Electric universe theories here.

[jonesdave116]

Have a mechanism to explain this Astronomers catch wind rushing out of galaxy



Gravity the ONLY mainstream toolbox.

They are talking about plasma and use gravity????

Case closed!

Whaaaat? What the hell are you babbling about now? You think plasma isn't affected by gravity? Seriously? Got any actual science to offer? Other than continually repeating the word 'plasma' as if it were somehow magic? Show us the science. There isn't any, but try anyway.

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - insane lies about mainstream physics

...

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - insane lies about mainstream physics
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.
A summary of Donald Scott's EU delusions supplied from Sol88's posts.
Sol88 and Sol88's demented cult have the obvious insanity that light emitting plasmoids are black holes including supermassive black holes!

A 100-kiloparsec wind feeding the circumgalactic medium of a massive compact galaxy

Ninety per cent of baryons are located outside galaxies, either in the circumgalactic or intergalactic medium1,2. Theory points to galactic winds as the primary source of the enriched and massive circumgalactic medium3,4,5,6. Winds from compact starbursts have been observed to flow to distances somewhat greater than ten kiloparsecs7,8,9,10, but the circumgalactic medium typically extends beyond a hundred kiloparsecs3,4. Here we report optical integral field observations of the massive but compact galaxy SDSS J211824.06+001729.4. The oxygen [O ii] lines at wavelengths of 3726 and 3729 angstroms reveal an ionized outflow spanning 80 by 100 square kiloparsecs, depositing metal-enriched gas at 10,000 kelvin through an hourglass-shaped nebula that resembles an evacuated and limb-brightened bipolar bubble. We also observe neutral gas phases at temperatures of less than 10,000 kelvin reaching distances of 20 kiloparsecs and velocities of around 1,500 kilometres per second. This multi-phase outflow is probably driven by bursts of star formation, consistent with theory11,12.

The mainstream toolbox is all of physics correctly applied - electromagnetism , gravity, etc.

Sol88 and Sol88's demented cult toolbox is ignorant delusions about physics leading to extremely insane delusions as in The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Sol88 usual insane lies about the mainstream physics he cites. Astronomers catch wind rushing out of galaxy

"Makani is not a typical galaxy," noted Coil, a physics professor at UC San Diego. "It's what's known as a late-stage major merger -- two recently combined similarly massive galaxies, which came together because of the gravitational pull each felt from the other as they drew nearer. Galaxy mergers often lead to starburst events, when a substantial amount of gas present in the merging galaxies is compressed, resulting in a burst of new star births. Those new stars, in the case of Makani, likely caused the huge outflows -- either in stellar winds or at the end of their lives when they exploded as supernovae."

Stellar winds are not only gravity ! Supernovae are not only gravity .

 

[Sol88]

Whaaaat? What the hell are you babbling about now? You think plasma isn't affected by gravity? Seriously? Got any actual science to offer? Other than continually repeating the word 'plasma' as if it were somehow magic? Show us the science. There isn't any, but try anyway.

further

There's nothing paranormal going on here though. From the color, or frequency, of the light, we know it is being emitted by oxygen ions. Our analysis shows that the nebula has formed as the result of two distinct gas outflows—winds—that have propagated from the central galaxy into the CGM. We call the nebula Makani – a Hawaiian word for wind—out of respect for the cultural significance of the mountain from which the observations were made.

Gravity causes the winds!!! (Mainstream talk)

Oxygen ions would be in a plasma!!! So apply standard plasma physics over the GALACTIC scale!!!

gravity

 

[Sol88]

The mainstream toolbox is all of physics correctly applied - electromagnetism , gravity, etc.

Tel me about MHD and the Depye length and if electons are treated as fluid or as particles under kinetic theory?

As has been found with the interaction of charged rock moving supersonic thru the solar plasma stream!

Any charge separation causing electric fields?

The interaction and tusenfem (M.Volwerk) can back me up on this one, the interaction of said solar wind with a nucleus was a "surprise"!

 

[tusenfem]

Have a mechanism to explain this Astronomers catch wind rushing out of galaxy



Gravity the ONLY mainstream toolbox.

They are talking about plasma and use gravity????

Case closed!

Obviously, comprehensive reading and science are not your forte.

 

[tusenfem]

Tel me about MHD and the Depye length and if electons are treated as fluid or as particles under kinetic theory?

As has been found with the interaction of charged rock moving supersonic thru the solar plasma stream!

Any charge separation causing electric fields?

The interaction and tusenfem (M.Volwerk) can back me up on this one, the interaction of said solar wind with a nucleus was a "surprise"!

Any other dumb-ass comments?
Things have been explained to you time and again, since at least 2009, but the more years pass by the dumber you seem to get.

 

[jonesdave116]

As has been found with the interaction of charged rock moving supersonic thru the solar plasma stream!

When did this happen?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

As has been found with the interaction of charged rock moving supersonic thru the solar plasma stream!

<snip>

This is nothing more than a rephrasing of stuff by Velikovsky, right?

I mean, there's no science here, either theory or observation.

The lack of a source, and the (likely) dishonesty in how the key terms are used are all hallmarks of the anti-science Velikovskians, right?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

So apply standard plasma physics over the GALACTIC scale!!!

<snip>

Please do.

When you have finished, please write up your results and submit them for publication, in ApJ say, or MNRAS.

Until you have done that, why should anyone pay any attention to things like this that you write? I mean, without serious work, by you, all you're doing is promoting Velikovskian anti-science nonsense, aren't you?

 

[Steve001]

Tel me about MHD and the Depye length and if electons are treated as fluid or as particles under kinetic theory?

As has been found with the interaction of charged rock moving supersonic thru the solar plasma stream!

Any charge separation causing electric fields?

The interaction and tusenfem (M.Volwerk) can back me up on this one, the interaction of said solar wind with a nucleus was a "surprise"!

Post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12873705&postcount=2077 is waiting for your answer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gravity causes the winds!!! (Mainstream talk)

If you had read the source, you would know that isn't the claim.

So apply standard plasma physics over the GALACTIC scale!!!

I've actually done that, in this forum. I've taken the model that EU proponents claim, that galactic rotation is caused by magnetic fields, and calculated what it would take. And... it cannot be done. You cannot make galaxies rotate using a magnetic field. It's impossible. You need gravity.

Oh, and note that we can measure magnetic fields in deep space, so we know the fields are weak on the galactic scale. They can be very strong close to certain bodies like pulsars, but that doesn't suffice to control something like galactic rotation.

 

[jonesdave116]

I've actually done that, in this forum. I've taken the model that EU proponents claim, that galactic rotation is caused by magnetic fields, and calculated what it would take. And... it cannot be done. You cannot make galaxies rotate using a magnetic field. It's impossible. You need gravity.

Indeed. I have that very post referenced for easy access in a text document I keep. This saves having to keep doing the calculations that EUists refuse to attempt, and/or are incapable of attempting.
And just to show that Ziggurat is neither wrong nor exaggerating, here is a post on a similar theme by Ted Bunn, back in the days when these things were being discussed on Newsgroups (remember them?);

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/bunn_on_plasma.txt

To quote his summary;

In short, the idea that electromagnetic forces are responsible for the dynamics of stars in galaxies is not just a little bit implausible;
it's ruled out by many, many orders of magnitude.

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, and I calculated the whole Juergens nonsense of the electrical sun (don't have a link right now, I'd have to search) which was "disseminated" by the "scientists" on Thunderdolts

 

[jonesdave116]

Yes, and I calculated the whole Juergens nonsense of the electrical sun (don't have a link right now, I'd have to search) which was "disseminated" by the "scientists" on Thunderdolts

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?41877-The-Electric-Sun&p=748778#post748778

I have all sorts of things referenced for convenience!

 

[jonesdave116]

If you had read the source, you would know that isn't the claim.



I've actually done that, in this forum. I've taken the model that EU proponents claim, that galactic rotation is caused by magnetic fields, and calculated what it would take. And... it cannot be done. You cannot make galaxies rotate using a magnetic field. It's impossible. You need gravity.

Oh, and note that we can measure magnetic fields in deep space, so we know the fields are weak on the galactic scale. They can be very strong close to certain bodies like pulsars, but that doesn't suffice to control something like galactic rotation.

It is worth noting that Peratt and other PC/EUists are not the only ones to have made such a suggestion re magnetic fields and galactic rotation curves. Others have floated the idea, in more relevant and appropriate places. For instance;

Magnetic fields as an alternative explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies
Battaner, E. et al. (1992)
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.360..652B/abstract

Note that such people were not suggesting that stellar galactic orbits could be explained by this mechanism, merely the gas.

And when scientists float such an idea in the appropriate literature, it will be looked at. As was the case with the above paper, and others, in;

Observations of the Magnetic Fields inside and outside the Milky Way, starting with Globules (~ 1 parsec), Filaments, Clouds, SuperBubbles, Spiral Arms, Galaxies, Superclusters, and ending with the Cosmological Universe's Background Surface (at ~ 8 Teraparsecs)
Vallée, J. P. (1997)
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Vallee/paper.pdf

To quote from the above paper;

Recent claims were made by Nelson (1988), Battaner et al. (1992), Battaner (1993), and Binney (1992) that there exists a strong magnetic field which could speed up the interstellar gas (but not the stars), to the point of reproducing the flat curve of rotational velocity against galactic radius. These claims were investigated and found unsupportable. Observationally, Vallée (1994c) found that in the Milky Way (and in M31) the required magnetic field strength for magnetic support of the gas was too high by at least a factor 2, as compared to the weaker observed magnetic field strengths. Also, when the newly-born stars have formed from the interstellar gas and clouds (moving at 260 km/s), they will magnetically decouple from the interstellar medium and clouds, and will behave balistically with their initial input velocities (= cloud velocities). These initial balistic velocities of newly-formed stars (about 260 km/s) are thus much higher than those of the older stars (alleged to be moving at 160 km/s, following a Keplerian curve). Such a 100 km/s deceleration has not been properly worked out, via stellar encounters on a short time scale or otherwise, in the magnetic-support theory. Other investigators also found problems for the magnetic-support theory, as pointed out by Melrose(1995), Katz (1994), and Jokipii & Levy (1993).

So, it has been considered, and discarded, long since.

 

[tusenfem]

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?41877-The-Electric-Sun&p=748778#post748778

I have all sorts of things referenced for convenience!

HA! you're a treasuretrove of information!

 

[Ziggurat]

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?41877-The-Electric-Sun&p=748778#post748778

I have all sorts of things referenced for convenience!

The electric sun model fails so spectacularly that basically any calculation you do with it will produce absurdities, which makes it pretty easy to disprove by multiple methods. Here's another method, if you haven't seen it already:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3272139#post3272139

Basically, the surface of the sun would explode if it was that highly charged.

Oh, and another:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...664817&highlight=juergens+explode#post6664817

Even if it didn't explode, even if you could magically confine the protons, it would still discharge almost instantly from the alleged incoming current.

 

[jonesdave116]

Part of a somewhat larger collection




Whoops;

Oh, and another:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...de#post6664817

Added to the collection!

 

[JeanTate]

Wow, thank you Ziggurat and jd16!

I vaguely remember that Tom Bridgman (sp?) wrote a series of blogposts on the electric sun, do you have links for them too, jd16?

Following your link, Ziggurat, I read parts of that thread, and some others ... OMG I found many of the posts by former ISF member BeAChooser particularly, um, fascinating in a strange way ... so many words, so little scientific content.

 

[jonesdave116]

Wow, thank you Ziggurat and jd16!

I vaguely remember that Tom Bridgman (sp?) wrote a series of blogposts on the electric sun, do you have links for them too, jd16?

I only have one particular reference to Tom's stuff, as it is usually fairly easy to relocate his posts from a search on his blog. Sticking in the word 'resistor', brings up this;

https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/search?q=resistor

I imagine using the word 'capacitor', would do similar. And it is always worth having a look at searches brought up by 'Birkeland', 'Scott', 'Juergens' etc!