Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Bump

From my post 1874

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

Quote:
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
Quote:
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)

Quote:
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
Quote:
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!!!

 

[Sol88]

Zig wrote

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

And gravity is a force which makes the whole DM is a force kinda moot!

So hence the need to invent DM for these galaxies, eh! Because they should fly apart right? and they should not have a flat rotational curve either!

But they don't fly apart and they do have flat rotational curves along with all the stars in it, so how the bloody hell are we going to make your (mainstream standard model) work?

Ohh, of course unobservable and untestable dark matter!! brilliant

 

[tusenfem]

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!

Ah, the proof is in the pudding.

Sol88 you are so stupid to put words in my mouth in front of many other witnesses.

 

[tusenfem]

From my post 1874

Are you still with us Tusenfem?
I need your help, if you do not mind.

mmmm are you really such a dumbass? first you put words in my mouths, and now you need my help?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

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

Quote:
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)?

what "my bold"? you nitwit cannot even bold a piece of text!

again, you quote out of context (but what is new?) this is about the creation of a double layer through the non-linear Buneman instability. However, as you are probably unable to understand the whole explanation (which is actually pretty well described on the wiki page) I will leave it at that:

in currents (for example in Birkeland currents) double layers can be created

Do they have something in common?

apart from that they both consist of charged particles? no
one is an electrical current
the other is an electric field

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

A plasmoid is a selfcontained magnetic structure in a plasma, with which you don't need to occupy your feeble mind. There are enough topics already that you know nothing about, let this just be another one.

 

[Ziggurat]

But they don't fly apart and they do have flat rotational curves along with all the stars in it, so how the bloody hell are we going to make your (mainstream standard model) work?

Ohh, of course unobservable and untestable dark matter!! brilliant

Except it is observable. Gravitational lensing from the bullet cluster shows the presence of dark matter.

In contrast, what do the EU folks have to explain galactic rotation curves? They've got some computer simulations by Peratt which are directly contradicted by experiments such as the Eot-Wash group, as well as simple calculations like I did.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sweet

Plasma scaling

Huh? If your alternative cosmology cannot explain key cosmological observations (which it clearly can't) then it is quite clearly a failed theory. How does that mean I have my foot in my mouth?

So who's left? Deinrendropa decided, wisely to leave, now Tubbythin is a little sketchy as Have not seen the 'ol b bandit (Tusenfem) tonight, so just Zigguarat, Sol Invictus and me left?

I'm not sketchy. This is a thread about a supposed "cosmology". Yet this supposed cosmology cannot explain any of the key cosmological observations. Therefore it is an epic failure. What's sketchy about that?

 

[Tubbythin]

So therefore I know nuff'n, ehh!

Not much about physics evidently.

 

[Dancing David]

Tubby thin wrote:

I think you meant to write

Matches observation

PC: yes as per tested in the lab plasma physics

Wow that must be some lab, cosmos sized you say?

Does it have a web site I can check?

 

[Dancing David]

Ziggurat wrote

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

Momentum?
Position?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Elves and fairies?

 

[Sol88]

Ok lets start again

Ziggurt wrote

Except it is observable. Gravitational lensing from the bullet cluster shows the presence of dark matter.

In contrast, what do the EU folks have to explain galactic rotation curves? They've got some computer simulations by Peratt which are directly contradicted by experiments such as the Eot-Wash group, as well as simple calculations like I did.

And from the The Eöt-Wash Group:
Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics

Motivation

Gravity poses one of the biggest mysteries in physics: why is it so weak when compared with all the other forces of nature? For instance, a small magnet suspended above a table can easily overcome the downward gravitational pull of the entire earth and pick up a nail.

