Something new under the sun - Page 11

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by edd

'But in the BB hypothesis, which assumes the CBR originated BEHIND all clusters of galaxies and other very dense concentrations of matter, interactions with electrons will decrease the CBR luminosity. So there should be an anti-correlation of galaxies and CBR on small angular scales. Just the opposite is observed[Scranton et al, arXiv:astrop-ph/0307335]'

... snip ...

It's just not a convincing rebuttal in the slightest.

How about this?

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. ... snip ... Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu."

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big..._Test_999.html "The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800 "Where Have All the Shadows Gone?"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_monday.html "A study of nearby galaxy clusters has failed to detect distortions in the ancient microwave radiation many scientists have linked to the creation of our universe."

http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/con...f_the_big_bang "the energy now being received from the CMB must have traveled across the whole of the cosmos to reach this location at this time. Because of this, there should be evidence imprinted on the CMB showing a sort of record of its travels. Studies conducted by Prof. Richard Lieu at the University of Alabama used NASA's own Wilkonson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to look for evidence of this passage. The First study, as recounted by Space Daily in 2005, looked for evidence of gravitational lensing in the CMB. Gravitational lensing is an effect of the gravitational attraction of massive clusters of galaxies. When radiation passes through such a powerful field, it is magnified, like being seen through a lens. This would leave a clear image on the CMB in the areas that have been so magnified. No evidence of the effect was found, so the CMB could not have originated from beyond the galaxy clusters; compliance with the requirements of the physical laws is not optional. Another study by Prof. Lieu's team, published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006, looked for evidence of a shadow' effect, called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, in the CMB. This is another requirement needed to prove that the CMB came from beyond nearby galaxy clusters. The effect manifests in a fashion similar to a silhouette. If a light source is behind an object, relative to an observer, then that object should cast a shadow forward onto the observer. This effect was not found in the CMB either."

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Again, I suggest rotation curves.

Speaking of rotation curves ...

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...tronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising.""

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Speaking of rotation curves ...

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...tronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising.""

Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe!

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it.

Then it is curious why so many of them use the word gas when talking about plasma. It is curious why so many ignore the various electromagetic related phenomena that have been mentioned with regards to plasmas when looking for explanations of phenomena. Why are terms like "plasma filaments", "Birkeland current", "double layer", "exploding double layer", and "z-pinch" so rarely seen in articles and papers written by mainstream astrophysicists and physicists ... especially when the astronomical objects being described sound just like manifestations of those phenomena?

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

1. The electrostatic repulsion of particles, even if they were all the same charge in the plasmoid ... snip ... is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity.

Gee David, seems to me I've been told recently that even a miniscule amount of particles, if they were all the same charge, would blow the sun up.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

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).

Is it? Afterall, mainstream astrophysicists are talking all the time about open field lines. So there must be monopoles all over the universe.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

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.

Gee David, I thought you'd figure out that the particles in the plasmoid are really hot and moving very fast.

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 03:03 PM

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.

Yeah, like the amount of dark matter and dark energy ... whatever they be.

sol invictus · 13th March 2008, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe!

Actually, we already know a mechanism by which dark matter can be stripped away from most of the luminous matter. When two galaxies or clusters collide with sufficient velocity, the dark matter and stars pass through each other, leaving behind most of the gas (and therefore most of the visible matter). That's what's we're seeing happen with the bullet cluster right now. If that remaining gas is star forming, the resulting galaxy will be without DM.

Given that we've seen one collision taking place "now", there are almost certainly several remnants of those collisions around from past collisions. This may well be one such, and (while it's interesting and noteworthy) I don't find it at all surprising.

And the observation of such a galaxy is yet another nail in the coffin of alternative gravity theories like MOND, which cannot possibly account for such a thing.

Zeuzzz · 13th March 2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

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

I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

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"

I KNOW I've pointed this one out before ... but you just ignored it.

Plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe.

Big Bang cosmologists did not. In fact, they were surprised by it.

sol invictus · 13th March 2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.

So it sounds like you're not going to answer the question?

Originally Posted by me

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.

Deal?

