Something new under the sun

[BeAChooser]

Black holes are not gnomes-like.What do you think we have in the center of our galaxy?

See my post above.

Neutron stars were observed

No, only inferred. Inferred from observations that can be explained using known and demonstrable plasma and EM phenomena. For example:

Electrical engineer Donald Scott in his book "Electric Sky" says the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name (rapidly pulsed radio signals) "is produced electrically (much like a radio station)." He says "In the plasma that surrounds a star (or planet) there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetic field structure of the body. Those conducting paths are giant electrical transmission lines and can be analyzed as such. Depending on the electrical properties of what is connected to the ends of electrical transmission lines, it is possible for pulses of current and voltage (and therefore power) to oscillate back and forth from one end to the other. The ends can both be on the same object (as occurs on Earth) or one end might be on one member of a closely spaced binary pair of stars and the other end on the other member of the pair similar to the "flux tube" connecting Jupiter and its inner moon, Io."

Scott goes on to note that in 1995 several super computer simulations were performed on a transmission line system model with properties believed to be those of a pulsar atmosphere and the results matched seventeen different observed emission properties. The 1995 analysis he refers to is "Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment" by Kevin Healy and Anthony Peratt (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf ). Healy and Peratt concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes (BAC - or quark stars) to explain compact sources of radiation."

And what about the jets? Here is an image of the Vela Pulsar

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg

Big Bang advocates claim the jets result from their magnetic reconnection physics. Plasma cosmologists say the jet is produced by the same phenomena created in what's called a focus fusion device here on earth. In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Here is a diagram of such a device with the plasma discharge on the right:

http://www.holoscience.com/views/img/lasma_focus.gif

Here's an animation you can watch of a focus fusion device in action.

http://focusfusion.org/assets/animation/Foki1a2.gif

Not only do the "bow-like" arcs observed in the Vela Pulsar have the same shape as the discharge from this device but the plasma filaments that form in a focus fusion device look a lot like the circuit diagram envisioned by Hannes Alfven to explain what is going on in and around stars and galaxies.

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm ) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate.* But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved. Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

And this is not the only pulsar example where plasma cosmologists seem to have a better explanation of the observations than Big Bang proponents. Consider the Crab Nebula pulsar. Here are photos of that object:

http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m1pulsar.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/sol01_07.jpg

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies. And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets. And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms at the center of such an object. The bottom line is that known physics can produce what is seen. Neutron stars aren't needed and prior to the observation the jets and pulsar emissions, had been theoretically dismissed.

Furthermore, there are problems with the neutron star model, just as there are problems with the black hole model. Now they are having to introduce "quark stars" to explain some of the neutron star observations. See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html . It seems that every time one turns around, Big Bang supporting astronomers and astrophysicists are adding yet another deduced, untestable, magic gnome to their celestial zoo.

 

[BeAChooser]

WMAP's just released their five-year data set and it's still an excellent fit to LCDM.

Excellent fit? Did you just miss this, edd? The WMAP data suggests the CMB is not coming from behind galactic clusters like it must if it's a relic of the Big Bang.

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal. Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment." "Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

I can't see how you could have missed that:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html "The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800 "Where Have All the Shadows Gone?"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_mystery_monday.html "A study of nearby galaxy clusters has failed to detect distortions in the ancient microwave radiation many scientists have linked to the creation of our universe."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm "Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test"

And say, ... what's this? This also has to do with CMB and WMAP.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html "The universe has a huge hole in it that dwarfs anything else of its kind. The discovery caught astronomers by surprise. The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos. Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale. Astronomers don't know why the hole is there. ... snip ... The region had been previously been dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot," because it stood out in a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation made by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite. The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe."

http://www.trustedlog.com/2007/11/26/parallel-universe-exists-we-have-evidence/ "Last August, astronomers working on the analysis of data being acquired by NASA’s WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite announced that they found a huge void in the universe. A void is a region of space that has much less material (stars, nebulae, dust and other material) than the average. Since our universe is relatively heterogeneous, empty spaces are not rare, but in this case the enormous magnitude of the hole is way outside the expected range. The hole found in the constellation of Eridanus is about a billion light years across, which is roughly 10,000 times as large as our galaxy or 400 times the distance to Andromeda, the closest “large” galaxy. The dimension of the hole is so big that at first glance, it results impossible to explain under the current cosmological theories, although scientists put forward some explanations based on certain theoretical models that might predict the existence of “giant knots” in space known as topological defects. However, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physics Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton made a staggering claim. She says, “Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole” and goes further with the ground-breaking hypothesis that the huge void is “… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own“"

And the problems with CMB and WMAP data just don't quit.

