Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Now plug the numbers in.

Which numbers? The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?

I mean shall we look at the paper on idealized non rotating stars for some numbers? Or shall we use the calculations on dark matter?

The data set is not complete, because those that collect it our blind in one eye?

I mean how hard could it be to send 10's, 100's or even 1000's of very small probes only armed with a magnetometer a gigercounter and a radio, thru out our solar system?

Like a big Chrysanthemum shell

One very expensive probe flying thru the solar system would see chit, but tether two small cheap probes together, like above and I predict we would find out a damn lot more than we know now!

 

[Ziggurat]

Which numbers?

Whatever numbers you think are correct.

The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?

One would think that a model which posits large charges on the sun would have some way of estimating what those charges might be. Hell, pick an upper bound if you don't think you can get an accurate estimate.

I mean shall we look at the paper on idealized non rotating stars for some numbers?

Why would rotation matter? The centripetal acceleration at the equator of the sun is very small compared to gravitational acceleration, so it's rather safe to ignore rotation for such calculations. We're not talking differences of a few percent in our answers, after all.

Or shall we use the calculations on dark matter?

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

I mean how hard could it be to send 10's, 100's or even 1000's of very small probes only armed with a magnetometer a gigercounter and a radio, thru out our solar system?

It's actually quite expensive to do so. Launch costs are huge even for cheap payloads.

 

[ben m]

So the break up of a comet/asteroid would always produce nearly the same size fragments all flying in tight formation perpendicular into the ground? Sounds like a stretch to me?

Leave out the word "perpendicular" and yes, that's quite precisely what is expected to happen.

You know, Sol, you keep citing your personal intuition for what "sounds like a stretch" and what does not. Your intuition seems to be singularly unreliable. You should consider relying on something else.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Did you read the paper in question?

electrostatics on idealized star?

How 'bout we go for electrodynamics on a real star, our Sun?

You response is a simplistic non sequitur. What does that have to do with PC/EU cosmology and the fact that gravity overwhelms EM forces over galactic and cosmological distances?

 

[Sol88]

Leave out the word "perpendicular" and yes, that's quite precisely what is expected to happen.

You know, Sol, you keep citing your personal intuition for what "sounds like a stretch" and what does not. Your intuition seems to be singularly unreliable. You should consider relying on something else.

In summary, some of the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 disappeared before they reached Jupiter (J, M and P1), some impacts were generally difficult to detect (B, F, N, P2, Q2, T, U, and V), some fragments created dark impact sites that measured about half of an Earth-diameter across (A, C, D, E, H, Q1, R, S, and W) and others created impact sites that were at least an Earth-diameter across (G, K, and L). Clearly not all of the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 were the same. The size of fragment A is thought to have been about 1 km across and the diameter of fragment G is thought to have been about 3 km.

LINK

That causes even sized regular straight line craters? Have we ever observed an asteroid break up?


My statement stands! BS

 

[Reality Check]

Which numbers? The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?

The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10^-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:

Oh, the irony. There's only one reference to an actual magnetic field strength in either of those PDF's (page 10 of your first PDF), and it isn't in connection with the simulations. They never state what fields were used or calculated in those simulations, so there's no way to compare those simulations to anything real. But let's take a look at it in more detail, shall we? They suggest a field of 10^-9 to ^-10 Tesla. OK, fine. How much force would this field apply to the sun? Well, we need a charge on our sun. Your predictions for the charge have always been absurd. So let's find a real estimate:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
"The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10⁻³⁶ qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star."
That works out to be on the order of 100 Coulombs for the sun (which has ~10⁵⁷ baryons).

So what's an upper bound on the force on the sun from this large a magnetic field? qv x B. Our solar system is moving at about 220 km/s ~ 2x10⁵ m/s. So 100 C x 2x10⁵ m/s x 10^-9 T = 2x10^-2 N. What acceleration does this provide? a=F/m = 2x10^-2 N/2x10³⁰ kg = 10^-32 m/s².

Now, what's our actual acceleration about the galactic core? Well, it's 2pi*v/t, where v is our velocity and t is the period. Our period is about 8x10¹⁵ seconds, so 1.4x10⁶/8x10¹⁵ ~ 1.7x10^-10 m/s².

So magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of our acceleration. Same basic calculations will apply for other stars. So either you need to drastically increase the magnetic field for your model or you need to find some way of containing many orders of magnitude more charge on your sun in order for the difference to even register against the error bars, let alone describe the discrepency between visible mass gravity and observed acceleration. But there's about a 20 orders of magnitude gap to close, and it cannot be done. I've already demonstrated how unfeasible cranking up the charge on the sun is, and you have never responded.

Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.

 

[Reality Check]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41612000/jpg/_41612188_hubble_fragment_203i.jpg.jpg

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9hst.gif

LINK

That causes even sized regular straight line craters? Have we ever observed an asteroid break up?

My statement stands!

Shoemaker-Levy 9 caused a line of impact sites. These were not even sized or regular. They were in a straight line. You would know this if you took steps to lessen your ignorance.
Some break ups cause "even sized regular straight line craters". Some do not. It depends on how the object breaks up.

We have never observed an asteroid break up as far as I know. But we have detected them: Recent Asteroid Breakup Event Detected In Main Belt
It is unlikely that we will ever observe an asteroid break up as it impacts a body. They are rather hard to spot at the best of time.

Meteorites have been observed to break up in the Earth's atmosphere - Google meteorite break up observation.
Thus the crater chains on Mars are probably from meteorite break up in its atmosphere.

Your statement falls

 

[Perpetual Student]

The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10^-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:

...

Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.

So Mr. 88, it appears you have four choices:

(1) respond to this point with some valid science
(2) admit you're wrong
(3) continue delivering non sequitur responses
(4) ignore the question

Which will it be?

 

[Sol88]

So Mr. 88, it appears you have four choices:

(1) respond to this point with some valid science
(2) admit you're wrong
(3) continue delivering non sequitur responses
(4) ignore the question

Which will it be?

Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect!

Black Holes are a mathematical construct.

Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.

What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

LINK

We’re also not sure what the universe is made of: eotwash group

96% new particles and fields that mediate forces we may be able to measure in the laboratory

LINK

And you keep bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology

But 99.999% plasma

The Universe is 99.999% plasma

* "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]
* "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]
* "..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]
* "plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]
* "It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]
* "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]
* "The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]
* "It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]
* "It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]
* "about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]
* "99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]
* "How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]

[edit]
The Solar System is 99.998% plasma

The Sun's mass makes up over 99.998% of the Solar System.[1] , and since it is nearly all in the plasma state,[2] over 99.98% of the mass of the Solar System is in the plasma state
[edit]
The interplanetary medium is a near-100% plasma

The tenuous matter between the Sun and the planets is a fully ionized (100%) plasma.[16]. While the interplanetary plasma is very thin, it carries both a magnetic field and electric currents estimated at 3×109 amperes (see the heliospheric current sheet).
[edit]
The interstellar medium is a plasma

The more tenuous matter between stars, the interstellar medium, includes regions of neutral hydrogen gas, dust and plasma such as the "Warm Ionized Medium", H II regions, and "hot ionized medium". As a significantly ionized gas, the medium behaves as a plasma, and carries a magnetic field,[17], and electric currents.[18]. (See also dusty plasmas)
[edit]
The intergalactic medium is a near-100% plasma

The space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium, is a very tenuous, fully ionized plasma. [19], that carries magnetic field and electric currents.[20]

 

[Sol88]

The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?

ELECTRIC GRAVITY!

Wal Thornhill has a stab at what it is that makes more sense than a rubber sheet and warped space-time!

The best thing gravity has going for it is:

‘Instantaneous’ gravity

A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton's law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. Clearly, that doesn't happen. This supports the view that the electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron.[23] It is a significant simplification of all of the tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass. Einstein’s postulates are wrong. Matter has no effect on empty space. Space is three-dimensional—something our senses tell us. There is a universal clock so time travel and variable aging is impossible—something that commonsense has always told us. But most important—the universe is connected and coherent.

and

If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?

Food for thought for the vaunted Eot-Wash group!

 

[Sol88]

Shall we talk about how many probes have been lost at Mars? Or maybe the Pioneer anomaly or Galileo or Ulysses?

Some unknown "dark" force is causing them to accelerate toward the sun!

Could it be

So I call BS! It is very well explained without invoking new physics or trying to modify gravities magical pixy snot., or you have your gravitational understanding cocked up!
By the probe being charged, the Suns electric field and that the Universe is electric!

What's so hard to understand about that?

And it would be easy to test!

So what's going on with those probes? Why all the orbital entry accidents at Mars?

Could it be Gravity is not understood?

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: I see that you have gone nuts.

Could you please keep to the topic?

 

[Reality Check]

The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?

ELECTRIC GRAVITY!

Wal Thornhill has a stab at what it is that makes more sense than a rubber sheet and warped space-time!

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric gravity.jpg

The best thing gravity has going for it is:

and

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Slow light.jpg



Food for thought for the vaunted Eot-Wash group!

Quoting an obvious crackpot is not making you seem very smart.

But you may be just a troll rather than someone with 2 braincells.

 

[Sol88]

The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10^-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:



Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.

The paper you linked to HERE by L. Neslusan in post 2166 his paper? or another paper by Anthony L. Peraat:?

'cos with Anthony L. Peratt's simulation these phenomena were observed:

Simulation characteristics

Peratt further notes that:[3] "When scaled to cosmic dimensions the simulations show:

1. a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity ~1037 W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction began;
2. isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtapositioned "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);
3. the formation of "dust lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix);
4. a spatially varying power law along the major axis of the simulated double radio galaxies in agreement with observations;
5. alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and
6. a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Peratt continues: "The simulation time frame of this investigation lasted some 108-109 years. The lifetime and evolution of quasars and double radio sources, the so-called end problem of double radio galaxies, was addressed in this paper (Paper II) by continuing the simulation run ~1-5 x 109 years farther in time. This extension of the simulation showed:

1. the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies;
2. the formation of irregular and dust lane galaxies, as well as more flattened E and S0 galaxies within the magnetic separatrix;
3. barred and normal spiral galaxies resulting from the inflow of plasma from the outer Birkeland currents onto the the elliptical galactic center; the characteristic rotational velocities of spiral galaxies including the fine-detail vortex cotangent structure on the "flat" portions of the spiral-arm velocity components;
4. replications of the morphologies of multiple interacting galaxies;
5. "horseshoe" like regions of nearly neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields; and
6. toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as 10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). These results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy"

Galaxy formation

Further

5. alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and
6. a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Seems a lot tighter than Eot-Wash malarky

No hypothetical carry on, no new physics and simulation matches observations!

 

[Reality Check]

Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect!

Unless you have a citation to a paper that proves that the pioneer effect is due to a gravitational force then you are just spouting nonsense.

Black Holes are a mathematical construct.

The stupidity gets worse.

Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

Someone needs to learn to read the posts in this thread - Dark matter is an observed fact.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.

Dark matter is a label for the cause of an actual observation.

What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg/375px-DarkMatterPie.jpg LINK

What about them?

We’re also not sure what the universe is made of: eotwash group

96% new particles and fields that mediate forces we may be able to measure in the laboratory

LINK

That is right - the physical observations that scientists have made show that 96% of the universe is made out of things that we have not mesured in the laboratory.

So what?
That is an OK definition of science: The measurement of the areas of our ignorance and reducing those areas.

And you keep
bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology

No we do not.

A simple calcuation that high school students can make shows that EM forces have no effect on on the motion of stars in galaxies. They are 22 orders of magniture smaller than the effect of gravity.

That is irrefutable evidence against Plasma cosmology.

The Eot-Wash group results are confimation of this.

But 99.999% plasma

http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/thumb/9/99/99-999%.png/400px-99-999%.png

So now you say that the only justification for PC is "a crackpot web site stating "Universe is 99.999% plasma" and so plasma dominates?

Well they and you are wrong: 99.999% of the visible matter in the observable universe is plasma (assuming that all ionized gas is plasma).

Here is your logic but about gravity: 100% of the matter in the universe is matter. Therefore gravity dominates.

You do understand that 100% is greater than 99.999%?
You do understand that 100% is lots greater than 99.999% of 4%?

Scientists know about electromagnetism. They know about what happens in a plasma. They know how gravity works. They know that EM effects in plasma are by definition small scale because they can be shileded. They know that separated charges in a plasma quickly join togrther to become neutral unless there is an extrernal power source.

What really disproves plasma cosmology is that it is not a scientific theory. It does not match existing data. It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.

 

[Sol88]

Sol88: I see that you have gone nuts.

Could you please keep to the topic?

Please explain then the Pioneer effect with WRT the Eot-Wash findings?

And that is on topic, shirley?

 

[Sol88]

RC wrote

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And you keep
bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology

No we do not.

A simple calcuation that high school students can make shows that EM forces have no effect on on the motion of stars in galaxies. They are 22 orders of magniture smaller than the effect of gravity.

That is irrefutable evidence against Plasma cosmology

The Eot-Wash group results are confimation of this.

WTF!!!

Please re read your post

 

[Sol88]

It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.

And standard cosmology does????

No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.

And you, like many others, are BLIND to see that! you base your whole cosmology on some 300 odd year old mathematical model.

That's your problem, it's so passe!

 

[sol invictus]

No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.

Where did you get the silly idea that gravity is so mysterious? We understand it just as well as we understand electricity and magnetism.

 

[The Man]

So what's going on with those probes? Why all the orbital entry accidents at Mars?

Could it be Gravity is not understood?

Two simple words ‘human error’

Apparently we just don’t understand..

That we should convert English to metric when one is used during constriction and the other for operation.

That it is not a good idea when braking thruster fail a certification test to simply change the conditions of the test so they can be certified.

That flight operators should send the correct memory addresses when updating a spacecrafts software parameters.