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I KNOW I've pointed this one out before ... but you just ignored it.

Plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe.

Big Bang cosmologists did not. In fact, they were surprised by it.

They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments.

sol invictus · 13th March 2008, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments.

I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating).

The results match observations quite well.

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating).

The results match observations quite well.

I agree. Maybe BeAChooser is using the English "surprised" as in "this is an interesting thing that just happened - I am surprised" rather than the scientific "surprised", e.g. "we predict not-X and were surprised to find X". This does show BAC's lack of knowledge of the current cosmology work.

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

You know of any reason why they couldn't scale to larger systems? By the way: this ties into Zeuzzz's discussion of scalability.

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

By the way:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...laxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]"

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Klimax

As far as I know they can be of almost any size-not sure wheter there is any limit.

You missed my point. Why does the collapse stop at the size of a fingernail?

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

If that remaining gas is star forming

Just can't help yourself ... can you.

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

By the way:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...laxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]"

You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale.

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You missed my point. Why does the collapse stop at the size of a fingernail?

It is a description in a press release aimed at the general public. The collapse does not stop at the size of a fingernail.

Zeuzzz · 13th March 2008, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale.

Plasma scaling

Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains.

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Plasma scaling

Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains.

Note the word "mimicked". I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in water

!
The next step an any simulation is show that it happens in the real world. Where are your observations of galactic-sized plasmoids?

Zeuzzz · 13th March 2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Note the word "mimicked". I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in water

!

You need to stop getting your analogies from Baut. No-one is claiming any similarities between a vortex effect in a bath and galaxies

. What a stupid analogy. Plasma experiments can be applied to the cosmos as the cosmos is 99.999% plasma. Vortex's formed in baths are not occuring in plasma (although they do actually arrise from weak EM effects anyway)

Quote:

The next step an any simulation is show that it happens in the real world. Where are your observations of galactic-sized plasmoids?

When you look at a galaxy. That is a direct observation of what has been produced in plasma experiments, which I will post here soon

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments.

Computer models that contained "something" called dark matter that was distributed in such a way that it would form filaments?

And you know what else is interesting about articles on this topic and the computer model?

They don't mention plasma and the model doesn't include electromagnetic effects. They modeled neutral gas and used methods more suited to studying our atmosphere and water. They don't seem to recognize that plasmas behave very differently than neutral gas in the presence of electromagnetic fields ... which we know exist out there. Notice also that they don't seem to recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments. You suppose they might be missing the obvious?

GIGO?

By the way, you should know that they haven't yet detected the type of filaments their model predicts. Time will tell.

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.

Hand-wave!!!

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The collapse does not stop at the size of a fingernail.

Ok, how small does it get ... that billion sun mass?

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Ok, how small does it get ... that billion sun mass?

It depends - the singularity has zero size, the event horizon depends on the black hole mass.

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

When you look at a galaxy. That is a direct observation of what has been produced in plasma experiments, which I will post here soon

Flap... flap... flap... MORE Hand-Waving!!!

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It depends - the singularity has zero size, the event horizon depends on the black hole mass.

The size of the event horizon of a black hole is also called the Schwartzchild radius, and it's equal to...

R = 2GM / c²

where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole (in kg), and c is the speed of light. So a billion-sun mass (which is M = 10⁹ * 2x10³⁰ kg) should come out to...

R = 2 * 6.67x10^-11 Nm²/kg² * 10⁹ * 2x10³⁰ kg / (3x10⁸ m/sec)²

R = 2.96x10¹² meters

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around

Actually, you can't, since your bath water isn't a plasma under the influence of electromagnetic effects.

But you do demonstrate the selective blindness of mainstream supporters ... treating the galaxy once again as if it were a neutral fluid.

