pantheory

Bjarne, This video, your link, is now 10-15 years old. I agree that many of these arguments are still valid and that the video is still good. One theorist that remains active, pro other models and against the BB model, is the mathematician and cosmologist Jayant Narlikar. Also Erik Lerner, in the video, is an active plasma physicist and theorist contrary to the BB model. Jayant Narlikar, Vijay Mohan, European Southern Observatory http://www.indianexp...-stars/756519/2 What are the problems with the BB model? (rhetorical). The first problem is that it has a few ad hoc hypothesis hung onto it, which are needed by the model for it to survive. The first is the Inflation hypothesis. There seems to be no possible way to confirm this hypothesis. It is a ad hoc hypothesis proposing seemingly forever unobservable new physics. Without it such perceived problems like the Horizon problem and the Flatness problems, seem insurmountable. The next ad hoc hypothesis is called dark matter. Without this hypothesis Einstein's theory of gravity and cosmological equations fail to a very large degree at the galactic and larger scales. There is thought to be both evidence that supports the existence of dark matter, and evidence which contradicts its existence. http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter The dark energy hypothesis is not needed by the BB model since its primary purpose is simply ad hoc to explain observations. It is not predicted by most other models as well and its existence denied by some. In my opinion there is very little evidence to support the dark energy hypothesis, but for the same reason I think it will be difficult to disprove. Is the universe expanding as the explanation of galactic redshifts? The BB model and Hoyle's SS models say yes, some other models propose a non-expanding SS universe concerning the observable universe. Unlike many questions in physics this one concerning the age of the universe could be solved in the foreseeable future. The James Webb infrared space telescope is going up about 2018. The BB proposes that vary distant galaxies will be dense in numbers, relatively small, and very young. Most other cosmological models believe such distant galaxies will run the gamut of appearances just like local galaxies. They accordingly will appear to be both old and young, large and small. There colors and densities accordingly will be the same as for local galaxy clusters. So by about 2024 either the BB will be firmly entrenched with its only competition being different versions of itself, or I think it will be on its way to the graveyard of discredited/ disproved theories. Of course if the universe is not expanding at all, the conjecture of this thread, It might not be realized until after the Big Bang's demise. //

Icarus 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Icarus 2 What is your position on all of this? Do you ascribe to the expansion of the universe? Galaxies expanding away from each other? Space expanding? etc. Do you ascribe to the Hubble formula or only in certain domains? //

I guess skeptism will not seriously come to play until an actual claim of superconductivity is made. Then there will rightfully be a million eyes on the research and claims

I would consider packed graphite with varying grain sizes saturated in water. Then experiment with different kinds of currents. Since the graphite particles have the potential to move I would eventually look toward trying AC at a greater number of cycles per second along with alternating currents of variant cycles, tried with different and maybe even varying voltages. Lower voltages would have more limited applications. Normally this could produce more heat but I think DC would produce an agglomeration of graphite particles, and normal 60 cps of AC might do the same, which one might expect would end the superconductivity. A liquid type cable interior might not be a problem if the particulates have some freedom of movement but would not have the ability to clump due to an electrical current. If graphite comes close to working I expect they would try other liquids or combinations besides water, along with other forms of carbon such as carbon nano-tubes with water and different types of liquid or material combinations. Hopefully this is a hint of a real possibility someday. //

It would seem to be very interesting to see exactly how the experiment was conducted. For instance, if I read the original argument and then saw the opposite on the other side I would want to check the wording of the original by turning back to the original statement. If that was not possible then the exact wording should state whether you are to defend a position whether you believe in it or not, or just to defend the position that you marked because you accordingly support it. Maybe just one word placed differently, or a misunderstanding, and a person might fill in the data differently.

What a cool panoramic view! Maybe the closest thing that I can think of to Mars are pictures I've seen of a few places on the high deserts of Chile. Here's a link. http://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+high+desert+chile&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BVVbUL-cKc_xiQLHlIHwDQ&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1025&bih=428

Yeah, I think I could find such an equation(s) but was hoping somebody had a head start. I would start with vortex equations, and if problems arise try fluid dynamics. I expect the bottom line basis for such equations will be a fluid aether. //

Do you have any particular equations or method in mind? Vertex equations, fluid dynamics, a combination, etc.? I'd like to try to formulate the equations myself but haven't decided the best way to start. The equation forms discussed so far seem unrealistic to me. //

Yes, in my opinion probably not forever, but the present consensus might say forever. //

Yes. According to present mainstream consensus, waves travel until they are broken up by other waves or matter in all of its possible locations. This would accordingly include the full extent of the observable universe, with the knowledge that we cannot know the full extent or form of the entire universe. Conceivably the remnants of such a wave might at some distance finally come to an end. //

Having a lower frequency and lesser energy, does not necessarily mean photons are more spread out, but the more redshifted the light, the farther away its origin therefore the more spread out the light will be and the less dense the photons. The photons are spread out to the extent of the inverse square law of light. //

Yes, when light is redshifted it loses energy. Longer redshifted wavelengths are of lower frequency and energy and so the associated photons have proportionally less energy. //

In my own cosmological model there are similar vortex aether mechanics and fluid dynamics related to a rapidly spinning storm to the slow rotation rates of spiral galaxies. In the present standard model I believe spiral galaxy appearances are accordingly believed to be a function of dark matter orbiting the galaxy with a transfer of its momentum to the stars via gravity. Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, proposes possibilities of orbital flows of intra-galactic clouds of matter reacting and accordingly creating magnetic influences reinforcing the rotating influences of the background cloud matter accordingly having a relationship with the rotating central black hole. //

You might say that oxidation is in line with Newton's law. When it is acting upon something by the chemical process of oxidation potentially adding weight and porosity like an atmosphere. It also can slow down an object by friction if it is in motion relative to such an atmosphere. Water is also a good catalyst for oxidation so water/ gas/ water particulates also cause more friction. Realize that both friction and oxidation are external influences, resisting forces, or reactants that can influence/ slow uniform motion by acting upon a moving body. Newton's law remains unaffected by such processes. //

Hi imatfaal -- Yes, I think they were premature in giving the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark energy. And for dark matter I have my bets on an aetherial kind of "dark matter" with particulates down to Planck lengths or smaller. Rather than its mass being the influence of dark matter, maybe the influence/energy of its pushing momentum would be what we can perceive. I agree with your idea that the name for dark matter would be better if shorter and more specific, whether as a particle or "field." For the complete name maybe one represented by an abbreviation or acronym? Maybe something like if the full name were "Planck Point Field" and they called it the 'PPF' An individual particle could be called a Planck, for instance. I believe the word "field" may eventually be realized to be a good word for the volume of particles along with the mathematical construct used to represent a volume of particulates in space like a Higgs particle/field, etc. I think the word 'field' used in QM and GR, and the related theoretical physics, may eventually be best described as the ZPF and that both the largest and smallest scales will eventually tie into particulate field concepts. //

There are between a 100 to maybe over 7,000 blue shifted galaxies depending upon the interpretation of galactic spectra/ redshifts. If there are 7,000 + they are mostly all just barely blueshifted. The greatest blueshifts are some of the closest galaxies in the local group. All the other possible blueshifted galaxies are part of the local super-cluster Virgo. Galaxies in these galaxy groups and super-clusters orbit their center of gravity therefore some can be moving in our direction and have blueshifted spectra. The farthest possibly slightly blueshifted galaxies in our super-cluster are no more than 70 million light years distant. The expansion of the universe and dark energy cannot be observed in the local group and it is debatable whether it can be observed in the local super-cluster. The consensus opinion is that gravity compensates for expanding space and dark energy (if it exists) in galaxy clusters. Another type of galaxy blueshift is when a galaxy has a relative motion toward us but the supposed expansion of space is thought to be greater than the motion of the galaxy toward us. Although these galaxies display an overall redshift the spectra has also been blueshifted because of relative motion in our direction. Some of this may be due to the relative motion of the solar system around our galaxy, our galaxy orbiting within the local group, our local group orbiting within the local super-cluster, as well as our local super-clusters relative motion supposedly within the "dark flow" toward the "great attractor." The galaxies we are observing also have similar types of multi-orbital motions. http://fittedplane.blogspot.com/ //

I suspect that if either dark matter or dark energy really exists then upon the realization of their true nature, their names will be changed. For dark energy there are a number of possible names out there right now: cosmological constant, quintessence, lambda, etc. For dark matter possible names like Higgs field, graviton fields, etc, I expect that both will eventually be discredited and that the failed hypotheses will keep their present "dark" names for historical reference.

I would like to better understand your aether proposal but believe you are continuing to talk riddles. You may not wish to understand anything different since you may believe you have a superior understanding to those who reply here. But if you wish to learn anything new, you need to communicate better. If you cannot converse with another aether proponent like myself, then I would expect you would have a really hard time, or close to impossible task of communicating with anybody else. Forrest

Yeah, maybe I would like his aether proposal, maybe not, I can't know unless I better understand it. I don't seem to be very good at solving Jwjefferson's riddles jwjefferson, Swansont is making an important point. You need to try to communicate more clearly without riddles. This is the speculation forum so you are in the right place. Unlike some other science forums you may speculate much here with meager evidence or justification, but I think you should try to explain your proposal using your best communication skills. If your proposal is contradicted by strong evidence that you are unaware of then others may know and point out your proposals weaknesses. If others believe your proposal has merit they might likewise provide you with better supporting evidence or tell you what they think might improve your ideas. They cannot make their own proposals diverting attention away from your ideas since they can start their own thread. So give us your best shot so that we might have a chance to understand your aether proposal. good luck, Forrest //

