Something new under the sun

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok then. you have just said that gravity can lead to large filaments in space. Can you explain how this is possible using an exclusively attractive field?

On one hand, what's to explain? These research groups just put 1,000,000 particles in a simulated box, made them all attract one another with F= ma = F = Gmm/r^2, and the result is filaments. This is not a fancy new result; it's the only way that these equations work, and it's been around for decades. So, yes, filaments are possible with exclusively attractive gravity.

On the other hand: yes, I can explain. The initial matter distribution was fairly, but not perfectly, smooth. Regions with slightly higher densities then attract everything else. Particles start falling towards the overdense regions. Any individual particle, though, will start moving towards the nearest overdensity it can see. Since there are overdensities on all scales, this behaves a lot like dividing space into Voronoi volumes, and everything is attracted towards the nearest boundary. At the end of this process, you've got a "sponge" in which everything has congregated on the walls. Where two walls intersect, the density is higher than the density in mid-wall; attraction of the mid-wall particles to the wall-intersection particles draws everything down into the filaments.

This happens yet again at the intersection of two filaments. The particles in the filaments are being attracted to one another but also towards the big mass at the nearest intersection. Given enough time, the big point masses at the ends of each filament will attract all of the filament particles, and then we'd have the Universe you seem to expect---just a bunch of point masses.

This is an approximate description, because all of these processes are going on at the same time rather than one after another. Moreover, the Universe is expanding faster than the superclusters can draw material out of the filaments, so the present structure is probably "frozen in".

Don't believe my handwaving description? That's fine. Believe the numerical solutions instead.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Let's try and keep the ad hominems out of it, it is a poor argument.

To call a woo out on their obvious woo-crap is no insult. It is a statement of fact. Get over it.

Quote:

And if you check my signature in ever post (see below), you'll see that it is acknowledged. And if you have a problem with any of the peer-reviewed citations on the site, I'll look forward to your published paper, and will gladly include it on the site.

And how many papers have you had published in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology journals Ian? Not plasma physics journals or IEEE, but the same journals in which the astrophysicists and cosmologists publish? Hmmm?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Why don't you tell us - does PC predict rotation curves like a solid disk, or not?

My guess is that Ian, like BAC and Zeuzzz, will simply avoid answering this question, thus never having to actually use his beloved plasma cosmology to make any kind of prediction.

Yet Ian claims his ideas are "scientific" - gimme a break...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Ad hominems may be an insult according to dictionary.com. There is also the ad hominem fallacy, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Ian, I thought you were here to argue physics & cosmology, not English. Quit deflecting and start answering some questions. Like the one posed to you, continually, by Sol...

Does PC predict rotation curves like a solid disk or not?

And here's another one I just asked...

How many papers have you had published in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology journals?

No hand-waving or deflection or goal-post moving. Just please answer the damn questions.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by ben m

In the second column, first page of this paper, he explicitly sets q/m = sqrt(G). That's putting 10^20 Coulombs onto the Sun, 10^14 Coulombs on the Earth.

The sun and earth are nothing to do with his work. He is modelling plasmoid filaments based on the charge/mass ratio that would be associated with a stricture that large.

Quote:

On page 642 of this paper he tells us that he's running a simulation of an electron-ion plasma, and if by "ion" he meant "a particle with q < 100 C and M =10^30 kg" he sure didn't say so. Electrons and ions have very, very large charge to mass ratios.

No he doesn't. He quotes the parameters that delineate the physical characteristics of a field-aligned current-carrying filament of plasma, and then states the scaling laws he uses between the two models. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=507

This is how it works, via the plasma scaling relationships that he outlines. Birkeland Currents of this sort have force free configurations that mean they scale up to nearly all sizes, from macroscopic to galactic.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...artinovCos.pdf

Quote:

Formation of structures in plasmas is a well recognized fact. The structuring is commonly associated with strong nonlinearities of various interactions of waves and particles and may be treated in terms of synergetics.1 It appears that the structuring exhibit lifetimes largely exceeding those predicted by the linear magnetohydrodynamics ~MHD! in a near-equilibrium range of states. The latter is true of the filaments of electric current as they often appear to sustain their integrity as long as the plasma itself exists and to dominate in plasma dynamics.2,3 However, the role of filamentation in global plasma dynamics seems to be underestimated yet. Existing numeric hydrocodes for modeling most of the plasmas consider the plasma as a nonfilamentary medium. This could be a reason for the unsatisfactory situation around developing a reliable theoretical description for many important phenomena in plasmas ~e.g., heat and particle transport in fusion plasmas!. There were a number of attempts to treat the plasma as a set of topologically one-dimensional filaments ~fibers! of electric current interacting with each other; however, this appeared to be still insufficient for overcoming existing difficulties in predicting global behavior of plasmas. The present article proposes to demonstrate the existence of a key element in plasma structuring which, to our mind, has been overlooked, namely the ‘‘nonfluctuative’’ nature of the filaments of electric current. This implies that the filaments, besides their unexpectedly long lifetime, possess unexpectedly strong internal elasticity that leads to a longliving networking of electric currents in plasmas. The present demonstration is based on the results of a high-resolution processing, called a method of multilevel dynamical contrasting, of numerous data from laboratory electric discharges and observations of cosmic plasmas in a very broad range of length scales. Here we illustrate the applicability of the method for processing the images in a broad spectroscopic range, from rf to soft x-ray images, and introduce a novel element of networking, namely formation of the ‘‘stockings’’ woven by the individual filaments.

Plasma experiments in the laboratory and space

Evolution of colliding plasmas

Observation of the CIV Effect in Interstellar Clouds

GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE

Intersteller neutral hydrogen filaments at high galactic latitudes and the Bennet Pinch


In the laboratory, filamentary structure is a common morphology exhibited by energetic plasmas. X-ray pinhole photographs, optical streak and framing camera photographs, and laser holograms often show a filamentary magnetic "rope-like" structure from plasmas produced in multiterawatt pulse power generators or in dense plasma focus machines. High-resolution etchings of electron beams onto witness plates show nearly identical vortex profiles ranging from a dimension of a few micrometers in the dense plasma focus, to a few centimeters in cathode electron beams (1), (2), (3), (4). This size variation of four orders of magnitude is extended to over nine orders of magnitude when auroral vortex recordings are directly compared to the laboratory data ( Radio Science, Vol. 8, p.475 ). And with regard to actual current magnitudes, fine-detail resolution of current filaments shows indistinguishable vortex patterns over nearly 12 orders of magnitude, while coarser resolution shows that the phenomena probably transcend at least 14 orders of magnitude, from microampere to multi-megaampere electron beams.

