Something new under the sun

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Please give one single concrete and specific claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream view. Something like "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

.
I will decline. I am not aware of any concrete examples, and do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to defend a position in which I am interested in finding out more about.

I am not sure I could even agree on what is meant by "plasma cosmology", nor on what is a successful bunk.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
I have no idea how such a plasmoid would behave. Perhaps you would first point me to a paper which shows that a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses of size 45 AU, would collapse.

Now I have to admit i find the many, many derails and name calling in here to be annoying.

Who has an idea does not matter, arguments from credulity or arguments from authority are both fallacious. people who spend time saying "X number of scientists believe in Potrezeebie' and people saying 'Only crackpot believe in the Potrezeebie gnome" are both engaging is very poor argumentation.

Ian you seem to be reasonable and to actually want to engage in conversation, so I am stunned to see such a bizzare and strange outright appeal to authority.

This is a sceptic's forum that is supposed to encourage critical thinking. Not endless debates about who has published what papers.

Why do I mention this?

Gravity, gravitational collapse are terms well discussed and in common usage. they are covered in a huge number of sources and places.

When you ask the following question:

"Perhaps you would first point me to a paper which shows that a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses of size 45 AU, would collapse."

It seems to be very starnge.

What is that you have to have a specific reference to a plasmoid collapsing. there are hundreds and thousands of sources for star formation and molecular clouds, galactic collsions and planet formation.

They are millions of sources for gravity and gravitational collapse.

the issue is that a plasmoid is subject to gravity and the other three forces we model as the current vision of reality.

The burden is on the people who claim that a plasmoid will NOT collapse. otherwise you are going to be saying that stars and galaxies do not form, that planets can not accreate and that the eagle Nebula and other places do not show instances of star formation.

It is like saying that there has to be a paper that says that SS Doradus and Betelgeuse were formed by gravitational collapse.

So here is the deal, I find you to be reasonable, I think you are engaged in conversation.

The burden is on the person who proposes a theory that a plasmoid (especially such a huge one) would not collapse. Otherwise we would not have stars, we would not have molcular clouds that become stars, we would not have stars become clusters, we would not have cluster become galaxies and so on.

If there is some requirement that a paper has to be written for every star , galaxy and planet saying it has undergone gravitational collapse would be really strange.

So here is the deal Ian:

1. The electrostatic repulsion of particles, even if they were all the same charge in the plasmoid (and plasma are usually neutral) is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity.

2. The magnetic repusion fo the particles even if they were all magnetic monopoles is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity. (I could be wrong here since I know the monopoles is a boogie).

3. if there is a mechanism that is going to keep the plasmoid in an expanded state, it is up to the people who say that it could be expanded to provide that mechanism. It is not up to anybody else to show that gravity would not overwhelm the alleged repulsive forces. It is up to the people who say that it would be expanded to show thier model, explain it and demonstrate that it fits the evidence.

4. Gravity effects photons, the EM force is sometimes modeled as being carried by photons, although I am not sure hoe the magnetic repulsions is modeled. Either way whatever we want to call 'force' it is usually considered to have mass and be effected by gravity. the effect of gravity upon photons is demonstrated in many ways. So the concept of a large gravitational field that bends the path of photons so much that they can not escape the gravitational field is not too far fetched.

How is there a mechanism for the particles to avoid the attraction of gravity when those force carriers are effected by gravity?

Even if you invoke the Coloumb force,(with out QM) the force of gravity will just move the particles together until the force equals the repulsive force, they will packed next to each other in a very small space.. A ball of degenrate matter, it will look like a black hole because there will be the same issue, light will not leave it.

So i am very sorry if I have been offensive or aggresive.

I hope to continue this conversation.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
I will decline. I am not aware of any concrete examples, and do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to defend a position in which I am interested in finding out more about.

I am not sure I could even agree on what is meant by "plasma cosmology", nor on what is a successful bunk.

Very well, and thanks for answering in such a straightforward way.

So, at least at the level of your understanding, not only is there no theory capable of making precise predictions, the subject itself is so vague it cannot be differentiated from bunk.

Zeuzzz?

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Very well, and thanks for answering in such a straightforward way.

So, at least at the level of your understanding, not only is there no theory capable of making precise predictions, the subject itself is so vague it cannot be differentiated from bunk.

.
You rascal I may feel that my level of understanding is not sufficient, but I do know (and so should you), that that is not what I said.