According to my understandings, most believe the Higg's particle cannot be eliminated as one of the possibilities of this particle. If they could somehow show strong evidence that this new particle was the predicted Higgs, then I think it would be a very big plus for the standard model. If it turns out to be something different then I would expect the standard model would equally suffer a serious blow. There are many facets to the standard model of particle physics. Some aspects could be valid and others not. I think the same thing applies to Quantum Theory. When enough hypothesis within a theory eventually turn out to be wrong, a number of alternative hypothesis or theory contenders are usually available to meet the challenge -- and replace the old with the new via better predictions and understandings. //

For sure. Did he use the word "static?" If so I missed it //

He used the word "fluent" concerning his aether which I interpret to mean fluid. He can correct me if I am wrong. An aether that moves toward the center of gravity, is a gravitational aether model. A pushing aether model of gravity. There are a great number of such aether models proposing to explain gravity. Most of these models are centuries old and few propose anything other than the inverse square law to mathematically explain the model. Stellar aberration has never been mentioned in any of aether models I have read, so I expect I have just missed such discussions. If such an aether were fluid it could seemingly move in different channels depending upon its location, from higher pressure areas to lower. For example it might move in a vortex motion within spiral galaxies, and have less distinctive motions in elliptical and irregular galaxies. It could move in distinctive curved currents between galaxies. It could therefore seemingly be able to bend light, cause stellar aberration, lensing effects, and seemingly could cause the same effects as presently attributed to dark matter. //

Yes, an oblate spheroid. As we would say here in the colonies (U.S.) and in Scotland, "the radius of the Earth varies a wee bit." U.S.: The radius varies about 10.5 miles from its mean radius. In Scotland we would say: the total variance of the Earth's radius is about 31 kilometers, but it's far shorter if you take the high road to Bryan's pub. Or ye can go to Mam's place ta yonder point -- and get tall ones for carven a few kegs upstars for the bide. Wednesday next at Bryan's pub the local chapter of the Earth is Flat Society will commence. For the cost of just 1 lb. Sterling one can join the club which includes a one year membership and certificate and 6 Ker table drinks (O Guinness fer 6 bobs mere) for the bi-monthly meetings, all alcohol at half price during meeting times. If you dunna wish a fight, mention not the area sightings of aliens nor the alleged abduction and probings of Bryian's wife. But if ye do like a good fight ask to see Bryan's wife and tell em how bonnie his wife's figure looks and dat yur sorry bout da alien probings of is wife with da pipes -- wear a kilt, show your bum, mention that you are both a scientist, religious and thar to help his wife with free massage therapy. //

Hi Swansot, Aether motion North-South or South_North, pretty good. Haven't heard or thought of that one yet. Not exactly sure the meaning of his statement aether but I know of a number of other possibilities, than yours, of his meaning. rwjeffersonell will tell us soon enough, I expect. There are/ have been many variations of aether theory in and before the 19th century, the 20th, and I expect, the 21st century. The most famous argument was Lorenz' proposing that via motion and aetherial influences the instrumentation of the interferometer deforms via the direction of the aether and instrument rotation, rendering the M & M's experiment and other interferometers unable to detect the relative motion of the aether (the wording may be a little off). In one model the aether is gravity centered, meaning that gravity drags aether around so that there could be no measurement of its relative motion such as in a M & M type experiment. In another theoretical version aether is not only the carrier of EM radiation, but the cause of time dilation and the the force of gravity. In this version aether is radiated away from all matter in the form of EM radiation and other forms of wave and particulate radiation, and the back-flow of aether equalizing pressure would accordingly be the cause of gravity. In another model again aether is something like dark matter that does not interact with EM radiation so cannot be detected via light. In another version the effect of particle spin causes a 3D aether vortex surrounding matter. Accordingly in larger matter like the Earth, we would be near the center of the vortex somehow and would see no relative motion of the aether. Still another aether version proposes that aether is the source of dark energy and the proliferation of the ZPF. Accordingly the aether energy of motion is what we observe as the ZPE. This somehow would be the cause/ of the expansion of the universe, its acceleration, the source of dark matter, etc. (Note: My explanations of such various proposals are according to my memory and may be a little bit off, in some cases. ) I would guess that the aether model rwjefferson is interested in is different again. I have seen a few modern mainstream aether proposals that have included some of these older proposed ideas but most do not involve a luminiferous aether, and its author's usually choose to use alternative wording because of the commonly perceived stigma concerning the word "aether" I guess any particulate background-field model could be called an aether model such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, etc., or any background energy field such as dark energy, quantum space foam, etc., depending upon how aether is defined. //