on the mass of the spherical shell above. Same thing happens in a globally flat uniform isotropic universe.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 07:11 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:06, AgoraBasta wrote:
Zathras,
Imagine light travelling from the centre of the Earth to the surface through some sort of imaginary tunnel. That light has to climb against the gravity potential that grows as r^2; moreover, that potential only depends on the mass "below" the current coordinate and doesn't depend on the mass of the spherical shell above. Same thing happens in a globally flat uniform isotropic universe.


I have no argument with your analysis as far as it goes, but it's only half the analysis. The problem is that the light had to get the center of the earth first. As it travelled from the edge to the center, it will have been blueshifted by an amount pretty close, if not identical, to the same as the amount of redshifting on the way out. This is what would happen in the gravitationall interaction between particles and photons. As the photon approaches a particle it would be blueshifted. As it goes away from the particle, it would be redshifted. If the potential well stays the same shape, the effects cancel each other out.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 07:27 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:11, Zathras wrote:
I have no argument with your analysis as far as it goes, but it's only half the analysis.
Not true. In my example, the light is emitted at the centre - this way isotropy is assured. In your example, the isotropy is broken. You can only apply that terminally simplified analysis in an isotropic/uniform case. So in your specific case anisotropy means no shift.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-11-05 14:30 ]</font>

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 07:34 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:27, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-11-05 14:11, Zathras wrote:
I have no argument with your analysis as far as it goes, but it's only half the analysis.
Not true. In my example, the light is emitted at the centre - this way isotropy is assured. In your example, the isotropy is broken. You can only apply that terminally simplified analysis in a isotropic/uniform case. So in your specific case anisotropy means no shift.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-11-05 14:28 ]</font>


You are talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the point of transmission. I am talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the observer. The only isotropy that is observed is, by definition, that of the observer.

Your example does not make sense for photons travelling through space. You are attempting to use the particle density in open space through which the photons travel to explain the redshift. But the light is going through this space, so it encounters both the blueshifting and the redshifting, as the light approaches and then moves away from the particle, respectively.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-05, 07:38 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:06, AgoraBasta wrote:
Zathras,
Imagine light travelling from the centre of the Earth to the surface through some sort of imaginary tunnel. That light has to climb against the gravity potential that grows as r^2; moreover, that potential only depends on the mass "below" the current coordinate and doesn't depend on the mass of the spherical shell above. Same thing happens in a globally flat uniform isotropic universe.

Didn't we already do this?

What if you look at the spherical shell surrounding the observer? If everything outside that shell doesn't matter, then the light experiences gravity that continually decreases, but is always positively directed towards the observer.

That's why the logic doesn't work.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 07:43 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:34, Zathras wrote:
You are talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the point of transmission. I am talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the observer. The only isotropy that is observed is, by definition, that of the observer.
Your observer gets just as much anisotropy as the emitter does.

Your example does not make sense for photons travelling through space. You are attempting to use the particle density in open space through which the photons travel to explain the redshift. But the light is going through this space, so it encounters both the blueshifting and the redshifting, as the light approaches and then moves away from the particle, respectively.
Sorry, that's a meaningless babble. You'd have to disprove my analysis, which you can't do.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 07:46 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:38, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
What if you look at the spherical shell surrounding the observer?
That is an anisotropic case for the photon. That's why your logic doesn't work.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 07:56 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:43, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-11-05 14:34, Zathras wrote:
You are talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the point of transmission. I am talking about isotropy from the viewpoint of the observer. The only isotropy that is observed is, by definition, that of the observer.
Your observer gets just as much anisotropy as the emitter does.

Your example does not make sense for photons travelling through space. You are attempting to use the particle density in open space through which the photons travel to explain the redshift. But the light is going through this space, so it encounters both the blueshifting and the redshifting, as the light approaches and then moves away from the particle, respectively.
Sorry, that's a meaningless babble. You'd have to disprove my analysis, which you can't do.


You don't account for any blueshifting, when it is obvious that it occurs as photons travel towards particles and operates to effectively cancel the effect of the redshift.

You still have not explained why there is no blueshifting in addition to redshifting, and until you do, your analysis is too vacuous to have anything to disprove.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 08:08 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:56, Zathras wrote:
You still have not explained why there is no blueshifting in addition to redshifting...Actually I had. You can get blueshift if you manage an appropriate anisotropy, like sitting on big local mass.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-05, 08:11 PM
On 2002-11-05 14:46, AgoraBasta wrote:
That is an anisotropic case for the photon.
It seems to have the same symmetries as your example. Why do you say that?

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 08:22 PM
On 2002-11-05 15:11, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
It seems to have the same symmetries as your example. Why do you say that?
That's because it's the photon that travels what must be an isotropic medium. When you cut the space your way, the photon sees a highly non-isotropic picture - a ball of matter in front and nothing behind. Moreover, your observer sits in a potential well. Why should you discriminate the poor observer that way - it's unfair, he just sits there peacefully; the photon, on the other hand, aggressively pushes forth - hence it has to get punished for such misconduct.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 08:24 PM
On 2002-11-05 15:08, AgoraBasta wrote:

On 2002-11-05 14:56, Zathras wrote:
You still have not explained why there is no blueshifting in addition to redshifting...Actually I had. You can get blueshift if you manage an appropriate anisotropy, like sitting on big local mass.


