Something new under the sun

[BeAChooser]

For those who are wondering, my last response was to a statement made by RC that he edited out of existence a moment later.

 

[sol invictus]

What do you think causes galaxies to rotate? Gravity? By all means ... tell us how. In contrast, EM phenomena have no problem introducing rotation into systems.

There is BeAChooser again "desperately waving hands"

Is it possible that BAC really misunderstands orbits that badly? I find it hard to believe, but then again I guess there was a good reason I put her/him on ignore...

 

[BeAChooser]

Is it possible that BAC really misunderstands orbits that badly?

I understand why planet's and stars orbit, sol. Do you know what gave them the velocity that let's them orbit?

What is hilarious is that sol thinks he understands this debate by reading only one side of it. Talk about being foolish and misunderstanding.

 

[BeAChooser]

In fact, sol is demonstrating how making inferences from incomplete data and faulty underlying assumptions can lead to foolish gnomes.

 

[Reality Check]

BeAChooser, Are you really saying that a model that ignores the gravitational influence of 95% of the matter in a galaxy is correct?

By the way: Another reason why Peratt's model is wrong is because it assumes that the galaxy was low-density plasma (correct), remains as low-density plasma (wrong - stars are high density plasma) and will be low-density plasma forever (extremely wrong).
If his model showed the formation of stars then I would be impressed!

 

[Klimax]

I understand why planet's and stars orbit, sol. Do you know what gave them the velocity that let's them orbit?

I'd say that at first original rotation during star system formation and then it is determined by simple equation Fgrav = Fcentrifugal .

Of course other thing influences this like 1. and 2. impulse principle and so o...

 

[Reality Check]

In fact, sol is demonstrating how making inferences from incomplete data and faulty underlying assumptions can lead to foolish gnomes.

In fact, sol is demonstrating how to make actual calculations from real physics as are other people in the forum.

For some strange, weird reason plasma cosmology/electric universe apologists cannot do this.

 

[Dancing David]

"Acceleration of the angular momentum"?

As the material moves in a smaller area, ie a circle, parabola or ellipse, the velocity of the material increases, or as it moves father away from the focus of rotatiom the velocity slows. (You know like ice skatersa nd thier arms or Kepplers law regarding the velocity of a planet on an elleiptical orbit.)

You have a problem with that?

Or are you just pretending to be meaningful?

David, I didn't say that. You need to learn to read if you want to understand ANYTHING.



I'm surprised at you, David. You demonstrate that you know less than you think about the distribution of mass and angular momentum in the solar system. And where that angular momentum came from originally. Why you don't even appear to know that the total angular momentum is conserved. You also again demonstrate that you haven't read anything I previously posted on this subject even though you were present on such threads. Because I explained all this on previous threads.

Ah, lack of direct answer , lack of evidence that it has been demonstrated, just your assertion that your Gname has done it.

Evasion duly noted.

 

[Belz...]

So now try to show how Jupiter aquirred it's angular momentum from EM forces and how it couldn't be accounted for by just being a high velocity mass that got captured in orbit around the sun.

What I don't understand about these electric universe proponents is why they believe in that nonsense in the first place. What is it about the accepted theories that they think does not explain things reasonably well and that requires such outlandish theories ???

 

[Dancing David]

Sigh.

Don't let me stop you from looking foolish, David.

Here is something recent from the mainstream:

Mainstream pop science, oh goody another Tiger Beat article! At least you are providing an answer.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071031-star-collapse.html: "New Spin on How Stars are Born By Ker Than, 31 October 2007 ... snip ... New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller. Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely.

Oh gosh that is just soooo amazing!

'some' of the momentum must be disappated.

How much is some, what does this have to do with planerary motion. Some is disappated from the stars proto-mass, how much?

So now you will overgeneralise your Gnome to all the angular momentum in all the solar system?

