Dark matter and Dark energy

[Ziggurat]

It would seem, Zig, these EU theorists just want to clam that Sun is electrically powered without bothering to develop even a self consistent theory of how it works.

That I've noticed quite some time ago.

Let’s do some more calculations

The total luminosity of the sun is about 3.846 X 10²⁶ watts
At a solar potential difference of 1 X 10¹⁰ Volts (or Watts / Ampere)
Gives a current of 3.846 X 10¹⁶ Amperes

This current (or charge per second), must both be entering and leaving the Sun in order to maintain the luminal power output and the proposed solar potential difference.

It's worse than that. The current you calculated is the net incoming electron current required to power the sun. If you want to send an equal electron current back out to keep the sun from discharging in very short order, that current will have to absorb the same 3.8X10²⁶ Watts in order to leave the sun, but there's no power source available to pull electrons back off the positively charged sun. And if you want to pump protons into the sun instead, then that still takes 3.8X10²⁶ Watts to keep pumping enough protons in to keep the sun charged, but there's no source for that much power that they can even hypothesize.

 

[iantresman]

Let’s do some more calculations

The total luminosity of the sun is about 3.846 X 10²⁶ watts
At a solar potential difference of 1 X 10¹⁰ Volts (or Watts / Ampere)
Gives a current of 3.846 X 10¹⁶ Amperes

.
Presumably the current density is not constant since the Solar System with the Sun at its centre has a spherical geometry, and decreases with square of the distance?

 

[robinson]

So now the electric sun topic is here? And the dark matter conversation is in the thunderbolts topic?

This is crazy. Interesting, but crazy trying to follow it.

 

[Ziggurat]

.
Presumably the current density is not constant since the Solar System with the Sun at its centre has a spherical geometry, and decreases with square of the distance?

Sure. But would that make the electric sun model any more plausible? I don't see how. I went through the calculations before for the charge required to get that much voltage on the sun, and it was around 8x10⁸ Coulombs. It physically impossible to confine such a large charge on the sun (the excess protons would explode outwards, reaching relativistic speeds in less than a second). But let's say you magically did: to get sufficient power output you need such a ridiculously large incoming electron current (3.8x10¹⁶ amps) that the sun would become charge neutral in about 2x10^-8 seconds. Unless you're pumping in positive charges from elsewhere, but where's the power for that? What source is pushing a 3.8x10¹⁶ proton current up a potential barrier of 10¹⁰ volts? They mention "galactic currents", but have no mechanism by which those currents should push protons in a direction that a very large electric field from the sun would want to repel them. Why wouldn't this current just bypass the sun, since the sun should be repelling it? It doesn't make any sense. Which is why it's no surprise they don't actually calculate any numbers for their model. The voltage is the only number they're willing to write down, either because they're cluelss about how to figure anything else out (just as BAC himself clearly is), or because if you go any farther it becomes clear very quickly how absurd the whole idea is.

 

[Wangler]

Any good alternate theories without crackpot elements?

So, I have been enjoying this thread about dark matter.

The multitude of references regarding galactic currents and Alfven's work is impressive, and at first glance, seems to have some peer-reviewed weight.

Now, I hear these "galactic currents instead of dark matter" proponents also tend to believe that the sun is electrically powered. Sigh

I was all charged up about this subject, but my current interest is dissipating.

Keith

 

[robinson]

Damn it. This is the dark matter topic. There is a Thunderbolts topic for the electric sun stuff.

Get it right people.

 

[iantresman]

Sure. But would that make the electric sun model any more plausible? I don't see how.

.
I really don't know, but it might give us a better understanding of what's going on. Not finding a current of 3.846 X 10¹⁶ Amperes may be one thing, but if we know that the current density is much smaller, we will never find such a large current, because it's not there.

We might also be looking in the wrong place. Satellite may not always see any significant currents in the Solar Wind, but we know that the Heliopsheric current sheet carries 3×10⁹ Amps (Ref)... but the current density is only about about 10^-10 amps/m². (I'm not saying the heliospheric current sheet is significant with respect to the electric sun idea).

