Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

So let us look at the citations. Two are from him so they do not count. One is on z-pinches and the abstract does not mention cosmology (it has 96 citations since 2000). The other is on "renewal-at-π cosmology" which seems to present an alternative to all cosmologies (incliding plasma cosmology).

If you actually read this paper you would see that it is highly relevant to Peratts model, thus why the authors cite his work. They produce a quantitive model for Z-pinch scaleability in plasma, if that is not highly relevant and consistant with Peratts work, I dont know what is.

And there are far more than four citations, i dont know where you were looking up your citations, but the paper you claimed only had four citations has nineteen from what i've seen; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...1986ITPS...14..639P&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST

and his second paper has fifteen; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...1986ITPS...14..763P&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST

So not only are you making an argument on authority alone (without any reference to the science of why it is actually wrong) you are misrepresenting his material. And If you were to look at his other publications on this issue, not just two of his publications, you would find plenty more citations to his work from established scientists and journals, some published very recently. There seems to be increasing interest in this material now more scientists are becoming aware of it.

Whether the number of citations to an article means that (a) it is factually wrong (b) ignored (c) not understood (d) uncontested (e) unknown (f) politically unpopular , is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment.

I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal received only 1 citation in the first 10 years, and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that.

And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat published in 1943, has received one citation to the article, ever.

Thanks Ian for pointing this out.

RealityCheck, Maybe you should contact all the scientists that cite his work and inform them of their mistake?

 

[Acleron]

Very well then.

Ignore list, meet Zeuzzz.

Thank God! finally, you have admitted defeat

On the contrary, you have lost a rare and valuable opportunity to learn something from somebody who actually does know what they are talking about.

 

[Zeuzzz]

On the contrary, you have lost a rare and valuable opportunity to learn something from somebody who actually does know what they are talking about.

I do not dispute that Sol is very knowledgeable about physics, he obviously is, and I have not disagreed with him on on any of the valid scientific contributions he has made, but he continually refused to address the actual material i was presenting. Instead he picked out the fine small points and dodged the main bulk of the work. He also continually refused to answer any of questions about magnetic reconnection, just resorting to the usual "many scientists believe it, so it must be true" tactic.

He agreed with me that the subject we would discuss was plasma scaling experiments and how they can replicate structures in the cosmos. I provided a long and substantial post on this exact subject. To which he just claimed it was vague, without any citations, and he totally ignored the material i presented and decided to change the subject. If he had not put me on ignore, I would have come up with another subject to discuss, since he seemed unable to comment on any of the material i presented on plasma scaling. CIV would have been a good starting point, or the various plasma pinch effects, but instead he changed the original agreement, and didn't comment at all on what I showed.

Its a shame, I really thought he was going to make some worthwhile contributions when I started to post actual plasma universe material, someone as knowledgeable as him I would have thought would at least find it interesting to see new science material he had not seen before. Instead it seemed to anger him. After the usual insulting comments from him and others directed at me I finally gave one post back with some of the same type of personal attacks, which takes a lot to make me do, and he instantly put me on ignore. He can give abuse, but not take. He should have not discounted the physics of the plasma universe so quickly, and by ignoring me he has done himself no favours.

He has perfectly demonstrated what is often referred to as the "curse of knowledge". Just because he was not previously aware of this subject does not make it wrong.

 

[Klimax]

Hello, Welcome!

You shall see many things that BAC does , but answer a direct question is not one of them.

I saw what he does.I am lurking on many threads and I saw what he and others like he do.

I just thought that he might clear this...I know I am too optimistic from pesimists.

So BAC,any answer to this?

 

[robinson]

I do not dispute that Sol is very knowledgeable about physics, ... he continually refused to address the actual material i was presenting. Instead he picked out the fine small points and dodged the main bulk of the work. He also continually refused to answer any of questions about magnetic reconnection, just resorting to the usual "many scientists believe it, so it must be true" tactic.

I've run into this sometimes, when something is so obvious it can't possibly be missed, yet some people can't see it. It isn't that they deny it exist, it just isn't even there to them. I consider it a mental blindspot, and it is indeed the curse of both scientist and non-scientist.