You're not listening. Here is the situation: You have a photon going through space and encountering particles. As the photon approaches a particle, it will experience a gravitational blueshift. As the photon goes away from a particle, it will experience a gravitational redshift. Both of these events will happen with equal frequency as the photon moves through space. Therefore, a photon's encounters with particles as it moves through space will not result in any net redshift.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 08:25 PM
On 2002-11-05 15:22, AgoraBasta wrote:


On 2002-11-05 15:11, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
It seems to have the same symmetries as your example. Why do you say that?
That's because it's the photon that travels what must be an isotropic medium. When you cut the space your way, the photon sees a highly non-isotropic picture - a ball of matter in front and nothing behind. Moreover, your observer sits in a potential well. Why should you discriminate the poor observer that way - it's unfair, he just sits there peacefully; the photon, on the other hand, aggressively pushes forth - hence it has to get punished for such misconduct.


And you accuse me of meaningless babble? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 08:41 PM
On 2002-11-05 15:24, Zathras wrote:
You're not listening.You asked for an explanation. I explain - you listen. First thing first, and not the other way around. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

And you accuse me of meaningless babble?Look, I try to make it funny for Grapes and understandable for you. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 08:50 PM
Look, you still don't get it. You can't make a gross overgeneralization of Gauss' law by drawing a sphere that always happens to be behind the photon. This doesn't work, because you can draw any sphere tangent to the location of the photon, and you will get a gravitational force that is pointed towards the center of the sphere.

Look at the particle-photon interaction one particle at a time, and you will see that the doppler shifts effectively cancel each other out.

John Kierein
2002-Nov-05, 09:12 PM
OK. Now if you believe in the big bang (which I don't), didn't the photon from very distant galaxies leave a high density universe and is now being observed in a lower density universe. So the light left a higher gravitational potential region and is observed at a lower one? According to the GR principal of equivalence, this should result in a doppler effect just as though the light were accelerated by the amount of the difference in gravitational potential. So is this accounted for by big bangers in calculating the red shift?

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 09:34 PM
On 2002-11-05 15:50, Zathras wrote:
You can't make a gross overgeneralization of Gauss' law by drawing a sphere that always happens to be behind the photon.
I sure can!

This doesn't work, because you can draw any sphere tangent to the location of the photon, and you will get a gravitational force that is pointed towards the center of the sphere.
You have to choose the sphere that your photon leaves behind on its way. The choice is not arbitrary.

Look at the particle-photon interaction one particle at a time, and you will see that the doppler shifts effectively cancel each other out.
OK, you try doing a per-particle analysis. But don't forget to account for as many particles as you can, not only those on "line of sight", and also don't forget to assure appropriate symmetry of the space area whose particles you account for.
You may try a different approach - the particles in front of the photon don't know it's coming, since photon's gravity travels with the same speed as the photon, so they don't exchange momentum with it by gravity; the particles the photon left behind within a conic volume are those that have exchanged momentum with it, but that momentum is directed the same way the photon travels, thus photon only looses momentum travelling through a uniform isotropic medium.

Zathras
2002-Nov-05, 10:13 PM
On 2002-11-05 16:34, AgoraBasta wrote:
OK, you try doing a per-particle analysis. But don't forget to account for as many particles as you can, not only those on "line of sight", and also don't forget to assure appropriate symmetry of the space area whose particles you account for.

It is easy to do a per-particle analysis when each one contributes 0 to the red shift. 0*10e20 is still 0.



You may try a different approach - the particles in front of the photon don't know it's coming, since photon's gravity travels with the same speed as the photon, so they don't exchange momentum with it by gravity; the particles the photon left behind within a conic volume are those that have exchanged momentum with it, but that momentum is directed the same way the photon travels, thus photon only looses momentum travelling through a uniform isotropic medium.

It doesn't matter whether the forward particles "know" that the photon is coming. Loosely speaking, the gravitons are out there for the taking, and the photon is effected by being blueshifted. According to your logic, the particles behind the photon would also not be able to interact with the photon, because the graviton could not "catch up" to the photon. Under your assumptions, a photon would not feel any gravitational force at all.

Therefore, there is nothing special about the sphere behind the photon.

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-05, 10:50 PM
On 2002-11-05 17:13, Zathras wrote:
Loosely speaking, the gravitons are out there for the taking, and the photon is effected by being blueshifted.
Yes, but there are as many "gravitons" produced by matter carring momentum in either direction, so there's no effect from them. But the "gravitons" produced by the photon are spread anisotropically in 3D, they are all in the cone behind. With their departure comes the redshift.

According to your logic, the particles behind the photon would also not be able to interact with the photon, because the graviton could not "catch up" to the photon.
Yes, they interact and keep the resulting momentum supplied from the photon without any chance of returning it back.

Therefore, there is nothing special about the sphere behind the photon.
There's very much special in the sphere behind the photon. You can consider the light emitted from the source as a spherical wave instead of thinking of photons. The matter that the wavefront had a chance to interact with, is all inside that sphere.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-11-05 19:05 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Nov-06, 01:08 AM
Orion38: You need to read the other part related to the subject: ...

I know, but like I said, I don't have the time to write out a huge epistle all at once. The rst of the arguments are lousy. For instance:

quote: According to the theory, the universe started out homogeneous and should still be like that today.

