Wallace Thornhill on the myth of gravitation and the myth of black holes: The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy.
"Astronomical fads have always involved miracle working to some degree, and their discussion in so-called workshops and in the streams of papers that pour into the journals have affinities to the incantations of Macbeth's witches on the blasted heath." -- Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows
The so-called "queen" of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe - gravity - is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery.
Newton gave us a mathematical description of what gravity does. Einstein invoked an unreal geometry to do the same thing. Newton had the sense to "frame no hypotheses" about how gravity worked. Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect - which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless. But this hasn't stopped scientists declaring a law of gravitation with a 'universal' physical constant—'G.'
For many years now, astronomers have been reporting that supermassive black holes - several million times the mass of the Sun - exist in nearly every galaxy.
The thoughtless followers of Einstein have fashioned God in their own image as a mathematician but "He" is much smarter and avoids high school howlers like the gravitational "black hole." Yes, a theoretical "black hole" exists - and it sucks the very heart out of astronomy and astrophysics. The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole: “Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies.”
Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn't matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities. What does it mean for the radius of a physical object to tend to zero?
In the face of discordant data, a scientist is required to check the original works and assumptions that lead to the theory under test. But there are very few such scientists in this modern age. As Sir Fred Hoyle put it, today the pressure is on to “do what aging gurus tell them to do, which is nothing” and simply build on the consensus those gurus have established. A fellow Australian, Stephen Crothers, has shown mathematical theorists to be remarkably unintelligent and sloppy in the application of their talent to physical problems. It seems that most of them don't really follow the mathematical arguments anyway (which is not surprising) but are happy to extol the results of others, based on reputation, regardless of the principles of physics or commonsense.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
60 comments:
Well, let me respond to what Thornhill had to say in the posted URL:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
It's a bit hard to interpret what is a quote in that article and what is not. There are various color changes and font changes. Some quotes are attributed and others are apparently not, so it was a bit confusing sometimes to know what Thornhill was asserting himself.
I'll try to stick with statements he was making himself:
"The so-called "queen" of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe - gravity - is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery."
Is gravity any more unexplained than electromagnetism? They are very similar in many ways. For example, they both fall off as the inverse square of the distance, etc. So if gravity is unexplained then so is EM.
"Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect - which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless."
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity uses Riemannian geometry which takes as its postulate that given a "line" and another "line" external to it, the two "lines" will intersect. So it's set up under a different set of axioms than is Euclidean geometry. GR takes as its "lines" the path of light beams which have been experimentally observed to curve when near large masses (i.e., the sun). So it's not meaningless - it's been experimentally verified.
"It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter." - actually attributed to Crothers
It does not take an infinite amount of time to verify the presence of an event horizon. All that is required is that if you drop an object that emits a ping every second that the recorded pings get longer and longer according to the gravitational redshift formula. As long as the lengthening of the pings adheres to the predicted formula the event horizon is verified.
"No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity." - Crothers
This ignores the other solutions to GR which don't involve singularities at all (e.g., gravastars) but which still have event horizons. Even if irrestible gravitational collapse were a reality it would take place within an event horizon and therefore would not be observable. Thus, this point is a complete red herring.
I'll have more to say about Thornhill's EU solution.
KNOWING HISTORY WILL SET YOU FREE
If one knows the history of "modern" astronomy it becomes all too clear how it got into this dead-end fixation with a menagerie of exoitics that have zero observational support.
Astronomy, today, is known as the "Queen of the sciences."
But such wasn't always the case.
In the 19th century there was an explosion of scientific progress.
Chemistry advanced quantum-fold in knowledge and understanding between 1800 and 1900 A.D.
Classical physics advanced quantum-fold in knowledge and understadning between 1800 and 1900 A.D. (Including the study of electromagnetism.)
Biology also advanced quantum-fold in knowledge and understanding between 1800 and 1900 A.D.
Even geology advanced, but was limited because it's hard to experiment in a laboratory on the Earth (too big to fit into a test tube:-)
Laboratory experiment was the bed-rock foundation for the above explosion in scientific knowledge.
Really, the 19th century provided the foundation for the eventual fruition of technology we enjoyed in the 20th century and, now, the 21st century because of the experimental methodology systematically employed.
Experimental, quantified rigorousness allows no dogma to catch hold.
What is conspicious by it's absence from the above list?
Astronomy.
Astronomy had always been conflated with astrology and always had a dubious relation to the rest of Science.
Why?
Because, like geology, astronomy couldn't put the stars of the firmament in a laboratory or a test tube.
As Fred Hoyle, renown 20th century astronomer stated:
"Astronomical fads have always involved miracle working to some degree, and their discussion in so-called workshops and in the streams of papers that pour into the journals have affinities to the incantations of Macbeth's witches on the blasted heath."
Obviously, astronomers didn't like this state of affairs. Not only didn't they like being an ulgly step-child of Science, they felt their's should be the grandest science of them all -- the "Queen of the Sciences."
(After all, their's was the study of the heavens, the firmament, the seat of the Almighty.)
But how to achieve this distinction when the only avenue to knowledge of the heavens was a rather imprecise and limited observation through telescopes?
A quick review of the 19th century explosion of scientific knowledge will provide an answer: Mathematical application to physical relationships made for precise quantified knowledge and therefore, an ability for industrial, technological, and commercial application.
The Industrial Revolution was born out of the Scientific Revolution.
But with laboratory experiments on physical objects and processes, mathematics was always the servant and never the master. The actual physical relations of the objects and processes investigated always had the last word.
Astronomers knew the power and legitimacy bestowed on the physical sciences by the application of mathematics.
And they desperately craved that same power and legitimacy for their branch of knowledge (and to shake the "bad rap" of being akin to astrology.
But how could they apply mathematics to their branch of knowledge and seemingly raise it up to a level of Science?
What did they believe had universal applicability (even if they couldn't squeeze it into a laboratory for experimentation)?
...Aha! Gravity...and gravity had a mathematical description to go along with it, thanks to Sir Isaac Newton.
But it was incomplete because Newton famously stated: "I frame no hypotheses."
That wouldn't do, and also, they had to have a basis for extrapolating gravitational mathematics to the whole Universe.
Einstein's hypothesis fit the bill to a "T".
Astronomers latched onto this like a "dying of thirst" man latches onto a glass of water.
"Modern" astronomy was born.
And while the rest of the physical sciences had raced ahead in the 19th century, "modern" astronomy had a lot of catching up to do, and they were bound and determined to do it.
So, they put their ears back and raced ahead with their ideas and theories all constrained by Newton and his astrological extender Einstein, never mind that others had suggested all the Fundamental Forces, primarily electromagnetism, need to be incorporated in astronomy. But their great Savior, Einstein, had for all practicable purposes ignored electromagnetism, so to include electromagnetism would be, in effect, to repudiate Einstein.
Collectively, the "modern" astronomy "community" said, "we can't have that."
"Einstein and his theories has given us legitimacy; we are not about to give that up."
Einstein's theories are about mathematical description of physical relationships of physical objects and processes we will never be able to "bring into the lab" for observation & measurement.
Mathematics and more important the people who employ the discipline are just as liable to dogmatism as anybody else, and with no laboratory experiments to have the physical objects "get the last word", as a check on the Human impulse toward dogmatism -- dogmatism is what has infected "modern" astronomy.
And that devotion to mathematical description (the supposed legitimizer of a once poor step-child of Science, and the key to the advancement of the physical branches of Science) opened the door to pure mathematicians and their fancy for made-up ideas.
Which was okay, as long as there was no competition from quarters that considered other Fundamental Forces (electromagnetism).
Down the path "modern" astronomy ran head-long, until observations & measurements caught up with them which falsified the gravity "only" model, but it was too late to head back -- they were already past the point of no-return.
That is when the menagerie of exotics which had been carefully kept in the closet, was brought out to save the gravity "only" model.
(Almost all the exotics, now, employed in "modern" astronomy, were thought up, in an earier period of "modern astronomy", but were rejected as too fanciful and runaway, naked mathematical extrapolations that had no basis in physical reality.)
And a crisis in cosmology is the result.
More responses to Thornhill:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
"A single charged particle in 10,000 neutral gas molecules is sufficient to have the gas behave as plasma, where electromagnetic forces dominate."
I'd like some experimental confirmation of that. I'm not sure what Thornhill is saying here exactly. Is he saying that the 0.01 percent plasma behaves exactly the same way was the 100 percent plasma? I find that hard to believe since in the 0.01 percent plasma the ions are continually bumping into neutral atoms. That has to change the behavior of the system some way.
"In May last year I described the plasma focus phenomenon generated at the Galactic Center by filamentary helical "Birkeland" currents flowing in along the spiral arms and out along the galactic spin axis."
I'm not sure what the geometry Thornhill proposes is. Right below this statement is a diagram showing an electron beam and an ion beam coming out of an object labeled a "plasmoid". The two beams are 180 degrees apart. I'd be eager to know what evidence Thornhill has for this Birkeland current flowing in along the spiral arms of galaxies. What about elliptical galaxies? They have no spiral arms and yet some of them have very active nuclei.
"The double helix is the characteristic form of a Birkeland current filament. Like the filaments in the Galactic Center Radio Arc in the first image, it is a glowing section of the electric circuit connecting the central plasmoid to the galaxy and beyond. The CND is typical of a dusty plasma ring current circulating around a magnetized celestial object. There is no gravitational or dynamical explanation for the twin helical filaments. It has no place in black hole theory. The metaphors and language used in the scientific report are wrong and misleading. The title of the report alone highlights the problem - “A magnetic torsional wave near the Galactic Centre traced by a 'double helix' nebula.”"
I take it that Thornhill's evidence for the double helix nebula being a Birkeland current is completely morphological in nature. This is the first I've heard of the double helix being associated with Birkeland currents. I wonder if he can provide any examples happening in our solar system. The report title he cites lacks attribution - I have no idea who wrote it and where to find it.
"The plasma focus is the most copious source of high-energy particles and radiation known to plasma experimenters."
What is this PLASMA FOCUS? I've read many posts by Anaconda and yet I've never heard the term before. Is this some new idea from Thornhill?
