• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

If so, that's completely impossible. All plasmas affect EM radiation very strongly across all wavelengths. One of the only things we know for sure about it is that DM is NOT plasma.


Not really following either side of the argument here admittedly, but plasma has a dark current mode of operation (Earth's ionosphere for example, or the outer interplanetary plasma, etc.)

Also similar to the dark glow mode of an electric glow discger, where no EM radiation is omitted. So your statement is not entirely correct, plasmas dont always have to effect EM radiation, in certain modes of operation they will not emit/effect and radiation at all. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electric_glow_discharge#Dark_Discharge
 
Ziggurat wrote:
Those points don't address what's driving your proposed charge separation. And it can't be electricity: electricity always opposes the separation of charges. So what else is there? Magnetism? Well, that won't work either, because you're claiming that charge separation drives the currents which create those magnetic fields, so you don't have a magnetic field until after you get charge separation. Unless you think it works like a galaxy-sized perpetual motion machine, but if you believe that, there's no point in any further discussion. So I'll assume you just didn't think far enough to realize that you don't actually have a mechanism to drive your charge separation.

Mmm.. interesting eh!!

Well I'd turn closer to home too look into that!
 
Last edited:
DRD can we drop this BS now?
Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?

See the LIST, do you agree? As per your definition of the list or Tusenfems!! :mad:

I can post them side by side again? Remember that MAY CHANGE your LIST somewhat, if in doubt read your own bloody question
Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?
For avoidance of doubt ask the participants?

And

In light of the clarifications Sol88 has provided, does Sol88 appear to understand these terms/phrases in a manner consistent with their common use by physicists?

Ask the same participants while your at it, seems they may enlighten you more than I can!

The list was revised so this end could be facilitated!
 
Last edited:
Not really following either side of the argument here admittedly, but plasma has a dark current mode of operation (Earth's ionosphere for example, or the outer interplanetary plasma, etc.)

That's talking about discharges invisible by eye. Did you think we observed the universe only with our eyes?

Also similar to the dark glow mode of an electric glow discger, where no EM radiation is omitted. So your statement is not entirely correct, plasmas dont always have to effect EM radiation, in certain modes of operation they will not emit/effect and radiation at all. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electric_glow_discharge#Dark_Discharge

Emit and "effect" [sic] are not the same, and in any case you're wrong about both. All plasmas at non-zero temperature emit at least thermal radiation. No such radiation is observed where DM is known to be. All plasmas interact strongly with EM radiation passing through them (more and more strongly the longer the wavelength, actually, which makes sol88's suggestion even more impossible). You see, plasmas are composed of charged particles, and charge is what couples to EM radiation. Part of the definition of a plasma is that it be a very good conductor - which again immediately implies that it affects EM radiation very strongly.
 
Zeusse wrote
Not really following either side of the argument here admittedly,

in respone to Sol invictus statement

If so, that's completely impossible. All plasmas affect EM radiation very strongly across all wavelengths. One of the only things we know for sure about it is that DM is NOT plasma.

If you read the post again, I suggested, there may be higher energies than we can currently observe and ditto for low energies.

So we can not yet "see" (observe) what may or may not be there!

So from springerlink.com/

A major extension of the data base of pulsar rotation measures and Zeeman splitting measurements is required to determine the structure of the Galactic field. Further polarization surveys of the Galactic plane at wavelengths of 6 cm or shorter may directly reveal the fine structure of the local magnetic field.

So we "see" (observe) this galactic field in the 6cm wavelength, but what could we "see" (observe) if we do shorten the wavelength?

i.e we see only to the limits of our instruments, which wil change with progress of technology.

Clearer?
 
Last edited:
If you read the post again, I suggested, there may be higher energies than we can currently observe and ditto for low energies.

So we can not yet "see" (observe) what may or may not be there!

Clearer?

Um no. I'll try again: yes, there are energies too low for us to observe (observing very high energy EM radiation is extremely easy, and gets easier as the energy goes up, not harder). However, if DM were plasma it wouldn't just emit very low energy EM radiation - it would also both emit and affect everything in the higher range. But it doesn't. Therefore, DM is not plasma.

Clearer?
 
who said anything about dark matter?

there is no DM problem under the electric universe!

So why are we talking about a non problem ?

you tell me why dark matter needed to be postulated in the first place?
 
EM radiation is extremely easy, and gets easier as the energy goes up, not harder)

how far up can we currently go?
 