But I will agree that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish cosmology from bunk... which is probably why Stephen Hawking once likened it to pseudoscience.[Ref]

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You need to explain this a bit: What is plasma scaleability? What is its application to the cosmos?

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

Quote:

The parameters of plasmas, including their spatial and temporal extent, vary by many orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, there are significant similarities in the behaviors of apparently disparate plasmas. It is not only of theoretical interest to understand the scaling of plasma behavior, it also allows the results of laboratory experiments to be applied to larger natural or artificial plasmas of interest.

(external image) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...smas_graph.png (Source: Peratt, A. L., "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas" (1996) Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 242, Issue 1/2, p. 93-163.)

• Range of plasmas: Density increases upwards, temperature increases towards the right. The free electrons in a metal may be considered an electron plasma [1]

A commonly used similarity transformation.

One commonly used similarity transformation was derived for gas discharges by James Dillon Cobine (1941)[2], Alfred Hans von Engel and Max Steenbeck [3], and further applied by Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar to plasmas.[4] They can be summarised as follows:

Similarity Transformations Applied to Gaseous Discharges and some Plasmas:

Property: length, time, inductance, capacitance
Scale Factor: x¹ or just x

Property: particle energy, velocity, potential, current, resistance
Scale Factor: x⁰ or 1 (Unchanged)

Property: electric and magnetic fields, conductivity, neutral gas
Scale factor: x^-1 1/x density, ionization

Property: current density, electron and ion densities
Scale factor: x^-2 or 1/x²



This scaling applies best to plasmas with a relatively low degree of ionization. In such plasmas, the ionization energy of the neutral atoms is an important parameter and establishes an absolute energy scale, which explains many of the scalings in the table:

• Since the masses of electrons and ions cannot be varied, the velocities of the particles are also fixed, as is the speed of sound.
  
• If velocities are constant, then time scales must be directly proportional to distance scales.
  
• In order that charged particles falling through an electric potential gain the same energy, the potentials must be invariant, implying that the electric field scales inversely with the distance.
  
• Assuming that the magnitude of the E-cross-B drift is important and should be invariant, the magnetic field must scale like the electric field, namely inversely with the size. This is also the scaling required by Faraday's law of induction and Ampère's law.
  
• Assuming that the speed of the Alfvén wave is important and must remain invariant, the ion density (and with it the electron density) must scale with B², that is, inversely with the square of the size. Considering that the temperature is fixed, this also ensures that the ratio of thermal to magnetic energy, known as beta, remains constant. Furthermore, in regions where quasineutrality is violated, this scaling is required by Gauss's law.
  
• Ampère's law also requires that current density scales inversely with the square of the size, and therefore that current itself is invariant.
  
• The electrical conductivity is current density divided by electric field and thus scales inversely with the length.
  
• In a partially ionized plasma, the electrical conductivity is proportional to the electron density and inversely proportional to the neutral gas density, implying that the neutral density must scale inversely with the length, and ionization fraction scales inversely with the length.

And ignore the obviously vandalised dates on the wikipedia page, Peratts paper was published in the journal of Astrophyscis and Space Science in 1996, not 1966, CobineJ.D's paper was actuall published in 1972, not 1941, and the others are probably wrong too.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it. Which makes my challenge to you two even more relevant.

But it is suddenly deemed controversial when plasma astrophysicists take the opinion that these plasma effects dominate over other conventional effects. And many now do, and they would be considered plasma cosmologists because of this. Thats probably the best definition for what a plasma cosmologist is, an astrophysicist that holds the effetcs of plasma in much higher regard than conventional opinion. And skeptisism of the Big Bang usually helps.


Now, about this one subject you want us to elaborate on, as i said previously I would like to talk about plasma scaleability, from the experimental level, to the galactic level. Just the same as, for example, the Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics Experiment Group do for mainstream science, conduct experiments, and check to see if their experiments correlate with phenomenon in space. I will choose a couple of experiments that have been conducted, and compare them empirically, with any relevant mathematical observations and relationships.

Using plasma scaleability relationships between large and small size plasmas is the scope of the chosen subject, and comparing some of the similarities that have been reproduced in experiments with EM effects inside plasmas, and structures in the cosmos, thus indicating a level of EM activity and charge separation not accepted by conventional views.

sound OK?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
You rascal I may feel that my level of understanding is not sufficient, but I do know (and so should you), that that is not what I said.

