Plasma Cosmology & Star Formation
Do I agree with the idea that the sun started out as a cloud of less than 3000C molecular gas (not plasma, too hot) ...
I trust you meant "too
cold"?
... and collapsed upon itself to ignite this perfectly radiatively/gravity balanced sphere of decreasing density plasma that has an acoustical signature that is more suited to a bounded solid shell sphere?
This is a thoroughly false statement based on a naive misinterpretation of helioseismic observations that imply the presence of a boundary layer under the photosphere, as reported in
Lefebvre & Kosovichev, 2005. On
one of his iron sun webpages,
Mozina interprets this as revealing "
a layer of electrical activity", although he seems to be quite alone in this interpretation. Others have interpreted it as a solid surface, as you do here, even though one need only read the abstract to see that the surface moves radially in anti-phase with the solar cycle. But the only physically reasonable interpretation is that the observations reveal a boundary between layers of differing density, similar to the layers that we see in our own atmosphere & oceans. So in this case you are dead wrong.
Oh, and that is too cold for real fusion, has to be tunneling fusion ....
This is a "nothing" criticism. Fusion does not happen until the temperature is high enough.
No .... I grew up with that model and as far as I'm concerned has been falsified or least has insurmountable problems ..
And I submit that you do not have the foggiest notion what you are talking about. You have no idea what the model you grew up with actually says about star formation, even if you think you do. They say that a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and that's especially true if you don't know that "little knowledge" is what you have. So let us rectify this problem. I suggest a course of reading & study, whereby you can learn the real physics of the real models of star formation. Of course, like all real theories & models, we do not know literally everything there is to know about it all. Most of the basic underlying physics is now well understood, and that is a good place to start. So for that I recommend the book
The Formation of stars by Steven W. Stahler & Francesco Palla, Wiley-VCH 2004; with 822 pages of text, plus indices, this is a thorough treatment of the fundamentals as we currently understand it. But of course, there is a considerable body of active research at the frontiers of knowledge of star formation as well. So for that I recommend a recent trio of papers, published together, and the references thereto, as a good, representative picture of current research into the physics of star formation:
There you have it. Follow my suggested reading list, and you will be well on the way to real expertise on the correct physics of star formation.
And I do not understand why the electric model was thrown out except for the fascination with nuclear energy at the time!!!
Because it makes no physical sense. One does not simply invent ideas and run with them. It is not enough for an idea to be applicable to a given phenomenon. The idea must also be consistent with the
entire body of known physics, from one end to the other. This is one of the fascinations of astrophysics for me, the fact that it involves literally every branch of physics in the formation & solution of fundamental problems. No one can, no one ever has, and
no one ever will devise a physically valid electric model, either for the formation of stars, or their continued existence. All we ever see is hand-waving, guesses, dreams, and vague notions that hardly even qualify as "ideas". Contrast that with the well developed and consistent physics in the sources I listed above, along with many more on the active physics of stars beyond their formation. There is simply no contest, the "electric" models don't just lose every time, they are routed & destroyed every time. They don't even qualify as physics in a rudimentary sense, they are that bad.
Electric fields/currents offer a far more compelling long term energy source.
Actually, quite the opposite, they are uncompelling for one simple reason: they are not energy
sources, they are energy
sinks. You don't get energy out of an electric current until after you put energy into it, an inconvenient fact consistently ignored by every "electric" theory of stars & cosmology. There are two and only two ways to get a macroscopic electric field. Either you generate a magnetic field in a charge neutral plasma, and get the electric field from
Faraday's Law, or you pull the electric charges apart by purely mechanical means
Van de Graaf generators do this), thus creating an electric field between the concentrations of opposite charge. That's is, as far as I know. The mainstream models of astrophysics and cosmology are based on the physically reasonable assumption that
most (but not
all) of the electric fields we observe in astrophysical & cosmological settings are generated by the former process based on Faraday's Law. The electric models are all based on the physically unreasonable assumption that there are classical electric currents, streams of like charged particles, flowing literally everywhere, powering literally everything, without ever once even considering how those currents got there in the first place. Electric fields & currents are not at all reasonable long term energy sources, they are only excuses for not discussing the
real long term energy sources that put them there in the first place.
Most plasma phenomena can be recreated in the lab. There is no doubt that Birkeland currents exist a cosmic scale.
These are points that
Mozina makes as well. The former is not as important as you think, and the latter is an assertion with little foundation either way. The fact that most plasma phenomena can be recreated in a laboratory is certainly not irrelevant, but there is a catch that plasma cosmologists & "electric" theorists overlook. The experiments in question should recreate the physical conditions found in the astrophysical environments. But what we see is some simplistic experiment "scaled up" to astrophysical dimensions, while ignoring the fact that it is not just the dimensions that are involved, but the physical environment as well. if you want to be definitive, you can't "scale up" an experiment on an non-magnetized plasma and expect it to accurately model the behavior of a magnetized plasma, but that's what they do. It is a rare case, if it ever happens at all, that plasma cosmologists or "electric" theorists actually make use of laboratory plasma physics experiments that are applicable to astrophysical environments.
