Something new under the sun - Page 15

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant). And, better yet, robinson catches the error!

Yet another example of BAC's superior knowledge of physics...

Actually that was iantresman who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now. It contains an equation

Quote:

The motion of solid particles in a plasma follows the momentum equation for ions and electrons:
m dv/dt = mg + q (E + v x B) - mv_c v + f
where m, q are the mass and charge of the particle, g is the gravitation acceleration, mv_cv is due to viscosity, and f respresents all other forces including radiation pressure. q (E + v x B) is the Lorentz force, where E is the electric field, v is the velocity and B is the magnetic field.

I don't know what this has to do with my original question which was about Peratt's model.

sol invictus · 16th March 2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Although showing that a small lab experiment is visibly similar to effects seen on the sun doesn't constitute either a theory or a prediction, it leads to an obvious question. What charge would the sun carry to produce the effects seen in Birkeland's Terrella?

I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.

That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage.

If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well.

Are you calling Ziggurat a woo? This is the value he also believes it true.

I am begginning to get the impression you are not the expert you claim you are. On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics

The value they calculate is very theoretical, and I would very much like to see some sort of experimental proof of it, but it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses.

sol invictus · 16th March 2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Score!!! Welcome to the club, Sol. It seems to me that BAC and Zeuzzz insist upon driving away the very people on this forum who actually do know some physics & cosmology

The last straw, beyond his failing to produce a single definite claim of this "theory" he's wasted our time with for months and typed thousands of words about, was the repeated lie about magnetic reconnection.

If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects doesn't have any effect on his claims that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, there's really no point in going on. He's not even a crackpot - he's simply a liar. Nothing else will ever be that clear-cut - it's just basic vector calculus.

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.

I would wecome such a deal if anyone else want to take it up. I have learnt now not to respond with too much information, and i will keep it concise and on specifics, seems that posting too much information in one go puts people off. A shame that sol cant see this, or i would give him another example.

MattusMaximus · 16th March 2008, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.

Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful!

Quote:

That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage.

Wishful thinking to expect him to actually follow through on this agreement.

Quote:

If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.

Of this I'm certain.

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful!

What a co-incidence! I point out some of the stupid assumptions in Mattus' calculation, point out that I already did this calculation before anyway (here) and concluded myself that this force was largely negligable, point out that the pioneer anomaly is not even really applicable to the ES theory, and that the value he used for the charge on the spacecraft would quite literally make it explode, and he then states that I am on ignore! someone quote this post so he can read it.

And also, which really shows he doesn't know what he's on about, I then point out that Mattus seems to think that the value of electrostatic charge on a star of 100 Coulombs is what EU proponents think, he goes around shouting how absolutely insane this value is and how woo EU is, but he fails to realise this is the value accepted by conventional astronomers for a charge on the sun. (link). I think we can conclude that Mattus remains ignorant about a great many things. And whilst he has me on ignore, he will remain so

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well. How does this fit the data?

This guy is hilarious! 1C on the spacecraft would obliterate it, and 100 C on the sun is what standard astronomers currently think the charge on the sun is anyway

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Perhaps someone with good knowledge of Peratt's plasma model of the galaxy can answer this:
Did Peratt model all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma?

Of course.

Quote:

I had assumed that he had a model that treated the 5% by mass of the galaxy that is the Interstellar Medium as a plasma while treating the rest of the mass that is in stars as gravitational sources. Or perhaps he stated a reason to increase the mass of the plasma to a higher percentage?
The quotes that I have seen suggest that he modelled all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma.

All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

For example, can your plasma cosmology explain the orbital mechanics of a planet any better than can the accepted theories of gravity?

Plasma and EM phenomena are needed to explain why most of the angular momentum in the solar system is in the planets and not the sun. But you put forth a strawman when you imply that plasma astrophysicists wish to replace gravity with EM in all phenomena. That is not the case. Plasma cosmologists are perfectly willing to coexist with gravity ... just not with all the gnomes mainstream science has created in order to make gravity explain phenomena that it otherwise can't explain.

Originally Posted by Acleron

Clinging to disproved theories because of a dislike of the mainstream is not very logical.

But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Of course.

All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state.

So he treated the entire mass of the galaxy as a plasma. I can see a few problems with that.

The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas.

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20.

The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters.

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by robinson

Little g is not the same as big G.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

...But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.

The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 10:01 PM

[quote]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.

Since when was dark matter observable?

99% plasma (with references)

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 10:09 PM

[quote=Zeuzzz;3533530]

Quote:

Since when was dark matter observable?

99% plasma (with references)

It is observable in the same sense that interstellar plasma is observable - through instruments.
Yet another thing wrong in the plasma universe site, interpreting visible as observable.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Nice pictures.

Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

As soon as you consider objects outside of a plasma then the plasma can be treated as neutral at a distance.

That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The point is that a cosmological theory needs to be reviewed by people who have a grounding in cosmology - unless you are conceding that plasma cosmology has nothing to do with cosmology?

What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Now you are invoking conspiracy theory.

No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proven correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Are you saying every scientist in the world has the same mindset?

Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Are you aware that proposal of the dark matter (a change to the then standard cosmology) was before the proposal of plasma cosmology?

Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Why didn't every scientist in the world ignore that?

Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I am sure that all the theoretical cosmologists toiling away in universities are working on "giant expensive projects".

You might be surprised at how much money is *invested* in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory?

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas.

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20.

The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters.

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.

1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task.

2. Not true (see below)

3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star.

4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist.

5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable.

Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?)

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...att86TPS-I.pdf

Quote:

B. Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma

As far as we know, most cosmic low-density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary
structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, all of which are observed to be associated with electric currents.
1) In the aurora, filaments parallel to the magnetic field are very often observed. These can sometimes have dimensions down to about 100 m.
2) Inverted V events and the in-situ measurements of strong electric fields in the magnetosphere (10⁵-10⁶ A, 10⁸ m) demonstrate the existence of filamentary structures.
3) In the ionosphere of Venus, "flux ropes," whose filamentary diameters are typically 20 km, are observed.
4) In the sun, prominences (10¹¹ spicules, coronal streamers, polar plumes, etc., show filamentary structure whose dimensions are of the order 10[sup]7-10⁸ m.
5) Cometary tails often have a pronounced filamentary structure [28].
6) In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures, e.g., the Veil nebula, the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula (Fig.1), the Crab nebula, etc.
7) The center of the Galaxy, where twisting plasma filaments, apparently held together by a magnetic field
possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components, extend for nearly 500 light years (5 x 10¹⁸ m) [29].
8) Within the radio bright lobes of double radio galaxies, where filamental lengths may exceed 20 kpc (6 x 10²⁰ m) [30]. [......]

It is the purpose of this paper to extend the study of cosmic plasma to the case of galactic-dimensioned (50 kpc in width) Birkeland filaments by means of three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, and relativistic particle-incell simulations. Fig. 1 is a contrast-enhanced photograph of the Orion nebula but serves the purpose of representing the morphology to be expected by an observer situated within a much larger filamentary metagalactic structure. The simulation model consists of modeling a magneticfield- aligned neutral plasma filament (column) in the presence of a field-aligned electric field. (Strictly speaking, because of the parallel electric field, the portion of the filament simulated is a double layer [35].) To study the evolution of interacting filaments, a second filament (nearly identical to the first) is placed adjacent as depicted in Fig. 3. (As many as six filaments have been investigated by simulation while up to 12 filaments have been studied experimentally. However, because of the r^-1 force between filaments, it would appear that a majority of cosmic plasma phenomena are the result of two, or at most three, interactions among the closest filaments.)

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 10:26 PM

[quote=Reality Check;3533546]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It is observable in the same sense that interstellar plasma is observable - through instruments.
Yet another thing wrong in the plasma universe site, interpreting visible as observable.

That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster?
I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?

Zeuzzz · 16th March 2008, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I know it's tough to consider, what with the huge scientific conspiracy to ignore and hide the TRUTH, but if you really try you can make your mind consider the possibility...

This is the crux of the issue with why you react the way you do to this material. If you think that we are saying there is a massive conscious conspiracy then no wonder you are not accepting of plasma cosmology. Quite to the contrary, most scientists have no idea about plasma cosmology, they are not taught it and so I fail to see how they are conspiring against anyone. They are persuing what they genuinly believe to be right, and are simply unaware of this.

If they were aware of PC, and are also aware of how wrong it all is, then I'm sure by now someone would have written a rebuttal to plasma cosmology material, but after asking everyone on this forum about seventy times, no-one has come up with any scientific source refuting it. Weird that, isn't it Mattus?

Nothing is being hidden from the public, there is no 'conspiracy' as such. It has more to do with faith and how you approach science. The more you interact with people who are religious about their physics, the more you come to see that there are specific human psychological factors at work.

It is easy to demonstrate that there is no conspiracy: Just pick a friend and try to explain the theory to them from scratch. You'll notice that the more technical knowledge the person has, the harder it will be to convince them of anything that is paradigm changing. This is ofetn the problem that scientists face, and it has nothing at all to do with a conspiracy.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant).

I guess MM is another who was simply too lazy or too close-minded to actually look at the link that was provided:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...lectrodynamics .

Or even understand what I was trying to point out.

Say, MM, do you think those equations don't include the effect of gravity ... just like you don't think the filaments we see everywhere in space are plasmas?

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Care to share your thoughts on the cause of the effects achieved in Birkelands experiments I posted previously in this post?

I suspect MM will no more want to share his thoughts on that than he did on the post I offered on plasmas and filaments.

He'll probably just go on ignoring us.

Or desperately try to ...

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now.

See what we mean, folks?

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses.

Nor interest on the part of NASA and the mainstream community to find out.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects

How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure?

That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study?

What about grounding in electric universe Scientology

or plasma cosmology voodoo?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proved correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm?

In other words your pessimistic view of human nature. In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!).
Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted. But it is the proof that got then accepted (good old scientific method - you should learn about it some time).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities?

There are scientists who disagree with mainstream astrophysics.
As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so. Thus I have to do what you do and trust the experts who are fairly split on whether it is caused by humans (most agree that is is happening). There are plenty of other threads on this if you want to ask there.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

Why should he when gravity works?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter.

Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space".

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen.

So why didn't they reject the paper (oh - maybe someone was too scared it to submit to their review)

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You might be surprised at how much money is *invested* in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory?

Actually I would not be surprised. It must be all of 1% of the scientific budget of the world.

There are a large number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that are researching the universe and they do tend to sex up their budget requests with Big Bang references. So what? Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects?

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task.

2. Not true (see below)

3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star.

4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist.

5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable.

Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?)

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...att86TPS-I.pdf

So you are stating that the plasma in a star is exactly the same as the plasma in the interstellar medium? That is it has the same density and so gravity can be ignored when considering the interaction of stars with each other?

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

We have observed dark matter

No, you have NOT *observed* the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by iantresman

At the end of the day, you are going to judge for yourself whether Plasma Cosmology (the study of the Plasma Universe), is bunkum.

I am and it is.

Originally Posted by iantresman

Because all space plasmas are magnetized, and the weak local magnetic field overwhelms gravitational forces at a distance. For example, the smaller-scale interplanetary medium (a plasma) although it is populated with the Sun, planets and asteroids, is influenced more by the interplanetary magnetic field than gravity, resulting in the largest structure in the Solar System, the heliospheric current sheet.

That is true in the gaseous plasma itself but note your own words "weak local magnetic field". The magnetic fields have little effect on things outside the plasma.

Originally Posted by iantresman

The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is where you would expect to find experts on plasmas. If the Moon was made of green cheese, you'd consult a food scientist, not a lunar scientist.

Can I conclude that the cosmology part of these papers is unimportant or some sort of afterthought by the authors? Or are you saying that the authors purposely published in IEEE so that they could avoid review by cosmologits?

Originally Posted by iantresman

You wouldn't expect new ideas to be supported by the status quo. Alfvén himself wrote that he had to submit papers to more obscure journals because referees did not understand his papers, and, cosmologists did not like someone trained as an electrical engineer infringing on their area of expertise.

You are correct new ideas are never supported by the status quo, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations for electormagnetism, General Relativity and a 100 more new ideas.

Originally Posted by iantresman

University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, notes:

"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S. Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. "

Alfvén's work in space physics is right. I do not disagree with that.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

Read the posting that Zeuzzz seems to be incapable of reading and be a better man (or woman) than him (or her).

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.

I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it? Or it is just part of the model?
Previously you were claiming a "core plasmoid" to take the place of the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. If that is right why cannot a plasmoid be the size of a galaxy?

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics.

You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available...242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where?

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

What about grounding in electric universe Scientology or plasma cosmology voodoo?

An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

In other words your pessimistic view of human nature.

No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!).

Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted.

Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so.

So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

Why should he when gravity works?

It *works* only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of *something* that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space".

Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser?

Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen.

So why didn't they reject the paper

Because the reviewers were just as "grounded" in gravity.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects?

Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you.

BeAChooser · 16th March 2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it?

No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the *expertise* in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming.

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, you have NOT *observed* the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.

They are not inferences even though "infer" appears in the article (unless you want to call everything that plasma "cosmology" is based on an inference). They are calculations as valid as or even more valid as those in plasma cosmology.
Read the article - the dark matter observation itself uses gravitational lensing. This is the same bending of light that happens in telescopes but on a cosmic scale. Redshift and velocity measurments were probably used to confirm that the dark matter was associated with the cluster (rather than just wandering around the universe).

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked Zeuzzz:

Quote:

That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster?
I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?

Reality Check · 16th March 2008, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the *expertise* in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming.

Actually I know that I do not have the expertise in this subject to know what is right and wrong. That is the reason that I ask questions!
I have stated my credentials before but perhaps not in this thread - a Master of Physics earned 20 years ago but never really used (followed by 20 years in IT).

Reality Check · 17th March 2008, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available...242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it.

