An Alternative to Dark Energy

[iLearn]

Originally Posted by wound

As far as einsteinian relativists are concerened, doppler effects (caused by the expansion of space - .ie receding velocity) are the sole cause of redshifts.

Redshift caused by expansion and redshift caused by the Doppler effect are two different things. Celestial bodies move (ie. their coordinates change in an imaginary common reference frame) with respect to each other, which means that there is some redshift due to Doppler effects, but even if the celestial bodies were stationary (ie. their coordinates would stay the same) there would still be redshift due to expansion. I suggest you read the wiki-link I posted earlier or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift.

[wound]

Originally Posted by iLearn

Redshift caused by expansion and redshift caused by the Doppler effect are two different things. Celestial bodies move (ie. their coordinates change in an imaginary common reference frame) with respect to each other, which means that there is some redshift due to Doppler effects, but even if the celestial bodies were stationary (ie. their coordinates would stay the same) there would still be redshift due to expansion. I suggest you read the wiki-link I posted earlier or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift.

To quote that wiki article you so kindly referenced for me:

In spite of the distinction between redshifts caused by the velocity of objects and the redshifts associated with the expanding universe, astronomers sometimes refer to "recession velocity" in the context of the redshifting of distant galaxies from the expansion of the Universe, even though it is only an apparent recession. As a consequence, popular literature often uses the expression "Doppler redshift" instead of "cosmological redshift" to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of spacetime


I know there is a difference but its still based on the rate an object "apparently" moves away or toward you that causes it.

If it is found that this effect is not the only cause of cosmological redshift - it would seriously throw a monkey wrench into current theoretical physics.

[iLearn]

Originally Posted by wound

To quote that wiki article you so kindly referenced for me:

In spite of the distinction between redshifts caused by the velocity of objects and the redshifts associated with the expanding universe, astronomers sometimes refer to "recession velocity" in the context of the redshifting of distant galaxies from the expansion of the Universe, even though it is only an apparent recession. As a consequence, popular literature often uses the expression "Doppler redshift" instead of "cosmological redshift" to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of spacetime

So the sloppy language used by researchers has lead to a very misleading description of the phenomenon in popular literature - this is the very reason one should make a clear distinction between the two things.

If it is found that this effect is not the only cause of cosmological redshift - it would seriously throw a monkey wrench into current theoretical physics.

Well, so far we have three reasons for redshift: Doppler effect, expansion and gravitational redshift. If these are not enough to explain all the experimental data then the relevant models will be _improved_ upon. We won't just throw all previous theories out of the window (like you claimed in a previous post) just like we didn't throw Newton's theories out of the window when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. Every new theory must replicate the successes of previous theories so they can't really just wipe the slate clean.

Whether or not there truly is a problem with the observed redshifts is something I'll leave for the experts to discuss.

[wound]

Originally Posted by iLearn

So the sloppy language used by researchers has lead to a very misleading description of the phenomenon in popular literature - this is the very reason one should make a clear distinction between the two things.
[/size]


Well, so far we have three reasons for redshift: Doppler effect, expansion and gravitational redshift. If these are not enough to explain all the experimental data then the relevant models will be _improved_ upon. We won't just throw all previous theories out of the window (like you claimed in a previous post) just like we didn't throw Newton's theories out of the window when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. Every new theory must replicate the successes of previous theories so they can't really just wipe the slate clean.

Whether or not there truly is a problem with the observed redshifts is something I'll leave for the experts to discuss.

For some reason I don't doubt they will do exactly that.

Scramble to somehow save their theories with another variable input of some sort or another.

Dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, frame dragging, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, multiple dimensions, distorted physics, etc... are not enough.

It seems to me that scientists have introduced so many theoretical variables to the physics that they can make the equations say whatever they like. Does that seem like a solid coherent theory to you?

If redshift = distance is proven wrong, you're probably right in that rather than saying the big bang never happened and we live in a steady state universe, they will say the physics of the universe changed at some point and there really was a big bang, we just can't see the effects of it.

To me, that is metaphysics with a thin veil of math sprinkeled on top.

[Nateb123]

Originally Posted by wound

For some reason I don't doubt they will do exactly that.

Scramble to somehow save their theories with another variable input of some sort or another.

Dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, frame dragging, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, multiple dimensions, distorted physics, etc... are not enough.

It seems to me that scientists have introduced so many theoretical variables to the physics that they can make the equations say whatever they like. Does that seem like a solid coherent theory to you?

...To me, that is metaphysics with a thin veil of math sprinkled on top.

Indeed, theoretical physics has become a field where most scientists involved seem more interested in a masturbatory quest to discover the holy grail of theories. However any quest first needs a map, which takes time, patience and a methodical attitude. If I were to think like the typical theoretical physicist, I would probably be trying to build a cathedral with no planning ahead of time.

