Thunderbolts of the Gods

[Dancing David]

Wrong. Don't be dumb. Any physics text will educate you on this.



Thanks, I did not know that.



Based on the behavior of some manic JREF members, I don't believe it.

Some people seem to have an infinite amount of time, and debate everything, even stuff that isn't even debatable.

For example. trying to argue you can't measure which is longer, a piece of wood or a piece of string. See?

So something like electromagnetism and the Universe is wide open for discussion. I think some people confuse the word "theory" with "fact".

Oh, oh, the string!

 

[Dancing David]

BAC
As far as magnetism and cosmology, it would appear to not be a mystery or any suprise,
this seems to suggest that there is some discussion of magnetism and cosmology
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/9602097

So again no secret conspiracy to suppress some sort of discussion of plasma cosmology.

This link here
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm

states what i believe you think is the reason that the 'plasma' explains the rotation curve of galaxies.

However, it cites no data, no outside sources or evidence. It just states that 'this is this and that is that'

The galactic magnetic field can be assumed to be produced by a rotating plasma (dynamo region) in the more central region of the galaxy, i.e. the velocity v in the Lorentz force term has to be referred to the rotational velocity vD of this region (vD itself refers obviously to the center of the galaxy

assumed being the the operative word, no evidence.

The ionization rate of the neutral gas varies obviously quite strongly throughout the galaxy, but one can estimate that a neutral atom in interstellar space is ionized after 10^6-10^9 years, which is smaller or at least about equal to the dynamical time scale of the galaxy, so that most of the neutral gas should appear to co-rotate with the plasma.

Wow, so most of the neutral gas would rotate at the rate of assumed inner dynamo, not the stars. Still not really an explanation of the rotation curve at all BAC.

A hypothesis.

 

[robinson]

I found hundreds of papers on these subjects, with current/recent developments raising more questions than answers. Fascinating. Really it is. Not much time to play today, but what wondrous images the Hubble produces.

 

[CapelDodger]

You do understand that you just back-slapped an assertion sans evidence.

I'm perfectly capable of doing that, but my (failed) intent was to back-slap the entire post.

 

[BeAChooser]

I am still deciding whether to mark reposting of material from an existing web site in this forum as spam. The moderators may pre-empt me. If they do not, and I do not, you may expect a point-by-point response as I have time to make one.

The moderator objected to my posting hotlinks (my bad) and apparently felt that in a few instances I quoted too much from a given copyrighted source (fair enough in some cases). I think the first post (Part 1) can be safely reposted if I just remove the hotlinks to the images and instead expect the reader to visit the links to look at the images being discussed in the text. And as long as I alter one of the quoted sections. So why don't we re-start the discussion with the subject of that post ... the nature of redshift and quasars.

*************

Part 1 - Problems With Big Bang's Interpretation Of Redshift Compared To Observations

Vesto Slipher started measuring the Doppler shift of galaxies about 1910, although at the time he didn't know that's what they were. He, like others in his era, called them nebula. Almost all of the objects showed a redshift ... that is, the frequency of the visible light coming from the object was shifted towards lower frequencies ... towards the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. For understandable reasons, this was suggestive that the objects were collectively moving away from us. That is where matters stood until 1922 when Alexander Friedmann derived equations from Einstein's theory of General Relativity that indeed suggested the universe should either be expanding or collapsing. Shortly after, in 1924, Hubble measured the distance to the nearest spiral "nebula" and showed that they weren't nebula at all, but other galaxies filled with stars just like the Milky Way. In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations and for the first time, it was concluded in a paper that the recession of the objects was due to the expansion "of the universe". His model included a redshift/distance relationship similar to that which in 1929 Hubble and Humason obtained by fitting a line through the observational data that had been collected so far. This redshift relationship (with considerable modification to the Hubble constant) would eventually be used by Big Bang cosmologists to interpret the distance to all objects in the universe based solely on their redshift. However, it wasn't until 1931 that Lemaître actually published a paper suggesting that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg". Therefore, one might consider 1931 as the real birthdate of the *Big Bang* theory, in which case, Big Bang theorists did not "predict" the expansion as some proponents claim. But in any case, the story doesn't end there ...

For some 50 years, alternative cosmologists have argued that redshift is not an accurate indicator of recession or distance for every object that's been observed. In particular, they've asserted that many of what Big Bang cosmologists claim are the farthest objects from us ... quasi-stellar objects (QSOs or quasars, for short) ... are in fact much, much closer than Big Bang's redshift relationship indicates. There are many types of observational data to support this assertion. For example, consider the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is between us and the dense core of the low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy NGC 7319. The galaxy and the quasar in question are shown in the following linked image:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif

The advice is to link to a source, and quote only a paragraph or two from it. Please do not re-spam posts particularly after mod attention. Attempting to circumvent what a mod has done is not a good idea.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[BeAChooser]

Here's a revision for Part 2 that should pass moderator inspection.

Part 2. Problems With Using Black Holes To Explain Quasars And Jets From Quasars

Say I still haven't convinced you at this point that there is a problem with claiming quasars are distant objects based on redshift or blackholes. Is there any other reason to doubt those claims? Absolutely ...

One of the best reasons are the jets that are sometimes seen coming from quasars. 3C273 is no exception. Recent images of the quasar show 10 regularly spaced knots that form a immense jet. The first knot supposedly produces as much energy as most Seyfert galaxies. Because of their immense distance, the jets from some quasars must be largest contiguous structures in the universe. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020216/fob5.asp states that quasar PKS 1127-145 produces an X ray-emitting jet that projects at least 1 million light-years into space. According to the article, "The jet's great length makes it unlikely that the quasar could provide the energy for the X rays". So astrophysicists are forced to postulate still another magic gnome ... a "novel" (in their own words) interaction between the charged particles in the jet and photons in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The theory is that "when photons in the CMB collide with electrons in the jet, the electrons get a boost in energy and emit X rays." Now I don't know about you, but to me it looks like they are now stacking magic gnomes on top of magic gnomes on top of magic gnomes in order to explain the observations ... just to keep black holes, their model of quasars and Big Bang alive.

These jets are very troublesome even with magical black holes. To explain them, Big Bang astrophysicists have had to invent magnetic field physics that have not been observed on earth ... physics that defy our previous understanding of magnetic fields. For example, http://www.universetoday.com/2005/06/01/quasar-image-revises-theories-about-their-jets/?162005 claims "tangled" magnetic fields are the means by which a black hole produces jets. But tangled magnetic fields are a phenomena apparently only found in space. The astrophysics community has yet to actually create one in an earth lab. But that doesn't stop them from invoking them again and again to explain phenomena that they otherwise can't explain.

Edited by chillzero: 

reducing quote

 

[BeAChooser]

A revised Part 3 that hopefully meets with moderator approval.

Part 3 - Problems With Big Bang's Explanation Of Pulsars And Supernova. Plasma Cosmology's Solution

Now let's consider some other astronomical objects that produce jets starting with pulsars?

To explain the jets from what astronomers call neutron/pulsar stars, Big Bang astrophysicists again call on the God of Magic Gnomes. Not only do they invent yet another form of matter that has never been observed here on earth (I ask you, folks, according to our current understanding, are groups of neutrons by themselves stable?), they again have to also use the bogus magnetic field *theories* to explain the jets that come from them. And of course each new observation raises new questions about their theory and necessitates the addition of still more magic gnomes. Here is an example of what I mean:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html announced a discovery "suggesting the existence" of "strange quark stars." Object 3C-58 was a supernova observed in 1181. It turns out the star's temperature i "far below what was expected" according to neutron star theory. Therefore, the researchers are claiming the stars core is made of "a new kind of exotic material" (as if a star made of pure neutrons wouldn't be exotic enough). According to the article, "Michael Turner, a widely respected cosmologist at the University of Chicago, said both studies appear to show that Nature is able to produce forms of matter that scientists have been unable to create in laboratories." Yet another magic gnome that can't be reproduced here on earth.

