Death Star Galaxy

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Careful, David, lest I post a *recent tour of David_Dancing*, starting with your belief that the jets from black holes aren't plasma but neutral gas.

You would have a hard time doing that so go ahead, you are the one who uses absolute language. I don't believe that you can demonstrate that i made that statement.

All I'd have to do is point them to your comments to Ziggurat after he declared that jets are not plasma and let them *deduce* your belief. I know it's not science but in this case I think it would work.

But in any case let's see what your belief is now. Are the jets plasma? And is Ziggurat correct in stating that "extra-solar matter is not plasma?"

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wouldn't want to be there.

Not to worry, it happened about a million years ago, and it would take you a while to get there.

Yeah, no inflight meal, damned airlines are cutting costs again.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

But I thought the Big Bang supporting mainstream had it all figured out.

I have yet to see evidence that scientists researching cosmology along the "big bang" model have ever claimed to have it all figured it out. Is this a strawman, or do you have some clear indication that this bold assertion is being made?

As to the "Big Bang supporting mainstream" you mention: is that pundits, scientists, bloggers, or what?

"There are still basic unanswered questions about how these jets work." "We don't know how exactly they're generated close to the black hole, what they're made of, how fast they're going, or how they evolve with time."

You thought wrongly, it seems, as the passage you quoted shows a clear admission of many things "not all figured out." Why post a reference that refutes your remark? Puzzling.

But it is a cool picture David.

Oh yes, we completely agree.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Some people would disagree that 'plasmas comprise galaxies'.

Which people, David? Give us some citations. Don't let me be the only one doing that.

First, don't stars comprise much of the matter we actually see in galaxies? And they are plasma. Right? And what were those stars before they formed? Vast diffuse clouds of plasma? And we know that between stars in galaxies there still are vast clouds of plasma. I've provided links to such discover in previous threads. So wouldn't plasma and all the characteristics and behaviors we know about plasma be what you should model if you are studying the formation and behavior of galaxies?

Here's a recent mainstream conference announcement to that effect: http://www.oa.uj.edu.pl/konferencje/2004mpige/index.html "The Magnetized Plasma In Galaxy Evolution ... snip ... Most of the observable baryons in the universe are in the plasma state and studying interstellar plasmas in galaxies is not only important for the understanding of galaxy evolution, but also provides an unique laboratory of great value for plasma physics in general." Too bad most of the papers at the conference didn't actually do that. Instead they focused on gnomes.

And what lies outside galaxies? Maybe these mainstream sources will give you a clue, David.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/10251 "Scientists discover vast intergalactic plasma cloud ... snip ... researchers led by Los Alamos scientist Philipp Kronberg have discovered a new giant in the heavens, a giant in the form of a previously undetected cloud of intergalactic plasma that stretches more than 6 million light years across."

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960419.html "This ROSAT image of the Virgo cluster of galaxies reveals a hot X-ray emitting plasma or gas with a temperature of 10-100 million degrees pervading the cluster. ... snip ... snip ... The large area of X-ray emission, just below and left of center, is about 1 million light-years across. ... snip ... By adding up the amount of X-ray emitting gas astronomers have found that its total mass is up to 5 times the total mass of the cluster galaxies themselves"

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301178 "Hot plasma in clusters of galaxies, the largest objects in the universe ... snip ... The dominant observed form of matter in clusters is hot, diffuse intergalactic gas. This intracluster plasma ... "

So how can mainstream astrophysicists pretend to accurately model the evolution and behavior of the universe if they don't model physics that are fundamental to plasmas?

Such strong and bold statements.

Speaking of strong and bold statements ... how about the certainty with which the mainstream proclaims the existence of black holes in millions (no, billions!) of objects, dark matter (5 times more than baryonic matter), dark energy (more than 3 times more than dark matter), inflation, open magnetic field lines, magnetic reconnection, redshift equates to distance, etc? Espeically when they haven't actually seen a black hole, can't tell you what dark matter and dark energy actually is, are unable to demonstrate the magnetic physics they claim in laboratory experiments, and are faced with observations that seem to prove the redshift/distance relationship is wrong for some very important objects. ROTFLOL!

Quote:
We know that electromagnetism can take plasma filaments and wind them into the shape of galaxies and during that process produce jets of synchrotron radiation that have the characteristics, duration and energy levels of the jets seen coming from galaxies. This was demonstrated decades ago in simulations published in peer reviewed papers in mainstream astrophysics journals by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs that I have linked repeatedly on this forum.

And still unreplicated.

