Another Problem With Big Bang?

[BeAChooser]

If you choose to not address what Cuddles wrote

I did address what Cuddles wrote.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ergo by your posturing there was a conspiracy to supress Yukawa and Fermi.

Oh please ... I've said no such thing. This is nothing but a tangent to avoid your acknowledging the facts. All these particles you've mentioned have been discovered because something was missing from reactions that could be studied here on earth and in every single case once we started looking, it didn't take long to actually find proof of the particle here on earth.

Contrast that with dark matter.

 

[Yllanes]

So all my sources are just strawmen and poorly worded results? And none are peer reviewed academic papers? If you want to claim that when readers can easily see for themselves by reading this thread that's not true, I'm ok with that.

You have cited a couple of papers, but not on the issue I was asking you about. You claimed mainstream cosmologists violate Maxell's equations in their theories, so I wanted proof. You provided nothing but interviews in non technical sources, with people trying to explain their results without mathematics. This is not physics. So your claim remains unproven.

By the way, you aren't quoting ANYTHING ... just making claim after claim that I show to be untrue. That works for me, too.

My position is the default one: that cosmology is not against the laws of electromagnetism. The only proof for my claim is to read a whole textbook on cosmology and see that in fact it doesn't. You can prove they do violate them by citing just one example.

But in terms of explaining what is going on out there, it does seem to do a much better job already, without resorting to all manner of kludge and fantasy object.

It seems to you.

How does plasma cosmology explain this precise object? You are always claiming it explains everything, but have provided no hard data. We don't exactly know how these supermassive black holes form, but we know they are there.

Well, first of all, plasma cosmology would argue that's not a black hole. They can explain the jets via far more mundane and provable physics ... physics they've demonstrated in the lab. Big Bang astrophysicists only INFER that the object is a black hole (which of course they've never actually seen or created) with the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way at the extreme edge of the universe. And how did they do that?

You haven't answered my questuion. If it's not a black hole what is it? If they can 'explain the jets via far more mundane and provable physics' by don't you d so or provide a link that does?

The article I cited states that [...]

Based on the above description, does anyone here understand how they arrived at the mass estimate?

You can't undersand it because it has no math, so it isn't physics.

Well, I delved further and found they used something called the "virial relation" [...] If after more than 30 years, we still haven't found any proof of that substance, perhaps we should be reexamining the root theorem that was used?

The virial theorem is a basic result of classical mechanics (it also has a quantum analogue).

Neutron stars? You actually believe there are stars made entirely of neutrons ... neutronium ... a substance that science here on earth suggests is completely unstable because neutrons by themselves are unstable? And you really think that stars can rotate at the sort of speeds that are claimed for pulsars and remain intact? 38,000 RPM? Really? ROTFLOL!

OK, so now neutron stars also do not exist.

Here's the more likely explanation: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060123nebula.htm . Perhaps pulsars are electrical activity between binary stars or a plasma focus.

That's not an explanation. Just some people saying 'physicists believe in weird things like quarks and neutron stars, ROTFLOL!'

From that website

However appealing the original logic may have been to some, the neutron star model should have been discarded when pulsars were found with supposed “spin” and cooling rates that required the mathematicians to conjure ever more dense and exotic particles–like quarks–that have never been observed.

Notice that the things that do not exist now includes quarks! Do you know the precision with which we have been able to verify the claims of particle physics? Hint: much better than anything cosmology has accomplished yet.

Attention to the best argument that page provides:

Critics of the “neutron star” hypothesis say that it is a violation of common sense to speak of matter being gravitationally compressed to the point that the orbiting electrons in an atom are forced to join with the protons in the nucleus to form neutrons

Common sense means nothing. The only meaningful thing in physics is that you give sme numbers and that they math the experiments/observations. That website gives no numbers, it has no mathematics, so it isn't physics.

Here's the peer reviewed article that is mentioned above by Healy and Peratt: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf. Take a look at it. It demolishes the neutron star explanation and provides another ... one consistent with the tenants of plasma cosmology.

Well, this at least seems to have some mathematics. I'll read it.

Then you talk about 'reconnection' and give lots of examples where our understanding is not complete. That they can't explain everything does not mean that they are violating any laws.

You said "he existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model". Cuddles said "Dark matter is not the big bang. Dark energy is not the big bang. Rotational curves are not the big bang. Nothing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on the big bang." What's that leave?

We see the universe is expanding.

A Reissner-Nordström black hole has ZERO angular momentum ... in other words it doesn't spin ... it doesn't rotate ... as is assumed in all of the cases of stellar black holes we've been discussing. Sorry, that just doesn't apply. So my challenge to you remains. If the electric sun people are right and stars are charged bodies, how could they produce the black holes that Big Bang astronomers claim are everywhere *out there*? It's a paradox.