That's not true. Homogeneity is not a fundamental ingredient of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC). It is, rather, an assumption of convenience that makes things easier to work with. It is easily discarded as soon as observation reaches the level where expected inhomogeniety is revealed.

Any conclusion that BBC is false, based on the lack of homogeneity, is illogical and false.

quote: These large structures, which span a colossal size (up to about 650 million light years in radius and 1 billion light years long for the largest ones), would take anywhere from 60 to 100 billion years to form, judging from their speed (which the T-F relation determines to be no more than 1000 km/s for any object regardless of distance) and their gravitational interactions.

Another meaningless argument, not even relevant to the issue. That's because the structures don't form that way, so how long it takes to happen doesn't matter. The structures are already there, from the beginning. They are the initial inhomogeneities that were always expected as part of BBC.

The real problem is that the universe, in a classical BBC, expands too slowly to push the structures out that far. That's why the inflationary model was introduced, and it seems to have sloved the problem, at least for now.

quote: The creation of large scale structures in the time since the Big Bang should cause it to be distorted, which it is plainly not.

False statement. There is no reason to expect structure formation to introduce a distortion on the background.

quote: Also, if the large-scale structure of the universe wasn't a big enough problem, the "official" age of the BB universe keeps shrinking.

Semantic wordplay. There is no "official" age of the universe. In fact, there is much controversy over the issue as regards a high or low value of Hubble's constant.

Aside from that, one might as "so what"? The "official" age, if you will, should keep changing. I would be quite astonished if it did not, considering the significant uncertainties in deriving an age.

quote: ... the universe should be no older than about 13.5 to 15 billion years, and some estimates are as low as 8 to 10 billion years. According to standard theories, stars that make up globular clusters in our own galaxy are in the order of 15 to 18 billion years old.

False again. There was, for a few years in the mid 1990's, a problem regarding comparison of the ages of globular clusters and the age of the universe, but it was never that large (the 1-sigma "error bars" did overlap). However, that "age paradox" has been put to rest, by strong improvements in stellar evolution models, and cosmological models. At the moment, the "official" age for the universe is on the order of 13-15 billion years, whereas the ages of the oldest globular clusters do not exceed 13 billion years. There are some halo star ages as high as 15 billion years, but the 1-sigma uncertainty on these ages is +/- 4 or 5 billion years,so they are pretty soft things to worry about.

The "age paradox" is old news, and a dead problem.

So, what I see is that this webpage you cite is full of false statements, severe misconceptions, and outdated arguments. Pretty lame, if you ask me.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-06, 01:47 AM
On 2002-11-05 15:41, AgoraBasta wrote:
Look, I try to make it funny for Grapes and understandable for you.
But, the question is, can you make it right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

D J
2002-Nov-06, 03:19 AM
On 2002-11-05 20:08, Tim Thompson wrote:
Orion38:

quote: ... the universe should be no older than about 13.5 to 15 billion years, and some estimates are as low as 8 to 10 billion years. According to standard theories, stars that make up globular clusters in our own galaxy are in the order of 15 to 18 billion years old.

False again. There was, for a few years in the mid 1990's, a problem regarding comparison of the ages of globular clusters and the age of the universe, but it was never that large (the 1-sigma "error bars" did overlap). However, that "age paradox" has been put to rest, by strong improvements in stellar evolution models, and cosmological models. At the moment, the "official" age for the universe is on the order of 13-15 billion years, whereas the ages of the oldest globular clusters do not exceed 13 billion years. There are some halo star ages as high as 15 billion years, but the 1-sigma uncertainty on these ages is +/- 4 or 5 billion years,so they are pretty soft things to worry about.


The only thing you prove here is the need to adjusting the model to fit the observations by the introduction of new variable that`s all.
IE *There are some halo star ages as high as 15 billion years, but the 1-sigma uncertainty on these ages is +/- 4 or 5 billion years,so they are pretty soft things to worry about.*
Its time to see an interesting model who really fit with the observations without the need of "fudge factor" Like inflation theory caused by Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html

overrated
2002-Nov-06, 03:26 AM
About this "fudge factor" thing... every measurement is going to have a margin of error. That's not fudging, that's conscientious observation.

D J
2002-Nov-06, 03:35 AM
On 2002-11-05 22:26, overrated wrote:
About this "fudge factor" thing... every measurement is going to have a margin of error. That's not fudging, that's conscientious observation.


I will remember this quote when came the time to defend the Plasma Universe Model.Thanks!

David Hall
2002-Nov-06, 03:53 PM
What model of the universe has not had constant revision and modification as new data has been released? This is true of the Big Bang, Steady State, Plasma, and every other idea out there. It isn't a weakness in the model until the model can no longer be justifiably modified to account for observations.

In addition, a "fudge factor" is not just any old modification to a theory. It's a modification that has no foundation or no explanation as to why it's included, other than to get the numbers to come out right. If you can explain the mechanism of such a change clearly, then again there's nothing to complain about.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(minor formatting correction)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-11-06 10:54 ]</font>

D J
2002-Nov-06, 07:28 PM
On 2002-11-06 10:53, David Hall wrote:

In addition, a "fudge factor" is not just any old modification to a theory. It's a modification that has no foundation or no explanation as to why it's included, other than to get the numbers to come out right. If you can explain the mechanism of such a change clearly, then again there's nothing to complain about.


