Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

In my earlier years in high school, I had wanted to become astronomer, but I gave up that dream, when I realized there were no courses nearby, and universities that did offer them, weren’t taking much undergrad students.

So astronomy was something I will be interested in, but could never do it for living.

In my senior years, I have dreamed of studying architecture, and the few places that offered the course, I couldn’t get in, but I got into civil engineering.

Just some things in life will take you to places that you don’t plan for.

Anyway, in recent years, like in the last 15+ years, I have been learning different science in my own times, including astronomy and cosmology that I didn’t learn when I was younger. Forums like this, and the I joined before RF, renewed my passion for science that I didn’t study for.

I am far more curious about sciences now, then, back then when I was in high school or even at universities.

Well I admire your curiosity for knowledge in the fields that interest you gnostic, I trust you will satisfy that curiosity to the full, who knows what you will uncover.

 

[Native]

I have no trouble at all discussing E&M forces in nuclear reactions. But their main contribution is to keep the nuclei away from each other, preventing fusion, unless the energies are very high.

The important issue here is excactly "unless the energies are very high". Gamma rays in galaxies certainly indicates such a high energy of nuclear formation. And you know there are situations in where the, by the scientifically separated E&M forces unites and act in a way modern cosmologists and astrophysicists even cannot explain.

At the very least, you seem to be redefining the notion of 'plasma' (which negates the 'plasma physics' viewpoint). You seem to consistently disregard the energies required to get fusions reactions, which only happen in the interiors of stars, neutron stars, or around black holes. They also happened in the very early universe.

I´m in fact generally refering to the concept of Plasma Cosmology and it´s implications for nucleosynthetic formation in cosmos.

@gnostic,

If I want to learn about some, I’d read. If I get stuck on something I’ve read, I will ask questions.

But I am willing to share what I have learned in the past years, as well learn something from others.

Fine, but in my case you´re not much help by referring and copy pasting from convensus matters which just partly describes ideas in modern cosmology.

When, for instants, I´m referring to Plasma Cosmology, you come up with a copy-paste of the 4 states of matter as if you think I didn´t knew anything of this.

You´re also to no use for me when you´re ignoring my informations in where modern astronomy and cosmology have discovered observations which asks serious questions about their theories. (This also goes for some other debaters in this Forum who don´t regards the scientific method as intended)

You´re in generally downgrading my knowledge and at the same time, you´re playing a besserwissen professor who knows everything in a cosmological scientific society which is so defragmented that there isn´t any overall consensus. Which is why they STILL are searching for a Theory of Everything.

You´re very willing to learn and share inconsistent consensus matters - and plain refusive when it comes to learn from independent thinkers. Which is why you and your fellow thinkers never will learn any new perceptions which can lead to a better and common understanding of everything.

And the very same also goes for a better scientific cosmological understanding and development in modern cosmology in general. If new thoughts aren´t implemented, the cosmology becomes regid in plain dogmas.

 

[Native]

I´m NOT an uncritical proponent of the "ThunderboltsProject Society" (TBP) but they have several serious perceptions of electromagnetic conditions in space, as mentioned and illustrated in this video:

"How Magnetic Fields Challenge Gravity-Centric Cosmology"

Watch it and see whether you yourself are positioned in the case of being closed or open minded for new perceptions.

Edit:
Maybe I better explain in which areas I don´t agree with the TBP ideas:
1) I don´t believe in the mythical interpretations in where ancient myths are taken to count for planets.
2) I don´t believe in the TBP ideas that "some planets once (back in 10.000-6.000 BC) were different located (via "electromagnetical capturing") closer to Earth and hovering in a line over the northern celestial pole over the Earth", their so called "ancient alien polar configuration".
3) As a result of this misconception, the TBP proponents also have the ideas of "electromagnetic disharges causing electric scarrings on the Earth and other planets", in which I also don´t believe.

Otherwise, I´m logically convinced of the strict scientific E&M perception in the TBP of an Electric Universe and a Plasma Cosmology.