How this happens, though, is unknown. 'Given the size difference between an ordinary star like our sun and a typical molecular cloud, if the rotation was allowed to increase as the cloud collapsed, the [apparent] centrifugal forces would never allow the material to collapse into anything small enough to form a star," said study team member Antonio Chrysostomou at the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom. "Hence, there needs to be a mechanism present which removes this angular momentum." A new model by Chrysostomou and colleagues suggests excess material and energy are borne away from the protostar along helical magnetic field lines that surround the star. This stellar exodus carries away enough angular momentum to allow the spinning cloud to undergo the final phase of collapse necessary to become a star. Their findings are detailed in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Nature."

Now in case you are having difficulty understanding that, they are saying EM phenomena (see where they talk about helical magnetic fields, David?) are transferring the angular momentum out of the mass that will become the sun. If that doesn't happen, then the cloud of plasma can't become a star.

Gosh BAC, that is not what you were talking about, now we have 'some' of the angular momentum being transferred through an EM force.


"And note that galaxies have the same problem that our solar system has ... moving the angular momentum out from the center."

Wait are you now saying that galaxy has to do the same thing?

A galaxy has to transfer momentum before it can collapse to become a star.

Okay.

You are overgeneralizing again!

What is funny is that these mainstream astrophysicists apparently didn't know (perhaps because they aren't taught this stuff in school?) that Alfven (you know, that Nobel Prize winner in physics) already solved this problem using EM phenomena.

Which is why you are not linking to that as requested?

They should have located and read "Cosmogony As An Extrapolation Of Magnetospheric Research" by Hannes Alfven, 1984, "Abstract. A theory of the origin and evolution of the Solar System (Alfven and Arrehnius, 1975, 1976) which considered electromagnetic forces and plasma effects is revised in the light of new information supplied by space research." Reading that paper, they'd have seen that Chrysostomou's finding aren't all that original. And Chrysostomou is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. Basically he's saying the magnetic fields are twisted due to the charged particles spinning as a result of the gravitational collapse. He overlooks the question of why particles are charged and therefore ignores the role that electricity has in the process. He apparently missed the fact that helically wound magnetic fields are characteristic of Birkeland Currents.

So again you are alluding to how your Gname (whose work you don't understand has just *POOFO* made it so.

If it follows the helical structure around filaments that might weakly explain how a halo forms around a galaxy, it does not explain a plane of rotation that plaentes seem to appear in.

And perhaps the greatest symptom of Chrysostomou's lack of understanding is calling the material "gas" instead of "plasma". Now mainstream astronomers may eventually get there ... but they sure are taking a circuitous route to understanding the role that EM has in the formation of the solar system (and galaxies).

According to Alfven, the Sun behaves as a unipolar inductor producing a current that flows (look at the the drawing http://www.plasma-universe.com/imag...it.png/400px-Heliospheric-current-circuit.png ) outwards along both axes B2, and inwards in the equatorial plane, C, and along Solar magnetic field lines B1. The current closes at a large distance, B3. Alfven wrote (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit ) "The central body acts as a unipolar inductor and the e.m.f. is produced in region A. The mechanical force on the solar atmosphere dF = I ds x B tends to decelerate the rotation of the central body. The current transfers angular momentum from the central body to the surrounding plasma. Hence, we have a decelerating force applied to the solar atmosphere in the polar region. This should produce a non-uniform rotation of the Sun of the type which is observed (angular velocity decreasing with increasing latitude.

Okay, now shopw where this effect created Jupiter's momentum. Did the atmoshere extend that far? How strong was the field?

Give some numbers to your vague metaphor.

Whether this interpretation is the correct quantitative explanation of the non-uniform rotation is an open question. In region B1 , the currents are field-aligned. It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments (II.4). If the current in B1 is spread over an extended region, we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may be explained in this way. Similarly, in the polar region, the vertical currents near the solar surface may produce the polar plumes in the solar corona. The model predicts that there should be currents near the axis strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. Such currents should be observed when a spacecraft is sent to the high latitude regions. It is an open question to what extent they flow very close to the axis. They may be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium latitudes."