The laws of electromagnetism do not change, which means that comparisons between laboratory plasma and larger galactic plasma are fully justified, and he outlines his scaling relationship.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Ian, I thought you were here to argue physics & cosmology, not English. Quit deflecting and start answering some questions. Like the one posed to you, continually, by Sol...

Does PC predict rotation curves like a solid disk or not?

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I think that Peratt is well aware of what a flat rotation curve is, and what was prodcued in his simulation. He designates and entire section of his paper (section VII) to the rotation curves. He has many separate graphs of the rotation curve properties of the galaxies in question.

...

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

How many papers have you had published in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology journals?

Many, I listed over twenty in a previous post, but there are many more than this, hundreds infact, published in mainstream journals, written by plasma cosmologists. It would make for a good discussion topic for a new thread, we could discuss some actual PC material past just arguing about Peratts galaxy model and charge on stars

Heres the list again:

Heres a small list of some of the plasma cosmology papers published in mainstream astronmy journals;


* Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11

* Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103

* Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

* How Can Spirals Persist? - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186

* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas 2 - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997

* Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107

* Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173

* Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

* Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 207, no. 1, p. 17-26

* X-Ray-emitting QSOS Ejected from Arp 220 - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 553, Issue 1, pp. L11-L13.

* A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 549, Issue 2, pp. 802-819.

* Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents - Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 493-501.

* On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

* POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE OF A DENSE INTERGALACTIC PLASMA. - Astron. Astrophys., 3: 42-56(Sept. 1969).

* GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - The Astronomical Journal, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

* Filamentation of volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite I0 - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2,

* On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 91, no. 1, March 1983

* Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 144, Issue 1-2, pp. 105-133

* Distances of Quasars and Quasar‐like Galaxies: Further Evidence That Quasi‐stellar Objects May Be Ejected from Active Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004

* High-Velocity Neutral Hydrogen - Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

* Galactic and extragalactic radio astronomy (2nd edition) - Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1988, 715 p. For individual items see A89-40410 to A89-40424.

* Magnetic Fields in Interstellar Neutral-Hydrogen Clouds - Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, p.L155

* Physics of the Plasma Universe - Physics of the Plasma Universe, XII, 372 pp. 208 figs.. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York

*




I really can't be bothered to post any more, you can see about seventy or so other papers published in mainstream astronomy journals here; http://www.soundintent.com/

And to see about fifty more tull texts of plasma universe/cosmology material, I suggest the papers that have been assembled at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) here; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

Some more peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers in mainstream journals here too; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers-cosmology.html (more about the cosmology side than the plasma physics side)

Is there something wrong with journals like The Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science, The IEEE Journal of Plasma Physics MattusMaximus?


(Sorry about the bolding and the size, its just that i have posted this over four times now, and no-one seems capable of commenting on it so i figured a bit of bolding may help)

[ben m]

I think I can sum up.

PC advocates:

• Claimed that there is a large charge on the stars. (Note: varies from poster to poster and day to day)
• Claimed that, whether or not there is a charge, stars are pushed around by plasma effects.
• Claimed that stars are not pushed around by plasma effects.
• Continued claiming that all sorts of large star-filled structures are formed, held together, etc., by "Birkeland currents", having forgotten the above.
• Claimed that stars got their initial angular momentum from plasma effects, then follow their current paths according to Newton's Mislearned Laws of Erroneous Mechanics.
• Claimed that gravity can't form filaments---citing, as evidence, filaments formed by a numerical gravity simulation
• Claimed that the ISM should be blowing past Earth from Vega due to different star/plasma rotation curves
• Claimed that the ISM might just as well be blowing in from anywhere due to currents.
• Claimed that the HI rotation curves are evidence of plasma effects.
• Claimed that HI and stellar rotation curves would look different.
• Claimed that the HI and stellar rotation curves might look the same, but the HI observations are probably wrong.
• Claimed that every Hubble picture that bears a vague visual resemblance to a plasma simulation is evidence of plasma effects.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Well, that was slightly more rational and educational than the reincarnation thread, but a few steps below Creekfreak's Bigfoot photos. Bye bye.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by ben m

I think I can sum up.

PC advocates:

• Claimed that there is a large charge on the stars. (Note: varies from poster to poster and day to day)
• Claimed that, whether or not there is a charge, stars are pushed around by plasma effects.
• Claimed that stars are not pushed around by plasma effects.
• Continued claiming that all sorts of large star-filled structures are formed, held together, etc., by "Birkeland currents", having forgotten the above.
• Claimed that stars got their initial angular momentum from plasma effects, then follow their current paths according to Newton's Mislearned Laws of Erroneous Mechanics.
• Claimed that gravity can't form filaments---citing, as evidence, filaments formed by a numerical gravity simulation
• Claimed that the ISM should be blowing past Earth from Vega due to different star/plasma rotation curves
• Claimed that the ISM might just as well be blowing in from anywhere due to currents.
• Claimed that the HI rotation curves are evidence of plasma effects.
• Claimed that HI and stellar rotation curves would look different.
• Claimed that the HI and stellar rotation curves might look the same, but the HI observations are probably wrong.
• Claimed that every Hubble picture that bears a vague visual resemblance to a plasma simulation is evidence of plasma effects.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Well, that was slightly more rational and educational than the reincarnation thread, but a few steps below Creekfreak's Bigfoot photos. Bye bye.

WOW, the breathtaking ignorance of the subject you are arguing against is unbelieveable. Find me one plasma cosmology paper in the ones I just listed above that says one single thing from this list. You wont beable to, as everything you just said is a demonstrable lie.

Since when did three peoples personal opinions on a thread about alternative galaxy models have anything to do with the opinions of established plasma cosmologists?

[Zeuzzz]

And someone please quote my above post so mattus can see all the plasma cosmology publications in mainstream journals, because at the moment he is trying to argue with someone he has on ignore

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I say that you have misinterpreted what Alfven said, it is up to you to show that you have quoted him accurately.

.
If you feel I have misrepresented, then I apologise, it is not intentional. I have provided numerous references so you can double check, such as the reference to the equation on gravitoelectrodynamics, where clearly the requirements of charge (implicit for a plasma), and velocity with respect to a magnetic field determine whether gravity or electromagnetic forces dominate. I have also provided Alfvén's comparison of electromagnetic forces to gravity here, again so you can double check what was actually written, compared to my description.

I have also acknowledged my bad use of the phrase "gravitational collapse". So I am happy to be corrected. If I don't provide references, or hide them, then I think you'd have a fair point.

[Zeuzzz]

Hey Ian. Seems to have gone a bit quiet on this thread since I posted those publications.

If you could quote that post above with the references that would be great, as Mattus is really beginning to do my nut in, and maybe once he see's them he will shut up . (although I very much doubt it)

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

And how many papers have you had published in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology journals Ian? Not plasma physics journals or IEEE, but the same journals in which the astrophysicists and cosmologists publish? Hmmm?

See above.

Who would be best to know about the effects of plasma in the cosmos? Standard astronomers who are not taught advanced plasma physics in their standard education, or plasma experts that work for the IEEE on the cutting edge of plasma physics, who specialize in the very field that 99.99% of the visible universe is made of? hmmmmmm.

Are you suggesting that all the papers published in the Journal of Plasma Science are wrong in some way? do you have any evidence to back this assertion up what-so-ever?

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Heres a small list of some of the plasma cosmology papers published in mainstream astronmy journals;

* Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11

* Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103

* Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

* How Can Spirals Persist? - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186

* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas 2 - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997

* Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107

* Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173

* Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

* Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 207, no. 1, p. 17-26

* X-Ray-emitting QSOS Ejected from Arp 220 - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 553, Issue 1, pp. L11-L13.

* A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 549, Issue 2, pp. 802-819.

* Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents - Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 493-501.

* On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

* POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE OF A DENSE INTERGALACTIC PLASMA. - Astron. Astrophys., 3: 42-56(Sept. 1969).

* GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - The Astronomical Journal, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

* Filamentation of volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite I0 - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2,

* On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 91, no. 1, March 1983

* Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 144, Issue 1-2, pp. 105-133

* Distances of Quasars and Quasar‐like Galaxies: Further Evidence That Quasi‐stellar Objects May Be Ejected from Active Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004

* High-Velocity Neutral Hydrogen - Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

* Galactic and extragalactic radio astronomy (2nd edition) - Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1988, 715 p. For individual items see A89-40410 to A89-40424.

* Magnetic Fields in Interstellar Neutral-Hydrogen Clouds - Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, p.L155

* Physics of the Plasma Universe - Physics of the Plasma Universe, XII, 372 pp. 208 figs.. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York

I really can't be bothered to post any more, you can see about seventy or so other papers published in mainstream astronomy journals here; http://www.soundintent.com/

And to see about fifty more tull texts of plasma universe/cosmology material, I suggest the papers that have been assembled at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) here; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

Some more peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers in mainstream journals here too; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers-cosmology.html (more about the cosmology side than the plasma physics side)

Is there something wrong with journals like The Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science, The IEEE Journal of Plasma Physics MattusMaximus?


(Sorry about the bolding and the size, its just that i have posted this over four times now, and no-one seems capable of commenting on it so i figured a bit of bolding may help)

.
Thanks for that, I also have some references on my own site, ranging from the popular to the peer-reviewed.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Hey Ian. Seems to have gone a bit quiet on this thread since I posted those publications.

If you could quote that post above with the references that would be great, as Mattus is really beginning to do my nut in, and maybe once he see's them he will shut up . (although I very much doubt it)

Reading those papers was a lot like reading this thread. Geez. For example, this one is 15 pages of perfectly normal HI line-profile measurements---making no arguments for, against, or otherwise, standard cosmology or "plasma cosmology". Then in the final paragraph, they say

Quote:

we note that the line width regimes show a striking resemblance to a set of velocity regimes described by a plasma physical mechanism called the critical ionization phenomenon.

No fits, no citations, no discussion of galaxy-scale plasmas, no cosmology, no discussion of rotation curves. Just "a striking resemblance", justified only via Peratt's eyeballs, between the published plots and some numbers Peratt derived somewhere else. Even if it's true---so what? Was someone arguing "we don't need to use plasma physics to calculate ionization and shocks in HI clouds"? Never happened.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969ApJ...155L.155VThis one doesn't mention plasma cosmology, doesn't oppose standard cosmology---it's a measurement of the B field in a dense molecular cloud, using a perfectly-mainstream argument which is well-known and commonly applied in standard astrophysics.

ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Ap&SS.144..451P is about Io. The Jovian satellite. The one whose plasma torus has been known for most of a century. You know, in the list of showstopping objections to plasma cosmology raised in this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone say "But PC doesn't describe the plasma torus around Jupiter which we normally explain with dark matter!" Because that's not one of the showstopping objections.

Zeuzzz, it looks a whole lot like you're link-spamming us with every paper written by Peratt or any Peratt coauthor, or possibly every paper mentioning plasma. These papers appear to contain a mixture of (a) standard, mainstream space plasma physics, with no connection to plasma cosmology and (b) the exact same handwaving cosmology you've been cutting and pasting into this thread.

Seriously. The point of refereed papers is not to impress-by-sheer-volume, but rather to convey information. Why is it that you, an aficionado of these papers, who has read them all and thought about them, are unable to answer basic PC questions using what you've learned? ("What force acts on stars, with what magnitude and from what source?" was the big one) Apparently because the answers aren't in any of the papers you've read.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by ben m

Reading those papers was a lot like reading this thread. Geez. For example, this one is 15 pages of perfectly normal HI line-profile measurements---making no arguments for, against, or otherwise, standard cosmology or "plasma cosmology".

No fits, no citations, no discussion of galaxy-scale plasmas, no cosmology, no discussion of rotation curves. Just "a striking resemblance", justified only via Peratt's eyeballs, between the published plots and some numbers Peratt derived somewhere else.

Your joking, right?

I suppose that an entire paper published by plasma cosmologists in mainstream astronomy journals featuring empirical observations of high amounts of ionization in the ISM currents between stars just goes right over your head.

The author for example, GERRIT L. VERSCHUUR, is a well known plasma cosmologist, and has published numerous books on his and others discovery of EM forces and currents in the ISM.

Interstellar Matters: Essays on Curiosity and Astronomical Discovery - By Gerrit L. Verschuur

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

Quote:

Gerrit L. Verschuur, PhD, born in 1937 in Cape Town, South Africa, is a naturalized American scientist who is best known for his work in radio astronomy. Though a pioneer in that field—he has 50 years of experience—Verschuur is also an author (he has written about astronomy, natural disasters, and earth sciences), inventor, a self-employed IP Consultant, adjunct professor of physics for the University of Memphis [.....]

Verschuur is at the center of a recent debate over the age of the universe[12] [13]. He claims that images from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) are not pictures of the universe in its early form, but rather hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy. If he is shown to be correct, much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined.