Recently, an intriguing solution to this puzzle, involving "extra" space dimensions, has been suggested. String theory requires that there are 10 space dimensions, and it is usually assumed that 7 of these dimensions are curled up in very tiny regions, so small that they cannot be detected with foreseeable technology. The new idea, due to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali , is that the apparent weakness of gravity could be explained if gravity can "leak off" into the extra dimensions while everything else is confined to the usual 3 dimensions of length, width and height. In fact these extra dimensions could be as big as a millimeter and no experiment would have detected them! Gravity would be only way to "see" these extra dimensions, but the very weakness of gravity has meant that until recently there was no way to test the theory: no one had even been able to detect the gravitational attraction between two millimeter-sized objects, much less see if the force could be stronger than expected.

The value of the energy density of the cosmological constant (3 keV/cm^3), deduced from observations of distant Type-1A supernovae, corresponds to a length scale of about 0.1mm. S.R. Beane and others have noted that this energy density could produce deviations from Newtonian behavior just below the millimeter scale.

One particular model, proposed by Raman Sundrum to account for the cosmological constant problem, posits that the graviton is actually a "fat" particle which is unable to mediate the force of gravity at length scales smaller than itself. Under such a model, the force of gravity would appear to turn off at distances below the dark energy length scale.

Additionally, string theories predict the existence of new particles which could mediate as yet unseen interactions on this distance scale. Such particles include the dilaton and moduli found in theories containing supersymmetry (SUSY). These new interactions could also be observed in a short-range torsion balance experiment.

To date, the University of Washington Eöt-Wash group, led by physics professors Eric Adelberger, Blayne Heckel and Jens Gundlach, has tested the strength of gravity at distances down to 0.06 millimeters. Thus far no deviation from Newton's gravitational inverse-square law has been found in the short length-scale regime. The UW team remains actively engaged in measurements of ever increasing complexity and precision, consistently providing the best experimental limits of gravity-strength deviations available.

Regarding the many new gravitational theories being proposed by today's leading theorists: "We don't know if these ideas are right, but they are revolutionary," Adelberger said. "There would be profound consequences if the ideas are correct. The best way to find out is to devise a way to test gravity at even shorter distances. We are working on it."

The fact that this famous fundamental constant is still so uncertain testifies to the difficulty of gravitational measurements. The recent flurry of new ideas for measuring G would surely have pleased Isaac Newton (quite a clever experimenter himself) who started this whole enterprise over 300 years ago.

Yep pretty solid science there Zigguarat (sarcasm)

Oh and well done to the team, conclusion gravity is a attractive force ONLY!!!

Nobel prize coming up!

even under EU/PC gravity is very special it acts instantaneously over distance!

The tests mean *****!

So until string theory is proven correct, it's bunk in relation to this thread.

 

[sol invictus]

Yep pretty solid science there Zigguarat (sarcasm)

Oh and well done to the team, conclusion gravity is a attractive force ONLY!!!

Nobel prize coming up!

even under EU/PC gravity is very special it acts instantaneously over distance!

The tests mean *****!

So until string theory is proven correct, it's bunk in relation to this thread.

What are you talking about?

You realize you're spouting utter nonsense, right?

 

[temporalillusion]

Sol88 has jumped the shark.

 

[Sol88]

tusenfem wrote

mmmm are you really such a dumbass? first you put words in my mouths, and now you need my help?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

<sigh> I understand plenty more than you think i do, there you self righteous p**f! <sigh>

A plasmoid is a self contained magnetic structure in a plasma, with which you don't need to occupy your feeble mind

You explain to the many other feeble minds the implications a plasmoid has on a Plasma universe!

I fear that's the problem, they do not understand plasma's extra superman powers! 1815

I understand plasma and it's relation ship to the title of this thread.

 

[Sol88]

Sol invictus wrote:

What are you talking about?

Why are they talking about string theory then? And that proves gravitational lensing??

It's going to a long thread!

 

[Sol88]

Ok lets have another go and focus just for the time being on Birkeland currents(FAC's), Double layers and Plasmoids!

Because we do have an expert here with us Tusenfem, he even has a few papers out WRT plasma.


We need to take baby steps for some of the members here, so lets ask a general question first to stop any misconception.

Is it commonly believed that a black hole is at the center of our galaxy?

