Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote:

Sol88 still does not get that a plasma is a gas. Somehow he thinks that when a gas gets ionized, it stops being a gas and starts being a plasma. Both are wrong. An ionized gas, is a gas, that happens to consist of charged particles, but still adheres to the gas laws (quite possibly with another adiabetic constant). So, to be clear on this a plasma is a gas.

Let's get this straight then tusenfem because I think this is where the misunderstanding is, so lets clear it up once and for all!!

You say plasma is a gas, which just happens to have a couple pesky free charged particles whizzn round in it, I say plasma is a distinct state of matter and that is NOT a gas!

First a little background on plasma

Thus the term "plasma" was first used to describe partially (if not weakly) ionized gases. The term plasma apparently did not find immediate widespread use in the scientific community. It did eventually catch on, however, but in some cases the term was inappropriately limited to highly ionized gases.

During the 1920's Irving Langmuir was studying various types of mercury-vapor discharges, and he noticed similarities in their structure - near the boundaries as well as in the main body of the discharge. While the region immediately adjacent to a wall or electrode was already called a "sheath," there was no name for the quasi-neutral stuff filling most of the discharge space. He decided to call it "plasma."

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

When enough atoms are ionized to significantly affect the electrical characteristics of the gas, it is a plasma

What is a Plasma?

Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy.

Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible. So, in space, plasma remains electrically charged. Thus plasmas carry electric currents and are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Outside the Earth's atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma, and "empty" space has been found to be quite "alive" with a constant flow of plasma

And unlike Tusenfems assertion that plasma

adheres to the gas laws (quite possibly with another adiabetic constant)

it does not

eg

Errors in perception have also been made, especially in the case of 'Ionized Gases,' a topic studied intensely in the early 1900's. However, gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations.

LINK

Liquids & Gases use Fluid Systems (Navier-Stokes)

And

Plasmas use Electromagnetic Systems (Maxwell-
Boltzmann)

Further more

Plasma consists of a collection of free-moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma. The energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

Plasma can be accelerated and steered by electric and magnetic fields which allows it to be controlled and applied. Plasma research is yielding a greater understanding of the universe. It also provides many practical uses: new manufacturing techniques, consumer products, and the prospect of abundant energy.

So plasma's do not just form from collisions, shock fronts and accretions or any other mechanical or gravity related phenomena but can also use electrical power, as per ya garden variety EU/PC theory!

plus

In analysis, plasmas are far harder to model than solids, liquids, and gases because they act in a self-consistent manner. The separation of electrons and ions produce electric fields and the motion of electrons and ions produce both electric and magnetic fields. The electric fields then tend to accelerate plasmas to very high energies while the magnetic fields tend to guide the electrons. Both of these mechanisms, the accelerated (or fast) electrons and the magnetic fields produce what is called sychrotron radiation, so called because it was first discovered in large magnetized containers of electrons beams in laboratories on earth.

Because of their self-consistent motions, plasma are rampant with instabilities, chaosity, and nonlinearities. These also produce electric and magnetic fields but also electromagnetic radiation

So my real beef is press release's , science articles and books that our children read all say GAS, which is a GAS. but a ionized GAS is a plasma and it conforms to different equations!! ie

In spite of their mathematical complexity, the acknowledgment of their existence throught space and utilization in industrial processes (80% of the manufacture of computing chips requires a plasma) it is time to acknowledge that 'plasmas' are for everyone.

Gas can not do what plasma does!!!

Am I misunderstanding anything here Tusenfem?

When we talk about GAS we are talking about a non ionized gas and when we are talking plasma we are not talking about non ionized gas, but when a press release or paper talks about 100,000,000 degree gas, are we talking about a plasma or a gas?

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

The Bullet cluster is one of the hottest known clusters of galaxies. Observed from Earth, the subcluster passed through the cluster center 150 million years ago creating a "bow-shaped shock wave located near the right side of the cluster" formed as "70 million degree Celsius gas in the sub-cluster plowed through 100 million degree Celsius gas in the main cluster at a speed of about 6 million miles per hour".

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote:

Otherwise, in nature, the creation of non-neutral plasmas is virtually impossible, not even your beloved plasma pinch will be able to keep an "pure electron cloud" together because of the electrostatic repulsion of the electrons. One has to use very complicated machinery to harnass an electron plasma.

That's not what RC said, he said a cloud of electrons is just a cloud of electrons, where as I said it was a plasma!!!

Who cares if nature has trouble making it!

