Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Plasma cosmology
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 31 (244632)
09-18-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
09-18-2005 10:19 AM


Re: Thanks.
I was at the book signing of the book. I don't care as to where this thread is put. I'll see you in the coffee house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 09-18-2005 10:19 AM Phat has not replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 17 of 31 (244999)
09-19-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by christ_fanatic
09-18-2005 12:58 PM


PNAS info
Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole
Smoller J, Temple B
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 100 (20): 11216-11218 SEP 30 2003
Abstract: We construct a class of global exact solutions of the Einstein equations that extend the Oppeheimer-Snyder model to the case of nonzero pressure, inside the black hole, by incorporating a Shock wave at the leading edge of the expansion of the galaxies, arbitrarily far beyond the Hubble length in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetime. Here the expanding FRW universe emerges be-hind a subluminous blast wave that explodes outward from the FRW center at the instant of the big bang. The total mass behind the shock decreases as the shock wave expands, and the entropy condition implies that the shock wave must weaken to the point where it settles down to an Oppenheimer-Snyder interface, (bounding a finite total mass), that eventually emerges from the white hole event horizon of an ambient Schwarzschild spacetime. The entropy condition breaks the time symmetry of the Einstein equations, selecting the explosion over the implosion. These shock-wave solutions indicate a cosmological model in which the big bang arises from a localized explosion occurring inside the black hole of an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild spacetime.
I'm not going to post the whole article, but there's the reference and abstract.
Admittedly, I don't understand this article, so I can't pass judgment on it. However, it certainly doesn't seem to purport much beyond a refinement of the big bang- essentially a white hole in a black hole resulted in the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 12:58 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-20-2005 7:57 AM Matt P has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 31 (245112)
09-20-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Matt P
09-19-2005 6:04 PM


Re: PNAS info
Thanks for finding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Matt P, posted 09-19-2005 6:04 PM Matt P has not replied

  
AndyA
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (248759)
10-04-2005 1:13 AM


need concensus ?
Plasma cosmology, big bang and shrinking sun .... stop hoping for theoretical concensus amongst acientists on mega scale time-space phenomena. Science needs only ONE tested and validated observation to reject any hypothesis or even "established" theory. Besides, more measurable than cosmic scale changes in universe are empirical observations of events in real time. Does global warming not provide sufficient evidence foor a changing rather than constant universe ?
This message has been edited by AndyA, 10-04-2005 01:15 AM
This message has been edited by AndyA, 10-04-2005 02:23 AM

AndyA

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 4:28 AM AndyA has replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6228 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 20 of 31 (248773)
10-04-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
09-16-2005 10:51 PM


Re: Welcome!
He probably has more difficulty now in getting telescope time.
Considering he's been dead for ten years now I'd say that's an understatement.
And Alfvén, as far as I know is not viewed as a crank, as much as someone who one bad idea. He did afterall pretty much lay the foundations for modern plasma physics. He did afterall win a Nobel prize for his work in magnetohydrodynamics.
Plasma cosmology is widely discredited however, and I'd safely say that most people who support it today probably are cranks.

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 09-16-2005 10:51 PM nwr has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 31 (248774)
10-04-2005 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AndyA
10-04-2005 1:13 AM


Re: need concensus ?
AndyA writes:
Does global warming not provide sufficient evidence foor a changing rather than constant universe ?
Um... uh... you do realize that the universe is a whole heck of a lot bigger than the Earth and its atmosphere, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 1:13 AM AndyA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 5:16 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
AndyA
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 31 (248785)
10-04-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by coffee_addict
10-04-2005 4:28 AM


Re: need concensus ?
Sure, but what's your point ? In principle there is no difference between micro and macro scale phenomena. A grain of sand is an excellent model for a solar system: the same scientific principles apply to both. Why would a larger physical Universe behave to different laws. If you are referring to an unquantifiable metaphysical universe, then there is no point in scientific discussion. The only discussion you can have is with a fellow traveller, or a science fiction writer.

AndyA

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 4:28 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 6:08 AM AndyA has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 23 of 31 (248793)
10-04-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by AndyA
10-04-2005 5:16 AM


Re: need concensus ?
AndyA writes:
A grain of sand is an excellent model for a solar system
Oh really? So, if we put a grain of sand under a microscope, we should see little balls orbiting a really big ball in the center?
Why would a larger physical Universe behave to different laws.
Because global warming doesn't adhere to any known law that we know of, except perhaps to the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to retain more heat from solar radiation.
If you are referring to an unquantifiable metaphysical universe, then there is no point in scientific discussion.
No, I didn't refer to it that way at all. I just think that it's a bit wacky to claim that global warming provides evidence of anything pertaining to the cosmos. Heck, I could claim that the moon proves that the universe is ever unchanging since the moon hasn't changed much for the last billion years or so except to gain a few more craters per million years.
The only discussion you can have is with a fellow traveller, or a science fiction writer.
Yeah... sure....
This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-04-2005 06:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 5:16 AM AndyA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 10:04 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
AndyA
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 31 (248817)
10-04-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by coffee_addict
10-04-2005 6:08 AM