You can't point to a single source indicating anyone in the mainstream even attempted to replicate the results of Peratt. Not One. They didn't try because they already had their minds made up about dark matter and the dominance of gravity. So they simply ignored Peratt's work. And that's the whole problem. They are using the deductive method and calling it science. They are stacking gnomes on top of gnomes. They aren't listening to anyone who challenges them. And that's a path destined to embarrass a lot of *scientists* eventually. And waste a lot of resources in the meantime.

1. demonstrate that galaxies are mainly plasma.

I think I already did. But do you need a few more mainstream sources?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499556 "Massive Coronae of Galaxies ... snip ... There is reason to suspect that about half of the baryons in the universe are in pressure?supported plasma in the halos of normal galaxies"

http://www.resonancepub.com/nasa_news.htm - "99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

2. demonstrate that stars have a sufficient gharge for them to be effectd by the allged magnetic field.
3. demonstrate that the galactic magnetic field is of sufficient strenth to move ths stars.

These two questions only prove you haven't even made an attempt to understand the Electric Universe theories. And I'm not sure I want to beat my head against a brick wall trying over and over to explain it to you.

Some sites would say that intragalaic magnetic field is in milli-guass, where can you demonstrate the larger field needed.

How do you know a larger field is needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies? Perhaps you just don't understand the physics or the model? Might I suggest you start here:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

But I'm not holding my breath any longer that you will, David.

 

[BeAChooser]

Where he goes wrong is in assuming that this is relevant on a large scale. Since the overall charge of a plasma is (usually) neutral, the electric and magnetic fields fall off very quickly, and on any kind of astronomical scale, only gravity is relevant.

Plasmas are QUASI-neutral and we already know that electric current in plasmas has built astronomical-sized structures. We can see evidence of interacting Birkeland currents that are many lightyears in length. The truth is that you don't seem to understand homopolar motors or Birkeland currents. You don't seem to understand double layers and z-pinch phenomena. So you like all the rest of the mainstream proponents simply ignore them. But when models built using such physics that we know for a fact exist offer an explanation to observations that are still puzzling mainstream, gravity-only astrophysicists after more than 30 years and billions of dollars in research, even with a dozen magical gnomes to help them explain those observations, you'd be wise to take another, closer look at the models of Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Juergens, Thornhill, etc.

 

[BeAChooser]

you can't show me that mainstream science says that 99% of the universe is plasma.

What did I say about making a fool of yourself? Don't be an obstinate fool too.

 

[BeAChooser]

Alright then, what does the electric sun model predict the charge of the sun should be? What's the minimum charge needed to produce the supposed effects this model is supposed to explain?

To answer that, wouldn't we also have to know how strong the electric currents are in the region in which the sun lies? Afterall, the theory posits a charge (voltage) difference between the two. Maybe this will help you understand the model:

http://users.chariot.net.au/~jafo/snvell

Now Ralph Juergens was the engineer who introduced (in 1972) the notion that "the Sun is not an electrically isolated body in space, but the most positively charged object in the solar system, the center of a radial electric field. This field, he said, lies within a larger galactic field." He proposed "the Sun is the focus of a 'coronal glow discharge' fed by galactic currents." Here are some of Juergens' (now deceased) articles on this topic: http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm plus several articles compiled by Earl Milton after his death. They are quite interesting and the last two that are listed are particularly pertinent to your question.

In these two sources, Juergens (Milton) says the following:

"The fundamental premise of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that a stream of electrons converging upon the Sun from all directions (or possibly, even probably, primarily in the plane of the planets) delivers the energy radiated by the Sun. In electrical-discharge terminology, if the Sun is an anode, the electric field driving the system is primarily confined to the region known as the cathode drop; and the energy gained by the electrons traversing this drop is that which must be cast off by the Sun in the form of radiation. ... snip ... The solar constant, defined as the total radiant energy at all wavelengths reaching an area of one square centimeter at the Earth's distance from the Sun, is about 0.137 watts per square centimeter (see R.C.Wilson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83,4003-4007 1978). It works out, then, that the Sun must be emitting about 6.5x10^7 watts per square meter of solar "surface", and the total power output of the Sun is a (very nearly) constant 4x10^26 watts. The hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of 4x10^26 watts. Certain evidence - e.g., that of the cosmic rays, cited in Penseé(9) - leads me to suppose that the Sun's cathode drop may be of the order of 10^^10 volts, but this value is somewhat conjectural at this point. Let us claim, nevertheless, that this is the cathode drop. From this and the power requirement, we can calculate the total electron current required to fuel the Sun. ... snip ... The electron current required, then, is the total power input divided by the cathode drop, or about 4 x 10^^16 amperes. ... snip ... Let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron would be about 10^^5 m/s, corresponding to a kinetic temperature of a few hundred Kelvin. From current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas, we might conclude that there should be as many as 50,000 free electrons per cubic m.(S.A. Kaplan, Interstellar Gas Dynamics - Pergamon 1966). The random electric current of these electrons then would be Ir = NeC/4 where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and C is the average velocity of the electrons. Using the given values, we find that the random electric current density should be about 2x10^^-10 amperes per square meter through a surface oriented in any manner. The total electron current that can be drawn by the discharge is the product of the random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. There is little to indicate how large this sphere might be, but in view of the enormity of the cathode drop it seems likely that the radius of the sphere would be large in terms of solar system dimensions. The mean distance of Pluto's orbit is 39.5 AU, or about 6x10^^12 meters. We might guess that the cathode drop would reach to at least 10^^13 meters from the Sun, so that its spherical boundary would have a collecting surface area of somewhat more than 10^^27 square meters. Such a surface could collect a current of interstellar electrons amounting to practically 10^^18 amperes - twenty five times greater than the total current that seems proper. And of course a larger sphere could collect an even greater current." So there are enough electrons out there to power the Electric Sun." And the sun does not have to have a very strong positive charge to attract these electrons.