This is exactly the heart of the problem, the standar model is full of those fudge factor.
Example Dark Matter:
Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first discovered the "missing matter" problem in the 1930's. By observing the "Doppler red-shift" values of stars moving near the plane of our galaxy, Oort assumed he could calculate how fast the stars were moving. Since the galaxy was not flying apart, he reasoned that there must be enough matter inside the galaxy such that the central gravitational force was strong enough to keep the stars from escaping, much as the Sun's gravitational pull keeps a planet in its orbit. But when the calculation was made, it turned out that there was not enough mass in the galaxy. And the discrepancy was not small; the galaxy had to be at least twice as massive as the sum of the mass of all its visible components combined. Where was all this "missing matter"?
In addition, in the 1960's the radial profile of the tangential velocity of stars in their orbits around the galactic center as a function of their distance from that center was measured. It was found that typically, once we get away from the galactic center all the stars travel with the same velocity independent of their distance out from the galactic center. (See the figure below.) Usually, as is the case with our solar system, the farther out an object is, the slower it travels in its orbit.
There were problems, too, at a larger scale.
In 1933 astronomer Fritz Zwicky announced that when he measured the individual velocities of a large group of galaxies known as the Coma cluster, he found that all of the galaxies that he measured were moving so rapidly relative to one another that the cluster should have come apart long ago. The visible mass of the galaxies making up the cluster was far too little to produce enough gravitational force to hold the cluster together. So not only was our own galaxy lacking mass, but so was the whole Coma cluster of galaxies.

MACHOs, WIMPs & MOND

At first, cosmologists decided to leave Newton's laws inviolate and to postulate the existence of some "invisible, unmeasureable, dark" entities to make up the missing mass. Apparently it never ocurred to anyone to go back and examine the basic assumption that only gravity was at work in these cases. It was easier to "patch up" the theory with invisible entities. (Remember the invisible gnomes in my garden?) To quote Astronomy magazine (Aug. 2001 p 26):

"What's more, astronomers have gone to great lengths to affectionately name, define, and categorize this zoo of invisible stuff called dark matter. There are the MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) - things like ... black holes, and neutron stars that purportedly populate the outer reaches of galaxies like the Milky Way. Then there are the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which possess mass, yet don't interact with ordinary matter - baryons such as protons and neutrons - because they are composed of something entirely foreign and unknown. Dark matter even comes in two flavors, hot (HDM) and cold (CDM)....."

1. Cold dark matter - supposedly in dead stars, planets, brown dwarfs ("failed stars") etc.
2. Hot dark matter - postulated to be fast moving particles floating throughout the universe, neutrinos, tachions etc.

"And all the while astronomers and physicists have refined their dark matter theories without ever getting their hands on a single piece of it. But where is all of this dark matter? The truth is that after more than 30 years of looking for it, there's still no definitive proof that WIMPs exist or that MACHOs will ever make up more than five percent of the total reserve of missing dark stuff."

Of course, the second possibility mentioned above (that the outer stars rotating around galaxy cores do not obey Newton's Law of Gravity) was thought to be impossible. But the first alternative - the fanciful notion that 99% of the matter in the universe was "invisible" - began to be worrisome too. It was stated that WIMPs and MACHOs were in the category of particle known as "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories" (FAIRIE DUST). Even such an august authority as Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles has been quoted as saying,
"It's an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical..."

Conclusion

Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation. The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell’s equations are! Why do astronomers grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one?

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-06, 09:50 PM
Orion, your insistence in quoting errant sites is getting really annoying. Let me ask you a question: have you ever taken any physics in your entire life? Why should we listen to you?

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-06, 09:58 PM
On 2002-11-05 10:44, AgoraBasta wrote:
This notion has been provisionally debunked in quotes and links above in the thread.
[quote]

It most certainly has not. You are wrong, my friend. We have shown that you don't understand what the CMB is or why we understand it. You refuse to read sites that talk about it. It is you that have been debunked.

[quote]Lowest photon energies, but highest energy flux density that is.


No, the density scales with temperature. You know that.



There were numerical simulations referenced at that electric-cosmos site you despise so much.

There were only numerical simulations on topics that had nothing to do with cosmology. We agreed this is why you need to come up with your own model /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



But really, it's as simple as understanding that flat rotation curve requires additional cohesion, which cohesion is provided by local polarization of galactic matter.

The energy density would be too high. We would SEE stuff there if that were the case. You see, electromagnetic effects are funny: the produce PHOTON RADIATION... and that photon radiation ISN'T SEEN!



Similar process must work for the rings of Saturn, only that there electrization happens through residual mechanical friction.


Right, and do you know how bright the electromagnetic radiation is near Saturn? Much brighter (in flux) than we get from the outer parts of galactic halos. To be expected: We can actually SEE the rings!



We see the ULF backround at all scales measured so far.

That's a red herring if I ever saw one. That's like saying we see Poisson noise on photon counters, therefore there must be a little man who is gobbling up photons and spitting them back out in a random walk fashion. Reasonable conclusion, right?



They are exactly on the money! One proton per m^3 produces the observed redshift. You have never refuted the figure.


For the last time. READ WEINBERG. Your numbers are off. That's the end of the story.


Just as any other creationist out there...

So, it's at worst a wash. There's no ontological reason to accept one model or the other. Therefore we might as well look at the evidence. Nuclearsynthesis anyone?



Those fluids are mostly contained in matter structures hence don't interfere too much.


Now your just inventing stuff off the top of your head.


My will to explain is not enough, your will to understand is also desirable. So far you've shown mostly the will to debunk.


You haven't addressed basic observational issues of Dark Matter, Gravitational Lensing, Cosmic Abundances, Redshift Distance Relation, the CMB. I could go on, but what's the point?

D J
2002-Nov-06, 10:24 PM
On 2002-11-06 16:50, JS Princeton wrote:
Orion, your insistence in quoting errant sites is getting really annoying. Let me ask you a question: have you ever taken any physics in your entire life? Why should we listen to you?


Let me ask you a good one:are you working in some field related to physics or the only satisfaction you have is using some knowlegde in physics and trying to debunk anything.
I suspect your principal source of inspiration come from this site:
http://www.planetarymysteries.com/debunkery.html
You better use your time by learning some basics in Plasma Physic.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/lab_astro.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/01.guided_tour.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

The Case for Plasma Cosmology
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html

Edited for minor correction.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-06 17:25 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-06 17:30 ]</font>

D J
2002-Nov-06, 10:34 PM
Edwin Hubble...
and the Myth That He Discovered the Expanding Universe
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html

For an image displaying Hubble's Law of Redshifts diagrams
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/hubblediagram.html

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-06, 11:47 PM
Aside from the stuff from LANL, which has nothing to do with what you're talking about, every other site you gave is fraught with errors and is obviously not kept by people who know what they are talking about. As you have no way of defending your stubborn unorthodoxy other than quoting half-baked sites, I can only assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

D J
2002-Nov-07, 12:36 AM
On 2002-11-06 18:47, JS Princeton wrote:
Aside from the stuff from LANL, which has nothing to do with what you're talking about, every other site you gave is fraught with errors and is obviously not kept by people who know what they are talking about. As you have no way of defending your stubborn unorthodoxy other than quoting half-baked sites, I can only assume you have no idea what you are talking about.


What a funny debunker you are ,the LANL sites are the basic reference of the plasma universe:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/01.guided_tour.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/lab_astro.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-06 19:39 ]</font>

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 03:39 AM
I don't think you understand, Orion, the Plasma Universe from LANL is not belligerent in its claims to have the ultimate answer. It doesn't even begin to address the "incorrectness" of the standard theory. It doesn't stand in opposition to it. Nowhere do they deny that the Hubble velocity is a velocity. Nowhere do they deny the redshift distance relation. Nowhere do they assume modern cosmology has gone down the toilet. This is how they are different.

D J
2002-Nov-07, 04:34 AM
On 2002-11-06 22:39, JS Princeton wrote:
I don't think you understand, Orion, the Plasma Universe from LANL is not belligerent in its claims to have the ultimate answer. It doesn't even begin to address the "incorrectness" of the standard theory. It doesn't stand in opposition to it. Nowhere do they deny that the Hubble velocity is a velocity. Nowhere do they deny the redshift distance relation. Nowhere do they assume modern cosmology has gone down the toilet. This is how they are different.


The Plasma Universe:
Author Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico,
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html
IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html


Electric Cosmos.org author Donald E. Scott,
For what it is worth, I will mention that I earned my Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering at the University of Connecticut. Then I worked for GE for a short time. Later, in 1968, I earned my Doctorate in Electrical Engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and was on the faculty of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst from 1959 until my retirement in 1998. I have been a lifelong amateur astronomer.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Donald E. Scott,
Oro Valley, AZ

The Cosmological Debate
by Jason Goodman
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html
Much of the material presented here, especially in the first three sections, is that of other scientists--mostly Eric Lerner, Halton Arp, *Don Scott*, and Wal Thornhill--but is rephrased in my own words. The Ideology section and some other things (which I will designate as such) are my own work, though.(A Must to read)
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/ideology.html

If you are not convince this are the view of the LANL site read this:

Challenges to common sense,

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/AtHomeChall.html




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-06 23:37 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-06 23:49 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Nov-07, 11:51 AM
On 2002-11-06 22:39, JS Princeton wrote:
...the Plasma Universe from LANL is not belligerent in its claims to have the ultimate answer. It doesn't even begin to address the "incorrectness" of the standard theory. It doesn't stand in opposition to it. Nowhere do they deny that the Hubble velocity is a velocity. Nowhere do they deny the redshift distance relation. Nowhere do they assume modern cosmology has gone down the toilet. This is how they are different.
Your stance merely means that they have succeeded in staving off the stubborn traditional cosmologists by not confronting them openly. They simply used your ignorance in the subject so that you can't see the threat. This way they can have time to develop the plasma cosmology to perfection such that gravitational cosmology can no longer compete - and there you go joining the dinosaurs...

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 04:12 PM
If someone wants to develop an alternative cosmology, that's more the welcome. The reason LANL is a good site is because it doesn't tread upon cosmology since it admits it isn't as rigorous as contemporary cosmology. To wit, from the site:


The plasma modelers readily admit that they offer no proposal about the universe's origin and age. That issue, as well as the size
of the universe, lies beyond their horizons of experimentation and simulation. Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twenty first
century, electrical engineers are marshaling a growing body of evidence that points to the necessity of integrating plasmas into
the core of cosmological thinking.

