Thunderbolts of the Gods

[Cuddles]

I asked for the scientific reasons, not calculations

 

[Zeuzzz]

#2

Anyone can prove anything with maths, my point is that he is using numbers that the accuracy of can be argued, and so nothing substanciative can be drawn from the result of those calculations. If he on the other hand had quoted a scienfific principle that refutes the ideas that charge can separate in space for example, then yes that would be fine. But there is no such law.

For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.

Scientists have proven mathematically before that a satelite can not return to the earth as the fuel would weigh too much. Their maths was abosolutely fine, it was, however, based on a faulty premise. How wrong they were.

 

[~enigma~]

#2

Anyone can prove anything with maths, my point is that he is using numbers that the accuracy of can be argued, and so nothing substanciative can be drawn from the result of those calculations. If he on the other hand had quoted a scienfific principle that refutes the ideas that charge can separate in space for example, then yes that would be fine. But there is no such law.

For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.

Scientists have proven mathematically before that a satelite can not return to the earth as the fuel would weigh too much. Their maths was abosolutely fine, it was, however, based on a faulty premise. How wrong they were.

Great example of something "proved" with math...

 

[sol invictus]

Anyone can prove anything with maths
...
For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm quite sure that there is nothing wrong with godels theorems. Maybe i should have included the last part, which i thought was obviously inferred by the first section, but you appear to have missed;

For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

Please just outline your scientific reasons to dismiss it, its been four posts now.

Maybe I should outline what exactly some aspects of EU are.

The universe is electrically active, ie, charge separation and the properties of plasma are not small secondary effects, they are the predominant forces in the universe, and their effects far outweigh the effects of gravity. Stars are connected and held in place by the EM forces between them created from the flow of particles between them, likewise are galaxies, planets and other cosmic systems.

We now know that planets have millions of amperes of electricity entering their poles from the sun, it is highly likely that so does the sun from the surrounding galaxy.

Since plasma is highly scaleable if you scale the solar system model up many orders of size, you would have a similar process with the galaxy. In which there is a flow of current travelling through the centre, where most of the reactions are seen to be taking place. The general shape of a rotating disk carrying electrical currents in the shape shown by Alfven defines what is called the homopolar motor - generator (or often called a unipolar inductor). This is also one of the reasons why filaments twist into Birkeland currents. This explains why all bodies rotate, something lacking from conventional theories past angular momentum. This model explains excellently the observations of galaxies all lined up, as if attached by a long string. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060123_andromeda_plane.html

Strange Setup: Andromeda's Satellite Galaxies All Lined Up

An unusually high number of galaxies are aligned along a single plane running through the center of the giant Andromeda galaxy. Scientists don't have a theory to explain why.

Galactic cannibalism [ ????? ] or dark matter may be responsible, researchers say. [ ]

Using the Hubble Space Telescope, Eva Grebel and Andrew Koch from the University of Basel in Switzerland found that nine out of Andromeda's fourteen dwarf galaxy satellites reside in a single plane. The plane is about 52,000 light-years wide and is aligned perpendicular to Andromeda's own galactic plane, within which the galaxy's stars orbit about the center.

That nearly 80 percent of Andromeda's satellite galaxy mass is located within a single plane is highly unusual and can't be accounted for by traditional theories of galaxy formation, Grebel said.

Distant galaxies line-up in space - BBC

So these structures seem to fit the morphology expected from the ES model quite well, in fact these type of structures (along the plane of the centre of the galaxy) would be a direct consequence of the current expected from a unipolar motor mechanism. All sorts of objects in space take this shape, the neutron star at the centre of the crab nebula is a fine example where you can see the current through the centre, with the rotating cloud of plasma around it;




So the process that is happening in the sun is a far smaller with far less input into it than that one. In our solar system the currents are very diffuse and only become visible when they are right next to the sun, in the corona. This is where the current density starts to increase as you travel towards the sun, travelling through its E-field, until it become energetic enough to produce visible light which is what produces the corona. The plasma frequency of the solar wind can be determined by the permittivity of free space, the electric field and the charge on the electron. The relationship shows that as the E-field increases as you move towards the sun, so does the current density of the attracted particles. The plasma frequency. Using this relationship it is obvious that as the particles travel towrds the sun, the current density increases as the strength of the E-field increases. When the plasma in the solar wind has sufficient current density near the sun, it moves into its third main mode of operation, into arc mode, which is where it becomes visible in the corona. The fact that there are many free 'conduction electrons' in the solar wind (thats why its called a plasma) many electrons will 'drift' towards the sun due to attractive forces.