They don't mention plasma and the model doesn't include electromagnetic effects. They modeled neutral gas and used methods more suited to studying our atmosphere and water. They don't seem to recognize that plasmas behave very differently than neutral gas in the presence of electromagnetic fields ... which we know exist out there.

Ever since you started linking to papers and websites about plasma and related stuff, I've noticed this. I think it has to do with the ponderous nature of scientific publications and the way science is taught. Because gravity and light are obvious and easy to study here on earth, the early view of the Universe was all about gravity and light. Plasma, and electricity and magnetism related to plasmas, didn't enter the picture until recently. It s hard to give up cherished beliefs about the Universe. It often takes a long time before the mainstream will accept something they didn't know, especially if it makes them look dumb.

But you do demonstrate the selective blindness of mainstream supporters ... treating the galaxy once again as if it were a neutral fluid.

I've noticed this. And something else as well.

Your motto is ANYTHING but electricity. And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC?

I haven't. Have any good links? (and did anyone ever answer you?)

We all noticed you had NO response whatsoever to my post on filaments earlier in this thread ... when you denied they are made of plasma.

Get used to it. When people are wrong, they don't like to talk about it.

Earlier in this thread you posted that "It'd be nice if the woos could show any evidence that the filaments of which they speak are by their nature made of plasma." So I did, in a rather long post. And you totally ignored my response.

Yep. Ignoring is a common tactic when somebody is wrong. Or dumb. They just won't answer a question.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You're hand waving, RC. Plasma physicists do indeed predict all the above types of phenomena. For good reason. Yet, mainstream astrophysicists don't seem to even have those terms in their lexicon. Why is that?

Give me a list of the mainstream astrophysicists that know nothing about plasma physics. I will bet that it is small. They accept that plasma physics is important for plasmas of any size. The effect of plasma physics outside of plasmas is small.

You're still handwaving, RC. First of all, in various threads over the past several months I have already posted links to dozens of articles by and about dozens of different mainstream scientists that never even once used the word plasma (it's always "gas") or any of the other terms I mentioned (such as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, z-pinches). How can that be when you admit these phenomena are important for plasmas "of any size" and its widely recognized (even by NASA) that plasmas constitute 99+ percent of everything we can actually see.

You mean the large computer model that includes every known factor to simulate the universe of which warm dark matter is just one?

You apparently aren't all that familiar with the model. That computer model does NOT include EM effects or plasma phenomena like those exemplified by those terms I mentioned above. Hence, it can't possibly include "every known factor".

That is not evidence, it is a press release including the usual hype. The scientists state that the structures are "similar" to those seen in the cosmos.

Hype? So why is it ok in this case to think a lab experiment can be studied to better understand the distant universe but not ok when scientists observe that structures seen in space are "similar" to those seen in plasma experiments and phenomena here on earth? Hmmmmm? But I will agree that the Telegraph article is an attempt to sell string theory to the unsuspecting masses.

 

[Reality Check]

What the hell are you talking about? are you seriously suggesting that Peratt just forgot to include the force of gravity in his model? I have continually asked to to actually read and try to comprehend his work, but its obviously completely above your head.

Perhaps you can show me his equations that include gravity?

You also quote (I assume that the highlights are yours)

Although the gravitational force is weaker than the electromagnetic force by 39 orders of magnitude, gravitation is one of the dominant forces in astrophysics when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case when large bodies form [5]. Indicative of the analogy of forces for the motion of electrons and ions in the electromagnetic field and the motion of large bodies in the gravitational field is the ease with which a plasma model may be changed to a gravitational model. This transformation requires only a change of sign in the (electrostatic) potential calculation such that like particles attract instead of repel, followed by setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal to the square root of the gravitational constant (a gravitational model cannot be simply changed to an electromagnetic model as the full set of Maxwell's equations are required in the latter). [....]

I have included my highlighting of his misunderstanding of gravity. To start with the gravitational constant is not a ratio and cannot be converted to a charge-to-mass ratio. The sentence implies that he only considered a plasma with 1 sign of charge which is obviously a missstatement since he must know that a plasma has particles of both charges.