"In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter. The 'universal constant of gravitation,' G, is neither universal nor constant since it includes the mathematical dimension of mass, which is an electromagnetic variable. In the powerful magnetic field of a plasmoid, charged particles are constrained to accelerate continuously in the complex pattern of the plasmoid. Like electrons and protons in particle accelerators on Earth, the apparent masses of those particles become enormous as they approach the speed of light. So to report that the object at the center of the galaxy has the mass of 4 million Suns is meaningless in terms of the amount of matter trapped there electromagnetically."
Uh oh, this seems to be echoing OIM's "gravity is just a myth" thinking, which I understood from Louis Hissink is NOT the established EU paradigm. Thornhill seems to deny the gravitational constant and probably the Cavendish experiment too, just like OIM does.
Thornhill says the measuring the mass of the galactic center at 4 million solar masses is meaningless. Yes, there are many meaningless things in Thornhill's universe - mass, gravitational constant, etc., etc. One might suspect that any observation contradicting Thornhill's EU theory would be held to be meaningless by Thornhill.
@Anaconda "But their great Savior, Einstein, had for all practicable purposes ignored electromagnetism, so to include electromagnetism would be, in effect, to repudiate Einstein."
Interesting, Anaconda. I suppose you are so ignorant that you don't even know what the title of Albert's Einstein famous 1905 paper was in Annalen der Physik:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
@ Tom Marking:
Be that as it may, Einstein's General Relativity paper which added to his earlier paper ignored electromagnetism and that is a major reason "modern" astronomy ignores, for the most part, electromagnetism to this day.
Einstein honored electromagnetism more in the breach than the observance.
@Tom
The 1905 destroyed progress in electrodynamic theory by removing aether from Maxwell's and Lorentz's equations and adding the nonsense of non-Euclidean space-time.
Maxwell's equations only explain how the force of magnetism works as a function of distance when there are waves moving in a medium. They only stop making sense post-Einstein.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16912-overweight-galaxies-forcefed-by-dark-matter-tendrils.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
"Overweight galaxies fed by dark matter"
The theories don't work at all for astronomy; so they create plugs that have no empirical evidence. How ridiculous does it have to get before younger astronomers in the field see their chance for a revolution?
@Pleroma "The 1905 destroyed progress in electrodynamic theory by removing aether from Maxwell's and Lorentz's equations and adding the nonsense of non-Euclidean space-time."
First Anaconda informs us that Einstein's theory had nothing to do with electromagnetics. Now, you claim that special relativity destroyed electromagnetics. It would be nice if you folks could get together and come up with a consistent story.
For your information, it wasn't Einstein's theory that removed the aether from EM theory but the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1887. Michelson-Morley blew aether out of the water. Special relativity explained the results of Michelson-Morley. It saved electrodynamics. It didn't destroy it.
Tom Marking said: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity uses Riemannian geometry which takes as its postulate that given a "line" and another "line" external to it, the two "lines" will intersect. So it's set up under a different set of axioms than is Euclidean geometry. GR takes as its "lines" the path of light beams which have been experimentally observed to curve when near large masses (i.e., the sun). So it's not meaningless - it's been experimentally verified.
Tom: Space is a three-dimensional, infinite and unbounded continuum. Space cannot be affected by gravity because gravity acts ONLY on matter and energy, not on space occupied by or surrounding matter and energy. An axiom you might find useful is that space can neither be created nor destroyed, but only permeated. The observed gravity distortions surrounding celestial bodies are merely distortions of the trajectories of photons deviated by the pull exerted on them by the gravitational force of a celestial body. This is observational verification of gravity acting NOT on space, but on energy, i.e. photons.
@BF "Tom: Space is a three-dimensional, infinite and unbounded continuum."
Wonderful definition there, BF. I wonder what your evidence for space being infinite is, also for being unbounded. As I recall, infinity is an abhorrent term to you EU types. So I'm surprised to hear you invoke it in this context.
"Space cannot be affected by gravity because gravity acts ONLY on matter and energy, not on space occupied by or surrounding matter and energy."
As a practical matter, if you believe in special relativity, then the speed of light is the maximum speed of an object. If you have sufficient mass within a spherical volume the escape velocity of any object at its surface (or interior) will be higher than the speed of light. Thus, any object within the sphere can not escape from it. Now, whether you want to term this as space "warping in on itself" or whether you prefer to think in terms of Euclidean geometry, the practical effects are the same - the volume of space accessible by an object within the sphere is limited to the volume of the sphere and thus has been diminished greatly.
"An axiom you might find useful is that space can neither be created nor destroyed, but only permeated."
Again, great as an axiom but where is the scientific evidence that it actually applies to reality?
"The observed gravity distortions surrounding celestial bodies are merely distortions of the trajectories of photons deviated by the pull exerted on them by the gravitational force of a celestial body. This is observational verification of gravity acting NOT on space, but on energy, i.e. photons."
What mechanism do you propose to define what "straight lines" are in your space? If not light beams it must be something else. I think you will find that whatever alternative you come up with, it will be distorted more by gravitational fields, not less than light beams.
@Tom
I am not affiliated with Anaconda in any way so don't hold me to account if we are not consistent.
Lobachevsky's imaginary geometry that Riemann expanded upon was never meant to express the world. Riemann molded it to fit, but it never made sense how space could bend. It is simply not an explanation. There is no mechanism. It's a mathematical plug.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is completely consistent with Lorentz Relativity. Check it for yourself. Lorentz Relativity merely requires aether. If all matter is electromagnetic, the detection mechanism itself contracts in the direction of motion so you could not measure the change in the speed of light.
The "gravity distortions" around astronomical bodies exist, but I've never argued that gravity doesn't exist. I just think it is electromagnetic in origin. There are clear explanations for how a concentration of standing waves (matter) could distort light, which is not a standing wave, as it passes by. I've also read arguments for how the presence of matter itself, such as the dust atmosphere of the moon, could refract light, but I don't buy into them. There are, however, a number of other non-ridiculous explanations available.
I agree with Pleroma.
BF,
Hi BF nice to see you!
Tom Marking
Is gravity any more unexplained than electromagnetism? They are very similar in many ways. For example, they both fall off as the inverse square of the distance, etc. So if gravity is unexplained then so is EM.
Tom, you confuse electrostatics with electricity.
@Pleroma "I am not affiliated with Anaconda in any way so don't hold me to account if we are not consistent."
I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. :)
"Lobachevsky's imaginary geometry that Riemann expanded upon was never meant to express the world. Riemann molded it to fit, but it never made sense how space could bend. It is simply not an explanation. There is no mechanism. It's a mathematical plug."
Consider polar coordinates in a plane. The radial lines intersect in the center. The "lines" of constant radius are circular. Now, does the use of polar coordinates cause space to curve into a circle? No, you are misunderstanding the meaning of space curvature. Many, many different coordinates systems can be used to represent the same 3-space, not just the standard Cartesian system of rectangular boxes. I once used a "prolate spheroid" coordinate system consisting of intersecting ellipses and hyperbolas to solve Maxwell's equations, so just about anything is possible as long as the "lines" are orthogonal.
Einstein's GR uses a specific coordinate system based on the path of light beams. Since light beams have been observed to curve when they pass near a massive object, to that extent the "space is curved". If you choose a perfectly Euclidean geometry to represent the same space then of course your lines are not curved.
There are several practical reasons to accept GR's coordinate system. For example, photons can travel along "straight lines" in the system. The same cannot be said of the straight lines in a Euclidean system.
"The Michelson-Morley experiment is completely consistent with Lorentz Relativity. Check it for yourself. Lorentz Relativity merely requires aether."
So are you asserting the existence of the aether? If so the aether itself represents a privileged reference frame. The Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to detect the motion of the earth relative to this privileged reference frame. It failed to detect such motion.
"If all matter is electromagnetic, the detection mechanism itself contracts in the direction of motion so you could not measure the change in the speed of light."
Yes, that is the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. What do you mean by "all matter is electromagnetic"? Are the neutrons (comprising more than 50 percent of the weight of your body) electromagnetic?
"The "gravity distortions" around astronomical bodies exist, but I've never argued that gravity doesn't exist. I just think it is electromagnetic in origin."
Can you please elaborate on that. How is it that gravity having a single charge originates from EM that has two separate charges?
"There are clear explanations for how a concentration of standing waves (matter) could distort light, which is not a standing wave, as it passes by."
I'm all ears.
@Louis Hissink "Tom, you confuse electrostatics with electricity."
O.K. So if gravity is unexplained then so is electrostatics. Does that mean it's a myth?
THE DOG THAT DIDN'T BARK
I appreciate the detailed response that Tom Marking provides. It's one of the more detailed responses to the Wallace Thornhill's arguments I've seen.
Tom Marking is to be commended for that response.
But amid that detailed response was a glaring omission: Little or no refutation or discussion of the history of "modern astronomy".
Yes, Marking refuted my assertion that Einstein ignored electromagnetism, but offered no passage, or quote or line of argument to show how General Relativity and consequently "modern" astronomy take electromagnetism into account.
It would be nice if Marking could provide a line of reasoning that shows where and how Einstein's theories specifically take into account electromagnetism.
Thornhill lays out in abreviated form Stephen Crothers' historical account that "modern" astronomy has assumed a theoretical framework for so-called "black holes" when no such framework ever existed.
Rather, somebody made-up the idea for "black holes" and then wrongly attributed it as "Schwarzschild's solution" to provide the idea legitimacy.
Marking's response is the same as the experts: No questions, no refutation, instead only deafening silence.
It is damning that the idea for "black holes" is a bastardization of somebody's earlier work which itself didn't provide a mathematical foundation for "black holes" at all because without that framework of mathematical construct it becomes clear what the "black hole" concept was and is: A word picture with no theoretical foundation, where the mathematical equations have constantly been changed in an attempt to provide a scientific cover for a fanciful "word picture".
That the hunt for "black holes" went on and on, then latched onto the first "possible" candidate, and coincidently in the time following the "discovery" the hypothesis underwent a subtle makeover to fit the observations, is also damning.
The actual observations & measurements simply don't support the concept of a "black hole" and now it turns out there never was a theoretical framework to begin with.