The rotation on the sun and other bodies is caused by a unipolar inductor mechanism, which uses direct current input to create rotational motion;

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Unipolar_inductor

A Unipolar inductor usually refers to a device in which a rotating metal disk rotating in a magnetic field, generates an electric current. The metal disk can be any conductor, including a rotating plasma. It is also known as a homopolar generator, unipolar generator, acyclic generator, disk dynamo, or Faraday disk. Unipolar inductors have been associated with the aurorae on Uranus,[4] binary stars,[5] [6] black holes,[7] [8] pulsars (neutron stars),[2] galaxies,[9] the Jupiter Io system,[10] [11] the Moon,[12] [13] the Solar Wind,[14] sunspots,[15] [16] in the Venusian magnetic tail.[17], the Earth,[18], and comets.[19] [20]

The fact that the corona has a different appearance near the poles indicates that there is something different occurring at the poles than the rest of the sun, and the recent discoveries of the polar holes, polar jets, radiation emission and bright spots on the poles indicate that something more energetic is happening at the poles than previously believed.

Radio waves, ultra violet radiation and polar jets are all known to emanate from the suns poles. There have been many recent discoveries by SOHO and other spacecraft that were not expected or predicted, but seem to be consistent with the ES model, mainly the polar jets.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/307721 - The Astrophysical Journal, 523:444–449, 1999 September 20

We analyze polar jets observed by the Large‐Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) instrument aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Although ballistic trajectories have some success in fitting the observed kinematic motions, there is substantial evidence that gravity alone is not regulating the movement of the jets.

Gravity alone is not regulating the movement, because the suns e-field that is generated from the charge of the sun; that is what is causing the acceleration.

If you look at pics of the corona, it certainly has a different texture at the polar regions, and numerous thin filaments seem to occur at the poles;


And a lot of very recent observations seem to be confirming these ideas. Mainly the huge birkeland currents detected connecting the sun to the earth in late 2007;

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/massive-magneti.html

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun. We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

So it follows that since the sun also has poles just like every other planet and star, it too should have these currents incident on its poles. Polar holes are another recently found good indication of different than normal activity occuring at the poles.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/305756

The Solar Corona Above Polar Coronal Holes as Seen by SUMER on SOHO

In order to address two of the principal scientific objectives of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), studies of the heating mechanisms of the solar corona and the acceleration processes of the solar wind, we deduce electron temperatures, densities, and ion velocities in plumes and interplume regions of polar coronal holes using ultraviolet observations from SUMER (Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation) on SOHO.

And another;

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Hinode_New_Insights_On_The_Origin_Of_Solar_Wind_999.html

This image clearly shows an x-ray jet launching plasma out into the solar system from the Sun's north polar coronal hole. This image was taken 10 January 2007 by Hinode's X-ray telescope.

While we're on the topic of energetic polar events on the sun, the very recent observation by Japans Hinode spacecraft might make a good addition;

Hinode EUV Study of Jets in the Sun’s South Polar Corona

A number of coronal bright points and associated plasma jet features were seen in an observation of the South polar coronal hole during 2007 January. The 4000 wide slot was used at the focus of the Hinode EUV Imaging Spectrometer to provide spectral images for two of these events.

And some other observations by SOHO seem to add further evidence that the sun is far more electrically dynamic than a slow convecting ball of gas. Maybe soho has the answers.
They seem to have found large electric charge movement near the suns surface;

Jet Stream Runs Swiftly Inside the Sun

(SOHO) spacecraft have discovered "jet streams" or "rivers" of hot, electrically charged gas called plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun.

The ‘electrically charged plasma’ found near the suns surface seem to be travelling far to fast for conventional theories. Further evidence of particle acceleration caused by charge separation and the subsequent electrical fields. One of the most outstanding problems in solar physics is the acceleration and heating of the corona. In the electric model you don’t have this problem, as the suns E-field creates the acceleration, and the particles being received remotely by the sun cause the heating in the corona above the surface.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyone can prove anything with maths,

[Homer]Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true![/Homer]

I cant see how you can work out what the maximum charge the sun can have is. Where did you get that from? and what value did you use?

If you can't see where I got it from, then you didn't follow all the links. But here it is (again):
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti.../articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
The value I used for our sun was 100 Coulombs. And that limit is basically derived from the maximum charge that can be gravitationally confined, because there is no other confinement mechanism.

If you believe that magnetic field lines can be open, and 'reconnect' then you most certainly are challenging Maxwell's equations.

My calculations have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not field lines are open or reconnect, I never said anything about that. Which makes this a strawman. All that is required is that there be a magnetic field for the star to move through, which is the entire point of the model for magnetic effects on galactic rotation.

Lets me get this straight, you are using peratts work on galaxy formation, and saying that the solar system has to mimic this exactly?

No. I'm using his model for galactic rotation curves and demonstrating it cannot explain the galactic rotation of a star. If the model can't explain the orbit of a star about the galactic center, then it cannot be used as evidence that dark matter isn't necessary to explain galactic rotation. It's quite simple, really.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The electrons have been observed to be travelling towards the sun, but not much data is know yet as they were only discovered a month ago by the CE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements. Currently there is no real explanation for why only the negative electrons seem to backscatter towards the sun when there is an energetic solar event, but this is easily explained in the ES model with the acceleration resulting from the suns high voltage.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH44C..02S

Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts - American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007. Publication Date: 12/2007.
Quote:

Solar electron bursts are frequently observed in the ACE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements at energies below 1.4 keV. A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction. Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location. Some bursts also show backstreaming conic distributions, implying mirroring at magnetic field enhancements beyond the spacecraft. Here we present a study of these backstreaming particles during solar electron events.

These interstellar electric currents have even been observed and confirmed by various telescopes and published in various peer reviewed papers;

Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 867-873.

Filamentary structures in molecular clouds and the existence of subfilaments of sinusoidal shape and also of helixlike structures are investigated. For two dark clouds, the Lynds 204 complex and the Sandqvist 187-188 complex, such shapes and the possible existence of helices wound around the main filaments are studied. All these features suggest the existence of electric currents and magnetic fields in these clouds. On the basis of a generalization of the Bennett pinch model, the magnitudes of the currents expected to flow in the filaments are derived. Values of column densities, magnetic field strengths, and direction of the fields are derived from observations. Magnetic fields with both toroidal and axial components are considered. The study shows that axial currents of the order of a few times 10 to the 13th power A are necessary for the clouds to be in equilibrium. The mean electron velocities are of the order of 0.01 to 0.00001 m/s, much lower than the thermal velocities in the clouds. It is suggested that helical structures may evolve as a result of various instabilities in the pinched clouds.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you can't see where I got it from, then you didn't follow all the links. But here it is (again):
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti.../articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
The value I used for our sun was 100 Coulombs. And that limit is basically derived from the maximum charge that can be gravitationally confined, because there is no other confinement mechanism.

I've seen that paper before when I myself linked to it on my other thread on this matter, and i think that it is an underestimate. I still like it however as it shows that the sun is able to retain a net charge, and eminate an electrical field.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2001/24/aah2649.pdf

It is possible that the claim about the electrical neutrality of stars originates in a misunderstanding of net charge on a star. For example in the textbook by Glendenning (1997; p. 71), there is subsection entitled \Electrical Neutrality of Stars", in which the upper limit on the net charge is derived. The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10^-36 qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star. Hence, the author concludes that \the net charge per nucleon (and therefore the average charge per nucleon on any star) must be very small, essentially zero". Of course, we must agree that the charge per nucleon is negligible, even the charge of a small macroscopic volume of plasma is usually negligible. In this sense, we can speak about the neutrality. However, it is necessary to realize that the number A is very large (e.g. A = 10⁵⁷one-solar-mass star) resulting in a signicant global charge of the star as a whole. If a reader is not attentive enough, he or she can easily accept the wrong concept of global neutrality of a star evoked by the title.

This i what i feel the common misconception is with the term 'neutral' in the context it is used so often.

Since this paper was the very first proposing what the charge could be, i'd say that it is not likely correct, and the value will be higher than that when more work is done on observational evidence that confirms what the total charge is.

The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works [...]

Obviously real stars do not have physical properties completely identical to ideal stars and this causes the instantaneous global charge of a given star to differ from the value Q of an ideal star. Nevertheless, the star permanently tends to set up this charging and wecan assume it as a rough approximation

So they are suggesting that gravity itself is what charges the star by displacing the electrons and protons, which is basically creating a radial ring of small electric dipoles around the sun. This separation caused by gravity is what retains the net positive charge on the sun.

 

[ben m]

So now we've got THREE people posting the exact same database of "arguments" for a plasma universe:

(A) the "OMG PLAZMA!!!!111!!" gambit
1) There is plasma in the solar system
2) There is plasma in the Universe
3) You can run simulations in which plasma does various things
4) ???
5) Therefore (!?) MHD is the dominant force in the real Universe.

To everyone posting pictures of the Sun and Earth: nobody has disagreed with points (1) and (2). We know there are plasmas, winds, etc., in the solar system. Some of the magnetometers and Faraday cups that are probing them were built by friends of mine. These pictures have no bearing on points (4) and (5). Please stop posting pictures of the Sun and Earth as though they support your argument. It's like arguing for Intelligent Design by posting 300 different posts saying "Yes, flagella rotate---stop denying it! Rotation is important! Look, another flagellum picture!".

If MHD is supposed to be the dominant force, this has to relate to actual forces, with actual magnitudes, due to actual force laws. MHD isn't some sort of Magick Faerie Dust which sweeps up plasma and makes it dance; it's just set of couplings between charges, currents, and pressures. The only way MHD can move a star is by, as we've said a zillion times, exerting a Coulomb or Lorentz-type force acting on the Sun's charge or its surface fields; the only way the Sun can respond is via F = ma.