Your motto is ANYTHING but electricity. And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC?

edd · 13th March 2008, 05:09 PM

BeAChooser - stop relying on overblown media reports and try looking through the literature. From Dunkley et al. (2008)'s weak lensing section:

Quote:

'A study was done with the WMAP ﬁrst-year data combined with a sample of LRGs from SDSS, but no signal was detected, consistent with theoretical expectation (Hirata et al. 2004). Two recent analyses have found the ﬁrst evidence for the cross-correlated lensing signal (Smith et al. 2007; Hirata et al. 2008). They use the three-year WMAP data correlated with NVSS radio sources (Smith et al. 2007), ﬁnding a 3.4σ detection of the correlation, and WMAP combined with data from NVSS and SDSS, using both LRGS and quasars (Hirata et al. 2008), ﬁnding a correlation with a 2.1σ level of signiﬁcance. The cross-correlation in both cases is consistent with the ﬁve-year WMAP ΛCDM model.
'

The gravitational lensing signature is there, and consistent with the standard cosmology.

As for the SZ effect. It's tricky to detect, but it is detectable. It's been seen for several Abell clusters I believe. It's not missing. I'll let you find it yourself, it's not hard.

Zeuzzz · 13th March 2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Flap... flap... flap... MORE Hand-Waving!!!

Well you might just have to eat your hat tomorrow, we'll just have to see wont we.

So are you saying you think there is no such material?

Its going to take a while to assemble the material, and that is not hand waving, it called telling you what I plan to do. Goodnight.

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Plasma scaling

Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains.

Yes, and because we can observe simple harmonic oscillators on lab benches, this is proof positive of string theory! Where's my Nobel Prize?

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It depends - the singularity has zero size

Well in this case, the scientist was talking about that billion sun mass, not the event horizon.

So why didn't the scientist just say the billion sun mass collapses to a point with ... well .... zero size?

Zeuzzz · 13th March 2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

because we can observe simple harmonic oscillators on lab benches, this is proof positive of string theory!

How on earth does SHM have anything to do string theory?

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well you might just have to eat your hat tomorrow, we'll just have to see wont we.

So are you saying you think there is no such material?

Its going to take a while to assemble the material, and that is not hand waving, it called telling you what I plan to do.

The thing that's so interesting is that you've spent so many posts talking up your EU-PU woo-nonsense, screwing up physics all along the way, and when a group of us demand a simple statement outlining a prediction or a test of your pet "theory"...

... suddenly you cannot post something. You have to go "look it up" or "dig through the material". It's now going to "take some time."

Gee whiz, given all the things you've been saying, one would think that you'd have had the info at your fingertips the entire time...

Fine, post something else. I'm fairly certain that it'll get torn to shreds in short order. That's my prediction.

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Flap... flap... flap... MORE Hand-Waving!!!

We all noticed you had NO response whatsoever to my post on filaments earlier in this thread ... when you denied they are made of plasma.

Were you just hand waving, MM?

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How on earth does SHM have anything to do string theory?

Astonishing... a lobotomized chimp could see the analogy I was making. At least, any primate with an understanding of basic physics

MattusMaximus · 13th March 2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

We all noticed you had NO response whatsoever to my post on filaments earlier in this thread ... when you denied they are made of plasma.

Were you just hand waving, MM?

No dice pal. It was clearly outlined by both me and many others... that you are erroneously assuming only baryonic matter in your calculation. In fact, such baryonic matter makes up only about 4% of the matter & energy that we observe in the universe.

Sigh... for the lurkers, it was all posted here in post #149 by Reality Check and in post #158 by me.

It was at that point that all you woo-niacs decided to start butchering the physics of black holes.

Sorry, but no cigar. Try recycling some more garbage...

BeAChooser · 13th March 2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

So are you saying you think there is no such material?

Yes, just like he said that there was no evidence that filaments out there are made of plasma.

Reality Check · 13th March 2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Actually, you can't, since your bath water isn't a plasma under the influence of electromagnetic effects.

But you do demonstrate the selective blindness of mainstream supporters ... treating the galaxy once again as if it were a neutral fluid.

Your motto is ANYTHING but electricity. And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC?

My original sarcastic and humorous statement was:
"I can mimic a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in water".

Compare this to Zeuzzz's claim which was basically:
We can mimic a galaxy in a plasma therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in plasma.

And he is serious!

My motto is "anything that is supported by lots and lots of evidence". Is your motto "Nothing but electricity even with the lack of a large body of evidence"?

