Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
New understanding of the evolution of cosmic electromagnetic fields

Recently the researchers Takeshi Kobayashi from International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Italy and Martin S. Sloth from University of Southern Denmark (the university in the region were H.C. Ørsted was born) have shown that due to Faraday's law of induction, the assumed evolution of electromagnetic fields after inflation is different than previously assumed if there are also strong primordial electric fields.
Click to expand...

Oh no....
 
Sol88 said:
New understanding of the evolution of cosmic electromagnetic fields



Oh no....
Click to expand...
Oh yes - ignorance that mainstream science is the electric universe :jaw-dropp!
One of the delusions of EU "fundamentalists" is that astronomers ignore electric fields. That is abysmally stupid because astronomers know about electromagnetism and publish on space and cosmic electromagnetic fields as cited. Doubly stupid because it is electromagnetism - looking at a magnetic field is looking at any associated electric field!

Oh yes - ignorance of citing mainstream cosmology in an "Electric universe theories here." thread. EU denies the expansion of the universe so EU goes even more deluded about the inflationary period!
 
Gas 'waterfalls' reveal infant planets around young star

Gas or Plasma?

A plasma can act like a gas, a gas cannot act as a plasma.

So why would you even consider the statement
The birthplaces of planets are disks made out of gas and dust.
Click to expand...

When the more correct terminology would be The birthplaces of planets are disks made out of gas PLASMA and CHARGED dust.


Makes a difference!

Unless like thermonuclear fusion taking place from the application of ideal gas laws to Stars! you know, close enough sorta thing.


Gas waterfalls in space.. :bigclap

How long do I have to go to Uni to learns me some of these space stuff?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Gas 'waterfalls' reveal infant planets around young star

Gas or Plasma?

A plasma can act like a gas, a gas cannot act as a plasma.

So why would you even consider the statement

When the more correct terminology would be The birthplaces of planets are disks made out of gas PLASMA and CHARGED dust.
Click to expand...

Because it's a story for the general public not for specialists in the field, most people don't know what a plasma is, and the distinction between a plasma and a gas isn't always relevant. The fact that you're trying to make an issue out of this is a joke.
 
Sol88 said:
Gas 'waterfalls' reveal infant planets around young star

Gas or Plasma?

A plasma can act like a gas, a gas cannot act as a plasma.

So why would you even consider the statement

When the more correct terminology would be The birthplaces of planets are disks made out of gas PLASMA and CHARGED dust.


Makes a difference!

Unless like thermonuclear fusion taking place from the application of ideal gas laws to Stars! you know, close enough sorta thing.


Gas waterfalls in space..

How long do I have to go to Uni to learns me some of these space stuff?
Click to expand...

Anything intelligent to say on the observation of neutral CO? Thought not.

Meridional flows in the disk around a young star
Teague, R. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.06980.pdf
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Yep. This is likely due to MM flagging up her blog post on LIGO on the Reddit plasmacosmology woo sub. She could do with having this sort of thing brought to her attention. I'm sure she would not want to become a poster girl for the wooists and anti-science cranks.
Click to expand...
Another unfortunate, but predictable, behavior has also emerged: the use of comments as a form of marketing. EU fans like to include links to their fave UTube videos, unlike almost every other commenter. Historically, over time, site owners got wise to this form of link spam and banned it (and those who post it). I think Sabine is wise to this.

OTOH, no link spamming EU accolyte has posted to BackReaction (Sabine's own site), perhaps because it's moderated.
 
Gas,plasma all the same thing to the mainstream,


Been told it’s a good enough approximation. Like using ideal gas laws for the Sun.
 
JeanTate said:
Oh no.... in a thread expressly devoted to "Electric universe theories" you, Sol88, spam it.

Got anything meaningful to post, on Electric universe theories?



I thought not.
Click to expand...


Just happy to poke holes in mainstreams lack of interpretation...

From the paper above,
it is an unresolved mystery how such magnetic fields can have been created in the early universe
Click to expand...


:D

It’s a mystery allright... :rolleyes:
 
The EU "gas or plasma" stupidity

Sol88 said:
Gas 'waterfalls' reveal infant planets around young star...
Click to expand...
The EU "gas or plasma" stupidity :eye-poppi!

Part of the EU delusion is whining about the terms astronomers use.
Astronomers use "gas" for anything that is not a solid or liquid. The reason is basic physics - plasma is an ionized gas with specific properties. If astronomers see a bunch of gas in general they cannot be sure where it is an actual gas or actual plasma or a mixture. So they use gas = gas and/or plasma.

ETA: Part of the EU delusion is that general public are very ignorant or stupid: The general public know Google exists and can read & understand the results, for example the Wikipedia plasma article. The general public have attended high school science classes. People who read science article are interested in science and usually knowledgeable about science
 
Last edited:
A "Gas,plasma all the same thing to the mainstream" lie

Sol88 said:
Gas,plasma all the same thing to the mainstream, ...
Click to expand...
A lying post, Sol88, because you have known for years that the mainstream knows the difference between a gas and a plasma. And that plasma is a gas and quasi-neutral and so obeys the ideal gas law on scales above the Debye length (much less than a meter for the Sun). The Sun is rather larger than a meter :jaw-dropp!

From the thread about the actually demented electric comet (insanity that comets are actual rock (no ices or a demented fantasy of "little ices") blasted from rocky planets by electric discharges between planets including recent times (witnessed by us!)). Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is still does not understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. :eye-poppi!
 