You asked what they look like to me. They look like plasmas. Their internal features look like typical plasma features. They are in a roughly straight line so they may be possibly self-colilmated (a term I have seen associated with the M87 jets). There are many other possibilities. They could be reminants of a jet. They may be contrained by a magnetic field of some sort. They may be contrained by gravity, e.g. part of a much large structure in orbit around something (a galaxy?).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

I want to understand - that is why I ask questions in the vague hope that I will get some clear answers.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published.

Of course I take a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. In an "idealistic, ivory tower utopia" every scientific paper would be peer-reviewed by a number of anonymous reviewers in every area that the paper covers. In the real world a paper covering multiple areas can be published in a journal covering one area and reviewed by reviewers expert in that one area. In a small enough area the reviewers can even be friends or workmates of the authors.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time.

That is actually one of the ways that new ideas get accepted. I hope all the deaths were natural

!

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so?

I am not. I hoped you were. What are your qualifications?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

It *works* only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of *something* that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies.

Gravity works because "EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies" is wrong. Dark Matter is responsible.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser?

Looked it up, cannot find it, thus it does not exist, therefore he lied to me?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."

Nice quote. It shows that Kristian Birkeland was an insightful and probably very smart scientist.That you can cut and paste. And nothing more.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you.

Hey I have a great teacher in you

!

Reality Check · 17th March 2008, 12:34 AM

Just for a change here is a new question for all you plasma cosmologists and EU theorists:
Part of the evidence for Dark Matter is missing matter in galactic clusters. I have read the paper on the plasma model that explains the galatic rotation curve that is explained by dark matter in conventional cosmology. This lead to me thinking about galactic clusters but I could not find anything definite on the web to do with plasma cosmology.

Has anyone applied the plasma cosmology model to galactic clusters?

robinson · 17th March 2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What a co-incidence! I point out some of the stupid assumptions in Mattus' calculation, point out that I already did this calculation before anyway (here) and concluded myself that this force was largely negligible, point out that the pioneer anomaly is not even really applicable to the ES theory, and that the value he used for the charge on the spacecraft would quite literally make it explode, and he then states that I am on ignore! someone quote this post so he can read it.

I have Mattus on ignore, so please stop responding to his nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This guy is hilarious! 1C on the spacecraft would obliterate it, and 100 C on the sun is what standard astronomers currently think the charge on the sun is anyway

You probably posted a link to that, but could you do it again? How do we know what charge the sun has?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.

Stars are a large mass of plasma. Your statement makes no sense. Almost everything in the Universe is plasma.

robinson · 17th March 2008, 02:27 AM

Plasma. EM. Currents, loops, magnetic field lines breaking. This and the other topics discussing electricity and magnetism and plasmas and dark matter and energy and unexplained acceleration of probes, they have all expanded the knowledge of the Universe.

Now make it stop. My brain is going to explode.

Reality Check · 17th March 2008, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by robinson

You probably posted a link to that, but could you do it again? How do we know what charge the sun has?

The theory tells us about 77 coulombs.

Originally Posted by robinson

Stars are a large mass of plasma. Your statement makes no sense. Almost everything in the Universe is plasma.

There are various types of plasma that differ according to their parameters - see the electron density vs temperature diagram in the article. The center of the sun is emormously different from the interstellar plasma by factors of 10³⁰ (electron density) and 10⁶ (temperature). Stars are dense bodies. My expectation is that they would be affected mostly by gravity like other dense bodies (e.g. Jupiter). They would not be affected much if at all by EM in interstellar plasma. This suggests to me that they are not included in the plasma model of the galaxy.
However I am not an expert in this area and expect to be corrected.

sol invictus · 17th March 2008, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

My expectation is that they would be affected mostly by gravity like other dense bodies (e.g. Jupiter). They would not be affected much if at all by EM in interstellar plasma.

That is absolutely correct. Claiming that stars must behave just like interstellar gas because the particles in both are ionized makes as much sense as saying that chunks of lead and styrofoam will have the same behavior in the ocean since both are solids.

If we're back to the claim that the rotation curves of galaxies are affected by electromagnetic forces, here's something to think about. We've known since the 1970's that stars orbit around the galactic center too fast given how much visible matter there is. Let's see what contribution EM forces could make to that.

We know what the maximum charge on a star is - around 100C. We know that the orbital speeds of stars in a typical galaxy are 100s of km/s - let's say 250 km/s, using numbers for the Milky Way at 10,000 parsecs. The visible mass of our galaxy inside that radius is about 50 billion solar masses. So the acceleration due to gravity is G M/r^2 ~ 10^-4 m/s^2. As a check, this should be roughly v^2/r (that's the virial theorem, or just the equation for an orbit), and it's close at this level of accuracy (the actual discrepancy is part of the evidence for DM).