Edited by chillzero: 

reducing quote

But there's another possible explanation from another segment of the plasma cosmology community ... see part 4.

 

[Dancing David]

BAC, you are once again just spamming the forum, try answering questions posed to you.

This is not debate, this is you just quoting something and walking away.

 

[Dancing David]

of observational data to support this assertion. For example, consider the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is between us and the dense core of the low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy NGC 7319. The galaxy and the quasar in question are shown in the following linked image:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif

Hiya BAC, funny how you chose NGC 7319, and you will note that there are only a few research papers about it.

Here is the deal:

1. How did they conclude that the quasar is imbedded in the galaxy?

2. Given the data they use could also show that the quasar is behind the galaxy as opposed to imbedded in it, what data are available to indicate that the quasar either is behind or imbedded in the galaxy?

They are just assuming that the quasar is imbedded.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, you are once again just spamming the forum, try answering questions posed to you.

This is not debate, this is you just quoting something and walking away.

I'm not trying to spam the forum and walk away from questions, David. But I will not respond to any questions being asked until the matter of what constitutes an allowable post is cleared up. The folks reading this thread need to see what we are discussing. That's not possible if the material is posted then immediately deleted by the moderators.

I resubmitted the first three posts in the series with all hotlinks removed and any direct quoting of sources reduced to a few sentences at most from any given source ... the two complaints the first moderator fairly made about the posts. The rest of the material in the deleted posts is simply summary of the material in my own words. There is no rule at JREF about restating material in one's own words, is there?

Now those posts have been deleted too. I have a private message out to the moderator to try and resolve the situation in a friendly matter. But if that type of post is not allowed on this forum then in my opinion there is no possibilty of presenting the material on this issue (or most any issue) in an orderly and complete matter so that it can be discussed. I would think, David, that you would be in favor of seeing a complete summary of this sort posted so that it can be debated.

 

[robinson]

I think the Chillzero doesn't understand that it isn't a quote, but your own words that were deleted. I know they are original text, hence not a quote. That you spent the time to actually retype everything, shows a great deal of passion on the subject.

Incredibly annoying that someone chooses to delete your words. Grabted it is waaaay long, but what serious subject isn't? Your best bet would be to make a web page with this on it, and link to each point.

This serves many purposes. If you need help doing so, just let me know. Free Blogs and we pages are very easy to create.

The following is original words, not a quote from any website.

... According to Big Bang's redshift equates to distance relationship, that quasar should be about 93 times farther away from us than the galaxy. But several mainstream astronomers have now published peer reviewed articles (such as http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...493/60493.html ) that conclude the quasar in question is almost certainly on this side of NGC 7319. They base this not only on the likely density of obscuring matter in that region of the galaxy, but on the light characteristics of the quasar and galaxy in question. Plus, there is a clearly visible plasma filament (jet) linking the core of the galaxy to that quasar (it can be seen in the image above). Another paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215 , states that "from the optical spectra of the QSO and interstellar gas of NGC 7319 at z = .022 we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas." That's hardly possible if the quasar is 93 times farther away than NGC 7319.

Of this is there no doubt. But it is too much for a conversation forum. Break it down into little chunks, or better yet, put it on the web. Because it is interesting to discuss, but the format does not lend itself to 50,000 character posts.

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya BAC, funny how you chose NGC 7319, and you will note that there are only a few research papers about it.

Here is the deal:

1. How did they conclude that the quasar is imbedded in the galaxy?

2. Given the data they use could also show that the quasar is behind the galaxy as opposed to imbedded in it, what data are available to indicate that the quasar either is behind or imbedded in the galaxy?