By the way, I find it interesting that you expect electric theorists to have worked out all the details when their budget has been miniscule compared to that of the mainstream theorists ... who still haven't worked out all the details ... who don't even have some of the larger questions nailed down ... and who have to invent unobservable, untestable, undefined gnomes to make their theory fit the observations.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I already did.

I beg to differ. You may wish to reread my earlier post.

And I beg to differ. You may wish to reread my earlier posts.

but plasmas do not explain the wide range of observations that the standard cosmological model does.

Such as?

Quote:
The Enzo code does NOT model electric currents, magnetic fields from electric currents, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. It models gravity and the fluid flow of neutral gas. This is proven by simply looking at the descriptions I already posted of the code on this thread.

Tiresome. I never claimed it did.

Well pardon me for misunderstanding you when you wrote "justify why the included physics is wrong (not incomplete - it necessarily has to take shortcuts and reduce the number of particles in the simulation and so on, but actually wrong)". Reducing the number of particles in the simulation might a clue that you were thinking the key parameter in the model was gravity and fluid flow. And for your information, I'd already noted the reasons I again noted why the code is WRONG in numerous previous posts in this thread (see post #9).

I was specifically directing you to go build models that perform better than it that are based on no dark matter and electromagnetic effects alone. I've never seen such a model.

Then all I can conclude is that you haven't looked. Read up on Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Juergens and Thornhill.

You continue with your pointless 'gnome' insults.

To bad their point is lost on you. But at least I tried.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not to worry, it happened about a million years ago

Actually, the distance to NGC 3C321 is (if you believe Big Bang's redshift/distance relationship) 1.4 BILLION light years away. So what we are seeing occurred long ago. The million years comes from the statement that the jet collided with the other galaxy about a million years previous to what we are seeing ... in other words, 1.401 billion years ago. If you believe the Redshift/distance relationship.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have yet to see evidence that scientists researching cosmology along the "big bang" model have ever claimed to have it all figured it out. Is this a strawman, or do you have some clear indication that this bold assertion is being made?

Did you miss the article in Time magazine proclaiming Big Bang fact? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973723-1,00.html : "Yet by the end of the 1960s, virtually all astrophysicists were convinced that the cosmos was born in a single massive explosion, and doubters were left out on the fringe." By the way, the articles dismissal of the "fringe" on the basis of the 3 reasons it gives is outright false in its portrayal of the real situation. I wonder where they got their ideas about that.

As to the "Big Bang supporting mainstream" you mention: is that pundits, scientists, bloggers, or what?

If you want to see what I mean about the Big Bang supporting mainstream's certainty concerning the existence of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, magnetic reconnection, solar fusion, solar heat powered comets, etc ... just visit NASA's web sites for public consumption.

Here's a good one to start with: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Let's see what they say the Universe is made of: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html

They mention protons, neutrons and electrons. They mention hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc. They mention "baryonic matter". They mention gas five times. But do they mention "plasma" even once? NO.

Instead, right off the bat they are talking about dark matter and implying that the rotation curve of our galaxy proves it's existence. They never mention the work of Peratt showing another cause for that rotation curve. They never admit that scientists have been looking for dark matter for over 30 years and are really no closer today to finding it than they ever were.

You read that web page DR, and you will walk away convinced that dark matter exists and never even suspect that 99% of the universe is made of something that can carry electric current and be affected by magnetic fields ... something that scientists in peer reviewed journals have shown if properly modeled eliminates the need for dark matter to explain galactic rotation curves.

Let me quote one section:

Of this total density, we now know the breakdown to be: 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy. Thus 96% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory.

