Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

DRD wrote

What is the source of the animation in this post of yours, Sol88?

What is the source of the images in this post of yours, Sol88?

Do you remember my earlier post where I advised you to cite your sources, when copying something directly?

IIRC, I also said that I thought that this forum has a rule about doing so, and that it is my understanding that you can be banned for persistently breaking this rule.

Did you follow the links?

Yes, I did.

On the first one, I clearly did not read it carefully enough; the source does not claim copyright, nor make requests concerning credit (I do not know what the original Peratt source states, re either).

On the second one, there appear the following words, immediately above the images you copied:

Copyright statement:

When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

Yes, they are bold in the original (though I may have the wrong shade of red).

I did not see that you gave any credit, even though you clearly used "material of this page".

 

[Sol88]

DD wrote:

Despite your insistence

1. Plasma is not Dark Matter, nor can it account for the gravitational effects that are observed.

I never said it was plasma! please enlighten all here and show in which post I stated plasma was dark matter!

Now, I note that you have dodged these questions and pretended I did not ask them.

Easy there Allemande, I've asked a few that were answered with deafening silence!

Here's a boomer for you, wrt dark matter inferred from the result of the only two examples (galaxy collisions) where are the starburst formations in those two collisions?

The ingredients of a starburst

Firstly, a starburst must have a large supply of gas available to form stars. The burst itself may be triggered by a close encounter with another galaxy (such as M81/M82), a collision with another galaxy (such as the Antennae), or by another process which forces material into the center of the galaxy (such as a stellar bar).

Remember all the rubbing and bumping and friction mainstream think is going on, would this not imply star formation? Because there obviously was enough "gas" mass (plasma) to cause gravitational lensing!!!

Quote:
The gas clouds from the merging galaxies, however, found the going much tougher. As the clouds ran together, the rubbing and bumping of their gas molecules caused friction to develop. The friction slowed the clouds down, while the stars they contained kept right on moving. Before long, the galaxies slipped out of the gas clouds and into clear space.

With the galaxies in open space, Chandra scientists found dark matter hiding.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Did Zeuzzz ever defend his "corporate science" remark?

Not that I saw ...

... reminds me of a post by sol invictus, months and months ago, commenting on his posting behaviour ... but I can't find it just now (does anyone know which one I'm referring to?)

 

[Sol88]

Copyright statement:
When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

LINK HERE

Original link in post 1850 did not post the copyright disclaimer.

Anything else DRD?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Copyright statement:
When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

LINK HERE

Original link in post 1850 did not post the copyright disclaimer.

Anything else DRD?

Yep.

I clicked on the link in post 1850, and on the link in the quote of post 1850 (just to be sure that you had not edited 1850 after I quoted it).

In both cases, the link (the word "filaments" tagged with [ URL ] tags) takes you to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/

That is the page which contains the images, and the copyright statement.

Further, the Millennium Run page that you provide a link to (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/index.shtml) seems to contain only two of the four images you included in your post (1850).

Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.

 

[Sol88]

Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Sure as long as they have some bearing on this thread other than some spellin, grammar, copyright or hyper link probems! if they are may I suggest you start a thread on them and we'll duel there!

Oh put them in a succinct numbered list please!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Sure as long as they have some bearing on this thread other than some spellin, grammar, copyright or hyper link probems! if they are may I suggest you start a thread on them and we'll duel there!

Most of them have a very direct bearing on this thread ... and the rest concern your apparent insouciance when it comes to making, and keeping, publicly declared commitments (i.e. they concern holding you to your word, as written).

Oh put them in a succinct numbered list please!

Sure thing; I've added numbers, in bold, to the questions.

From post #1847:

In post#1788 - that I quoted - you stated: "Standard text book plasma physics"

Yet here, in this more recent post of yours that I am quoting, you state that you have not read the paper.

1) May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion (stated in your previous post, #1788), if you have not read the paper?

In that same post:

2) why did you change the bold on "E" and "B", in the original, to the default type font?

(For avoidance of doubt, this has a very direct bearing on this thread, to plasma physics and the published work of Peratt, for example)

In post#1851:

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

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

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Two more questions, Sol88.

Both are from post#1860, and I've added numbering - following on from above - in bold.

In my reply to your post, I tried to answer your question "Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?"

5) In this post of yours, that I am quoting, you omitted this question of yours; may I ask why?

AND

6) After all, if you did not want anyone to answer it, why did you ask it?

 

[Sol88]

1) Arrive at what conclusion? WhAT on Earth are you on bout?

please see post 1843

I did not bold ExB!!!