You really don't know anything about gravitation, do you? Typically the name Reissner-Nordström is given to a charged, non rotating black hole and the name Kerr black hole is given to an uncharged rotating one. This is done separately to better explain and understand the physics. But it is trivial to just combine the features of both spacetimes and have a charged and rotating black hole. This is the relevant metric:

[latex]\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{d}s^2 &= -\left(1-\frac{A}{\rho^2}\right)\mathrm{d}t^2 - \frac{A a \sin^2 \theta}{\rho^2} (\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}\phi+\mathrm{d}\phi\mathrm{d}t)\\
&+\frac{\rho^2}{\Delta} \mathrm{d}r^2 +\rho^2 \mathrm{d}\theta^2+\frac{\sin^2\theta}{\rho^2}\left[(r^2+a^2)^2-a^2 \Delta \sin^2 \theta\right] \mathrm{d}\phi^2,\\
\ \\
\Delta(r)&= r^2-A(r)+a^2,\quad \rho^2(r,\theta)=r^2+a^2 \cos^2\theta,\quad A(r)=2GMr-GQ^2\end{align*}
[/latex]

Where Q is the electric charge.

You don't know what I know about relativity. I haven't said anything one way or the other about it. Because that's not the focus on this thread.

Well, it is obvious that you don't know much. And it is relevant, because it you don't accept relativity then we are wasting our time talking about cosmology, which is an application of that theory.

But I have proven that the father of relativity said black holes are not part of the theory and any theory that includes them is wrong. Or words to that effect.

No, you haven't done that. He said the same thing I said rom my very first post: that GR is not valid in the singularity. It is, however, valid outside.

He also said that he thought a future theory would remove them. A future theory here is something that agrees with general relativity everywhere but in the singlarity, where GR does not work. The fact that the point r = 0 can perhaps be proven to be something otehr than a singularity in a future theory does not change what happens outside the event horizon, which we know very well. Inside the horizon anything can happen for all taht we care. By definition, what happens tehre cannot affect us (or cosmology).

So, to summarise. BeAChooser claims, among other things

• That solar fusion does not work.
• That quarks do not exist (so particle physics is wrong, not only cosmology)
• That neutron stars do not exist. We need quarks to explain them!
• That you can't have charged, rotating black holes (which proves that he knows nothing about general relativity).
• That the fact that fluid elements stick to field lines in ideal MHD is 'utter nonsense' (which proves that he doesn't know anything about plasma physics, for all that he talks about it).
• That plasma cosmologist are prevented from publishing in journals (he himself proved this to be false by quoting plasma cosmology papers in journals)

 

[BeAChooser]

I also have seen several possible explanations.

And those would be?

Are you saying it's NOT fusion powered ?

Why don't you read the thread and find out what I said.

You're the one who posted it.

What I posted you quoted out of context from my post. You made it seem that I said that when the content of my post made it quite clear that what I was quoting was a statement from a source offered by someone else ... a statement that is bogus.

Ah! Therefore QM and GR/SR are also "ordinary physics" by that definition.

If you want to discuss QM and GR/SR, take it to ynot's new thread.

I find your condescention tiresome.

I find your lack of inattention, tiresome.

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2889615&postcount=70

Cuddles

This doesn't seem to have been clarified so I'll put this as clearly as I can. The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with dark matter, the standard model, MOND, plasma physics, dark energy or any other theory about what makes up the universe. The big bang is based on one single point - everything in the universe is moving away from everything else, therefore at some point it must have all been in the same place. That's it.

It doesn't matter where the structure of the universe comes from, it doesn't matter what matter is made out of or what forces affect it, all of these theories just address what happens once the big bang has happened. BeAChooser clearly doesn't understand this, and therefore his understanding of any cosmology is suspect.

Dark matter might be undetectable particles that interact only with gravity. It might be regular matter that we just can't see because it isn't doing anything. It might be something else entirely. It might be gravity working differently and not matter at all. It might be other forces, known or unknown. There are valid theories about all these possibilities, and more. None of this has anything to do with the big bang. No matter which one of these theories turns out to be correct, if any of them, everything is still moving away from everything else, and the only explanation we have for this is a big bang. Of course, there are also plenty of different theories about exactly what that was and how it worked, but that's not really the point.

 

[TV's Frank]

And why are you running from my response to your 4 questions? I'm guessing that lurkers who read what I wrote will see why.

BTW, I've actually noted several positive predictions by plasma cosmology on this thread. You've just ignored each of them. Here was just the latest. It has to do with supernova:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"

I asked for 4 specific cosmological predictions. Those numbers are not in the above response.

Where are they? Four numbers only, please.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[BeAChooser]

You have cited a couple of papers, but not on the issue I was asking you about. You claimed mainstream cosmologists violate Maxell's equations in their theories, so I wanted proof. You provided nothing but interviews in non technical sources, with people trying to explain their results without mathematics.

Now you are are just outright lying. You claimed that Maxwell's equations covered the reconnecting magnetic field assertion of mainstream astrophysicists. In my post #277, I quoted excepts from several technical articles ... even scientists running recent experiments on reconnecting magnetic fields ... that state this *physics* is brand new (i.e., Maxwell didn't invent this or describe it) and who have concluded, based on experiments and math, that the claims of mainstream astrophysicists that reconnection at the rates alleged in astronomical phenomena does not appear possible. But you go on believing in your gnomes.

You haven't answered my questuion. If it's not a black hole what is it?