But I will agree that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish cosmology from bunk... which is probably why Stephen Hawking once likened it to pseudoscience.[Ref]

Modern cosmology is actually becoming a precision science. Most of the large scale parameters have been measured to 1% or so.

Anyway, back to PC - if I mis-stated your position, sorry, but we are clear that you cannot even define it, let alone use it to make a prediction, right?

In that case, Zeuzzz is our only hope. May god have mercy on our souls.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Anyway, back to PC - if I mis-stated your position, sorry, but we are clear that you cannot even define it, let alone use it to make a prediction, right?

.
I have an idea of what I think it means, and no doubt you have yours. Whether we agree with others is another matter... which is I why I don't like general labels.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Modern cosmology is actually becoming a precision science. Most of the large scale parameters have been measured to 1% or so.

.
... not forgetting to distinguish the measurable observations from the theory...

"The hours of folly are measured by the clock, but of wisdom no clock can measure." -- William Blake (1757-1827)

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

But it is suddenly deemed controversial when plasma astrophysicists take the opinion that these plasma effects dominate over other conventional effects.

No, not necessarily. No one doubts that plasma effects are stronger than gravity in certain situations. Again, you must be more specific.

Quote:

Now, about this one subject you want us to elaborate on, as i said previously I would like to talk about plasma scaleability, from the experimental level, to the galactic level. Just the same as, for example, the Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics Experiment Group do for mainstream science, conduct experiments, and check to see if their experiments correlate with phenomenon in space. I will choose a couple of experiments that have been conducted, and compare them empirically, with any relevant mathematical observations and relationships.

Using plasma scaleability relationships between large and small size plasmas is the scope of the chosen subject, and comparing some of the similarities that have been reproduced in experiments with EM effects inside plasmas, and structures in the cosmos, thus indicating a level of EM activity and charge separation not accepted by conventional views.

sound OK?

That might be OK. I want you to name a single specific effect or observation in astrophysics or cosmology which PC claims to explain in a way different from the mainstream. Please try to keep it concise, concrete, and specific, and remember the deal.

One other thing - if you pick an effect which is not understood by the mainstream it will make this much less interesting. The ideal case is to have two explanations for one effect, each regarded as valid by its proponents, which we can compare.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Who has an idea does not matter, arguments from credulity or arguments from authority are both fallacious. people who spend time saying "X number of scientists believe in Potrezeebie' and people saying 'Only crackpot believe in the Potrezeebie gnome" are both engaging is very poor argumentation.

.
If we are discussing a theory attributed to X, then attribution is appropriate.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Ian you seem to be reasonable and to actually want to engage in conversation, so I am stunned to see such a bizzare and strange outright appeal to authority.

.
I seem to have come into the middle of a dialog where it was claimed that under certain circumstances, gravitational collapse is inevitable, hence my corrections regarding the term "gravitational collapse" and the clarification over mass size and density.

Althugh this looks like back-peddling, I never asserted that plasmoids could prevent gravitational collapse of certain specific masses. Your reasoning, and note to papers on the subject, are all quite logical.

What I was saying is that plasmoids counteract gravity in some masses.

However, with respect to gravitationa collapse, if we take 40,000 adjacent stars in our galaxy (ie. 40,000 solar masses), I note that they do not sponaneously, gravitationally collapse. I know they are not condenses in a space of radius 45AU, but I don't know how to get to that situation.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The burden is on the people who claim that a plasmoid will NOT collapse. otherwise you are going to be saying that stars and galaxies do not form, that planets can not accreate and that the eagle Nebula and other places do not show instances of star formation.

I think that this question is not really plasma cosmology material. Plasma cosmologists have written a few papers themselves on pulsars and neutron stars, and other compact stars, so they obviously do not disagree with these objects or how they are created. To my knowlegde no plasma astrophysicist has disputed gravitational collpase once it has started. There are however many filaments in space that seem to not obey gravitational collapse, and are arranged in huge filamentary structures. These types of stars have been looked at by EU theorists, they have propsed a quite different model, a bit more speculative, but interesting anyway.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

Quote:

Main Sequence Stars

Continuing toward the left, beyond the "knee of the curve", all these stars (K through B) are completely covered with tufts (have complete photospheres), their luminosity no longer grows as rapidly as before. But, the farther to the left we go (the higher the current density), the brighter the tufts become, and so the stars' luminosities do continue to increase. The situation is analogous to turning up the current in an electric arc welding machine. The increased brightness of the arcs accounts for the upward slope of the line toward the left. Mathematically we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also one of the factors in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity). The more significant this relationship is, the more closely the plot will approach a 45 degree straight line.