I've noted (with sources) in previous threads that you participated in, David, that currents have been found flowing above the axes of the sun. They've been detected at medium latitudes too. And it's now an established fact that a heliospheric current sheet, like Alfven postulated, exists. So I'm curious why you doubt the role EM played in distributing the angular momentum of the original cloud of plasma throughout the solar system. I'm curious why you still think it's *all about gravity*

Not a claim that I made, you still haven't explained how Jupiter ended up with all that momentum.

I have agreed all along that EM plays a force.

And this is what you were saying.

"But ask yourself ... where did that kinetic energy come from? Isn't the angular momentum that kinetic energy represents the result of a cloud of plasma that was rotating BEFORE the star (or galaxy) condensed and formed? Indeed, why does the sun rotate, RC? "

and so you have presented how 'some' of the momentum is transferred by EM ofrces.

As usual, no nimbers, no comparisons.

Just you saying that i said gravity and momentum provides for it all.

You haven't explained how Jupiter got it's momentum, the earth it's moon or Uranus it's rotational vector through EM.

Evasion noted.

Now just for you, David, here are some other sources you can fail to actually read or understand.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v258/n5537/abs/258692a0.html "Nature 258, 692 - 693 (25 December 1975) ... snip ... Angular momentum transfer to the inner Jovian satellites, A.MOGRO-CAMPERO... snip ... THE transfer of angular momentum from a central rotating body in the presence of a magnetic field has been discussed in connection with the evolutionary history of the Solar System¹. We here consider angular momentum transfer in the inner Jovian satellite system. Electron flux measurements near Io's flux tube, and theoretical estimates of the electric current flowing through Io's flux tube are used to estimate the angular momentum transfer during the evolutionary history of the Jovian system. We find that, under certain conditions, those currents are sufficient to produce an angular momentum transfer from Jupiter equal to the present angular momentum of the inner satellites. References 1. Alfvén, H., and Arrhenius, G., Astrophys. Space Sci. 21, 117 (1973)."

that is good fro the Jovian stattelites, youw ere talkin about bigger objects and scales, so where is the scale factor and the conversion?

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1995/T60/023 "Plasma vortex structures and the evolution of the solar system—the legacy of Hannes Alfvén, Rickard Lundin et al 1995 Phys. Scr. T60 198-205 ... snip ... The transfer of angular momentum from the magnetized sun to the planets was due to partial plasma corotation in the early solar nebula. In this report some important aspects of plasma vortex structures and the Alfvén cosmogony will be addressed and it will be shown that a number of new observations within the plasma environment of planets and in interplanetary space corroborate cosmogony as envisaged by Hannes Alfvén."

Ah, still no numbers and no demonstration, your usual evasion and lack of answer is noted.

 

[Dancing David]

I understand why planet's and stars orbit, sol. Do you know what gave them the velocity that let's them orbit?

What is hilarious is that sol thinks he understands this debate by reading only one side of it. Talk about being foolish and misunderstanding.

What is funny how you take 'some' from a pop science article and think you have demonsrated where the momentum in the solar system has come from.

You also wave Perrat's Gname around a lot.

So where are the answerss BAC

1. Arp's statistics.
2. What was Perrat's force to make the galaxy rotate as it does and what was the size of that magnetic field.
3. What makes lerner's galactic plasmoid not collapse.

Your Pixie of 'EM forces made the solar system have the angular momentum it has' doesn't even rate Gnomehood. That is just you overgeneralizing.

Still waiting for the answers Goldilocks!

 

[Dancing David]

What I don't understand about these electric universe proponents is why they believe in that nonsense in the first place. What is it about the accepted theories that they think does not explain things reasonably well and that requires such outlandish theories ???

Tilting at windmills?

Bordedom?

 

[Zeuzzz]

The irony here is that I and others have pointed this fact out numerous times to Zeuzzz. Even more ironic is the fact that this same calculation appears in a paper that Zeuzzz has referenced many times as a way to support his Electric Sun claims.