Glenn Starkman of Case Western Reserve University has discovered some characteristics in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data that have serious consequences for the Standard Model. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/dept/Talks/starkman.shtml Far from having the smooth, Gaussian distribution predicted by Big Bang, the microwave picture has distinct anisotropies, and what’s more says Starkman, they are clearly aligned with local astrophysical structures, particularly the ecliptic of the Solar System. Once the dipole harmonic is stripped to remove the effect of the motion of the Solar System, the other harmonics, quadrupole, octopole, and so on reveal a distinct alignment with local objects. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...e_Of_Radiation_In_Interstellar_Space_999.html "Cosmological Data Affected By An Unexpected Source Of Radiation In Interstellar Space ... Nov 13, 2007, The widely lauded discovery of small-scale structure in the cosmic microwave background may be seriously affected by a previously unidentified source of radio emission in our own Milky Way Galaxy. This is the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis. His work will be published in the December 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. Verschuur was studying data from the first ever all-sky survey of interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) when he noticed intriguing similarities to the structure observed by the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft. ... snip ... The new discovery, if confirmed, means that the structure superimposed on the cosmic microwave background is produced in the Milky Way and does not have a cosmic origin. Thus the cosmic microwave background signal from the early universe may be smoother than anyone expected, which raises new questions as to how structure ever emerged in the universe to create galaxies."

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html: "'Axis of evil' a cause for cosmic concern, 13 April 2007, New Scientist, Zeeya Merali, *... snip ... According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil. ... snip ... Now, two independent studies seem to confirm that it does exist. Damien Hutsemékers of the University of Liège in Belgium analysed the polarisation of light from 355 quasars and found that as the quasars get near the axis, the polarisation becomes more ordered than expected. Taken together, the polarisation angles from the quasars seem to corkscrew around the axis. ... snip ... The quasar finding has support from another study, however. Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor analysed 1660 spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and found that the axes of rotation of most galaxies appear to line up with the axis of evil (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0703325). According to Longo, the probability of this happening by chance is less than 0.4 per cent. "This suggests the axis is real, and not simply an error in the WMAP data," he says."

And how are mainstream scientists trying to explain this last one away? By altering one of their gnomes: inflation. From the above article "Contaldi and his colleagues Emir Gümrükçüo?lu and Marco Peloso at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, modified inflation to allow the universe to expand more in one direction. "Provided inflation stops at a relatively early point, this would leave traces of the early [unevenness] in the form of the axis of evil," he says." Or by inventing a new gnome. "Longo favours a more radical theory proposed by Paolo Cea of the University of Bari, in Italy, and Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara, Italy, which suggests that magnetic fields stretched across the universe could be responsible (New Scientist, 2 September 2006, p 28). "A magnetic field would naturally orient the spiral galaxies," says Longo."

 

[edd]

Yes yes yes. I'm familiar with all those concerns. They don't change the fundamental fact that the data fits brilliantly. There's a few astronomical questions remaining, but none of such a major level that you'd question the overall point. Which is that the data is brilliantly explainable by a surprisingly simple model.

I mean it's like saying that DNA can't possibly be responsible for encoding the information to form proteins because there's a couple of inheritable diseases we haven't entirely figured out yet. It's just plain daft.

 

[Klimax]

---I had to take out entire quote,since it contains links and is huge and there is not enough time for me to divide that.(and simple reply would not have link back to his original post!) ...(Sorry BAC)----

When you call black holes gnomes,let me call your plasma things gnomes as well.Both are according to YOUR posts and word-use just theories.

About possible changing neutron stars to something(!) from EU or PU is quite interesting.However using theory,which relies on electricity,which most probably will violate at least part of Maxwell's equations,that is bit too bad,since it is more prone to get falsified by next experiments...

Oh,and have you considered asking CAH for assistance?As I said,they can rather quickly get thing verified(or falsified ) against known datas.And please,no CT,no locked minds and such...

 

[BeAChooser]

Which is that the data is brilliantly explainable by a surprisingly simple model.

Simple? You call a model with singularities, inflation, dark matter in half a dozen varieties, *something* called dark energy, black holes, and EM physics not recognized by those outside astrophysics simple? ROTFLOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

When you call black holes gnomes,let me call your plasma things gnomes as well.

Plasmoids aren't gnomes. We can actually create them in labs here on earth. Now MAYBE the LHC will create black holes. Hope not.

However using theory,which relies on electricity,which most probably will violate at least part of Maxwell's equations

Any proof of this? Those calculations I sourced were done by electrical engineers and plasma physicists quite familiar with Maxwell's equations using (in some cases) codes that incorporated Maxwell's equations.

