Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote:

Quote:

Sol88 still does not get that a plasma is a gas. Somehow he thinks that when a gas gets ionized, it stops being a gas and starts being a plasma. Both are wrong. An ionized gas, is a gas, that happens to consist of charged particles, but still adheres to the gas laws (quite possibly with another adiabetic constant). So, to be clear on this a plasma is a gas.

Let's get this straight then tusenfem because I think this is where the misunderstanding is, so lets clear it up once and for all!!

You say plasma is a gas, which just happens to have a couple pesky free charged particles whizzn round in it, I say plasma is a distinct state of matter and that is NOT a gas!

First a little background on plasma

Quote:

Thus the term "plasma" was first used to describe partially (if not weakly) ionized gases. The term plasma apparently did not find immediate widespread use in the scientific community. It did eventually catch on, however, but in some cases the term was inappropriately limited to highly ionized gases.

During the 1920's Irving Langmuir was studying various types of mercury-vapor discharges, and he noticed similarities in their structure - near the boundaries as well as in the main body of the discharge. While the region immediately adjacent to a wall or electrode was already called a "sheath," there was no name for the quasi-neutral stuff filling most of the discharge space. He decided to call it "plasma."

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

Quote:

When enough atoms are ionized to significantly affect the electrical characteristics of the gas, it is a plasma

Quote:

What is a Plasma?

Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy.

Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible. So, in space, plasma remains electrically charged. Thus plasmas carry electric currents and are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Outside the Earth's atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma, and "empty" space has been found to be quite "alive" with a constant flow of plasma

And unlike Tusenfems assertion that plasma

Quote:

adheres to the gas laws (quite possibly with another adiabetic constant)

it does not

eg

Quote:

Errors in perception have also been made, especially in the case of 'Ionized Gases,' a topic studied intensely in the early 1900's. However, gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations.

LINK

Quote:

Liquids & Gases use Fluid Systems (Navier-Stokes)

And

Quote:

Plasmas use Electromagnetic Systems (Maxwell-
Boltzmann)

Further more

Quote:

Plasma consists of a collection of free-moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma. The energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

Plasma can be accelerated and steered by electric and magnetic fields which allows it to be controlled and applied. Plasma research is yielding a greater understanding of the universe. It also provides many practical uses: new manufacturing techniques, consumer products, and the prospect of abundant energy.

So plasma's do not just form from collisions, shock fronts and accretions or any other mechanical or gravity related phenomena but can also use electrical power, as per ya garden variety EU/PC theory!

plus

Quote:

In analysis, plasmas are far harder to model than solids, liquids, and gases because they act in a self-consistent manner. The separation of electrons and ions produce electric fields and the motion of electrons and ions produce both electric and magnetic fields. The electric fields then tend to accelerate plasmas to very high energies while the magnetic fields tend to guide the electrons. Both of these mechanisms, the accelerated (or fast) electrons and the magnetic fields produce what is called sychrotron radiation, so called because it was first discovered in large magnetized containers of electrons beams in laboratories on earth.

Because of their self-consistent motions, plasma are rampant with instabilities, chaosity, and nonlinearities. These also produce electric and magnetic fields but also electromagnetic radiation

So my real beef is press release's , science articles and books that our children read all say GAS, which is a GAS. but a ionized GAS is a plasma and it conforms to different equations!! ie

Quote:

In spite of their mathematical complexity, the acknowledgment of their existence throught space and utilization in industrial processes (80% of the manufacture of computing chips requires a plasma) it is time to acknowledge that 'plasmas' are for everyone.

Gas can not do what plasma does!!!

Am I misunderstanding anything here Tusenfem?

When we talk about GAS we are talking about a non ionized gas and when we are talking plasma we are not talking about non ionized gas, but when a press release or paper talks about 100,000,000 degree gas, are we talking about a plasma or a gas?

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

Quote:

The Bullet cluster is one of the hottest known clusters of galaxies. Observed from Earth, the subcluster passed through the cluster center 150 million years ago creating a "bow-shaped shock wave located near the right side of the cluster" formed as "70 million degree Celsius gas in the sub-cluster plowed through 100 million degree Celsius gas in the main cluster at a speed of about 6 million miles per hour".

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote:

Quote:

Otherwise, in nature, the creation of non-neutral plasmas is virtually impossible, not even your beloved plasma pinch will be able to keep an "pure electron cloud" together because of the electrostatic repulsion of the electrons. One has to use very complicated machinery to harnass an electron plasma.

That's not what RC said, he said a cloud of electrons is just a cloud of electrons, where as I said it was a plasma!!!

Who cares if nature has trouble making it!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tusenfem wrote:

That's not what RC said, he said a cloud of electrons is just a cloud of electrons, where as I said it was a plasma!!!

Who cares if nature has trouble making it!

And you were wrong.
The cloud of electrons in the press release are the electrons in the plasma contained in the CME. These electrons are not a plasma. These electrons are part of a plasma.

But your question was "And a cloud of electrons is a ......?". Without context the only answer is a cloud of electrons.


If you had asked "And a cloud of electrons in a Penning trap is .....?" (pure electron plasmas are often created in Penning traps) then the answer is it depends.

• If the "cloud" has one electron in the trap then it is definitely not a plasma.
• If the "cloud" has two electrons in the trap then it is definitely not a plasma.
• If the "cloud" has a few electrons in a large enough trap then it is a cloud of elecrons.
• If the "cloud" has many electrons in a small enough trap then it is a plasma.

It is not that nature has "trouble" creating an electron plasma. It is that electron plasmas are extremely unlikely to ever be created in nature considering the special conditions that are needed.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

It looks like you are incapable of understanding tusenfem's posts which seem to be fairly clear and it is obvious that your reading has just confused you further. So lets try to make it simple for you.

• Solids exist in the universe. Solids are never plasmas.
• Liquids exist in the universe. Liquids are never plasmas.
• Neutral gases exist in the universe. Neutral gases are never plasmas.
• Ionized gases exist in the universe. Most of but not all ionized gases are plasmas.
• Plasmas exist in the universe. They are a state of matter where ionized gases have specific properties (here you might want to actually read some of tusenfem's posts slowly and carefully).

Overall about 20% of the matter in the universe is plasma with the remaining 80% of matter being dark matter.

As for the Bullet Cluster - a mixture of plasma and gas with the emphasis on plasma. But astronomers are in the habit of referring to both gas and plasma as gas unless they have independent evidence that there is no gas involved.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Let's get this straight then tusenfem because I think this is where the misunderstanding is, so lets clear it up once and for all!!

You say plasma is a gas, which just happens to have a couple pesky free charged particles whizzn round in it, I say plasma is a distinct state of matter and that is NOT a gas!

First a little background on plasma

Oh dear oh dear. Sol88 you are still in the stadium that you might just understand Alfven's MHD theory, that is magnetohydrodynamics, a simplified way to describe plasma physics. And do you see the hydro part in that word? That means that a plasma can be described like a gas, as ANY REAL BOOK on plasma physics will tell you. I do not know what kind of woo page plasmascience.net is, but they simply have it WRONG.

Gasses are also described by the Boltzmann equation (the Maxwell-Boltzmann being specifically named so to "remember" that electromagnetic forces are also used in the equation)
Plasmas are also described by the Navier-Stokes equation (if not, you would have rather large problems when dealing with plasma flows)

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it. If you do not believe me, please, send a email to Lerner or Peratt and ask them:

Originally Posted by mail them

Dear Drs. Lerner and Peratt,

This so-called plasma(astro)phyisicist, Dr. Martin Volwerk, claims that plasmas are gasses. Please, correct this obviously misguided researcher, as I think that plasma is a distinct form of matter and not anything like a gas.

Thanks in advance, and best regards
Sol88 (or your real name, which I will not publish here on the board)

Originally Posted by Sol88

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

Yeaaaheeeeeees. Sheehs! An apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

Originally Posted by Sol88

And unlike Tusenfems assertion that plasma it does not

eg LINK

If plasma does not adhere to the gas law, as I claimed, then I guess the whole of plasma astrophysics and space physics is wrong. I am glad you pointed that out, Sol88, I think I will quit my job now and do something useful with my life.

Apparently plasmaphysics.net is a IEEE kind of page, well, we know what they know about plasma physics.

Originally Posted by Sol88

So plasma's do not just form from collisions, shock fronts and accretions or any other mechanical or gravity related phenomena but can also use electrical power, as per ya garden variety EU/PC theory!

Plasmas are formed in lots of ways, and in the lab it is rather difficult to create an energetic shock or have a gravitational compression of the gas. Therefore, one has to go to other ways to create a plasma. Like electrical power (which happens in the aurora) like radiation (which happens like everywhere in the universe).

Originally Posted by Sol88

So my real beef is press release's , science articles and books that our children read all say GAS, which is a GAS. but a ionized GAS is a plasma and it conforms to different equations!! ie

Gas can not do what plasma does!!!

Oh, and I guess when you were a child, reading popular mechanics and such, you were already up to date with maxwell's equations, and electromagnetics etc. etc. If you complain about the fact that for kids things are too simplified, this can only mean you have just reached the level of reading kids books and articles. Maybe you should grow up.

As a gas is not necessarily a plasma, there are, naturally things that a gas cannot do that a plasma can do.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Am I misunderstanding anything here Tusenfem?

your misunderstandings are so many I would not know where to start. I would say start at the beginning and read Alfven about MHD and try to build your own sort of solasma physics without the gas laws, see how far you get.

Because the discussion about gas or plasma is so rediculously not important. You seem to think that all plasma physics is doing is looking at a plasma and claim it is a gas, point, finished, end, nothing more. We have not seen from you any evidence that you can use, understand, apply plasma physics or can model something with it. The claims at the top of this message are enough for everyone here on the board to see that you have not developed anything and just copy-and-paste things that (in your opinion) are relevant, but on closer scrutiny (usually this means reading the next paragraph) show that it is totally irrelevant, because you have not understood what you read (the electron clouds come to mind here).

Originally Posted by Sol88

When we talk about GAS we are talking about a non ionized gas and when we are talking plasma we are not talking about non ionized gas, but when a press release or paper talks about 100,000,000 degree gas, are we talking about a plasma or a gas?

Just temperature does not mean anything, I have given you the criteria which must be fulfilled in order to call an ionized gas a plasma. Even Alfven and Peratt state this in their books.