I've also noticed something else. It seems to me (tough to tell since I'm "ignoring" him) that Zeuzzz is now backing off his earlier claims that the discrepancies in the acceleration of the Pioneer probe (the Pioneer Anomaly, about which this thread was created) could be explained by electrostatic effects assuming a charge of 100C on the Sun. He seemed very adamant about this in the beginning of his posts, yet now he's acting as if it's a ludicrous claim.

Am I reading this wrong? Is he actually backing off those earlier claims or is he just trying to spin things like he usually does?

If it's the former, I can understand why (see post #465) and hats off to Zeuzzz for finally learning something. If it's the latter, well... I think it's all been said already...

Yet again you are making a fool of yourself Mattus. There is not a single EU proponent that has tried to explain the pioneer anomaly with an electrostatic force on the sun, you know why? because they are well aware of the forces involved. I did the calculation before you, and it showed exactly this, and I stated that other forces would have to be involved to account for the motion, not electrostatics. I did inform you off this before, but since you have me ignore, you are going to remain ignorant of your numerous fallacies.

And that value of the charge on the sun you used is the currently accepted size. I rearranged coulombs law so I could calculate the charge on the sun from the anomalous acceleration of pioneer if it were due to electrostatics. I think the value given was a billion or so coulombs, which is clearly unlikely if you are adhering to standard models of the sun.

I was just showing what the charge on the sun would have been if the anomalous acceleration was entirely due to this charge, and it didn't work.

And besides, there is not one mention in plasma cosmology/astrophysics of a charge on the sun or stars, you seem to be conflating EU theories with the more established plasma astrophysics principles we are discussing.

I don’t even know why i am responding to this, I already have. Some one please inform Mattus of what a tit he is making of himself because i cant, and I hate ignoring people, I try not to block any contributions out, no matter who it is. Minds are like parachutes after all, they only function when open, and your not going to progress in any way by shutting anything out that doesn't agree with your personal beliefs.

Infact, I already beat you to it. Me (and sol) came to the conclusion that simple eletcrostatics alone could not account for observed deflection of pioneer here. Although my calculation was slightly different to yours, I used two variables for the charge and subbed in the force from the known anomalous acceleration using a rearrangement of coulombs law, and finding F from F=ma. In mine you could choose either the charge of the sun, or the spacecraft, but simple electrostatics could not account for it, by quite a few orders of magnitude. Our results are in the same ball park.

How this has anything to do with falsifying the electric sun idea is beyond me. The charge on the spacecraft that far out would be very small (anything between 1.6x10^-19 to about 1.6x10^-9 C I would imagine) and so even if the sun had a charge of trillions of coulombs, it could not account for the pioneer anomaly. And you say that the charge on the spacecraft could be 1 C in your calculation? do you have any idea how much force that would apply to it? it would quite literally explode. I thought you would have known better than that.

Saying that a charge on the sun could not account for the acceleration of pioneer is a far cry from falsifying the electric sun theory.

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 also, which really shows he doesn't know what he's on about and remains ignorant on the very subject he is arguing against, 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


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

 

[Zeuzzz]

Here's a simpler way to get a similar estimate. Let's just compare the electromagnetic force between a pair of stars to the gravitational force.

Why on Earth would you do that? it will be absolutelt tiny. Please show where anyone here claimed that the electrostatcis force between stars has anything to do with anything?????

They didn't. Yet again you fail to grasp what is being proposed.

And you really need to understand the difference between:

* EU theory - Currently more speculative than its counterparts. Involves substantial charge on Sun and Stars, Black holes (or lack thereof), Fusion on the suns surface, Acceleration and heating of the corona by the suns E-field produced from the global double layer, Currents in the filamentary corona, EM forces and looking into the possibility of externally fuelled stars and solar inflows.