On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in the The Astrophysical Journal[14]. It is currently undergoing deeper statistical analysis.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...rPerattAsJ.pdf

Quote:

When a low-density neutral gas Ñows through a lowdensity
plasma permeated by a magnetic Ðeld, neutral
atoms ionize when their velocity relative to the plasma is
such that their kinetic energy exceeds the ionization potential
of the neutrals. The magnitudes of the critical ionization
velocities (CIVs) for common atomic species fall into three
distinct bands. Band I includes hydrogen, with a CIV of 51
km s~1, and He, with a CIV of 34 km s~1, band II includes
C, N, and O, with CIVs around 13.5 km s~1; and band III
includes heavier atomic species such as Na and Ca, with
CIVs around 6 km s~1. We regard the coincidence between
the magnitudes of the CIVs for common interstellar atoms
and H I line width regimes discussed above as more than
fortuitous and in a subsequent paper will conclude that H I
proÐle shapes are a†ected by the CIV phenomenon in interstellar
space. This implies the existence of a previously
unrecognized source of ionization that needs to be taken
into account in the study of interstellar gasdynamics,
physics, and chemistry.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to W. B. Burton, Steve
West, and Dap Hartmann for making available H I emission
proÐles from the magniÐcent Leiden-Dwingeloo
all-sky H I survey; and to Joan T. Schmelz for a critical
reading of an early version of the manuscript.

Did you notice that material? And the other data they addressed?

Quote:

Even if it's true---so what? Was someone arguing "we don't need to use plasma physics to calculate ionization and shocks in HI clouds"?

No models take this degree of ionization from CIV into account, both the authors of the paper are plasma cosmologists and they have had their paper published in a mainstream astronomy journal. You should contact the journal and inform them of their fatal mistake in publishing this material.

Quote:

ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Ap&SS.144..451P is about Io. The Jovian satellite. The one whose plasma torus has been known for most of a century. You know, in the list of showstopping objections to plasma cosmology raised in this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone say "But PC doesn't describe the plasma torus around Jupiter which we normally explain with dark matter!" Because that's not one of the showstopping objections.

Who predicted this torus before it was observed? plasma cosmologists. So who do you think may turn out to be correct with some of their other more recent predictions? A lot of their previous sucessful predictions, that were certainly different from mainstream opinion, I have outlined before. Such as the immense birkeland currents containing 650,000 amps of electricity found very recently by Themis connecting the Earths poles to the sun? Did any mainstream astronomer predict this? they all looked pretty surprised to me.

Plasma cosmologists on the other hand have been positively predicting exactly this for years now, after Alfven originally proposed his heliospheric current circuit, and the solar systems current sheet. Infact, if their future predictions turn out as sucessful as their previous ones, we're going to find a whole new load of EM connections and currents between bodies in space very soon. We only just discovered this huge current on our own planet, imagine what connections we will find elsewhere in the near future.

Quote:

Zeuzzz, it looks a whole lot like you're link-spamming us with every paper written by Peratt or any Peratt coauthor, or possibly every paper mentioning plasma. These papers appear to contain a mixture of (a) standard, mainstream space plasma physics, with no connection to plasma cosmology and (b) the exact same handwaving cosmology you've been cutting and pasting into this thread.

Your a joke m8. Every single paper there is written by a plasma cosmologist who take into account forces in plasma that current astronomy either deny exist, or largely ignore. Which paper is not relevant to PC? With specific reasons, not just a small quote and a load of generalizations.

Quote:

Seriously. The point of refereed papers is not to impress-by-sheer-volume to convey information.

So you are denying that any of these papers exist?

I suppose giving you some irrefutable evidence of PC material in mainstream journals means nothing at all.

You seem, for example, to have missed these ones:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...5cce9d73311457

Quote:

Contrary to popular and scientific opinion of just a few decades ago, space is not an ‘empty’ void. It is actually filled with high energy particles, magnetic fields, and highly conducting plasma. The ability of plasmas to produce electric fields, either by instabilities brought about by plasma motion or the movement of magnetic fields, has popularized the term ‘Electric Space’ in recognition of the electric fields systematically discovered and measured in the solar system. Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state and the importance of electromagnetic forces on cosmic plasma cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (˜10‑4 parts ionized), the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 107. An early prediction about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). Plasmas in electric space are energetic (because of electric fields) and they are generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. This paper explores the dynamical and radiative consequences of the evolution of galactic-dimensioned filaments in electric space.

care to comment on any of that?

or this one:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...5cce9d73311457

Quote:

One of the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). This prediction followed from the fact that volumewise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. When the plasma is energetic, it is generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. In the laboratory and in the Solar System, filamentary and cellular morphology is a well-known property of plasma. As the properties of the plasma state of matter is believed not to change beyond the range of our space probes, plasma at astrophysical dimensions must also be filamentary. During the 1980s a series of unexpected observations showed filamentary structure on the Galactic, intergalactic, and supergalactic scale. By this time, the analytical intractibility of complex filamentary geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time dependence had fostered the development of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. It had been realized that the importance of applying electromagnetism and plasma physics to the problem of radiogalaxy and galaxy formation derived from the fact that the universe is largely aplasma universe. In plasma, electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of 1036, and electromagnetism is ≈ 107 times stronger than gravity even in neutral hydrogen regions, where the degree of ionization is a miniscule 10‑4. The observational evidence for galactic-dimensioned Birkeland currents is given based on the direct comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extra-galactic sources including quasars and double radio galaxies.

or this one:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.227..229H

Quote:

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

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

and thier conclusion,

Quote:

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

or this one:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...26SS..91...19P

Quote:

The advent of three-dimensional, electromagnetic, and fully relativistic particle simulations allows a detailed study of a magnetized, rotating plasma, galaxy model. When two such models are simulated, an interaction yielding results resembling observational data from double radio sources, including the emission of synchrotron radiation, are obtained. Simulation-derived morphologies, radiation intensities, frequency spectra, and isophote patterns are directly compared to observations. The constituent plasma parameters associated with the source Cygnus A are found to be n(e) = 0.0018/cu cm, T = 2.8 keV, B = 20-30 gamma, with a small population of electrons accelerated to GeV energies by a rotation induced electric field. The results of these simulations, involving a computational resource of five CDC 7600 and five Cray-1 computers, strongly supports an inhomogeneous version of the Klein world model.

whats so wrong with all this then?

Quote:

Why is it that you, an aficionado of these papers, who has read them all and thought about them, are unable to answer basic PC questions using what you've learned? ("What force acts on stars, with what magnitude and from what source?" was the big one) Apparently because the answers aren't in any of the papers you've read.

WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH PLASMA COSMOLOGY? Just because I cant answer one particular question that you ask me does not mean that it is not explained by the experts who publish this material in some way. I seriously suggest you e-mail them and ask them some of these questions. I am no expert, and I never claimed to be.

Peratts galaxy model is one absolutely tiny area of the huge area called plasma cosmology. You obviously are going to remain ignorant on this subject as you are refusing to look at any of the material presented, apart from scanning quickly through it to try to find ones that you think are not relevant to PC. Hows about quoting some of the material in the other ones?