Originally Posted by Sol88

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

Most likely a plasma, but that does not mean that that shock wave, which is mentioned in that article is not described by just the regular shock relations, which are TOTALLY gas physics, and shown to be correct in numerous cases, at all planets where we encounter shocks.

So, Sol88, really, get a book and try to learn something, and stop flounting your complete misunderstanding of plasma physics.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it

Quote:

Therefore, one has to go to other ways to create a plasma. Like electrical power (which happens in the aurora) like radiation (which happens like everywhere in the universe).

Quote:

As a gas is not necessarily a plasma, there are, naturally things that a gas cannot do that a plasma can do.

Quote:

Just temperature does not mean anything, I have given you the criteria which must be fulfilled in order to call an ionized gas a plasma.

Quote:

Most likely a plasma, but that does not mean that that shock wave, which is mentioned in that article is not described by just the regular shock relations,

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Actual science is !
I guess that this means that you still do not know what a plasma is?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Sol88

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

I love it when they contradict themselves in the same sentence...

"Sol", you don't know what "gas" means. You don't know what "plasma" means. But even without knowing what those terms mean, do you not see that what you said is a contradiction?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Vermonter

Who's misconception? Yours? It's well modeled that pulsars are the result of gravitational collapse, unless you can provide the model and numbers that can predict and explain the existance of a 15-km squat sphere. Under the Electric Universe model, how does this come to be? How is it held together? What explains the "blips" that are shown in the rotation of the pulsar? What causes the pulsar to rotate so quickly?

See this thread I contributed to ages ago which has many references to the alternative plasma cosmology based model of pulsars thoughout many of the posts. Probably the main paper that sparked the interest in these alternate models was the one by Peratt et al here:

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, 1995

A breif snippet from my main post in that thread outlines the main ideas therein, but to get a full appreciation I suggest reading the published literature in detail for the full scientific reasoning behind such a model:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...09#post3711109

Quote:

Cool topic, I was going to start a thread on millisecond pulsars when I had the time, but may as well post a few things now.

And this discovery is way cool, I had heard of pulsars spinning at 716 Hertz before (716 times per second, ref; Astronomers Discover Fastest-Spinning Pulsar), but this one blows it out of the water at 2150 rotations per second. The question surely has to arise; Is this speed really tenable?, or are the pulses we detect from them due to something else? This sort of speed was certainly not anticipated when the original interpretation of pulsars was proposed.

As has been pointed out previously, the paper published by Peratt and co-authors in Astrophysics and Space Science certainly implies this (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...;filetype=.pdf). They note many things that add credence to this view, a few being;

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 [...]

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

When Neutron stars were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But I find this very unlikely now, even when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, the old official explanation became largely untenable in my opinion. This is where the concept of the "Neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.

[continues lurking]

[Sol88]

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it.


extra thingies to it? please explain?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it.


extra thingies to it? please explain?

Ionized thingies

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

[continues lurking]

Zeuzzz continues to ignore the scientific woo that is plasma cosmology!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Ionized thingies

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

Quote:

A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).[6]

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

Its Ionized thingies can.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

Your ignorance is showing Sol88.
No scientist ignores the real complicated stuff.
There are situations where plasmas can be modeled on "gas laws" (which are real complicated stuff) or to be more exact fluids. The fluid plasma model uses the Boltzmann equation.

In actual fact it is plasma cosmologists that take the simplistic view, i.e. EM effects are important in plasmas on small scales (kilometers) and so they must be important in plasmas on cosmological scales (billions of light years).

Originally Posted by Sol88

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

The mainstream is not surprised!
Your ignorance of science means that standard plasma physics in space is surprising to you. Projecting your incredibility onto knowledgeable people is just dumb.

Originally Posted by Sol88

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

So what: A quote from 1986 about astrophysical textbooks. This is both out of date, nothing to do with the the "mainstreams understanding of plasma in space" and nothing to do with the topic.

Please quote Hannes Alfvén stating that plasma is not an ionized gas or that the properties of a plasma can never be modeled using a fluid model.
Magnetohydrodynamics
[quote]Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.[/QUOTE]

ETA: Helioseismology - "acoustic oscillations" in the Sun which is a ball of plasma? Those dumb scientists and their pesky models that actually predict stuff (helioseismic holography) !

[Sol88]

Does NON ionized "space gas" show any of these properties:

Filamentation

Quote:

Striations or string-like structures[16] are seen in many plasmas, like the plasma ball (image above), the aurora,[17] lightning,[18] electric arcs, solar flares,[19] and supernova remnants.[20] They are sometimes associated with larger current densities, and the interaction with the magnetic field can form a magnetic rope structure

or

Shocks or double layers

Quote:

Plasma properties change rapidly (within a few Debye lengths) across a two-dimensional sheet in the presence of a (moving) shock or (stationary) double layer. Double layers involve localized charge separation, which causes a large potential difference across the layer, but does not generate an electric field outside the layer. Double layers separate adjacent plasma regions with different physical characteristics, and are often found in current carrying plasmas. They accelerate both ions and electrons.

or

Cellular structure

Quote:

Narrow sheets with sharp gradients may separate regions with different properties such as magnetization, density, and temperature, resulting in cell-like regions. Examples include the magnetosphere, heliosphere, and heliospheric current sheet. Hannes Alfvén wrote: "From the cosmological point of view, the most important new space research discovery is probably the cellular structure of space. As has been seen in every region of space which is accessible to in situ measurements, there are a number of 'cell walls', sheets of electric currents, which divide space into compartments with different magnetization, temperature, density, etc ."