A "It’s a mystery allright" lie.

Sol88 said:
It’s a mystery allright... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
A "It’s a mystery allright" lie. The news article is about a resolution to an unresolved mystery. New understanding of the evolution of cosmic electromagnetic fields
While researchers have believed for some time that magnetic fields of femto-Gauss strength extend to the largest scales in the universe—to scales larger than the largest clusters of galaxies—it is an unresolved mystery how such magnetic fields can have been created in the early universe.

One logical possibility is that the magnetic fields were enhanced by the primordial period of inflation, which is needed also to solve the flatness and horizon problem in the standard Big-Bang model, if the magnetic fields in this period had some new non-standard interactions with the inflaton particle. The inflaton particle is responsible for driving the period of primordial inflation.

But the problem is that magnetic fields generated during inflation have been believed to quickly be washed away by the subsequent ordinary expansion of the universe making successful inflationary magnetogenesis a challenge.

Recently the researchers Takeshi Kobayashi from International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Italy and Martin S. Sloth from University of Southern Denmark (the university in the region were H.C. Ørsted was born) have shown that due to Faraday's law of induction, the assumed evolution of electromagnetic fields after inflation is different than previously assumed if there are also strong primordial electric fields.
Click to expand...
Problem: Where did "electro magnetic fields on the very largest scale in the universe" come from?
First solution: Magnetic fields enhanced by the primordial period of inflation. But expansion would have washed away these magnetic fields.
This solution: Add in strong primordial electric fields.
 
Sol88 said:
Just happy to poke holes in mainstreams lack of interpretation...

From the paper above,


:D

It’s a mystery allright... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only thing you are doing successfully is demonstrate ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

If I wasn’t already used to it, your “mainstreams lack of interpretation” would elicit sympathy (at first) and cringing ... but now it’s just background spam ...

Don’t you ever wonder why all your posting efforts are for naught? Why no one has ever found your posts even interesting?
 
Ziggurat said:
Because it's a story for the general public not for specialists in the field, most people don't know what a plasma is, and the distinction between a plasma and a gas isn't always relevant. The fact that you're trying to make an issue out of this is a joke.
Click to expand...


What’s a plasma?

What’s a gas?

Not that hard.

General public only need to know, plasma. They do not need to know you have no model for plasma but do gas, which, is of course totally irrelevant.

But

If you’d like to really blow the general public’s minds, then fill them in on dusty plasmas!

Not just gas and dust any more, now is Ziggurat?


Need to step up a notch.
 
Last edited:
JeanTate said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only thing you are doing successfully is demonstrate ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

If I wasn’t already used to it, your “mainstreams lack of interpretation” would elicit sympathy (at first) and cringing ... but now it’s just background spam ...

Don’t you ever wonder why all your posting efforts are for naught? Why no one has ever found your posts even interesting?
Click to expand...


Why is a mystery then champ?

Hard to fit it into a 13.7 Billion year old, last Tuesday, Universe story?
 
Sol88 said:
What’s a plasma?

What’s a gas?

Not that hard.

General public only need to know, plasma. They do not need to know you have no model for plasma but do gas, which, is of course totally irrelevant.

Need to step up a notch.
Click to expand...

The general public isn't going to learn what a plasma is just because you want them to, regardless of how easy it might in principle be. And no, actually, the distinction between a gas and a plasma isn't that simple. It requires prerequisite knowledge that lots of people don't actually have.

To give you an example, do you know the actual technical definition of temperature? It seems like it should be a simple and obvious thing, but it's not, and very few people actually do know the technical definition. And in order to understand the actual technical definition, you need to know calculus. But most of the time, most people don't need to know the technical definition. If you want to explain negative temperatures, and why negative temperatures are actually hot and not cold, it's pretty straight forward to do using the technical definition. But you can't do that if you're talking to a general audience.
 
Abysmally ignorant questions when Sol88 has known the answers for years

Sol88 said:
....
Click to expand...
Abysmally ignorant questions when Sol88 has known the answers for years.
Plasma has been explained to Sol88 many times over the last 10 or more years but he is still does not understand that plasma is a partially ionized gas that is quasi-neutral. :eye-poppi!

The general public know Google exists and can read & understand the results, for example the Wikipedia plasma article, which Sol88 has been unable to do for years. Sceince reporters do not assume that their readers are really uneducated and need every scientific term explained. The general public have attended high school and taken science classes. They know that space has gas and plasma.

The real stupidity from Sol88 is that the Gas 'waterfalls' reveal infant planets around young star supports the nebular hypothesis. Planets clearing their orbits of nebular material is what the nebular hypothesis predicts! We have seen this in images for some time. These 'waterfalls' are a probable way of detecting the planets before they start to obviously clear their orbits.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
What’s a plasma?

What’s a gas?

Not that hard.

General public only need to know, plasma. They do not need to know you have no model for plasma but do gas, which, is of course totally irrelevant.

But

If you’d like to really blow the general public’s minds, then fill them in on dusty plasmas!

Not just gas and dust any more, now is Ziggurat?


Need to step up a notch.
Click to expand...
What’s the point, Sol88?

No one who reads this post of yours can change what the general public reads. And the readers of your post already know more about gases, plasmas, dust, etc (in the context of astronomy, space physics, and astrophysics) than you do.

So, what’s the point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom