Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[tusenfem]

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

Filamentation

or

Shocks or double layers

or

Cellular structure

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

Electric fields and circuits

Can gas do any of that?

Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas) or at an HI region (for filamentation and cellular behaviour of non-ionized gas under gravity).

Naturally, a non-ionized gas cannot produce electric fields nor sustain double layers, I would expect you to know that, what a silly question "can gas do any of that".

So the answer is a non-ionized gas can do some of these things.

 

[Sol88]

Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas) or at an HI region (for filamentation and cellular behaviour of non-ionized gas under gravity).

Naturally, a non-ionized gas cannot produce electric fields nor sustain double layers, I would expect you to know that, what a silly question "can gas do any of that".

So the answer is a non-ionized gas can do some of these things.

Whooh boy!

Actually, shocks and filamentation and cellular structure can all happen in gases, just look at the sonic boom of a aircraft (for your shock in gas)

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

And just on shocks and filamentation in HI regions my mate wiki says

At ionization fronts, where H I regions collide with expanding ionized gas (such as an H II region), the latter glows brighter than it otherwise would. The degree of ionization in an H I region is very small at around 10-4 (i.e. one particle in 10,000).

Even at that small amount of ionization it will still respond to the electromagnetic force over the the exceedingly small force of gravitation, causing filamentary and cellular behavior, as observed!

Now when a HI region "rubs" against a HII region...

Depending on the size of an H II region there may be several thousand stars within it. This makes H II regions more complicated than planetary nebulae, which have only one central ionising source. Typically H II regions reach temperatures of 10,000 K.[2] They are mostly ionised, and the ionised gas (plasma) can contain magnetic fields with strengths of several nanoteslas.[17] Nevertheless H II regions are almost always associated with a cold molecular gas, which originated from the same parent GMC.[2] Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges in the plasma, suggesting that H II regions also contain electric fields.[18]

Whats the size or power of the electric field? lets take the Eagle Nebula for example, lets treat it as an isolated cube of gas, if we could "plug" into it how much electrical power could we "extract"?

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

 

[Reality Check]

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

This is the typical stupidity that we see spewing from EU/PC proponents.

EM forces are stronger than gravitational forces by some 36 OOM.
That does not mean that EM forces dominate gravitational forces in all situations. The EM forces in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths before the positive and begative forces balance out (quasi-neutrality). The longest known Debye length is in the intergalactic medium and that is 10,000 metres (that is 10 kilometers Sol88). In the interstellar medium it is 10 metres. The Debye length gets even shorter for denser plasma.

 

[edd]

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

Why do you raise this? Given such a vague definition I don't know what you're after, but I think a pretty sensible answer is "about as dense as a solid metal object not moving at all in a vacuum".

I fear this is another indication of a lack of understanding of basic physics.

 

[Sol88]

This is the typical stupidity that we see spewing from EU/PC proponents.

EM forces are stronger than gravitational forces by some 36 OOM.
That does not mean that EM forces dominate gravitational forces in all situations. The EM forces in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths before the positive and begative forces balance out (quasi-neutrality). The longest known Debye length is in the intergalactic medium and that is 10,000 metres (that is 10 kilometers Sol88). In the interstellar medium it is 10 metres. The Debye length gets even shorter for denser plasma.

Arrrrrrrr......

In space plasmas where the electron density is relatively low, the Debye length may reach macroscopic values, such as in the magnetosphere, solar wind, interstellar medium and intergalactic medium

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.".

Wiki

Lets ask the expert on DL's and a person who has worked with the PC "God" Hannes Alfven, me 'ol mate Tusenfem.

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

What would be good examples to cite as DL's in the universe?

Can our Sun's Heliosphere be classed as a DL by you, Tusenfem, the authority on DL's?

 

[tusenfem]

Whooh boy!

whooh boy, really a good answer to my questions whether you understand the differences between various physical properties. So, I will assume from your silence that you don't know the differences: strike one.

It's all about density is it not? How dense is a SOLID metal object moving supersonically thru an atmosphere at sea level?