 

[Reality Check]

Tusenfem wrote:

That's not what RC said, he said a cloud of electrons is just a cloud of electrons, where as I said it was a plasma!!!

Who cares if nature has trouble making it!

And you were wrong.
The cloud of electrons in the press release are the electrons in the plasma contained in the CME. These electrons are not a plasma. These electrons are part of a plasma.

But your question was "And a cloud of electrons is a ......?". Without context the only answer is a cloud of electrons.


If you had asked "And a cloud of electrons in a Penning trap is .....?" (pure electron plasmas are often created in Penning traps) then the answer is it depends.

• If the "cloud" has one electron in the trap then it is definitely not a plasma.
• If the "cloud" has two electrons in the trap then it is definitely not a plasma.
• If the "cloud" has a few electrons in a large enough trap then it is a cloud of elecrons.
• If the "cloud" has many electrons in a small enough trap then it is a plasma.

It is not that nature has "trouble" creating an electron plasma. It is that electron plasmas are extremely unlikely to ever be created in nature considering the special conditions that are needed.

 

[Reality Check]

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

It looks like you are incapable of understanding tusenfem's posts which seem to be fairly clear and it is obvious that your reading has just confused you further. So lets try to make it simple for you.

• Solids exist in the universe. Solids are never plasmas.
• Liquids exist in the universe. Liquids are never plasmas.
• Neutral gases exist in the universe. Neutral gases are never plasmas.
• Ionized gases exist in the universe. Most of but not all ionized gases are plasmas.
• Plasmas exist in the universe. They are a state of matter where ionized gases have specific properties (here you might want to actually read some of tusenfem's posts slowly and carefully).

Overall about 20% of the matter in the universe is plasma with the remaining 80% of matter being dark matter.

As for the Bullet Cluster - a mixture of plasma and gas with the emphasis on plasma. But astronomers are in the habit of referring to both gas and plasma as gas unless they have independent evidence that there is no gas involved.

 

[tusenfem]

Let's get this straight then tusenfem because I think this is where the misunderstanding is, so lets clear it up once and for all!!

You say plasma is a gas, which just happens to have a couple pesky free charged particles whizzn round in it, I say plasma is a distinct state of matter and that is NOT a gas!

First a little background on plasma

Oh dear oh dear. Sol88 you are still in the stadium that you might just understand Alfven's MHD theory, that is magnetohydrodynamics, a simplified way to describe plasma physics. And do you see the hydro part in that word? That means that a plasma can be described like a gas, as ANY REAL BOOK on plasma physics will tell you. I do not know what kind of woo page plasmascience.net is, but they simply have it WRONG.

Gasses are also described by the Boltzmann equation (the Maxwell-Boltzmann being specifically named so to "remember" that electromagnetic forces are also used in the equation)
Plasmas are also described by the Navier-Stokes equation (if not, you would have rather large problems when dealing with plasma flows)

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it. If you do not believe me, please, send a email to Lerner or Peratt and ask them:

Dear Drs. Lerner and Peratt,

This so-called plasma(astro)phyisicist, Dr. Martin Volwerk, claims that plasmas are gasses. Please, correct this obviously misguided researcher, as I think that plasma is a distinct form of matter and not anything like a gas.

Thanks in advance, and best regards
Sol88 (or your real name, which I will not publish here on the board)

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

Yeaaaheeeeeees. Sheehs! An apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

And unlike Tusenfems assertion that plasma it does not

eg LINK

If plasma does not adhere to the gas law, as I claimed, then I guess the whole of plasma astrophysics and space physics is wrong. I am glad you pointed that out, Sol88, I think I will quit my job now and do something useful with my life.

Apparently plasmaphysics.net is a IEEE kind of page, well, we know what they know about plasma physics.

So plasma's do not just form from collisions, shock fronts and accretions or any other mechanical or gravity related phenomena but can also use electrical power, as per ya garden variety EU/PC theory!

Plasmas are formed in lots of ways, and in the lab it is rather difficult to create an energetic shock or have a gravitational compression of the gas. Therefore, one has to go to other ways to create a plasma. Like electrical power (which happens in the aurora) like radiation (which happens like everywhere in the universe).

So my real beef is press release's , science articles and books that our children read all say GAS, which is a GAS. but a ionized GAS is a plasma and it conforms to different equations!! ie

Gas can not do what plasma does!!!

Oh, and I guess when you were a child, reading popular mechanics and such, you were already up to date with maxwell's equations, and electromagnetics etc. etc. If you complain about the fact that for kids things are too simplified, this can only mean you have just reached the level of reading kids books and articles. Maybe you should grow up.

As a gas is not necessarily a plasma, there are, naturally things that a gas cannot do that a plasma can do.

Am I misunderstanding anything here Tusenfem?

your misunderstandings are so many I would not know where to start. I would say start at the beginning and read Alfven about MHD and try to build your own sort of solasma physics without the gas laws, see how far you get.

Because the discussion about gas or plasma is so rediculously not important. You seem to think that all plasma physics is doing is looking at a plasma and claim it is a gas, point, finished, end, nothing more. We have not seen from you any evidence that you can use, understand, apply plasma physics or can model something with it. The claims at the top of this message are enough for everyone here on the board to see that you have not developed anything and just copy-and-paste things that (in your opinion) are relevant, but on closer scrutiny (usually this means reading the next paragraph) show that it is totally irrelevant, because you have not understood what you read (the electron clouds come to mind here).

When we talk about GAS we are talking about a non ionized gas and when we are talking plasma we are not talking about non ionized gas, but when a press release or paper talks about 100,000,000 degree gas, are we talking about a plasma or a gas?

Just temperature does not mean anything, I have given you the criteria which must be fulfilled in order to call an ionized gas a plasma. Even Alfven and Peratt state this in their books.

lets take wiki's article on the Bullet cluster shall we.

Gas or plasma, Tusenfem?

Most likely a plasma, but that does not mean that that shock wave, which is mentioned in that article is not described by just the regular shock relations, which are TOTALLY gas physics, and shown to be correct in numerous cases, at all planets where we encounter shocks.

So, Sol88, really, get a book and try to learn something, and stop flounting your complete misunderstanding of plasma physics.

 

[Sol88]

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it

Therefore, one has to go to other ways to create a plasma. Like electrical power (which happens in the aurora) like radiation (which happens like everywhere in the universe).

As a gas is not necessarily a plasma, there are, naturally things that a gas cannot do that a plasma can do.

Just temperature does not mean anything, I have given you the criteria which must be fulfilled in order to call an ionized gas a plasma.

Most likely a plasma, but that does not mean that that shock wave, which is mentioned in that article is not described by just the regular shock relations,

 

[Reality Check]

Actual science is !
I guess that this means that you still do not know what a plasma is?

 

[sol invictus]

But plasma can be a weakly ionized gas, but gas can not be a plasma!

I love it when they contradict themselves in the same sentence...

"Sol", you don't know what "gas" means. You don't know what "plasma" means. But even without knowing what those terms mean, do you not see that what you said is a contradiction?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Who's misconception? Yours? It's well modeled that pulsars are the result of gravitational collapse, unless you can provide the model and numbers that can predict and explain the existance of a 15-km squat sphere. Under the Electric Universe model, how does this come to be? How is it held together? What explains the "blips" that are shown in the rotation of the pulsar? What causes the pulsar to rotate so quickly?

See this thread I contributed to ages ago which has many references to the alternative plasma cosmology based model of pulsars thoughout many of the posts. Probably the main paper that sparked the interest in these alternate models was the one by Peratt et al here:

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, 1995

A breif snippet from my main post in that thread outlines the main ideas therein, but to get a full appreciation I suggest reading the published literature in detail for the full scientific reasoning behind such a model:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3711109#post3711109

Cool topic, I was going to start a thread on millisecond pulsars when I had the time, but may as well post a few things now.

And this discovery is way cool, I had heard of pulsars spinning at 716 Hertz before (716 times per second, ref; Astronomers Discover Fastest-Spinning Pulsar), but this one blows it out of the water at 2150 rotations per second. The question surely has to arise; Is this speed really tenable?, or are the pulses we detect from them due to something else? This sort of speed was certainly not anticipated when the original interpretation of pulsars was proposed.

As has been pointed out previously, the paper published by Peratt and co-authors in Astrophysics and Space Science certainly implies this (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf). They note many things that add credence to this view, a few being;

Because of the losses in the dielectric media and in synchrotron emission, the periodicity of the propagating pulses increases. However the experiment dramatically showed that there are glitches, the flow of electron flux across the magnetosphere, can shorten the line and concomitantly the period. The fractional frequency stability scaling versus measurements interval up to about 30,000,000 s for pulsars is nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks. This supports the pulsar surface-magnetosphere relativistic double layer model; itself a trapped ion mechanism [.....]

Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. This effect is produced when the magnetically insulated voltage pulse reaches the pulsar surface. Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region. This tends to create a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse [...]

The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit (Hannes Alfvén 1981).[2] This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.

When Neutron stars were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But I find this very unlikely now, even when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, the old official explanation became largely untenable in my opinion. This is where the concept of the "Neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.

[continues lurking]

 

[Sol88]

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it.


extra thingies to it? please explain?

 

[Reality Check]

Plasma behaves like a gas, and has some extra thingies to it.


extra thingies to it? please explain?

Ionized thingies

 

[Reality Check]

[continues lurking]

Zeuzzz continues to ignore the scientific woo that is plasma cosmology!

 

[Sol88]

Ionized thingies

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).[6]

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

 

[The Man]

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

Its Ionized thingies can.

 

[Reality Check]

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

Your ignorance is showing Sol88.
No scientist ignores the real complicated stuff.
There are situations where plasmas can be modeled on "gas laws" (which are real complicated stuff) or to be more exact fluids. The fluid plasma model uses the Boltzmann equation.

In actual fact it is plasma cosmologists that take the simplistic view, i.e. EM effects are important in plasmas on small scales (kilometers) and so they must be important in plasmas on cosmological scales (billions of light years).

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

The mainstream is not surprised!
Your ignorance of science means that standard plasma physics in space is surprising to you. Projecting your incredibility onto knowledgeable people is just dumb.

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

So what: A quote from 1986 about astrophysical textbooks. This is both out of date, nothing to do with the the "mainstreams understanding of plasma in space" and nothing to do with the topic.

Please quote Hannes Alfvén stating that plasma is not an ionized gas or that the properties of a plasma can never be modeled using a fluid model.
Magnetohydrodynamics

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.[/QUOTE]

ETA: Helioseismology - "acoustic oscillations" in the Sun which is a ball of plasma? Those dumb scientists and their pesky models that actually predict stuff (helioseismic holography) !

 

[Sol88]

Does NON ionized "space gas" show any of these properties:

Filamentation

Striations or string-like structures[16] are seen in many plasmas, like the plasma ball (image above), the aurora,[17] lightning,[18] electric arcs, solar flares,[19] and supernova remnants.[20] They are sometimes associated with larger current densities, and the interaction with the magnetic field can form a magnetic rope structure

or

Shocks or double layers

Plasma properties change rapidly (within a few Debye lengths) across a two-dimensional sheet in the presence of a (moving) shock or (stationary) double layer. Double layers involve localized charge separation, which causes a large potential difference across the layer, but does not generate an electric field outside the layer. Double layers separate adjacent plasma regions with different physical characteristics, and are often found in current carrying plasmas. They accelerate both ions and electrons.

or

Cellular structure

Narrow sheets with sharp gradients may separate regions with different properties such as magnetization, density, and temperature, resulting in cell-like regions. Examples include the magnetosphere, heliosphere, and heliospheric current sheet. Hannes Alfvén wrote: "From the cosmological point of view, the most important new space research discovery is probably the cellular structure of space. As has been seen in every region of space which is accessible to in situ measurements, there are a number of 'cell walls', sheets of electric currents, which divide space into compartments with different magnetization, temperature, density, etc ."

And the most IMPORTANT aspect of a NON ionized gas, can it sustain an electric current?

Electric fields and circuits

Quasineutrality of a plasma requires that plasma currents close on themselves in electric circuits. Such circuits follow Kirchhoff's circuit laws, and possess a resistance and inductance. These circuits must generally be treated as a strongly coupled system, with the behaviour in each plasma region dependent on the entire circuit. It is this strong coupling between system elements, together with nonlinearity, which may lead to complex behaviour. Electrical circuits in plasmas store inductive (magnetic) energy, and should the circuit be disrupted, for example, by a plasma instability, the inductive energy will be released as plasma heating and acceleration. This is a common explanation for the heating which takes place in the solar corona. Electric currents, and in particular, magnetic-field-aligned electric currents (which are sometimes generically referred to as "Birkeland currents"), are also observed in the Earth's aurora, and in plasma filaments.

LINK

Can gas do any of that?

 

[Sol88]

Your ignorance is showing Sol88.
No scientist ignores the real complicated stuff.
There are situations where plasmas can be modeled on "gas laws" (which are real complicated stuff) or to be more exact fluids. The fluid plasma model uses the Boltzmann equation.

