Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Dancing David]

Let me just say two things:

Peratt and Snell, 1995


I want to be perfectly unambiguous about this.

There is a simple experimental result which unambiguously rules out Peratt's model. The Eot-Wash test was a measurement of the forces on a test mass in a laboratory. Their test mass---a carefully-shielded metal object---was sensitive to (a) its acceleration towards the Moon, (b) its acceleration towards the Sun, and (c) its acceleration towards the Galactic Center.

The experiments (there were several) showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Moon at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Moon. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Moon also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Sun at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Sun. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Sun also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Galactic Center at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Galactic Center. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Galactic Center also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity---and explicitly the opposite of what you expect if this acceleration is due to electromagnetism. If the Earth/Sun system were, as Peratt alleges, getting Lorentz-force-law'ed towards the Galactic center, this force would not act directly on Eot-Wash's shielded, neutral test mass---it would only act on the test mass via the Earth and the lab dragging the mass along.

The fact that Eot-Wash observed zero non-gravitational acceleration towards the Galactic center tells us that Peratt's hypothesis is wrong. Sorry. No way around it.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epDone.html

Thanks Ben.

 

[Dancing David]

You know, if you are going to cite the abstract of a paper, you might try reading that abstract first, just to make sure it says what you think it says. So, for instance, here is the abstract again, but with my emphasis instead of yours.

This 1995 paper, which has since garnered no citations at all, looks only at the neutral hydrogen gas. Of course the physical mechanism cited in the paper (there is more than just an abstract you know) could never affect the motion of stars in a galaxy. And since we see stars on the same flat rotation curves as we see the gas, the Snell & Peratt paper would seem to be not very useful.

But note that neutral hydrogen is not a plasma, so one might be excused for wondering how it gets steered by magnetic fields and controlled by plasma processes. The short answer is that it isn't. The paper relies on the assumption that a specific process will happen during galaxy formation, when the hydrogen is mostly ionized

Whether or not this process, seen in the laboratory according to Snell & Peratt, will work in the significantly different environment of a forming galaxy is open to question. But it is postulated in this paper as the reason for a correlation between magnetic fields and HI regions.

But the method fails to deal with the motion of stars, and that is significant. See, for instance, Tsiklauri, 2008, whose method is similar to that of Snell & Peratt. He too handles only the gas, and concludes in his abstract that "The model is applicable to gas and plasma dynamics, while flat rotational curves for stars would need some other explanation, as stars would be more affected by gravity than electromagnetic forces such as the Ampere force."

There are several attempts in the literature to do away with dark matter in galaxy rotation curves, in various ways (i.e., Banhatti, 2008; Capozziello, Cardone, & Troisi, 2007; Cooperstock & Tieu, 2005; Moffat, 2005 & etc.). So this is an area of active research, and there are alternative ideas on the table. Contrary to what one might think from reading the various threads, the mainstream is not some lock-step conspiracy of mindless robots that need to be awakened to the "alternative way"; been there, done that. But we do require "alternatives" that actually make sense. Since making sense has never been a major discussion board criterion, we get threads like this.

Thanks Tim.

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote

So, try to make a distinction what you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss plasmas, do you want to discuss the interaction of plasma with solid state (which would be useless at the moment because apparently we are talking about Peratt's crap about galaxy formation and rotation curves). Make up your frakking mind and stay on topic.
Today 09:09 PM

That's harder than getting the whole EU/PC out of mainstreams metaphysical tag!!!

How bout me and you talk DL's and charge separation.

And well leave DM and rotation curves to Sol invictus and DRD?

Is that Ok?

 

[Sol88]

Maybe DD has an answer

so how carefully shielded was that test mass!

Who's wrong? Or like so many other things in mainstream science they are both correct?

post 1819

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem, have you aware/heard of plasma wakefield acceleration (PWFA)?

Seems a new kid on the block, is it?

This may have some bearing on our now focused discussion, wrt you, me and DL and charge separation.

Quick intro for those unaware of the process.

Plasma acceleration

Basic concept

A plasma consists of fluid of positive and negative charged particles, generally created by heating a dilute gas. Under normal conditions the plasma will be macroscopically neutral, an equal mix of electrons and nucleons in equilibrium. However, if an external electric field is applied, the plasma will separate, with the particles being attracted to the external field. A particle injected into such a plasma would be accelerated by the charge separation, but since the magnitude of this separation is generally similar to that of the external field, nothing is gained in comparison to a system that simply applies the field directly to the particle, which is the case in existing accelerator designs.

It is this "wakefield" that is used for particle acceleration. A particle injected into the plasma near the high-density area will experience an acceleration toward (or away) from it, an acceleration that continues as the wakefield travels through the column, until the particle eventually reaches the speed of the wakefield. Even higher energies can be reached by injecting the particle to travel across the face of the wakefield, much like a surfer can travel at speeds much higher than the wave they surf on by traveling across it. Accelerators designed to take advantage of this technique have been referred to colloquially as "surfatron"s.

And this article is very interesting on it's potential uses, surf's up dude! Riding the Plasma Wave of the Future
by Matthew Early Wright

I believe the military have tested this for it's obvious purposes!

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem wrote

That's harder than getting the whole EU/PC out of mainstreams metaphysical tag!!!

How bout me and you talk DL's and charge separation.

And well leave DM and rotation curves to Sol invictus and DRD?

Is that Ok?

Everything you need to know about double layers you can read in the wiki page (well as an introduction). After that you might want to read the wonderful monograph by Michael Raadu and after that maybe the first three of this list here.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I have a general question, before I start on what you have presented.

When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?

For example, in your post (that I am quoting; it's #1787 in this thread), where do the quotes in the list below come from (as in, which thread and what post; or what website)?

A) "Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence - a JREF Forum thread started by DRD.

If you want history, be prepared to do a lot of reading ... it's a rich and wonderfully absorbing one, full of examples of astronomy (and astrophysics) at its finest."

B) the quote beginning "Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'."

C) the quote beginning "Well, galaxies"

D) the quote beginning "The observations are facts?"

E) the quote beginning "observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies"

F) the quote beginning "The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots"

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem, have you aware/heard of plasma wakefield acceleration (PWFA)?

Seems a new kid on the block, is it?

This may have some bearing on our now focused discussion, wrt you, me and DL and charge separation.

Oh please! "New kid on the block", I heard about this process (but never studied it myself) when I started my PhD in 1989, ah and indeed, from ADS the first paper is from 1985. However, I do not start a discussion on "unknown" wiki pages, if anything, first you might want to read some papers, and then make a link to double layers etc.

However, I see that you offer to discuss one topic (DL) and immediately your attention is gripped by something else. I don't see much future in a real discussion here.

 

[Sol88]

Sorry DeiRenDopa

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Nothing would please me more DRD!

They are quotes from your thread from yourself, BenBurch and Dancing disco david!!

DRD's

Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'.

'Cold' refers to the average speed of this matter with respect to the CMB frame of reference; basically it just says this stuff isn't zipping round the universe nearly at the speed of light, unlike cosmic rays and neutrinos (the former is an example of 'hot matter', the latter 'hot dark matter').

'Dark' refers to transparency to all forms of electromagnetic radiation; DM and photons are like two ships in the night, they pass each other by without either noticing the other. In practical, astronomical, terms this simply means DM does not emit light (or gamma rays, or x-rays, or ... or radio), nor does it absorb it.

'non-baryonic' means the CDM is made up of stuff other than the molecules, atoms, nuclei, and electrons we are made up of (and the Sun, and cosmic rays, and neutron stars, and dust, and gas, and ...). Neutrinos are 'non-baryonic'; however, they are not 'cold'. The question of whether black holes get counted as non-baryonic or not will be covered in the cases where it is necessary to eliminate them as a possible explanation for the various observations.

OK, time to start.

And

observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies
The main technique used to estimate the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies, as a function of radius from the centre (nucleus) is to derive a rotation curve from observations of the light (radio, etc; electromagnetic radiation - I'll use 'light' as a synonym) emitted by such galaxies.

Benburch

Well, galaxies cannot hold together without CDM or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

And it appears that when galaxies collide, the CDM, which does not appear to interact with baryonic matter (or itself) except gravitationally, shoots on past the parent galaxy as it experiences no drag in the interaction, but the stars and gas of the baryonic side of the galaxies DO interact mechanically and so slow. And you can detect the effects of this in analysis of these galaxies.

and the disco man himself DD

The observations are facts?

Stars rotate around galaxies as though there is more matter than we can see.

Now I hope that put's your mind to rest, deiNreDoper, or would you like hot links, time, date and/or glasses to read your post?

Is the baby in bed now, or do you have something else that needs clearing up?

 

[sol invictus]

you are talking about dark matter being directly observed here aren't you?

Yes.

I've seen a nice picture of the bullet cluster that is supposed to be directly observational evidence of dark matter!

Right. Do you understand what that image is, and how it was made? It shows the following (oversimplified in the hope you might understand it):

1) when those two clusters collided, most of their luminous mass (which is - you guessed it - plasma, or at least ionized gas) stuck together and remained more or less at the point where they collided. That's expected, because plasma interacts very strongly, so it sticks ti itself.