They are just assuming that the quasar is imbedded.

You seem to be walking away from these questions and some others.

 

[robinson]

Hiya BAC, funny how you chose NGC 7319, and you will note that there are only a few research papers about it.

Using Google I found 18,500 articles discussing NGC 7319. Even the dimmest bulb can find a wealth of data on this important discovery.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/stephan/more.html

Interesting that before Chandra this was being discussed. Back in 1996.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996AJ....111..140A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997PASJ...49..445A

Here is the deal:

1. How did they conclude that the quasar is imbedded[sic] in the galaxy?

Reading the researchers papers will answer your questions.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/426886
And it is embedded, not imbedded.

2. Given the data they use could also show that the quasar is behind the galaxy as opposed to imbedded[sic] in it, what data are available to indicate that the quasar either is behind or imbedded[sic] in the galaxy?

Are you being dense on purpose? The data isn't secret.

They are just assuming that the quasar is imbedded[sic].

Do you have any evidence to back up YOUR claim?

There are far more interesting conversations about these issues on other forums. Not surprising, the defenders of the faith end up resorting to emotional tactics and slurs rather than discussing the science.

I find that interesting. The logic errors that crop up by those trying to avoid the implications are more like woos than hard scientist.

 

[Dancing David]

Using Google I found 18,500 articles discussing NGC 7319. Even the dimmest bulb can find a wealth of data on this important discovery.

And again many of them are repeats of the same story regarding the QSO, what is you so miffed up about.

BAC needs to do more than just throw out little snippets here and there and acts as though they are conclusive.

There are absorbtion lines which might indicate that the QSO is behind the galaxy and not just within it.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/stephan/more.html

Interesting that before Chandra this was being discussed. Back in 1996.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996AJ....111..140A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997PASJ...49..445A



Reading the researchers papers will answer your questions.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/426886
And it is embedded, not imbedded.



Are you being dense on purpose? The data isn't secret.

Does BAC just wave his arms around and are you joining him, the source of the mission lines is unknown.

Do you have any evidence to back up YOUR claim?

There are far more interesting conversations about these issues on other forums. Not surprising, the defenders of the faith end up resorting to emotional tactics and slurs rather than discussing the science.

take your soap box some other place, this is my park bench!

I find that interesting. The logic errors that crop up by those trying to avoid the implications are more like woos than hard scientist.

I ain't avoiding nothing, but I do expect people to be able to discuss the data without just pointing to the gaps and saying "God lives in the gaps".

I saw what i saw and I asked the questions, from what i read the data demonstrate that the quasar is just as likely behind the galaxy as within it.

There is very little to actually say that the QSO is the source of the oxygen emission lines that are anomalous, that is again a possibility but I would not say that it is definitive. While there is a possibility the the QSO is the object exciting the emission lines, it may not be.

Which is why the article says the following

Further X-ray radio and optical observations following this evidence for a powerful discrete source (the QSO, exciting the interstellar gas) are needed. For example, high-resolution direct imaging with narrowband filters could tell us a great deal. Data with higher signal-to-noise ratios shortward of Lyα emission would be useful, since this is where Lyα forest absorption is seen in many QSOs. Our spectrum, very noisy here, does not show such features.

As for the alleged statistical evidence of QSOs being within so many arc seconds of a galactic center, a better method woukld be to choose random points for comparison or to search for QSOs around all galactic centers.

There is a strong possibility that QSOs have strange redshifted features, which has not been verified as of yet.

I might be more open minded than you think, but i find that the association of QSOs and disrupted galactic centers has not really been well established and is still a matter of debate.

 

[robinson]

Research and open minded discussion of scientific wonders is much more productive than a "debate".

 

[Dancing David]

Well, perhap, but I think you can read the original thread either way. I would say that the people who propose the plasma cosmology may not all be fanatics but certainly some of them are, and the 'electric sun' is really out there.