Oh,and have you considered asking CAH for assistance?

What should I ask them? How should I phrase it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Simple? You call a model with singularities, inflation, dark matter in half a dozen varieties, *something* called dark energy, black holes, and EM physics not recognized by those outside astrophysics simple? ROTFLOL!

We've been through this before, BAC. Magnetic reconnection doesn't require any violation of Gauss's law. Your continued assertion to the contrary, after having a PROOF shown to you, makes you a liar.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Big surprise, we've been here before...

Has anyone ever measured the charge on the sun? I dont think they have.

And that paper that suggests that the charge on the sun is 77 coulombs is very theoretical. There seems to be no other paper with decent information on other possible values for the charge, that seems to be the only one that even consideres the suns E-field, which i find annoying.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

This is a point that I have made repeatedly about Zeuzzz's referencing of this paper - he does so quite dishonestly. I originally posted about this way back in post #18.

He presents this as some kind of "evidence" for his plasma/electric/crack-pipe universe claims, but he intentionally leaves out a critical observation by the authors. While the paper does argue for the existence of a net charge on the Sun, in the middle of the second page of that paper, the authors state:

"We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10⁻³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity. However, if we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron."

See that?! The effect is only large if acting on individual charges (protons, electrons, and ions). The authors of the very paper Zeuzzz keeps citing for "evidence" of the electric universe say that over large distance scales (interstellar) the electrical effects they are discussing are weaker than gravity by 36 orders of magnitude!

Now, 36 orders of magnitude is pretty damned big - not quite as big as the woo-idiocy I've seen displayed on this thread, but still...

So, Zeuzzz is claiming that this paper supports his EU claims by inferring that if such an effect exists on the Pioneer probe then just imagine the effects elsewhere, which supposedly explain large-scale structures in the universe over million and billions of light-years. Yet the paper clearly doesn't support these claims, so why does he keep referencing it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Plasmoids aren't gnomes. We can actually create them in labs here on earth. Now MAYBE the LHC will create black holes. Hope not.

Wow, so now black holes are a fiction in addition to dark energy & the big bang cosmology. For those still following this descent into an abyss of giggling stupidity, please note the following contradictions inherent in these arguments...

1. The EU-PU woos posting here admit that general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) is a well-established and tested theory.

2. They maintain that big bang cosmology "is a joke."

3. They now, apparently, maintain that black holes are also a fiction.

Here it comes...

4. They neglect to note that general relativity predicted both the big bang cosmology (including dark energy in the form of a "cosmological constant") AND black holes. If you are going to throw out BBC and BHs, then you also have to get rid of GR as well, the very theory of gravity which predicts and explains these phenomena.

So, how is this line of argument not a contradiction in the very arguments which they themselves are making? And why do they never acknowledge the contradiction, much less address or resolve it?

That alone is enough to tell you where they're coming from, and it ain't this reality...

 

[MattusMaximus]

When you call black holes gnomes,let me call your plasma things gnomes as well.Both are according to YOUR posts and word-use just theories.

Electric universe and plasma cosmology "is not a fact, it's just a theory."

See?! We can play stupid woo word games too

 

[MattusMaximus]

I mean it's like saying that DNA can't possibly be responsible for encoding the information to form proteins because there's a couple of inheritable diseases we haven't entirely figured out yet. It's just plain daft.

It reminds me of when creationists try to poke holes in evolution by noting the gaps in the fossil record. And it's just as dumb.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wow, so now black holes are a fiction in addition to dark energy & the big bang cosmology.

I can't help but notice that you completely ran from my response to your last post of this sort ... #127 ... which I clearly destroyed in posts #142 and #144. But you want to try again? Sure.

3. They now, apparently, maintain that black holes are also a fiction.

I've not said black holes are necessarily a fiction (although has anyone actually seen one?) ... just their ubiquitous use to explain away every little unexplainable observation Big Bang encounters. Especially when other physics is already available that would seem to explain those observations. Plus the fact that they now seem to number as many as stars in the heaven.

4. They neglect to note that general relativity predicted both the big bang cosmology (including dark energy in the form of a "cosmological constant") AND black holes.

Actually, general relativity did not "predict" dark energy. Lambda was actually added to the equation by Einstein in order to make the universe static. And for no other reason.

And far as it "predicting" black holes is concerned, Einstein actually said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities should be avoided. One month after the black hole concept was first introduced in 1939 by Oppenheimer and a graduate student, Einstein wrote a paper ("On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses", Annals of Mathematics, Oct. 1939, vol 40, No 4, pp 922-936) wherein he stated (calling black holes "Schwartzschild singularities") that "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the ‘Schwartzschild singularities’ do not exist in physical reality."