Because it was observed.


links, citations?

maybe you could fill the readers in, with a quick DM history lesson?
 
EM radiation is extremely easy, and gets easier as the energy goes up, not harder)

how far up can we currently go?

There's no upper limit - that's what I keep trying to explain to you. The higher the frequency, the more energy photons have. The more energy they have, the more they affect the detector. (How far they propagate through space is another question, but let's stick to one thing at a time.)

If you keep increasing the energy, at some point your detector would melt or explode. That's pretty easy to notice, don't you agree?
 
Just found this: http://ezinearticles.com/?Dark-Plasma&id=513313

Can Dark Matter be in the form of Plasma?

A plasma consists of electrically conductive soups of charged particles that respond collectively to electromagnetic forces and are overall (quasi) neutral. If these particles were much more massive or of higher energy, they would not be detectable. According to plasma metaphysics, a significant proportion of dark matter is in the form of a plasma of super (high energy) particles.

In the "dark current mode" of plasma, the strength of the electrical current within a plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow and is essentially invisible. The plasma would not be detected unless its electrical activity was measured with sensitive instruments. Note that the ability to detect the matter rests on the sensitivity of the instrument. If we did not have the relevant instruments, these currents would have to be classified as dark matter i.e. as dark plasma. The magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode. Nevertheless, there is much more "dark plasma" in the universe. Dark plasma emits radiation that cannot be detected by our current scientific instruments. For example, the web of filamentary currents carrying hot plasma, cited in the author's article Acupuncture Meridians and the Cosmic Spider Web, is invisible. (Hence, by definition, they are components of dark matter.) They are detected only when ordinary matter, which condenses around them, gives out detectable radiation.

"Plasmas are not just the 'fourth state of matter' - they are really the first state in modern cosmology, and they continue to be, by far, the dominant state of visible matter in the universe; perhaps also of invisible matter as well if so-called 'dark matter' continues to remain unobserved and unexplained." - Timothy Eastman, President, Plasmas International

Intergalactic Magnetic Fields

The natural tendency of plasma to carry currents is an important source of magnetic fields. We know from basic electromagnetics that currents generate magnetic fields around them. (For example, currents circulating in the Earth's core give rise to the Earth's magnetic field.) Since plasma is pervasive throughout the universe, scientists believe that virtually all visible matter in the universe is magnetized. But magnetic fields are also found outside galaxy clusters where there is no visible matter. Where did these fields come from? The origin of these magnetic fields is still a puzzle to scientists. Are these magnetic fields generated by the equally pervasive dark matter? If so, the evidence points to dark plasma which would have the ability to generate magnetic and electric fields. Both gravitational and magnetic fields and anomalies, not accounted for by visible matter, may be indirect evidence of dark invisible matter composed of the lightest super particles.

Similarities between Dark Matter and Plasma

Consider the observed properties of space plasma, compared with dark matter:

a. Low Particle Density, Diffused, Collisionless

The particle density of dark matter is low, which correlates well with the low particle density in space plasma. (Many types of plasma are low density since they are composed of soups of particles of like charges which naturally repel each other within the soup.) Dark matter is said to be ‘diffused’ – so is magnetic plasma in our universe. Supersymmetric particles like WIMPs form a pervasive sea of diffused matter. Dark matter has also been described as "non-atomic" – this points directly to plasma. Dark matter objects are supposed to pass right through each other, just like objects in collisionless plasma. Magnetic plasma of different densities and other properties naturally separate into different regions, with denser matter separating from the more tenuous matter — so does dark matter, based on studies of its density distribution in galaxies.

b. Structure of Dark Matter Halos versus Plasma Crystals

Dark matter is also present in the halos of elliptical galaxies. These elliptical galaxies reveal the presence of faint shells on deep photographic plates which extend out to two or three times further than the bulk of the starlight. As many as 20 shells have been discovered around one bright galaxy. Computer simulations result in a similar array of concentric shells. Shell structures have also been found in other galaxies – and also in plasma crystals.