Yes, the dog that didn't bark is a key to the solution.
@ Tom Marking:
Rather than provide a line of reasoning showing how General Relativity takes into account electromagnetism and applies it to the Cosmos, you provided an example of how General Relativity has been "proved".
Marking states: "Since light beams have been observed to curve when they pass near a massive object, to that extent the 'space is curved'."
But in no way does that prove "space is curved".
There are other alternative explanations that don't require "space curvature" that rely on verifiable effects of known phenomenon. First, it is known that magnetic fields will bend light. And it is now known that both the Sun and the Earth have magnetic fields. So it's not surprising that light would be bent by the Sun's powerful magnetic field as it passes by.
When the "light was bent by the Sun" observation was proclaimed scientific "proof" of Einstein's hypothesis, the extent of the Sun's magnetic field was either unknown or poorly understood.
Now, science knows that the Sun has a very powerful magnetic field.
Second, gravity may have an attractive ability on light, although, because photons are treated as having no mass, one is left to wonder how gravity can attract a phenomenon with no mass.
Still, putting that concern to the side for the moment, and allowing that gravity does attract light for the sake of discussion, one can easily state that no "space curvature" is necessary for gravity to attract light, all that is needed is for gravity to be an intrinsic constituent of matter.
As opposed to the idea that gravity is a result of geometry.
Which brings us back to Marking's underlying implicit assumption: Since General Relativity is correct all assumptions based on it are correct.
No, the assumptions can't be simply taken as correct.
And while morphology (the shape of things) is not fool proof, it is a major tool of astronomy. So when the physical evidence you wish to rely on is optical images (and now radio and x-ray images), and certainly that is a significant part of the study of astronomy, morphology has to be considered.
And at this point the morphological evidence supports an electromagnetic interpretation, rather, than a gravity "only" interpretation.
And the additional observation of synchrotron radiation (spiralling electrons in a magnetic field) and the ubiquitous presence of magnetic fields, produced by ordered electron movement, electric currents, it is clear that the evidenciary weight is on the side of electromagnetic theory.
Gravity, undoubtedly, plays a part in large scale structures, but is not the generator of electric currents nor is the primary mover in the Universe.
An electromagnetic process, Marklund convection, collects and concentrates matter into its neutral state.
To assume that a weaker Fundamental Force (gravity) causes a stronger and more dynamic Fundamental Force (electromagnetism) is turning general scientific principle on its head.
As Hannes Alfven stated: "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical sytstems."
Or another way to put it: Electrical systems are the dynamic organizers of the Universe, gravity systems are the static consolidators.
On another note, a plasma focus is a device for creating electromagnetic phenomenon in the laboratory, see picture, here. Read accompanying article, here.
But the, above, laboratory device's equivolent in space is the plasmoid, and the basic accelerator in a plasmoid is the double layer.
In anticipation of a possible objection, double layers are a scalable phenomenon.
The plasmoid as pictured, here, emits a narrow collimated "jet" of electrons in one direction and ions in the other direction such phenomenon has been observed & measured at the center of active galaxies. Galaxy M87 is a good example of this collimated "jet" or beam of electrons. The caption: "M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by synchrotron radiation, high-energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines, and was first detected in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge in M87 confirming a prediction by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson in 1950, and Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953."
@Anaconda "But amid that detailed response was a glaring omission: Little or no refutation or discussion of the history of "modern astronomy"."
You've misrepresented the history of modern astronomy so badly that I was temporarily left speechless. :)
You seem to think that modern astronomy if 100 percent general relativity which is a mistaken notion. IMHO the great leap forward in astronomy had to do with the study of stellar spectra beginning in the 19th century and culminating in the Harvard spectral classification scheme (O, B, F, G, K, M) in the early 20th century. None of that had to do with GR and lots to do with the interpretation of EM waves.
"Yes, Marking refuted my assertion that Einstein ignored electromagnetism, but offered no passage, or quote or line of argument to show how General Relativity and consequently "modern" astronomy take electromagnetism into account."
Note the clever insinuation that Einstein is only associated with GR and not with his previous theory SR which explicitly had to do with EM.
"It would be nice if Marking could provide a line of reasoning that shows where and how Einstein's theories specifically take into account electromagnetism."
Which theory? There are several. BTW, Einstein is not obligated to include EM in every theory of his.
"Thornhill lays out in abreviated form Stephen Crothers' historical account that "modern" astronomy has assumed a theoretical framework for so-called "black holes" when no such framework ever existed."
Regardless of what Karl Schwarzchild thought or did not think about his solution to GR, a solution has been developed involving a nonrotation black hole which bears his name. It is at most a case of mistaken attribution.
"Rather, somebody made-up the idea for "black holes" and then wrongly attributed it as "Schwarzschild's solution" to provide the idea legitimacy."
As far as we know it was John Wheeler of Princeton University who was the first person to coin the phrase "black hole" back in the 1960's. But he didn't use Schwarzchild's solution since it involved a nonrotating black hole. The solution he adopted involved a rotating black hole which is known as the Kerr solution.
"Marking's response is the same as the experts: No questions, no refutation, instead only deafening silence."
Yes, sort of like your deafening silence concerning my objections to the Peratt model.
"it becomes clear what the "black hole" concept was and is: A word picture with no theoretical foundation, where the mathematical equations have constantly been changed in an attempt to provide a scientific cover for a fanciful "word picture"."
No, I think you have GR confused with Thornhill's EU model which has no quantification at all.
"The actual observations & measurements simply don't support the concept of a "black hole" and now it turns out there never was a theoretical framework to begin with."
There was a theoretical framework, called GR. Why do you attack GR so much if there is no theoretical framework?
@Anaconda "But in no way does that prove "space is curved"."
That is my point. You are misunderstanding what the term means. If the "lines" that define your geometry are curved then that is what space curvature is.
"First, it is known that magnetic fields will bend light. And it is now known that both the Sun and the Earth have magnetic fields. So it's not surprising that light would be bent by the Sun's powerful magnetic field as it passes by."
Please provide some citation for that statement in terms of visible light. If true then wouldn't light be bent more sharply at the sun's poles where the solar magnetic field is stronger?
"Second, gravity may have an attractive ability on light, although, because photons are treated as having no mass, one is left to wonder how gravity can attract a phenomenon with no mass."
Don't you have the same problem with your magnetic field explanation? How could a magnetic field deflect a photon that has no charge?
"all that is needed is for gravity to be an intrinsic constituent of matter."
Except that the light beam curves when it is outside of the matter of the sun. It does not pass through the sun.
"Which brings us back to Marking's underlying implicit assumption: Since General Relativity is correct all assumptions based on it are correct."
No, I didn't say that. If there are observations that contradict it then the theory will either have to be revised or discarded.
"And at this point the morphological evidence supports an electromagnetic interpretation, rather, than a gravity "only" interpretation."
Except that the morphological criteria keep shifting. Never before have I heard that a "double helix" is a characteristic of a Birkeland current. But Thornhill finds one, shifts the goal posts, and now, lo and behold, a double helix must be a Birkeland current.
"On another note, a plasma focus is a device for creating electromagnetic phenomenon in the laboratory, see picture, here. Read accompanying article, here."
If that is the definition of a PLASMA FOCUS, a man-made machine, then how can Thornhill claim there is such a machine at the center of the galaxy? Unless he is going towards the Intelligent Design approach.
"In anticipation of a possible objection, double layers are a scalable phenomenon."
Anaconda, the Thornhill model has a proton beam shooting out one end and an electron beam shooting out the other end. Where is the double layer? Certainly not in the proton beam since it is only one charge, and not in the electron beam since it is only one charge.
"The plasmoid as pictured, here, emits a narrow collimated "jet" of electrons in one direction and ions in the other direction such phenomenon has been observed"
Since the one jet is composed of protons (or heavier ions) and the other jet is composed of electrons, shouldn't there be some difference in the behavior of the two jets? The protons are 2,000 times heavier than the electrons. Shouldn't the proton beam be able to penetrate the intergalactic medium much farther than the electron beam? Is that what we see in Centaurus A?
Apparently debates between Thornhill and his detractors have been going on for at least a decade, if not longer.
Here is a web site that contains a debate between Thornhill and someone named Tim Thompson:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html
> (I pointed out some years ago that the possible oscillatory nature
> of such circuits may offer a simple explanation for some variable
> stars and pulsars. The explosive effects are seen in novae and some
> features on the sun).
This is the beginning and the end of the electric star "hypothesis". Prose is easy, and anyone can string together words to create the most outlandish of hypotheses. But where is the substance. In the face
of an overwhelming body of observational and theoretical evidence that describes all of these phenomena in tremendous (and successful) detail, why should anyone pay attention to this? Thornhill presents a bizarre theory, and he must know that everyone is going to ask "how does that happen?" Yet on every occasion, when the opportunity
arises to actually provide some informative insight, Thornhill fails the test badly.
.
.
.
> Certainly, if the true radius of the sun is appreciably smaller
> than that defined by the photosphere, conditions at the centre of the sun
> will be less conducive to nuclear fusion. The lack of neutrinos tends to
> confirm this view.
Exactly false once again. The location of the "true radius" is arbitrary in either theory, and not relevant to the discussion. Photospheric boundary conditions *do* constrain the interior model, a fact that should be known to anyone who ever worked out a boundary value problem. That much is just red-herring nonsense from Thornhill to throw readers off the straight and narrow. And, finally, the "lack" of neutrinos means nothing of the kind. The presence of any neutrinos at all shows that fusion is happening, almost
certainly. However, the fact that there are fewer neutrinos than expected leads one to believe that either there is less fusion going on than was previously thought, or that our understanding of neutrino physics is deficient (the latter is now the most popular view). This leaves open questions, to be sure, but hardly counts as a fatal flaw.
> It is sufficient, surely, to tie together phenomenologically and
> quantitatively all of the complex phenomena we can actually see to have a
> strong argument for consideration of the electric discharge model.
No, it is not sufficient at all (nor has it been done at all). Once you get to the point of "tying together" all these phenomena, then you need to
test your "qualitative" theory against known physics by quantitative analysis. What I have seen so far, limited though it is, bodes ill for the quantitative test; especially in Thornhill's propensity to deny the reality
of that which is in front of him.