And as for cosmological Birkeland currents: Maybe, maybe not. Where is the evidence? What observations are more reasonably physically interpreted as "Birkeland currents" (which by definition flow only in Earth's magnetosphere, a purely semantic point) as opposed to simple, or not so simple, plasma? How do you tell the difference?
The only issue is of first origin. (Big Bang vs Steady State Plasma).
There are more choices. You assume, for instance, "steady state
plasma", but what about steady state non-plasma cosmologies, such as the Hoyle & Narlikar brainchild of Quasi Steady State Cosmology? You might want to consider reviewing this:
Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal; Narlikar & Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39(1): 211-248, September 2001. You will find that the "electric" model appears nowhere in their paper. Even amongst "alternative" cosmologists, the "electric universe" models are recognized as inferior products.
I think the evidence points to some sort of redshift (distance) that is due to long distance in plasma (electric fields?) in addition to other types of intrinsic redshifts. What if we were in a multi billion light year plasma filament??
You think? And what of we were? If that's what you think, then get serious about it and make the idea quantitative. What are the physical mechanisms whereby an electric field or a plasma will always give is redshifts that are directly related to the distance? Others have tried, but without success, to create just such models. Maybe you are the one who will come up withh the big break through.
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity (electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity.
Yes you would, and curiously we "mainstream" folks do exactly that, and have done exactly that, for as long as we have been doing this astrophysics and cosmology stuff.
Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
Yes, we all know that as well. Clearly the solar wind defies gravity by not falling back into the sun. But neither this, nor the points above, constitute
observational evidence, which can be reasonably interpreted in the context of physics, that this is in fact what is happening, on large astrophysical & cosmological scales, that electromagnetic forces dominate the shape of galaxies, for instance.
The mass flowing of galaxies (as well as the preferred cosmic axis orientation) is an indication the we may be embedded in a billion light year across plasma filament.
So what? Does the plasma control the galaxies or do the galaxies control the plasma? Nobody disputes the obvious conclusion that we have plasma underfoot almost everywhere we go in astrophysics and cosmology. You seem to be under the delusion that the presence of plasma is
prima-facie evidence that the plasma dominates. But "who's in charge around here" is the real physical question. Just because there is plasma laying around does not automatically make it the Boss of the Universe (
that job is already taken).
Would that filament be capable of forming a z-pinch?
Why don't you figure that out?
Which would be stronger at that time, gravity or electricity?
Why don't you figure that out too?
I'm more of a steady state guy myself and think that the universe has been here for trillions of years but that doesnt stop one from wondering: Would that be a big bang?????? Would everything be going away from that universe sized reconnection???
It seems physically unlikely to me. Z-pinches happen in terrestrial laboratory experiments because we know how to make them happen and we force them to happen. Electrical currents flowing in wires are strongly constrained to the geometry of the wires (i.e.,
The Z-machine). But that is not the case for plasma flowing unconstrained in 3-dimensional space. You can confine the plasma and get flux tubes & pinches in dense environments, but only on cosmologically small scales. On cosmologically significant scales, how do you get the pinch to pinch down hard enough to get small enough (or build enough energy) to push galaxies around? You know, there are anti-pinch forces at work in plasmas too, it's not all pro-pinch. How do you handle radiative transfer, and radiation pressure opposing the pinch in a hot environment (I mean
really hot, not just "sun" hot)? How do you generate the kind of electrical current required to "pinch" in the first place, over spatial scales that large? No doubt there are many other problems to overcome as well, but that will do for now.
On discussion boards like this we bandy about loose notions, crazy ideas, and sane ideas as well. But we are talking about serious science, and in that case, bandying crazy ideas about only works for a while. Sooner or later, every serious scientists is required by circumstance, and other serious scientists as well, to "put up or shut up". That's we we have the infamous peer reviewed journals, where we hang our ideas out for criticism, once they meet some minimal standard for being criticized. Many "alternative cosmologists" never make it that far, and cry foul, that they are being censored or suppressed. But the reality is that their "ideas", to use the word charitably, are simply not good enough to waste time on. The "electric star" and "electric universe" ideas are just that bad, and not worth any serious time or effort. That's why they live on discussion boards and self-published webpages, and simply die everywhere else.
As for plasma cosmology, it had its day. Back in the 50's & 60's, and even into the 80's, Alfven argued his case. He lost because his case was not good enough, it's just that simple. So have other steady state ideas fallen by the wayside. Hoyle & Narlikar, Arp & Burbidge, and Alfven have all been serious players in serious discussions, unlike the un-serious "electric" notions. But they lost in the end because Big Bang (as Hoyle named it) cosmology is simply the better idea. It may not always be the better idea, but it is for now.
All you have to do to win the argument of ideas is to have a better idea.
So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??