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

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

WTF

Two more questions, Sol88.

Both are from post#1860, and I've added numbering - following on from above - in bold.

In my reply to your post, I tried to answer your question "Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?"

5) In this post of yours, that I am quoting, you omitted this question of yours; may I ask why?

AND

6) After all, if you did not want anyone to answer it, why did you ask it?

Mate lay off the pipe eh!

You've got circles in circles going on in the windmills of your mind.

Can you answer what is gravity, under your own merits, because it appears to the casual reader here you can not!

 

[Perpetual Student]

DeiRenDopa:

You appear to be falling into a masochistic snake-pit in dealing with Sol88. Perhaps you should consult with a professional before you sink further into the abyss.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

1) Arrive at what conclusion? WhAT on Earth are you on bout?

please see post 1843

I did not bold ExB!!!

Exactly.

The two letters were in bold in the original paper, you chose to unbold them; why?

If you would please click on the link I provided, you will find the post which contains the original of my questions.

In post #1788, you stated this, concerning the Snell and Peratt paper you cited: "Standard text book plasma physics".

Yet, in post #1843, you stated that you have not read the paper.

My question is: how do you know if the Snell and Peratt paper is "Standard text book plasma physics" if you have not read it?

WTF



Mate lay off the pipe eh!

You've got circles in circles going on in the windmills of your mind.

(bold added)

Sol88, do you remember the commitments you made, concerning certain essentials that must be in place if we are to have a discussion? If not, I'd be happy to remind you of them. All I am doing is trying to do is hold you to your word, as written in this thread; so far I have had but limited success.

Can you answer what is gravity, under your own merits, because it appears to the casual reader here you can not!

I do not understand your question, so what follows may not be an answer (apologies in advance).

The general theory of relativity (GR, for short) is a theory which provides a quantitative description of gravity.

GR has been tested, by experiment and observation, thousands of times since it was published in 1916. To date, AFAIK, it has passed all such tests, with flying colours.

As such, it is one of the most successful theories in modern science.

At the personal level, everyone and anyone can interpret GR any way they wish ... provided quantitative explanations and predictions derived from those interpretations produce the same observables as those to be found in standard textbooks on GR.

Sol88, as I may have said before, I think you may be having difficulty with the nature of contemporary science, not just with gravity; in particular, you seem to have an expectation that successful theories must have neat, obvious, intuitive interpretations. Further, you seem to think that successful theories have a core component that is non-mathematical. If either of my (tentative) conclusions is even partly correct, then may I suggest that you abandon this thread, for now, and devote your time and energy to understanding the quantitative nature of modern science?

 

[sol invictus]

1) Reality check care to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to have a look at the millennium run simulation! Tell me what do you see?

2) Dark matter is fictions! Though as you'll note some of the millennium run simulations are modeled on nothing more then DARK matter and guess what the morphology "looks" like inter connected FILAMENTS!! Or do you have another explination on what they are?

3) Not quite sure of what you are ranting on about here, what is between the gaps under mainstream thinking?

The lack of logic here is so complete it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's see - a simulation that includes ONLY GRAVITY - no plasma, no EM forces - produces filamentary structures just like the ones we see in our universe. From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.

Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong.

Oh yeah, about gravity - yes, sol88, of course we could explain it. You wouldn't understand the explanation, so I doubt anyone will bother to try - but then, you wouldn't understand the explanation of EM forces either. Gravity is in some ways much better understood than EM (in many situations one can make even more accurate predictions with it, for example).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DeiRenDopa:

You appear to be falling into a masochistic snake-pit in dealing with Sol88. Perhaps you should consult with a professional before you sink further into the abyss.

Thank you for your suggestion, PS.

 

[Sol88]

Are you still with us Tusenfem?

I need your help, if you do not mind.

WRT double layers and FAC's Birkeland currents, perhaps you could clear some confusion up for me?

From your wiki page on double layers HERE about DL formation

Then there is the situation of a double-double layer, of which one side will most likely be convected away by the plasma, leaving a regular double layer. This is the process in which double layers are produced along planetary magnetic field lines in so-called Birkeland currents.

My bold

What is meant by DL's are produced along a so called Birkeland current (FAC)?

Do they have something in common?

and whats your understanding of a plasmoid and a Dense plasma focus

From wiki

A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning,[1] magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere,[2] and objects in cometary tails,[3] in the solar wind,[4][5] in the solar atmosphere,[6] and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.