*Plasma astrophysics - A relatively new area of science which models the very complex nature of plasma and applies this to the cosmos. Models of plasma in space, double layers, bennet pinch, instability forces, EM forces, electric currents, conductance, induction, Z-pinch, magnetostatics, etc

*Plasma cosmology - A cosmology based on plasma physics concepts which disregards the conventional explanation offered by the gravity driven Big Bang, mainly due to the fact it requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Plasma cosmology offeres alternative local explanations for the obseravtions said to prove the Big Bang.

The gravitational force is G m1 m2/r^2, and the electromagnetic force is q1 q2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2). Taking the stars to be similar to the sun and using our 100C figure for the charge, G m^2 is about 10^50, and q^2/(4 pi epsilon_0) is about 10^14. So the gravitational force is larger by a factor of 10^36.

I learn't that in high school Sol, and i really have no io idea what you are trying to (dis)prove by stating this. You need not have done any calculations, everyone knows this ratio.

Of course that's actually a huge overestimate of how strong the electromagnetic forces in the galaxy are (at least those due to charges on stars), since some objects have positive charge and some have negative and there will be large cancellations.

Where can you find me any plasma cosmology material that says there is a substantial charge on stars? oh yeah, you cant, because that idea has nothing to with plasma cosmology what-so-ever.

You obviously completely fail to understand what is being proposed here.

 

[Acleron]

Plasma cosmology - A cosmology based on plasma physics concepts which disregards the conventional explanation offered by the gravity driven Big Bang, mainly due to the fact it requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Plasma cosmology offeres alternative local explanations for the obseravtions said to prove the Big Bang.

Just so we work from the same song sheet, is your reference to non-baryonic matter the same as the dark matter referred to by mainstream astrophysicists?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Just so we work from the same song sheet, is your reference to non-baryonic matter the same as the dark matter referred to by mainstream astrophysicists?

YeS, i suppose technically that not all dark matter its all baryonic, so dark matter would be a more appropriate term

 

[Acleron]

*Plasma cosmology - A cosmology based on plasma physics concepts which disregards the conventional explanation offered by the gravity driven Big Bang, mainly due to the fact it requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation.

YeS, i suppose technically that not all dark matter its all baryonic, so dark matter would be a more appropriate term

Bear with me for a moment as I slowly work my way through this.

The first post above says that plasma cosmology removes the need for dark matter to explain observation.

Does this include the anomalous orbit velocities observed in galaxies?

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, Are you really saying that a model that ignores the gravitational influence of 95% of the matter in a galaxy is correct?

So your argument is that Peratt's model can't be right because he ignores dark matter ... even though the purpose of his model was to show (and it did) that dark matter isn't needed to explain the very observation that folks like you use to *prove* that the dark matter exists. What were you saying about circular reasoning, RC?

By the way: Another reason why Peratt's model is wrong is because it assumes that the galaxy was low-density plasma (correct), remains as low-density plasma (wrong - stars are high density plasma) and will be low-density plasma forever (extremely wrong).

It doesn't assume anything of the sort, RC. All it assumes it that most of the matter in the galaxy was unbound (not in stars) plasma at the time the rotation rate around the galaxy center of the gasses that would BECOME stars was determined.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'd say that at first original rotation during star system formation and then it is determined by simple equation Fgrav = Fcentrifugal .

You didn't answer the question. What gave the plasmas that became planets or stars (in the case of the galaxy) the velocity that let them orbit? And how did *gravity* take care of the angular momentum distribution problem?

 

[BeAChooser]

What I don't understand about these electric universe proponents is why they believe in that nonsense in the first place. What is it about the accepted theories that they think does not explain things reasonably well and that requires such outlandish theories ???

So Belz, since David (to whom you were posting) obviously can't do it, why don't you try to explain to us where the velocity that became the rotation rate of planets and stars originally came from? Did those objects start to rotate about the sun (or galactic core) after they were formed or did the objects form after that rotation was already determined? And if it was the later, why wouldn't EM phenomena be important given that the material at that time would have been unbound plasma? And also explain to us how the angular momentum distribution problem was solved without EM phenomena ... with gravity alone? I'm all ears.