 

[Reality Check]

You're still handwaving, RC. First of all, in various threads over the past several months I have already posted links to dozens of articles by and about dozens of different mainstream scientists that never even once used the word plasma (it's always "gas") or any of the other terms I mentioned (such as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, z-pinches). How can that be when you admit these phenomena are important for plasmas "of any size" and its widely recognized (even by NASA) that plasmas constitute 99+ percent of everything we can actually see.

So out of the 1000's of mainstream scientists you can find dozens of papers that usse gas rather than plasma? So what do you think small means?
Why don't you do the comparison?

You apparently aren't all that familiar with the model. That computer model does NOT include EM effects or plasma phenomena like those exemplified by those terms I mentioned above. Hence, it can't possibly include "every known factor".

Nor does it include unicorns!

Hype? So why is it ok in this case to think a lab experiment can be studied to better understand the distant universe but not ok when scientists observe that structures seen in space are "similar" to those seen in plasma experiments and phenomena here on earth? Hmmmmm? But I will agree that the Telegraph article is an attempt to sell string theory to the unsuspecting masses.

Noting the similiarity is one thing. Creating an entirely new cosmology based on that similairty is not valid science.

 

[robinson]

Now you are just being silly.

 

[Reality Check]

I do not dispute that Sol is very knowledgeable about physics, he obviously is, and I have not disagreed with him on on any of the valid scientific contributions he has made, but he continually refused to address the actual material i was presenting. Instead he picked out the fine small points and dodged the main bulk of the work. He also continually refused to answer any of questions about magnetic reconnection, just resorting to the usual "many scientists believe it, so it must be true" tactic.....

The bit about magnetic connection is untrue. An example of an actual potential that shows magnetic reconnection is in this (and other threads). I believe that Sol provided this and told you about it many times.

 

[Reality Check]

Now you are just being silly.

Who is being silly about what and where?

 

[iantresman]

Perhaps you can show me his equations that include gravity?

.
Peratt notes the "approach to the study of cosmic plasma is labeled "gravito-electrodynamic" (attributed to Hannes Alfven and D.A. Mendis, Ref). You can find the general equation for gravitoelectrodynamics here. But Peratt's simulations require more than just one equation since as we all know, plasmas and their behaviors are complex. Peratt details this in his paper:

• Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies, Peratt, Anthony L., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Also online in full (PDF)

More is detailed in Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe (1991) in Chapter 8, "Particle-in-Cell Simulation of Cosmic Plasma".

 

[Reality Check]

Whether the number of citations to an article means that (a) it is factually wrong (b) ignored (c) not understood (d) uncontested (e) unknown (f) politically unpopular , is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment.

I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal received only 1 citation in the first 10 years, and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that.

And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat published in 1943, has received one citation to the article, ever.

Thanks Ian for pointing this out.

RealityCheck, Maybe you should contact all the scientists that cite his work and inform them of their mistake?

I agree with the quote - the number of citations is partially a measure of popularity and never a measure of scientific truth.

However we are talking about plasma "cosmology". If this theory is true then our fundamental understanding of the universe will have to change. How can a non-cosmologist like myself (I assume that you have an advanced degree in cosmology and are not just parroting other people ) judge a paper that has such a startling and novel concept in it? The questions I have to ask are:

1. Does the theory look correct according to my basic knowledge of physics?
2. Was the seminal paper published in a cosmology journal and thus probably peer-reviewed by cosmologists?
3. Do other cosmologists support the theory?
4. Do scientists in general support the theory?
5. Does the pattern of citations follow that of other fundamental theories (an critical phase of low citations then a steady increase as the theory is tested and accepted followed by a plateau as the theory is developed further and references to the seminal paper decrease)?

My knowledge of physics comes from a 20-year old Masters in physics which was never really used (I have been in IT since) so any answer to 1 is almost a layman's answer.

1. I cannot see how a massive plasma that is neutral overall (or slightly charged) can not have gravitation forces dominating over electromagnetic forces at a distance. The opposite seems to be the basis of plasma cosmology.
2. The IEEE is not a journal devoted to cosmology. It does accept papers on cosmology but I have no idea whether the papers would be reviewed by cosmologists or by electrical engineers or plasma physicists.
3. A low rate of citations suggests that the paper is not supported by cosmologists (or is being ignored by them for some reason).
4. The same low rate suggests that scientists in general are ignoring or not supporting the paper.
5. The pattern of citations suggests that the paper is (charitably) still in the critical phase. The 4 citations in 1988 could have been the start of great things but the citation rate then decreased.

I was using the Scopus abstract and citation database but the extra citations (19 in 22 years) leads me to think that that database is not as good as others.

 

[Reality Check]

.
Peratt notes the "approach to the study of cosmic plasma is labeled "gravito-electrodynamic" (attributed to Hannes Alfven and D.A. Mendis, Ref). You can find the general equation for gravitoelectrodynamics here. But Peratt's simulations require more than just one equation since as we all know, plasmas and their behaviors are complex. Peratt details this in his paper:

• Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies, Peratt, Anthony L., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Also online in full (PDF)

More is detailed in Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe (1991) in Chapter 8, "Particle-in-Cell Simulation of Cosmic Plasma".

Equations? Note that if the gravitation constant G is not in the equations then it has nothing to do with gravity.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The bit about magnetic connection is untrue. An example of an actual potential that shows magnetic reconnection is in this (and other threads). I believe that Sol provided this and told you about it many times.

Well he certainly didn't do it in any thread I have read. Evidence?

And the video graphic drawn on a computer by someone to represent what is thought to be occuring in Magnetic reconnection is not proof that it can actually physically happen.

 

[iantresman]

So out of the 1000's of mainstream scientists you can find dozens of papers that usse gas rather than plasma? So what do you think small means?
Why don't you do the comparison?

.
A keyword search of the NASA ADS database (astronomy only) finds:

• "stellar" and "plasma" .. .. .. .. . = _8,802 references
• "stellar" and "ionized gas" .. .. . = _3,118 references
• "stellar" and "gas" and "plasma" = _1,371 references
• "stellar" and "gas" .. .. .. .. .. .. = 36,917 references

Looks like stellar astronomy is full of a lot of hot gas.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So the "actual value of the thing" is not necessarily 3.7 million solar masses like you said. I see.

You do not see. It is very likely to be 3.7 million solar masses since that is what the scientists state.

But not a certainty. Right?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And by the way ... they didn't "measure" the mass. They inferred it from "measuring" something other than mass.

No they did not "infer" the mass. They calculated the mass using the orbits of stars around the black hole.

They inferred the mass is present from measurements of star velocities and what they believe is causing those motions. You said they MEASURED the mass. They did not.

Its mass keeps it as a black hole.

How can the mass keep it a black hole if it has been reduced to the Planck length (or even smaller)? That is the point where the distinction between quantum reality and our reality disappears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam "The foam is a qualitative description of the turbulence that the phenomenon creates at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws."

Is there even such a thing as mass at that level given that the concepts of "space" and "time" are even in doubt?

 

[iantresman]

However we are talking about plasma "cosmology". If this theory is true then our fundamental understanding of the universe will have to change. How can a non-cosmologist like myself (I assume that you have an advanced degree in cosmology and are not just parroting other people ) judge a paper that has such a startling and novel concept in it?

.
At the end of the day, you are going to judge for yourself whether Plasma Cosmology (the study of the Plasma Universe), is bunkum.

1. I cannot see how a massive plasma that is neutral overall (or slightly charged) can not have gravitation forces dominating over electromagnetic forces at a distance. The opposite seems to be the basis of plasma cosmology.

.
Because all space plasmas are magnetized, and the weak local magnetic field overwhelms gravitational forces at a distance. For example, the smaller-scale interplanetary medium (a plasma) although it is populated with the Sun, planets and asteroids, is influenced more by the interplanetary magnetic field than gravity, resulting in the largest structure in the Solar System, the heliospheric current sheet.