> As Sir Arthur Eddington wrote all those years ago: "Perhaps in the crude
> stages of a theory qualitative evidence is more significant than quantitative."
> The Internal Constitution of the Stars, 1926, p. 310.
But when your theory remains qualitative for 50 years, maybe it's time to get quantitative or get a new theory.
Tom,
As a practising exploration geologist who routinely uses geophysics, I find it quite amusing to see how much store is placed on remote observations of an object such as the Sun.
You might find it useful to explain the thermal profile of the sun, in which a temperature low occurs just above the photosphere, and for good measure, the temperature inside the sunspots are also lower than the photosphere.
And no one has engineered a continous fusion process either, so somethign which cannot be made to work on the earth's surface cannot be then invoked as an explanation for the Sun.
It's not science.
@Louis Hissink "You might find it useful to explain the thermal profile of the sun, in which a temperature low occurs just above the photosphere, and for good measure, the temperature inside the sunspots are also lower than the photosphere."
Are you talking about General Relativity which according to Anaconda is the "all encompassing theory" of modern astronomy? Sorry, GR has no explanation.
Are you talking about Newton's theory of gravitation? Sorry, no explanation.
But I'm sure EU has an explanation so let's hear it. This ought to be good.
"And no one has engineered a continous fusion process either, so somethign which cannot be made to work on the earth's surface cannot be then invoked as an explanation for the Sun. It's not science."
This seems to be a common malady among EU types which I shall refer to as Reverse NIMBY (Not In My BackYard). If it didn't happen in my backyard (i.e., an earthly laboratory) then it didn't happen anywhere in the universe. This is really nothing more than a variation of the pre-Copernican conceit that the earth is the center of creation. There is nothing special about earth. Scientific measurements can and do take place on spacecraft in outer space, on the surface of Mars, on the surface of Titan, etc., etc.
HISTORY OF THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY
Since Anaconda was kind enough to provide a brief history of modern astronomy and its supposed pitfalls, I thought I would return the favor by providing a history of the Electric Universe theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/pseudoscience.html
"Modern versions of the late Immanuel Velikovsky's theories, collectively known as neo-Velikovskianism, still enjoy popularity in certain segments despite being universally rejected by the scientific community. The two central pieces of neo-Velikovskianism are the "Saturn Theory" and the "Electric Universe" concept. Other aspects of neo-Velikovskianism, some of which do not appear to be unanimously supported in the neo-Velikovskian community, include Lamarckist versions of evolution and the "felt effect of gravity" concept, one of the various "theories" proposed by Ted Holden. Some neo-Velikovskians, including Holden, are also opposed to any form of biological evolution; some are even apparently young-Earth creationists.
Being a direct descendant of Velikovsky's theories, the Saturn Theory, proposed by Dave Talbott and others, posits there were major interplanetary catastrophies as well as planets looming in the sky as large as the moon does today, and that these events took place in relatively recent human history (somewhere between 10,000 and 3000 years ago). Specifically, the Earth, Mars, and Venus all orbited Saturn (which some neo-Velikovskians claim was once a brown dwarf) at one point, and, for some reason, aligned into a so-called "polar configuration" and subsequently scattered apart into their present orbits. During the process, there were supposedly several close encounters between these particular planets. This was apparently the cause of a great many catastrophies.
The Electric Universe (alternately, "Electric Cosmos") is the neo-Velikovskian cosmology. Ralph Juergens, a civil engineer from Arizona, laid down most of the groundwork for the Electric Universe in the 1970s, and was the first to propose many of the concepts now part and parcel of neo-Velikovskianism astrophysics. Juergens' ideas have been further developed by Wallace Thornhill, a computer systems engineer from Australia. The Electric Universe also incorporates several different fringe and pseudoscientific cosmological and astronomical theories, including a heavily modified version of Hannés Alfven's plasma cosmology as well as Halton Arp's theories of non-cosmological redshift and a non-expanding universe. It places even more emphasis on electromagnetism, especially the electro- part, than does plasma cosmology, even going so far as to saying that gravity is of little to no consequence in the workings of the universe and that all fundamental physical forces ultimately derive from the electrical force. The Electric Universe also incorporates Juergen's Electric Star hypothesis and, of course, neo-Velikovskian catastrophism.
Similar to plasma cosmology, the Electric Universe makes extensive use of analogies to electromagnetic phenomena observed in both lab experiments and in the terrestrial environment in order to explain various astrophysical phenomena. However, Electric Universe proponents are far more expansive with this methodology, applying it to places that plasma cosmologists like Alfvén, Eric Lerner, and Anthony Peratt have never done. For example, they have likened galaxies to homopolar motors, and have claimed that superficial resemblences between certain geological structures (e.g. rilles, canyon systems) and designs burned into the ground by lightning strikes are evidence that the former are created by an electrical process. Proponents of the Electric Universe are opposed to standard cosmology and physics, including the Big Bang and relativity theory. The catastrophes proposed by neo-Velikovskians are typically in the form of gigantic lightning bolts jumping between planets during their close encounters. They postulate that such "arc discharges" are responsible for the formation of many geological features in the Solar System, including most craters and rilles on the various terrestrial planets and satellites. Even the Grand Canyon and the mighty Valles Marineris canyon complex on Mars are claimed to have been created by such a superbolt. This process has been labelled "arc scarring."
In order to fully critique neo-Velikovskianism and the Electric Universe "theory" it is necessary to critique each of these concepts separately. While Velikovsky, plasma cosmology, Arp, and several main aspects of neo-Velikovskianism, including the Saturn Theory, have been substantially criticized by the scientific community and other critics (see Further Reading below for writings critical of neo-Velikovskianism), certain other components of the Electric Universe, particularly electric stars and electrical "arc scarring" catastrophism, seem to not have received as expansive a debunking as the others. This is likely because neo-Velikovskians have written comparatively little in the way of anything substantive (i.e. expansive & detailed descriptions of physical mechanisms, quantitative analyses, and so forth) about these concepts. Nonetheless, there are still a few critics of those aspects of neo-Velikovskianism as well. Also, it is also important to point out that plasma cosmologists and Halton Arp do not advocate—and seem to have never heard of—the Electric Universe concept and do not support the neo-Velikovskians' "theories," including the Electric Star hypothesis (both sides have always supported standard stellar theory). In fact, plasma cosmologists do not even advocate Arp's ideas about a non-expanding universe, and have advocated other explanations for redshift (some are cosmological, such as Alfvén's ambiplasma theory, while others are not, such as the Wolf Effect). Likewise, Arp does not advocate plasma cosmology—in fact, he never even mentions it in his books or website—and rather advocates a cosmology essentially identical to the Quasi-steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle, et al. It is difficult to pin down the neo-Velikovskians motivations for their addition of Arp's ideas or their creation of an entirely new model of stellar physics. While the advocacy of Arp's non-expanding universe theories seems to be part of their overall opposition to the Big Bang theory (but is something not necessarily required to make the Electric Universe "work"), the Electric Star "theory", as well as the Electric Universe cosmology itself, seems to have been contrived to offer an viable scenario for Velikovskian dynamics, which are impossible to explain with Newtonian mechanics.
The physical aspects of neo-Velikovskianism and the Electric Universe are perhaps their greatest weakness, and are one of the many things focused on by their critics. Like Velikovsky's own "theories" before them, they fly in the face of everything known about cosmology, astrophysics, and geology and are outright contradicted by observation and often violate basic physics. I will briefly outline problems associated with several concepts peculiar to the Electric Universe here. The Electric Star hypothesis ignores everything known about such things as atomic & nuclear physics, electromagnetism, neutrino physics, the solar wind, convection, and the behavior of neutral gasses (see below for a full critique of this concept).
Furthermore, neo-Velikovskianism has many of the same underlying currents of thought possessed by other pseudosciences. Not only do its proponents claim that much if not most of "mainstream" science is completely wrong despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but they also claim that the mainstream is deliberately supressing their views for personal reasons. Ted Holden in particular has claimed that scientists have "... doctored and falsified [evidence] at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas...". Others have claimed that Halton Arp (and other fringe scientists) is a "modern-day Galileo" subjected to a scientific inquisition of sorts. Such claims are wholly unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracy theories, and are considered one of the hallmarks of a crank. It is also important to point out that neo-Velikovskianism is remarkably similar to creationism in its methodology in that it starts with ancient myths, assumes them to be actual and accurate descriptions of nature, and then attempts to construct a theory on that basis. It also requires that scientific laws that conflict with ancient myths must be revised to fit those myths. As Velikovsky said in Worlds in Collision "[L]aws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws." Robert Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, has stated that "Because of his uncritical and selective acceptance of ancient myths, [Velikovsky] cannot be said to be doing history, either." For these reasons, Velikovskianism is considered to be not only pseudoscience, but pseudohistory as well. Finally, few neo-Velikovskians could be considered qualified to speak on matters on astrophysics, cosmology, geology, etc. Few of them have advanced degrees in science or have actually worked as scientists. Many are engineers by profession (e.g. Thornhill, Juergens, and Don Scott), some are comparative mythologists (e.g. Talbott, Dwardu Cordona, and Ev Cochrane), and others still belong to professions that have little to nothing to do with the physical or life sciences (Velikovsky himself was a psychoanalyst). While this is not by itself sufficient to argue against their claims, it does give one reason to be skeptical of them given their fringe nature as it can be safely assumed that they misunderstand and are ignorant of basic physics and/or simply don't know what they're talking about (which certainly seems to be the case here), plus the fact remains that the conclusions of non-experts are generally quite unreliable.
Neo-Velikovskianism, including the Electric Universe, because of its pseudohistorical usage of ancient myths as a guide to scientific truth, its use of electricity to explain all or nearly astrophysical phenomena (despite not needing to do so, since gravity, mechanics, and relativity are more than sufficient to explain most astrophycial processes), its use of spurious analogies to laboratory experiments, its often outlandish theories unsubstantiated by any physical evidence, and its outright violation of basic physical principles and rejection of practically all standard physics, it is regarded as complete and utter pseudoscience by the scientific community.