The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a "plasma-magnetic entity":[7]

And a DPF(Dense plasma focus)

Intense bursts of X-rays and charged particles are emitted, as are nuclear fusion neutrons when operated in deuterium. There is ongoing research that demonstrates potential applications as a soft X-ray source

Positive characteristics

An important characteristic of the dense plasma focus is that the energy density of the focused plasma is practically a constant over the whole range of machines, from sub-kilojoule machines to megajoule machines, when these machines are tuned for optimal operation. This means that a small table-top-sized plasma focus machine produces essentially the same plasma characteristics (temperature and density) as the largest plasma focus. Of course the larger machine will produce the larger volume of focused plasma with a corresponding longer lifetime and more radiation yield.

Even the smallest plasma focus has essentially the same dynamic characteristics as larger machines, producing the same plasma characteristics and the same radiation products and radiation characteristics. This is due to the scalability of plasma phenomena.

See also plasmoid, the self-contained magnetic plasma ball that may be produced by a dense plasma focus.

'Cos then we can get to the real fun stuff!!!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Suggestion for Sol88:

You appear to live in a fanciful world of anti-establishment cosmology and physics. It is apparent from your posts that you lack an understanding of the very physics you attempt to refute. That would be similar to a child debating the correctness of a common multiplication table without having yet mastered an understanding of it.
My suggestion would be to take a few years off and try to learn more basic mathematics and basic physics, so you will better prepared to understand the playing field your on.

 

[Sol88]

Sol Invictus wrote:

The lack of logic here is so complete it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's see - a simulation that includes ONLY GRAVITY - no plasma, no EM forces - produces filamentary structures just like the ones we see in our universe. From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.

Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong.

Oh yeah, about gravity - yes, sol88, of course we could explain it. You wouldn't understand the explanation, so I doubt anyone will bother to try - but then, you wouldn't understand the explanation of EM forces either. Gravity is in some ways much better understood than EM (in many situations one can make even more accurate predictions with it, for example).

Not gravity but some unknown force, DARK MATTER!

From The Millennium Simulation Project

The movies below shows the dark matter distribution in the universe at the present time, based on the Millennium Simulation, the largest N-body simulation carried out thus far (more than 1010 particles). By zooming in on a massive cluster of galaxies, the movie highlights the morphology of the structure on different scales, and the large dynamic range of the simulation (105 per dimension in 3D). The zoom extends from scales of several Gpc down to resolved substructures as small as ~10 kpc.

And mainstream do not at this time know what DM is but look what structures the DM simulation made. I'm not stateing DM is plasma but..

Quote:
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

Sol invictus wrote:

Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong.

Yes let's, review shall we Sol invictus.

Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...

the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect)

From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.

Yes

 

[Sol88]

Perputual student writ:

Suggestion for Sol88:

You appear to live in a fanciful world of anti-establishment cosmology and physics. It is apparent from your posts that you lack an understanding of the very physics you attempt to refute. That would be similar to a child debating the correctness of a common multiplication table without having yet mastered an understanding of it.
My suggestion would be to take a few years off and try to learn more basic mathematics and basic physics, so you will better prepared to understand the playing field your on.

Thank you for the suggestion PS, but math is NOT need for understanding of the concept behind the EU/PC paradigm!!

And yes the physics is very basic, complex to model mathematically (ask Tusenfem, if he is around still) but still very basic concept se my 15 point list!

1. 99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

like ya know dude like charges repel, opposites attract. Is that to simple for you!

Or do you need the math to understand it???

 

[Sol88]

Shall we move on, boys(girls)?

 

[sol invictus]

You don't even know the meanings of the terms you're using! That makes it very difficult to communicate.

Not gravity but some unknown force, DARK MATTER!

Dark matter is not a force. Fundamental error #1.

And mainstream do not at this time know what DM is but look what structures the DM simulation made. I'm not stateing DM is plasma but..

Fundamental error #2: those simulations did not include EM interactions. How many times do I have to tell you that? Regardless of what DM is in reality, in those simulations it was not a plasma - it was a dust of particles that interact only gravitationally, and yet the simulations agree very well with observation.

Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...

We might, except your item #1 is FALSE. And your claim that EM forces are so much stronger than gravity is also false, when applied to large net-neutral structures (like astrophysical plasmas, dark matter, galaxies, stars, etc.).

 

[Tubbythin]

Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...

The problem is that you repeatedly fail to understand that 99% of the mass of the Universe isn't plasma and that the EM force on a galactic (or bigger) object is not 36-39 orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational force.