Are you always so impatient you don't even read all of what is posted to you before responding? Because I did answer your question.

OK, so now neutron stars also do not exist.

According to plasma cosmologists ... they are not what mainstream astronomers think they are. And I linked you to some recent peer reviewed, technical articles from plasma cosmologists that show the mainstream doesn't understand the phenomena that have been observed associated with supernova, neutron stars and pulsars, while plasma cosmologist's models appear to explain them quite well using physics that we can demonstrate in earth's labs. Read the technical articles.

Quote:
Here's the peer reviewed article that is mentioned above by Healy and Peratt: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...Peratt1995.pdf. Take a look at it. It demolishes the neutron star explanation and provides another ... one consistent with the tenants of plasma cosmology.

Well, this at least seems to have some mathematics. I'll read it.

It has more than mathematics. It describes real experiments that prove what they are saying ... unlike the papers of Big Bang gnome supporters.

We see the universe is expanding.

Plasma cosmology is not inconsistent with that.

You really don't know anything about gravitation, do you?

You don't know anything about Reissner-Nordström black holes, do you? You mentioned them as a solution to the quandary I posed.
But they don't rotate so they can't be used to explain all those supposedly rotating black holes that mainstream astronomers claim are in objects like quasars and galaxies.

But it is trivial to just combine the features of both spacetimes and have a charged and rotating black hole.

So now you are trying to change the playing field. Fine.

There is something called a Kerr-Newman black hole that is both charged and rotating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_metric "like the Kerr metric, the interior solution exists mathematically and satisfies Einstein's field equations, but is probably not representative of the actual metric of a physical black hole due to stability issues. ... snip ... Although it represents a generalization of the Kerr metric, it is not considered as very important for astrophysical purposes since one does not expect that realistic black holes have an important electric charge.."

Do I need to explain the part that's in bold to you?

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051209-6.htm "ON ROTATING BLACK HOLES, Since all black holes must have mass, there are 4 possible types of black hole, each type derived from equations of the general theory of relativity: a) A "Schwarzschild black hole" (first derived 1916) has no charge and no angular momentum. b) A "Reissner-Nordstrom" black hole (first derived 1918) has charge but no angular momentum. c) A "Kerr black hole" (first derived 1963) has angular momentum but no charge. d) A "Kerr-Newman black hole" (first derived 1965) has both charge and angular momentum. It is currently believed that real black holes are almost certainly rotating and have very little electric charge, so that the Kerr solution should be the most applicable.

So we are back to you trying to answer my question. If the electric sun folks are right and the stars are changed bodies ... how can they make up the black holes that astronomers claim are out there? Wouldn't the charge be swallowed along with the matter and make the black hole charged?

Quote:
But I have proven that the father of relativity said black holes are not part of the theory and any theory that includes them is wrong. Or words to that effect.

No, you haven't done that. He said the same thing I said rom my very first post: that GR is not valid in the singularity. It is, however, valid outside.

He said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities (like the Big Bang and Black Hole theories do) should be avoided. It's right there in black and white.

So, to summarise. BeAChooser claims, among other things

• That solar fusion does not work.

That's not what I claim. I claim that plasma cosmologists have a explanation for all the phenomena observed on the surface of the sun and above it and that theory would preclude the need to assume there is fusion inside the sun as the mainstream theory assumes. I claim that the there's-fusion-inside-the-sun crowd can't adequately explain those phenomena and haven't actually observed fusion occurring in the sun ... just as they haven't actually observed dark matter or dark energy. It's all inferred.

• That quarks do not exist (so particle physics is wrong, not only cosmology)

I've claimed nothing of the sort. But go ahead and continue with your strawmen.

• That neutron stars do not exist. We need quarks to explain them!

The stars that mainstream astronomy claims are neutron stars certainly exist. They came from supernova that plasma cosmologists, unlike mainstream astronomers, can explain without assuming there were nuclear fires inside the star. And again, plasma cosmologists seem able to explain newly observed supernova observations that mainstream astronomers cannot explain. As to the neutron stars, again, plasma cosmologists can explain them without invoking new physics like stars full of unstable neutrons that in our labs can't exist by themselves for long. And plasma cosmology's models, unlike Big Bang's, can be demonstrated in earth lab as producing the observations that led to the inferrence of a neutron star in the first place.

• That you can't have charged, rotating black holes (which proves that he knows nothing about general relativity).

That's not what I said at all. I said that physicists and astronomers say charged rotating black holes are not what they claim to be the source of quasar and other astronomical phenomena. They say they are uncharged black holes.

• That the fact that fluid elements stick to field lines in ideal MHD is 'utter nonsense' (which proves that he doesn't know anything about plasma physics, for all that he talks about it).

I don't claim to be an expert. I'm only quoting real plasma physicists, electrical engineers and the father of MHD himself when I state reconnecting magnetic fields, tangled magnetic fields, plasma sticking to field lines and such are nonsense. But you go ahead and believe in your gnomes, Yllanes.

• That plasma cosmologist are prevented from publishing in journals (he himself proved this to be false by quoting plasma cosmology papers in journals)

Again, a mischaracterization of the facts. But what's new.