And the most IMPORTANT aspect of a NON ionized gas, can it sustain an electric current?

Electric fields and circuits

Quote:

Quasineutrality of a plasma requires that plasma currents close on themselves in electric circuits. Such circuits follow Kirchhoff's circuit laws, and possess a resistance and inductance. These circuits must generally be treated as a strongly coupled system, with the behaviour in each plasma region dependent on the entire circuit. It is this strong coupling between system elements, together with nonlinearity, which may lead to complex behaviour. Electrical circuits in plasmas store inductive (magnetic) energy, and should the circuit be disrupted, for example, by a plasma instability, the inductive energy will be released as plasma heating and acceleration. This is a common explanation for the heating which takes place in the solar corona. Electric currents, and in particular, magnetic-field-aligned electric currents (which are sometimes generically referred to as "Birkeland currents"), are also observed in the Earth's aurora, and in plasma filaments.

LINK

Can gas do any of that?

[Sol88]

[quote=Reality Check;4747676]Your ignorance is showing Sol88.
No scientist ignores the real complicated stuff.
There are situations where plasmas can be modeled on "gas laws" (which are real complicated stuff) or to be more exact fluids. The fluid plasma model uses the Boltzmann equation.

In actual fact it is plasma cosmologists that take the simplistic view, i.e. EM effects are important in plasmas on small scales (kilometers) and so they must be important in plasmas on cosmological scales (billions of light years).


The mainstream is not surprised!
Your ignorance of science means that standard plasma physics in space is surprising to you. Projecting your incredibility onto knowledgeable people is just dumb.


So what: A quote from 1986 about astrophysical textbooks. This is both out of date, nothing to do with the the "mainstreams understanding of plasma in space" and nothing to do with the topic.

Please quote Hannes Alfvén stating that plasma is not an ionized gas or that the properties of a plasma can never be modeled using a fluid model.
Magnetohydrodynamics

Quote:

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.[/QUOTE]

ETA: Helioseismology - "acoustic oscillations" in the Sun which is a ball of plasma? Those dumb scientists and their pesky models that actually predict stuff (helioseismic holography) !

Originally Posted by The Man

Its Ionized thingies can.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Ionized thingies

Maybe they should use the Kinetic model instead of the fluid model

Quote:

Kinetic model

Kinetic models describe the particle velocity distribution function at each point in the plasma, and therefore do not need to assume a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. A kinetic description is often necessary for collisionless plasmas. There are two common approaches to kinetic description of a plasma. One is based on representing the smoothed distribution function on a grid in velocity and position. The other, known as the particle-in-cell (PIC) technique, includes kinetic information by following the trajectories of a large number of individual particles. Kinetic models are generally more computationally intensive than fluid models. The Vlasov equation may be used to describe the dynamics of a system of charged particles interacting with an electromagnetic field.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

[Maybe they should use the Kinetic model instead of the fluid model

Maybe they should

• or Single Particle Description
• or Hybrid Kinetic/Fluid Description
• or Gyrokinetic Description

The fact is that each description is computationally useful in different situations. Typically scientists want to get numbers out to match observations.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

What a frakking useless discussion it is when one has to deal with the stupidity of Sol88 and the likes.

Don't tell me about Hannes Alfvén, I met him, I worked at his laboratory in Stockholm, I worked on one of his pet objects: Double Layers, what have you actually done in physics, Sol88, care to enlighten us?

What the frak do you think I am doing in my job, if not looking at the magnetic field, the particles and the electric fields and the currents in space? I know you have my publication list somewhere, so I am not going to bother giving references.

My gas can do anything and my plasma too:

• If I need to work with flowing/moving plasmas, I have to use fluid/gas dynamics, just like Alfvén and Peratt
• If I need to work with currents, changing magnetic fields, electric field, etc. I have to use plasma physics.

Get it into your thick skull, dimwit. (did you send the email to Peratt and Lerner?)

[Dancing David]

One side: Plasma has well studied effects but they do not extend to the levels of cosmology.

One person: but PLASMA EXISTS, you are denying that!

One side: Yes plasma exists, but it does not do the things at the scale of cosmology.

Another person: Your BIG BANG GOD has holes in it, PLASMA IS THE ANSWER!

One side: All models are incomplete and subject to change, can you show me where plasma effect cosmological scale objects?

More rational person: Here is one possibility where plasma might offer an unsubstantiated solution to a very small scale model.

One side: That isn't really plasma cosmology now is it?

One person: You are ignoring the SCIENCE WE CAN DO IN LABS!

One side: Not really, the models just don't do what you say they do.

Another person: You and your BIG BANG HEGEMONY take all the research money and violently repress the views of a small number of people published in this website!

One side: Not really, the models just don't stand up to scrutiny.

More rational person: You can't say that! You have to show me a refutation in a peer reviewed journal.

One person: I have a plasma ball here, LOOK at the FILAMENTS!

One side: Can you show me how those filaments exist in the universe at large scales?

Another person: Here are braided filaments in the Cygnus Loop and Saturn's rings.

One side: Those are a supernova remnant and a gravitational product. Neither is at the scale of cosmology.

More rational person: Here are a bunch of unsubstantiated papers unrelated to cosmological scales. I will ignore anything that you have said about the exact same papers in prior threads and then say that you have never read them.

One side: Can you show me your model?

One person: I HAVE PICTURES!


(And so on, and so on, lather rinse, repeat...)

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Does NON ionized "space gas" show any of these properties:

Filamentation

or

Shocks or double layers

or

Cellular structure

And the most IMPORTANT aspect of a NON ionized gas, can it sustain an electric current?

Electric fields and circuits

Can gas do any of that?

Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas) or at an HI region (for filamentation and cellular behaviour of non-ionized gas under gravity).

Naturally, a non-ionized gas cannot produce electric fields nor sustain double layers, I would expect you to know that, what a silly question "can gas do any of that".

So the answer is a non-ionized gas can do some of these things.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas) or at an HI region (for filamentation and cellular behaviour of non-ionized gas under gravity).

Naturally, a non-ionized gas cannot produce electric fields nor sustain double layers, I would expect you to know that, what a silly question "can gas do any of that".

So the answer is a non-ionized gas can do some of these things.

Whooh boy!

Quote:

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas)

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

And just on shocks and filamentation in HI regions my mate wiki says

Quote:

At ionization fronts, where H I regions collide with expanding ionized gas (such as an H II region), the latter glows brighter than it otherwise would. The degree of ionization in an H I region is very small at around 10-4 (i.e. one particle in 10,000).

Even at that small amount of ionization it will still respond to the electromagnetic force over the the exceedingly small force of gravitation, causing filamentary and cellular behavior, as observed!

Now when a HI region "rubs" against a HII region...

Quote:

Depending on the size of an H II region there may be several thousand stars within it. This makes H II regions more complicated than planetary nebulae, which have only one central ionising source. Typically H II regions reach temperatures of 10,000 K.[2] They are mostly ionised, and the ionised gas (plasma) can contain magnetic fields with strengths of several nanoteslas.[17] Nevertheless H II regions are almost always associated with a cold molecular gas, which originated from the same parent GMC.[2] Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges in the plasma, suggesting that H II regions also contain electric fields.[18]

Whats the size or power of the electric field? lets take the Eagle Nebula for example, lets treat it as an isolated cube of gas, if we could "plug" into it how much electrical power could we "extract"?

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

This is the typical stupidity that we see spewing from EU/PC proponents.

EM forces are stronger than gravitational forces by some 36 OOM.
That does not mean that EM forces dominate gravitational forces in all situations. The EM forces in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths before the positive and begative forces balance out (quasi-neutrality). The longest known Debye length is in the intergalactic medium and that is 10,000 metres (that is 10 kilometers Sol88). In the interstellar medium it is 10 metres. The Debye length gets even shorter for denser plasma.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Sol88

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

Why do you raise this? Given such a vague definition I don't know what you're after, but I think a pretty sensible answer is "about as dense as a solid metal object not moving at all in a vacuum".

I fear this is another indication of a lack of understanding of basic physics.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This is the typical stupidity that we see spewing from EU/PC proponents.

EM forces are stronger than gravitational forces by some 36 OOM.
That does not mean that EM forces dominate gravitational forces in all situations. The EM forces in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths before the positive and begative forces balance out (quasi-neutrality). The longest known Debye length is in the intergalactic medium and that is 10,000 metres (that is 10 kilometers Sol88). In the interstellar medium it is 10 metres. The Debye length gets even shorter for denser plasma.

Arrrrrrrr......

Quote:

In space plasmas where the electron density is relatively low, the Debye length may reach macroscopic values, such as in the magnetosphere, solar wind, interstellar medium and intergalactic medium

Quote:

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

Wiki

Lets ask the expert on DL's and a person who has worked with the PC "God" Hannes Alfven, me 'ol mate Tusenfem.

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

What would be good examples to cite as DL's in the universe?

Can our Sun's Heliosphere be classed as a DL by you, Tusenfem, the authority on DL's?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Whooh boy!

whooh boy, really a good answer to my questions whether you understand the differences between various physical properties. So, I will assume from your silence that you don't know the differences: strike one.

Originally Posted by Sol88

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

Nope, this has nothing to do with how dense a solid metal object is, it has to do with the waves that propagate upstream of the object, that create the bow shock. So you got no idea about this eithe: strike two.

Originally Posted by Sol88

And just on shocks and filamentation in HI regions my mate wiki says

Even at that small amount of ionization it will still respond to the electromagnetic force over the the exceedingly small force of gravitation, causing filamentary and cellular behavior, as observed!

Now when a HI region "rubs" against a HII region...

Ehhhhh, shifting the topic again, you are suddenly talking about ionization fronts between HI and HII regions. That is something totally different and was not what I was talking about. Therefore, shifting the topic to fit your pre-assumed ideas: strike three, YOU ARE OUT!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Whats the size or power of the electric field? lets take the Eagle Nebula for example, lets treat it as an isolated cube of gas, if we could "plug" into it how much electrical power could we "extract"?

