• 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

Sol88 said:
DD wrote:

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



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?

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!!!
Click to expand...


I have asked some very specific questions, and this is distraction, I sugegst you take this to the LCDM thread.

I have asked

1. How does the PC/EU theory account for the obserevd rotation curves of galaxies.

If you read the thread you will see that the perrat paper you linked to does not provide an explanation.

I then have asked:
2. If youw ant to say that 'magnetic' fields did it, a common PC explanation, then what charges do satrs have to be accelerated by the known magnetic field of the galaxy.

But perhaps you can start with one:

1. How does the PC/EU theory account for the observed rotation curves of galaxies?

Thanks.

ETA: the comment about dark matter is in reference to the fact that the amount of plasma in galaxies can be roughly estimated and therefore it does not provide sufficient mass to account for the phenomena of increased gravitational effects beyond that of the obervable mass.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way - whoever wrote that page you linked to is an ignorant quack. Equation 5) is the force between two infinitely long straight wires carrying current I1 and I2. The reason the force falls off like 1/r is that the wires are infinitely long - not that magnetic forces are "the longest range force law in the universe". You would obtain precisely the same unphysical result in Newtonian gravity with infinitely long streams or rods of mass, and if you took a physical situation, like two finite-sized current loops, the force would fall off faster than 1/r^2.
 
Sol88 said:
1) Arrive at what conclusion? WhAT on Earth are you on bout?

please see post 1843

I did not bold ExB!!!



WTF :confused:



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!
Click to expand...


Theor is what it is, as I have stated before, we can only offer approximate models of how the universe behaves.

the theory of gravitation is one such model. It is fairly well developed in many ways. But it is only an approximate model.

Now the question becomes which models provide a good approximation to the observed behaviors.

Which is why I have suggested the following rubric for discussion of PC/EU

1. Model
.Predictions
3. Observations.

So you present your model for how PC/EU actually works, the predictions it make and the observations it matches.

So far I have asked you about how it models tha phenomena of stars in galaxies moving faster than can be accounted for by the gravitational effects of the observed mass.

And then we can on to other subjects.

So what is a good model presented by PC/EU? Which describes a specific behavior of the universe, especially at a cosmology scale?
What predictions does it make?
What observations match the predictions?

:)
 
Sol88 said:
Shall we move on, boys(girls)?
Click to expand...
Well, unless you are prepared to first acknowledge, and then address, your repeated failures to be true to your word, then there is no longer a discussion in this thread (at least one that involves the two of us).

I wish you a nice life, Sol88.
 
Sol Invictus wrote
Dark matter is not a force. Fundamental error #1.
Click to expand...

from wiki DM page

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.
Click to expand...

Gravity is a force, piss weak but still a force, so you Sol Invictus are wrong!


Fundamental error #2: those simulations did not include EM interactions.
Click to expand...

We agree on something, never said they did, that's were they went wrong

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.).
Click to expand...

You might expect correct if you do not understand plasma, may I suggest you study plasma and it's properties!
 
Well, unless you are prepared to first acknowledge, and then address, your repeated failures to be true to your word, then there is no longer a discussion in this thread (at least one that involves the two of us).

I wish you a nice life, Sol88.
Click to expand...

You'll be back! :)

plus ya hypocrite you have not answered any of my question yet, especially since you had change your two lists somewhat...

:dl:

Can you before ya piss off answer at least one question I asked you, so you don't look like a fool?



Or better yet pony up your own thoughts DeiRenDopa, instead just the typical mainstream Rote learning
Click to expand...
POST 1855
 
Sol88 said:
Gravity is a force, piss weak but still a force, so you Sol Invictus are wrong!
Click to expand...

Gravity is a force. Dark matter is not.

Do you understand the concept of "words", and that they have "meanings"?

We agree on something, never said they did, that's were they went wrong
Click to expand...

So you confirm your previous conclusion: they did a simulation which matches observation very well, but since it didn't include EM forces or plasma it must be wrong no matter what.

There's a word for that kind of blind faith: religion.
 
Sol88 said:
Gravity is a force, piss weak but still a force, so you Sol Invictus are wrong!
Click to expand...

He said dark matter wasn't a force. Now would you like to calculate the force of gravity between two 100 billion solar mass galaxies due to their gravity and due to the EM force?
 
Sol88 said:
you tell me what dark matter is so we can clear this mess up
Click to expand...

Dark matter is matter which does not interact to any significant degree via electromagnetism. It is not a force. It can exert a force (namely gravity), just like ordinary matter. But ordinary matter is not a force either. Your failure to distinguish between something which can exert a force and the force itself is a rather major mistake, at an incredibly fundamental level. Matter (dark or ordinary) is not a force.
 
Dancing Davis wrote:
So you present your model for how PC/EU actually works, the predictions it make and the observations it matches.
Click to expand...

Lets get this straight IT IS NOT MY MODEL, smarter people than me have been working on it for awhile now!

but lets have a go any way shall we just for ***** and giggles :)

Sorry 'bout the cut and paste just carnt be arsed typing it all out, so I do hope u will forgive me (you know spelling and grammar stu ff that upsets my friend DeDopa)

I like your list only 3 points

1. Model
2.Predictions
3. Observations.
Click to expand...

1) The model
The Plasma Universe is a model of the Universe in which plasma and its known laboratory properties, plays a more significant role in the Universe than is generally accepted.
Click to expand...
LINK
 or Plasma cosmology
Plasma cosmology is a model of the Universe in which plasma and electromagnetic forces play a significant role, in which an actualistic approach is preferred: i.e. starting from the observed present-state and trying to extrapolate backwards in time to even more ancient states.[2]
Click to expand...
LINK

2) Plasma Universe predictions
* Predictions attributed by Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, include:[1]

1. Magnetic braking.[2]
2. Magnetohydrodynamic waves [3] [4]
3. Field-aligned ("Birkeland") currents [5]
4. Critical ionization velocity [6][7][8].
5. Rings of Uranus (predicted by Bibas De) [9]
6. Jet streams [10] [11]
7. Electrostatic double layers [12] [13]
8. Partial corotation ("2/3 effect")[14]
Click to expand...
LINK

3) I see the same "stuff" as you, an observation is an observation regardless of theory! Do you agree? The biggie here is their interpretation!

So far I have asked you about how it models tha phenomena of stars in galaxies moving faster than can be accounted for by the gravitational effects of the observed mass.
Click to expand...

Because those models ONLY take gravitation into account which under the EU/PC is WRONG! your model is WRONG! :catfight:

but read this anyway LINK

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.
Click to expand...

And by the way, are you thinking of a star a just the visible component? i.e. from the solar surface to the core?
 
Sol88 said:
Sol invictus

you tell me what dark matter is so we can clear this mess up
Click to expand...

I can't tell you precisely, because no one knows. However I can tell you some things we know about it:

1) if it interacts electromagnetically, it does so incredibly weakly. It is as far from a plasma as one can get.

2) it is relatively cold - i.e. the particles that make it up are non-relativistic, and have been for quite a while.

3) it clusters in roughly spherical halos around galaxies.

4) its total mass is 4-5 times that of luminous matter.
 
Ziggurat wrote:
Dark matter is matter which does not interact to any significant degree via electromagnetism. It is not a force. It can exert a force (namely gravity), just like ordinary matter. But ordinary matter is not a force either. Your failure to distinguish between something which can exert a force and the force itself is a rather major mistake, at an incredibly fundamental level. Matter (dark or ordinary) is not a force.
Click to expand...

Semantics :rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
Semantics :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, it is not semantics. It is a fundamental distinction. If you're too lazy to make the distinction, then you will get no respect. If you can't understand the distinction, then you're an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom