Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[iantresman]

In a way. The Jeans criterion determines whether a gas cloud will contract to a star or not. I was asking how an "electric star" doesn't implode/explode.

I guess there's a balance of magnetic and kinetic pressure, and gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Regardless of your opinions on inflation, you were still "dead wrong" on Rutherford predicting the CMBR.

He "predicted" a number that was actually much closer than any calculation related to BB theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm afraid that your response was a bit cryptic. It's not altogether clear from glancing through that article what your primary objection is. You'll note that early CMB estimates from BB theory were *much* higher than what was observed.

Yes, and?

Since when was the sun at "hydrostatic equilibrium"? In your opinion, why does the solar wind accelerate as it leaves the photosphere and why does it reach a million miles per hour or more by the time it reaches Earth?

Michael, the only previous ES ideas I've seen presented here suffer from the the fact they:
a) Can't explain neutrinos.
b) Would have the Sun collapsing in on itself.

Can you do better?

 

[Tubbythin]

He "predicted" a number that was actually much closer than any calculation related to BB theory.

So? The power spectrum is completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

I guess there's a balance of magnetic and kinetic pressure, and gravity.

But that's all it I've seen, guesses.

 

[Tubbythin]

Birkeland's electric star didn't explode in the lab, it was simply a cathode. What in your opinion is generating those million degree coronal loops, or that accelerating solar wind? Why would an electric star "explode" or "implode" in your opinion?

If you bother to read through this and other threads you'll see at least one explanation for the observed neutrino flux as coming from fusion near the surface. Can you see the problem with this?

 

[Dancing David]

No one I know denies the validity of MHD theory Tim. This is obviously an incorrect assessment on your part.



Mainstream theories can't explain the CMBR without resorting to ad hoc and make-believe entities like inflation. You're the one who's dead wrong on this issue. There is a long history of "explanations" for the background radiation prior to Guth's introduction of "inflation". I tried to post a link, but alas I don't have enough posts yet to do that, but there are plenty of examples of an "explanation" being offered *before* the idea of inflation.

Uh sure, so you do know how science works, don't you?

So tell me what observable predictions does Plasma Cosmology make?

1. What is the model?
2. What is the data that it explains?

Please discuss cosmology, please avoid, 'bunny' pictures where someone posts a pictures and says "It looks like a bunny".

So far, the batting record is zero on this forums, so please do tell us:

1. What model?
2. What predictions?
3. What observations?

 

[Dancing David]

He "predicted" a number that was actually much closer than any calculation related to BB theory.

GHi,

On this forum, you make a claim and then you support it:
1. What did Rutherford calculate?
2. How did he calculate it?
3. What model did he use?
4. How does it explain the data?

So far you are making an appeal to authority.

then
1. Which model of the BBE are you refering to?
2. What time?

 

[Ziggurat]

I guess there's a balance of magnetic and kinetic pressure, and gravity.

No go. Magnetic fields can't provide a net confining force (any magnetic pressure inwards must be balanced by a magnetic pressure outwards - it works with plasma containment vessels because the vessel uses solid structures to keep the magnets in place). And we've already crunched the numbers on gravity: the upper limit on charge is just WAY too small to provide the required energy.

 

[Dancing David]

Birkeland's electric star didn't explode in the lab, it was simply a cathode. What in your opinion is generating those million degree coronal loops, or that accelerating solar wind? Why would an electric star "explode" or "implode" in your opinion?

I think you are being disingeuine and most likely you know exactly why your argument is specious.

1. How is a cathode comparable to a star in composition?
2. What charge does the sun have?
3. How much of a charge would be needed to generate the amount of light the sun exhibits?
4. How much material would need to be in the incoming current to generate the sunshine?
5. What evidence do you have for the charge on the sun?
6. What evidence do you have for the currents of charged material needed to make the sun shine?
7. How do you overcome the repulsive force that such a charge on the sun would have? (Saying double layers will violate Gauss's law)

 

[Tim Thompson]

Real Plasma Physics

No one I know denies the validity of MHD theory Tim.

Electric Universe people are in agreement with Hannes Alfvén's view of magnetohydrodynamics, ...

Well, then somebody in the EU crowd is a pretty poor communicator. I have been repeatedly told that MHD is wrong as a primary tenet of the Electric Universe (which is of course not the same as "plasma cosmology", the two being remarkably different). I do wish you folks could get a consistent story together.

However, Alfvén emphasized that MHD does not apply to all kinds of plasmas, ...

As does everyone else, so what's the point? Just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize does not mean they are the last & final word on the topic. Einstein was a fairly smart guy, and he won a Nobel Prize too. Then he wasted half his life in the vain pursuit of a unified field theory when he denied the validity of quantum mechanics (despite having been one of its founding fathers).