OK, so the acceleration is about 10^-4. Now, given an object with a mass of 10^30 kg and a charge of 100C, how big of an electric field would one need to create that acceleration? Well, the answer is E = F/q = ma/q=10^24 V/m

. How about a magnetic field? Well, then we have B = ma/qv = 10^19 T.

Let me give you a sense of how utterly ridiculous these numbers are. There is a maximum possible electric field in nature. Any larger, and electrons and positrons will be produced spontaneously from the vacuum, creating a current that neutralizes the field (that's called Schwinger pair production). The value of that critical field is about 10^17 V/m.

As for magnetic fields, the most highly magnetized objects known to mankind are a bizarre kind of compact object, probably a supernova remnant, called magnetars. These have a field (very close to their surface) of perhaps as much as 10^11 T.

A realistic number for the magnetic field in the galaxy is nanoTesla. Using that gives an acceleration which is 28 orders of magnitude less than the acceleration due to gravity.

Draw your own conclusions.

16th March 2008, 08:18 PM	#561
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant). And, better yet, robinson catches the error! Yet another example of BAC's superior knowledge of physics... Actually that was iantresman who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now. It contains an equation Quote: The motion of solid particles in a plasma follows the momentum equation for ions and electrons: m dv/dt = mg + q (E + v x B) - mv_c v + f where m, q are the mass and charge of the particle, g is the gravitation acceleration, mv_cv is due to viscosity, and f respresents all other forces including radiation pressure. q (E + v x B) is the Lorentz force, where E is the electric field, v is the velocity and B is the magnetic field. I don't know what this has to do with my original question which was about Peratt's model.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 08:21 PM	#562
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	Originally Posted by Acleron Although showing that a small lab experiment is visibly similar to effects seen on the sun doesn't constitute either a theory or a prediction, it leads to an obvious question. What charge would the sun carry to produce the effects seen in Birkeland's Terrella? I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did. That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage. If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 16th March 2008 at 08:22 PM.

16th March 2008, 08:23 PM	#563
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well. Are you calling Ziggurat a woo? This is the value he also believes it true. I am begginning to get the impression you are not the expert you claim you are. On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics The value they calculate is very theoretical, and I would very much like to see some sort of experimental proof of it, but it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th March 2008, 08:26 PM	#564
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Score!!! Welcome to the club, Sol. It seems to me that BAC and Zeuzzz insist upon driving away the very people on this forum who actually do know some physics & cosmology The last straw, beyond his failing to produce a single definite claim of this "theory" he's wasted our time with for months and typed thousands of words about, was the repeated lie about magnetic reconnection. If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects doesn't have any effect on his claims that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, there's really no point in going on. He's not even a crackpot - he's simply a liar. Nothing else will ever be that clear-cut - it's just basic vector calculus.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 16th March 2008 at 08:30 PM.

16th March 2008, 08:28 PM	#565
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by sol invictus I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did. I would wecome such a deal if anyone else want to take it up. I have learnt now not to respond with too much information, and i will keep it concise and on specifics, seems that posting too much information in one go puts people off. A shame that sol cant see this, or i would give him another example.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th March 2008, 08:31 PM	#566
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by sol invictus I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did. Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful! Quote: That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage. Wishful thinking to expect him to actually follow through on this agreement. Quote: If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense. Of this I'm certain.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

16th March 2008, 08:48 PM	#567
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful! What a co-incidence! I point out some of the stupid assumptions in Mattus' calculation, point out that I already did this calculation before anyway (here) and concluded myself that this force was largely negligable, point out that the pioneer anomaly is not even really applicable to the ES theory, and that the value he used for the charge on the spacecraft would quite literally make it explode, and he then states that I am on ignore! someone quote this post so he can read it. And also, which really shows he doesn't know what he's on about, I then point out that Mattus seems to think that the value of electrostatic charge on a star of 100 Coulombs is what EU proponents think, he goes around shouting how absolutely insane this value is and how woo EU is, but he fails to realise this is the value accepted by conventional astronomers for a charge on the sun. (link). I think we can conclude that Mattus remains ignorant about a great many things. And whilst he has me on ignore, he will remain so Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well. How does this fit the data? This guy is hilarious! 1C on the spacecraft would obliterate it, and 100 C on the sun is what standard astronomers currently think the charge on the sun is anyway
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 16th March 2008 at 09:13 PM.