 

[BeAChooser]

Problem-Solving Strategy:

1) Write down problem.
2) Think very hard.
3) Write down solution.

You know, Frank, I thought I'd just point out to everyone that even your tag line shows your adherence to the deductive method.

No wonder you like all those deductive gnomes Big Bang has come up with.

Cheers.

 

[dwr54]

I found this article interesting:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/cxc-dmm081607.php "Dark matter mystery deepens in cosmic 'train wreck, Public release date: 16-Aug-2007"

It states that



Then it notes two possible explanations.



If the second is what it takes, then the Big Bang menagerie of invisible particles, forces and interactions just keeps growing.

Dark matter and other scientific "dark areas" invite the creationist "God of the gaps" argument.

Just because we don't understand something yet dosen't mean its not understandable ever. Thats what science means, right?

 

[Yllanes]

You don't know anything about Reissner-Nordström black holes, do you? You mentioned them as a solution to the quandary I posed.
But they don't rotate so they can't be used to explain all those supposedly rotating black holes that mainstream astronomers claim are in objects like quasars and galaxies.

I mentioned as proof that black holes can have charge, nothing more. Some people call Reissner-Nordström also to rotating and charged black holes.

So now you are trying to change the playing field. Fine.

There is something called a Kerr-Newman black hole that is both charged and rotating.

Yes, the equation I posted.

but is probably not representative of the actual metric of a physical black hole due to stability issues. ... snip ... Although it represents a generalization of the Kerr metric, it is not considered as very important for astrophysical purposes since one does not expect that realistic black holes have an important electric charge.."

Do I need to explain the part that's in bold to you?

It is not important because stars are believed to be neutral. If stars were not neutral it would be important. But it is possible which is my claim.

It is currently believed that real black holes are almost certainly rotating and have very little electric charge, so that the Kerr solution should be the most applicable.

The most applicable because stars are uncharged, which doesn't mean the other is impossible.

So we are back to you trying to answer my question. If the electric sun folks are right and the stars are changed bodies ... how can they make up the black holes that astronomers claim are out there? Wouldn't the charge be swallowed along with the matter and make the black hole charged?

No, we are not back. If stars were charged, they would turn into Kerr-Newman black holes, as I already said. We currently do not believe that this solution is important because we don't believe stars are charged. If they were, they still would be susceptible of turning into black hles according to GR. Anyone can see I said that (even though I didn't call them Kerr-Newman). You obviously had never heard about these things and are now trying to save face.

He said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities (like the Big Bang and Black Hole theories do) should be avoided. It's right there in black and white.

So according to you Einstein said relativity should be avoided. That's your best claim so far.

That's not what I claim. I claim that plasma cosmologists have a explanation for all the phenomena observed on the surface of the sun and above it and that theory would preclude the need to assume there is fusion inside the sun as the mainstream theory assumes. I claim that the there's-fusion-inside-the-sun crowd can't adequately explain those phenomena and haven't actually observed fusion occurring in the sun ... just as they haven't actually observed dark matter or dark energy. It's all inferred.

In other words, fusion is not the source of energy for the Sun according to you.

I've claimed nothing of the sort. But go ahead and continue with your strawmen.

Taht page you linked explaining why neutron stars are not what we think they are said that to explain them we must invoke quarks, which have never been seen. And treated them as you treat dark energy here. If you don't agree with that page and linked it in error, we'll let this one go.

The stars that mainstream astronomy claims are neutron stars certainly exist. They came from supernova that plasma cosmologists, unlike mainstream astronomers, can explain without assuming there were nuclear fires inside the star. And again, plasma cosmologists seem able to explain newly observed supernova observations that mainstream astronomers cannot explain. As to the neutron stars, again, plasma cosmologists can explain them without invoking new physics like stars full of unstable neutrons that in our labs can't exist by themselves for long.

OK, so instead of saying that neutron stars do not exist, you said that neutron stars are not made of neutrons.

That you can't have charged, rotating black holes (which proves that he knows nothing about general relativity)

.That's not what I said at all.

Are you sure you didn't say charged black holes are impossible? How about this:

But according to what I've read, physicists do not expect that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature because the electromagnetic repulsion would be about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction. That makes sense.

This proves you didn't know charged black holes are possible, so you didn't know what a Reissner-Nordström black hole, let alone a Kerr-Newman one, is. So you don't know anything about general relativity, which was my claim.

If stars were charged, they would turn into charged black holes. We don't believe charged black holes are important because we don't believe stars are charged. That doesn't mean a charged balck hole is impossible.

That the fact that fluid elements stick to field lines in ideal MHD is 'utter nonsense' (which proves that he doesn't know anything about plasma physics, for all that he talks about it).

I don't claim to be an expert. I'm only quoting real plasma physicists, electrical engineers and the father of MHD himself when I state reconnecting magnetic fields, tangled magnetic fields, plasma sticking to field lines and such are nonsense. But you go ahead and believe in your gnomes, Yllanes.