(B) The "DARK MATTER! OH NOES! DO NOT WANT" attack
(1) Say, "If dark matter is so dark, how do we know it's there"?
(2) Google for "dark matter +"scientists baffled"" and cut and paste results
(3) ???
(4) Therefore, dark matter is an old-paradigm relic blah blah Kuhn blah blah.

We don't know dark matter is there. It's a hypothesis. Supporting the hypothesis are the observations that:
a) galaxies have flat, fast rotation curves
b) galaxy clusters have large virial velocities and very hot intracluster gas
c) galaxies and galaxy clusters lens distant light very strongly
d) galaxies, clusters, the Lyman-Alpha forest, the BAO, etc., are a product of self-gravitating collapse of the primordial density fluctuations seen in the CMB
e) The density fluctuations seen in the CMB are an acoustically-processed version of a truly scale-invariant Big Bang density fluctuation spectrum
f) Colliding galaxy clusters, like the Bullet Cluster, have a weak-lensing potential well overlying their pre-collision cluster centers, not overlying the post-collision gas mass.

It only takes one free parameter to explain all of these things. That's the dark matter hypothesis: "There's something out there which is decoupled from photons". The one free parameter is the DM density. Lensing data fits the hypothesis if, and only if, the DM density is 0.23. Rotation curves fit the hypothesis if and only if the DM density is 0.23. The BAO scale fits the hypothesis if and only if the density is 0.23. And so on. Get the picture? Our hypothesis actually fits the data. That's, y'know, why we keep following up. The classic sign of a bad paradigm is that different techniques disagree---in the gravitational measurement of dark matter, everything agrees.

It remains just a hypothesis, but it's a very good one. You know what we do with good hypotheses? We try to test them. Welcome to the world of dark matter experiments. The goal of dark matter experiments is to find out whether or not the dark matter is capable of interacting with normal matter at all. The LHC (among its many capabilities) tests one domain of this, DEAP and CDMS and XENON and so on test another domain, GLAST and VERITAS (among many capabilities) test a third domain. (SNO and Soudan have nothing to do with it: thank you for demonstrating your lack of knowledge so clearly by saying that they do.)

Are there any areas where the hypothesis does not fit the data? Well, sort of. In the domain of small galaxies, we have no idea what the hypothesis tells us. "The dark matter gravitationally collapsed from primordial scale invariant blah blah..." does not immediately make a prediction for, e.g., the inner density profile of the Milky Way, nor for the abundance of dwarf galaxies. It's not that the hypothesis disagrees with the data, it's that the hypothesis doesn't make strong predictions on some of these points.

With that out of the way, let's dismiss the "OH NOES" argument simply: Attacking theory A is not support for theory B. Attacking evolution does not prove creation. Attacking quantum mechanics does not prove Leprechaun Theory. Attacking relativity does not prove any of its fourscore crackpot competitors. Attacking string theory does not prove LQG or whatever. That's a general point in the theory of knowledge, OK? Let's focus on a more specific point: Dark matter is a hypothesis. Saying "You have no proof" over and over does not make it any less of a hypothesis, nor any less worth following up on. Give it a break. There's a huge amount of consensus in the field that this hypothesis is worth spending our experimental money on; that consensus comes from thousands of people who have looked at the data, not from three kids with a Web page and a conspiracy theory.

The "I CAN HAS PEER REVIEWED PAPER LA LA LA" defense
(1) Plasma cosmology has peer-reviewed papers about it
(2) ???
(3) There is no need for me to understand the contents of these papers, citing them proves all my points.

Dude. Go to a physics colloquium some time. Pick a controversial one, where someone is presenting a slightly-off-center theory. Watch what happens when the speaker is challenged:

This does NOT happen:
Q) "Bob, I understand that MOND fits rotation curves, but there are similarly slow accelerations in disk oscillations; why do those look so Newtonian? Doesn't that disprove your theory?"
A) "That's a great question, Professor Zwicky. In fact, you could say that the answer to that question would allow the theory to be conclusively disproven. The answer is presumably in my peer reviewed paper, but I'm not doing your work for you."
Q) "Oh, OK."

This happens---well, assuming that the speaker isn't full of baloney.
Q) "Bob, I understand that MOND fits rotation curves, but there are similarly slow accelerations in disk oscillations; why do those look so Newtonian?"
A) "That's a great question, Professor Zwicky. We looked into that, and the data actually disagree with the old version of the MOND, that's why we're presenting the non-Lorentz-invariant version. For this version, the fit is actually really good."
Q) "I still find it hard to believe; do you have a slide of that?"
A) "It's in the paper; let me pull up a PDF and show you."

Your smug refusal to estimate the forces on a star does not suggest that we're going to give you, and the IEEE peer review system, the benefit of the doubt. Your refusal to estimate the forces tells us that you're full of it. You don't know the forces; if you did know the forces, you would know that they disprove your theory. I looked for a force estimate in Peratt's papers---Peratt didn't estimate them, he explicitly assumed they were large. If you know that the forces are large, it's time to stand up and tell us how you know. Show your work, with units. Get on it.