[wound]

Originally Posted by Nateb123

I believe that the reasons you and iLearn have listed for redshifts have already proven insufficient. Thus the evidence for a universe that is expanding. However they have no idea why spacetime is uniformly experiencing a repulsive force. They just know it's a pretty much constant value so they just added a constant to their equations and redshifts can now be predicted with greater accuracy. No one knows why the hell it works or what's going on, but it's hardly a lack of progress.

That said, I agree with you wound. Theoretical physics has become a field where most scientists involved seem more interested in a masturbatory quest to discover the holy grail of theories. However any quest first needs a map, which takes time, patience and a methodic attitude. If I were to think like the typical theoretical physicist, I would probably be trying to build a cathedral with no planning ahead of time.

Well that's kind of the point.

If you show that space is not expanding by invalidating the Hubble law through observation, you inherently remove the need for a "repulsive force" of cosmic expansion.

You're left with tired light models in a steady state universe.

The need for dark energy goes away.

Plasma physicists who work with electrfied plasmas have come up with some highly interesting theories based on lab work and observation that show the remaining forces of the universe can be accounted for by the effects of electrified plasmas.

Astronomers and cosmologists today consider space to be, for the most part, electrically neutral. That leaves them with gravity as the only driving force in the universe. That's why you get theories twisting Einstien's work into black holes and neutron stars (which he never believed in himself).

In order to account for the massive jets and high particle energies we observe in space, since gravity is an infinitely weak force, they require and infinitely strong source of gravity to power them - the black hole.

Peratt, Alfven, Birkeland, Thornhill, Scott, Arp, and a host of other "maverick" plasma physicists have shown that electrified plasmas in the lab can be made to behave in exactly the same way as the observed plasmas in space.

Plasma scales almost infinitely across time and space and reacts the same. So lab observations done with small confined plasmas can be extrapolated out to cosmic dimensions with a high degree of accuracy.

The body of their work is called the Electric Universe model. You can watch a primer of their work on google video called "Thunderbolts of the Gods" if your interested in learning more about it.

Some of the published papers on the subject:

The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990) (548KB).

Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, H. Arp, Astrophys. J., Supplement Series, 123-132, 1966 (152K).

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M)

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M).

[RobertR]

Unless the observations have changed since I took cosmology, the universe is expanding in all directions. The farther away the greater the rate of expansion.

Thus at some point R from observation there will be an event horizion at which point the universe is expanding at the speed of light away from us.

Anything on the other side of that event horizon is thus unknowable. Thus it can be said that our observable or effective universe does have an edge. As no information from the other side of that event horizon may reach us.

There is no speed limit on how fast space itself may expand and thus no speed limit on how fast distant matter may move away from us.

But if you try to use the equivalence principle to say that the distant g mass increases to infinity, you would be wrong because that applies only in special relativity which holds only in local space.

You can't speed away from a mass, increase its gravitational mass turning it into a black hole. Sever logical contradictions appear.

Thus the super massive "outside" can not be the result of universe expansion.

I however noticed that my question was not answered.

In an isotropic and homogenious universe, the event horizon is equal distant on all sides as it is to every other spot in the universe. Thus no part of the universe would be pulled more in one direction than the other even if the "outside" were super massive. You would feel no pull from it.

If your in a boat in the middle of the lake, and elephants are tugging on all sides with strong ropes, your not going to move. Fill the lake with boats, and apply same to them, and they are not going to move either. Thus the boats will remain stationary with respect to each other.

Every observer in the universe is at the center of their observable universe. Thus the tug from all sides is equal for every observer.

What we are talking about is space itself expanding. Which is different from mass in space flying apart while space stands still. Two different things.

[RobertR]

Nateb123

Some 50 years ago when I first became interested in physics, I had a lot of ideas. When I went to college I discovered that the professors had already thought through most of them and knew more about them than I did.

However, in some areas which I only guessed at, I found that I had the right idea, although I did not know how to prove it.

We all have hunches, and sometimes when dealing with reality one tenth of 1% of them are actually right. It is that small percent of the time that our hunches pay off that keeps us looking down the trail.

There is nothing wrong with ideas, but we must be able to bring them back into the realm of logical reason.

The best advice I have received from one of my professors, is to follow your nose, and be cautiously open minded.

I have learned that most new ideas concerning the reality of existence are wrong. We live in a strange universe. If it were not so, progress would not have taken thousands of years, finding the answers would be easy.

It is not easy, which is why people like Newton and Einstein become icons.

No one sticks with physics very long who doesn't enjoy the challenge, and have an appreciation for the light bulb in their head turning on when you get it.

[iLearn]

Originally Posted by wound

For some reason I don't doubt they will do exactly that.

Scramble to somehow save their theories with another variable input of some sort or another.

Being a theoretical physicist myself I have to disagree on this. We are building models that best describe the observed phenomena, not trying to find the observations that best fit our models. Of course there are always individuals that are more concerned with their careers than their scientifical and intellectual integrity, but to say that a whole field is just trying shut their eyes from the truth is just plain paranoia. You have to remember that the most interesting thing a(n honest) scientist can bump into is something that doesn't fit the current models!