If you don't understand a subject, you can still have an opinion but I don't see how you can be so... fervent. You can't say something is utter nonsense if you don't know about it. If this is going to be reduced to a huge appeal to authority, we would win instantly. Alfvén was a great physicists, but he can be wrong and he made those claims before we had quality observations in cosmology. You could as well say Newton didn't believe the universe was expanding and he was the father of gravitation (I know this example is exaggerated).

That plasma cosmologist are prevented from publishing in journals (he himself proved this to be false by quoting plasma cosmology papers in journals)

Again, a mischaracterization of the facts. But what's new.

Again, are you sure?

Yet astronomy magazines will not publish articles on what plasma cosmologists have to say. Not because their peer reviewers can prove what the plasma cosmologists say is wrong, but because they challenge the dogma of those reviewers and the interest the Big Bang community has in expensive Big Bang *science*. That's why if you are interested in plasma cosmology work you have to look somewhere else than astronomy magazines and books. Is that the way *science* is supposed to work?

This post proves that you have resorted to lying. I have no interest in debating with someone who lies.

 

[TV's Frank]

You know, Frank, I thought I'd just point out to everyone that even your tag line shows your adherence to the deductive method.

No wonder you like all those deductive gnomes Big Bang has come up with.

Cheers.

Hi, please provide the 4 predictions I asked for. These are important predictions that must match observations. Just 4 numbers will do, please.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[BeAChooser]

Just because we don't understand something yet dosen't mean its not understandable ever. Thats what science means, right?

Actually, no. Science is a formal way (called the empirical method) of looking at the world around us and understanding it. One observes phenomena, seeks patterns in the observations, develops a hypothesis to explain those patterns, carries out experiments to see how well the hypothesis predicts future observations, and then if the fit isn't adequate either rejects the hypothesis or modifies it.

What Big Bang cosmologists have been doing for at least the last half a century, however, is using the deductive method which derives theorems from ASSUMED generalizations about the universe (as is done in mathematics). The problem is that if your assumed starting point is wrong, then everything that follows may be wrong.

As Donald Scott pointed out, this approach was quite frankly justified by Stephen Hawkings, a Big Bang advocate, who stated "If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? ... We cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory ... It makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory."

Contrast that with plasma cosmologists, such as Hannes Alfven, who have tried to follow the empirical method. Again from Donald Scott's book, Alfven said this "about the continuing failure of deductive theoreticians to produce controlled nuclear fusion: 'They have shown that many of the conclusions which were drawn from classical plasma theory were wrong and once again demonstrated that science is basically empirical. Theory is of value only when developed in close contact with reality.' And 'We have learned again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture'."

Which is exactly what has happened to Big Bang cosmology, I think.

 

[TV's Frank]

'... Theory is of value only when developed in close contact with reality.'

I'm glad we agree! Now please provide the 4 basic preditions of plasma cosmology, so that we may compare this theory to observations.

Cheers,
Tv's Frank

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You don't know anything about Reissner-Nordström black holes, do you? You mentioned them as a solution to the quandary I posed. But they don't rotate so they can't be used to explain all those supposedly rotating black holes that mainstream astronomers claim are in objects like quasars and galaxies.

I mentioned as proof that black holes can have charge, nothing more.

That's not the way I see it. When I wrote

But according to what I've read, physicists do not expect that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature because the electromagnetic repulsion would be about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction.

you responded

Black holes can have charge. Charged black holes are called Reisser(sic)-Nördstrom black holes.

You were clearly trying to suggest to our audience that the black holes under discussion ... the ones supposedly IN NATURE that create jets due to their rotation ... can have charge. I don't think you actually knew, until I told you, that Reissner-Nordstrom black holes don't rotate.

Some people call Reissner-Nordström also to rotating and charged black holes.

Incorrectly. A charged, rotating black hole is called a Kerr-Newman hole, as I pointed out.

It is not important because stars are believed to be neutral.

Again. PROVE IT. Post the experiment that has been done to measure the charge of the Sun.

What you are stating as if it were fact is just an ASSUMPTION of the mainstream (Big Bang / stars-are-powered-by-fusion) astronomical community. Yet, we know that the outer layers of the sun are filled with charged particles that stream out into space. Even NASA admits this. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/solarsystem_worldbook.html Jupiter interacts electrically with its moons. Jupiter interacts electrically with the Sun, as does the Earth. The planets in the Solar System are charged bodies. The sun has an electric field. So how can you be so sure the sun is not a charged body when all of the above facts were basically surprises to Big Bang / stars-are-powered-by-fusion astronomers?

http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html

Quote:
It is currently believed that real black holes are almost certainly rotating and have very little electric charge, so that the Kerr solution should be the most applicable.

The most applicable because stars are uncharged

Prove it. Post a description of the experiment that was done to prove this. Bet you don't because there hasn't been one.

In fact, what we can actually see happening on the surface and above the surface of the sun, strongly suggests it is charged. With just this assumption, plasma cosmologists have no difficulty explaining the various phenomena (sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections, the coronal temperature, the suns variability, the solar wind, and a host of other features) that are observed. None of the above can the fusion model adequately begin to explain.