16th March 2008, 08:53 PM	#568
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Reality Check Perhaps someone with good knowledge of Peratt's plasma model of the galaxy can answer this: Did Peratt model all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma? Of course. Quote: I had assumed that he had a model that treated the 5% by mass of the galaxy that is the Interstellar Medium as a plasma while treating the rest of the mass that is in stars as gravitational sources. Or perhaps he stated a reason to increase the mass of the plasma to a higher percentage? The quotes that I have seen suggest that he modelled all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma. All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th March 2008, 09:31 PM	#569
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Acleron For example, can your plasma cosmology explain the orbital mechanics of a planet any better than can the accepted theories of gravity? Plasma and EM phenomena are needed to explain why most of the angular momentum in the solar system is in the planets and not the sun. But you put forth a strawman when you imply that plasma astrophysicists wish to replace gravity with EM in all phenomena. That is not the case. Plasma cosmologists are perfectly willing to coexist with gravity ... just not with all the gnomes mainstream science has created in order to make gravity explain phenomena that it otherwise can't explain. Originally Posted by Acleron Clinging to disproved theories because of a dislike of the mainstream is not very logical. But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 09:32 PM	#570
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Of course. All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state. So he treated the entire mass of the galaxy as a plasma. I can see a few problems with that. The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas. The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic? The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20. The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters. The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 09:33 PM	#571
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by robinson Little g is not the same as big G.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 09:47 PM	#572
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser ...But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done. The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 10:01 PM	#573
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	[quote] Originally Posted by BeAChooser But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done. Originally Posted by Reality Check The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma. Since when was dark matter observable? 99% plasma (with references)
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th March 2008, 10:09 PM	#574
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	[quote=Zeuzzz;3533530] Quote: Since when was dark matter observable? 99% plasma (with references) It is observable in the same sense that interstellar plasma is observable - through instruments. Yet another thing wrong in the plasma universe site, interpreting visible as observable.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2008 at 10:11 PM.

16th March 2008, 10:17 PM	#575
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check Nice pictures. Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure? Originally Posted by Reality Check As soon as you consider objects outside of a plasma then the plasma can be treated as neutral at a distance. That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics. Originally Posted by Reality Check The point is that a cosmological theory needs to be reviewed by people who have a grounding in cosmology - unless you are conceding that plasma cosmology has nothing to do with cosmology? What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study? Originally Posted by Reality Check Now you are invoking conspiracy theory. No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proven correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm? Originally Posted by Reality Check Are you saying every scientist in the world has the same mindset? Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities? Originally Posted by Reality Check Are you aware that proposal of the dark matter (a change to the then standard cosmology) was before the proposal of plasma cosmology? Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did? And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter. Originally Posted by Reality Check Why didn't every scientist in the world ignore that? Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen. Originally Posted by Reality Check I am sure that all the theoretical cosmologists toiling away in universities are working on "giant expensive projects". You might be surprised at how much money is invested in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:24 PM	#576
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Reality Check The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas. The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic? The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20. The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters. The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each. 1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task. 2. Not true (see below) 3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star. 4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist. 5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable. Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?) http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...att86TPS-I.pdf Quote: B. Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma As far as we know, most cosmic low-density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, all of which are observed to be associated with electric currents. 1) In the aurora, filaments parallel to the magnetic field are very often observed. These can sometimes have dimensions down to about 100 m. 2) Inverted V events and the in-situ measurements of strong electric fields in the magnetosphere (10⁵-10⁶ A, 10⁸ m) demonstrate the existence of filamentary structures. 3) In the ionosphere of Venus, "flux ropes," whose filamentary diameters are typically 20 km, are observed. 4) In the sun, prominences (10¹¹ spicules, coronal streamers, polar plumes, etc., show filamentary structure whose dimensions are of the order 10[sup]7-10⁸ m. 5) Cometary tails often have a pronounced filamentary structure [28]. 6) In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures, e.g., the Veil nebula, the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula (Fig.1), the Crab nebula, etc. 7) The center of the Galaxy, where twisting plasma filaments, apparently held together by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components, extend for nearly 500 light years (5 x 10¹⁸ m) [29]. 8) Within the radio bright lobes of double radio galaxies, where filamental lengths may exceed 20 kpc (6 x 10²⁰ m) [30]. [......] It is the purpose of this paper to extend the study of cosmic plasma to the case of galactic-dimensioned (50 kpc in width) Birkeland filaments by means of three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, and relativistic particle-incell simulations. Fig. 1 is a contrast-enhanced photograph of the Orion nebula but serves the purpose of representing the morphology to be expected by an observer situated within a much larger filamentary metagalactic structure. The simulation model consists of modeling a magneticfield- aligned neutral plasma filament (column) in the presence of a field-aligned electric field. (Strictly speaking, because of the parallel electric field, the portion of the filament simulated is a double layer [35].) To study the evolution of interacting filaments, a second filament (nearly identical to the first) is placed adjacent as depicted in Fig. 3. (As many as six filaments have been investigated by simulation while up to 12 filaments have been studied experimentally. However, because of the r^-1 force between filaments, it would appear that a majority of cosmic plasma phenomena are the result of two, or at most three, interactions among the closest filaments.)
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 16th March 2008 at 10:27 PM.