.
.
.
"
Tom Marking:
You asked me to provide authority for the idea that magnetic fields can bend light.
In a pure vacuum, apparently magnetic fields will not bend light for the reasons you have stated: A phonton being a neutral body. But there is a principle known as the Magneto-optical Kerr effect in the plasma-edge region. See, here.
Essentially, the combination of plasma and magnetic fields can bend light much like water in a bucket bends light.
As we now know the area immediately above the surface of the Sun is full of magnefied plasma. So according to the above known property light can, indeed, be bent, in the area at the edge of the Sun's visible disk.
The Mercury light being bent as it goes by the edge of the Sun fails as a "proof" for General Relativity.
There is an alternative explanation based on experimentally known and verified principles.
@ Tom Marking:
Marking states: "This seems to be a common malady among EU types which I shall refer to as Reverse NIMBY (Not In My BackYard). If it didn't happen in my backyard (i.e., an earthly laboratory) then it didn't happen anywhere in the universe."
No, it's called application of basic scientific principle: Favor the explanation that is closest to physical processes that have already been demonstrated, observed & measured and most important are explained and understood.
It just so happens that laboratory experiments are where Man can demonstrate physical processes and because of the ability to do controls with numerous variables can describe and ultimately explain the processes.
And develop mathematical relationships securely built on the physical relations, themselves, not on the suppositions of the mathematicians of what they imagine could happen.
(It's truly astounding to realize what Man can convince himself can happen in the physical world if he isn't firmly rooted in the empirical scientific method -- the history books are full of such foolish notions.)
It's simple Marking, Science explains UNKOWN physical phenomenon by recourse to the known physical phenomenon by comparing and contrasting those known physical relationships and going through a detailed analysis of what we already know and how it matches up with the UNKNOWN phenomenon we want to understand and explain.
You, and the brainwashed "modern" astronomers, who drank the Kool-Aid at post-graduate school, and their mindless, chanting acolytes, have forgotten that basic principle of the empirical scientific method.
(Thanks, Louis Hissink for flushing out this anti-science attitude from this sanctimonious, chanting acolyte, so all the readers can get a feel for the dogmatism that controls his mind -- Marking would rather trash the empirical scientific method than come to terms with the intellectual bankruptcy of "modern" astronomy.)
Instead, you disingenuously attempt to mock scientific method.
Shame on you, Marking.
This is the deal: When you have two rival explanations for unknown physical phenomenon, where one relies on theoretical, mathematical equations, but has never been verified by observations & measurement of actual analogous physical processes; and the other explanation relies on known physical processes that have been verified in a laboratory by experiment, you go with the explanation that is analogous to the physical processes that have been verified in the laboratory.
It's that simple -- and harsh -- if you like drinking Kool-Aid and imagining things, but "imagining things" isn't science -- that's make-believe in the childrens' sandbox at the beach.
But, hey, thanks for putting out that distorted version of the empirical scientific method because it demonstrated the contempt you and your ilk have for the empirical method.
It highlights the reality: "Modern" astronomy has a strong tendency to hold the scientific method in contempt because it limits what "modern" astronomy can say about the structure of the Universe.
But here's the thing: Marking, if you and your ilk would quit being stuck on stupid and wake up to the reality of electromagnetism in space and that it plays a central role in large structure formation and dynamics, then you could take advantage of all the Plasma physics knowledge and get "modern" astronomy on a solid footing of empirical science instead of the make-believe stuff you guys are pitching now.
It's up to you guys: You can stay stuck on stupid and put down empirical scientific method, or you can embrace the empirical method and be accepted as real scientists.
Because right now, after seeing your shit and the shit pitched on all the websites, you and your ilk are a bunch of deluded, dumb dogmatists that need to be exposed for the quackery you spew all over the place.
"Modern" astronomy is a bunch of quackery.
Real scientists politely keep quiet as you guys drunkenly swing from the rafters babbling about "dark" matter and "dark" energy and dark flow, whatever that is, and drool about singularities, that rely on the "infinity" concept that has no place in science because it's an invitation to rejigger equations whenever you and your ilk are surprised, which seems to happen all the time these days.
@Anaconda "But there is a principle known as the Magneto-optical Kerr effect in the plasma-edge region. See, here."
I've not heard of this effect before, but Wikipedia has an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optic_Kerr_effect
"It describes the changes of light reflected from magnetized media."
I'm not sure how accurate that description is but it seems to be referring to light reflected from a magnetic object, not passing close to one.
"Essentially, the combination of plasma and magnetic fields can bend light much like water in a bucket bends light."
If the light passes through some type of medium (gas or plasma) then normal index-of-refraction effects will apply.
"As we now know the area immediately above the surface of the Sun is full of magnefied plasma. So according to the above known property light can, indeed, be bent, in the area at the edge of the Sun's visible disk."
It wasn't just the GR prediction of light bending that was important, but the amount of bending. Einstein predicted a deflection of 1.75 seconds of arc. During the 1919 eclipse Eddington reported a deflection of 1.61 seconds of arc. So whatever EM explanation you come up with, must predict the correct magnitude of the deflection.
http://www.simonsingh.net/1919_Eclipse.html
"The Mercury light being bent as it goes by the edge of the Sun fails as a "proof" for General Relativity."
You are confusing two proofs. The light deflection involves light from a distant star, not Mercury. The prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion point is totally different test of GR, which also yielded the expected results.
"There is an alternative explanation based on experimentally known and verified principles."
GR has been verified experimentally by 3 different tests:
1.) Perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
2.) Deflection of starlight by the sun
3.) Gravitational redshift of light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
The 3rd of these tests was conducted on the earth's surface (The Pound-Rebka experiment). The first such experiment conducted in 1959 generated results within 10% of what GR predicted. Later tests reduced this to 1% difference from GR. And a similar space-based test reduced the experimental error to 1 part in 10,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
Name me one prediction of Peratt, Thornhill, etc. that has been verified to within 1 part in 10,000?
@Anaconda "...that rely on the "infinity" concept that has no place in science..."
Well, let me just remind you what your fellow EUers have been saying:
@BF "Space is a three-dimensional, INFINITE and unbounded continuum"
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/02/
wisdom-of-democritus.html
@OIM "Because a line can be extended INDEFINITELY. That is the meaning of "BOUNDLESS." In Einstein's utterly absurd universe there is no such thing as a straight line or a line that can be extended indefinitely."
EU seems to embrace the concept of infinity.
@ Tom Marking:
"Space is a three-dimensional, INFINITE and unbounded continuum"
Yes, I've seen that. It is regrettable. Better to simply acknowledge Science doesn't know where or if space ends. It's unknowable.
It is in the same realm as the "beginning". It's unknowable.
But let me say this: To the extent Science can't see over the hoizon in space, if you will, is better than saying an object has infinite density in one spot.
Saying, "something goes on forever" because we can't see the end, is more understandable, than suggesting something can forever increase in density, however much need be to insure the "reality" of a "black hole".
But again, the proper answer in my opinion is that Science doesn't know where space ends, it's unknowable.
@ Tom Marking:
Marking states: "Einstein predicted a deflection of 1.75 seconds of arc. During the 1919 eclipse Eddington reported a deflection of 1.61 seconds of arc. So whatever EM explanation you come up with, must predict the correct magnitude of the deflection."
1.75 versus 1.61???
It seems this could be simply one of those coincidences, after all you have a .14 difference.
In astronomy look like/is like has to be given weight because of the pausity of opportunity to do anything more than make long distance observation.
But with the gap between predicted and measured value one is hard pressed to say that space curvature is responsible or something else.
@Anaconda "1.75 versus 1.61??? It seems this could be simply one of those coincidences, after all you have a .14 difference."
That's an 8 percent difference on the first attempt. Show me any prediction of Peratt, Thornhill, et al that is even that close.
"But with the gap between predicted and measured value one is hard pressed to say that space curvature is responsible or something else."
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/PoundRebka.htm
In an experiment conducted at Harvard University in 1959 using a 22.6 meter tower the measured energy shift was 5.1E-15. The energy shift predicted by GR was 4.9E-15, a 4 percent difference. I suppose you will be telling us that this is just another amazing coincidence.
To cap things off, NASA conducted an experiment in 1976 to test Einstein's GR. There were 2 synchronized atomic clocks. One was launched on a rocket to an altitude of 10,000 km. The other clock remained on the surface.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast24may_1m.htm
"As the probe slowed, stopped briefly at the apex, and started falling back, scientists could measure slight differences between the flight clock and the ground clock. To a precision of 70 parts per million, Einstein was proven right, again."
The experiment agreed with GR to 70 parts per million. Another coincidence, Anaconda? I think you'd better start explaining why this theory (GR) which you continually castigate at every opportunity agrees with experimental results again and again and again.
@Anaconda "Saying, "something goes on forever" because we can't see the end, is more understandable, than suggesting something can forever increase..."
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/03/cubas-oil-reserves-increasing.html
@OIM "INFINITE natural hydrocarbon production continues unabated as anyone with basic knowledge of hydrocarbon chemistry is well aware"
@Anaconda "...that rely on the "infinity" concept that has no place in science..."
Just for the record. I am a supporter of the Mazur/Mottola GRAVASTAR solution to GR equations:
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml
Under such a theory no singularity is ever formed and hence no infinite density ever arises. The matter in the black hole forms a symmetric spherical shell of Bose-Einstein condensate having a temperature of absolute zero. The interior of the shell is a vacuum.
The gravastar model has the big advantage that our known laws of physics don't break down at the singularity since there is no such thing.
"so somethign which cannot be made to work on the earth's surface cannot be then invoked as an explanation for the Sun."
In other words, nothing is allowed to happen in nature that we cannot produce - today - in a laboratory? That is absurd. And it is especially absurd since you qualified your assertion in a significant way:
"And no one has engineered a continous fusion process either"
...which implies a recognition that we have indeed engineered non-continuous fusion reactions... evidenced by, amongst numerous other more subtle proofs, the thermonuclear bombs tests. So what is the basic difference between an H-bomb and the core of the sun? Basically, the temperatures and pressures in the core of the sun are great enough to confine and indefinitely sustain various fusion reactions... whereas the engineered imploding core of a bomb most certainly is not. How one can deny the plausibility, if not the extreme probability of confined fusion reactions within objects of solar mass, knowing what we know today... is quite beyond me. (And yes, I know about Oliver Manuel - bless his soul.)
