Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Tubbythin]

You may also be interested in a side by side comparison, unfortunately cut and paste will not work with the table so you will have to click the link.


Plasma Universe / Big Bang comparison

It misses the important point:

Matches observation PC: No. BB: Yes.

 

[Sol88]

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)

people help me here what is Ziggurat say'n here It can exert a force (namely gravity {which is a force}), but it's not a force (DM)???

sounding similar to Space is plasma argument we had a few post's back!

I'll concede to help things along DARK MATTER is NOT a force. Are we all happy campers now?

Plus anyone care to have a crack at the starburst problem in the two observations of dark matter dominated galaxies colliding?

 

[Sol88]

Tubby thin wrote:

It misses the important point:

Matches observation PC: No. BB: Yes.

I think you meant to write

Matches observation

PC: yes as per tested in the lab plasma physics

BB: yes as per hypothetical abstract mathematical equations.


What have trouble with, is the disconnect some obviously very smart people have with building a model based entirely on mathematical equations and then make ◊◊◊◊ up to force fit the math i.e. DM/DE BH etc etc

 

[Ziggurat]

people help me here what is Ziggurat say'n here It can exert a force (namely gravity {which is a force}), but it's not a force???

Why is that hard to understand? I can exert a force with my own body, but my body is not a force. In fact, my own body exerts a gravitational force on everything around it, but my body is not itself a force. Dark matter is not special in this respect, it applies to all matter. Is this distinction really beyond your comprehension?

sounding similar to Space is plasma argument we had a few post's back!

Who'da thunk? You are incredibly sloppy in your use of language, and you made more than one objectionable statement as a result. Such imprecision reflects a carelessness of thought.

 

[Tubbythin]

I think you meant to write

Matches observation

PC: yes as per tested in the lab plasma physics

BB: yes as per hypothetical abstract mathematical equations.

I didn't. If we're talking about cosmology then I'm not interested in lab experiments. I'm interested in cosmological observation. PC utterly fails in this respect.

What have trouble with, is the disconnect some obviously very smart people have with building a model based entirely on mathematical equations and then make ◊◊◊◊ up to force fit the math i.e. DM/DE BH etc etc

What you have trouble with is the fact that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about as evidenced by the fact that you don't know the difference between matter and a force.

 

[Sol88]

Ziggurat wrote

Why is that hard to understand?

But DM is acting like unseen(undetectable) mass, which has active gravitational force as a property (the weakest of the four known forces)

Umm what force does gravity exert?(rhetorical)

So what stops those galaxies from collapsing into some big arse BH then?

I feel a circular argument comm'n on! careful

 

[Sol88]

Tubbythin wrote

If we're talking about cosmology then I'm not interested in lab experiments

Sweet

Plasma scaling

Plasma scaling
The parameters of plasmas, including their spatial and temporal extent, vary by many orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, there are significant similarities in the behaviors of apparently disparate plasmas. It is not only of theoretical interest to understand the scaling of plasma behavior, it also allows the results of laboratory experiments to be applied to larger natural or artificial plasmas of interest.

So who's left? Deinrendropa decided, wisely to leave, now Tubbythin is a little sketchy as

I'm not interested in lab experiments(see above)

Have not seen the 'ol b bandit (Tusenfem) tonight, so just Zigguarat, Sol Invictus and me left?

Oh well...

 

[sol invictus]

Umm what force does gravity exert?(rhetorical)

So what stops those galaxies from collapsing into some big arse BH then?

Do you know what prevents the earth from falling into the sun?

 

[sol invictus]

Plasma scaling

It's true that one can extrapolate plasma physics to large scales (in precisely the same way one extrapolates gravity, by the way - using math).

Guess what you find when you do that? That EM interactions are not relevant to the large scale structure of the universe, because gravity is vastly more powerful.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Is Sol88 having fun?

What force separates the charges? It can't be gravity; after all, the whole point of the plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravity. But what other force is there? And what are the conditions under which this unknown force can pull charges apart? What are the astrophysical environments in which this charge separation happens? Inquiring minds want to know!

Jeez I duno take your pick of the many mechanisms available? Double layer (plasma)

Bad news: Double layers do not cause charge separation. Rather, they are caused by charge separation. So you still need too identify the root cause. If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon. If you can't do that, then you are out of luck.

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

So you ignore the book because you don't like the words "Fluid Dynamics" in the title? The application of fluid dynamics to plasma dynamics is called magnetohydrodynamics, and it was invented by Hannes Alfven. Indeed, that's what he got a share of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for; the prize citation reads "for fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics". So, you're wrong. Fluid dynamics and plasma dynamics, while not exactly the same thing, are deeply intertwined, and for the limited purpose of this discussion, they are in fact the same thing.