BTW ... I have no idea if this is legit ... but what the heck: http://www.varchive.org/bdb/week.htm "Is it feasible that the sun may be charged? ... snip ... I invited Dr. Cunningham, a young physicist, then on the staff of the Forrestal Center near Princeton, to spend an evening with me. ... snip ... Next we discussed the charge on the sun, and Dr. Cunningham maintained that the sun not only can be charged positively, but that it must be charged so, and this due to the circumstance that electrons have a much greater mobility than the protons, and thus many more electrons must have left the sun before the relatively slow-moving protons could do the same, and the protons thus left behind would be responsible for the positive charge of the sun. Thereafter positive and negative particles would leave the sun in equal numbers, but the original surplus of positive particles would permanently keep the sun positively charged. Thus in theory the sun not only can be charged, but must be so."

If stars were charged, they would turn into Kerr-Newman black holes, as I already said.

Then you apparently didn't understand what I noted in bold in this that I posted earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_metric "like the Kerr metric, the interior solution exists mathematically and satisfies Einstein's field equations, but is probably not representative of the actual metric of a physical black hole due to stability issues."

Here's some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron "The Kerr-Newman black hole is a solution to the Einstein equations for a black hole with charge and spin. The spin of a Kerr-Newman black hole has no exact counterpart in the classical world. The extreme time dilation required at the photon capture radius indicates that the electron gravitational field has a ring singularity. This ring singularity could be described as a closed-loop vibrating string. Black hole theory predicts that a black hole with charge and spin will have magnetic moment equal to the charge times angular momentum divided by mass, which is equal to the Dirac electron magnetic moment. However, the correct result for the electron magnetic moment contains a small, but very precisely measured, correction from emission and re-absorption of virtual photons. In 1955, John Archibald Wheeler explored this concept, describing a structure he named a geon. He found that while the structure was interesting, it was unstable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole#Kerr_metric.2C_Kerr-Newman_metric "This solution is called the Kerr-Newman metric . A black hole with charge and spin has the same gyromagnetic ratio as an electron. Its magnetic moment divided by angular momentum is equal to its charge divided by mass. While the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metrics are valid solutions to Einstein's field equations, the interior region of the solution appears to be unstable, much like a pencil balanced on its point (Penrose 1968). Therefore some care must be taken to distinguish the axis-symmetric interior geometry of the Kerr metric from the interior geometry of a black hole formed by gravitational collapse, which is probably not axis-symmetric."

You obviously had never heard about these things and are now trying to save face.

Yeah, right.

Quote:
He said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities (like the Big Bang and Black Hole theories do) should be avoided. It's right there in black and white.
So according to you Einstein said relativity should be avoided.

No, that's not what he said. But he was trying to tell you that cosmology theories that incorporate singularities probably should be avoided.

In other words, fusion is not the source of energy for the Sun according to you.

Not according to me. According to some scientists and engineers who seem to understand plasmas and electromagnetic phenomena really well. Why are you having trouble understanding this?

Taht page you linked explaining why neutron stars are not what we think they are said that to explain them we must invoke quarks, which have never been seen. And treated them as you treat dark energy here.

You didn't even try to understand what they were saying. I'll grant you that their wording was probably poor. When they said "However appealing the original logic may have been to some, the neutron star model should have been discarded when pulsars were found with supposed “spin” and cooling rates that required the mathematicians to conjure ever more dense and exotic particles–like quarks–that have never been observed", they should have said
"isolated quarks" rather than quarks. The reason this is important is that found in the link (http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_strange.htm ) in that quote. Keeping in mind that the latest theories claim neutron stars are composed of "strange matter", let me quote that link "In nucleons, quarks are supposed to exist in inseparable groups of three, which is why no one has ever seen an isolated quark. But at extremely high densities of matter, quarks may become uncoupled or 'deconfined'. 'Strange matter' is a melange of deconfined up, down and strange quarks. Physicists are hoping that the new particle colliders currently under construction, such as the Larger Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, will create conditions extreme enough to break quarks free."

And this appears to be true. Numerous sources state that isolated quarks have never been found. So they may be right in stating that strange matter (which requires uncoupled quarks) has not been observed, too. Strange matter is very exotic physics.

So once again we find astrophysicists calling on bizarre and unproven physics to be ordinary to explain phenomena that plasma cosmologist have explained using truly ordinary physics that has already been demonstrated in earth laboratories many times..

OK, so instead of saying that neutron stars do not exist, you said that neutron stars are not made of neutrons.

And what makes you think a neutron star is stable? Can a pile of neutrons and only neutrons hang around for long in an earth lab? Prior to the discovery of pulsars, the astronomical community had basically rejected the idea of neutron stars for this reason. They only changed their minds because they couldn't come up with anything else to even remotely explain the phenomena of pulsars. But that doesn't change the reasons they originally rejected them.

Are you sure you didn't say charged black holes are impossible?

No, I didn't say that. As you just quoted me saying, I said "physicists do not expect black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed IN NATURE". Surely you can understand the subtleties here, Yllanes.

If stars were charged, they would turn into charged black holes.

Which would then be unstable, according to the physicists? Right?

We don't believe charged black holes are important because we don't believe stars are charged.

Prove they aren't. Your repeating this with no proof at all is tiresome.

Alfvén was a great physicists, but he can be wrong and he made those claims before we had quality observations in cosmology.

The observations in cosmology do not prove Alfven wrong. Astronomers only INFER magnetic reconnection is occurring. What you need to cite is an experiment here on earth where magnetic reconnection in the timeframe postulated by Big Bang astronomers has been demonstrated. You can't do it.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Yet astronomy magazines will not publish articles on what plasma cosmologists have to say. Not because their peer reviewers can prove what the plasma cosmologists say is wrong, but because they challenge the dogma of those reviewers and the interest the Big Bang community has in expensive Big Bang *science*. That's why if you are interested in plasma cosmology work you have to look somewhere else than astronomy magazines and books. Is that the way *science* is supposed to work?

This post proves that you have resorted to lying.

By all means, point out the articles on plasma cosmology in any recent astronomy magazine or chapters on plasma cosmology in any mainstream astronomy book. Tick tick tick ...

I have no interest in debating with someone who lies.

Look in a mirror. ROTFLOL!

 

[Taffer]

I've lost interest debating you, BeAChooser. You have no intent on proving the accuracy of plasma cosmology, and only interested in bashing BB. Until plasma cosmology proves just as accurate as the BB, there is no point in considering the alternative. Furthermore, your endless blathering rhetoric about "magic particles" and making blind assumptions that just because we cannot directly detect it means it doesn't exist, is not good science.

 

[Yllanes]

You were clearly trying to suggest to our audience that the black holes under discussion ... the ones supposedly IN NATURE that create jets due to their rotation ... can have charge. I don't think you actually knew, until I told you, that Reissner-Nordstrom black holes don't rotate.

Incorrectly. A charged, rotating black hole is called a Kerr-Newman hole, as I pointed out.

Listen: having charge gives the black hole some interesting properties. Rotation also gives the black hole interesting properties (they have two horizons, one inside the other). A rotating charged black hole just combines both characteristics. The physics is understood by considering charged black holes and rotating black holes separately. This is why I talked about Reissner-Nordström black holes.

Again. PROVE IT. Post the experiment that has been done to measure the charge of the Sun.

I don't care about that right now. You said that if the stars are charged then they can't turn inta black holes because:

But according to what I've read, physicists do not expect that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature because the electromagnetic repulsion would be about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction. That makes sense.

Then, when you were proven wrong about this, you started searching the Wikipedia and found this:

Then you apparently didn't understand what I noted in bold in this that I posted earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_metric "like the Kerr metric, the interior solution exists mathematically and satisfies Einstein's field equations, but is probably not representative of the actual metric of a physical black hole due to stability issues."

You don't know general relativity and are desperately trying to support your preconceived ideas. The instability is inside the event horizon. Rotating black holes have some very interesting and complicated structures inside (a ring singularity, a region were causality is not satisfied) but they are unstable, so in all probability all this internal structures collapse. This doesn't matter becasue what happens inside the event horizon does not affect us. The only thing that's not probably representative of the metric of a physical black hole is the interior solution, which does not affect the outside.

So my point stands: if stars are neutral they can turn into neutral black holes, if they are charged they can turn into charged black holes, so even if stars are charged as you say black holes are possible.

The final part of my post #334 stands and is all I have to say really (unless someone is interested in what actually happens with charged and/or rotating black holes).

 

[Belz...]

And those would be?

Lensing, amongst others. Don't tell me you've forgotten already.

Why don't you read the thread and find out what I said.

Why ? Is it that difficult to state your position in a few words ? In fact, a siomple yes or no would suffice, which is far shorter than writing that above sentence twice. Are stars fusion-powered ?

Then you can tell me what "really" powers them.

What I posted you quoted out of context from my post.

That's cheap. If I quote the entire context we'll have 5000+ word posts before long.

You made it seem that I said that when the content of my post made it quite clear that what I was quoting was a statement from a source offered by someone else ... a statement that is bogus.

Fair enough.

If you want to discuss QM and GR/SR, take it to ynot's new thread.

As you wish.

I find your lack of inattention, tiresome.

Do you think that was clever ? Instead of correcting that tone of yours and becoming more civil, you just throw it back at me ? How is this a mature debate, then ?


Gee... I just noticed you didn't adress or respond to any of my points...

 

[Belz...]

It has more than mathematics. It describes real experiments that prove what they are saying ... unlike the papers of Big Bang gnome supporters.

Priceless.

That's not what I claim. I claim that plasma cosmologists have a explanation for all the phenomena observed on the surface of the sun and above it and that theory would preclude the need to assume there is fusion inside the sun as the mainstream theory assumes.

Preclude the need ? It's not like nuclear fusion's a crackpot hypothesis. We know it works. What's wrong with "assuming" that it's in the sun ?

It's all inferred.

Yes, like much of science.

The stars that mainstream astronomy claims are neutron stars certainly exist. They came from supernova that plasma cosmologists, unlike mainstream astronomers, can explain without assuming there were nuclear fires inside the star.

Can you explain supernovae, in short, from the plasma cosmologist's point of view ?

And again, plasma cosmologists seem able to explain newly observed supernova observations that mainstream astronomers cannot explain.

