• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Something new under the sun

Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant). And, better yet, robinson catches the error!

Yet another example of BAC's superior knowledge of physics... :rolleyes:
Actually that was iantresman who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now. It contains an equation
The motion of solid particles in a plasma follows the momentum equation for ions and electrons:
m dv/dt = mg + q (E + v x B) - mvc v + f
where m, q are the mass and charge of the particle, g is the gravitation acceleration, mvcv is due to viscosity, and f respresents all other forces including radiation pressure. q (E + v x B) is the Lorentz force, where E is the electric field, v is the velocity and B is the magnetic field.
I don't know what this has to do with my original question which was about Peratt's model.
 
Although showing that a small lab experiment is visibly similar to effects seen on the sun doesn't constitute either a theory or a prediction, it leads to an obvious question. What charge would the sun carry to produce the effects seen in Birkeland's Terrella?

I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.

That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage.

If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.
 
Last edited:
So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well.


Are you calling Ziggurat a woo? This is the value he also believes it true.

I am begginning to get the impression you are not the expert you claim you are. On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics

The value they calculate is very theoretical, and I would very much like to see some sort of experimental proof of it, but it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses.
 
Score!!! Welcome to the club, Sol. It seems to me that BAC and Zeuzzz insist upon driving away the very people on this forum who actually do know some physics & cosmology

The last straw, beyond his failing to produce a single definite claim of this "theory" he's wasted our time with for months and typed thousands of words about, was the repeated lie about magnetic reconnection.

If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects doesn't have any effect on his claims that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, there's really no point in going on. He's not even a crackpot - he's simply a liar. Nothing else will ever be that clear-cut - it's just basic vector calculus.
 
Last edited:
I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.


I would wecome such a deal if anyone else want to take it up. I have learnt now not to respond with too much information, and i will keep it concise and on specifics, seems that posting too much information in one go puts people off. A shame that sol cant see this, or i would give him another example. :D
 
I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.


Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful! :)


That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage.


Wishful thinking to expect him to actually follow through on this agreement.


If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.


Of this I'm certain. :rolleyes:
 
Yes - the "ignore" feature is wonderful! :)


What a co-incidence! I point out some of the stupid assumptions in Mattus' calculation, point out that I already did this calculation before anyway (here) and concluded myself that this force was largely negligable, point out that the pioneer anomaly is not even really applicable to the ES theory, and that the value he used for the charge on the spacecraft would quite literally make it explode, and he then states that I am on ignore! someone quote this post so he can read it. :)

And also, which really shows he doesn't know what he's on about, I then point out that Mattus seems to think that the value of electrostatic charge on a star of 100 Coulombs is what EU proponents think, he goes around shouting how absolutely insane this value is and how woo EU is, but he fails to realise this is the value accepted by conventional astronomers for a charge on the sun. (link). I think we can conclude that Mattus remains ignorant about a great many things. And whilst he has me on ignore, he will remain so :)


So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well. How does this fit the data?


This guy is hilarious! 1C on the spacecraft would obliterate it, and 100 C on the sun is what standard astronomers currently think the charge on the sun is anyway :D
 
Last edited:
Perhaps someone with good knowledge of Peratt's plasma model of the galaxy can answer this:
Did Peratt model all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma?


Of course.

I had assumed that he had a model that treated the 5% by mass of the galaxy that is the Interstellar Medium as a plasma while treating the rest of the mass that is in stars as gravitational sources. Or perhaps he stated a reason to increase the mass of the plasma to a higher percentage?
The quotes that I have seen suggest that he modelled all of the mass of the galaxy as a plasma.


All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state.
 
For example, can your plasma cosmology explain the orbital mechanics of a planet any better than can the accepted theories of gravity?

Plasma and EM phenomena are needed to explain why most of the angular momentum in the solar system is in the planets and not the sun. But you put forth a strawman when you imply that plasma astrophysicists wish to replace gravity with EM in all phenomena. That is not the case. Plasma cosmologists are perfectly willing to coexist with gravity ... just not with all the gnomes mainstream science has created in order to make gravity explain phenomena that it otherwise can't explain. :)

Clinging to disproved theories because of a dislike of the mainstream is not very logical.

But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.
 
Of course.

All mass is a gravitational source, whether it be in the plasma state or not. The mass of the galaxy would also be the same, regardless of the state of matter, the mass of a section of gas would not change if it were to change to a plasma state.


So he treated the entire mass of the galaxy as a plasma. I can see a few problems with that.

The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas.

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20.

The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters.

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.
 
...But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.
The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.
 
But many of the assertions of EU and PC proponents have not been disproven. They've just been ignored. What is not logical is totally ignoring phenomena like homopolar motors, Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches that we know occur in plasmas when we also know (or think we do) that 99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma. And that's what the mainstream community has done.
The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.



Since when was dark matter observable?

99% plasma (with references)
 
Nice pictures.

Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure?

As soon as you consider objects outside of a plasma then the plasma can be treated as neutral at a distance.

That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

The point is that a cosmological theory needs to be reviewed by people who have a grounding in cosmology - unless you are conceding that plasma cosmology has nothing to do with cosmology?

What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study? :)

Now you are invoking conspiracy theory.

No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proven correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm?

Are you saying every scientist in the world has the same mindset?

Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities?

Are you aware that proposal of the dark matter (a change to the then standard cosmology) was before the proposal of plasma cosmology?

Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter.

Why didn't every scientist in the world ignore that?

Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen. ;)

I am sure that all the theoretical cosmologists toiling away in universities are working on "giant expensive projects".

You might be surprised at how much money is *invested* in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory?
 
The first problem is that he is modeling the galaxy as a gaseous plasma, i.e. low density. Stars are not a low density plasma. They do not interact with a low density plasma in the same way as other low density plasmas.

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

The third problem is that his parameters are incorrect. Stars do not act as gaseous plasmas and so do not contribute to the parameters of his plasma. Since only 5% of the visible galaxy is Interstellar Medium his parameters are off by a factor of 20.

The fourth problem is the Interstellar Medium is not all ionized plasma and this needed to be reflected in his model. A tiny percentage is molecular clouds which can be ignored. Some is neutral and some is ionized (the actual percentages are not well known yet. This is more uncertainly in his model parameters.

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.


1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task.

2. Not true (see below)

3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star.

4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist.

5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable.


Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?)

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
B. Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma

As far as we know, most cosmic low-density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary
structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, all of which are observed to be associated with electric currents.
1) In the aurora, filaments parallel to the magnetic field are very often observed. These can sometimes have dimensions down to about 100 m.
2) Inverted V events and the in-situ measurements of strong electric fields in the magnetosphere (105-106 A, 108 m) demonstrate the existence of filamentary structures.
3) In the ionosphere of Venus, "flux ropes," whose filamentary diameters are typically 20 km, are observed.
4) In the sun, prominences (1011 spicules, coronal streamers, polar plumes, etc., show filamentary structure whose dimensions are of the order 107-108 m. 5) Cometary tails often have a pronounced filamentary structure [28]. 6) In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures, e.g., the Veil nebula, the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula (Fig.1), the Crab nebula, etc. 7) The center of the Galaxy, where twisting plasma filaments, apparently held together by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components, extend for nearly 500 light years (5 x 1018 m) [29]. 8) Within the radio bright lobes of double radio galaxies, where filamental lengths may exceed 20 kpc (6 x 1020 m) [30]. [......] It is the purpose of this paper to extend the study of cosmic plasma to the case of galactic-dimensioned (50 kpc in width) Birkeland filaments by means of three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, and relativistic particle-incell simulations. Fig. 1 is a contrast-enhanced photograph of the Orion nebula but serves the purpose of representing the morphology to be expected by an observer situated within a much larger filamentary metagalactic structure. The simulation model consists of modeling a magneticfield- aligned neutral plasma filament (column) in the presence of a field-aligned electric field. (Strictly speaking, because of the parallel electric field, the portion of the filament simulated is a double layer [35].) To study the evolution of interacting filaments, a second filament (nearly identical to the first) is placed adjacent as depicted in Fig. 3. (As many as six filaments have been investigated by simulation while up to 12 filaments have been studied experimentally. However, because of the r-1 force between filaments, it would appear that a majority of cosmic plasma phenomena are the result of two, or at most three, interactions among the closest filaments.)
 
Last edited:
It is observable in the same sense that interstellar plasma is observable - through instruments.
Yet another thing wrong in the plasma universe site, interpreting visible as observable.
That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster?
I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?
 
I know it's tough to consider, what with the huge scientific conspiracy to ignore and hide the TRUTH, but if you really try you can make your mind consider the possibility...


This is the crux of the issue with why you react the way you do to this material. If you think that we are saying there is a massive conscious conspiracy then no wonder you are not accepting of plasma cosmology. Quite to the contrary, most scientists have no idea about plasma cosmology, they are not taught it and so I fail to see how they are conspiring against anyone. They are persuing what they genuinly believe to be right, and are simply unaware of this.

If they were aware of PC, and are also aware of how wrong it all is, then I'm sure by now someone would have written a rebuttal to plasma cosmology material, but after asking everyone on this forum about seventy times, no-one has come up with any scientific source refuting it. Weird that, isn't it Mattus?

Nothing is being hidden from the public, there is no 'conspiracy' as such. It has more to do with faith and how you approach science. The more you interact with people who are religious about their physics, the more you come to see that there are specific human psychological factors at work.

It is easy to demonstrate that there is no conspiracy: Just pick a friend and try to explain the theory to them from scratch. You'll notice that the more technical knowledge the person has, the harder it will be to convince them of anything that is paradigm changing. This is ofetn the problem that scientists face, and it has nothing at all to do with a conspiracy.
 
Wow, BAC screws up basic physics again and states that g (localized acceleration due to gravity) is the same thing as G (the universal gravitational constant).

I guess MM is another who was simply too lazy or too close-minded to actually look at the link that was provided:

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

Or even understand what I was trying to point out. :rolleyes:

Say, MM, do you think those equations don't include the effect of gravity ... just like you don't think the filaments we see everywhere in space are plasmas? :D
 
Care to share your thoughts on the cause of the effects achieved in Birkelands experiments I posted previously in this post?

I suspect MM will no more want to share his thoughts on that than he did on the post I offered on plasmas and filaments.

He'll probably just go on ignoring us.

Or desperately try to ... :D
 

Back
Top Bottom