[Reminder: Our progression from right toward the left is not a description of one star evolving in time - we are just moving across the diagram from one static point (star) to another.]

That the stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line, is due to their variation in size. The relatively straight portion of the HR diagram is called the 'main sequence'. This nomenclature gives a false impression, that stars move around 'sequentially' in the HR plot. The HR diagram is a static scatter plot, not a sequence.

White and Blue Stars

When we get to the upper left end of the main sequence, what kind of stars are these? This is the region of O type, blue-white, high temperature (35,000+ K) stars. As we approach the far upper-left of the HR diagram (region of highest current density), the stars are under extreme electrical stress - too many Amps per sq. meter. Their absolute luminosities approach 100,000 times the Sun's. Even farther out to the upper left is the region of Wolf-Rayet stars. Extreme electrical stress can lead to a such a star's splitting into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions are called novae. The splitting process is called fissioning. A characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars is that they are losing mass rapidly.

The Plasma cosmology material on pulsars was a paper that proposed that the emmission lines that we detect off pulsars was not determined by points on a rotating surface, but seemed more consitant with gamma rays that would be produced by a periodic plasma discharge in the pulsars magnetosphere. They produce quite a detailed anaysis of the data from pulsars, they look into the polarization properties especially.

Quote:

Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the 'duty cycle' is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars, first postulated by K. Healy and A. Peratt[1]. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years.

Further evidence of plasma discharge between two bodies being the cause of the pulses has been given by Hubble;

"Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known."

Millisecond pulsars tend to have small companions orbitting nearby, most that have been discovered have had these companions. This could be the body that the plasma discharge is peridically discharging to, causing the pulses from pulsars.

Another one for example is the crab nebula, which is thought to have a neutron star at its centre. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec, just one millisecond.

Quote:

The Hubble orbiting telescope has recently found a companion;

"a small knot of bright emission located only 1500 AU (1500 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun) from the pulsar. This knot has gone undetected up until now because even at the best ground-based resolution it is lost in the glare of the adjacent pulsar. The knot and the pulsar line up with the direction of a jet of X-ray emission. A second discovery is that in the direction opposite the knot, the Crab pulsar is capped by a ring-like 'halo' of emission tipped at about 20 degrees to our line of sight. In this geometry the polar jet flows right through the center of the halo."

If you take a look at the crab nebula, it looks similar to the shpae that a unipolar inductor would take in space, a central input current, with a rotating cylinder around it. this is a pic of it; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...a-combined.jpg

And a similar rotating belt has been seen on the sun, captured by SOHO using a certain frequency of UV, along with an odd spherical shaped structure outside the suns photosphere. heres a pic; http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin...19049671584114


The paper on pulsars can be seen here:

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment

Authors: Healy, Kevin R.; Peratt, Anthony L.

Affiliation: AA(Very Large Array Operations Center, National Radio Astronomy Observatory), AB(Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Publication: Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, 1995

Quote:

"Because of the losses in the dielectric media and in synchrotron emission, the periodicity of the propagating pulses increases. However the experiment dramatically showed that there are glitches, the flow of electron flux across the magnetosphere, can shorten the line and concomitantly the period. The fractional frequency stability scaling versus measurements interval up to about 30,000,000 s for pulsars is nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks. This supports the pulsar surface-magnetosphere relativistic double layer model; itself a trapped ion mechanism"

"Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. This effect is produced when the magnetically insulated voltage pulse reaches the pulsar surface. Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region. This tends to create a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse"

And thier conclusion,

Quote:

"The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit (Hannes Alfvén 1981).[2] This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission."

I find this idea much more plausable than the current explanation, those stars would have to be spinning faster than a dentist drill to account for that frequency!

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/mspulsar/

Quote:

The scientists discovered the pulsar, named PSR J1748-2446ad, in a globular cluster of stars called Terzan 5, located some 28,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. The newly-discovered pulsar is spinning 716 times per second, or at 716 Hertz (Hz), readily beating the previous record of 642 Hz from a pulsar discovered in 1982. For reference, the fastest speeds of common kitchen blenders are 250-500 Hz.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

One other thing - if you pick an effect which is not understood by the mainstream it will make this much less interesting. The ideal case is to have two explanations for one effect, each regarded as valid by its proponents, which we can compare.