And, unfortunately, unlike the one-parameter "dark matter gnome", you're inventing a new parameter for every observation we've suggested. You've invented a dozen new bits of physics to put inside the Sun to explain how an invisible polar current could power it without anyone noticing---and, hey, when SNO told you that the solar neutrino rate matches the standard fusion model, you had to invent a new set of parameters to patch up the neutrino data. You've invented magnetic fields and currents to thread through the galaxy---not because we've seen them at the required strengths, but because you want them to have exactly those strengths (tuned per galactic variations, vector directions still unspecified, etc.) because otherwise your rotation curve hypothesis fails. You've slapped a mysterious just-so charge-to-mass ratio onto everything from red supergiant stars to binary pulsars---and, indeed, you have to invent new and different physics for each star type. You've tuned up some sort of weird non-cosmological redshift, tuned it to match some weird non-cosmological dimming, and shoehorned the whole thing into an alternative quasar hypothesis. And so on. If you want to object, please provide a list of the a-priori free parameters in "Plasma Cosmology" and a list of the data used to fit them. Then tell us the chi^2 probability of the global fit. (You have done a global fit, right? No? Don't tell me you don't know what a free parameter is? )

To sum up

Your supposed "defense" of plasma cosmology rests on:
(a) pointing out the existence of solar-system and cosmic plasmas, while utterly failing to argue that they in fact exert large forces on anything.
(b) attacking the dark matter hypothesis by asserting that it sounds stupid
(c) treating MHD as a Magick Super Kung-Fu Force that magically makes everything, whether charged or neutral, dense or diffuse, light or heavy, obey every detail of a mid-1980s computer simulation of a strongly-coupled plasma---and pretending that this is somehow obvious because the computer simulation was peer-reviewed.

In other words, you have been completely incapable of actually defending your pet hypothesis, and indeed---by making me actually read Peratt's papers---you've convinced me that Plasma Cosmology is even stupider than I had previously assumed. (I had been inclined to place it a few steps below MOND, but having seen the "science", I've bumped it downwards towards Autodynamics and Null Physics.)

(PS. That's my parting message, I'll be off the forums for a month or so. )

 

[Zeuzzz]

To sum up

Your supposed "defense" of plasma cosmology rests on:
(a) pointing out the existence of solar-system and cosmic plasmas, while utterly failing to argue that they in fact exert large forces on anything.

The force that they exert is through the forces that derive from the separation of charge in the cosmos, mainly EM fields, electrostatics, magnetic confinement, Z-pinch effects, CIV, or any of the other well established products of plasma physics. Unipolar inductors are thought to be able to create the desired rotation observable in nearly every body in space. There are many factors at work, much more than just gravity.

(b) attacking the dark matter hypothesis by asserting that it sounds stupid

Quite to the contrary, it is attacked not because of the sound of it, but specifically because dark matter is a purely hypothetical entity that has never been confirmed. When you can't make a theory work, just make something up to even out the maths, thats the real reason behind dark matter. The gravititational equations are at a complete lack to explain this shape so they fill in the gaps with loads of 'dark matter'

(c) treating MHD as a Magick Super Kung-Fu Force that magically makes everything, whether charged or neutral, dense or diffuse, light or heavy, obey every detail of a mid-1980s computer simulation of a strongly-coupled plasma---and pretending that this is somehow obvious because the computer simulation was peer-reviewed.

Infact many EU proponents do not really like MHD, and it is rarely used to explain observations now. Alfven himself admitted flaws in it in his nobel prize acceptance speech.

In other words, you have been completely incapable of actually defending your pet hypothesis

you know why? because no-one has come up with any substanciative, relevant, consistant reason for us to dismiss it, if you have, I'm all ears.

I really doubt you even read my previous posts. What do you think is causing the electrical currents observed in the ISM between every star? Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 867-873.

What do you think is causing the negative electrons to be backscattered towards the sun?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH44C..02S

What is causing the acceleration of the corona?

The heating of the corona?

These are all genuine outstanding problems in solar physics, and the ES model has answers to all of them. In fact the ES model seems to fit reality a lot better than the standard model, and explain the problems that the standard model can not aswell.

The acceleration of the corona is caused by the suns e-field, and the heating is caused by the partcles travelling towards the sun, and the associated high current density that they create.

I feel that I should outline the main ideas behind the very basis of the theoretical model, and how you should distinguish between two competing theories and which one holds the most truth.

Parsimony states that of two competing theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one. Strictly defined, parsimony demands us not to “multiply entities beyond necessity.”.