And here is what Einstein wrote in 1945 (Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity) regarding the big-bang singularity: "Theoretical doubts [concerning the creation of the universe] are based on the fact that [at the] beginning of the expansion, the metric becomes singular and the density becomes infinite. . . In reality, space will probably be of a uniform character, and the present [relativity] theory will be valid only as a limiting case. . . One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."

So it's probably inaccurate to claim GR predicted black holes or BBC.

If you are going to throw out BBC and BHs, then you also have to get rid of GR as well

No, you need only adopt either Narlikar's QSSC or SCC cosmology. Both still adhere to GR but both do not require a BB or ubiquitous BHs.

 

[Dancing David]

Are you sure? Perhaps there's another explanation.

One that doesn't involve gnomes.

One that the mainstream has just ignored.

Have you ever heard of a plasmoid? A plasmoid exists where converging filaments of current form a tight, magnetically confined ball of plasma. Here's a graphic of what happens in a z-pinch: http://www.eastlundscience.com/sitebuilder/images/Focus_Fusion-292x211.jpg . It shows all the filaments coming together at the center ... in a very dense plasmoid.

Eric Lerner draws a comparison between focus fusion devices, which employ z-pinch physics to create plasmoids, and quasars that the mainstream claims are huge black holes at the center of galaxies that happen to have large amounts of matter falling into them. He expresses plasma cosmology's explanation for the source of energy in a quasar thus. It is "the rotational energy of an entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts," "converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving towards the galaxy core." A nice neat model with no gnomes. But can the density of such a plasmoid be high enough to account for the observations that have led mainstream astrophysicists to conclude there is a blackhole?

Well, according to http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/sagastar/ the current Milky Way black hole mass estimate is actually 4 million suns. And it's supposedly now only 14 million miles across ... i.e., it would fit inside the orbit of Mercury which orbits at about a third of an AU from the sun. The fact that the mass estimate has almost doubled in just a few years yet the radius estimate has shrunk by a third is perhaps an indication of how uncertain they really are about the characteristics of this particular black hole. But the above source gives an even better clue as to the estimate's precision.

First, it quotes one of the researchers saying "we had to push our technique really hard" to even make the observations. Hmmm. Usually when one pushes techniques hard uncertainty is introduced. And, in fact, it notes that the "The precision of these observations allows the scientists to say that a mass of at least 40,000 Suns has to reside in a space corresponding to the size of the Earth's orbit." So if their best estimate is 4 million suns but their lower bound is only 40,000 suns, that means there is quite a range of uncertainty in the estimate.

And I suspect a galactic sized plasmoid would almost definitely lie well within that mass range. Gravity from a galactic sized plasmoid might therefore cause the stellar motions from which a black hole has been deduced. So these latest observations do NOT rule out the plasma cosmology model. Mainstream astrophysicists have simply ignored it ... AGAIN.

Oh i see, no numbers, no data, just your guess that it can do that.

How much mass does this plasmoid have, give us a ball park, and then explain the math that holds it together.

then be sure to change the subject and never answer the question.

All we have here is your GUESS, so while you attack other people figures you just pull a rabbit out of your hat and say "Presto chango, I say so!"

And are there other observations to suggest the electric universe homopolar/z-pinch model of galaxies is correct, rather than the black hole model?

Change subject, flap arms widely.

you haven't shown that a plasmoid can do what is observed to happen, but gosh, LOOK OVER THERE!

Well, check out the book "Colliding Galaxies: The Universe in Turmoil" by Barry Parker, copyright 1990. A section titled "Filaments" shows evidence of the type of currents and magnetic fields postulated by plasma cosmologists. Even back in 1990 they had direct evidence of these ... unlike dark matter and dark energy.

Parker wrote the following: "Another strange feature of the central region is the presence of huge filaments. In 1984 Mark Morris of UCLA and Farhad Yusef- Zadeh and Don Chance of Columbia University, using the VLA, discovered three enormous parallel arks of gas approximately 10-20 light-years thick. They are over 150 light-years long and project out from the plane of the disk. Studies soon showed that arcs of this type had to be composed of high-speed particles trapped by extremely strong magnetic fields. ... at this time we still do not know what causes them." "Soon after these filaments were discovered, much larger filaments were discovered by a Japanese team of radio astronomers of the University of Tokyo's Radio Observatory. They are horseshoe- shaped, and rise about 700 light-years above the galactic plane. They resemble the giant arches of gas that are sometimes seen on the sun, but they are, of course, billions of times larger. It is believed that they are high-speed particles trapped in magnetic fields."

Note that there is an artist's illustration in the book depicting the core region. What struck me back then is that it looks very much like the plasmoid model that Lerner had in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" for galaxies and quasars. In other words, it depicts multiple filaments that fountain out of a small central core then loop around and reenter on the opposite side of the core ... just like Alfven, Lerner and Peratt postulated back then. Because Plasma Cosmology could explain the filaments more than two decades ago with a highly coherent model, this should count as a prediction by plasma cosmologists that's been satisfied. After all, Lerner submitted his paper describing such features in galaxies well before the VLA results were ever published.

Oh , a fictional picture shows what you like.

How about some math BAC?

How about some data to back your imaginary desire.

And other galaxies display similar evidence of such a homopolar motor structure. For example, British astronomers recently discovered a giant "magnetic bubble" around M82 (http://images.google.com/imgres?img...images?q=m82+magnetic+bubble&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=X). Of course, the astrophysicists in question talk about winds and magnetism and miss the real cause ... electric current. And miss the fact they are seeing Birkeland currents which explain the filaments. The diagram of M82 they produced is almost identical to that theorized for galaxies by Eric Lerner in his book.

Still nothing about the orbits of stars in the center of the galaxy, flapping noted

In fact, NASA's Astronomy Picture Of the Day " The Galactic Center - A Radio Mystery" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990128.html ) admits that the arcs, threads and filaments which abound in the Milky Way's central region "challenge present theories of the dynamics of the galactic center." But only because present theories don't include Birkeland currents and homopolar motors.

And there are other recent observations in the core region that apparently surprise mainstream astrophysicists. For example ...

You know what would suprise me BAC, if you had a shred of credibility, you would start to produce numbers , like proof that a plasmoid could do what you think it can.

Or even better:

What size would a magnetic field have to have to move the sun per Perrat's model BAC?
Is there a magnetic field that size observed

Can you answer questions or just line up your gnomes and pretend that they can do the conga?

While you are at it, why not address the sampling error in the way Arp determined an association between galaxies and QSOs.

Why is it when it comes to hard figures, you are about as hard to see as dark matter?

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_101305.html "Stars Form Surprisingly Close to Milky Way's Black Hole, October 13, 2005 ... snip ... Until the latest Chandra results, astronomers have disagreed about the origin of a mysterious group of massive stars discovered by infrared astronomers to be orbiting less than a light year from the Milky Way's central black hole, a.k.a. Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A*. At such close distances to Sgr A*, the standard model for star formation predicts that gas clouds from which stars form should have been ripped apart by tidal forces from the black hole." Yet, "'We can now say that the stars around Sgr A* were not deposited there by some passing star cluster, rather they were born there,' said Sunyaev . 'There have been theories that this was possible, but this is the first real evidence. Many scientists are going to be very surprised by these results.'" No doubt. But they'll accept them ... as long as the major gnomes remain intact. Never mind that plasma cosmologists aren't surprised to find stars forming near the core. That would be expected to happen in their model.

I bet that someone has addressed that but you are just too poor a debater to ever admit it.

Here's another example showing how mainstream astrophysicists choose to invent more gnomes rather than look to EM for explanations for what they see:

So what size would that magnetic field have to be BAC, why can't you answer the question?

Why do you take your magic gnome of Perrat's plasma and march it around but you can't put a figure on it?

What strength would the field have to have to move the stars in the galaxy per perrat's model?

Can't answer? Or won't?


Gnome King , you are!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243130,00.html "Giant Black Hole at Center of Milky Way Grabs Planet-Sized Snack, Thursday, January 11, 2007 ... snip ... An ancient X-ray outburst from the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy caused surrounding gas clouds to glow brightly in a cosmic light show that is only now being detected. The output likely involved the consumption of a snack equal in mass to the planet Mercury, researchers said here yesterday at the 209th meeting of the American Astronomical Society."

Now I bet they never even considered the PC/EU explanation for glowing "gas" clouds. After all, these researchers are certain there's a black hole surrounded by "swirling clouds" of "gas" "blown in by stellar winds." The cause is perfectly obvious in that case. (sarcasm)

I bet you never considered the fact that the magnetic field needed to move the stars in a flat rotation curve could be computed, what would it be?

You like to poke holes in standard cosmology, but you can't put numbers to yours.

What size magnetic field BAC?

But no you will haul out that poor old Gnome and tell us that it can do it. Because he is your Wonder Gnome. And now he has his buddy, the miracle Plasmoid Gnome. Along with thier faithful dog the Z-pinch.