In actual fact it is plasma cosmologists that take the simplistic view, i.e. EM effects are important in plasmas on small scales (kilometers) and so they must be important in plasmas on cosmological scales (billions of light years).


The mainstream is not surprised!
Your ignorance of science means that standard plasma physics in space is surprising to you. Projecting your incredibility onto knowledgeable people is just dumb.


So what: A quote from 1986 about astrophysical textbooks. This is both out of date, nothing to do with the the "mainstreams understanding of plasma in space" and nothing to do with the topic.

Please quote Hannes Alfvén stating that plasma is not an ionized gas or that the properties of a plasma can never be modeled using a fluid model.
Magnetohydrodynamics

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.[/QUOTE]

ETA: Helioseismology - "acoustic oscillations" in the Sun which is a ball of plasma? Those dumb scientists and their pesky models that actually predict stuff (helioseismic holography) !

Its Ionized thingies can.

Ionized thingies

Maybe they should use the Kinetic model instead of the fluid model

Kinetic model

Kinetic models describe the particle velocity distribution function at each point in the plasma, and therefore do not need to assume a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. A kinetic description is often necessary for collisionless plasmas. There are two common approaches to kinetic description of a plasma. One is based on representing the smoothed distribution function on a grid in velocity and position. The other, known as the particle-in-cell (PIC) technique, includes kinetic information by following the trajectories of a large number of individual particles. Kinetic models are generally more computationally intensive than fluid models. The Vlasov equation may be used to describe the dynamics of a system of charged particles interacting with an electromagnetic field.

 

[Reality Check]

[Maybe they should use the Kinetic model instead of the fluid model

Maybe they should

• or Single Particle Description
• or Hybrid Kinetic/Fluid Description
• or Gyrokinetic Description

The fact is that each description is computationally useful in different situations. Typically scientists want to get numbers out to match observations.

 

[tusenfem]

Is that all?

And that's why we can model plasma on a gas!

we'll ignore the real complicated stuff and model on gas laws, brilliant!!

No wonder the mainstream is surprised!

perhaps you missed what Hannes Alfvén said in regard to mainstreams understanding of plasma in space.

LINK

Can your gas do that Tusenfem?

What a frakking useless discussion it is when one has to deal with the stupidity of Sol88 and the likes.

Don't tell me about Hannes Alfvén, I met him, I worked at his laboratory in Stockholm, I worked on one of his pet objects: Double Layers, what have you actually done in physics, Sol88, care to enlighten us?

What the frak do you think I am doing in my job, if not looking at the magnetic field, the particles and the electric fields and the currents in space? I know you have my publication list somewhere, so I am not going to bother giving references.

My gas can do anything and my plasma too:

• If I need to work with flowing/moving plasmas, I have to use fluid/gas dynamics, just like Alfvén and Peratt
• If I need to work with currents, changing magnetic fields, electric field, etc. I have to use plasma physics.

Get it into your thick skull, dimwit. (did you send the email to Peratt and Lerner?)

 

[Dancing David]

One side: Plasma has well studied effects but they do not extend to the levels of cosmology.

One person: but PLASMA EXISTS, you are denying that!

One side: Yes plasma exists, but it does not do the things at the scale of cosmology.

Another person: Your BIG BANG GOD has holes in it, PLASMA IS THE ANSWER!

One side: All models are incomplete and subject to change, can you show me where plasma effect cosmological scale objects?

More rational person: Here is one possibility where plasma might offer an unsubstantiated solution to a very small scale model.

One side: That isn't really plasma cosmology now is it?

One person: You are ignoring the SCIENCE WE CAN DO IN LABS!

One side: Not really, the models just don't do what you say they do.

Another person: You and your BIG BANG HEGEMONY take all the research money and violently repress the views of a small number of people published in this website!

One side: Not really, the models just don't stand up to scrutiny.

More rational person: You can't say that! You have to show me a refutation in a peer reviewed journal.

One person: I have a plasma ball here, LOOK at the FILAMENTS!

One side: Can you show me how those filaments exist in the universe at large scales?

Another person: Here are braided filaments in the Cygnus Loop and Saturn's rings.

One side: Those are a supernova remnant and a gravitational product. Neither is at the scale of cosmology.

More rational person: Here are a bunch of unsubstantiated papers unrelated to cosmological scales. I will ignore anything that you have said about the exact same papers in prior threads and then say that you have never read them.

One side: Can you show me your model?

One person: I HAVE PICTURES!


(And so on, and so on, lather rinse, repeat...)