The ES model passes this test far better than the standard model. You can explain the main concepts involved for the ES model to someone in a matter of minutes, whereas the standard model takes a less coherent approach and makes use of many more separate entities to explain the same thing (the solar dynamo, MHD, nuclear fusion, coronal seismology, etc, etc, etc)

Simply put, the theory that explains the most phenomena and disregards the least evidence is the more powerful theory. Put another way, if theory A must disregard some evidence, and theory B does not, theory B is a better theory. In another post here I outlined eight areas where the ES model can explain phenomenon that the standard model can not. So unless the standard model can address these theories, or if you see any problems with my points, please list them so we can compare the theories. If not, ask yourself why this is.


The events espoused by a theory should be repeatable or at least observable in analogous circumstances. Theories that hinge on results that are unrepeatable are suspect as unlikely. This applies to such untested things as ‘magnetic reconnection’, ‘the solar dynamo’ and other ambiguous ideas.

As a further explication of the above criteria, we should recognize that theories that fly in the face of long-standing, fundamental principles (otherwise known as “laws of physics and thermodynamics”), are highly questionable, and require very strong evidence to even consider as plausible, much less as likely explanations. Luckily, the ES model is not only highly consistent with these fundamental principles, but is based entirely on them. The field of electricity and magnetism is very well established, and the ES model adheres perfectly to them. So far from all my posting on various fora no-one has come up with a laws of physics that this theory violates, in fact, that seems to be its strength, it seems highly internally self consistent. On the other hand the standard model seems content with bending various laws of magnetism, creating entirely new metaphysical entities and creating entirely new properties of materials.

So given this, it should be clear that unless more evidence is put forward to refute the ES model, as it currently stands, the ES model is the more powerful and effective theory of the two as it is able to explain many aspects still unexplained by the standard model. Mainly the points from the list supplied by Markus J. Aschwanden of the Trace solar project of some of the Outstanding Problems in Solar Physics, outlined recently in 2007; http://solar.physics.montana.edu/cgi-bin/eprint/index.pl?entry=5190

 

[iantresman]

(A) the "OMG PLAZMA!!!!111!!" gambit
1) There is plasma in the solar system
2) There is plasma in the Universe
3) You can run simulations in which plasma does various things
4) ???
5) Therefore (!?) MHD is the dominant force in the real Universe.

.
Just a small point, MHD (magnetohydrodynamics) is a fluid-based theory in which certain approximations are made, that is valid in some (typically high density) plasma regions, such as stellar interiors.

It is not suitable for many other low and medium density astrophysical plasma regions, such as interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space.

MHD is also not suitable for a number of complex plasma phenomena, such as double layers (resulting in charge separation regions), and plasma beams (resulting in jets).

I also think it is better to suggest that gravity is the dominant force in some regions, and electromagnetic forces are dominant in other regions (typically where charged particle mass is less than grain size).

 

[robinson]

This has become the best thread ever.

 

[sol invictus]

You don't even notice when you contradict yourself, even when I help you out with bolding... here, I'll try again.

Anyone can prove anything with maths
<snip>
an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You don't even notice when you contradict yourself, even when I help you out with bolding... here, I'll try again.

Here we go again. Post number five that still has not contained anything of value, scientifically speaking, to refute the information I have relayed to you.

as i have repeatedly said;

I asked for the scientific reasons

and i ask again;

what is your actual main problem with plasma cosmology? Just outline your scientific objections with this in a clear and open way, without any Ad hominem comments.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've seen that paper before when I myself linked to it on my other thread on this matter, and i think that it is an underestimate.

But you haven't said why, or how big you think it should be. Absent that, I really don't care what you might feel like. There's 20 orders of magnitude to close before there's enough force for magnetism to be relevant to the sun's galactic orbit. Not a factor of 20, but a factor of 10²⁰. Now maybe that upper bound is off by one order of magnitude, I guess that could happen. But that's not enough, not by a bloody long shot. And to convince me that it's off by more than an order of magnitude, you're going to have to show me how that's possible. You've going to have to show me how you can possibly confine such a large charge to the sun. And neither you nor anyone else has done so. Well, I guess there was one web page that claimed to have an answer, but it was a nonsensical violation of Gauss's law.

So they are suggesting that gravity itself is what charges the star by displacing the electrons and protons, which is basically creating a radial ring of small electric dipoles around the sun.

That doesn't charge the sun. That polarizes it. Big difference. An electrically polarized but neutral sun will feel zero net Lorenz force in a magnetic field.

This separation caused by gravity is what retains the net positive charge on the sun.

No, it doesn't. Such a polarization does absolutely nothing to create or maintain a net charge. The field at the surface from a radial polarization is zero, as it must be from Gauss's law. You've completely misunderstood the charging process they refer to: it's due to more thermally excited electrons reaching escape velocity than protons, if the sun is neutral. That's not simply a displacement of charge. But the process stops when the charge hits about 100 Coulombs for a sun-sized star, and would reverse if the charge got any larger. Any larger charge is not stable, and will bleed away. And a charge 10 or 20 orders of magnitude larger would not simply be unstable, it would explode off the sun at relativistic velocities.