And, digressing, Tom brought up Neo-Velikovskianism" To which I feel obligated to reply: Velikovsky made one gigantic, enormous error in assuming that the planets we observe today were the objects careening around the solar system back in the bronze age. Had he not made that whopper, he might have more respect today. They were not planets. They were comets.
In my opinion, mainstream historians failed to break the code in the mythologies while newcomers and outsiders to those disciplines made the breakthroughs. And the breakthroughs have been made by numerous parties working independently on different bodies of evidence.
In no particular order, here are some examples:
Cosmic Winter by Clube and Napier
Exodus to Arthur by Mike Baillie
The Celtic Gods by Baillie and McCafferty
Ragnarok by Ignatius Donnelly
Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisation edited by Benny Peiser
Anyone (historians or otherwise) who cannot hear the ring-of-truth clanging loudly in these books must be deaf.
Tom Marking said: "Wonderful definition there, BF. I wonder what your evidence for space being infinite is, also for being unbounded..."
Tom: The evidence is in yourself and the place that you occupy in the vastness of space. Your body has limits, but beyond that horizon space continues on towards the limits of our planet's atmosphere, and from that boundary, it continues infinitely. The Universe has limits imposed by matter and energy, but beyond those limits lies the true vacuum of space into which our Universe is expanding - ergo space is unbounded. Having said that, it should be pointed out that you are asking me to demonstrate a negative. Science verifies positives, not negatives. Asking for evidence that space has no bounds is like asking for evidence that dragons don't exist.
"As a practical matter, if you believe in special relativity, then the speed of light is the maximum speed of an object. If you have sufficient mass within a spherical volume the escape velocity of any object at its surface (or interior) will be higher than the speed of light. Thus, any object within the sphere can not escape from it. Now, whether you want to term this as space "warping in on itself" or whether you prefer to think in terms of Euclidean geometry, the practical effects are the same - the volume of space accessible by an object within the sphere is limited to the volume of the sphere and thus has been diminished greatly."
Space is not light, photons, particles, etc.; so space has no volume, density, form. Space is a site which is independent of whatever it could contain - it is NOT whatever it contains. Photons have nothing to do with space, so almost all of what you say is out of context.
"Again, great as an axiom but where is the scientific evidence that it actually applies to reality?"
I think I'd better ask what you think space is? From what you have said it seems likely that you imagine space is spherical and somehow created by photons and light beams. Again, though, space is a site where photons or light beams can expand, it is NOT photons or light beams.
"What mechanism do you propose to define what "straight lines" are in your space? If not light beams it must be something else. I think you will find that whatever alternative you come up with, it will be distorted more by gravitational fields, not less than light beams."
You do not appear to have understood the argument. Yes, gravity distorts "something", but it does not distort the space that is occupied by that "something". Space is NOT photons, light beams, etc. Some authors define space as the infinite and unbounded expansion in which the Universe occupies a place. The content on that place could be distorted, but not the space it occupies.
M. Capek. The Concepts of Space and Time: Their Structure and Their Development. Springer, 1975.
@BF "Tom: The evidence is in yourself and the place that you occupy in the vastness of space. Your body has limits, but beyond that horizon space continues on towards the limits of our planet's atmosphere, and from that boundary, it continues infinitely."
Well, Anaconda disagrees with your assessment. He claims infinity has no place in science and I tend to agree with him on that. I have no idea which position is the official EU take on the matter if one exists.
But a question for you, BF. How would you propose going about verifying that lines are infinite in your space or that the volume is infinite? Any experimental procedure you could invoke would amount to counting and as we all know, counting up to infinity is doomed to failure since it will take an infinite amount of time. To that extent I agree with Anaconda that infinity is a non-scientific concept since there is no scientific methodology to measure infinite quantities.
"The Universe has limits imposed by matter and energy"
Of course, this is a complete contradiction of your previous statement. In an infinite universe there are no limits imposed by matter and energy.
"Having said that, it should be pointed out that you are asking me to demonstrate a negative. Science verifies positives, not negatives."
No, I am not. There is no negation whatsoever contained in the statement "Space is infinite".
"Asking for evidence that space has no bounds is like asking for evidence that dragons don't exist."
Even if true, it just shows your lunacy in asserting a proposition which you know full well cannot be verified scientifically. So it just goes back to what Anaconda said, the proposition is not scientific, and you can only assert it as a matter of faith.
"I think I'd better ask what you think space is? From what you have said it seems likely that you imagine space is spherical and somehow created by photons and light beams. Again, though, space is a site where photons or light beams can expand, it is NOT photons or light beams."
Space is a union of points in which each point has coordinate values (e.g., x, y, z). The dimensionality (i.e., number of coordinate values) can vary from 1 up to anything, although it is common in physics to use a dimension of 3. Each space can be referenced by a grid of intersecting "lines" forming a coordinate system. The same space can be referenced by infinitely many grid systems. In some grid systems (i.e., Euclidean grids) the lines are straight. In other grid systems (i.e., Riemannian grids) the "lines" are curved.
GR uses the curved "lines" of the Riemannian grid which is the meaning behind the term "curved space-time". Your insistence that GR's term "curved space-time" refers to some "substance" of space itself is a misunderstanding of what the term means.
Now, GR does place restrictions on how actual objects move in the Riemannian grid. For example, an object (e.g., a photon) can follow a curved grid line in such a space, whereas it would not be able to follow a straight grid line if a Euclidean grid were used. This, of course is the main advantage in using a Riemannian grid over a Euclidean grid.
GRIDS ARE CONSTRUCTS OF THE HUMAN IMAGINATION
Whether it's a Riemannian grid or a Euclidean grid, it still is a figment of the human mind.
There are no grids in space or anywhere else in the physical world, besides a street grid.
And that is the problem, it appears, although, I suspect Marking would deny it, that he is giving physical substance to a construct of the human imagination.
In regards to the "proofs" offered by Marking for the General Relativity hypothesis, one needs to be aware of the affect that magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation have on various substances.
Intrinsic effects imposed by the physical environoment may be wrongly interpreted as owing to space-curvature and/or time dialation.
Why the coincidences?
Because the measurement of deflection is so small and actually is not precisely accurate to the predicted values, in any event, that any other effect is simply overlooked in the supposed joy of confirmation.
When you are looking for small measurements of deflection, small differences between observed measurements and predicted measurements are a BIG deal.
Because likely, other alternative physical explanations for deflection will also be small in measured amount.
The Harvard Tower experiment can be effected by electromagnetic radiation as well as the NASA experiment.
The Problem may simply reside in the physical properties encountered by the released energies (photons) or the apparatus, itself, (the clock).
Physical properties that are in no way related to Einstein's General Relativity may mimmic expected values and thus give the appearance the hypothesis is responsible for the deflection when it fact it is not.
One must always be aware of confirmational bias when interpreting results from experiments.
All alternative explanations must be ruled out before one can put weight on any given hypothesis or explanation.
MARKING OFFERS 'SLAM' PIECE AS HISTORY
Marking offers a 'slam' piece for Plasma Cosmology's history -- no doubt -- as a rebuttal to my history of "modern" astronomy.
The problem is Marking's piece focusses on neo-Velikovskianism.
There is a whole history of electromagnetism as a phenomenon of astrophysicts independent of Velikovsky, as Marking well knows, but apparently feels my historical analysis is as slanted as his piece.
In other words, turn about is fair play.
But the problem is that without recounting all "modern" astronomy's history, Einstein's theories play a central role in determining "modern" astronomy's reliance on the gravity "only" model, while Velikovsky is only a part of Plasma Cosmology's development.
You don't have to subscribe to Velikovsky at all to subscribe to Plasma Cosmology, as is the case with myself, and others, most notably Hannes Alfven, the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, and Dr. Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
On the other hand, you almost have to subscribe to Einstein's theories to make any sense of "modern" astronomy.
(The reason for Marking's spirited defense of General Relativity.)
After all, the only justification for all the exotics in "modern" astronomy's menagerie of objects, energies, matters, and beginning is General Relativity.
Think of it: General Relativity is the justification for all of "modern" astronomy's Quackery.
So, which history is a more faithful encapsulation of the seminal events and in particular, each rival "school's" genesis?
Also, as an additional note, the author of Marking's 'slam' had this to say: "...big bang cosmology may be
assigned a 0.9 probability of being true...we might assign superstring theory a 0.7 [probability of being true]."
This provides a flavor of the author's attitude regarding scientific theories:
The so-called "big bang" has a 90% probability of being true.
This doesn't pass the "laugh out loud" test, or even possibly the "spit up your coffee" test.
Superstring hypothesis is assigned a 70% probability of being true. (I say hypothesis charitably because not ONE single observation has been made that confirms superstring "whatever".)
Again, the assessment of superstring "whatever" is laughable. Yeah, tell me about the seven dimensions of reality -- barf.
And this is the guy Marking brings in to 'slam' Plasma Cosmology?
Please...
For a brief real history of Plasma Cosmology, see, here.
"MODERN" ASTRONOMY SURPRISED, AGAIN.
How many times do we have to read "modern" astronomy is surprised before we question whether they know what they're talking about?
"It is within these so-called extended galaxy arms that, to the surprise of astronomers, new stars are forming." -- NASA press release -- Stellar Birth in the Galactic Wilderness.
Observation confounds "modern" astronomy, again.
"What else is new?"
@Anaconda "There are no grids in space or anywhere else in the physical world, besides a street grid."
I never said there were. Who is claiming the grids are physically real objects? Certainly not GR.
"And that is the problem, it appears, although, I suspect Marking would deny it, that he is giving physical substance to a construct of the human imagination."
No, it is your accusation that mainstream physics gives substance to such constructs. You have yet to prove your accusation. Please provide some quotes of Einstein or anyone else who said that the grid lines were real.