But gosh, what size field BAC?

And then there's this from the same source. "Sagittarius A* is unusually faint for a galactic supermassive black hole. ... snip ... Why our black hole is so dim is not entirely understood. 'This faintness implies that stars and gas rarely get close enough to the black hole to be in any danger," said study team member Frederick Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

Too bad you don't pay attention to the answers, now do you.

Hard to believe stars rarely get close enough ... especially when at the same time the mainstream claims there are millions of them within a light year of the black hole. And it's not just one black hole all these stars apparently have to avoid ...

Quote your source BAC, you can't tell us what size Perrat's magnetic field would have to be, so please, don't just put words in other people's mouths.

Millions within a light year.. source?

http://spacespin.org/article.php/chandra_black_hole_swarm "Chandra finds a black hole swarm near Milky Way center, Sunday, January 16 2005 ... snip ... Among the thousands of X-ray sources detected within 70 light years of Sgr A*, Muno and his colleagues searched for those most likely to be active black holes and neutron stars by selecting only the brightest sources that also exhibited large variations in their X-ray output. ... snip ... Of the seven sources that met these criteria, four are within three light years of Sgr A*."

Four black holes within 3 LY of the central black hole? Note that number apparently surprised them. "Although the region around Sgr A* is crowded with stars, we expected that there was only a 20 percent chance that we would find even one X-ray binary within a three-light-year radius," said Muno."

But wait ... it gets worse.

What gets worse BAC is you running from answering a direct question,

you haven't shown that a plasmoid can do what you say it does.
You haven't shown that the Perrat model can do what you say it can.

You don't have to poke holes in your own theories, because you never demonstrate them.

What strength magnetic field BAC?

"From the estimated number of stars and black holes in the Galactic Center region, dynamical friction is expected to produce a dense swarm of 20,000 black holes within three light years of Sgr A*. A similar effect is at work for neutron stars, but to a lesser extent because they have a lower mass. Once black holes are concentrated near Sgr A*, they will have numerous close encounters with normal stars".

But don't worry ... they still have an explanation for why the Milky way is relatively quiet. "[T]he acceleration of low-mass stars by black holes will eject low-mass stars from the central region. This expulsion will reduce the likelihood that normal stars will be captured by the central supermassive black hole. This may explain why the central regions of some galaxies, including the Milky Way, are fairly quiet even though they contain a supermassive black hole." They also theorize a recent supernova cleared all the gas out of the region surrounding the central black hole.

So while the mainstream has the black hole (that they can't see) all figured out, an explanation for what they can see is still lacking.

Just like the magnetic field that Perrat's model would need, how big BAC?

For example (from http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051125-5.htm ) "The following points are made by T.J. Lazio and T.N. LaRosa (Science 2005 307:686): ... snip ... even the basic properties of a key component of the galactic center, its magnetic field, remain poorly understood. ... snip ... Magnetic fields have the potential to transform, store, and explosively release energy, to transport angular momentum, and to confine high-energy plasmas into powerful jet flows. They are therefore central to astrophysical activity from stellar to galactic scales. ... snip ... approximately 20 years ago, the first high-resolution radio images of the galactic center revealed numerous magnetic structures that are unique to the galactic center. The most striking of these is the galactic center radio arc, a series of parallel linear filaments, each of which is merely a few light years wide yet more than 100 light years long. Also observed were a number of isolated linear features that were variously referred to as streaks, threads, and filaments. The relation between these isolated filaments and the bundled filaments of the radio arc remains unknown."

Unknown, just like you answering a direct question!

Maybe they'd learn something if they actually tried to figure that out? Do you suppose? And while they are researching that ... maybe they should ask themselves whether the energy output of the core and quasars is proof of black holes? Because it is an interesting fact that plasmoids also produce jets with the same characteristics observed coming from quasars and active galaxies. In fact, without those jets, galaxies won't even form because they can't shed the angular momentum. That's the same problem that stars have in forming ... which is why they also produce jets ... even without black holes.

Anthony Peratt proved in simulations (see his paper "The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe at the link I provided in the previous post on filaments) back in 1986 that z-pinches can easily produce synchrotron jets with the power observed in astronomical objects like the double radio galaxy Cygnus A.

But can they produce a gravitational field to cause stars to loop around them as though they going around a black hole?

Can you tell us what size the magnetic field would have to be to cause a flat rotation curve in the galaxy?

A dark matter indeed.