 

[sol invictus]

Here we go again. Post number five that still has not contained anything of value, scientifically speaking, to refute the information I have relayed to you.

as i have repeatedly said;



and i ask again;

You're evidently too lazy to read my posts. I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting just so you can ignore them again.

Sorry about that!

 

[robinson]

Here we go again. Post number five that still has not contained anything of value, scientifically speaking, to refute the information I have relayed to you.

Welcome to the JREF Forum. Where insults are as good as science.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome to the JREF Forum. Where insults are as good as science.

You also left out appeals to emotion, god of the gaps, assertion without evidence and just saying "you didn't read the link".

BTW your posts make a lot more sense if I imagine hearing "Back in Black" before i read them...

 

[robinson]

Or imagine I am saying them in a loud, slightly pissed off voice, while pointing a finger, which is really funny.

 

[BeAChooser]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1325747b9dde63eccf.jpg[/qimg]

That is a direct proof of dark matter from Chandra dated 8/2006 so what exactly are you babbling about?

Is it?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146 " The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter,
J. R. Brownstein, J. W. Moffat, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 382 (2007) 29-47"

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/do...2966.2007.12403.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=mnr "The collision velocity of the bullet cluster in conventional and modified dynamics, G. W. Angus and S. S. McGaugh, SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 383 Issue 2 Page 417-423, January 2008 ... snip ... "We consider the orbit of the bullet cluster 1E 0657?56 in both cold dark matter (CDM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) using accurate mass models appropriate to each case in order to ascertain the maximum plausible collision velocity. Impact velocities consistent with the shock velocity (~4700 km s^^-1) occur naturally in MOND. CDM can generate collision velocities of at most ~3800 km s^^-1, and is only consistent with the data, provided that the shock velocity has been substantially enhanced by hydrodynamical effects."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1279 "The wedding of modified dynamics and non-exotic dark matter in galaxy clusters, B. FAMAEY, G. W. ANGUS, G. GENTILE, H. Y. SHAN, H. S. ZHAO, 2007 ... snip ... We summarize the status of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) in galaxy clusters. The observed acceleration is typically larger than the acceleration threshold of MOND in the central regions, implying that some dark matter is necessary to explain the mass discrepancy there. A plausible resolution of this issue is that the unseen mass in MOND is in the form of ordinary neutrinos with masses just below the experimentally detectable limit. In particular, we show that the lensing mass reconstructions of the rich clusters 1E0657-56 (the bullet cluster) and Cl0024+17 (the ring) do not pose a new challenge to this scenario."

http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/con...efault&uid=default&ID=721&ww=1&view_records=1 "At a distance of 2.4 billion light years in the constellation of Orion, Abell 520 also consists of two colliding clusters. However, according to a team led by Andisheh Mahdavi and Henk Hoekstra of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, the dark matter in Abell 520 doesn’t appear to be tied to the galaxies. Instead, the lensing observations – carried out with the 3.6-meter Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii – indicate that huge amounts of dark matter are concentrated in the core of the colliding pair, where most of the hot gas is found but few galaxies are seen. As the team writes in their October 20 Astrophysical Journal paper, this dissociation between dark matter and galaxies "cannot be easily explained within the current…dark matter paradigm." "It’s a remarkable result," says cosmologist David Spergel of Princeton University. "A conservative explanation would be that not all dark matter concentrations are efficient in the formation of stars and galaxies. The alternative is that dark matter interacts with itself in response to an unknown, fifth force of Nature, which only involves dark matter." Under the influence of such an attractive force, two clouds of dark matter could no longer pass through each other unimpeded but would eventually be dragged like the hot cluster gas, ending up in the common center of gravity of the colliding clusters. Robert Sanders of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands says there’s a third solution to the problem: modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Invented in the early 1980’s by Mordehai Milgrom of the Weizman Institute in Rehovot, Israel, MOND proposes that the observed signatures of dark matter really result from a different behavior of the force of gravity. In particular gravity in low-acceleration regions (like the outskirts of galaxies) would weaken linearly with distance, not exponentially. Even in a MOND universe, some dark matter has to exist, but it could consist of "normal" particles, such as neutrinos, instead of mysterious, undetected stuff. Sanders says he and Milgrom are writing a paper on how MOND can accommodate the cluster observations. "These new results—if they are real—could be an outstanding success for MOND," he says."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0611777 "An Introduction to Gravitational Lensing in TeVeS, HongSheng Zhao, 2006, Bekenstein’s (2004) TeVeS theory has added an interesting twist to the search for dark matter and dark energy, modifying the landscape of gravity-related astronomy day by day. Built bottom-up rather than top-down as most gravity theories, TeVeS-like theories are healthily rooted on empirical facts, hence immediately passing sanity checks on galaxy rotation curves, solar system constraints, even bullet cluster of galaxies and cosmology with the help of 2eV neutrinos. ... snip ... TeVeS is an exception. It holds the promise of explaining both dark matter and cosmological constant by relaxing the SEP (strong equivalence principle) only in untested weak gravity envionments like in galaxies, but respecting the SEP to high accuracy in the solar system. ... snip ... Angus et al. (2006) found that the lensing peaks of the Bullet Cluster could be explained by adding neutrinos in a TeVeS-like modified gravity ... snip ... TeVeS is found to be • OK with solar system (Bekenstein & Maguijo 2006) • OK with Milky Way and Bulge Microlensing (no cusp problem, Famaey & Binney 2006) • Excellent description of spiral rotation curves (Mc-Gaugh 2005, Famaey et al. 2006) • OK with elliptical galaxies lenses (Zhao, Bacon, Taylor, Horne 2006) • OK with galaxy clusters if with neutrinos (Angus, Shan, Zhao, Famaey, 2006), • TeVeS universe can accelerate (Zhao 2006, astro-ph/0610056) • Structures and CMB can form from linear perturbations (Dodelson & Liguori 2006 ... snip ... • TeVeS is not grossly inconsistent with observations of lensing apart from a few outliers associated with galaxy clusters where massive neutrinos would contribute to the deflection of the light, • CMB anisotropy are predictable (Skordis et al. 2005), • structure formation in non-linear potential can in principle be followed by N-body codes (Ciotti et al. 2006)"