Plasma in all cases can be considered a GAS. It is created from a gas and retains ALL the properties of a gas, as it gets ionized, i.e.: ...

The outright rejection of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is typical of EU/PC enthusiasts, despite the deification of Alfven, since they recognize its power to destroy their theories. But it is a forlorn hope, since MHD is a firmly established science. So, what do you think? Do you still reject it, or are you prepared to admit that plasmas also obey the laws of fluid dynamics, as one would expect from any fluid?

But that is the whole purpose of your "discussion" isn't it? You just drop some facts and move on without explaining what you want, and hope that people come up with some ideas for you. I am not playing with you, here is your ball back, first tell me which game we are playing, then I will see if I am interested.

Now I think we near the Real Truth. As you might recall, I said ...

I have little enough time & patience for all this and I see the list as a farcical waste of time. Either you have a theory of your own or you don't, and "Without agreement on those FACTS I have no theory" is a poor excuse. I see no reason to bandy arguments about until you have something concrete to say about your own theory, for yourself, as opposed to asking everybody else to do your homework for you.

Evidently, tusenfem came to the same conclusion. You really have no theory, not even an hypothesis. In fact, I don't think you really care much one way or the other. You are really here just to bandy about childish insults and lots of snazzy icons, right?

Hope you're having fun.

 

[Sol88]

What you have trouble with is the fact that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about as evidenced by the fact that you don't know the difference between matter and a force.

So therefore I know nuff'n, ehh!

 

[tusenfem]

Oh Sol88 you have finally reached the stage that got you banned from BAUT. Obnoxious behaviour, answering questions with questions or with answers that are not even related to the question posed.

You have trouble with language and with comprehensive reading, and you try to mask your lack of physics education with snippy answers and changing the subject when you feel you might get caught, or by misquoting someone to make it seem that that person said something (s)he did not.

A very interesting example of this is in the so called "millennium model". You showed a moving image here in post 1850 where the creation of a galaxie out of two filaments is shown from Peratt's plasma simulation.

Then you show pics of the milennium simulation project, where you say "hey look there is filamentation, so it must be EM and plasma". However, that whole simulation is about dark matter and not about plasma. So, it seems gravity can create filamentation too. And then you come to the conclusion that dark matter should be plasma??? Don't you think the Garching people would write it on the page if they thought that dark matter is plasma? (but then it would be useless to call it dark matter) Maybe it would be a good idea to understand that other gasses then plasmas can also organize themselves into structures, examples are: the layers of the atmosphere (through gravity), tornado funnels (through hydrodynamics). You are in love with plasma, for some reason, but it is a typical tunnelvision (which now and then also occurs with just starting PhD students) to want everything be the thing you love.

And then you think, okay maybe this was not such a good idea, and then you start a discussion about DM being a force, and whether or not it is just semantics (which it is not, because it is like saying "the Earth is a force"), so that you don't have to go into a real discussion, whether gravity can create structures or not.

Then (skipping a bit) you want to "defend the model that is not your model" with the following list that are supposed to be "predictions of PC":
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]

Ah no, it is a list of "predictions" by Hannes Alfvén, which places it in mainstream physics and the only thing that is not supported by mainstream of this list is the last point, the partial corotation. I fail to see why this would be a list for support of PC.

Then the galaxy formation by Peratt. Unfortunately, the filaments that he wants to use are not observed (most likely because they do not exist). It is nice that he can create a structure which resembles a galaxy, which apparently has a flat rotation curve, but then the question is: what is the force that keeps the stars (if that is what is in the simulation and not only plasma, but anyway, I guess I could try and read it in his book). I guess, as the whole simulation is electromagnetic (don't see any gravity mentioned on the plasma universe page), the force must be electromagnetic (which is the whole purpose of PC). Then the only forces are either electrostatic, or Lorentz. However, there it ends!!! There is no mention (as far as I can see) about what maintains the galaxy shape. Naturally, it could be the current that keeps on flowing in the cosmic filament, but then the question is: what is driving that current? 2 × 10¹⁸ Amps (for this model, but galaxies differ in size).

So, there is a lot of questions that hover around for which you could try to give a coherent answer, by e.g. calculating something yourself and show us the result. As an example you could calculate the PC force that is keeping the earth in its orbit around the sun (if it is not gravity, because gravity seems to be piss weak).

Before you answer, though, please do not forget to take your ADHD medicine.