H Thomas and his colleagues have generated plasma crystals in the laboratory. These crystals were in the form of assemblies of particles which were held in a crystal-like array by a plasma of weakly ionized gas. When the assembly of microscopic particles was contained between two electrodes and illuminated by a laser beam, it could be seen, even with the naked eye, that the particles naturally arranged themselves regularly into as many as 18 planes parallel to the electrodes. In another more recent experiment, the particles in a plasma crystal arranged themselves into neat concentric shells, to a total ball diameter of several millimeters. These orderly Coulomb balls, consisting of aligned, concentric shells of dust particles, survived for long periods. The presence of concentric shells in the structure of plasma crystals and dark matter halos suggest that the dynamics in these crystals and halos are the same - both arise from the dynamics of magnetic plasma.

Conclusion

The evidence strongly suggests that a significant proportion of dark matter is in the form of magnetic plasma.


hmmm.
 
sol invictus said:
If so, that's completely impossible. All plasmas affect EM radiation very strongly across all wavelengths. One of the only things we know for sure about it is that DM is NOT plasma.
Not really following either side of the argument here admittedly, but plasma has a dark current mode of operation (Earth's ionosphere for example, or the outer interplanetary plasma, etc.)

Also similar to the dark glow mode of an electric glow discger, where no EM radiation is omitted. So your statement is not entirely correct, plasmas dont always have to effect EM radiation, in certain modes of operation they will not emit/effect and radiation at all. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electric_glow_discharge#Dark_Discharge
In addition to what's been posted in response to this already ...

These plasmas are composed of electrons and ions - the ones per your link anyway - right?

And all ions, unless fully ionised, will absorb (photons, EM radiation; 'light' for short) at frequencies that correspond to the relevant atomic transitions of those ions, right?

So, no matter what 'mode' the plasma is in, it will absorb light at frequencies corresponding to those transitions, right?

And the line frequencies and relative line strengths can be analysed - using standard physics - to produce estimates of things such as the (elemental) composition of the plasma, its temperature, and strength of the magnetic field threading it.

In addition to a line spectrum (absorption, as above), there is at least one continuous emission spectrum, bremsstrahlung radiation.

One more example: the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect - the inverse Compton scattering of (hot) electrons in a plasma and CMB photons.
 

Hmmmmm indeed. I note that "Jay Alfred is the author of three books on a new field called "plasma metaphysics"." "Plasma metaphysics"... oh dear. Will it never end?

I'd be shocked by all the absurd statements in that article if I hadn't already been inured to them by you and your woo cohorts here. Did you notice that not one of the quotes and theories from physicists (rather than metaphysicists) in that article supports anything he is saying? For example, all that stuff about "folded branes" etc? In those models, DM does not couple to EM. In other words, it is not plasma. Why? Because that would rule out the model immediately, for the reasons I said. So why is it mentioned in that article? Only a metaphysicist would know...
 
Last edited:
DRD can we drop this BS now?

[...]
Sure.

Do you understand just how different the following two are?

I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list

AND

My Revised EU/PC assumptions [are]

If what is in post#1742 is, indeed, your revised "EU/PC assumptions", then there's nothing to discuss, is there?
 
who said anything about dark matter?

there is no DM problem under the electric universe!

So why are we talking about a non problem ?

you tell me why dark matter needed to be postulated in the first place?
(bold added)

OK, so have you declared that you can show - quantitatively, in detail - how all the relevant astronomical observations can be explained, using just the list in post 1742?

If so, this will be a most interesting thread! (and you'll likely win all sorts of awards and honours, if you succeed).
 
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
who said anything about dark matter?


there is no DM problem under the electric universe!

So why are we talking about a non problem ?

you tell me why dark matter needed to be postulated in the first place?
(bold added)

OK, so have you declared that you can show - quantitatively, in detail - how all the relevant astronomical observations can be explained, using just the list in post 1742?

If so, this will be a most interesting thread! (and you'll likely win all sorts of awards and honours, if you succeed).

Just in case you misunderstood your own question, THERE is NO dark matter under the EU/PC paradigm!

Unless....DARK MATTER

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. Dark matter is postulated to explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and other evidence of "missing mass" in the universe.

Or I'm completely wrong on what dark matter HYPOTHETICAL is, or it's POSTULATED effects on the OBSERVED flat galaxy rotations and the BB (GR & SR) COMPLETE FAILURE to PREDICT the mass of the Universe!

So agin there is no missing mass or galaxiy rotation problem under EU/PC paradigm, now the BB on the other hand as one big arse problem with "missing" mass :boggled:
 
Sure.

Do you understand just how different the following two are?

I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list

AND

My Revised EU/PC assumptions [are]

Yes, the REVISED list is less ambiguous than the first list.
 

Back
Top Bottom