 

[exchemist]

By very long wavelength, I am speaking of tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., of Km, not cm.

Well that is close to zero, as the extreme left hand side of the chart indicates. The curve is a remarkably exact fit for black body radiation, throughout the frequency range.

 

[exchemist]

Still, a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source would result in equal energy.

That is not to say I am not taking note of your point re gravity.

It would but, so what? You are jumping around now, from the Casimir effect to the ZPE of the vacuum, to the CMBR and now to point radio sources. Where are you going with all this?

 

[exchemist]

Gnostic, so here are some scientific papers I linked to that got us here.. I had asked members to see if any were credible and they have been addressed to some extent. You need to go back and see the beginning, this has all been covered, I don't know how you missed them.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_the_Emergence_of_Gravity_Two_Hypotheses

Gravity and Zero Point Energy - ScienceDirect

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:214280/FULLTEXT01.pdf

As I've already told you, the one referenced in Science Direct is written by a crank who makes no sense. I've just checked out the researchgate one. It is from a journal that masquerades as Canadian (it shares an address in Toronto with Goodlife Fitness) and appears in Beall's List of possibly predatory journals. So another outlet for cranks.

The third is a file from an unknown source so I am not willing to download it.

Why do you persist in promoting this rubbish? For someone who admits he does not know much science, you seem to be going out of your way to seek out obscure and nonsensical articles that push a particular agenda.

 

[Native]

As I've already told you, the one referenced in Science Direct is written by a crank who makes no sense. I've just checked out the researchgate one. It is from a journal that masquerades as Canadian (it shares an address in Toronto with Goodlife Fitness) and appears in Beall's List of possibly predatory journals. So another outlet for cranks.

Why do you persist in promoting this rubbish? For someone who admits he does not know much science, you seem to be going out of your way to seek out obscure and nonsensical articles that push a particular agenda.

My red warning light is alway blinking when someone declares other to be cranks. In most cases this term generally derives from not being open for alternate perceptions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well that is close to zero, as the extreme left hand side of the chart indicates. The curve is a remarkably exact fit for black body radiation, throughout the frequency range.

Dear exchemist, I have no idea why you think the CMB has anything to do with the very long wavelength radiation I am referring to, can you explain why you think relevant?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It would but, so what? You are jumping around now, from the Casimir effect to the ZPE of the vacuum, to the CMBR and now to point radio sources. Where are you going with all this?

I have no idea what you are talking about, please quote my precise words where you see me writing about the CMBR?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I've already told you, the one referenced in Science Direct is written by a crank who makes no sense. I've just checked out the researchgate one. It is from a journal that masquerades as Canadian (it shares an address in Toronto with Goodlife Fitness) and appears in Beall's List of possibly predatory journals. So another outlet for cranks.

The third is a file from an unknown source so I am not willing to download it.

Why do you persist in promoting this rubbish? For someone who admits he does not know much science, you seem to be going out of your way to seek out obscure and nonsensical articles that push a particular agenda.

If you recall I posted those links originally asking for input wrt credibility of them. You indeed commented on some. And if you had read the exchanges between gnostic and myself leading up to my post with the links to those scientific hypotheses, you would understand they were not meant for anyone who had already commented on them. As for your calling the author/s cranks, after now understanding your limited knowledge on some aspects of the subject through our exchanges, I would suggest you show a little humility on matters you are not expert on.

 

[gnostic]

When, for instants, I´m referring to Plasma Cosmology, you come up with a copy-paste of the 4 states of matter as if you think I didn´t knew anything of this.

Ah, no.

I do read textbook, you know.

Raymond Serway and Vuille: Solid and Fluid, chapter 9, p 277, College Physics

When a gas is heated to high temperature, many of the electrons surrounding each atom are freed from the nucleus. The resulting system is a collection of free, electrically charged particles—negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Such a highly ionized state of matter containing equal amounts of positive and negative charges is called a plasma. Unlike a neutral gas, the long-range electric and magnetic forces allow the constituents of a plasma to interact with each other. Plasmas are found inside stars and in accretion disks around black holes,
for example, and are far more common than the solid, liquid, and gaseous states because there are far more stars around than any other form of celestial matter.