2) the stars (which are a small part of the luminous mass) passed right through and went whizzing along without noticing the collision. That's expected too, because there's lots of room in between stars, they only interact gravitationally, and the gravitational attraction isn't enough to make the stars in the two clusters stick together and remain in the center.

3) this is the crucial one - almost all the mass, as determined using gravitational lensing, is with and around the stars - even though the stars are a small fraction of the luminous mass. Therefore, there is some very large component of the mass of those clusters which is non-luminous and which interacts at least as weakly as stars - i.e., dark matter!

And if the same rule applies to "looking" at pictures that EU/PC proponents have to adhere to, then it's hypocritical to say look at this picture.

EU/PC proponents do things like look at pictures of electrical arcs on a brass sphere and say: "Look - the sun is made of iron!!!!!". This is an actual image of real, actual galaxy clusters in the sky which shows the presence of dark matter through gravitational lensing. In other words, it's an image of dark matter. What better evidence for its existence can you think of?

And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

Zig's calculations were utterly trivial, and completely correct. The idea that the orbits of stars around galaxies could be affected by EM forces is totally absurd, and can be discarded in 20 seconds after the kind of estimate he did.

Do you understand Sol Invictus, dark matter???

Yes, sol88, I understand, dark matter!!!!!

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote

Everything you need to know about double layers you can read in the wiki page (well as an introduction). After that you might want to read the wonderful monograph by Michael Raadu and after that maybe the first three of this list here.

That, I ,need to know?

Is a FAC a DL?

and no I can not read the papers, as I'm not an AGU member

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sorry DeiRenDopa

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Nothing would please me more DRD!

They are quotes from your thread from yourself, BenBurch and Dancing disco david!!

[...]

Thank you.

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

AND

"For example, in your post (that I am quoting; it's #1787 in this thread), where do the quotes in the list below come from (as in, which thread and what post; or what website)?"

By "clear reference", wrt posts from threads in the JREF Forum, I mean the thread name (or a link to it) and the post number (or a link to it).

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

May I ask you questions about this post of yours, Sol88?

If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

 

[Sol88]

Sol invictus wrote

Right. Do you understand what that image is, and how it was made? It shows the following (oversimplified in the hope you might understand it):

1) when those two clusters collided, most of their luminous mass (which is - you guessed it - plasma, or at least ionized gas) stuck together and remained more or less at the point where they collided. That's expected, because plasma interacts very strongly, so it sticks ti itself.

2) the stars (which are a small part of the luminous mass) passed right through and went whizzing along without noticing the collision. That's expected too, because there's lots of room in between stars, they only interact gravitationally, and the gravitational attraction isn't enough to make the stars in the two clusters stick together and remain in the center.

3) this is the crucial one - almost all the mass, as determined using gravitational lensing, is with and around the stars - even though the stars are a small fraction of the luminous mass. Therefore, there is some component of the mass of those clusters which is non-luminous and which interacts at least as weakly as stars - i.e., dark matter.

Point 1 from your list

The plasma that "stuck" together or other wise doing what plasma does when it interacts, as per my list, seems logical!

Point 2 The stars being much more compact and massive than the plasma they are immersed in, would most likely keep on go'n!

Point 3 gravitational lensing like dark matter is fictional and completely made up! You need dark matter to create a Grav lens and a grav lens to detect dark matter!

APOD

Explanation: Two billion light-years away, galaxy cluster Abell 1689 is one of the most massive objects in the Universe. In this view from the Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys, Abell 1689 is seen to warp space as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity -- bending light from individual galaxies which lie behind the cluster to produce multiple, curved images. The power of this enormous gravitational lens depends on its mass, but the visible matter, in the form of the cluster's yellowish galaxies, only accounts for about one percent of the mass needed to make the observed bluish arcing images of background galaxies. In fact, most of the gravitational mass required to warp space enough to explain this cosmic scale lensing is in the form of still mysterious dark matter. As the dominant source of the cluster's gravity, the dark matter's unseen presence is mapped out by the lensed arcs and distorted background galaxy images.

I mean come on Sol invictus If that not your text book garden variety circulus in probando than i do not no what is!

I repeat again for our slower learners here, there is NO dark matter problem under the EU/PC paradigm!

There is under MOND, LAMBDA-CDM, Big Bang....etc etc in fact ALL theories that do not have Electromagnetism as the DOMINATE force at play a problem with MASS. If you ever find the Higgs Boson maybe we could revisit this post?

I mean don't get me wrong gravity is still a force, as I found out last year when I broke my back paragliding, but it is not the dominate force at play here!