 

[Sol88]

Great Tim's back!!

Bad news: Double layers do not cause charge separation. Rather, they are caused by charge separation. So you still need too identify the root cause. If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon. If you can't do that, then you are out of luck.

From Tusemfems wiki page


1 Current carrying double layers may arise in plasmas carrying a current

2 Current-free double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties

3 Mechanically, ratio between the mass of a proton and that of an electron is about 1836 ^ Zombeck, Martin V. (2007). Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Third edition ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 14.

Plasma in all cases can be considered a GAS.

Ahhh that's were I have gone wrong, I was under the wrong impression, I thought plasma was an electrically conductive medium, but it's just gas(As I have read over and over again in mainstream papers or at least press release's hot gas this cold gas that etc etc) Thanks for the heads up!

And I did not ignore the book based on the title "fluid dynamics" as matter of fact my point 3 above requires plasma to act as a fluid.

Evidently, tusenfem came to the same conclusion. You really have no theory, not even an hypothesis. In fact, I don't think you really care much one way or the other. You are really here just to bandy about childish insults and lots of snazzy icons, right?

please see post 1893
and I love a snazzy icon or to liven things up.

 

[Ziggurat]

But DM is acting like unseen(undetectable) mass

It isn't undetectable, that's rather the whole bloody point. Light doesn't interact with it directly, but it does get bent by its gravitational field.

which has active gravitational force as a property

All mass does.

(the weakest of the four known forces)

Depends how you want to rank them. The strong and weak nuclear forces are not long-range forces (they fall off faster than 1/r²), so they are in fact much weaker at these length scales. Magnetism is effectively a 1/r³ force at best, since we don't have monopoles, meaning it's also weaker than gravity at large length scales. The only other 1/r² force is electricity. But the thing about electricity is that it can be shielded. In fact, the shielding of electric fields is a property of plasmas! Can you feel the irony yet? Which means that at galactic scales, there are no significant electric fields, they're all shielded. And what are you left with? Gravity, the only 1/r² force that can't be shielded. So at large length scales, gravity isn't the weakest force, it's the strongest force.

So what stops those galaxies from collapsing into some big arse BH then?

Angular momentum. Same thing that keeps the earth from falling into the sun. Really, if you're trying to disprove a theory, it helps to start off by having at least a bit of a clue about what that theory says.

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote

Then you show pics of the milennium simulation project, where you say "hey look there is filamentation, so it must be EM and plasma". However, that whole simulation is about dark matter and not about plasma. So, it seems gravity can create filamentation too. And then you come to the conclusion that dark matter should be plasma??? Don't you think the Garching people would write it on the page if they thought that dark matter is plasma? (but then it would be useless to call it dark matter) Maybe it would be a good idea to understand that other gasses then plasmas can also organize themselves into structures, examples are: the layers of the atmosphere (through gravity), tornado funnels (through hydrodynamics). You are in love with plasma, for some reason, but it is a typical tunnelvision (which now and then also occurs with just starting PhD students) to want everything be the thing you love.

Your a couple post behind today my friend, you may wish to read them before you Ad Hom me!

However, that whole simulation is about dark matter and not about plasma. So, it seems gravity can create filamentation too.

Dark matter is not gravity, Tusenfem, is it!

And then you think, okay maybe this was not such a good idea, and then you start a discussion about DM being a force, and whether or not it is just semantics (which it is not, because it is like saying "the Earth is a force"), so that you don't have to go into a real discussion, whether gravity can create structures or not.

No lets do!!

 

[Ziggurat]

Dark matter is not gravity, Tusenfem, is it!

No, it isn't. He never claimed it was. But dark matter creates a gravitational field, and that gravitational field can create filament structures.

Serious question: how old are you?

 

[Sol88]

Ziggurat wrote

Angular momentum. Same thing that keeps the earth from falling into the sun. Really, if you're trying to disprove a theory, it helps to start off by having at least a bit of a clue about what that theory says.

We are talking about the galaxies that are proof of DM here, so whats stopping them from flying apart?

 

[Sol88]

Zig wrote

But dark matter creates a gravitational field

How?

Just a simple quick answer so we can resolve this issue everyone seems to have with DM

 

[Ziggurat]

We are talking about the galaxies that are proof of DM here, so whats stopping them from flying apart?

Gravity keeps them from flying apart, angular momentum keeps them from collapsing. Same as with the solar system. What's your point? Are you confused about the difference between gravity and sources of gravity?

 

[Ziggurat]

How?

Same way ordinary matter creates gravity: it has mass. Mass creates gravity.