Quote:

“Gravity was the focus of 20th century astronomy. For the 21st century, it will be electromagnetism and plasmas in addition. This forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment, and discoveries about the nature of the interstellar medium."

– Timothy E. Eastman, PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups. He is well known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer.

http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm

Or care to comment on some of the material from the world leading plasma experts at the Los Alamos National Laboratory website?

Deny Ignorance.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by ben m

I think I can sum up.

Quite accurate.

Ian, you're still not responding to questions about the content of your site. There's no point in carrying on a dialog under those circumstances - you have basic factual and conceptual errors about the phenomena you claim to explain in the very first paragraph, and you simply ignore queries about it.

Zuezzz after 1000s of words failed to produce one single concrete prediction of PC, failed to respond to any direct questions about what PC predicts, and instead babbled about metaphysics.

BAC is a troll.

I'm done with this nonsense.

[DeiRenDopa]

I've been lurking for quite a while, carefully collecting material to continue the study I hinted at in the Thunderbolts JREF thread, so I could post appropriately, but part of this post by Zeuzzz just cries out for an immediate response ...

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Originally Posted by ben m

Reading those papers was a lot like reading this thread. Geez. For example, this one is 15 pages of perfectly normal HI line-profile measurements---making no arguments for, against, or otherwise, standard cosmology or "plasma cosmology".

No fits, no citations, no discussion of galaxy-scale plasmas, no cosmology, no discussion of rotation curves. Just "a striking resemblance", justified only via Peratt's eyeballs, between the published plots and some numbers Peratt derived somewhere else.

Your joking, right?

I suppose that an entire paper published by plasma cosmologists in mainstream astronomy journals featuring empirical observations of high amounts of ionization in the ISM currents between stars just goes right over your head.

The author for example, GERRIT L. VERSCHUUR, is a well known plasma cosmologist, and has published numerous books on his and others discovery of EM forces and currents in the ISM.

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

Quote:

Verschuur is at the center of a recent debate over the age of the universe[12] [13]. He claims that images from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) are not pictures of the universe in its early form, but rather hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy. If he is shown to be correct, much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined.

On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in the The Astrophysical Journal[14]. It is currently undergoing deeper statistical analysis.

[rest of post omitted]

Zeuzzz, did you read Verschuur's ApJ paper? If so, did you understand it? Did you also read the v1 on the arXiv preprint server, and compare it with the v2 that subsequently got published? How about the comments of Richard Lieu in the Cosmocoffee discussion forum on it (Lieu is Verschuur's endorser, for this paper)?

My point here is that while Verschuur (and Lieu) would very much like to be able to show that the CMB, in its WMAP form, contains some otherwise unmodelled foreground, many years of trying have (so far) failed. This most certainly does NOT mean that there is no unmodelled foreground in the WMAP CMB (processed) data!

However, the wikipedia entry is, shall we say, rather generous in its interpretation ... so far, Verschuur's interpretation has been pretty thoroughly shown to be wrong (by no less a figure than Lieu!), and even if it were, in some form, shown to be right, to go from there to "much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined" is either a failure of elementary logic or reflects breath-taking ignorance of modern LCDM cosmological models.

But how about this: would you like to try to explain what Verschuur claims to have found, and then answer questions on your understanding of the relevant physics, WMAP observations, and other astronomical inputs?

Here, for all readers' interest, is Lieu's cosmocoffee comment:

Quote:

Kate: I am in agreement with you.

I performed an extensive study (with B. Z. Jiang, a PhD
student of Prof. S.N. Zhang at Tsinghua, Beijing) using wavelet analysis
of the WMAP and HI data, then cross comparing the number of close associations between the degree-scale wavelet hot spot centroids and HI clouds with that expected from simulated WMAP data where the hot spot
locations are by definition randomized.

The verdict is that we found no statistically significant associations
between the first acoustic peak hot spots and HI. We therefore
cannot support the claim of Verschuur.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Originally Posted by plasma-universe.com

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation.

Whoever wrote this doesn't even know what "flat rotation curve" means. Writing things about physics you don't understand using terms you don't know the meaning of is foolish and even unethical, as it may mislead uninformed readers that happen across it.

.
Thank you for pointing out the silly error, whch has now been corrected. I am sorry that the responses and corrections do not happen has fast we might like, but we don't always have the luxury of time, but under 7 hours from notification to correction, isn't bad.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Quite accurate.

Ian, you're still not responding to questions about the content of your site. There's no point in carrying on a dialog under those circumstances - you have basic factual and conceptual errors about the phenomena you claim to explain in the very first paragraph, and you simply ignore queries about it.

Zuezzz after 1000s of words failed to produce one single concrete prediction of PC, failed to respond to any direct questions about what PC predicts, and instead babbled about metaphysics.

BAC is a troll.

I'm done with this nonsense.

Unbelievable! Note how he does not address any of the material i just presented, just resorts to name calling. How mature.

He also seems to have ignored the huge post I wrote previously with the predictions of Alfven, Birkeland, Thornhill, or any of the other plasma cosmologists correct predictions. In sight of such breathtaking arrogance and stupidity, Sol has just earned a place on my ignore list.

And (for the fifth time) if anyone wants to take up Sols little challenge that he keeps saying I never resonded to, I would be happy to comply.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
Thank you for pointing out the silly error, whch has now been corrected. I am sorry that the responses and corrections do not happen has fast we might like, but we don't always have the luxury of time, but under 7 hours from notification to correction, isn't bad.

I wasn't asking why you haven't corrected it. I was asking how it got there in the first place, and whether the predictions of PC agree with it or not. You never answered, and you still haven't.

According to Zeuzzz that was written by none other than Perrat, and as I said earlier I simply don't see how any physicist working on that problem could possibly make such a mistake.

Have the predictions of PC now suddenly shifted to accommodate the new language?

EDIT - yes, I see they have. Currently it says

Originally Posted by plasma-universe.com today

Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves

I don't know what "qualitatively flat" means, but according to Ian it means not like a rigid disk. Yesterday it said

Originally Posted by plasma-universe.com yesterday

The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation.

Which is it, Ian? Or have the simulations all been re-done in the last few hours and magically produced different results?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I wasn't asking why you haven't corrected it. I was asking how it got there in the first place, and whether the predictions of PC agree with it or not. You never answered, and you still haven't.

According to Zeuzzz that was written by none other than Perrat, and as I said earlier I simply don't see how any physicist working on that problem could possibly make such a mistake.

for christs sake sol, if you didn't have me on ignore you would see that you misinterpretted this from the beginning, Peratt has changed nothing from his model, and dedicates a whole section to rotation curves. If you had read his paper (which i absolutely guarantee you have not even bothered to) you would know this. Ian admitted the small wording mistake on his site, and corrected it, what more do you want? How do you expect to get answers to your questions if you put everyone who disagrees with you on ignore?

Quote:

I think that Peratt is well aware of what a flat rotation curve is, and what was produced in his simulation. He designates and entire section of his paper (section VII) to the rotation curves, and he has graphs of the rotation curve properties of the galaxies in question.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

I've been lurking for quite a while, carefully collecting material to continue the study I hinted at in the Thunderbolts JREF thread

Hi DeiRenDopa. I did wonder where you had gone, and so while your here, may i ask what are the puroposes of this study? why are you conducting it? just curious.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Zeuzzz, did you read Verschuur's ApJ paper? If so, did you understand it? Did you also read the v1 on the arXiv preprint server, and compare it with the v2 that subsequently got published? How about the comments of Richard Lieu in the Cosmocoffee discussion forum on it (Lieu is Verschuur's endorser, for this paper)?

Thankyou, i will have a look at this when i have the time. I'll be honest, I wasn't even aware of this relatively new area of Gerrits work until earlier today, but it seems interesting and I'll have a look at it over the next few days.

Quote:

My point here is that while Verschuur (and Lieu) would very much like to be able to show that the CMB, in its WMAP form, contains some otherwise unmodelled foreground, many years of trying have (so far) failed. This most certainly does NOT mean that there is no unmodelled foreground in the WMAP CMB (processed) data!

Seems like the issue is far from resolved. We'll just have to wait and see

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by iantresman

.
If you feel I have misrepresented, then I apologise, it is not intentional.

Oh yeah, then where are his quotes and why do you deliberately leave out the part about the charge and velocity of the particles?

Sure , whatever.

Quote:

I have provided numerous references so you can double check

i did and you were WRONG

so why not quote Alfven directly in context.

Quote:

, such as the reference to the equation on gravitoelectrodynamics, where clearly the requirements of charge (implicit for a plasma), and velocity with respect to a magnetic field determine whether gravity or electromagnetic forces dominate.

Oh right, and then you JUST INGNORE it and MISREPRESENT what Alfven said repeatedly, and you don't actually quote him very often, just wave at the papers.

Why have you consistantly ignored the charge and velocity in YOUR STATEMENTS Ian, do not act like it is there in what you said , I have the quotes below. You LEFT IT OUT!

Quote:

I have also provided Alfvén's comparison of electromagnetic forces to gravity here, again so you can double check what was actually written, compared to my description.

I have also acknowledged my bad use of the phrase "gravitational collapse". So I am happy to be corrected. If I don't provide references, or hide them, then I think you'd have a fair point.

You continue to make the same errors as well, plasmas don't collapse because they are plasmas, and you won't admit to your leaving out the crucial part of Alfvens quote, you didn't aknoledge it at all, until I pointed it out!

You do hide your references in that :you wave your hand at the paper but refuse to quote the actual citation from the paper.

Well here goes, not that it will dissuade you in the least.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=198

Quote:

I think you're not far wrong. The magnetic field in a plasma cloud may stop gravitational collapse. This was investigated by Per Carlqvist in 1988, resulting in the eponymous Carlqvist Relation, peer reviewed in (ref, full text). As Carlqvist and Hannes Alfvén mention in another paper, the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud resulting in a pinch.

So hand waving and no direct citation and the third reference in your link is the one to the paper where you misinterpret Alfven's statement.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=210

Quote:

I don't think I did. I noted that Carlqvist's and Alfvén's paper said that magnetic fields may counteract gravitation collapse of a plasma cloud. I refer you to:

II.4. Do Magnetic Fields Aid or Counteract a Compression? (p.498) in "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.
Now, it may be that while magnetic fields counteract gravitational collapse, they may not be able to prevent it; once grain sizes increase, gravity certainly plays the dominant role. But magnetic plasmas whose particle size is less than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Period. (See Gravitoelectrodynamics)

And so here you are engaging in handwaving again and then telling the mistaken story of 'grain size', all without any citation of Alfven or any one.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=213

Quote:

I stand corrected. It just occurred to me that you are referring to "Gravitational Collapse" of a massive body, whereas I was discussing the collapse, gravitationally, of a plasma cloud (a non-massive body).

And here you make the same mistake, saying that a plasma will not be effected by gravity , for whatever uncited and supported reason.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=322

Quote:

It may depend on the density (and hence size) of such mass, and the time-scale.

The man who coined the word "plasmoid" and first investigated them, Winston H. Bostick, noted with respect to the plasma in the spiral arms of galaxies, that ".. Chandrasekhar and Fermi have shown that a magnetic field of 10-6 gauss in the arms is necessary to prevent the complete
gravitational collapse of the ionized hydrogen present in the arms."

With respect to plasmoids specifically, ".. the plasma being supported against the central gravitational field by the magnetic field. [..] gravitational energy is
transformed into magnetic energy".

Reference: Bostick, Winston H., "Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory.", Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 8.

And here you are again making the mistaken statement upon the density and size of the mass.

Still violate GR much, Ian?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=538

Quote:

...
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.

so there you are again, no citation or evidence, saying that somehow a plasma in the interstellar medium does not undergo collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=694

Quote:

That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

Here you are handwaving, you don't actually cite the quote of Alfven's, now do you. And again you are misinterpreting what he said.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=719

Quote:

If it is dense enough, and charged neutral, then maybe.

But, just take a look at any nebula, or perhaps M87's "jet" which extends 5000 light-year (big enough?). Gravity clearly does not dominate, but works together with electromagnetic forces.

So here again you are mistakenly suggesting density as a factor that would prevent gravitational collapse.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=765

Quote:

You need a point mass of higher density, eg. a particle larger than grain before gravity becomes significant. With a cloud of low-density plasma, electromagnetism dominates.

Where is the centre of gravity of the plasma making up the intergalactic medium? No doubt at the centre of the Universe.

And here you are mentioning grain size again!


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=768

Quote:

Many things sound like nonsense until they are understood properly. As I said in a previous post:

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

Gravitoelectrodynamics provides the equations of motion for small particles and grains where electromagnetic forces dominate. For larger grains, gravity dominates.

More handwaving and lack of actual quotations. Are you really MISREPRESENTING what Alfven said?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=800

Quote:

No one is ruling out the effects of gravity, but electromagnetic forces are significant too, and dominate while charged particles smaller than grains are present. See:

Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars, Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. (Online in full)

And again, no direct quote and the grain thing again!

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=818

Quote:

Agreed. An sometimes electromagnetism dominates, as it does in jets, the interplanetary medium, the interstellar medium, and the intergalactic medium.