"Why the coincidences? Because the measurement of deflection is so small and actually is not precisely accurate to the predicted values"
The chances of all the GR experiments agreeing with the predictions of GR by happenstance are vanishingly small. In any event you have not provided any evidence that EU can make predictions with similar precision. Why would anyone embrace EU without such evidence?
In any event, your prior assertion that GR is a mathematical construct devoid of experimental verification is now debunked. Mainstream science believes in GR because of the experimental evidence backing it since 1919, not for any other reason.
@Anaconda "Marking offers a 'slam' piece for Plasma Cosmology's history"
I offered no such history of Plasma Cosmology. I offered a history of the Electric Universe theory. The two are different. If you don't know that by now all I can say is that you should, especially since you claim to not be a Velikovskian. If you hitch your wagon to EU then you are also hitching your wagon to Velikovsky. Get over it.
"The problem is Marking's piece focusses on neo-Velikovskianism. There is a whole history of electromagnetism as a phenomenon of astrophysicts independent of Velikovsky, as Marking well knows, but apparently feels my historical analysis is as slanted as his piece."
Unfortunately for you, we have access to the original source documents. What does Ralph Juergens, the founder of EU, have to say about Velikovsky?
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth07.txt
"...RECONCILING CELESTIAL MECHANICS AND VELIKOVSKIANISM (1)
Physical scientists were outraged in 1950 when Immanuel Velikovsky
(1) published historical evidence from around the world suggesting that the order and even the number of planets in the solar system had changed within the memory of man. Ideas in nearly every field of scholarship were challenged, but most seriously challenged of all were certain dogmas in the
field of astronomy which had only in recent centuries succeeded in
convincing mankind that Spaceship Earth was a haven of safety...The list of unthinkably disastrous effects that would result could
go on and on. The point to be made, however, is that Worlds in
Collision--at least in my opinion--documents historical evidence to indicate that phenomena associated with spacecharge-sheath destruction were actually
suffered and survived by peoples of antiquity."
So the founder of EU was a devoted Velikovskian.
"You don't have to subscribe to Velikovsky at all to subscribe to Plasma Cosmology"
No, you don't. But since I'm not talking about Plasma Cosmology the point is irrelevant.
What does Juergens' acolyte, Wallace Thornhill, have to say about Velikovsky?
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth01.txt
"PLANETS, STARS, AND PLASMA PHYSICS
By Wallace Thornhill
Hello everyone from DownUnder!
Dave has asked me to give a summary of my interest and position in the debate about the Saturnian configuration. I was one of the early science
undergraduates, in the late 50's, who had read Velikovsky's works before entering University. In my naiveté, I thought that no questions were taboo in the halls of academe. To my surprise and profound disillusionment with "experts", I soon discovered that this was not so. I then began to do what Dave has done and looked for further evidence, working on my own. So far as I know, I was the only science undergraduate who haunted the
anthropology section of the library bookshelves. It was enough to convince me that there was a major case to be explored for a "recent" re-arrangement of the solar system."
So Thornhill has always believed since college days in a "recent rearrangement of the solar system", or in other words, Velikovskianism.
Anaconda, all of these EU guys are committed Velikovskians, through and through. Even OIM admits to being a Velikovskian. So why the objection to using the label neo-Velikovskian to describe the EU crowd?
If the shoe fits...
@ Tom Marking:
Actually, I provided possible alternative explanations for all the supposed "poofs" of Einstein's thought experiments.
Let's see:
The "Mercury bent light around the Sun" test, alternative explanation: Magneto-optical Kerr effect in the plasma-edge region.
The Harvard tower test, alternative explanation: Electromagnetic radiation (I should add, atoms and molecular interference in the atmosphere).
The clock test, alternative explanation: electromagnetic radiation and magnetic fields.
So, each supposed test, turns out to have possible alternative explanations.
Marking states: "In any event, your prior assertion that GR is a mathematical construct devoid of experimental verification is now debunked."
I never said there weren't appearances that swayed men's minds. I said it was an a priori mathematical construct that justified belief in a whole series of quackeries.
The most difficult to detect falsehood or inaccuracy is the one closet to the reality. (Or in this case, where a supposed appearance of validity is jumped on in the face of unexplored alternative explanations).
What do I mean by the above statement?
I mean an inaccuracy which on the surface appears closest to reality is the most difficult to detect, and, therefore, the most dangerous and insidious obstacle to science coming to a correct understanding of the physical dynamics involved.
For it will capture the mind of Man and block Man from coming to a better understanding.
Which has in fact happened: Enstein's theories gave birth, either directly or indirectly to the "big bang", "black holes", "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "neutron" stars, and, now, "dark" flow.
Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space(Space.com)September 23, 2008 --
"As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered.
Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."
[Even the article is putting "dark flow" in quotes!]
The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude."
Marking, read the article.
So, because "modern" astronomy is so stuck on stupid, they have invented another unobservable force because the gravity "only" model doesn't work and as the Space.com article informs readers, apparently, the Universe is too big for the so-called "big bang" to work, so now "modern" astronomy has come up with "dark" flow.
Again, as the article states, superclusters aren't behaving the way the gravity "only" model expected.
The sad part is that if "modern" astronomy would allow electromagnetism into the picture they wouldn't have to come up with all these "dark" crutches to help the patient walk.
Actually, I call them magic beans, but an equally apt metaphor would be pixie dust.
When your theory doesn't work, just sprinkle a little "pixie dust", just like in Never, Never Land.
Hey, I hear one of "modern" astronomy's biggest fans is Peter Pan!
You guys live in a fantasy world.
Electromagnetism explains the movements and developments of supercluster as being part of extragalactic Birkeland currents.
I've presented this line of reasoning and supporting documentation to you in a prior thread, however, you declined to ever answer my assertions.
How many more of these "dark" whatevers will "modern" astronomy come up with before they realize, either, their theory has no predictive value, or that a theory with so many "darks" is complete junk?
BF et al.-
http://www.friesian.com/space.htm
Here's a very brief summary of some important accounts of space. I point primarily to Kant's antinomies, which I suggest you read in their original context.
@ Tom Marking:
Oh, please...
Your explanation and distinction for your "history" rings hollow.
Your "history" conflates Plasma Universe theory and Electric Universe theory with very little distinction and intentionally smears "all things electromagnetic" in the process.
As you have continually done, as well. Yes, you are quite proud of your supposed "debunking" of Dr. Anthony Peratt's particle-in-cell computer simulation of galaxy formation.
It's quite clear there was never any distinction in your mind between the various theories that, indeed, do overlap, and your attempts to debunk or smear, take your pick, never have made any distinctions.
Marking states: "No, you don't [have to believe in Velikovskianism to believe in Plasma Cosmology]. But since I'm not talking about Plasma Cosmology the point is irrelevant."
Oh, please...your explanation amid crocodile tears is just a tad disingenuous.
As far as my subscription to the various ideas expressed in Plasma Cosmology, electromagnetic theory, or even Electric Universe theory for that matter, I've been forthright in stating which I ideas I subscribe to and which ones I don't.
(And I even reserve the right to adjust and change my views as the body of scientific evidence is developed and analyzed from all quarters because I keep an open-mind.)
Marking states: "So why the objection to using the label neo-Velikovskian to describe the EU crowd?"
Simply enough, because not all Electric Universe concepts and mechanisms depend on Velikovskianism.
And labelling all astrophysical electromagnetic theories as neo-Velikovskianism is an obvious attempt to smear across-the-board Plasma Cosmology in general, your protests not withstanding.
Typical of a true "debunker", pseudo-sceptic, you attempt to smear my positions by attempting to lump all my positions into a general rant against Velikovskianism, which seems to be a last ditch effort to discredit Plasma Cosmology.
Which by the way echoes the "history" you so kindly provided.
Your tactics and strategies are obvious.
But as I pointed out in my prior comment, you should be concerned about what is going on in your own backyard because your house is on fire, as "modern" astronomy has sprinkled more "pixie dust", aka "dark" flow, on another failure of the gravity "only" model.
Maybe, if you're lucky Plasma Cosmology will give you a water hose to put out the "fire", but if I know "modern" astronomy's mentality, they're more likely to just simply spinkle more "pixie dust" on the situation and hope nobody notices.
The crisis in "modern" astronomy deepens!
@Anaconda "The "Mercury bent light around the Sun" test, alternative explanation: Magneto-optical Kerr effect in the plasma-edge region."
The Mercury bent light around the Sun test? ROFLMAO.
Magneto-optical Kerr effect? You mean the one having to do with reflection of light off a magnetic object?
"Simply enough, because not all Electric Universe concepts and mechanisms depend on Velikovskianism."
As I suspected, no substantive argument coming from Anaconda denying that the leading lights of EU (Thornhill, et al) are neo-Velikovskians. But I can see a steady pattern in Anaconda's thought processes which is this: He wishes it not to be so, and so with a swipe of Snake Man's magic wand, pfft, it ain't so.
Good luck with your magic wand, Snake Man. May it carry you far.
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03GR/03BlackHole/00SumBH.html
Just given this link - enjoy
Whoops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg&feature=player_embedded
Try this one.
Velikovsky's principal point was to wonder whether another force was operating in the cosmos, in addition to gravity.
He though EM had to be considered and proposed various tests to check this out.
As Harry Hess noted, he proposed these before we had the means to test them, and over time, every one of Velikovsky's test have been verified in his favour.
Some scientists go beserk at the mere mention of Velikvsky and then I would wonder whether they were scientists in the first place.
Anaconda
Bending of light - as far as I know, nothing can bend it in the sense that you have a beam and then apply a magnetic field to it -nothing happens.
Refraction is quite different.
I am not going to spend time on Einstein's ideas because most of them (except for the photoelectric effect for which he deserved every accolade) were not based in physical reality. They were essentially mathematical abstractions.
In any case I have had a paper published in E&E on The Earth in an Electric Solar System, and send you the PDF (And OIM) via You sendit.
(Which reminds me, my ISP tends to filter my mail before it gets into Outlook, so missing mail might be in the online junkmail folder).
@ Tom Marking:
Speaking of "magic wands", how's that "pixie dust" working out?