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

It still seems that you don't understand that plasmas are quasi-neutral meaning no charge differences over areas larger than the DeBye sphere (unless they are driven, power is put into the system like at a double layer, but then you only have about 10 DeBye lengths charge separation).

Therefore, gravity pulling equally on the pos and neg particles in the plasma can well overcome this, by EU proposed electric dominance of 36 OOMS, because to start with the electrical force does not come into play apart from keeping the plasma quasi-neutral, and therefore: strike FOUR, YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME AND ARE ESCORTED OUT OF THE STADIUM FOR CONTINUED STUPIDITY!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lets ask the expert on DL's and a person who has worked with the PC "God" Hannes Alfven, me 'ol mate Tusenfem.

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

What would be good examples to cite as DL's in the universe?

Can our Sun's Heliosphere be classed as a DL by you, Tusenfem, the authority on DL's?

I though YOU were the expert on EU, Sol88 and thus YOU should know what Alfvén meant when he wrote the above quote.

What is meant, however, is that when currents flow (yes currents do flow in plasmas) and there is a tenuous plasma, then the drift of the particles combined with the density are no longer capable to carry the current density and therefore, something has to happen (because div(J) ≠ 0 is a bit of a problem) and thus the plasma generates a mechanism in which the drift of the particles can be increased (as increasing the density is not really an option, but I am sure you would advocate that, because I now claim it is not) and the way to do that is by accelerating them in an electric field, and when you do plasma physics (not MHD, please, I hope you understand) then you find that one of the solutions is a double layer. What one should notice, however, is that those "macroscopic" lengths are still relatively small and any large potential drop in one double layer tends to split itself into smaller (stair-step) double layers.

Double layers in the universe. Those would be in the Earth's magnetosphere (observed by Viking, Freja, Cluster, THEMIS) but they are elusive, because the are so small, move fast and electric fields are not easy to measure by satellites.
Then they can happen in any current carrying plasma, like in solar prominences, you know, you have my paper about the topic.
Then the electric field at the magnetic poles of a pulsar could be interpreted as a double layer.
Then at the border of plasmas with different properties.
etc. etc. etc. I am sure you know the wiki page about double layers by heart, so I can stop here, instead of rewriting what I wrote on that page.

The Sun's heliosphere cannot be regarded as a double layer, I would not know why you would propose that.

So, Sol88, as I have answered EVERY QUESTION YOU EVER ASKED are you going to do the same? Or are you going to continue to misinterpret everything you read in press releases and wiki? Some of the questions are:

• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?
• Oh dear oh dear. Sol88 you are still in the stadium that you might just understand Alfven's MHD theory, that is magnetohydrodynamics, a simplified way to describe plasma physics. And do you see the hydro part in that word, what does it mean?
• Are you going to, or have you already send Lerner and Peratt that email?
• Are you going to present us a plasma physics model that does not need gas laws (would be different though, to get the total plasma pressure, but I am looking forward to your effort)
• Do you understand the principle of quasi-neutrality of a plasma and what effect this has on gravitational effect on said plasma?

I guess that is enough for now.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Wiki

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

Is your ignorance actually increasing Sol88?
The evidence says yes !

He states exactly what I said: The EM forces that result from "large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths" are small values (macroscopic values).

One more time for the especially dumb:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.
Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.

[Reality Check]

The central tenets of the plasma cosmology non-science are

1. Electromagnetic forces will be dominant at cosmological scales (but PC does not provide any evidence of this).
2. The universe is eternal, i.e. there was no Big Bang (even though PC cannot explain the evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state).

Zeuzzz and Sol88 have added the dogma that dark matter does not exist. So here is a tidbit from a blog entry about the recent removal and replacement of WFPC2 on the Hubble Space Telescope and its observation of dark matter: The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4 with a pretty picture to please Zeuzzz and Sol88:

Quote:

What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.

In my opinion the central spherical bulge is evidence of the dominance of gravity on the mass of the cluster.

If Zeuzzz or Sol88 claim that the extra mass is something like the IGM then:

• They will have to give up on the first tenet of PC since there is no EM domination of the IGM shown.
• More importantly the IGM density is too low:
  
  Quote:

  The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies.^WP
  (1000 H atoms per cubic meter = 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in that cubic meter. Concentrate this in a plane to compare it with the diagram and there is 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in 100*100 centimeters or 1.67 x 10^-17 g/sq-cm)

[edd]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

(1000 H atoms per cubic meter = 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in that cubic meter. Concentrate this in a plane to compare it with the diagram and there is 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in 100*100 centimeters or 1.67 x 10^-17 g/sq-cm)

I don't understand how you're doing your translation from grams per cubic metre to grams per square metre.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by edd

I don't understand how you're doing your translation from grams per cubic metre to grams per square metre.

Just assuming that all of the H atoms are squeezed into a plane and so giving the PC guys a couple of extra magnitudes to play with.

[edd]

The calculation's wrong and it's really unnecessary to be quite so generous.

Lets go from your number of 1.67x10^-21 g/m³. If we take the depth of the cluster to be 800,000 light years (which is probably on the generous side) that gives a surface mass density of 0.001 g/cm² - vastly greater than your 10^-17g/cm² but still a long way off the densities of order one that are on that plot.