And recently the Themis satellite "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun" carrying an estimated five hundred thousand billion Joules, which sounds a lot, but was over a 2 hour period. (Ref)

 

[iantresman]

Damn it. This is the dark matter topic. There is a Thunderbolts topic for the electric sun stuff.

Get it right people.

.
Sorry about that, if Ziggurat would like to continue in the other thread, I'll follow it there.

 

[BeAChooser]

neutrons aren't billiard balls. They're quantum objects. And they most definitely can pass through each other.

Really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318055.200-.html "Neutrons can be produced in controlled quantities and at specific energies by nuclear fission in a specially designed nuclear reactor such as that at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France . In a typical experiment at ILL, a beam of neutrons, all with more or less the same energies, impinges on a sample. This is called the primary beam. The process is analogous to firing a series of billiard balls at a collection of moving targets. Most of the billiard balls, however, do not hit anything and pass straight through. Others hit a target and are deflected, or 'scattered', in various directions depending on the geometry and mobility of the target. In the case of neutrons, the targets are the sample's atomic nuclei."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1938/press.html "Fermi used neutrons as projectiles in his experiments. ... snip ... The neutron has qualities that make it particularly suitable as a projectile in atomic fission. Both the helium nucleus and the hydrogen nucleus carry electric charges. The strong electric forces of repulsion developed when such a charged particle comes within reach of an atomic nucleus, deflect the projectile. The neutron being uncharged continues on its course without suffering any hindrance until it is stopped by direct impact on a nucleus. As the dimensions of the nuclei are extremely small compared with the distances that separates the different parts of the atoms, such impacts are of rare occurrence. As a result, beams of neutrons, experiment has shown, can pass through armour-plates metres thick without appreciable reduction in speed taking place. ... snip ... When using neutrons as projectiles, these are captured in the nucleus. In the case of the lighter elements, a hydrogen nucleus or a helium nucleus is ejected instead. With the heavier elements, however, the forces that interlink the atomic parts are so strong that, at least with neutron speeds that can be obtained by present methods, there is no ejection of any material part."

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/6mr/ch05/ch05.html "It can be proved mathematically that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to any type of particle that has half-integer spin. Thus two neutrons can never occupy the same state, and likewise for two protons. Photons, however, are immune to the exclusion principle because their spin is an integer. Material objects can't pass through each other, but beams of light can, and the basic reason is that the exclusion principle applies to one but not to the other."

 

[BeAChooser]

You, certainly, also assert that a single parameter (namely electricity)

Electricity is not a parameter. Certainly not in the way the percent of the universe's mass that is dark matter is a parameter.

 

[robinson]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318055.200-.html Others hit a target and are deflected, or 'scattered', in various directions depending on the geometry and mobility of the target. In the case of neutrons, the targets are the sample's atomic nuclei.

Oh snap. Ziggurat, you got pwned.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
And who want's to argue Gauss's law

But we're not even arguing it.

Yes you are ... when you insist the mainstream is correct in claiming there is such a thing as an open magnetic field line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

See? Even wikipedia agrees.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes you are ... when you insist the mainstream is correct in claiming there is such a thing as an open magnetic field line.

Except I've never said that magnetic field lines could be open. Which makes this a strawman. If you ever thought otherwise, it's only because your own ignorance confused you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Yes, really.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318055.200-.html "Neutrons can be produced in controlled quantities and at specific energies by nuclear fission in a specially designed nuclear reactor such as that at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France . In a typical experiment at ILL, a beam of neutrons, all with more or less the same energies, impinges on a sample. This is called the primary beam. The process is analogous to firing a series of billiard balls at a collection of moving targets.

I've changed the bolding. What you fail to understand is that analogies aren't perfect. That's why they're only analogies. They tend to have a few aspects in which they are similar, and many aspects in which they are not. The differences get brushed over for non-technical audiences, such as yourself. Conservation of momentum and energy in the interaction is a point of similarity. The neutron as a hard core particle is not. In fact, it is precisely because neutron scattering is not well-described that way (but is a wave, and so can create interference patterns) which makes the whole thing so damned useful.

Most of the billiard balls, however, do not hit anything and pass straight through.

As I said. And this applies even when the neutron wavelength is larger than the interatomic spacing. In such a case, the billiard ball model obviously won't work. Or obviously to anyone who's got a clue about quantum mechanics.
Edit to add: in fact, if the wavelength is long enough compared to interatomic spacing, the wave nature of neutrons can actually end up precluding any scattering from happening. You can use this property to filter neutrons above certain energies by passing them through a material such as berylium, something which is commonly done to remove higher-order Bragg reflection from your monochromator. This is a quantum effect. A classical billiard-ball picture won't produce this.

The neutron being uncharged continues on its course without suffering any hindrance until it is stopped by direct impact on a nucleus. As the dimensions of the nuclei are extremely small compared with the distances that separates the different parts of the atoms, such impacts are of rare occurrence.

This is again a good way to talk about this for laypeople. But it doesn't actually describe the physics in any real detail. The scattering cross section for electrons to bounce off nuclei is not similarly small, but the it's the same small nucleus. So the physical size of the nucleus really isn't the whole story. Furthermore, when the neutron wavelength is larger than interatomic spacing, does it even make sense to talk about the neutron "avoiding" collisions by zipping between the atoms? No, actually it doesn't. And lastly, why do neutrons get captured by nuclei? Because there's a quantum mechanical energy loss mechanism. Without that, the neutrons might still bounce off, but they can't get captured. There is no appreciable energy loss mechanism for purely gravitational interactions between particles - the rate at which they can radiate away energy in the form of gravitational waves is pretty damned close to zero.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/6mr/ch05/ch05.html "It can be proved mathematically that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to any type of particle that has half-integer spin. Thus two neutrons can never occupy the same state,

So? Momentum components are part of the quantum state of a particle. So is spin. Two neutrons can therefore easily occupy the same location without being in the same state. Electrons do it all the bloody time - most of them are doing exactly that in pretty much every atom on earth.

Material objects can't pass through each other,

Not so. Your own link above indicated otherwise for neutrons. Electrons regularly pass through each other - that's how current flows in a wire. Electromagnetic interactions are generally strong enough to preclude such events for anything with both protons and electrons in most cases, but that's only most cases. Look up Bose-Einstein condensation if you're curious to learn about cases where matter passing through other matter can become quite dramatic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh snap. Ziggurat, you got pwned.

No, actually, I didn't. Rather, neither you nor BAC know enough quantum mechanics to understand the difference between analogies used to explain things to lay people and the actual physics going on.

I've done neutron scattering experiments. I've been to neutron scattering facilities. I've read neutron scattering textbooks. BAC hasn't come close to pwning me. And he's never going to on this topic, I can guarantee you that.

Edit: oh, and by the way, when a neutron scatters from a nucleus? The scattered wave function is spherically symmetric. Try to get that from a billiard ball model.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Are you sure?

Yes. And your first link rather confirms it.

Are you sure?

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

Are you sure?

Afterall, the mainstream was once quite sure there were no electric currents in space, too. Even in 1990, when plasma filaments were observed by the VLA that were 10 light years thick and over 150 light-years long projecting out of the plane of our own galaxy, they were still arguing that electric current plays no role in such phenomena. Even when the Japanese about that time found filaments arching about 700 light years above the galactic plane much like what plasma cosmologists had predicted would be found. They were sure there were no large electric currents even though http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ.../5187/5187.pdf stated that "polarization measurements suggest that the internal magnetic fields are aligned with the long axis of these filaments" and that's a key feature of Birkeland Currents. And now we know there are electric currents everywhere we look in space.

Just recently satellites discovered what mainstream researchers termed "surprising" "polar plumes", "flux tubes" and "electrojets" containing massive quantities of electric current coming out of the sun, not connected with each other (i.e., not looping back to the sun) ... just like plasma cosmologists had predicted we'd find at a time when mainstream proponents were claiming there were no electric currents in space. And of course, these structures are Birkeland Currents, a term that mainstream astrophysicists almost seem unable to utter even today.