And the simulations show the duration of the radiation burst can be millions of years ... just as is apparently the case in the 3C273 jet. And isn't it ironic that this mechanism for producing synchrotron radiation was first brought to the attention of astronomers back in 1950 by Hannes Alfven (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/synchrotron.html) who was actually the first to recognize radiation from astronomical sources as synchrotron radiation. They just ignored him back them ... just like they are ignoring the plasma cosmology explanation now. Even so, let history record that one might view this as another successful prediction by plasma cosmology. No need to invent black holes, neutron stars and magnetic reconnection to do it.



Are you sure?

I shall have to reread this later, I missed the part where you explained the high gravity field that causes orbits.

Too much to digest at one swoop. maybe it is there and maybe there is just a lot of flapping.

 

[Reality Check]

BeAChooser: Try to guess what a plasmoid with a mass of 2.6 million solar masses and a radius of no more than 1 AU is? You are right - it is a black hole !

 

[Complexity]

Do you read any of my posts?

No.

More accurately, not after reading your first post.

I do allow my eyes to float over them as I page past them - that's how I found the question I'm responding to.

My woo / stupid filter blocks out the rest.

Why would I read any of your posts?

 

[Dancing David]

See my post above.

Ah the Gnomes on Parade! You rely on wishful thinking, appeals to emotions and god of the gaps arguments. When you don't just follow the Karl Rove playbook.

How is the size of the magnetic field coming, to make the Perrat model move the galaxy BAC?

How does your plasmoid hold up on the upper limit for the mass at the center of the gagalxy?

No, only inferred. Inferred from observations that can be explained using known and demonstrable plasma and EM phenomena. For example:

Oh, like the one YOU refuse to try to put numbers to?

What size magnetic field to make perrat's model of galaxy rotation work BAC?

Electrical engineer Donald Scott in his book "Electric Sky" says the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name (rapidly pulsed radio signals) "is produced electrically (much like a radio station)." He says "In the plasma that surrounds a star (or planet) there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetic field structure of the body. Those conducting paths are giant electrical transmission lines and can be analyzed as such. Depending on the electrical properties of what is connected to the ends of electrical transmission lines, it is possible for pulses of current and voltage (and therefore power) to oscillate back and forth from one end to the other. The ends can both be on the same object (as occurs on Earth) or one end might be on one member of a closely spaced binary pair of stars and the other end on the other member of the pair similar to the "flux tube" connecting Jupiter and its inner moon, Io."

Scott goes on to note that in 1995 several super computer simulations were performed on a transmission line system model with properties believed to be those of a pulsar atmosphere and the results matched seventeen different observed emission properties. The 1995 analysis he refers to is "Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment" by Kevin Healy and Anthony Peratt (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf ). Healy and Peratt concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes (BAC - or quark stars) to explain compact sources of radiation."

I see, so what does Scott think happens to the core of a star of 1.5 solar masses to 3 solar masses after they are done fusing, or whatever gnome boojum you think makes a star shine?

What happens BAC?

What does Scott say will happen, or does he have an eternal energy source that keeps the star from undergoing gravitational collapse?

What happems to star at 1 solar mass?
What happens to a star 1.5 to 3 solar masses?
What happens to a star 3 to ten solar masses?

What happens to a star ten solar masses or greater BAC?

Do explain your beloved theories model?

What happens to the matter as it under goes gravitational collapse?

And what about the jets? Here is an image of the Vela Pulsar

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg

Big Bang advocates claim the jets result from their magnetic reconnection physics.

Why don't you provide a mainstream source for that then?

Hmm, you can't answer direct questions and now you just assert straw in the mouth of others.

What size magnetic field is needed to make Perrat's model of galactic rotation work BAC?

What happens to a star 20 solar masses after the energy that makes it shine is gone?

Hmmm?

Plasma cosmologists say the jet is produced by the same phenomena created in what's called a focus fusion device here on earth. In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Here is a diagram of such a device with the plasma discharge on the right:

http://www.holoscience.com/views/img/lasma_focus.gif

Here's an animation you can watch of a focus fusion device in action.

http://focusfusion.org/assets/animation/Foki1a2.gif

Not only do the "bow-like" arcs observed in the Vela Pulsar have the same shape as the discharge from this device but the plasma filaments that form in a focus fusion device look a lot like the circuit diagram envisioned by Hannes Alfven to explain what is going on in and around stars and galaxies.

Wow, not only that but you still ahven't said what size the magentic field needs to be to make Perrat's model of galaxy rotation work?

Or the gravitational attraction of a plasmoid at the upper limit of the mass at the center of the galaxy?
Or what happens to a star at 50 solar masses when it doesn't have the energy to shine anymore?

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm ) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate.* But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved.

