Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[sol invictus]

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO

[sarcasm]No, it's absolutely impossible to test gravity in a lab.[/sarcasm]

Although I suspect your mother may have done some experiments with it... which seem to have involved dropping you head-first.

 

[Sol88]

Personally I can accept that large scale Birkeland currents could exist but these will have no cosmological significance. It is a pity that there is no physical evidence for these large scale Birkeland currents!

Ahhh the heart of the matter, scuse the pun!

They can transfer matter and energy and scientifically speaking INFORMATION.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what happens when those electrons get wherever there going? They don't just vanish my friend. I'm not saying I know so don't ask but how do the manifest?

 

[Ziggurat]

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO

I already told you. The answer is yes. I linked to a page that references a number of experiments which do exactly that. Some of them are not exactly recent, you know. Why aren't you already familiar with the Cavendish experiment, for example?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

To have a meaningful discussion, the parties need to have mutual understanding of the words (terms) they use, and of the way the words are linked to form meaning.

If we are having a discussion that we wish to characterise as about science, or on science, or some part of science, then I think we need to agree that a key foundation is logic.

With me so far Sol88?

If so, perhaps it would be fruitful to spend some time on whether we agree on the logic that we need to use? I mean, if we don't, then the words we write will not be part of a discussion, will they?

Sadly, I think there's abundant evidence - in the posts you, Sol88, have written - that you are working from a quite different form of logic than that which is used in science.

For example, on the one hand you quote some material - with apparent approval - that says that Arp "was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"; yet merely a day or so later you cite a paper, by Arp, published in ApJ, that is exactly a publication of his results.

Do you see the inconsistency? Do you acknowledge it?

Do you understand that what you write thus seems illucid?

If not, then I'll try harder to show you how illogical your posts, and points, are (if I can).

If so, then do you accept that we must find a way to get to common ground wrt logic, if this exchange is to be a science-based discussion?

 

[Reality Check]

Ahhh the heart of the matter, scuse the pun!

They can transfer matter and energy and scientifically speaking INFORMATION.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what happens when those electrons get wherever there going? They don't just vanish my friend. I'm not saying I know so don't ask but how do the manifest?

What electrons and from where?
What powers these Birkeland currents?

 

[edd]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.227..175W

Their gravitational solution does not make sense btw (why its not very cited and has not been picked up). And neither does the plasma cosmology explanation either due to the potential (or lack thereof) of net charge on stars.

Erm, so the paper gets the gravitational situation wrong, and the electromagnetic solution is by your own admission wrong, so what are we supposed to take away from this link?

 

[Reality Check]

Do we "see" the ones that connect us to the sun? And are they really there?

No we do not "see" them. We do not detect then either.

Oh I see I have to hold your hand

Ok cosmic scale Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode so we do not "see" them, though we do pick up there radio and magnetic signatures and when they enter glow mode mainstream call them Jets, ever heard of them or shall we go for a walk down that garden path as well?
[\quote]
Sol88: For the second time:
Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.

Looksie here

So how'd they do that in the lab, let see...

Amazing! Electricity and magnetic fields might have something to do with there formation, whood of thunk that

Astronomers know that galactic jets are electromagnetic phenomena powered by supermassive black holes, infant star systems, binary stars, etc.
Actually read your Looksie here and note the compete absence of Birkeland currents or even magnetic field aligned currents. There are electric currents and magnetic fields and an external power source.

Sol88:For the first time:
What is the external power source for the Birkeland currents in plasma cosmology?

 

[Dancing David]

Ahhh...sorry I'm a bit slow, I can see now it's a bit of a witch hunt for the poor ol bugger for daring to call into question a foundation block of the BB cosmology

Wow, are you stuck in yur confirmation bias or what?

I am not on a witch hunt of Arp.

I, you won't believe this, feel that the PC has some merit, when the scales and energies are in the area of the early universe.

Now as to Arp, I have read his papers and looked at the material.

The point is that there is not a statistical correlation to talk about.

It could be random alignment, that is why you have to have control groups to see if the Arp galaxy/QSO association is a valid one.

Am I getting through to you or will your confirmation bias that I am 'xy and z that hates Plasma Cosmology' just get in the way?

but he's not the only one

How's about

Martin L. Bernet1, Francesco Miniati1, Simon J. Lilly1, Philipp P. Kronberg2,3 & Miroslava Dessauges–Zavadsky4

Abstract



This questions the distance/age assumption of the BB.

As does NGC 7319




maybe this The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319

Abstract

So lay off the poor fela, shooting the messenger does not change the message!

It is an issue that he does not take a control group, something that could be done very easily.

Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???

Of course it could, duh?

But that does not mean it is, there is a lot of data to look at.

Naahh

'Cos it solves a whole lot more problems than redshift=distance/age ASSUMPTION that mainstream MUST repeat MUST hang onto. otherwise...

Simple really

get off the political bandwagaon and you might talk about your alleged refutation of the redshift hypothesis.

BTW I will look at that paper in a bit. I think it has been read by me.

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya Sol**,

Yep have looked at that QSO and galaxy alignment.

here is the deal there are considerations to make:
1. What evidence is there that the QSO is embedded in the galaxy ?
2. What evidence is there that it is not just a random alignment?

Are you with me so far?

I have yet to see a compelling case for 1)

and it could be random alignment, so I don't see that you have slain cosmological redshift.

Now if you use the Sloan Survey to take control groups : random points of the sky, non Arp galaxies, and then generate your sample from those

then you show that Arp association areahigher in frequency than the random sample, you could show that these sorts of possible random aligments are not random.
Or you could show that there are Arp galaxies that have a QSO association higher than 'normal'.

That is how you use frequencty statistics to determine if something rises above the level of 'noise'.

You haven't slain cosmological redshift as a possibilty.

 

[tusenfem]

Sol88
P.S. About the Wikipedia article on Birkeland current: If you had taken the time to read further down you would have seen a section on Cosmic Birkeland currents!

This section is strange since it states "Plasma physicists suggest that many structures in the universe exhibiting filamentation are due to Birkeland currents" and then only mentions one plasma physicist as a bit of text ("Peratt (1992)") rather than a citation.

Of course the weakness of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article. The fact that this section generalizes, only mentions Peratt and has no citations suggests a PC proponent has added it.

Personally I can accept that large scale Birkeland currents could exist but these will have no cosmological significance. It is a pity that there is no physical evidence for these large scale Birkeland currents!

Unfortunately, I have only been able to edit the first small part of the Birkeland current page on WIKI. When one looks in the discussion page, you can see all the other items that still need to be rewritten. I would only use the first small introductory part, most of the rest is rather useless.

 

[tusenfem]

Erm, so the paper gets the gravitational situation wrong, and the electromagnetic solution is by your own admission wrong, so what are we supposed to take away from this link?

Not to mention that Ms. Whitney seems to like herself a lot, with 9 of the 19 references, and then I love it when the author like to show how "well read" they are with citing Einstein (1955), Lienard (1898), Wiechert (1900). But the best references are "Van Flandern" and "Lerner". Please remind me not to submit to Adv. Space Sci anymore!!!!!

 

[edd]

Not to mention that Ms. Whitney seems to like herself a lot, with 9 of the 19 references, and then I love it when the author like to show how "well read" they are with citing Einstein (1955), Lienard (1898), Wiechert (1900). But the best references are "Van Flandern" and "Lerner". Please remind me not to submit to Adv. Space Sci anymore!!!!!

Well yes, I was contemplating a suitable criticism of the paper but then I realised I couldn't find any bits that it would be particularly relevant to criticise, given noone seemed to be supporting any of it. Quite baffling.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
I already told you. The answer is yes. I linked to a page that references a number of experiments which do exactly that. Some of them are not exactly recent, you know. Why aren't you already familiar with the Cavendish experiment, for example?

Nice tangent Reality, how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

So, ReaLity, could you tell me HOW gravity works? Hear from you soon!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Nice tangent Reality, how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

So, ReaLity, could you tell me HOW gravity works? Hear from you soon!

It will be interesting to see what sort of answers this question gets!

Here's my (contemporary) science-based one:

Within its domain of applicability, the general theory of relativity (GR for short) is consistent with all the relevant experimental results and observations published to date. Clifford Will's 2006 Living Reviews in Relativity - The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment - provides a concise summary of just how good this consistency is.

So the answer to the question "How does gravity work?" is something like "GR provides a good description (of how gravity works)", or perhaps "the best description of how it works that we have, today, is GR".

 

[Sol88]

To have a meaningful discussion, the parties need to have mutual understanding of the words (terms) they use, and of the way the words are linked to form meaning.

If we are having a discussion that we wish to characterise as about science, or on science, or some part of science, then I think we need to agree that a key foundation is logic.

With me so far Sol88?

Ahhh DRD!

I could not agree more! We have been reading the same book,we are just on different pages

See the thing with EU/PC line of thinking is no new physics is required, we can test it in the lab, the math behind is quite mature and there are no need to "make up" or place a handle on an unknown observation.

The leap of faith, mainstreamers/uninformed need to take, is just what the EM force can do! Unfortunately for the mainstream, the NEW evidence our technological advances are giving us are yielding mystery and surprise after surprise for the aminstream because they choose to ignore ELECTRICITY AND CHARGE SEPERATION in cosmological plasma's, though they do admit it's somthing to do with them wrascaly tangly magnetic fields/line thingies.

The EU/PC on the other hand embrace that CHARGE moving thru PLASMA create a large proportion of what we observe, and any new observation the first thing they tend to give preferentiality to is the EM force, as tested in the lab and scaled.


So yes in response to your statement

If so, then do you accept that we must find a way to get to common ground wrt logic, if this exchange is to be a science-based discussion?

I agree Unfortunately the problem I see relates to the points I made above

Dark matter/energy, black holes, magnatars, QSO...and so on CAN NOT be tested in the lab and plasma CAN!

That's about, under my understanding, as scientific as you can get, correct?

 

[Sol88]

For example, on the one hand you quote some material - with apparent approval - that says that Arp "was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"; yet merely a day or so later you cite a paper, by Arp, published in ApJ, that is exactly a publication of his results.

Do you see the inconsistency? Do you acknowledge it?

No I made a statement from what I've read thru many sources, if you do not believe me drop Arp an email and ask the man!

The whole point is the is DOUBT as you accept

Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???
Of course it could, duh?

But that does not mean it is, there is a lot of data to look at.

but it could be eh!

So my line of thought is if they MAY be wrong on redshift equals distance thing, well there goes a whole corner of the foundation of the expanding universe/BB! and hence all the political shenanigans that may go with ego/power struggles that go with it, not really my concern!

But I reiterate, doubt has been cast!

 

[Sol88]

and it could be random alignment, so I don't see that you have slain cosmological redshift.

Please DD, humor me, lets do a thought experiment. Lets say it's not a random alignment and indeed there is a high redshift object in FRONT of a low redshift?

Could you tell me what that means?

 

[Sol88]

Hello Tusenfem, how the bung 'ol?

Lately, I have only been able to edit the first small part of the Birkeland current page on WIKI. When one looks in the discussion page, you can see all the other items that still need to be rewritten. I would only use the first small introductory part, most of the rest is rather useless.

Ok lets circumvent the whole wiki/Birkeland current thing, shall we, and like DRD said lets all read from the same page?

Could you answer if there MAYBE Birkeland current outside of our magnetosphere and if they could how big/long could they get, using standard plasma physics, which I believe you are somewhat of a boffin on, and if so what shall we call the, if not Birkeland currents?

I believe if they are basically the same as the one we observe close to home then should we not give the man some credit, he did top himself for the ridicule he received from the mainstream after all? Remember it took them 65yrs to REDISCOVER is "stuff".

How relevant would is studies be if we could have put a science platform above our atmosphere sometime in the 1900's? And found that whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland.

That's an interesting thought experiment for ya!

 

[Sol88]

Within its domain of applicability, the general theory of relativity (GR for short) is consistent with all the relevant experimental results and observations published to date. Clifford Will's 2006 Living Reviews in Relativity - The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment - provides a concise summary of just how good this consistency is.

So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then? Mercury's precession? Gravity probe A & B? What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon? etc etc...messy messy messy!

 

[Sol88]

And please would the relevant people I've asked question off at least attempt to answer them, BEFORE I have to ask the torrent of questions that will come from those answers!