13th March 2008, 02:07 PM	#401
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by edd 'But in the BB hypothesis, which assumes the CBR originated BEHIND all clusters of galaxies and other very dense concentrations of matter, interactions with electrons will decrease the CBR luminosity. So there should be an anti-correlation of galaxies and CBR on small angular scales. Just the opposite is observed[Scranton et al, arXiv:astrop-ph/0307335]' ... snip ... It's just not a convincing rebuttal in the slightest. How about this? http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. ... snip ... Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu." http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big..._Test_999.html "The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang." http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800 "Where Have All the Shadows Gone?" http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_monday.html "A study of nearby galaxy clusters has failed to detect distortions in the ancient microwave radiation many scientists have linked to the creation of our universe." http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/con...f_the_big_bang "the energy now being received from the CMB must have traveled across the whole of the cosmos to reach this location at this time. Because of this, there should be evidence imprinted on the CMB showing a sort of record of its travels. Studies conducted by Prof. Richard Lieu at the University of Alabama used NASA's own Wilkonson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to look for evidence of this passage. The First study, as recounted by Space Daily in 2005, looked for evidence of gravitational lensing in the CMB. Gravitational lensing is an effect of the gravitational attraction of massive clusters of galaxies. When radiation passes through such a powerful field, it is magnified, like being seen through a lens. This would leave a clear image on the CMB in the areas that have been so magnified. No evidence of the effect was found, so the CMB could not have originated from beyond the galaxy clusters; compliance with the requirements of the physical laws is not optional. Another study by Prof. Lieu's team, published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006, looked for evidence of a shadow' effect, called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, in the CMB. This is another requirement needed to prove that the CMB came from beyond nearby galaxy clusters. The effect manifests in a fashion similar to a silhouette. If a light source is behind an object, relative to an observer, then that object should cast a shadow forward onto the observer. This effect was not found in the CMB either."
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 02:26 PM	#402
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by sol invictus Again, I suggest rotation curves. Speaking of rotation curves ... http://space.newscientist.com/articl...tronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising.""
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 02:40 PM	#404
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by sol invictus Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it. Then it is curious why so many of them use the word gas when talking about plasma. It is curious why so many ignore the various electromagetic related phenomena that have been mentioned with regards to plasmas when looking for explanations of phenomena. Why are terms like "plasma filaments", "Birkeland current", "double layer", "exploding double layer", and "z-pinch" so rarely seen in articles and papers written by mainstream astrophysicists and physicists ... especially when the astronomical objects being described sound just like manifestations of those phenomena?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 02:59 PM	#405
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Dancing David 1. The electrostatic repulsion of particles, even if they were all the same charge in the plasmoid ... snip ... is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity. Gee David, seems to me I've been told recently that even a miniscule amount of particles, if they were all the same charge, would blow the sun up. Originally Posted by Dancing David 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). Is it? Afterall, mainstream astrophysicists are talking all the time about open field lines. So there must be monopoles all over the universe. Originally Posted by Dancing David 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. Gee David, I thought you'd figure out that the particles in the plasmoid are really hot and moving very fast.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 03:03 PM	#406
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	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. Yeah, like the amount of dark matter and dark energy ... whatever they be.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 02:33 PM	#403
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Speaking of rotation curves ... http://space.newscientist.com/articl...tronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising."" Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe!

13th March 2008, 03:03 PM	#407
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Reality Check Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe! Actually, we already know a mechanism by which dark matter can be stripped away from most of the luminous matter. When two galaxies or clusters collide with sufficient velocity, the dark matter and stars pass through each other, leaving behind most of the gas (and therefore most of the visible matter). That's what's we're seeing happen with the bullet cluster right now. If that remaining gas is star forming, the resulting galaxy will be without DM. Given that we've seen one collision taking place "now", there are almost certainly several remnants of those collisions around from past collisions. This may well be one such, and (while it's interesting and noteworthy) I don't find it at all surprising. And the observation of such a galaxy is yet another nail in the coffin of alternative gravity theories like MOND, which cannot possibly account for such a thing.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 13th March 2008 at 03:05 PM.

13th March 2008, 03:07 PM	#408
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So, you haven't come up with that prediction or test for PC that Sol (and others) have demanded yet, eh? I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

13th March 2008, 03:16 PM	#409
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by sol invictus 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" I KNOW I've pointed this one out before ... but you just ignored it. Plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. Big Bang cosmologists did not. In fact, they were surprised by it.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 03:19 PM	#410
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made. So it sounds like you're not going to answer the question? Originally Posted by me 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. Deal?
	Last edited by sol invictus; 13th March 2008 at 03:26 PM.

13th March 2008, 03:26 PM	#411
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by BeAChooser I KNOW I've pointed this one out before ... but you just ignored it. Plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. Big Bang cosmologists did not. In fact, they were surprised by it. They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments.

13th March 2008, 03:30 PM	#412
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by Reality Check They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments. I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating). The results match observations quite well.

13th March 2008, 03:43 PM	#413
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by sol invictus I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating). The results match observations quite well. I agree. Maybe BeAChooser is using the English "surprised" as in "this is an interesting thing that just happened - I am surprised" rather than the scientific "surprised", e.g. "we predict not-X and were surprised to find X". This does show BAC's lack of knowledge of the current cosmology work.

13th March 2008, 03:49 PM	#414
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems. You know of any reason why they couldn't scale to larger systems? By the way: this ties into Zeuzzz's discussion of scalability.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 03:58 PM	#415
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems. By the way: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...laxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]"
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 04:03 PM	#416
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Klimax As far as I know they can be of almost any size-not sure wheter there is any limit. You missed my point. Why does the collapse stop at the size of a fingernail?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 04:07 PM	#417
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by sol invictus If that remaining gas is star forming Just can't help yourself ... can you.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 04:09 PM	#418
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by BeAChooser By the way: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...laxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]" You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale.

13th March 2008, 04:12 PM	#419
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by BeAChooser You missed my point. Why does the collapse stop at the size of a fingernail? It is a description in a press release aimed at the general public. The collapse does not stop at the size of a fingernail.

13th March 2008, 04:15 PM	#420
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Reality Check You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale. Plasma scaling Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 13th March 2008 at 04:16 PM.

13th March 2008, 04:29 PM	#421
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plasma scaling Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains. Note the word "mimicked". I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in water ! The next step an any simulation is show that it happens in the real world. Where are your observations of galactic-sized plasmoids?

13th March 2008, 04:42 PM	#422
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Reality Check Note the word "mimicked". I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around therefore the galaxy is controlled by the forces in water ! You need to stop getting your analogies from Baut. No-one is claiming any similarities between a vortex effect in a bath and galaxies . What a stupid analogy. Plasma experiments can be applied to the cosmos as the cosmos is 99.999% plasma. Vortex's formed in baths are not occuring in plasma (although they do actually arrise from weak EM effects anyway) Quote: The next step an any simulation is show that it happens in the real world. Where are your observations of galactic-sized plasmoids? When you look at a galaxy. That is a direct observation of what has been produced in plasma experiments, which I will post here soon
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 13th March 2008 at 04:43 PM.

13th March 2008, 04:54 PM	#423
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments. Computer models that contained "something" called dark matter that was distributed in such a way that it would form filaments? And you know what else is interesting about articles on this topic and the computer model? They don't mention plasma and the model doesn't include electromagnetic effects. They modeled neutral gas and used methods more suited to studying our atmosphere and water. They don't seem to recognize that plasmas behave very differently than neutral gas in the presence of electromagnetic fields ... which we know exist out there. Notice also that they don't seem to recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments. You suppose they might be missing the obvious? GIGO? By the way, you should know that they haven't yet detected the type of filaments their model predicts. Time will tell.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 05:00 PM	#424
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made. Hand-wave!!!
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

13th March 2008, 05:01 PM	#425
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check The collapse does not stop at the size of a fingernail. Ok, how small does it get ... that billion sun mass?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 05:03 PM	#426
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,818	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Ok, how small does it get ... that billion sun mass? It depends - the singularity has zero size, the event horizon depends on the black hole mass.