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048 " A Dark Core in Abell 520, A. Mahdavi, H. Hoekstra, A. Babul, D. Balam, P. Capak, 2007, The rich cluster Abell 520 (z=0.201) exhibits truly extreme and puzzling multi-wavelength characteristics. It may best be described as a "cosmic train wreck." ... snip ... Although a displacement between the X-ray gas and the galaxy/dark matter distributions may be expected in a merger, a mass peak without galaxies cannot be easily explained within the current collisionless dark matter paradigm."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach..."+"not+dark+matter"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us , arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0610298, "A New Force in the Dark Sector?, Glennys R. Farrar and Rachel A. Rosen, Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University, 2007, We study the kinematics of dark matter using the massive cluster of galaxies 1E0657-56. ... snip ... If the discrepancy we find here between predicted and observed dynamics of the bullet subcluster is substantiated by refined observations and analysis, and confirmed in other systems, it would imply the existence of a long-range, non-gravitational force within the dark sector." Oh no ... now it's not just dark matter and dark energy, but dark forces!

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13280-galaxy-without-dark-matter-puzzles-astronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising." ... snip ... "It is unclear how one would form a galaxy without a dark halo, or how one could remove the halo without destroying the galaxy," says Diemand. "A galaxy without dark matter really does not fit into our current understanding of cosmology and galaxy formation." Nor can galaxies with declining rotation curves be easily explained by MOND, says McGaugh. So for now, it seems that some of our missing mass is missing."

And I've already mentioned what plasma cosmologists have to say about the Bullet Cluster. But here it is again. The dark matter explanation is based on a calculation full of assumptions. For one, it assumes that redshift always equates to distance. But mainstream astrophysicists seem to have no way of explaining the extremely large number of extremely unlikely "coincidences" with respect to the location of high red shift objects and low red shift objects ... so they just ignore them. Likewise, they can't explain "coincidences" with respect ot the relative position of objects and axes of rotation in the Local Group (of which the Bullet Cluster is a part)? The dark matter explanation also assumes the clusters are colliding.

Halton Arp, on the other hand, says quasars are not necessarily distant objects but may, in many cases, be relatively nearby objects created and ejected from older galaxies according to the equations in Narlikar's variable mass cosmology. He says BL Lac objects evolve from quasars. He says that instead of colliding, the cluster is actually in the process of forming from a BL Lac object. Arp says the Bullet Cluster is exhibiting the expected features of such an event. It has the redshift typical of BL Lac objects (z = 0.3). That redshift is one of the quantized redshift states in the theory he espouses. BL Lac objects emit x-rays. And Arp observes that other galaxy clusters do too. A collision isn't necessary to explain the X-rays. And as far as lensing is concerned, Arp says arcs are a natural phenomenon in clusters of galaxies. In the mainstream theory, high redshifts in these arcs is a must if they are to be gravitationally lensed distant background objects. However, Arp has shown that nearby Abell galaxy clusters also exhibit arcs and have such low mass that it is impossible for them to act as a gravitational lens. Plus, some of the arcs are radial ... not tangential. Furthermore, the Bullet Cluster fits neatly into his explanation of the Local Group and the relationship of its objects to one another. All without the need for dark matter. Arp's is true observationally based cosmology ... not one relying on gnomes and ignoring inconvenient observations.

Frankly, enigma, I think most readers would be better served investigating each of the links at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm than meekly accepting the gnomes that you and the rest of the dark matteroligists have offered to explain away the observations. The universe they posit is far more interesting, beautiful and compelling than yours.