16th March 2008, 10:26 PM	#577
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	[quote=Reality Check;3533546] Originally Posted by Zeuzzz It is observable in the same sense that interstellar plasma is observable - through instruments. Yet another thing wrong in the plasma universe site, interpreting visible as observable. That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster? I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 10:34 PM	#578
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus I know it's tough to consider, what with the huge scientific conspiracy to ignore and hide the TRUTH, but if you really try you can make your mind consider the possibility... This is the crux of the issue with why you react the way you do to this material. If you think that we are saying there is a massive conscious conspiracy then no wonder you are not accepting of plasma cosmology. Quite to the contrary, most scientists have no idea about plasma cosmology, they are not taught it and so I fail to see how they are conspiring against anyone. They are persuing what they genuinly believe to be right, and are simply unaware of this. If they were aware of PC, and are also aware of how wrong it all is, then I'm sure by now someone would have written a rebuttal to plasma cosmology material, but after asking everyone on this forum about seventy times, no-one has come up with any scientific source refuting it. Weird that, isn't it Mattus? Nothing is being hidden from the public, there is no 'conspiracy' as such. It has more to do with faith and how you approach science. The more you interact with people who are religious about their physics, the more you come to see that there are specific human psychological factors at work. It is easy to demonstrate that there is no conspiracy: Just pick a friend and try to explain the theory to them from scratch. You'll notice that the more technical knowledge the person has, the harder it will be to convince them of anything that is paradigm changing. This is ofetn the problem that scientists face, and it has nothing at all to do with a conspiracy.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th March 2008, 10:34 PM	#579
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant). I guess MM is another who was simply too lazy or too close-minded to actually look at the link that was provided: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...lectrodynamics . Or even understand what I was trying to point out. Say, MM, do you think those equations don't include the effect of gravity ... just like you don't think the filaments we see everywhere in space are plasmas?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:39 PM	#580
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Care to share your thoughts on the cause of the effects achieved in Birkelands experiments I posted previously in this post? I suspect MM will no more want to share his thoughts on that than he did on the post I offered on plasmas and filaments. He'll probably just go on ignoring us. Or desperately try to ...
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:43 PM	#581
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now. See what we mean, folks?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:46 PM	#582
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses. Nor interest on the part of NASA and the mainstream community to find out.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:52 PM	#583
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by sol invictus If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 10:58 PM	#584
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic? You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 11:00 PM	#585
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure? That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics. Originally Posted by BeAChooser That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics. So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where? Originally Posted by BeAChooser What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study? What about grounding in electric universe Scientology or plasma cosmology voodoo? Originally Posted by BeAChooser No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proved correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm? In other words your pessimistic view of human nature. In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!). Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted. But it is the proof that got then accepted (good old scientific method - you should learn about it some time). Originally Posted by BeAChooser Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities? There are scientists who disagree with mainstream astrophysics. As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so. Thus I have to do what you do and trust the experts who are fairly split on whether it is caused by humans (most agree that is is happening). There are plenty of other threads on this if you want to ask there. Originally Posted by BeAChooser Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did? Why should he when gravity works? Originally Posted by BeAChooser And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter. Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space". Originally Posted by BeAChooser Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen. So why didn't they reject the paper (oh - maybe someone was too scared it to submit to their review) Originally Posted by BeAChooser You might be surprised at how much money is invested in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory? Actually I would not be surprised. It must be all of 1% of the scientific budget of the world. There are a large number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that are researching the universe and they do tend to sex up their budget requests with Big Bang references. So what? Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 11:05 PM	#586
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task. 2. Not true (see below) 3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star. 4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist. 5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable. Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?) http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...att86TPS-I.pdf So you are stating that the plasma in a star is exactly the same as the plasma in the interstellar medium? That is it has the same density and so gravity can be ignored when considering the interaction of stars with each other?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 11:05 PM	#587
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check We have observed dark matter No, you have NOT observed the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 11:19 PM	#588
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by iantresman At the end of the day, you are going to judge for yourself whether Plasma Cosmology (the study of the Plasma Universe), is bunkum. I am and it is. Originally Posted by iantresman Because all space plasmas are magnetized, and the weak local magnetic field overwhelms gravitational forces at a distance. For example, the smaller-scale interplanetary medium (a plasma) although it is populated with the Sun, planets and asteroids, is influenced more by the interplanetary magnetic field than gravity, resulting in the largest structure in the Solar System, the heliospheric current sheet. That is true in the gaseous plasma itself but note your own words "weak local magnetic field". The magnetic fields have little effect on things outside the plasma. Originally Posted by iantresman The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is where you would expect to find experts on plasmas. If the Moon was made of green cheese, you'd consult a food scientist, not a lunar scientist. Can I conclude that the cosmology part of these papers is unimportant or some sort of afterthought by the authors? Or are you saying that the authors purposely published in IEEE so that they could avoid review by cosmologits? Originally Posted by iantresman You wouldn't expect new ideas to be supported by the status quo. Alfvén himself wrote that he had to submit papers to more obscure journals because referees did not understand his papers, and, cosmologists did not like someone trained as an electrical engineer infringing on their area of expertise. You are correct new ideas are never supported by the status quo, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations for electormagnetism, General Relativity and a 100 more new ideas. Originally Posted by iantresman University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, notes: "When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S. Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. " Alfvén's work in space physics is right. I do not disagree with that.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 11:24 PM	#589
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends." Read the posting that Zeuzzz seems to be incapable of reading and be a better man (or woman) than him (or her).
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2008 at 11:26 PM.