Oh , "of course" it would , no numbers, no modeling, no ability to make predections. Just more empty fluff from Thunderbolts!

Do YOU believe that electrical forces balasted the Materhorn out of place and dropped it down BAC?

Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

And this is not the only pulsar example where plasma cosmologists seem to have a better explanation of the observations than Big Bang proponents.

Hmmm, and what happens to a star at 5 solar masses when the energy that makes it shine is no longer available?

Or are you suggesting a violation of the conservation of energy as well?

What happens when a star at five solar masses undergoes gravitational collapse BAC?

Consider the Crab Nebula pulsar. Here are photos of that object:

http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m1pulsar.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/sol01_07.jpg

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies.

have you found the size of that magnetic field BAC, here you are talking about the homopolar motor, is this what perrat suggested might make a galactic rotation curve flat?

What size magnetic field BAC, would be needed to do that?

And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets. And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms at the center of such an object.

Speculation is what you are good at, but not answering a direct question!

Or is this another instance of

"whatever reasons"?

The bottom line is that known physics can produce what is seen. Neutron stars aren't needed and prior to the observation the jets and pulsar emissions, had been theoretically dismissed.

the bottom line is you aren't producing the number, what size magnetic field would be needed to just move the sun in Perrat's model of galactic rotation?
What size field for ten stars, a hundred, a hundred million?

Hmmm, show us the number or you are just waving your gnome around. Sure perrat could do it, but can a galaxy?

Furthermore, there are problems with the neutron star model, just as there are problems with the black hole model.

Have you decided what happens to a star at 500 solar masses when it runs out of the energy that makes it5 shine BAC?

Answer the question, what happens?

Now they are having to introduce "quark stars" to explain some of the neutron star observations. See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html . It seems that every time one turns around, Big Bang supporting astronomers and astrophysicists are adding yet another deduced, untestable, magic gnome to their celestial zoo.

Point away and wave your arms all you want, but answer the questions:

1. What size magnetic field would be needed to explain the rotation curve of a galaxy per Perrat's model?
2. What happens to the plasmoid model when it is at the upper limit of the mass at the center of the galaxy?
3. What happens to a star at 15 solar masses when it no longer has the energy to shine?

 

[Dancing David]

BeAChooser: Try to guess what a plasmoid with a mass of 2.6 million solar masses and a radius of no more than 1 AU is? You are right - it is a black hole !

A really Big Gnome that can use it's Super Powers to avoid gravitational collapse?

 

[iantresman]

A really Big Gnome that can use it's Super Powers to avoid gravitational collapse?

.
I think you're not far wrong. The magnetic field in a plasma cloud may stop gravitational collapse. This was investigated by Per Carlqvist in 1988, resulting in the eponymous Carlqvist Relation, peer reviewed in (ref, full text). As Carlqvist and Hannes Alfvén mention in another paper, the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud resulting in a pinch.

 

[sol invictus]

.
I think you're not far wrong. The magnetic field in a plasma cloud may stop gravitational collapse. This was investigated by Per Carlqvist in 1988, resulting in the eponymous Carlqvist Relation, peer reviewed in (ref, full text). As Carlqvist and Hannes Alfvén mention in another paper, the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud resulting in a pinch.

If you believe that, you don't believe in general relativity. The inevitability of the formation of black holes when the total energy within a region reaches a certain cutoff (and it doesn't matter what form the energy takes - adding magnetic fields makes it worse) can be proven rigorously.

Do you believe in GR?

 

[Klimax]

Plasmoids aren't gnomes. We can actually create them in labs here on earth. Now MAYBE the LHC will create black holes. Hope not.

Yes,in lab,but what are the lab conditions.How much do they differ from conditions in space.And could you please find any article or paper,where do they state and provide math for their mass.ETA:And property.But I doubt there is no need.

Any proof of this? Those calculations I sourced were done by electrical engineers and plasma physicists quite familiar with Maxwell's equations using (in some cases) codes that incorporated Maxwell's equations.

This is covered by others and I have yet to get to Maxwell's.(As said I study and now we have electricity,but it will take sometime to get there,that is why I only used probably...)

What should I ask them? How should I phrase it?

That is up to you.You are one of proponents of theory,but I think that key part would be equations,whose solutions can be tested against know data.(Obviously )
In fact,I am worng person to ask,why not just to email Project scientist,what is needed?

ETA:
Reminder to myself:Never ever post,until you read rest of unread posts...

And EU is even no theory,my apology.The "stupid game-word" should be hypothesis and so far as I read ,even proved being bad...
(Hopefully I did not break anything...)