And even more recently, astrophysicists announced the discovery of "giant magnetic ropes" with "twisted magnetic fields" "organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope" connecting the Earth's upper atmosphere to the sun and again carrying large electric currents. These "ropes" are simply Birkeland Currents. And again, they were predicted to exist at a time when the mainstream was still claiming there are no electric currents at all in interplanetary space. To EU and PC theorists, the use of such terminology only demonstrates the mainstream's failure to comprehend this electrical activity which to them was "unexpected".

So are you really sure?

 

[BeAChooser]

What causes a red giant in your model BAC,

Why do you even have to ask, David, since I've posted explanations for that question and links to discussions of what EU theorists say on this forum on threads where you were posting several times now? Did you not see them? See what I mean about it being a complete waste of time to respond to your questions?

The HR diagram is a plot, not a constraint.

Actually, David, the HR diagram is a collection of observations that any theory must be able to explain. Which is why I asked you folks to explain how in the mainstream model a star could be observed to move from one location to a completely different location on the diagram in as little time as a month? And all I got from you and your friends was silence.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh snap. Ziggurat, you got pwned.

Sorry , you really shouldn't do that. It makes you look ignorant. Have you actualy read Ziggy's posts, have you taken the time to understand him? Or do you just come here to pawn people?

The point is neutrons are waveforms, they are not billiard balls. The reason they will repulse each othe (or scatter) is because they interact with the EM force. Which is what got this started when some one here was asking questions about why dark matter might not clump up.

If something does not interact with EM it makes it difficult for it to form lumps and things like black holes.

 

[Dancing David]

Why do you even have to ask, David, since I've posted explanations for that question and links to discussions of what EU theorists say on this forum on threads where you were posting several times now? Did you not see them? See what I mean about it being a complete waste of time to respond to your questions?

Yeah right troll, answer the question. You can't so you will wave your arms and act childish.

What causes a star to go from a yellow star like our sun to a red giant?

care to answer or just continue to spin.

Up to you.

Actually, David, the HR diagram is a collection of observations that any theory must be able to explain. Which is why I asked you folks to explain how in the mainstream model a star could be observed to move from one location to a completely different location on the diagram in as little time as a month? And all I got from you and your friends was silence.

I vcould point out that the evolution of a yellow star to a red giant is well established.

Do you want to read the answer or just act like a troll?

Have you found the magnetic field strenth that would be required to move the mass of the sun as in Perrat's model, is the field strenth that strong?

Where do the elements past iron come from BAC?

How does plasma consmology account for the percentages of H, He and Li?

I assume any more that you are kust a poseur, that you don't uderstand when someone askes you a question you can't asnwer and then you get all Rove the troll.


Where did you post how a star becomes a red giant BAC, I think you are just spinning.

I will apologise to you in the community forum if you show me where you posted the answer to the question of where a red giants come from.

I suppose you will spin all the more, the list of questions you refuse to answer is staggering BAC.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's entirely possible that it was blocked. The security arrangements here are... excessive.

Are you in China? Or doesn't your employer trust you? Maybe he's right. Maybe you shouldn't be using your work computer to chat on this forum on his time?

Quote:
That mainstream astrophysicists have been ignoring these phenomena for far too long.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

No, it's a fact. Which is why you can't link us to peer reviewed papers describing astronomical phenomena where the mainstream actually considered the possibility that those phenomena were Birkeland currents, double layers, explosive double layers and z-pinches instead of the gnomes they dreamed up.

mainstream astrophysics still can't even define what dark matter and dark energy are, much less how they work

And yet we can detect it.

No you haven't. All you've done is INFERRED it's existance. But they can actually see cancer in microscopes. Because it is real.

Quote:
And seems to me, you just replaced the origin of the visible universe problem with an origin of a dark universe problem.

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to get everything on the same footing so as to give the impression that your pet theory is better. Unfortunately for you, even if you succeeded, it doesn't work that way.

Are you claiming to know the origin of dark matter? Please ... point out to us in the Big Bang solution to Einstein's General Relativity the term that represents dark matter.

Sorry, but I think it is entirely fair to suggest that all you've done is create a dark universe with no clear origin to explain away the origin of the universe we can actually see.