16th March 2008, 11:29 PM	#590
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose. I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it? Or it is just part of the model? Previously you were claiming a "core plasmoid" to take the place of the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. If that is right why cannot a plasmoid be the size of a galaxy?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 16th March 2008 at 11:31 PM.

16th March 2008, 11:39 PM	#591
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics. You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available...242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it. Originally Posted by Reality Check Originally Posted by BeAChooser That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics. So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where? No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand. Originally Posted by Reality Check What about grounding in electric universe Scientology or plasma cosmology voodoo? An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding. Originally Posted by Reality Check In other words your pessimistic view of human nature. No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published. Originally Posted by Reality Check In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!). Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen? Originally Posted by Reality Check Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted. Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time. Originally Posted by Reality Check As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so. So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so? Originally Posted by Reality Check Originally Posted by BeAChooser Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did? Why should he when gravity works? It works only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of something that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies. Originally Posted by Reality Check Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space". Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser? Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space." Originally Posted by Reality Check Originally Posted by BeAChooser Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen. So why didn't they reject the paper Because the reviewers were just as "grounded" in gravity. Originally Posted by Reality Check Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects? Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 11:44 PM	#592
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Reality Check I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it? No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the expertise in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

16th March 2008, 11:44 PM	#593
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser No, you have NOT observed the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies. They are not inferences even though "infer" appears in the article (unless you want to call everything that plasma "cosmology" is based on an inference). They are calculations as valid as or even more valid as those in plasma cosmology. Read the article - the dark matter observation itself uses gravitational lensing. This is the same bending of light that happens in telescopes but on a cosmic scale. Redshift and velocity measurments were probably used to confirm that the dark matter was associated with the cluster (rather than just wandering around the universe). Perhaps you can answer the question I asked Zeuzzz: Quote: That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster? I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

16th March 2008, 11:47 PM	#594
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the expertise in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming. Actually I know that I do not have the expertise in this subject to know what is right and wrong. That is the reason that I ask questions! I have stated my credentials before but perhaps not in this thread - a Master of Physics earned 20 years ago but never really used (followed by 20 years in IT).
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

17th March 2008, 12:14 AM	#595
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Originally Posted by BeAChooser You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available...242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it. You asked what they look like to me. They look like plasmas. Their internal features look like typical plasma features. They are in a roughly straight line so they may be possibly self-colilmated (a term I have seen associated with the M87 jets). There are many other possibilities. They could be reminants of a jet. They may be contrained by a magnetic field of some sort. They may be contrained by gravity, e.g. part of a much large structure in orbit around something (a galaxy?). Originally Posted by BeAChooser No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand. I want to understand - that is why I ask questions in the vague hope that I will get some clear answers. Originally Posted by BeAChooser An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding. Originally Posted by BeAChooser No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published. Of course I take a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. In an "idealistic, ivory tower utopia" every scientific paper would be peer-reviewed by a number of anonymous reviewers in every area that the paper covers. In the real world a paper covering multiple areas can be published in a journal covering one area and reviewed by reviewers expert in that one area. In a small enough area the reviewers can even be friends or workmates of the authors. Originally Posted by BeAChooser Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen? Originally Posted by BeAChooser Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time. That is actually one of the ways that new ideas get accepted. I hope all the deaths were natural ! Originally Posted by BeAChooser So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so? I am not. I hoped you were. What are your qualifications? Originally Posted by BeAChooser It works only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of something that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies. Gravity works because "EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies" is wrong. Dark Matter is responsible. Originally Posted by BeAChooser Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser? Looked it up, cannot find it, thus it does not exist, therefore he lied to me? Originally Posted by BeAChooser Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space." Nice quote. It shows that Kristian Birkeland was an insightful and probably very smart scientist.That you can cut and paste. And nothing more. Originally Posted by BeAChooser Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you. Hey I have a great teacher in you !
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2