This said, it is by no means sensible to start building new theories the minute we think we've observed something weird. Every "weird" result has to be thoroughly confirmed and analyzed so that we can be sure that we're not just making bad observations. The next step after this is trying to explain the phenomenon within our existing theories, since these theories have already proven their worth in one way or the other. Only if this fails, do we have to go back to the drawing board and see whether we can come up with a new theory that would explain both the old and the new observations. Needless to say, this process is a bit sluggish, but I think it's the best way to ensure we are going in the right direction.

It seems to me that scientists have introduced so many theoretical variables to the physics that they can make the equations say whatever they like. Does that seem like a solid coherent theory to you?

Cosmology is a very though field of physics since our ability to measure things is somewhat limited and the timescales our measurements cover are very small compared to the approximated age of the Universe, so it's no surprise that our theories have terms like the cosmological constant. However, if the model works, trying to understand the source of these "fitting parameters" will give us a direction and eventually help us better our understanding of the Universe. So okay, the theory might not be ideal, but we have to start somewhere.

I also think that when one considers cosmology one always has to accept the very real possibility that some parts of our theories will forever be without empirical justification.

[wound]

Originally Posted by iLearn

Being a theoretical physicist myself I have to disagree on this. We are building models that best describe the observed phenomena, not trying to find the observations that best fit our models.

ok

So... considering 99.999999% of the visible universe is matter in a plasma state, how much do you know about plasma physics?

Ever pick up a book on electrical engineering?

How often do theoretical physicists consider the implications of electrical effects in their modeling?

What electrical equations do cosmologists use in determining the structure of the universe?

We know that the aurora is caused by charged particles, we know that the sun emits charged particles, we know that the earths ionosphere contains massive voltage, we know that particle acceleration here on earth occurs by putting particles in electric fields, we know that the solar wind accelerates the farther it gets from the sun (charged particle acceleration in an electric field), ect..

Yet for some reason cosmologists and astronomers consider space to be electrically neutral.


This is an electrical effect:




This is an electrical effect:




This is an electrical effect:


(Lightning sprites striking into space from earth)


This is an electrical effect:



(12 mile long 1/4" kevlar/copper satelite tether released from the space shuttle as seen 77 miles away glowing intensely from charge accumulation)

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

NASA conducted an experiment with a 20,000-meter conducting tether. When the tether was fully deployed during this test, the orbiting tether generated a potential of 3,500 volts. This conducting single-line tether was severed after five hours of deployment. It is believed that the failure was caused by an electric arc generated by the conductive tether's movement through the Earth's magnetic field.


The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990) (548KB).



If cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and astronomers were really concerned with making models that best fit observational evidence they wouldn't be ignoring half of what man knows about how the universe works.

When Einstein first postulated his equations to describe matter and gravity, he had no idea that space was full of electrical potential. To this day its effects are ignored entirely.

In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure. - Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén (Nobel Laureate in plasma physics and creator of magnetohydrodynamic theory)

[wound]

super computer simulation of 2 charged particle fields interacting, no gravitational effects were modeled at all in this simulation:






hmmmmmm

Look familiar?

Where have I seen those shapes before?


Oh yeah, now I remember



Interestingly, the simulation had the exact same rotational properties as the real spiral galaxies in space.

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M).

[wound]

some more electrical effects


jupiters aurora






Io's "volcanic plume" - emitting x-rays? btw, ever see a blue volcano before?





Saturns aurora




satelite image of a lightning sprite on earth.

[wound]

Scientists currently think auroras are caused by "magnetic reconnection".

Of course the founder of magnetohydrodynamics, from which magnetic reconnection is derived, thought differently.

The papers published on the magnetic reconnection so far seem to keep running into one problem, the energy observed is way more than is expected.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...nt=41&index=16

Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics

Alfven, Hannes

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Dec. 1986
Volume: 14, Issue: 6
On page(s): 779-793
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands,
ISSN: 0093-3813
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316626
Date Published in Issue: 2007-11-12 16:30:33.0


As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage ¿V is P ¿ I¿V, a double layer must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that X-ray and ¿-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source). A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g., double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).


Alfven's double layers provide a simpler explaination that meets all the criteria. A well known phenomina that has been studied in the lab for ages. Of course, that would mean there would have to be huge electrified plasma currents in space powering the double layers.

[RobertR]

wound

Why would we expect it not to look familure? Both electrical forces and gravitational forces are functions of 1/r squared.

If it looks the same it must have the same cause, is logic by association.

[thedeester1]

I too think there are too many assumptions regarding gravity. For me there is no such explanation for the effects of gravity on mass or light....it just is...also i believe that the big bang or big rub or big squeeze was a gravitational anomally. I hate to argue this point with people that constantly point me to knowledge...but i keep coming back with the same answer.
I Called it Dimensional leakage. It was the best i could come up with after all its gotta come from somewhere?