13th March 2008, 05:03 PM	#427
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz When you look at a galaxy. That is a direct observation of what has been produced in plasma experiments, which I will post here soon Flap... flap... flap... MORE Hand-Waving!!!
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

13th March 2008, 05:07 PM	#428
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Reality Check It depends - the singularity has zero size, the event horizon depends on the black hole mass. The size of the event horizon of a black hole is also called the Schwartzchild radius, and it's equal to... R = 2GM / c² where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole (in kg), and c is the speed of light. So a billion-sun mass (which is M = 10⁹ * 2x10³⁰ kg) should come out to... R = 2 * 6.67x10^-11 Nm²/kg² * 10⁹ * 2x10³⁰ kg / (3x10⁸ m/sec)² R = 2.96x10¹² meters
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 13th March 2008 at 05:11 PM.

13th March 2008, 05:09 PM	#429
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check I can mimick a galaxy in my bath by rotating water around Actually, you can't, since your bath water isn't a plasma under the influence of electromagnetic effects. But you do demonstrate the selective blindness of mainstream supporters ... treating the galaxy once again as if it were a neutral fluid. Your motto is ANYTHING but electricity. And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 05:09 PM	#430
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,560	BeAChooser - stop relying on overblown media reports and try looking through the literature. From Dunkley et al. (2008)'s weak lensing section: Quote: 'A study was done with the WMAP ﬁrst-year data combined with a sample of LRGs from SDSS, but no signal was detected, consistent with theoretical expectation (Hirata et al. 2004). Two recent analyses have found the ﬁrst evidence for the cross-correlated lensing signal (Smith et al. 2007; Hirata et al. 2008). They use the three-year WMAP data correlated with NVSS radio sources (Smith et al. 2007), ﬁnding a 3.4σ detection of the correlation, and WMAP combined with data from NVSS and SDSS, using both LRGS and quasars (Hirata et al. 2008), ﬁnding a correlation with a 2.1σ level of signiﬁcance. The cross-correlation in both cases is consistent with the ﬁve-year WMAP ΛCDM model. ' The gravitational lensing signature is there, and consistent with the standard cosmology. As for the SZ effect. It's tricky to detect, but it is detectable. It's been seen for several Abell clusters I believe. It's not missing. I'll let you find it yourself, it's not hard.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,560

13th March 2008, 05:10 PM	#431
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Flap... flap... flap... MORE Hand-Waving!!! Well you might just have to eat your hat tomorrow, we'll just have to see wont we. So are you saying you think there is no such material? Its going to take a while to assemble the material, and that is not hand waving, it called telling you what I plan to do. Goodnight.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 13th March 2008 at 05:15 PM.

13th March 2008, 05:13 PM	#432
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plasma scaling Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains. Yes, and because we can observe simple harmonic oscillators on lab benches, this is proof positive of string theory! Where's my Nobel Prize?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

13th March 2008, 05:15 PM	#433
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check It depends - the singularity has zero size Well in this case, the scientist was talking about that billion sun mass, not the event horizon. So why didn't the scientist just say the billion sun mass collapses to a point with ... well .... zero size?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

13th March 2008, 05:17 PM	#434
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus because we can observe simple harmonic oscillators on lab benches, this is proof positive of string theory! How on earth does SHM have anything to do string theory?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

13th March 2008, 05:17 PM	#435
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well you might just have to eat your hat tomorrow, we'll just have to see wont we. So are you saying you think there is no such material? Its going to take a while to assemble the material, and that is not hand waving, it called telling you what I plan to do. The thing that's so interesting is that you've spent so many posts talking up your EU-PU woo-nonsense, screwing up physics all along the way, and when a group of us demand a simple statement outlining a prediction or a test of your pet "theory"... ... suddenly you cannot post something. You have to go "look it up" or "dig through the material". It's now going to "take some time." Gee whiz, given all the things you've been saying, one would think that you'd have had the info at your fingertips the entire time... Fine, post something else. I'm fairly certain that it'll get torn to shreds in short order. That's my prediction.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'