Your constant use of the word "seem" and of similar words and phrase structures leads me to believe that plasma cosmologists do not make precise claims and math. Do they ?

 

[Dancing David]

What you are stating as if it were fact is just an ASSUMPTION of the mainstream (Big Bang / stars-are-powered-by-fusion) astronomical community. Yet, we know that the outer layers of the sun are filled with charged particles that stream out into space. Even NASA admits this. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/solarsystem_worldbook.html Jupiter interacts electrically with its moons. Jupiter interacts electrically with the Sun, as does the Earth. The planets in the Solar System are charged bodies. The sun has an electric field. So how can you be so sure the sun is not a charged body when all of the above facts were basically surprises to Big Bang / stars-are-powered-by-fusion astronomers?

http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html



Prove it. Post a description of the experiment that was done to prove this. Bet you don't because there hasn't been one.

In fact, what we can actually see happening on the surface and above the surface of the sun, strongly suggests it is charged. With just this assumption, plasma cosmologists have no difficulty explaining the various phenomena (sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections, the coronal temperature, the suns variability, the solar wind, and a host of other features) that are observed. None of the above can the fusion model adequately begin to explain.

BTW ... I have no idea if this is legit ... but what the heck: http://www.varchive.org/bdb/week.htm "Is it feasible that the sun may be charged? ... snip ... I invited Dr. Cunningham, a young physicist, then on the staff of the Forrestal Center near Princeton, to spend an evening with me. ... snip ... Next we discussed the charge on the sun, and Dr. Cunningham maintained that the sun not only can be charged positively, but that it must be charged so, and this due to the circumstance that electrons have a much greater mobility than the protons, and thus many more electrons must have left the sun before the relatively slow-moving protons could do the same, and the protons thus left behind would be responsible for the positive charge of the sun. Thereafter positive and negative particles would leave the sun in equal numbers, but the original surplus of positive particles would permanently keep the sun positively charged. Thus in theory the sun not only can be charged, but must be so."



.......

You didn't even try to understand what they were saying. I'll grant you that their wording was probably poor. When they said "However appealing the original logic may have been to some, the neutron star model should have been discarded when pulsars were found with supposed “spin” and cooling rates that required the mathematicians to conjure ever more dense and exotic particles–like quarks–that have never been observed", they should have said
"isolated quarks" rather than quarks. The reason this is important is that found in the link (http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_strange.htm ) in that quote. Keeping in mind that the latest theories claim neutron stars are composed of "strange matter", let me quote that link "In nucleons, quarks are supposed to exist in inseparable groups of three, which is why no one has ever seen an isolated quark. But at extremely high densities of matter, quarks may become uncoupled or 'deconfined'. 'Strange matter' is a melange of deconfined up, down and strange quarks. Physicists are hoping that the new particle colliders currently under construction, such as the Larger Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, will create conditions extreme enough to break quarks free."

.....

And this appears to be true. Numerous sources state that isolated quarks have never been found.

Duh.

So they may be right in stating that strange matter (which requires uncoupled quarks) has not been observed, too. Strange matter is very exotic physics.

So once again we find astrophysicists calling on bizarre and unproven physics to be ordinary to explain phenomena that plasma cosmologist have explained using truly ordinary physics that has already been demonstrated in earth laboratories many times..

Uh huh, whatever.

Models are models, and yours is the only one you like.

And what makes you think a neutron star is stable? Can a pile of neutrons and only neutrons hang around for long in an earth lab?

Gosh Mr. Wizard, have you done that experiment yet. Have you huh huh huh? Have you made a star sizze pile of neutrons? What you haven't/

Double standard.

Prior to the discovery of pulsars, the astronomical community had basically rejected the idea of neutron stars for this reason. They only changed their minds because they couldn't come up with anything else to even remotely explain the phenomena of pulsars. But that doesn't change the reasons they originally rejected them.



...


Which would then be unstable, according to the physicists? Right?



Prove they aren't. Your repeating this with no proof at all is tiresome.

Double standard!!!!!

You have only stated that a lot of plasma cosmology is possible

YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN that there are the plasma currents inside and outside the galazies that you claim there are.

Double standard.

....


By all means, point out the articles on plasma cosmology in any recent astronomy magazine or chapters on plasma cosmology in any mainstream astronomy book. Tick tick tick ...

Fanatic.

as though book publishing was anything other than capitalism, do you know how text books are made?

Look in a mirror. ROTFLOL!

Thump your bible, you are a faith based dervish.

 

[Dancing David]

BAC is this site a correct in the summation of the electric sun theory?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and is always attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.

This would raise some questions,

1. What eveidence is there that the Birkeland currents are the size needed to generate the photons the sun emmits?

2. More importanly how would the secong generation elements be generated and how would the first generation elements be generated, given the proportion of the the three elements that might have been generated by the neucleosynthesis of the possible BBE?

3. How does the electric model explain the distribution of elements into newer stars (first generation) and older stars (second generation)?

4. How does the electric model explain the creation of red giants and the main sequence stars? It would seem from a partial understanding that there would not be a progression of stars on the main sequence?