What I am doing is trying to encourage the debate, the dumping of random bits of information and saying "thus it is proven" is ceratinly not research.

the abnormal z of QSO is a good possibility. The neutron star stuff I am a little more reserved about.

The association of QSOs and galactic centers is not well demonstrated.

BTW Robinson, do you go to Astronomy Picture of the Day at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov ?

 

[BeAChooser]

For those who are wondering, I'm still waiting on a ruling from Admin regarding my posts. I'll be away for the weekend. So if it's favorable, I'll begin reposting with all required modifications next week. Then I'll begin responding to those who commented already. Then the debate can continue from there. Have a nice weekend, folks. May lots of electric sunshine make it pleasant for you.

 

[robinson]

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my comments to you.

Back on topic, I think.

Now, new data from the Hinode (Japanese for sunrise) satellite shows "magnetic waves" in the charged particles swirling around in the Sun play a critical role in driving the solar wind into space, according to studies by international researchers published in the journal Science.
advertisement

The magnetic waves, called Alfvén waves after the Swedish scientist who suggested them in 1942, ripple in the electrically charged gas of particles - plasma - within the Sun and its atmosphere.

They have always been a leading candidate in the formation of solar wind since they can transfer energy for the wind from the Sun's surface up through its atmosphere.

"Until now, Alfvén waves have been impossible to observe because of limited resolution of available instruments," said Alexei Pevtsov, Hinode program scientist, at Nasa Headquarters, Washington.

"With the help of Hinode, we are now able to see direct evidence of Alfvén waves, which will help us unravel the mystery of how the solar wind is powered."

Using Hinode's high resolution X-ray telescope, a team led by Jonathan Cirtain at Nasa's Marshall Space Flight Centre, Huntsville, Alabama, peered into the atmosphere at the Sun's poles and observed record numbers of jets of X-rays, sent out as fountains of rapidly-moving hot plasma.

Cirtain's team observed an average of 240 jets per day, some up to 12,000 miles wide and 600,000 miles long, and conclude that Alfvén waves are being formed at the same time.

"The large number of jets, coupled with the high speeds of the outflowing plasma, lends further credence to the idea that X-ray jets are a driving force in the creation of the fast solar wind."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/06/sciwind106.xml

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my comments to you.

Back on topic, I think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/06/sciwind106.xml

Nice link. Thanks for the info!

 

[shadron]

As far as vacuum tubes, they are not a completely without some air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

Being an old time EE (knowledge about vacuum tunes will date me for sure), I want to assure you that electrons move very well (in fact better there than anywhere) through a vacuum. The very wikipedia article you cite says:

"It is very important that the vacuum inside the envelope be as perfect, or "hard", as possible. Any gas atoms remaining might be ionized at operating voltages, and will conduct electricity between the elements in an uncontrolled manner. This can lead to erratic operation or even catastrophic destruction of the tube and associated circuitry. Unabsorbed free air sometimes ionizes and becomes visible as a pink-purple glow discharge between the tube elements."

It is true that deForest thought his first triodes should have air to ionize, but he was wrong about this, as he was wrong about so much in electronics - the perfect example of knowing just enough to be dangerous.

Electrons, being classic particles (also known as beta radiation), like all particles, travel through vacuum without problems. They do not have to be "conducted" through a plasma or any other conductor; they are essentially "radiated" in a way analogous to photons. They can have a velocity determined by their energy content, just as rocks would. They carry charge, and therefore their passage from one point to another is a classic example of electric current, directed by voltage potential. Pure ohm's law, with or without a conductor. A vacuum might be thought to be a pretty high impedance "conductor", but it is not; the problem is creating the free electrons to travel in the first place. Vacuum tubes do that by heating the cathode, forcing the electrons into the vacuum by main thermal force, locally weakly ionizing he cathode material.

The same is true in space. If there are electrons (or any other charged particles, such as ions (plasma) available, and a voltage potential, there will be a current.