.
If I criticized standard cosmology and it was found that I did not understand something correctly, it would be a valid criticism in return.

So you bring up a good point. Are there aspects of the Plasma Universe that are not generally understood by the mainstream, and more importantly, are they significant. I think that makes it more interesting.

[Zeuzzz]

How do you attatch pictures to your posts without violating copyright regulations? Who do you have to prove to that the picture is public source?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
If we are discussing a theory attributed to X, then attribution is appropriate.


.
I seem to have come into the middle of a dialog where it was claimed that under certain circumstances, gravitational collapse is inevitable, hence my corrections regarding the term "gravitational collapse" and the clarification over mass size and density.

Althugh this looks like back-peddling, I never asserted that plasmoids could prevent gravitational collapse of certain specific masses. Your reasoning, and note to papers on the subject, are all quite logical.

What I was saying is that plasmoids counteract gravity in some masses.

However, with respect to gravitationa collapse, if we take 40,000 adjacent stars in our galaxy (ie. 40,000 solar masses), I note that they do not sponaneously, gravitationally collapse. I know they are not condenses in a space of radius 45AU, but I don't know how to get to that situation.

This is all very reasonable, thank you. here is the deal, a molecular cloud will start out at sizes much much larger than the scale of the 45 AU or 1 AU. it will collapse to form stars in various conditions. the behavior of the individual particles is effected by the mass of the whole (in really gross terms, the specific will cause some variation of attraction based upon position but grossly things will be attracted to the ceneter of mass).

The situation is exactly the same for a mass of 40,000 solar masses. each partcicle, be it small or a star will attract all the other masses in teh area. So gain in gross terms all the matter in the area will be attracted to the common center of mass/gravity.

Again this is plain old gravitation, it doe snot require any sort of special study or science. The behavior of an aggregate is translatable to scales in a very groos fashion. If the 40,000 stars are transported there or if the mass is one giant and very dense molecular cloud does not matter, there will be the individual gravitational attraction of each of the emmebers at any scale youd esignate. There will be attraction to the center of mass/gravity in gross terms. All the mass whatever it's form will be attracted to the center of gravity.

The issue is that regardless of how they get there and what state they are in they will be attracted by the force of gravity to one very small area. Once they are concentrated in that area (even if they were to remain plasma through some breaking of the rules or degenerate matter through the breaking of the rules) the gravitational pull will be so strong that the path of photons will be bent so far that they will not escape the gravity of the mass. By definition this is a black hole, the state of the matter past the event horizon is a subject for another debate.

In the early universe and in the current universe there are stars that are approximatelt this mass, SS Doradus is huge but not that big, they collapse to form conventional super bue giant stars that go blooie in a very shirt time period. they do not become diffuse plasmoids, they contract under gravitation.

That is where I am headed, so far no evidence or theory has been presented that would allow the plasmoid with a mass of 40,000 suns to maintain an expanded state against gravity, it will become a black hole.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How do you attatch pictures to your posts without violating copyright regulations? Who do you have to prove to that the picture is public source?

.
You could always provide a link to the Web page (or abstract) where you found the image. But you'd be safe with anything from Wikipedia, or dated before about 1928.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I think that this question is not really plasma cosmology material. Plasma cosmologists have written a few papers themselves on pulsars and neutron stars, and other compact stars, so they obviously do not disagree with these objects or how they are created. To my knowlegde no plasma astrophysicist has disputed gravitational collpase once it has started. There are however many filaments in space that seem to not obey gravitational collapse, and are arranged in huge filamentary structures. These types of stars have been looked at by EU theorists, they have propsed a quite different model, a bit more speculative, but interesting anyway.

BAC claimed that Lerner had suggested that the mass at the center of our galaxy is not a black hole but some form of plasmoid.

This is a violation of the consequences of gravity.
You will have event horizon from which light will not travel.

the rest I will read in a while I am going off break

Quote:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm



The Plasma cosmology material on pulsars was a paper that proposed that the emmission lines that we detect off pulsars was not determined by points on a rotating surface, but seemed more consitant with gamma rays that would be produced by a periodic plasma discharge in the pulsars magnetosphere. They produce quite a detailed anaysis of the data from pulsars, they look into the polarization properties especially.




Millisecond pulsars tend to have small companions orbitting nearby, most that have been discovered have had these companions. This could be the body that the plasma discharge is peridically discharging to, causing the pulses from pulsars.