I say, go for it. If they come up with something that explains the CMB, cosmic abundances, and the Hubble Recession (and more importantly WHY the standard model of today appeared to work so well) AS WELL AS answering the previously unanswered questions in contemporary cosmology, then I'll gladly jump on board. Right now, as the authors admit, they are in the infancy stage of theory development and observation. The plasma density may be FAR too low for there to be any effect. It is up to the emboldened Plasma Observationalists to show differently. No, Orion, you haven't done that.

D J
2002-Nov-07, 05:55 PM
On 2002-11-07 11:12, JS Princeton wrote:
If someone wants to develop an alternative cosmology, that's more the welcome. The reason LANL is a good site is because it doesn't tread upon cosmology since it admits it isn't as rigorous as contemporary cosmology. To wit, from the site:


The plasma modelers readily admit that they offer no proposal about the universe's origin and age. That issue, as well as the size
of the universe, lies beyond their horizons of experimentation and simulation. Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twenty first
century, electrical engineers are marshaling a growing body of evidence that points to the necessity of integrating plasmas into
the core of cosmological thinking.

I say, go for it. If they come up with something that explains the CMB, cosmic abundances, and the Hubble Recession (and more importantly WHY the standard model of today appeared to work so well) AS WELL AS answering the previously unanswered questions in contemporary cosmology, then I'll gladly jump on board. Right now, as the authors admit, they are in the infancy stage of theory development and observation. The plasma density may be FAR too low for there to be any effect. It is up to the emboldened Plasma Observationalists to show differently. No, Orion, you haven't done that.

I can do that lets begin with the EM spectrum
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/EMspectrum_observ.html

And a list of reference about their Cosmology:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html#EnergyDensity

Atko
2002-Nov-07, 06:37 PM
On 2002-11-07 11:12, JS Princeton wrote:
If someone wants to develop an alternative cosmology, that's more the welcome. The reason LANL is a good site is because it doesn't tread upon cosmology since it admits it isn't as rigorous as contemporary cosmology. To wit, from the site:


The plasma modelers readily admit that they offer no proposal about the universe's origin and age. That issue, as well as the size
of the universe, lies beyond their horizons of experimentation and simulation. Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twenty first
century, electrical engineers are marshaling a growing body of evidence that points to the necessity of integrating plasmas into
the core of cosmological thinking.

I say, go for it. If they come up with something that explains the CMB, cosmic abundances, and the Hubble Recession (and more importantly WHY the standard model of today appeared to work so well) AS WELL AS answering the previously unanswered questions in contemporary cosmology, then I'll gladly jump on board. Right now, as the authors admit, they are in the infancy stage of theory development and observation. The plasma density may be FAR too low for there to be any effect. It is up to the emboldened Plasma Observationalists to show differently. No, Orion, you haven't done that.


Blimey, JS, I had you down as a Hard Line BB'er beyond redemption - but you've shown that deep down you're really a big softy. I doff my cap to you.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

D J
2002-Nov-07, 07:50 PM
On 2002-11-07 11:12, JS Princeton wrote:
The plasma density may be FAR too low for there to be any effect. It is up to the emboldened Plasma Observationalists to show differently. No, Orion, you haven't done that.

I can do that:

Synchrotron radiation was first brought to the attention of astronomers by H. AlfvŽn; and N. Herlofson in 1950, a remarkable suggestion at a time when plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with ŇislandÓ universes (galaxies). The recognition that this mechanism of radiation is important in astronomical sources has been one of the most fruitful developments in astrophysics. For example, it has made possible the inference that high-energy particles exist in many types of astronomical objects, it has given additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and it has indicated that enormous amounts of energy may indeed be converted, stored, and released in cosmic plasma.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/synchrotron.html

D J
2002-Nov-07, 09:54 PM
On 2002-11-07 11:12, JS Princeton wrote:
If someone wants to develop an alternative cosmology, that's more the welcome. The reason LANL is a good site is because it doesn't tread upon cosmology since it admits it isn't as rigorous as contemporary cosmology. To wit, from the site:


The plasma modelers readily admit that they offer no proposal about the universe's origin and age. That issue, as well as the size
of the universe, lies beyond their horizons of experimentation and simulation. Nonetheless, at the beginning of the twenty first
century, electrical engineers are marshaling a growing body of evidence that points to the necessity of integrating plasmas into
the core of cosmological thinking.

I say, go for it. If they come up with something that explains the CMB, cosmic abundances, and the Hubble Recession (and more importantly WHY the standard model of today appeared to work so well)

LOL
I dont think they agree with you rose colored glasses version:
In the text they wrote:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/AtHomeChall.html
Scientists driving the development of plasma models of the universe tend to be electrical engineers or plasma physicists, instead of astrophysicists and mathematicians who dominate cosmology today...
Their fundamental view on cosmology is that electromagnetic forces sculpt the broad outlines of the universe; gravitational forces shape the details only after electromagnetic forces have first drawn the diffuse matter close enough together for gravity to become significant...
-Your part of the text here-
At the same time, mainstream cosmology is not about to welcome the plasma model. Cosmology of the twentieth century remains dominated by gravitation modeling, based especially on Albert Einstein's general relativity theory. Although cosmologists tried at the beginning of the century to include electromagnetic forces in their calculations, the equations proved too complicated to handle, and, in any case, the gravity dominated models became extremely popular to the lay-person. Thus today in cosmology, gravity rules, and its progeny, the big bang model, is widely accepted as providing the "true" explanation of the nature of the universe.
You note the " " true.

I dont think they support the Big Bang model.
Not With A Bang, A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, January/February, 1990
Part A
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads_reserved/NotWithaBangA.pdf
Part B
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads_reserved/NotWithaBangB.pdf

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 10:18 PM
Orion, it's not as to whether they "support" the Big Bang model. They are simply diplomatic in their presentation and allow for the fact that their "theory" isn't up to par with GR Cosmology as of yet. Agora has admitted as much too.

We have to be willing to have an open mind about subjects, but my point is that there is plenty one can do WITHIN standard cosmology. Sure, it's fine if people want to present their own little forays into different analyses, but at the end of the day we have to look at the evidence and see what it says. I spelled out numerous times in this thread what the evidence is. I don't believe you have anything more than wishful thinking and pie-in-the-sky sites as of yet to offer me. That is why the LANL site is good... it admits it is woefully incomplete when compared to the standard model, the "true" cosmology.

We all know it's semantically improper to call anything "true". There are problems in modern cosmology and they might not be surmountable. However, I don't think you've made your case that the time has come to abandon ship just as I don't think creationists have made their case that the time has come to abandon the evolution ship. It's as simple as that.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 10:19 PM
On 2002-11-07 12:55, Orion38 wrote:
I can do that lets begin with the EM spectrum
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/EMspectrum_observ.html

And a list of reference about their Cosmology:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html#EnergyDensity


I have to admit, Orion, you certainly have a knack for not answering questions. These sites are simply not what I asked you for (namely observational evidence of a significant enough plasma density to contribute to Cosmological models).

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 10:22 PM
On 2002-11-07 13:37, Atko wrote:
Blimey, JS, I had you down as a Hard Line BB'er beyond redemption - but you've shown that deep down you're really a big softy. I doff my cap to you.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Hey, Atko, the fun thing about science is that it is incomplete. I am still a hardcore Big Banger, but I'm a softy when it comes to stating that any theory has a stake in the "ultimate" reality of the universe. What we DO need to admit though is that refined theories most of the time provide excellent explanations as to why the disproven theories they replace worked so well. So far I haven't seen any Big Bang denier do such a thing.

JS Princeton
2002-Nov-07, 10:24 PM
On 2002-11-07 14:50, Orion38 wrote:

Synchrotron radiation was first brought to the attention of astronomers by H. AlfvŽn; and N. Herlofson in 1950, a remarkable suggestion at a time when plasma and magnetic fields were thought to have little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with ŇislandÓ universes (galaxies). The recognition that this mechanism of radiation is important in astronomical sources has been one of the most fruitful developments in astrophysics. For example, it has made possible the inference that high-energy particles exist in many types of astronomical objects, it has given additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and it has indicated that enormous amounts of energy may indeed be converted, stored, and released in cosmic plasma.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/synchrotron.html


While correct, this statement says nothing about whether or not synchrotron radiation is important to cosmology. Indeed, I don't see how it can be since it is swamped by background relics. We're talking about an entire universe, not just local sources of radiation.

D J
2002-Nov-07, 10:55 PM
On 2002-11-07 17:19, JS Princeton wrote:


On 2002-11-07 12:55, Orion38 wrote:
I can do that lets begin with the EM spectrum
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/EMspectrum_observ.html

And a list of reference about their Cosmology:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html#EnergyDensity


I have to admit, Orion, you certainly have a knack for not answering questions. These sites are simply not what I asked you for (namely observational evidence of a significant enough plasma density to contribute to Cosmological models).

And you have a knack to dont read the evidence presented:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/synchrotron.html
Interstellar Plasma Verified

IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html

Reference article about charge separation in space plasma
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_charge.htm

Quote
Sure, it's fine if people want to present their own little forays into different analyses, but at the end of the day we have to look at the evidence and see what it says. I spelled out numerous times in this thread what the evidence is. I don't believe you have anything more than wishful thinking and pie-in-the-sky sites as of yet to offer me. That is why the LANL site is good... it admits it is woefully incomplete when compared to the standard model, the "true" cosmology.
_____________
And all the "evidences" you are talking about are demonstrated to not support the standard model and are also leading as evidences to support the Plasma Universe model.
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html

The only superiority of the standard model stand in the peer rewiew system:
There is another factor to take into account in scientific debates and communication--referees. The refereeing process, sometimes euphemistically called the "peer review" system, has done a lot to perpetuate the bad science of the BBT and the poor thinking that goes along with it. Referees, who are almost always specialized experts, work for scientific journals and they decide which papers get published...
They almost always tend to discriminate agains alternative views. Papers are rejected, telescope time is denied, etc. Eventually, papers end up in journals that most astrophysicists don't read, like plasma physics journals.
Telescope time is a precious resource, but it is not a coincidence when people like Arp are habitually denied time by allocation comittees. Arp was even forbidden to use the Palomar telescope, as they refused to allocate him any more time (more reputable mainstream astronomy resources acknowledge this fact, though a number of other mainstreamers claim this is a "conspiracy theory" made by Arp and others). Why does this happen? Are conventional cosmologists fearful for their reputations? Are they being overprotective of their pet theories? Are they simply doing it for personal, often times selfish, motives (I know of several mainstreamers who have a personal vendetta against Arp, Thornhill, and others)? Or perhaps some of them think they are doing the right thing, not knowing that they are actually doing the opposite? Maybe it is all of these, varying from person to person. After all, scientist are just people like everyone else. Arp cites that the roots of this problem lay in modern academia and overspecialization in scientific fields. In any case, the refereeing process has effectively thrown a wrench into the advancement of science.
Finally, there is something that even the layman will probably want to know: Who exactly pays for science? It doesn't pay for itself and the tools and research aren't free (or even close to being cheap for that matter). All the observatories, sattelites, particle accelerators and other tools of science, as well as research facilities, are almost always paid for by public funds. For example, NASA's satellites, such as Chandra, Hubble, and COBE, are all funded by the tax dollars that come out of our paychecks. It is a gross misappropriation of public funds if such things produce no valid results.
If money is spent on science and results in purely conjectural ideas that fail to predict anything, then no advancement can take place... Maybe this is a reason why the economy is in nowhere as good of a condition as it should be. After all, there has hardly been a single major qualitative technological advance in the physical sciences since 1960 (with the laser).

Yes, you are right in the process of stopping new and eprouved valid concept (Like the Plasma Universe Model) the Standard Model is superior with their peer rewiew system.-The refereeing process-

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/ideology.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-11-07 18:02 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-Nov-08, 12:45 AM
Begging your collective pardon, but I don't have lots of time for this, and since the thread appears to have degenerated into useless nonsense, I can't see any reason to carry on with enthusiasm, so this will (or so it seems) be my last installment. I'm gone again for a few days, to another meeting, anyway.

Orion38 (in cut & paste mode): Scientists driving the development of plasma models of the universe tend to be electrical engineers or plasma physicists, instead of astrophysicists and mathematicians who dominate cosmology today ...

So what? Astrophysics is heavily dominated by plasma physics, and the words are almost synonymous. The fact is that there are far more plasma physicists doing standard astrophysics & cosmology, than there are plasma physicists doing "plasma cosmology" (indeed, Peratt is the only bona-fide plasma physicist that I am aware of in the plasma cosmology biz these days).

This notion that astronomers & astrophysicists don't know enough about plasmas or plasma physics is a flight of fantasy at best, worthy of a good laugh, but not of respect.

Orion38 (in post the URL mode): Interstellar Plasma Verified ... IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS ... Reference article about charge separation in space plasma

My first suggestion is learn how to use lower case letters. "Interstellar plasma verified"? Why do I need those guys to verify something that has long since been known? Of course there is interstellar plasma, it's part of standard astrophysics & cosmology, and certainly does not mean that plasma cosmology is right. Currents flowing in space between the stars is hardly news either. There simply isn't anything new, unusual, or even surprising here. But worse than that, there is not a whit of reason in all of these cut & paste paragraphs to (a) question standard cosmology or (b) support plasma cosmology. As the little old lady once said, where's the beef?

But the real kicker is Mel Acheson's exercise, which Orion labels "Reference article about charge separation in space plasma". I wonder, did you actually look at it at all before posting the link? I read the whole page, and nowhere does Mel tell us how charge separation occurs. Nowhere does he suggest a source for all that energy. So it's a "reference" to nothing! But I am glad to hear he has a sane friend or two, I was getting worried about him.

Plasma cosmology suffers from a huge weakness that Acheson recognizes, but does not deal with at all. Charge separation takes energy. And current flow shorts out the charge separation. So once the current flows, the charge has to separate again. And so on ad infinitium. Observation suggests that this does not happen. The reality is that plasma cosmology is strongly counter indicated by observation, whereas standard "gravity dominated" cosmology (in every conceivable respect) is the superior model, as regards both theory & observation.

Orion38 (in cut & paste mode again): The only superiority of the standard model stand in the peer rewiew system ...

Sour grapes. Everytime some poor soul sees their not-very-good idea get set aside, they scream prejudice, bias, rigged game, and I-don't-get-no-respect! The peer review system certainly has its flaws, as just about anybody who has been reviewed by a peer can tell you (and the reviewers have some stories too). But it works pretty well, by and large, because it forces people to put out some serious work & serious thought. Some of the plasma cosmology types, like Peratt, can handle it, even if they are overly confident in their own ideas. Others, like Thornhill, couldn't pass review on Sunset Boulevard, let alone by "peers". I am unmoved by their cries of rejection. According to Thornhill, that makes me an "intellectual bully". I feel better already.

Plasma cosmology doesn't get much room in the peer review system because it doesn't work. It's as simple as that. Standard Big Bang cosmology is "standard" because it does work, and that's as simple as that too. All you have to do to make it in the science world is come up with an idea that works. Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Cheers.

D J
2002-Nov-08, 01:51 AM
On 2002-11-07 19:45, Tim Thompson wrote:

Orion38 (in cut & paste mode):
Orion38 (in post the URL mode): [i]
Orion38 (in cut & paste mode again):
Easely explanable because english is not my first language.

[ Standard Big Bang cosmology is "standard" because it does work, and that's as simple as that too. All you have to do to make it in the science world is [i]come up with an idea that works. Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Cheers.

Not quite sure of that,you must say the Standard Model need to constantly adjusting the model to fit with the observation as i have mentionned before.By the introduction of exotic notion like Dark Matter proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell’s equations are!

Plasma is experimentable in labs and give the same result as what is observed in the cosmos.
What experiment can you do with Dark Matter?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Nov-08, 02:29 AM
I think this thread has gone on long enough. After 10 pages I can safely say that the proponents have not swayed each other and won't.

Locked.