• The IEEE is not a journal devoted to cosmology. It does accept papers on cosmology but I have no idea whether the papers would be reviewed by cosmologists or by electrical engineers or plasma physicists.

.
The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is where you would expect to find experts on plasmas. If the Moon was made of green cheese, you'd consult a food scientist, not a lunar scientist.

• A low rate of citations suggests that the paper is not supported by cosmologists (or is being ignored by them for some reason).

.
You wouldn't expect new ideas to be supported by the status quo. Alfvén himself wrote that he had to submit papers to more obscure journals because referees did not understand his papers, and, cosmologists did not like someone trained as an electrical engineer infringing on their area of expertise.

University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, notes:

"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S. Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. "​

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC?

I haven't. Have any good links? (and did anyone ever answer you?)

You'll love this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203090139.htm "Dark Matter In Newborn Universe Doused Earliest Stars, ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2007) — Perhaps the first stars in the newborn universe did not shine, but instead were invisible "dark stars" 400 to 200,000 times wider than the sun and powered by the annihilation of mysterious dark matter, a University of Utah study concludes. ... snip ... the findings "drastically alter the current theoretical framework for the formation of the first stars," says study author and astrophysicist Paolo Gondolo, associate professor of physics at the University of Utah."

http://www.physorg.com/news122034732.html "First stars might have been powered by dark matter, February 12, 2008 ... snip ... By Miranda Marquit, For a long time, scientists have assumed that the very first stars were powered by fusion, in processes similar to what goes on in present day stars. But a new theory is emerging to challenge that view. “The first stars were different in a lot of ways,” Katherine Freese, a theoretical physicist at the University of Michigan, tells PhysOrg.com. Freese, along with Douglas Spolyar at the Unversity of California, Santa Cruz and Paolo Gondolo at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, posit that dark matter annihilation was the source of energy that powered the earliest stars, formed about the time the universe was between 100 and 200 million years old."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/10/2114342.htm "Weird dark stars dotted early universe, 10 December 2007 Larry O'Hanlon ... snip ... The earliest stars in the universe may have been cool expanses of helium and hydrogen, thick with dark matter and spitting with antimatter. There even may be a few still around. What some astrophysicists are calling 'dark stars' would have been dominated by dark matter and could have existed for millennia in the early universe, when dark matter was far more concentrated than today. ... snip ... What's more, these theoretical dark matter stars may be the secret behind the giant black holes called quasars, which appear to have come into existence before galaxies had a chance to create them."

And it's not just dark stars. How about dark galaxies?

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/06/14/no-stars-shine-in-this-dark-galaxy/ "No Stars Shine in This Dark Galaxy, Written by Fraser Cain, An international team of astronomers have conclusive new evidence that a recently discovered "dark galaxy" is, in fact, an object the size of a galaxy, made entirely of dark matter."

 

[BeAChooser]

So out of the 1000's of mainstream scientists you can find dozens of papers that usse gas rather than plasma? So what do you think small means?

Why do you presume those were the only papers I could find, RC? I didn't try to compile a complete list. Those were just the papers published by the top people in the astrophysics world announcing major discoveries. The ones that got the mainstream press. And they ALL use the term "gas" to describe plasma and they ALL treat that material like it is neutral gas or water.

My challenge to your side has always been to post links to ANY mainstream supporting papers that specifically mention, and more importantly, mention and then discount phenomena such as Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches as being the cause of space observations. And your side has failed miserably in that task. Because such papers are very rare ... indeed, almost non-existent. In fact, I can't think of a single instance where your side has provided a scientific paper meeting that criteria.

Now I've already provided links in this forum to dozens of papers announcing or describing major discoveries that call what they see "gas", not plasma, and that do not mention any of the well known EM/plasma phenomena that have been mentioned. Even the papers on the computer model you touted call the material out there gas and talk only about gravity. Let's see if YOU can even come up with one scientific paper that correctly identifies the material as plasma and mentions those EM related phenomena that you apparently admit are valid at any size. Can you?