Another one for example is the crab nebula, which is thought to have a neutron star at its centre. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec, just one millisecond.




If you take a look at the crab nebula, it looks similar to the shpae that a unipolar inductor would take in space, a central input current, with a rotating cylinder around it. this is a pic of it; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...a-combined.jpg

And a similar rotating belt has been seen on the sun, captured by SOHO using a certain frequency of UV, along with an odd spherical shaped structure outside the suns photosphere. heres a pic; http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin...19049671584114


The paper on pulsars can be seen here:

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment

Authors: Healy, Kevin R.; Peratt, Anthony L.

Affiliation: AA(Very Large Array Operations Center, National Radio Astronomy Observatory), AB(Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Publication: Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, 1995



And thier conclusion,




I find this idea much more plausable than the current explanation, those stars would have to be spinning faster than a dentist drill to account for that frequency!

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/mspulsar/

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How do you attatch pictures to your posts without violating copyright regulations? Who do you have to prove to that the picture is public source?

If you include the image using the "insert image" function, all you're doing is linking to an image elsewhere on the web which the forum software displays (in some browsers at least) as part of your post. I have trouble seeing how that could possibly be a copyright violation - it's hardly different from posting the link in url form, or setting your browser to graphically preview urls - but these laws aren't rational and I might be wrong.

Anyway, are you going to answer my question? If you're not going to I'm going to put you on ignore. All you ever seem to post about is PC, but if you can't give even a single example of something it predicts differently from the mainstream, I see no reason in reading anything more you have to say about it. I would guess that others will do so as well.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

This is all very reasonable, thank you. here is the deal, a molecular cloud will start out at sizes much much larger than the scale of the 45 AU or 1 AU. it will collapse to form stars in various conditions. the behavior of the individual particles is effected by the mass of the whole (in really gross terms, the specific will cause some variation of attraction based upon position but grossly things will be attracted to the ceneter of mass).

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Anyway, are you going to answer my question? If you're not going to I'm going to put you on ignore. All you ever seem to post about is PC, but if you can't give even a single example of something it predicts differently from the mainstream, I see no reason in reading anything more you have to say about it.

Yes i am, hold on. I am reading through some material at the moment, to be precise, a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm
apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. And i will also post some of the resounding successes of plasma scaling with the work of Kristian Birkeland and his terella experiments which mimicked exactly many separate aspects of the sun, including the plasma torus only just discovered very recently by SOHO that I linked to in my previous post.

So is it predictions of plasma cosmologists that you want? I could give a good few of them aswell. Or exmaples of plasma scaleablitity from lab to cosmos? which one?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

Of course they are attracted towards the center - if they weren't the galaxy would fall apart. The mystery associated with rotation curves is why they are more attracted to the center than they should be past a given radius, given the gravitational pull of the visible matter in the galactic disk.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

BAC claimed that Lerner had suggested that the mass at the center of our galaxy is not a black hole but some form of plasmoid.

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes i am, hold on. I am reading through some material at the moment, to be precise, a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm
apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. And i will also post some of the resounding successes of plasma scaling with the work of Kristian Birkeland and his terella experiments which mimicked exactly many separate aspects of the sun, including the plasma torus only just discovered very recently by SOHO that I linked to in my previous post.

So is it predictions of plasma cosmologists that you want? I could give a good few of them aswell. Or exmaples of plasma scaleablitity from lab to cosmos? which one?

I repeat - I want an example of an astrophysical phenomenon which PC claims to explain in a way which differs from the mainstream. A lab experiment might constitute part of the explanation, but it is not an astrophysical phenomenon.

Also, if the phenomena in question are solar, that has little or nothing to do with cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the universe on scales larger than galaxies - it's the collective dynamics of billions or trillions of stars (plus whatever other matter is around). Still, if you consider some solar phenomenon to be part of plasma cosmology and you will abide by the terms of our deal, we can go with that.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

The interior of a black hole can not be pressure supported. It collapses. Completely. You might argue that the infalling matter is still plasma before it actually hits the middle and before it reaches ludicrous densities but it doesn't matter because it's inside the horizon and can't affect anything else in the universe, including this discussion.

You don't see black holes with gamma rays. You only see the accretion disks in x-rays and the like. It's the processes going on outside the hole that are astronomically observable, not the hole itself.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

EM forces are known to exist in space. They are unbelieveably stronger than gravity. Pick up a metal object with a magnet, and you have just demonstrated that a small EM attraction is able to overcome the gravitational attraction caused by the entire mass of the earth.