So you can give them an extra 10¹⁴ their way and still they're way way off the mark.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

See this thread I contributed to ages ago which has many references to the alternative plasma cosmology based model of pulsars thoughout many of the posts. Probably the main paper that sparked the interest in these alternate models was the one by Peratt et al here:

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, 1995

A breif snippet from my main post in that thread outlines the main ideas therein, but to get a full appreciation I suggest reading the published literature in detail for the full scientific reasoning behind such a model:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...09#post3711109



[continues lurking]

This might be interesting ... if Peratt (or anyone else) had bothered to follow through.

The paper you cite was published in 1995; the study of pulsars hasn't stood still since then.

In particular, high energy observations (in the x-ray and gamma wavebands) have added a great deal to our understanding of them, and these would severely constrain any Peratt-type model (if he, or anyone else, had bothered to follow through). See this recent preprint, and the papers it cites, for example.

I suggest that if you genuinely, seriously, really, truly have an interest in "alternative plasma cosmology based model of pulsars", then you should do some serious, genuine, true, real research (such as modifying Peratt-type models and show how they can account for the high-energy pulse timing, for example).

[Reality Check]

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others (Sol88 may have another definition) is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. From memory it is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).

Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

• General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
• Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
• Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
• Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe.

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

* General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
* Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
* Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
* Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe.

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

The BB theory is untenable!

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure empirical science!

Anthony L. Peratt

Quote:

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., themesoscale. Thus plasma science has an important contribution to make in understanding the connection between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. Plasma is a system composed of a large number of particles which interact primarily, but not exclusively, through the electromagnetic field. The problem of understanding the linkages and couplings in multi-scale processes is a frontier problem of modern science involving fields as diverse as plasma phenomena in the laboratory to galactic dynamics.
Unlike the first three states of matter, plasma, often called the fourth state of matter, involves the mesoscale and its interdisciplinary founding have drawn upon various subfields of physics including engineering, astronomy, and chemistry. Basic plasma research is now posed to provide, with major developments in instrumentation and large-scale computational resources, fundamental insights into the properties of matter on scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic. In all cases, these are treated as mesoscale systems. Thus, basic plasma research, when applied to the study of astrophysical and space plasmas, recognizes that the behavior of the near-earth plasma environment may depend to some extent on the behavior of the stellar plasma, that may in turn be governed by galactic plasmas. However, unlike laboratory plasmas, astrophysical plasmas will forever be inaccessible to in situ observation. The inability to test concepts and theories of large-scale plasmas leaves only virtual testing as a means to understand the universe. Advances in in computer technology and the capability of performing physics first principles, fully three-dimensional, particle-in-cell simulations, are making virtual testing a viable alternative to verify our predictions about the far universe.

Very enlightening if you care to read it!

Also the extent at which plasma and it's associated radiation extend into galaxy and clusters is another nial in the BB coffin!

Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe

Quote:

An international team of astronomers has mapped the density and temperature of X-ray-emitting gas in the outskirts of a distant galaxy cluster. The results, obtained with the orbiting Japanese X-ray telescope Suzaku, give the first complete X-ray view of a galaxy cluster, and provide insight into how such clusters come together.

“These Suzaku observations are exciting because we can finally see how these structures, the largest bound objects in the universe, grow even more massive,” said Matt George, the study’s lead author at the University of California, Berkeley.

SNIP

Quote:

In PKS 0745-191, the gas temperature peaks at 164 million degrees Fahrenheit (91 million C) about 1.1 million light-years from the cluster’s center. The temperature declines smoothly with distance, dropping to 45 million F (25 million C) more than 5.6 million light-years from the center

And after reading ADVANCES IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF ASTROPHYSICAL AND SPACE PLASMAS. PART II. ASTROPHYSICAL FORCE LAWS ON THE LARGE SCALE. it seems entirely possible for my wild crackpot theory about the spider crater on Mercury we jousted about a few pages back in post 2236 as some merit!

Plasma focus discharge on mercury
Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, 2008. ICOPS 2008. IEEE 35th International Conference on
Volume , Issue , 15-19 June 2008 Page(s):1 - 1
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/PLASMA.2008.4590652

Quote:

Summary:On January 14, 2008 the NASA space probe Messenger came within 200-km of Mercury, photographing a plasma focus discharge penumbra etched into the surface. The pattern recorded is identical to that etched on steel plates in experimental discharges: 112-rays from a discharge channel terminating at and producing a thick torus, here 40 km wide. The rays emanate from the 2-3 GA termination as shown in the bottom figure, the etched lines differing from radial overlay lines only by surface conductivity irregularities. Previously, we reported the observation of a surface-traveling, infrared-radiating, plasma focus penumbra on the Jovian satellite Io whose effluent concentrated into filaments whose terminus was a narrow, well-defined, concentric annulus

Any chance of someone being able to obtain a copy of that paper for me?