@ Tom Marking:
Oh, by the way, weren't gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity?
But after numerous attempts at detection with apparatus of increasing sensitivity, NONE have been detected.
That's called a failure of a basic prediction of General Relativity.
The rebuttal: Science will eventually detect gravitational waves.
And how much time and increased sensitivity of detection apparatus does Science allow before scientists conclude there are no gravitational waves and a basic prediction of General Relativity is falsified.
And what would that mean for the overall theory?
More "pixie dust"?
Tom Marking said:
(BF: The evidence is in yourself and the place that you occupy in the vastness of space. Your body has limits, but beyond that horizon space continues on towards the limits of our planet's atmosphere, and from that boundary, it continues infinitely.)
"Well, Anaconda disagrees with your assessment. He claims infinity has no place in science and I tend to agree with him on that. I have no idea which position is the official EU take on the matter if one exists."
Good for you and Anaconda, disagreement isn't a sin, is it? There are scientists on both sides on this issue, those who say that space is not infinite and those who know that space is infinite.
Space is not a sphere, or a vessel, or a box, it is not limited in any way and it is infinite. We are not able to state, “Space ends at the end of our sightline”. Nor are we able to state, “Space ends where something else begins”. As space is not contained by walls of anything, space is infinite. That it is not possible to demonstrate that space is infinite experimentally does not mean the concept is wrong. Indeed, there are some scientists who believe in dark energy and dark matter without a single scientific demonstration of their existence. Dark undetectable matter with no mass, charge, etc. FILLING the Universe? Dark undetectable energy not carried by particles FILLING the Universe?
"But a question for you, BF. How would you propose going about verifying that lines are infinite in your space or that the volume is infinite? Any experimental procedure you could invoke would amount to counting and as we all know, counting up to infinity is doomed to failure since it will take an infinite amount of time. To that extent I agree with Anaconda that infinity is a non-scientific concept since there is no scientific methodology to measure infinite quantities."
Again… Lines of what? Imaginary lines? A volume of what? We can confine a 3-space inside imaginary or real limits, for example within the confines of a vessel; however, volume IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE of space, but the space itself WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY MATTER IN ANY OF ITS PHASES. Matter has volume in proportion to the FRACTION of SPACE it occupies.
(The Universe has limits imposed by matter and energy)
"Of course, this is a complete contradiction of your previous statement. In an infinite universe there are no limits imposed by matter and energy."
No contradiction. You are confounding space with Universe. The Universe is matter and energy inside space, do you not agree? The point in space where the outermost photon has traveled during the existence of the Universe marks the limits of the Universe. However, the Universe resides INSIDE the vastness of true vacuum space – the driver of Universal expansion. Photons and matter are not creating space. Space cannot be created; it just exists.
(Asking for evidence that space has no bounds is like asking for evidence that dragons don't exist.)
"Even if true, it just shows your lunacy in asserting a proposition which you know full well cannot be verified scientifically. So it just goes back to what Anaconda said, the proposition is not scientific, and you can only assert it as a matter of faith."
Passing over your offensive remark - In that case, I would ask you to demonstrate scientifically how photons occupy space.
(I think I'd better ask what you think space is. From what you have said it seems likely that you imagine space is spherical and somehow created by photons and light beams. Again, though, space is a site where photons or light beams can expand, it is NOT photons or light beams.)
"Space is a union of points in which each point has coordinate values (e.g., x, y, z). The dimensionality (i.e., number of coordinate values) can vary from 1 up to anything, although it is common in physics to use a dimension of 3. Each space can be referenced by a grid of intersecting "lines" forming a coordinate system. The same space can be referenced by infinitely many grid systems. In some grid systems (i.e., Euclidean grids) the lines are straight. In other grid systems (i.e., Riemannian grids) the "lines" are curved."
Your definition of space is mathematical, not physical. You are defining “a space”, not “space”. “A SPACE” is a set whose elements and subsets have certain mathematical properties. SPACE is the expanse wherein you and I, and the whole known Universe exist. Let me ask you, do you believe that space ends at a wall made of crystal, iron or some other material?
"GR uses the curved "lines" of the Riemannian grid which is the meaning behind the term "curved space-time". Your insistence that GR's term "curved space-time" refers to some "substance" of space itself is a misunderstanding of what the term means. Now, GR does place restrictions on how actual objects move in the Riemannian grid. For example, an object (e.g., a photon) can follow a curved grid line in such a space, whereas it would not be able to follow a straight grid line if a Euclidean grid were used. This, of course is the main advantage in using a Riemannian grid over a Euclidean grid."
Then, from your standpoint, space doesn’t exist physically, but mathematically. You offer a good example of mathematical idealism in action.
And why "modern" astronomy is in crisis.
@BF "As space is not contained by walls of anything, space is infinite."
Where is your evidence that space is not contained by walls?
"Indeed, there are some scientists who believe in dark energy and dark matter without a single scientific demonstration of their existence. Dark undetectable matter with no mass, charge, etc. FILLING the Universe? Dark undetectable energy not carried by particles FILLING the Universe?"
I don't subscribe to dark matter nor dark energy at the moment myself, but I'm pretty sure the proponents of such things would claim they have a scientific demonstration of their existence.
"volume IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE of space, but the space itself WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY MATTER IN ANY OF ITS PHASES."
Not successfully parsing that sentence. Volume is not an attribute of space, but it is an attribute of space itself? Huh?
"The point in space where the outermost photon has traveled during the existence of the Universe marks the limits of the Universe."
That is assuming a finite amount of matter and energy. How do you know that matter and energy aren't spread out infinitely throughout your infinite universe?
"the driver of Universal expansion. Photons and matter are not creating space. Space cannot be created; it just exists."
Then what does "universal expansion" mean to you? How does the outer vacuum drive it?
"Your definition of space is mathematical, not physical."
What is your definition of space? Does it involve a coordinate system of any kind? If not, it will be rather impossible to do any physics using your definition.
"Let me ask you, do you believe that space ends at a wall made of crystal, iron or some other material?"
No I don't, but you seem to be confusing boundedness with infinite space. Using that reasoning one would conclude that because there are no boundaries stopping you from going anyplace on the surface of the earth, that the surface area of earth is infinite. 'Tain't necessarily so.
"Then, from your standpoint, space doesn’t exist physically, but mathematically."
An invalid conlusion like most of your other conclusions.
@ Tom Marking:
The above comment is welcomed and appreciated.
BF makes a philosophical (metaphysical) argument for the "infinity" of space.
In other words, a logical construct, but the empirical scientific method is ruled by observation & measurement.
Empiricism is a ruthless and demanding task master.
It brooks no exceptions, as much as Man may want to infer the map in his mind is faithful to the territory he can't make that assumption.
This is my basic criticism of "modern" astronomy.
And my research and discussion has only solidified my conviction that "modern" astronomy has fallen from the path of strict empiricism.
"Modern" astronomy relies on an assumption that Man has a perfect a priori understanding of the dynamics of the Universe and extrapolates with mathematical equations (relationships) from that assumed start point of "perfect" understanding.
It is critical to note that if the a priori "understanding" is not perfect, but is even off by the slightest margin, extrapolating from that starting point will continuously deviate from reality as more equations are constructed on top of each other.
Again, the starting proposition has to be exactly perfect, or the following derivations will fall further and further from matching reality.
The plethora of "surprised" and "unexpected" quotes one reads in the press releases and reports testifies to this lack of a priori "perfect" understanding of the physical dynamics of the Fundamental Forces of the Universe.
It's astounding that in the face of this steady stream of "surprised" and "unexpected" quotes, "modern" astronomy is so adamant about denying electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, has a fundamental role in the dynamics of deep-space structures.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
Marking states: "I don't subscribe to dark matter nor dark energy at the moment myself, but I'm pretty sure the proponents of such things would claim they have a scientific demonstration of their existence."
I appreciate your forthright and open assessment.
And here is the problem: Without observational confirmation of "dark" matter and "dark" energy it becomes untenable to claim "modern" astronomy has an a priori exactly "perfect" understanding of the Fundamental Forces and their respective roles & relationships in the dynamics of the Universe.
Marking states: "What is your definition of space? Does it involve a coordinate system of any kind? If not, it will be rather impossible to do any physics using your definition."
In my opinion there is a distinction between the definition of location in space, and the definition of space, itself.
A coordinate system is a mental construct of Man, it is a map, if you will, it is not the territory.
Tom, if I may say so, BF's critique is suggesting your explanation of space is more akin to a mathematical definition of a location in space, than a definition of space, itself.
And if I may add, that unconscious "drift" toward a mathematical description of a location, rather than an explanation of the thing, itself, is a fundamental problem with mathematical astronomy.
That's what "modern" astronomy has become today, mathematical, unhinged from observation & measurement.
Because isn't General Relativity a geometical description of location, rather than an explanation of the thing, itself?
Finally, I end by stating emphatically there is a distinction between a description of what something does and an explanation of why it acts.
The "why's" are always harder to understand.
Mathematics is a powerful descriptive and indispensible tool if used properly, but it does not explain causation.
Empiricism is the attempt not only to describe, but also to explain causation.
At this point, it appears "modern" astronomy has failed in the "explanation" department, and is having a hard time with the "description" department, as well.
It seems appriate after my proceeding comment to offer my definition of space, itself.
Space is "absense".
The lack of material substance.
There is measurable distance between two locations of material substance in space, but distance and location is not the definition of space, itself.
While distance and location can be quantified, space, itself, is unquantifiable.
And location and distance can only be quantified in regards to a frame of reference, in other words, some other observational vantage point.
Which suggests as I stated previously, that the limits to space is "unknowable".
Empiricism refrains from speculations on the "unknowable".
If something is unquantifiable, thus "unknowable", isn't it a contradiction in terms and nonsensical to attempt to ascribe physical properties to that which is unknowable?
And if such is the case, isn't it apparent that Einstein violated the above concept when he ascribed physical properties to space in his thought experiments?
Can 'thought experiments' violate basic conventions of reason and still have validity in the physical and empirical world?
Nothing in the universe is unknowable.
What happened before the "big bang"?
No response from Marking...
Crickets chirping happily away...
Post a Comment