Yes, but can you say the same thing about that magnet when it's 2 million light years away vs a galaxy ?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by edd

The interior of a black hole can not be pressure supported. It collapses. Completely. You might argue that the infalling matter is still plasma before it actually hits the middle and before it reaches ludicrous densities but it doesn't matter because it's inside the horizon and can't affect anything else in the universe, including this discussion.

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?

Quote:

It's the processes going on outside the hole that are astronomically observable, not the hole itself.

Precisely.

No-one has ever seen a black hole, and i accept that one very well could exist at the centre (hard as that is to actually disprove ), but its effects would likely be analogous to a plasma of similar mass density, whether the plasma was attracting in all surrounding light or not. I still think that black holes are made of plasma, its just plasma that is (supposedly) dense enough to attract back light, and so hard to see. A star would be made of 100% mater in the plasma state, and i see no reason why black holes should not be too.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

Now that again really seems to be a strange statement. Are you just ignoring the behavior of the stars? You really have to be willfully blind to ignore the effect of gravity on all sorts of scales and events.

The roatation curve problem is that they are acting like there is more gravity , not less.

And since you have made a vague allusion to Perrat:
1. What size would the magnetic field have to be to have a flat rotational curve for the galaxy.

You have avoided the exact same issues that BAC has avoided, you are not providing a direct answer to a direct question.


I will assume that you are just avoiding the issue and will bid you faretheewell.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

And just because a black hole is attracting in all surrounding light does not suddenly change what it is made of, surely, it still is a type of star? and stars are technically constituted of matter in a plasma state. But yes, its a star that you cant see with normal light, only lower wavelengths of the EM spectrum like gamma rays. It need not be so mysterious. Its basically a star that you cant see, and will still likely be made of plasma. No sort of mathematical spookiness is required, no point mass, extra dimensions, or other mathematical constraints need be put on it in my opinion.

What do you think black holes are made of?

Considering that gravity would be stronger than any other force, at any scale once the contraction has occured I can imagine that they could be plasma, except that it would not be like any plasma that has ever been described.

Again, how is any sort of repulsive pressure going to maintain as a plasma when it will be compressed to degenerate matter and then the singularity?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I think that this question is not really plasma cosmology material. Plasma cosmologists have written a few papers themselves on pulsars and neutron stars, and other compact stars, so they obviously do not disagree with these objects or how they are created. To my knowlegde no plasma astrophysicist has disputed gravitational collpase once it has started. There are however many filaments in space that seem to not obey gravitational collapse, and are arranged in huge filamentary structures. These types of stars have been looked at by EU theorists, they have propsed a quite different model, a bit more speculative, but interesting anyway.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly on this thread that such large scale structures will not undergo gravitational collaspe into a black hole because they are not bound into a small enough volume. It is the density of matter that is important for whether or not something becomes a stellar black hole.

For you to keep going on and on about various astrophysical phenomena in completely the wrong context, after having been corrected numerous times, seems to indicate that you are being very disingenuous.

Why do you keep bringing up the same errors again and again and again...?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

It says a lot about the immediate aftermath, though.

Quote:

This is hilarious! Mainstream scientists are saying that plasma cosmology is not viable because it is not based on things that they made up to plug the numbers in their models! The irony.

Plasma cosmologists accusing mainstram scientists of making stuff up. THAT's the irony.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?




Precisely.

No-one has ever seen a black hole, and i accept that one very well could exist at the centre (hard as that is to actually disprove ), but its effects would likely be analogous to a plasma of similar mass density, whether the plasma was attracting in all surrounding light or not. I still think that black holes are made of plasma, its just plasma that is (supposedly) dense enough to attract back light, and so hard to see. A star would be made of 100% mater in the plasma state, and i see no reason why black holes should not be too.

At the densities of all the mass confined to a space of the Plank lenth, would it still be plasma.

You haven't explained how the EM or any other force is going to be strong enough to overcome the gravity.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Modern cosmology is actually becoming a precision science. Most of the large scale parameters have been measured to 1% or so.

Anyway, back to PC - if I mis-stated your position, sorry, but we are clear that you cannot even define it, let alone use it to make a prediction, right?

In that case, Zeuzzz is our only hope. May god have mercy on our souls.

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable, admits that there aren't any concrete predictions of EU-PU cosmology to be made. And now we're left with the flagrant arm-waving of Zeuzzz.