Re: need concensus ?
1. Under an electron microscope, an atom would appear like a solar system. A grain of sand would strongly resemble a galaxy. There would be clusters of nuclei around which revolve electrons, with large spaces in between.
2. With respect to global warming, you have fallen into the concensus science trap. There is evidence to show that our planet has indeed warmed over the past 100 years, but that the cause is anthropogenic CO2, is far from certain. Increased solar activity + cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere account for something like 95% of global warming. The greenhouse proponents constitute a lucrative political “concensus” viewpoint that many atmospheric scientists reject . For starters you might look at Still Waiting For Greenhouse and search for papers particularly by Landscheidt, and Svensmark and Baliunas.

AndyA

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 6:08 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 12:24 PM AndyA has not replied
 Message 30 by JustinC, posted 11-03-2005 1:20 PM AndyA has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 31 (248819)
10-04-2005 10:14 AM


Getting OT here folk
This is NOT on Global warming. Let's drop that discussion or move it to the appropriate thread.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 12:28 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 26 of 31 (248844)
10-04-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndyA
10-04-2005 10:04 AM


Re: need concensus ?
AndyA writes:
1. Under an electron microscope, an atom would appear like a solar system. A grain of sand would strongly resemble a galaxy. There would be clusters of nuclei around which revolve electrons, with large spaces in between.
Oh, so now it's not the solar system anymore. It's the galaxy.
You do realize that we have moved passed the Bohr's model a while back, right?
2. With respect to global warming, you have fallen into the concensus science trap. There is evidence to show that our planet has indeed warmed over the past 100 years, but that the cause is anthropogenic CO2, is far from certain. Increased solar activity + cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere account for something like 95% of global warming. The greenhouse proponents constitute a lucrative political “concensus” viewpoint that many atmospheric scientists reject . For starters you might look at Still Waiting For Greenhouse and search for papers particularly by Landscheidt, and Svensmark and Baliunas.
What you have just done is trying to change the subject. So, let's get back to the subject, shall we?
You claimed that global warming is evidence that the universe is ever changing. I pointed out that the moon is evidence that the universe is unchanging. Rather than nitpicking what I said, why don't we deal with the idea that one puny little data point (Earth) is evidence of anything on a cosmic scale, shall we?
This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-04-2005 12:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 10:04 AM AndyA has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 31 (248845)
10-04-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AdminJar
10-04-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Getting OT here folk
AJ writes:
This is NOT on Global warming. Let's drop that discussion or move it to the appropriate thread.
With all do respect, I think we aren't that far off from the OT. The OT is about big bang and cosmology. Andy made a claim that global warming demonstrated a changing universe. I just want to make it clear that it's not as simple as that by pointing out that based on that logic we could say that the moon demonstrates that the universe is unchanging. On a grand scale, we are still discussing about cosmology.
ABE
The reason I am picking on this seemingly insignificant issue is because this same logic is used by creationists as "proof" against the big bang theory. They pointed out tiny little things like Uranus is on its side and Pluto's extreme elliptical orbit as "proof" that the universe must have been created by god exactly 6,000 years ago.
You know how I react to this kind of argument.
Anyway, you are probably right and I probably overreacted. No more responses from me to Andy in this thread, I swear.
This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-04-2005 12:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AdminJar, posted 10-04-2005 10:14 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jackal5096, posted 11-03-2005 12:20 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
jackal5096
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 31 (256508)
11-03-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by coffee_addict
10-04-2005 12:28 PM


Re: Getting OT here folk
quote:
The reason I am picking on this seemingly insignificant issue is because this same logic is used by creationists as "proof" against the big bang theory.
One doesn't have to be a creationist to dispute the big bang theory. Even an atheist can find enough valid and relevant empirical evidence to support an argument against the BB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 12:28 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 11-03-2005 12:47 PM jackal5096 has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 29 of 31 (256512)
11-03-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jackal5096
11-03-2005 12:20 PM


Re: Getting OT here folk
Even an atheist can find enough valid and relevant empirical evidence to support an argument against the BB.
Care to share the argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jackal5096, posted 11-03-2005 12:20 PM jackal5096 has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 30 of 31 (256514)
11-03-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndyA
10-04-2005 10:04 AM


Re: need concensus ?
quote:
1. Under an electron microscope, an atom would appear like a solar system. A grain of sand would strongly resemble a galaxy. There would be clusters of nuclei around which revolve electrons, with large spaces in between.
Care to show us a picture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndyA, posted 10-04-2005 10:04 AM AndyA has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024