The introduction to this chapter, stated the 4th physical state of matter, being plasma.

I have older physics book by Serway (Physics for Scientists and Engineer with Modern Physics) that I used in my computer science course back 1995-96, but I cannot find it. So these days, I referred to my kindle copy of College Physics.

 

[Polymath257]

The important issue here is excactly "unless the energies are very high". Gamma rays in galaxies certainly indicates such a high energy of nuclear formation. And you know there are situations in where the, by the scientifically separated E&M forces unites and act in a way modern cosmologists and astrophysicists even cannot explain.

What are the energies of the gamma rays? Let me guess, 511KeV. Which is the energy of the gamma rays released when an electron and positron annihilate each other. This is *well* below the energy of nuclear reactions.

I´m in fact generally refering to the concept of Plasma Cosmology and it´s implications for nucleosynthetic formation in cosmos.

But you redefine what it means to be a plasma and offer no actual mechanism for nucleosynthesis. How do you get to the pressures and energies required. But you also seem to think all 'high energy' situations are equivalent.

 

[Polymath257]

Still, a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source would result in equal energy.

That is not to say I am not taking note of your point re gravity.

No. Once again, the ZPE only has one photon. That is the definition of ZPE.

And, let's see, what sort of mechanisms will emit 1Km wavelength radio waves at an energy 100,000 times greater than a typical 1 cm source? Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Polymath257]

My red warning light is alway blinking when someone declares other to be cranks. In most cases this term generally derives from not being open for alternate perceptions.

Or simply realizing that cranks ted to spout garbage.

 

[Polymath257]

My red warning light is alway blinking when someone declares other to be cranks. In most cases this term generally derives from not being open for alternate perceptions.

Here is a good way to determine if someone is a crackpot in physics. It was invented by John Baez.

The CRACKPOT Index
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
9. 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12. 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence).
13. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
14. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to one's past theories.
15. 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on one's case, etc..
16. 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent one's work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
17. 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

John Baez

 

[exchemist]

If you recall I posted those links originally asking for input wrt credibility of them. You indeed commented on some. And if you had read the exchanges between gnostic and myself leading up to my post with the links to those scientific hypotheses, you would understand they were not meant for anyone who had already commented on them. As for your calling the author/s cranks, after now understanding your limited knowledge on some aspects of the subject through our exchanges, I would suggest you show a little humility on matters you are not expert on.

Look, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist or a physicist, but I do have enough knowledge of physics, from physical chemistry, to understand some of this. I am familiar with quantum theory, so I know what zero point energy is, I know what the Casimir effect is, I know what gravitation is according to Newton, and I have a qualitative understanding of what it is according to Einstein (though not quantitative as I never studied tensors).

That is enough to enable me to read these articles you are posting and see if they make sense. I have been careful to distinguish the Royal Society article you linked to about Dark Energy, which I have by no means dismissed, from the two you have just re-quoted, both of which are fairly plainly by cranks.

There is a lot of junk around on the internet these days. One needs to keep one's wits about one to avoid be taken in. One way to do that, which helps even if you are not fully conversant with the subject matter, is to look at the provenance of the authors and the journals in which they publish. The other, more laborious, way is to read the articles and try to see if they make sense. I have used both methods and drawn conclusions accordingly.

 

[exchemist]

Dear exchemist, I have no idea why you think the CMB has anything to do with the very long wavelength radiation I am referring to, can you explain why you think relevant?

Simply because you seem to think there is some source of long wavelength radiation floating about in the cosmos. If you are not referring to the CMBR, what source of this radio-frequency radiation are you saying is responsible for it and why has it never been detected?

 

[Native]

Ah, no.

I do read textbook, you know.

Raymond Serway and Vuille: Solid and Fluid, chapter 9, p 277, College Physics

Quote:
Serway: College Physics said:
When a gas is heated to high temperature, many of the electrons surrounding each atom are freed from the nucleus. The resulting system is a collection of free, electrically charged particles—negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Such a highly ionized state of matter containing equal amounts of positive and negative charges is called a plasma. Unlike a neutral gas, the long-range electric and magnetic forces allow the constituents of a plasma to interact with each other. Plasmas are found inside stars and in accretion disks around black holes,
for example, and are far more common than the solid, liquid, and gaseous states because there are far more stars around than any other form of celestial matter.

The introduction to this chapter, stated the 4th physical state of matter, being plasma.

So why on Earth then don´t you connect your textbook informations to the astronomical and cosmological area which concerns my Plasma Cosmology instead of linking to the basic knowledge of the 4 states I already knew of?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
My red warning light is alway blinking when someone declares other to be cranks. In most cases this term generally derives from not being open for alternate perceptions.

Here is a good way to determine if someone is a crackpot in physics. It was invented by John Baez.

"John Baez"? Did he invent a Theory of Everything from wich he could determine who is a cranck or not?

It´s only believers in autoritative consensus doctrines who think they can express such nonsense.

Here is a good way to determine if someone is a crackpot in physics. It was invented by John Baez.

The CRACKPOT Index
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
9. 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12. 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence).
13. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
14. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to one's past theories.
15. 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on one's case, etc..
16. 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent one's work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
17. 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

John Baez

Are you still New Years eve drunk? How on Earth can a Staff Member in RF copy-paste and express such biased subjective nonsense?

 

[Native]

What are the energies of the gamma rays? Let me guess, 511KeV. Which is the energy of the gamma rays released when an electron and positron annihilate each other. This is *well* below the energy of nuclear reactions.

You are strangely inconsistent here: When you´re talking of "gravitational particles" you claim that lots of these together makes a huge force" but when it comes to deal with the electromagnetic discussions, lots of atoms acting in nuclear fusion with strong gamma rays in galaxies, you´re refering to the E&M force of just 1 electron and 1 positron - which in your definition makes it all to disappear.

Which of course fits nicely for a main proponent of the weakest and invented force. If you wish it to disappear, just find argumentaive fiffling methods which seemingly makes it to disappear.

Apparently you arent aware that when you discuss that it doesn´t matter if you´re talking gravity particles or atoms, the electromagnetic forces are PER SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION ALWAYS stronger than your weak invented force.

I said:
I´m in fact generally refering to the concept of Plasma Cosmology and it´s implications for nucleosynthetic formation in cosmos.

But you redefine what it means to be a plasma and offer no actual mechanism for nucleosynthesis. How do you get to the pressures and energies required. But you also seem to think all 'high energy' situations are equivalent.

I´m NOT redefining anything at all! I´m just EXTENDING the definitions to count ALSO on the cosmological scales - which seems so hard to comprehend for proponents of the weakest force of all.

I´ve already posted my personal explanations of plasma cosmology and nucleosynthesis. I can possible have some difficulties explaining me in English as my native language is Danish.

But you can have it all here once again explained in native English.
-------------------
I´m NOT an uncritical proponent of the "ThunderboltsProject Society" (TBP) but they have several serious perceptions of electromagnetic conditions in space, as mentioned and illustrated in this video:

"How Magnetic Fields Challenge Gravity-Centric Cosmology"

Watch it and see whether you yourself are positioned in the case of being closed or open minded for new perceptions.

Edit:
Maybe I better explain in which areas I don´t agree with the TBP ideas:
1) I don´t believe in the mythical interpretations in where ancient myths are taken to count for planets.
2) I don´t believe in the TBP ideas that "some planets once (back in 10.000-6.000 BC) were different located (via "electromagnetical capturing") closer to Earth and hovering in a line over the northern celestial pole over the Earth", their so called "ancient alien polar configuration".
3) As a result of this misconception, the TBP proponents also have the ideas of "electromagnetic disharges causing electric scarrings on the Earth and other planets", in which I also don´t believe.

Otherwise, I´m logically convinced of the strict scientific E&M perception in the TBP of an Electric Universe and a Plasma Cosmology.