I think this thread is dead folks. Perhaps Sol's suggestion of using the "ignore" setting is well advised.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Where exactly has this matter gone? vanished to balance out some more equations?

It's inside the horizon of the hole. And yes, the equations are solved.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable, admits that there aren't any concrete predictions of EU-PU cosmology to be made. And now we're left with the flagrant arm-waving of Zeuzzz.

I think this thread is dead folks. Perhaps Sol's suggestion of using the "ignore" setting is well advised.

If he doesn't answer my question soon that's what I'm going to do. At that point both of the plasma cosmology advocates here will have admitted that they can't produce even one single prediction of their "theory" - which means they don't have a theory at all.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And since you have made a vague allusion to Perrat:
1. What size would the magnetic field have to be to have a flat rotational curve for the galaxy.

.
I would suggest referring to Peratt himself, who includes electromagnetic forces (not just magnetic), and gravity.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So iantresman, the only one of these woo who seems to be reasonable,

.
My last comment to you requested just one peer reviewed citation; calling someone a woo doesn't quite do it.

We may disagree on many matters, but I expect the same civility I extend to you. I will not respond to you any further while you continue to use terms of disrespect.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Sure, but in a a typical galaxy containing millions to billions of stars (much more than 40,000 solar masses), the dynamics appears more complex... I don't see signs of the stars being attracted towards the centre... nor even following gravitational rotation curves. Which is not the say that gravity is not important.

You are correct - the black holes at the center of galaxies like the Milky Way (known as Sagittarius A* with a mass of about 3.7 million solar masses) and the M87 galaxy (a mass of about 3000 million solar masses) have a minor effect on the dynamics of the galaxy. The dynamics of a galaxy are determined mostly by the surrounding dark matter with a smaller contribution from stars.
Every scientist knows that a rotating object has to have a force to keep it rotating around the center and not fly off. For galaxies, etc. this force is gravity.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?.

What do you think conditions are like inside a plasmoid, David? Is it really hot? Are the plasmas fast moving? Think about that, then tell us what will keep Betelgeuse from collapsing before it runs out of fuel?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I am sure about the mass of the M87 black hole because this is the mass that is stated by the very link that you have.

Hey ... want a quote from the scientist who did the measurements and claimed the M87 black hole has a mass of about 3 billion suns? Here:

"These are clearly remarkable creatures," Ford said. "We are talking about 1 billion stars like the sun smashed down to a volume the size of your thumbnail."

A thumbnail? You really believe that? And why a thumbnail? Why not the size of a pea? Or the period at the end of this sentence. Why not the size of a bacterium? Or an atom?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

What do you think conditions are like inside a plasmoid, David? Is it really hot? Are the plasmas fast moving? Think about that, then tell us what will keep Betelgeuse from collapsing before it runs out of fuel?

BeAChooser: You are the one that brought up plasmoids so presumably you know something about them. So these questions are for you to answer.
By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
My last comment to you requested just one peer reviewed citation; calling someone a woo doesn't quite do it.

Moving goal-posts... You are in no position to make demands. You are the one going contrary to the mainstream astrophysics, you make the plasma cosmology claims, so you need to justify your claims to the astrophysics community and convince them of your arguments. Thus far, by the standard of pretty much everyone here who understands BBC, you haven't done that.

It's not up to me to do your homework for you. If you really wish your "theories" to gain any level of acceptance in the astrophysics community, you're going to have to do much better than hanging around on these forums pushing lousy arguments like we've seen here.

Quote:

We may disagree on many matters, but I expect the same civility I extend to you. I will not respond to you any further while you continue to use terms of disrespect.

So, you haven't come up with that prediction or test for PC that Sol (and others) have demanded yet, eh?

Looks like "ignore" time Sol...

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Hey ... want a quote from the scientist who did the measurements and claimed the M87 black hole has a mass of about 3 billion suns? Here:

"These are clearly remarkable creatures," Ford said. "We are talking about 1 billion stars like the sun smashed down to a volume the size of your thumbnail."

A thumbnail? You really believe that? And why a thumbnail? Why not the size of a pea? Or the period at the end of this sentence. Why not the size of a bacterium? Or an atom?

As far as I know they can be of almost any size-not sure wheter there is any limit.(near Univers-sized ones do not look so nice )
And LHC might create somewhat(maybe atom-sized? ) small black holes as a result of indirect evidence for String Theory...