Not a bit doubt on their part is in evidence. See what I mean?

Quote:
"There are still basic unanswered questions about how these jets work." "We don't know how exactly they're generated close to the black hole, what they're made of, how fast they're going, or how they evolve with time."

You thought wrongly, it seems, as the passage you quoted shows a clear admission of many things "not all figured out." Why post a reference that refutes your remark?

Because I thought you wouldn't get lost in the details and understand that I was talking about the bigger picture ... the existence of the gnomes (black holes, frozen in magnetic fields, reconnection, etc) producing the jets. The details of how those things do it isn't worked out but there is no doubt in the mind of the mainstream that those things exist and are the cause.

 

[edd]

Such as?

A good explanation (quantitive) of the CMB and its anisotropies might be a good start. I'm thinking explanations of the acoustic peak and other features, together with calculations of the angular power spectrum showing best fits of a plasma cosmology versus conventional.

 

[edd]

They mention protons, neutrons and electrons. They mention hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc. They mention "baryonic matter". They mention gas five times. But do they mention "plasma" even once? NO.

Plasma is baryonic matter, so you're quite wrong there.

 

[BeAChooser]

A good explanation (quantitive) of the CMB and its anisotropies might be a good start.

You want to talk about the CMB? Sure.

I suggest you start off by reviewing what I just wrote in post #35 of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101755&page=1

I noted all sorts of problems with Big Bang where the CMB and its anisotropies are concerned. And I showed how the plasma cosmologists not only predicted the CMB temperature and form, but unlike Big Bang theorists they also seem able to explain the CMB and its anisotropies without resorting to all sorts of gnomes. Have any comment?

 

[BeAChooser]

Plasma is baryonic matter, so you're quite wrong there.

Plasma is baryonic matter but baryonic matter is not necessarily plasma. That's a subtle but very important distinction that affects the type of physics that mainstream astrophysicists are using to incorrectly model the universe.

 

[Schneibster]

Plasma cosmology was no longer interesting after COBE and WMAP. It has no quantitative predictions of observed phenomena, specifically the anisotropies of the CMBR and the X-ray sky. You've attempted to shift the goalposts, BeALoser; you were not asked what the current theories predict, you were asked what YOUR theories predict and declined to answer because they DON'T PREDICT ANYTHING.

 

[BeAChooser]

Plasma cosmology was no longer interesting after COBE and WMAP.

Yes, you said that on that other thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101755 ). And I totally destroyed your claims in post #35 of that thread. I observe that you didn't even attempt a response.

It has no quantitative predictions of observed phenomena, specifically the anisotropies of the CMBR and the X-ray sky.

And I showed that Big Bang made predictions that mostly turned out wrong. At least plasma cosmologists can explain all the observations in retrospect without inventing a dozen non-falsifiable deduced gnomes. And even with those gnomes, WMAP observations are causing Big Bang theorists fits.

You've attempted to shift the goalposts, BeALoser; you were not asked what the current theories predict, you were asked what YOUR theories predict and declined to answer because they DON'T PREDICT ANYTHING.

Actually, your post on that thread didn't even mention the word "predict".

And I usually find that when someone starts playing games with my screen name, it's because they are badly losing a debate AND THEY KNOW IT. And if you think the electric universe theorists can't predict anything, let's talk comets and compare how well your mainstream scientists are doing compared to them. ROTFLOL!

 

[Schneibster]

Do people ignore you a lot? You can tell us.

 

[Dancing David]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Reference number 6 in particular.

Thanks Cuddles, i had already read it. However asking BAC to post his sources is very informative.

 

[Dancing David]

All I'd have to do is point them to your comments to Ziggurat after he declared that jets are not plasma and let them *deduce* your belief. I know it's not science but in this case I think it would work.

But in any case let's see what your belief is now. Are the jets plasma? And is Ziggurat correct in stating that "extra-solar matter is not plasma?"

Uh huh, typical republican spinning and bullcrap. You keep channeling Karl Rove. Wonderful. Who is next Coulter, will you say that BBE thoerists should be killed to protect freedom and claim it is a joke?

You deduce that there is a conspiracy as well. Whatever.

The real question is not are the jets plasma but about all the claims you make about extra terrestial plasma. Most of which is based upon a rather limited set of research.

You still have yet to demonstrate that there are intragalactic currents and magnetic fields sufficient to meet your claims. I have always said that the plasma stuff is cool. But whatever...

Now we can add Ziggurat's question to the growing list of questions you won't answer while you spin about wildly.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do people ignore you a lot? You can tell us.

Well you certainly aren't. I seem to have struck a sensitive issue. Is your livelihood at stake if Big Bang get's canceled?