And by the way, maybe only a small thing, but could you Sol invictus the self declared guru on CDM tell me where the burst of star formation is in the collisions of MACS J0025.4-1222 and 1E 0657-56?

Galaxies are often observed to have a burst of star formation after a collision or close encounter between two galaxies.

Wiki

Eh!!!

 

[Sol88]

DRD wrote :

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

If you ask nicely sure!

as for

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

No I can't be arsed chasing some time wasting shenanigans on your behalf, but noted that in the future I will endeavor to, when quoting, always provide a clear reference, even without being asked!

DRD wrote in post 1833 in the thread titled "Plasma cosmology Woo or not" on Sunday the 29th March 2009 at approximately 1500 UTC.

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Sure go ahead, but nearly my bed time, school tomorrow you know!

 

[sol invictus]

Point 3 gravitational lensing like dark matter is fictional and completely made up! You need dark matter to create a Grav lens and a grav lens to detect dark matter!

Sorry, I don't understand.

Are you saying they didn't observe gravitational lensing by the Bullet cluster, and are just making it up? If so, does that apply to every other observation of gravitational lensing ever made, and to the deflection of starlight by the sun (which was first observed in 1919)? And to the correlations between weak lensing and structure? Etc. etc.?

If so, you're claiming a huge number of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to fool the world that gravitational lensing is real - altering images, faking data, etc. If that's what you think, this conversation is over.

That needs to be dealt with before this can continue.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem wrote

That, I ,need to know?

Is a FAC a DL?

and no I can not read the papers, as I'm not an AGU member

Yeah, need to know, you better read the wiki first, because if your first question is "is a FAC a DL" than it is quite obvious that you do not know what a double layer is and that apparenty, you have not even read through the whole wiki page.

Just to be sure you understand, the answer is NO!

I will see if I can get a pdf of the Raadu paper, my three papers (well let's make that two, the third is too advanced and a bit speculative) you can, naturally get from me.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DRD wrote :

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

If you ask nicely sure!

Thank you.

I hope that, having made this commitment, you will stick to it.

And, should you omit such clear references in any post in future, that you will "be arsed" to chase "some time wasting shenanigans" on behalf of your own credibility and honesty.

Sound like a plan to you?

as for

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

No I can't be arsed chasing some time wasting shenanigans on your behalf, but noted that in the future I will endeavor to, when quoting, always provide a clear reference, even without being asked!

[...]

Wrt the labelling in my post #1809, here are the answers:

A: post #1775, this thread

B: OP, thread titled Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence

C: post #2 in that 'DRD' thread

D: post #4, same thread

E: post #7, same thread

F: Wikipedia's Galaxy rotation curve entry

Sol88, can you please confirm that these are, in fact, the correct references?

Now concerning C. Here's how Sol88 quoted it:

Well, galaxies

cannot hold together without CDM

or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

to which he added: "very important the bold part!"

Here's what the actual BenBurch post is:

Well, galaxies cannot hold together without CDM or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

And it appears that when galaxies collide, the CDM, which does not appear to interact with baryonic matter (or itself) except gravitationally, shoots on past the parent galaxy as it experiences no drag in the interaction, but the stars and gas of the baryonic side of the galaxies DO interact mechanically and so slow. And you can detect the effects of this in analysis of these galaxies.

Notice the difference?

In Sol88's post, it appears that BB is quoting something; in fact he is not.

In Sol88's post, it appears that BB's post contains bold; in fact it does not.

Sol88, did you intend to distort the BB post? If so, why?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

DRD wrote in post 1833 in the thread titled "Plasma cosmology Woo or not" on Sunday the 29th March 2009 at approximately 1500 UTC.

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Sure go ahead, but nearly my bed time, school tomorrow you know!

Thank you.

I shall proceed to ask some questions about post#1788; I look forward to reading your answers to them.

 

[ben m]

Hi Ben M

well then that's settled then, I was unaware the gravity could be shielded! because Ziggurat made a statement that directly contradicts your post on the Eot-Wash test!

Sorry, Sol, you need to devote more than three brain cells to this before you'll understand what the experiment was.

You *cannot* shield gravity; you *can* shield electromagnetism.

(1) The Eot-Wash mass was shielded against any Galactic electromagnetism.
(2) The Earth and Sun are *not* shielded against any Galactic electromagnetism. (3) Nevertheless the Earth, Sun, and the Eot-Wash test mass all had exactly the same acceleration towards the Galactic Center. (4) Therefore, this acceleration was not due to electromagnetism.

"Galactic acclerations are due to electromagetism" is no some side detail side-result of Peratt's model---it's the whole point.