Plasma physicists today are far more knowledgeable than was Alfven, simply because they have the advantage of an extra 50 years or so to study the topic. So if you are serious, that you trust only the MHD of Alfven, then you live in yesterday's world, and adhere to yesterday's physics, and are simply being left behind while intelligence marches forward and you stand still.

Just compare Alfven's level of MHD sophistication with what we can do today. See, for instance, the text book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000), or Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics (Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993). Alfven's level of sophistication is primitive by comparison, and he totally ignores the entire field of radiative transfer in plasmas (i.e., Radiation Hydrodynamics; Mihalas & Mihalas, Oxford University Press 1984; Dover reprint 1999). You can't stick with Alfven & only Alfven unless you are simply willing to abandon science altogether.

Didn't George Gamow predict a temperature of 50 degrees, before revising it?

A disingenuous response, since I have explained all of this to you before. The only way to precisely predict the current CMB temperature is to have sufficiently precise knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe, and its expansion history, which certainly lies beyond the bounds of common practicality. The best one can do is an order of magnitude estimate, which Gamow actually did quite well. The correct procedure is to observe the CMB temperature, and then use that observation to cull out invalid theories. Remember, "big bang cosmology" is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. So it is a perfectly valid scientific exercise to use observation to weed out invalid efforts from the family of theories available for further study.

and I don't think he mentions anything about the shape of the curve?

That's because he is writing for an audience who already knew that. In fact, Richard Chase Tolman determined that the background had to be thermal (i.e., a Planck Law spectral shape) in his book Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, 1934 (still available as a Dover reprint). See especially chapter X, part III, "The Application of Relativistic Thermodynamics to Non-Static Homogenous Cosmological Models".

See also "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" (PDF) (1995)

A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity. That shape has been measured by the FIRAS instrument on COBE and fits as well as, or better than, any laboratory controlled black body. And it peaks at a wavelength about 2 millimeters, far beyond the range that Eddington was even aware could exist. You really have to torture the science into insanity to hold the position that Eddington even came close to measuring the CMB temperature.

With all due humility & respect, etc., etc., I have no sympathy for anyone who claims to be a physicist, and then tries to tell me there is no real difference between Planck's Law & Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, when the shape of the curve is a critical part of the argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

Birkeland's electric star didn't explode in the lab, it was simply a cathode.

Driven by an external power source. What's the power source for an electric sun? Where does all that energy come from? "Currents" isn't an answer. The only proposed answer I've seen is the potential energy from a massive net charge on the sun. But the charge required to provide enough energy to do that is simply ridiculous. It would indeed explode from Coulomb repulsion. I've been through the numbers: the net charge would literally explode off the sun and reach relativistic speeds in less than a second.

 

[The Man]

Antiquated views of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)? Sorry, I'm not with you. Are saying that:

(a) MHD is valid for all space plasmas
(b) MHD is invalid for all space plasmas
(c) MHD is valid for some space plasmas, and invalid for others.
(d) MHD theory automatically expires after 40 years?
(e) Science today, has a different view of MHD.
(f) Perhaps you're hinting at Hall MHD?

I am saying exactly what I said, that you simply choose to truncate from what you quoted.

Oh here we go again, get out of your antiquated views of magneto hydrodynamics and science in general iantresmen. Things develop, science changes, if you want to stay in the 70’s or refer to predictions of the 40’s then be my guest, when you want to join us and actually contribute to the 2100 era of science, please let us know

However if you want specific references Tim Thompson did a fine job in providing them.

Just compare Alfven's level of MHD sophistication with what we can do today. See, for instance, the text book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000), or Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics (Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993). Alfven's level of sophistication is primitive by comparison, and he totally ignores the entire field of radiative transfer in plasmas (i.e., Radiation Hydrodynamics; Mihalas & Mihalas, Oxford University Press 1984; Dover reprint 1999). You can't stick with Alfven & only Alfven unless you are simply willing to abandon science altogether.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, and?

And as long as you keep "postdicting" new numbers because the old one's don't jive with observation, it's hard to consider this "strong evidence" in support of your idea.

Michael, the only previous ES ideas I've seen presented here suffer from the the fact they:
a) Can't explain neutrinos.

Why? In theory you could use exactly the same solar model and assume there is a charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere and nothing much else has to change.

b) Would have the Sun collapsing in on itself.

Why? The standard model doesn't collapse in on itself does it? What makes you think a charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere is going to make any significant difference on it's stability?

Can you do better?

I can certainly *explain* solar wind acceleration, million degree coronal loops and "jets" that come off the surface of the sun with EU theory. Birkeland's experiments *predicted" and even simulated these events over 100 years ago.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So? The power spectrum is completely and utterly wrong.

If you could get the right "power spectrum" without resorting to ad hoc "explanations", you might have something to complain about. As it stands your trying to claim your invisible elephant theory is superior to another theory because it predicts the right "power spectrum". I fail to see how "inflation" has any affect whatsoever on a "power spectrum" since you can't demonstrate it has any affect on nature in the first place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

GHi,

On this forum, you make a claim and then you support it:
1. What did Rutherford calculate?
2. How did he calculate it?
3. What model did he use?
4. How does it explain the data?

So far you are making an appeal to authority.

then
1. Which model of the BBE are you refering to?
2. What time?

Evidently I can finally post links which is quite helpful:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

 

[Michael Mozina]

No go. Magnetic fields can't provide a net confining force

It doesn't need to. Gravity confines plasma just fine. The charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere simply causes the outer particles to be accelerated toward the heliosphere. There is no need for a "magnetic field" of any sort. The magnetic field is simply a function of the current flow through the plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think you are being disingeuine and most likely you know exactly why your argument is specious.

1. How is a cathode comparable to a star in composition?

The depends on what solar model you choose to use. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" in that regard.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

2. What charge does the sun have?

In Birkeland's experiments, the surface had a negative charge.

3. How much of a charge would be needed to generate the amount of light the sun exhibits?

The charge is not necessarily directly related to the amount of light being generated. The sun's photosphere is "lit up" because of the current running through it.

4. How much material would need to be in the incoming current to generate the sunshine?

None. If the sun is the primary power source, it can provide the current.

5. What evidence do you have for the charge on the sun?

Million mile per hour solar wind for one, million degree coronal loops for another. Those fusion reactions we observe in Rhessi images would be a third piece of evidence supporting the discharge theory.

6. What evidence do you have for the currents of charged material needed to make the sun shine?

I don't think such a requirement exists. The sun could shine for many reason. The solar wind acceleration however is something that does require charge separation to exist between the photosphere and heliosphere. Only an EU model "predicts" high energy coronal loops in the solar atmosphere.

7. How do you overcome the repulsive force that such a charge on the sun would have? (Saying double layers will violate Gauss's law)

I don't follow your notion about "repulsive" forces. In Birkeland's experiments the solar wind was "caused" by an *attraction" that takes place between the solar surface and the heliosphere. There are no 'repulsive" forces involved.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't need to. Gravity confines plasma just fine.

Indeed it does: that's the standard model for stars. But the question was about how to confine a large net charge. Gravity cannot do so. And without a large net charge (ridiculously large, in fact) proposed by some electric sun proponents, where does the energy for the sun come from? The standard fusion model is the only one which can provide enough energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, then somebody in the EU crowd is a pretty poor communicator. I have been repeatedly told that MHD is wrong as a primary tenet of the Electric Universe (which is of course not the same as "plasma cosmology", the two being remarkably different). I do wish you folks could get a consistent story together.

It would be a lot easier to be a "good communicator" if the mainstream websites allowed for honest and real conversations of these ideas and didn't ban all the effective communicators for having "heretical" beliefs.

As does everyone else, so what's the point?

The point is that he wrote MHD theory, he's a real "expert" on this topic and EU theory is consistent with his teachings, unlike "magnetic reconnection" theory and goofy ideas that the mainstream is talking about. Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance and they form as a full continuum, so it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can "reconnect" in plasma, not magnetic lines. The mainstreamers fancy themselves as quite the experts on MHD theory, but they turn right around and attempt to misuse and abuse the whole concept!

Plasma physicists today are far more knowledgeable than was Alfven, simply because they have the advantage of an extra 50 years or so to study the topic.

You'd have to convince me of that. Most folks I've met have never even read his work and have no clue how any of it works.

So if you are serious, that you trust only the MHD of Alfven, then you live in yesterday's world, and adhere to yesterday's physics, and are simply being left behind while intelligence marches forward and you stand still.

False. I trust Alfven because he was a real "expert" on this topic. So far, nothing he wrote about in MHD theory has been shown to be in error based upon a physical test.

A disingenuous response, since I have explained all of this to you before. The only way to precisely predict the current CMB temperature is to have sufficiently precise knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe, and its expansion history, which certainly lies beyond the bounds of common practicality.

Except I'm supposed to believe that you now have the ability to do all of this properly?

The best one can do is an order of magnitude estimate, which Gamow actually did quite well.

He missed it by a factor 10!
When you guy "postdict" all these new numbers and then dress them up as "accurate predictions", don't you figure that turns off the skeptics?

A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity.

So you stuff a theory with metaphysical entities to "make it fit", is that the idea?

With all due humility & respect, etc., etc., I have no sympathy for anyone who claims to be a physicist, and then tries to tell me there is no real difference between Planck's Law & Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, when the shape of the curve is a critical part of the argument.

Likewise I have no sympathy for a theory that achieves this curve fit only by stuffing the whole thing full of metaphysical entities that defy empirical testing of any sort.