No citations just this bold assertion that somehow this is magically happening.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=821

Quote:

There is no contradiction. The motion of charged particles smaller than a grain is dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Gravity does sometimes dominate, as it does with the planets.

And again with the grain thing!

So here there are:
-four references to grain size, without any explanation of why this would matter.
-three references to plasma not being effected by gravity just because it is plasma
-at least five references to somebody like Alfven saying something in a paper but then you don’t actually cite a quotation
-two references, uncited and unquoted where Alfven says that EM forces dominate at some ration
-four references to density effecting gravitational collapse.

So there it is Ian, you make these statement repeatedly and as though they were true, you have cited that plasmas don’t undergo gravitational collapse and that density and grain size have some effect on something not collapsing. But you don’t say why and pretend to cite some authority but you don’t actually quote the authority many times.

Now here is the deal, you have a web site do you not and I assume that the stuff you say here is similar to what you say there?

This is reprehensible, you make claims based upon something you say that Alfven said, but you don’t actually quote him.

1. So you have a choice, go back and find the quotations that Alfven made in their context and support your citations of his authority.
2. Admit that you have been making claims about Alfven without any basis for making those claims.
3. Find sources that support the grain size and density thing.
4. Admit that you have misrepresented and misinterpreted what Alfven said.


Time to choose!

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I wasn't asking why you haven't corrected it. I was asking how it got there in the first place, and whether the predictions of PC agree with it or not. You never answered, and you still haven't. [..]

Which is it, Ian? Or have the simulations all been re-done in the last few hours and magically produced different results?

.
The mistake was mine. Since it has now been removed, you can conclude that plasma cosmology does not, and has never, agreed with it.

Of course you could easily have checked this yourself, by simply reading some of the papers on the subject.

[Dancing David]

Hi Zeuzz, have anything that involves the actual computation of the EM forces that some PC people keep claiming cause visible motions that are observable.

I notice that you still haven't done that, you are able to cite all these great papers and web sites. yet you can't find something we can put to the observational test?

Do i really have to go witha whole galaxy because I am very certain that it will give such an outraheous answer that you will accuse me of fraud.

So what shall it be Zuezz, fair is fair. You choose the obejct that you feel has motion that can not be explained or should not be explained by gravity plus dark matter.

You choose the obejct that has motion that is not predicted by gravity minus dar matter, and then we will take the difference and multiply it by the mass of the object, negotiate a charge and we will have a computational prediction of the EM force that some people like you have been saying move things around.

So why haven't you taken me up on this?

Are you now accepting that gravity and dark matter are sifficient an explanation?
Why not tell me an object that is accelerated by EM forces that is not allegedly subject to the influence of dark matter?

I am waiting.

You coose the object, then we negotiate the charge.

Why no answer?

[ben m]

OK, maybe I'm beginning to understand plasma cosmology. Depending on the day and the interlocutor, it's either:

• #1) Ordinary, totally non-crackpot astrophysical plasmas, on scales from Earth-ish scales to Galactic scales. Y'know, the type that is already studied at universities everywhere, except that if you call it "Plasma Cosmology" instead of "astrophysical plasmas" you win special iconoclast points. But there's really nothing iconoclastic about it, except that some reason you throw out magnetic reconnection and talk a lot about Birkeland currents.
• #2) Extremely nonstandard astrophysics, in which you claim ... well, various things having to do with invoking a Galactic plasma force making the rotation curve (of stars, gas, plasma?) flat (or rigid, or multivalued?), making redshifts wrong, faking the CMB via foreground effects, and so on.
• #3) Utter crankery, wherein the Sun and the Earth are powered high-energy electrons from the Pioneer 10 RTG , which even the PC aficionados are quick to disavow.

Any general conceptual question about #2 gets the reply, "Well, it works in #1." Any question about #3 gets the reply, "Stop calling us stupid, this is serious peer-reviewed stuff, look at #1." Any detailed question about #2 either (a) gets ignored, (b) gets confused with Categgory #1 stuff, or (c) is shown to disagree catastrophically with plasma cosmology, in which case it's quietly shunted into category #3. "Why are you still asking about stellar rotation curves? That's electric sun nonsense."

So in the end, we're left with (#1) fairly standard mainstream "gastrophysics", (#3) indefensible crackpot loonery, and, in the middle, (#2) supposedly-interesting, paradigm-challenging astrophysical predictions that no one can explain or calculate.

It's like going to the Apple Store, where they show you (#1) a wide variety of DVI-VGA adapters and USB chargers, (#3) a toy radiometer labeled "New Prepetual Motiun Mashine: Energy For The Future" and finally (#2) a revolutionary portable music player called the iPod. When you ask for more details about the iPod, you find that salesman can't quite turn it on, don't know what the circular dial does, and responds to all questions about storage, battery life, etc., by mumbling and bragging about the USB charger. And occasionally he hints that maybe it's supposed to be powered by the radiometer, but retracts it if you point it out.

Seriously, PC folks. PC's rotation curves are like the iPod above---it's your only possibly interesting product. You're supposed to be the sales clerk. Learn your friggin' product. If it doesn't have a hard drive, a battery, or a well-thought-out force law, I'm not going to buy it no matter how nice the VGA adapter is.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

And someone please quote my above post so mattus can see all the plasma cosmology publications in mainstream journals, because at the moment he is trying to argue with someone he has on ignore

Zeuzzz: Totally new law of the universe: The number of papers published on a area of science establishes the truth of that area of science!
Plasma "cosmology" has "hundreds" (at least 50 and maybe as much as 200).
Big Bang cosmology has 1000s (querying the ADS database for 'big bang cosmology' gives 4918 results).
Guess who wins!

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

If PC does indeed predict that the rotation curves of galaxies will be similar to solid disks, it is ruled out by experiment.

And if mainstream theory requires "open magnetic field lines", is it too ruled out?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by ben m

• #1) Ordinary, totally non-crackpot astrophysical plasmas, on scales from Earth-ish scales to Galactic scales. Y'know, the type that is already studied at universities everywhere, except that if you call it "Plasma Cosmology" instead of "astrophysical plasmas" you win special iconoclast points. But there's really nothing iconoclastic about it, except that some reason you throw out magnetic reconnection and talk a lot about Birkeland currents.
• #2) Extremely nonstandard astrophysics, in which you claim ... well, various things having to do with invoking a Galactic plasma force making the rotation curve (of stars, gas, plasma?) flat (or rigid, or multivalued?), making redshifts wrong, faking the CMB via foreground effects, and so on.
• #3) Utter crankery, wherein the Sun and the Earth are powered high-energy electrons from the Pioneer 10 RTG , which even the PC aficionados are quick to disavow.

Any general conceptual question about #2 gets the reply, "Well, it works in #1." Any question about #3 gets the reply, "Stop calling us stupid, this is serious peer-reviewed stuff, look at #1."

Very good.

And that's exactly why I was trying to get one specific prediction or phenomenon which "PC" explains differently than the mainstream - to distinguish 1) from 2). But there are no such predictions or phenomena, so it didn't work.

You know, the most charitable interpretation of these crank's motives is that they simply fell in love with plasma physics at some point. If that's it, let me offer a word of advice: learn enough physics to distinguish between 1) and 2), or at least 1) and 3), and stop making your favorite subfield look so bad. Plasmas are cool, everyone likes them, everyone that studies astrophysics studies them too, and they play very important roles a lot of the time.

But the sun is not an anode, plasma physics does not explain rotation curves, and gravity is by far the most important force on large scales. Deal with that and move on.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I find it hard to believe that a real physicist could make such an elementary mistake. This is the central fact on a subject he has written several papers about.

Sol, I am puzzled how "real" physicists could make such an elementary mistake as to keep referring to "breaking", "open" and "reconnecting" magnetic field lines since "open" field lines are strickly prohibited by Maxwell's laws (unless you want to claim the universe if full of monopoles). This has long been a central fact when the mainstream discusses magnetic reconnection in the context of explaining black hole jets, various solar observations and other space phenomena. It's "really hard to believe".

[ben m]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And if mainstream theory requires "open magnetic field lines", is it too ruled out?

It doesn't require open field lines in the sense you're talking about. Period. The word "open field line" is sometimes used casually when the speaker means "a line that that reconnects somewhere outside our region of interest" or sloppily in saying "magnetic reconnection involves breaking and reattaching field lines" when the speaker means "... crossing and reattaching field lines."

May I use you as an illustration of the importance of careful language in physics? "I once argued with a guy who read about 'open field lines' on the web somewhere, and got stuck for years believing that astrophysicists didn't know Maxwell's equations. Don't let this happen to one of your students!"

[ben m]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sol, I am puzzled how "real" physicists could make such an elementary mistake as to keep referring to "breaking", "open" and "reconnecting"

Our only mistake was to forget how long a dedicated troll can cling to a simple misstatement.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ben m

On one hand, what's to explain? These research groups just put 1,000,000 particles in a simulated box, made them all attract one another with F= ma = F = Gmm/r^2, and the result is filaments. This is not a fancy new result; it's the only way that these equations work, and it's been around for decades.

Really? And you say there is only one way these equations work and that way has been around for decades? Then why do they call the standard model the Lambda-CDM model? CDM stands for "cold dark matter", right? The reason I ask is that in order to make that million particle computer calculation produce filaments, the researchers had to ASSUME the dark particles were "warm dark matter". So if there was only one way the equations could work and they were around decades ago, why isn't the mainstream model called the Lambda-WMD model?

[Reality Check]

Hi BeAChooser and iantresman, Zeuzzz may have missed my post about the inclusion of gravity in Peratt's model and the comparison of the stills of the simulation of a spiral galaxy to the optical photos of a spiral galaxy.
Maybe you can answer?

[ben m]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Really? And you say there is only one way these equations work and that way has been around for decades? Then why do they call the standard model the Lambda-CDM model? CDM stands for "cold dark matter", right? The reason I ask is that in order to make that million particle computer calculation produce filaments, the researchers had to ASSUME the dark particles were "warm dark matter". So if there was only one way the equations could work and they were around decades ago, why isn't the mainstream model called the Lambda-WMD model?

Does this have something to do with PC? Is it going to lead to an explanation of PC rotation curves? No? I thought not. You're just trolling.

Anyway, you're flat wrong; where'd you dig that up? Filaments appear in all N-body gravity calculations, whether the matter is cold, warm, or simply baryons. (Hotter dark matter hypotheses predict that the filaments are broad and/or erased early; that (among other reasons) why the hot dark matter hypothesis was rejected. The WDM is less-strongly rejected for other reasons.)

I furthermore reject the hypothesis that taking you off ignore might be worthwhile. Never mind.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Oh yeah, then where are his quotes and why do you deliberately leave out the part about the charge and velocity of the particles?

.
Plasmas consist of charged particles by definition. Anyone interested in quantifying electromagnetic and gravitational forces can check the details with the references I have provided. Here's a direct quote from Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer on the general importance of electromagnetism compared to gravity on plasma:

"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance R_E ((the position vector being R_E) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm R_E/R_E³. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10^-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force f_m = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10^-4 gauss, which gives f_m/f ≈ 10⁷. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." -- Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmic Electrodynamics (1963) "Chapter 1 General Survey", Oxford University Press.

On gravito-electrodynamics, Alfvén and D.A. Mendis write:

While larger bodies in the Saturnian magnetosphere (e.g., boulders, satellites, etc.) are overwhelmingly influenced by gravitational forces, the electrons and ions are overwhelmingly influenced by electromagnetic forces. While Newtonian mechanics describes the motion of the former, electrodynamics describes the motion of the latter. In the case of the fine charged dust present in the Saturnian magnetosphere, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces can become comparable, at least to within an order of magnitude. In that case neither Newtonian mechanics nor electrodynamics is adequate for studying the motion of such grains; what is required is a combination of the two, namely, “gravito-electrodynamics.” -- "Plasma effects in the formation, evolution and present configuration of the Saturnian ring system, Alfven, H.; Mendis, D. A., Symposium on the Giant Planets and Their Satellites, Ottawa, Canada, May 16-June 2, 1982"

They do give examples of various criteria, noting the importance of grain size, potential, and angular velocity.

[The Man]

I am still waiting for anyone to answer this question.

Originally Posted by The Man

How do EU theorists determine interstellar and intergalactic distances?

Now, I am not interested in how they do not gauge distance or whatever problems may be perceived with current astronomical distancing. I am only asking how such distances are determined by EU theorists.

Without some measure of astronomical distances, correct or not, there is no theory but only conjecture.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sol, I am puzzled how "real" physicists could make such an elementary mistake as to keep referring to "breaking", "open" and "reconnecting" magnetic field lines since "open" field lines are strickly prohibited by Maxwell's laws (unless you want to claim the universe if full of monopoles). This has long been a central fact when the mainstream discusses magnetic reconnection in the context of explaining black hole jets, various solar observations and other space phenomena. It's "really hard to believe".

Yeah, it is hard to beleive, especially since there is no one who ever made claim that the flat rotation curve of galaxies came from thier formative years as plasma and then it just gnomishly carried on for billions of years...
Now that would be hard to believe!