Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

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

The million dollar question, ummm....God/BH!!

That's keep them people of strong faith happy and place's a label on one of the Universes biggest unknowns!

 

[Sol88]

Oh well, time for school! bye.

 

[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?

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?

I am heartened by your response, Sol88, thanks.

To recap the key point: we agree to use logic to connect words (and terms).

We also agree that, in general, the common framework for discussion here should be science, its methods, techniques, and so on.

However, we need to spend some time discussing just what this entails, as (for example) it's clear you have a very different view of science than any scientist I know (and than most of the regulars who post in threads I post in, here in this forum).

But before we do that, we do need to get another thing clear: to what extent do you intend to post, in this section, ideas about conspiracies (to suppress research, perhaps)?

Now that may be a topic that takes some time to come to a mutual understanding of; however, it will be time very well spent ... if only because discussions will not get derailed by non-science viewpoints.

Sound OK to you, Sol88?

 

[Reality Check]

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!

Curvature of space - look up General Relativity. Hear from you soon

P.S. You should start quoting posts properly - that was not my post you quoted.

 

[Ziggurat]

So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then?

I don't think that's sorted out yet.

Mercury's precession?

You're kidding, right? The precession of Mercury's perhelion was General Relativity's first big triumph! If you want details, well, I suggest you google them. But I doubt you've got the math background to handle the calculations in any detail.

Gravity probe A & B?

GPA confirmed gravitational time dilation (one of GR's predictions), and GPB results are still being analyzed, but preliminary results appear to confirm frame dragging (another GR prediction).

What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon?

This is a popular misconception: the event horizon itself is well understood, and GR has no problems dealing with either side of it. In fact, if you're passing through the event horizon, you won't observe any change upon crossing it (though it is a one-way trip).

messy messy messy!

Well, the math is messy, but that's the only sense in which GR is "messy".

 

[Reality Check]

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?

We cannot "test" stars, planets or galaxies in the lab either - are you advocating that we ignore them?
What we can do in the lab is verify the laws of physics. These laws then allow us to analyse observations and derive through logic what is happening.

Plasma can be tested in the lab. Gravity can be tested in the lab. Now tell me which one is more important and in what situations.

Scientists know that electromagnetic phenomena like plasma will tend to have no effect over large distances (in general) because the attractive and repulsive forces balance out. The exceptions are when there is a energetic power source such as super-massive black holes, infant star systems, binary stars, etc. These give electromagnetic effects which are small scale in cosmology terms. Small scale in cosmology means less than millions of light years, large scale starts at billions of light years and in between is medium scale.

Scientist know that gravity will always have an effect over any distance because it is always an attractive force.

A major problem with EU proponents is this "science has to be verified in labs here on Earth" concept that they think is part of the scientific method. The scientific method is not only about experiments in labs. It includes people actually looking at the universe and observing things. Newton's law of gravity was not tested in labs until about 100 years after he proposed it. It was observations of the orbits of the planets that were the basis for F = G M₁M₂/r².

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, the math is messy, but that's the only sense in which GR is "messy".

Well if we're talking about normal blackholes it would get quite messy on approach to the event horizon too - what with spaghettification and everything.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nice tangent Reality,

You quoted me, not Reality Check. Can you not even keep track of who you're quoting? Leave that bit which says "quote=Ziggurat;######" inside the tags, and people can track back to the post you're quoting. You can also nest quotes within quotes, which is what you should have done when you wanted to include your own words.

how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

That isn't the amazing part at all. The amazing part is that they managed to get enough sensitivity to make their measurements with reasonable accuracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well if we're talking about normal blackholes it would get quite messy on approach to the event horizon too - what with spaghettification and everything.

For large black holes, tidal forces near the event horizon don't have to be large for objects falling in, so you don't necessarily get spaghettification until close to the singularity.

 

[Reality Check]

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!

Your lack of knowledge is definitely messy messy messy!

So lets educate you a bit:
Pioneer anomalies have never been explained by anyone - read the list of possible causes and note that GR is not mentioned. The closest thing related to GR is Modified Newtonian dynamics.

GR explains Mercury's precession (Tests of general relativity).

GR explains what happens in the other side of an event horizon (any description of a black hole will tell you this).

Gravity probe A & B are tests of GR.
Gravity Probe A

Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that gravity slows the flow of time, and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million.

Gravity Probe B

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite-based mission which launched on April 20th, 2004. The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005, and data analysis is expected to continue through 2010. Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress-energy tensor (the distribution, and especially the motion, of matter) in and near Earth, and thus to test related models in application of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Initial results confirmed the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging effect was similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by initially unmodeled effects). Work is continuing potentially to as late as March 2010, to model and account for these sources of unintended signal, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging signal if it exists at the expected level. By August 2008 the uncertainty in the frame-dragging signal had been reduced to 15%, and the December 2008 NASA report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to less than 0.5%.

 

[Tubbythin]

For large black holes, tidal forces near the event horizon don't have to be large for objects falling in, so you don't necessarily get spaghettification until close to the singularity.

I know. That's why I inserted "normal". Admittedly I should have said "not supermassive blackholes" or something because "normal" is rather ambiguous. (Is there a term for a blackhole that isn't supermassive?)

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there a term for a blackhole that isn't supermassive?

Rosie O'Donnell?

Oh, never mind... you said not supermassive.

 

[Tubbythin]

Rosie O'Donnell?

Oh, never mind... you said not supermassive.

I had to wiki that.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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?

A sense of confusion.

...Just that spiral structures are hard to explain with gravity. Unless the Big Bang and tonnes of Dark matter are bungled into the picture.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You are showing your ignorance Zeuzzz.
For a start we are talking about Birkeland currents not arbitrary filamentary structures.

Birkeland currents are arbitrary filamentary structures. That scale perfectly from macroscopic, to the currents seen in plasma balls, to the birkeland currents in the aurorae, to huge stellar current, to 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae, and when you look at most galaxies shape, they obviously continue this scaling to galactic levels. As one would expect from a basic scientific method called extrapolation where no more measurements can be made.

In order for the filaments to be be Birkeland currents you need to quote the paper showing the currents in them.

What do you mean by currents in them? This is a non-sequitor

There are good explanations of galactic structure including the filaments.

Oh thats it, Dark Matter, and the one piece of 'direct observational evidence' for it, the Bullet cluster. A posteriori statistics spring to mind? You use this to discresdit arps work, then use it (even more extremely) to prove your Dark Gnomes.

This includes the fact that these are long term structures.

Sniff sniff, whats that smell? ********.

[*]"net charges on stars as a potential explanation" is totally impossible since the maximum charge is many orders of magnitude too small (was it 10¹⁶ or 10²⁷ or something in between? - you should be able to tell us Zeuzzz).

Agreed. Plus planetary magnetophere shapes can tell us that anyway. We'll have to wait and see what the EU crowd come up with. Probably a new force completely that works in a different dimension to EM or gravity.

[*]Peratts model works amazingly well at showing nothing at all since it is wrong:

Wrong. It shows a different model that you dislike.

[*]He ignores gravity - his simulation software is a plasma simulation package.

Wrong. He includes gravity, and the mass of the stars in the galaxy. Which is what creates the dense core.

[*]He compares his simulation to photos of galaxies not actual mass distributions of galaxies.

Mass distribution is roughly proportional to the brightness in the pictrues (thus why centres of galaxies generally = brightest), to its a reasonable step to take.

[*]He predicts galactic plasma filaments as wide as galaxies and 10,000's of light years long that have large currents. These have never been detected.

Have you seen the Milky way recently? Theres a couple of huge ones right there for you.

[*]What has been detected in actual observations is dark matter. Peratts model requires that dark matter does not exist.

Reference? No Bullet cluster, please. Something that is statistically significant and consistant would be much appreciated.

 

[Reality Check]

A sense of confusion.

...Just that spiral structures are hard to explain with gravity. Unless the Big Bang and tonnes of Dark matter are bungled into the picture.

Actually spiral structures are easy to explain with gravity, e.g. Density wave theory and the SSPSF model.

You are a bit confused yourself:
The Big Bang has nothing to do with spiral structures.
Dark matter has nothing to do with spiral structures, just the velocity curve.

 

[sol invictus]

So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then?

It doesn't. Which means:

a) it isn't there at all
b) it's due to something other than gravity
c) it's due to gravity and GR is wrong

b) is overwhelmingly probable considering there are several rather prosaic possibilities.

Mercury's precession?

What an utterly idiotic question. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is very strong evidence for GR.

Gravity probe A & B?

Gravity probe A was intended to test GR, and did so. GR's prediction was confirmed by it.

GPB hasn't finished data analysis. Preliminary confirm GR's predictions.

What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon?

GR answers that too - although you'll have some difficulty testing the prediction and coming back to tell anyone about it.

etc etc...messy messy messy!

In my opinion, it's the most elegant and beautiful theory in the history of science.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Actually spiral structures are easy to explain with gravity, e.g. Density wave theory

1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.

and the SSPSF model.

Nothing to do with how the arms retain their structure.

You are a bit confused yourself:
The Big Bang has nothing to do with spiral structures.

Why not? Where did the galaxies come from then?

Dark matter has nothing to do with spiral structures, just the velocity curve.

It has to do with both when you factor in time and the complete evolution as a necessity. Instead of a snap shot model.

 

[Reality Check]

Birkeland currents are arbitrary filamentary structures. That scale perfectly from macroscopic, to the currents seen in plasma balls, to the birkeland currents in the aurorae, to huge stellar current, to 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae, and when you look at most galaxies shape, they obviously continue this scaling to galactic levels. As one would expect from a basic scientific method called extrapolation where no more measurements can be made.

We can extrapolate the known cases of Birkeland currents to higher scales. This leaves some problems for any use in cosmology:

• All the known cases have power sources for the current, e.g. power sockets for plasma balls, the Sun for aurorae, stars for "huge stellar current", more stars for 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae and (one you missed) black holes for galactic jets.
  What is the power source of cosmic Birkeland currents?
• Extrapolation gives you a hypothesis. It remains as a hypothesis until you find an actual case of a cosmic Birkeland current, i.e. one that is large scale in cosmology terms (billions of light years but millions would be OK for me).

Oh thats it, Dark Matter, and the one piece of 'direct observational evidence' for it, the Bullet cluster. A posteriori statistics spring to mind? You use this to discresdit arps work, then use it (even more extremely) to prove your Dark Gnomes.

Read my signature and actually look at the TWO observations rather then just babbling away.
AFAIK no statistics are used (but I do not know that much about micro-gravitation lensing so there may be some averages or other stuff there).

Sniff sniff, whats that smell? ********.

Could it be Zeuzzz's head exploding?

Wrong. He includes gravity, and the mass of the stars in the galaxy. Which is what creates the dense core.

No he does not. If he did you as the expert in all things Perratt would give a citation to the actual simulation software that he used.
I am going by memory but I recall that it is a plasma only simulation package.

Mass distribution is roughly proportional to the brightness in the pictrues (thus why centres of galaxies generally = brightest), to its a reasonable step to take.

The brightness in the spiral arms is because the arms have concentrations of young, bright stars. This is analogous to sun spots appearing dark against the sun.
My impression is the density between the arms is only slightly less than the the density of the arms (a real astronomer may correct me).
But Peratt's simulation has zero density between the arms. This is probably a limitation of the software but means that he cannot compare the images.

Have you seen the Milky way recently? Theres a couple of huge ones right there for you.
Nope - and neither have you other than artist impressions.

Read the point:

He predicts galactic plasma filaments as wide as galaxies and 10,000's of light years long that have large currents. These have never been detected

So even images of other galaxies do not have Peratt's galactic filaments.

Reference? No Bullet cluster, please. Something that is statistically significant and consistant would be much appreciated.

See my signature - no statistics are needed.

What we have in both cases are two galactic clusters that have collided. The visible matter in the clusters has separated from a bunch of dark matter.

To quote the second observation:

August 27, 2008: A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory. The observations of the cluster known as MACS J0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated the dark from ordinary matter and provide an independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster. These new results show that the Bullet Cluster is not an anomalous case.

 

[Reality Check]

1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.

Ages of theories do not matter unless they have been falsified by experiments or observations. The density wave theory is still valid.

P.S. note "have greater mass density (about 10-20% greater)" for spiral arms - not the 100% predicted by Perratt.

Nothing to do with how the arms retain their structure.

You seem to think that the spiral arms are like the arms of a starfish. They are not. They are regions of high formation of stars. The young stars make the arms brighter than their surroundings.
That Wikipedia article is a stub. You may have to (gasp! horror!) do your own research.

Why not? Where did the galaxies come from then?

Galaxies formed after the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not the cause of the structure of spiral galaxies.

It has to do with both when you factor in time and the complete evolution as a necessity. Instead of a snap shot model.

You have a point - dark matter may have an influence on the evolution of the spiral structures (like normal matter). Or it might not.