 

[sol invictus]

Why are they talking about string theory then?

Nothing about that question makes any sense. You posted it. And it's from the motivation section of their site - it has little or nothing to do with the experiments they did.

And that proves gravitational lensing??

You really have no freaking clue, do you? Their experiments have nothing to do with gravitational lensing!

Does a black hole lay at the center of our galaxy?

I didn't know black holes could "lay"... if you meant "is there a black hole at the center of our galaxy", the answer is yes, almost certainly.

 

[brantc]

This is not proof of Dark Matter. With assumptions like colliding, and lensing, and off center mass measured by weak gravitational lensing.


A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DARK MATTER ∗
Douglas Clowe1, Maru sa Brada 2, Anthony H. Gonzalez3, Maxim Markevitch4,5, Scott W. Randall4,
Christine Jones4, and Dennis Zaritsky1
ApJ Letters in press
ABSTRACT
We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657−558 (z = 0.296), a unique cluster merger,
that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the
gravitational force law. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar component and
the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based
images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show
that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass
component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8σ significance spatial
oset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained
with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in
the system is unseen.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608407v1.pdf

Those "centers of mass" are the power source for the x-ray plasma discharges responsible for those pictures. Probably lensing due to electrical(magnetism?) density...... Make the objects appear a little oblong.

Its a Birkeland current end on..... And its discharging between the 2 filaments...

The "high speed" of the "clouds" is due to the current flow which generates the x-rays.

 

[sol invictus]

Those "centers of mass" are the power source for the x-ray plasma discharges responsible for those pictures.

so brantc - do you mean the luminous clouds visible in this image are due to x-ray plasma discharges?

(this could be good....)

 

[Reality Check]

Further ignorance for Soll88 - you really should learn about Plasma Cosmology some time.

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?

I have knowna about the millennium run simulation sincethe results was anounced.
It is a non-PC computer simulation of the Lambda-CDM model producing filaments that are definitley not predicted by PC.

Your simple mind seems to think that all fliaments are that same. You may as well state that the filaments in a plasma globe are "cosmic plasma filaments".

If you knew anything about PC than you would know that the cosmic plasma filaments are 35 kpc wide (100,000 light years), an average of 350 Mpc long (1 billion light years), connect galaxies and what is more important occur in pairs.

The images have filaments that are ~1 Mpc wide, ~30 Mpc long, connect galactic clusters and are single.
Only a truly ignorant person would confuse the 2 types of filaments.

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?

Wrong yet again Sol88. You really need to learn to read.

1. Dark matter is a fact since is has been actually observed. It
2. The computer simulation is of the Lambda-CDM model. At no stage is it run on CDM only. Some of the images are of of CDM distribution produced by the simulation.

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

There are no gaps (i.e. large volumes not containing stars) between the arms of spiral galaxies. Astronomers are smart. They know that visible light is not all of the electromagnetic spectrum. So they look at spiral galaxies in other wavelengths and see that there are no real "arms". There is just volumes of 10-20% greater density that happen to be brighter because they have a large number of young bright stars in them.

P.S. The stuff that they detect between the arms includes ionized gas (that is plasma for you Sol88) !

4) Ahh the old chicken and egg conundrum! And very easy to answer, though I could just as well ask you, what came before the "big bang"?

More ignorance of PC: Peratt's model is about galaxy formation. It requires a before, i.e. an explanation of how the filaments fromed from the plasma that existsd at the time.
More ignorance of BBT: The Big Bang Theory starts after the Big Bang. It does not address what came before the BB.

5) , and note the millennium run simulations made no mention of plasma, though they did mention particles, but particles of what?

Particle as in things with position, mass, interactions, etc. You know - the common scientific use of the word particle.

Ignoring plasma is correct for large scales. Electromagnetic forces cancel out in plasma over large scales because there are attractive and repulsive forces.

Ignoring gravity is totally wrong. Gravitational forces never cancel out over large scales because they are always attractive.