So according to Peratt, plasma phenomena can be scaled to the cosmological scale, iow we live in a Plasma universe!

every single one of RC's points above are non existent under EU/PC and thats why it trumps the BB hands down!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

I though YOU were the expert on EU, Sol88

• [1]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
  [2]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
  [3]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?
  [4]Oh dear oh dear. Sol88 you are still in the stadium that you might just understand Alfven's MHD theory, that is magnetohydrodynamics, a simplified way to describe plasma physics. And do you see the hydro part in that word, what does it mean?
  [5]Are you going to, or have you already send Lerner and Peratt that email?
  [6]Are you going to present us a plasma physics model that does not need gas laws (would be different though, to get the total plasma pressure, but I am looking forward to your effort)
  [7]Do you understand the principle of quasi-neutrality of a plasma and what effect this has on gravitational effect on said plasma?

[/color]

I guess that is enough for now.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No
6 No
7 Yes

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The BB theory is untenable!

The BB theory fits the facts!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure empirical science!

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure speculation!

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anthony L. Peratt

Very enlightening if you care to read it!

Did you? Here is the first sentence

Quote:

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., the mesoscale.

More of your ignorance Sol88: mesoscale = of intermediate scale.
He is talking of scales between galactic and bigger than galactic, i.e. bigger than galaxies but smaller than the distane between galaxies.
In fact many papers on mesoscale astronomy talk abut galaxies, e.g. Mesoscale Flows in Multiphase Hydrodynamic Models of Galaxy Disks.

The BBT is even more empirical than EU/PC. It has computer simulations and calculations that actually match observations such as the large scale structure of the universe, the thermal spectrum of the CMBR, the power spectrum of the CMBR and most of nucleosynthesis (except Li).

And did you notice the date of March 1996?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Also the extent at which plasma and it's associated radiation extend into galaxy and clusters is another nial in the BB coffin!

Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe

That is a really dumb link for this thread. Read the article. It is about the intracluster medium moving under the influence of gravity.
Guess what - on galactic scales gravity dominates EM !

Originally Posted by Sol88

And after reading ADVANCES IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF ASTROPHYSICAL AND SPACE PLASMAS. PART II. ASTROPHYSICAL FORCE LAWS ON THE LARGE SCALE. it seems entirely possible for my wild crackpot theory about the spider crater on Mercury we jousted about a few pages back in post 2236 as some merit!

Plasma focus discharge on mercury
Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, 2008. ICOPS 2008. IEEE 35th International Conference on
Volume , Issue , 15-19 June 2008 Page(s):1 - 1
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/PLASMA.2008.4590652

Any chance of someone being able to obtain a copy of that paper for me?

So according to Peratt, plasma phenomena can be scaled to the cosmological scale, iow we live in a Plasma universe!

He is wrong. He is using exactly the same woo as you are - the pictures look alike and so the causes must be the same. He ignores that fact that there is not enough energy to produce the Spider Crater on Mercury by factors of millions.

We live in a ~4% plasma universe. The observed facts are that most of the universe's matter & energy is not plasma.

Originally Posted by Sol88

every single one of RC's points above are non existent under EU/PC and thats why it trumps the BB hands down!

They are non existent because EU/PC excludes them as explanations by fiat. That is religion not science.

Yet another epic fail by Sol88 !

[tusenfem]

For those interested in the Peratt nonsense: here is the abstract with two pictures in pdf. It would be nice if Sol88 would present the paper by Peratt that shows that this is a discharge. The abstract is only handwaving, and referring to Io, which is in a totally different situation compared to Mercury. Maybe Peratt has also found petroglyphs to show that Mercury discharged.

Then the other stuff about the "largest bound structures" as quoted above by Sol88, from which the observations show that the X-ray emitting gas is gravitationally bound to the cluster:

Quote:

Astronomers believe the gas in the inner part of a galaxy cluster has settled into an ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity. But in the outer regions, where galaxies first begin a billion-year plunge towards the cluster’s center, the gas remains in a disordered state because it’s still falling inward.

Nowhere does it claim that the bound state is due to plasma cosmology, but it does say that it is gravitation. Thanks for putting another nail into the coffin of your version of plasma cosmology.

Quote:

1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No
6 No
7 Yes

Wow, that is a more lucent answer than I expected from you.
Note: with this kind of answer Sol88 has put himself out of the game, we cannot expect anything from him.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Astronomers believe the gas in the inner part of a galaxy cluster has settled into an ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity. But in the outer regions, where galaxies first begin a billion-year plunge towards the cluster’s center, the gas remains in a disordered state because it’s still falling inward.

Tusenfem wrote

Quote:

Nowhere does it claim that the bound state is due to plasma cosmology, but it does say that it is gravitation. Thanks for putting another nail into the coffin of your version of plasma cosmology.

bugger how did I not see that what do you think they are implying then with the

Quote:

ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity

statement? I mean if it's in equilibrium, then against what?

And the the 'ol shock waves to heat the GAS to PLASMA emitting X-ray energies! wHoOh boy!!!

Tusenfem?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., the mesoscale.

You say tomato I say tomato

Meta Galactic

Quote:

: the entire system of galaxies : universe

Atomic to the galactic, as above so below

Quote:

As has been publicized in these pages many times, though, a change in thought often occurs when it is least expected. When the time for change comes to pass, change is inevitable. The growing number of adherents to the Electric Universe conception of how the cosmos operates means that further changes to human thought are coming soon.


Stephen Smith