Nope, this has nothing to do with how dense a solid metal object is, it has to do with the waves that propagate upstream of the object, that create the bow shock. So you got no idea about this eithe: strike two.

And just on shocks and filamentation in HI regions my mate wiki says

Even at that small amount of ionization it will still respond to the electromagnetic force over the the exceedingly small force of gravitation, causing filamentary and cellular behavior, as observed!

Now when a HI region "rubs" against a HII region...

Ehhhhh, shifting the topic again, you are suddenly talking about ionization fronts between HI and HII regions. That is something totally different and was not what I was talking about. Therefore, shifting the topic to fit your pre-assumed ideas: strike three, YOU ARE OUT!

Whats the size or power of the electric field? lets take the Eagle Nebula for example, lets treat it as an isolated cube of gas, if we could "plug" into it how much electrical power could we "extract"?

Seems the areas where gravity is invoked to cause the collapse of gas into clouds to form stars and planets is seething in electrical energy, which dominates gravity by some 36 OOM!

It still seems that you don't understand that plasmas are quasi-neutral meaning no charge differences over areas larger than the DeBye sphere (unless they are driven, power is put into the system like at a double layer, but then you only have about 10 DeBye lengths charge separation).

Therefore, gravity pulling equally on the pos and neg particles in the plasma can well overcome this, by EU proposed electric dominance of 36 OOMS, because to start with the electrical force does not come into play apart from keeping the plasma quasi-neutral, and therefore: strike FOUR, YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME AND ARE ESCORTED OUT OF THE STADIUM FOR CONTINUED STUPIDITY!

 

[tusenfem]

Lets ask the expert on DL's and a person who has worked with the PC "God" Hannes Alfven, me 'ol mate Tusenfem.

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

What would be good examples to cite as DL's in the universe?

Can our Sun's Heliosphere be classed as a DL by you, Tusenfem, the authority on DL's?

I though YOU were the expert on EU, Sol88 and thus YOU should know what Alfvén meant when he wrote the above quote.

What is meant, however, is that when currents flow (yes currents do flow in plasmas) and there is a tenuous plasma, then the drift of the particles combined with the density are no longer capable to carry the current density and therefore, something has to happen (because div(J) ≠ 0 is a bit of a problem) and thus the plasma generates a mechanism in which the drift of the particles can be increased (as increasing the density is not really an option, but I am sure you would advocate that, because I now claim it is not) and the way to do that is by accelerating them in an electric field, and when you do plasma physics (not MHD, please, I hope you understand) then you find that one of the solutions is a double layer. What one should notice, however, is that those "macroscopic" lengths are still relatively small and any large potential drop in one double layer tends to split itself into smaller (stair-step) double layers.

Double layers in the universe. Those would be in the Earth's magnetosphere (observed by Viking, Freja, Cluster, THEMIS) but they are elusive, because the are so small, move fast and electric fields are not easy to measure by satellites.
Then they can happen in any current carrying plasma, like in solar prominences, you know, you have my paper about the topic.
Then the electric field at the magnetic poles of a pulsar could be interpreted as a double layer.
Then at the border of plasmas with different properties.
etc. etc. etc. I am sure you know the wiki page about double layers by heart, so I can stop here, instead of rewriting what I wrote on that page.

The Sun's heliosphere cannot be regarded as a double layer, I would not know why you would propose that.

So, Sol88, as I have answered EVERY QUESTION YOU EVER ASKED are you going to do the same? Or are you going to continue to misinterpret everything you read in press releases and wiki? Some of the questions are:

• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
• Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?
• 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, what does it mean?
• Are you going to, or have you already send Lerner and Peratt that email?
• Are you going to present us a plasma physics model that does not need gas laws (would be different though, to get the total plasma pressure, but I am looking forward to your effort)
• Do you understand the principle of quasi-neutrality of a plasma and what effect this has on gravitational effect on said plasma?

I guess that is enough for now.

 

[Reality Check]

Wiki

What exactly does Mr Alfven mean by the above statement?

Is your ignorance actually increasing Sol88?
The evidence says yes !

He states exactly what I said: The EM forces that result from "large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths" are small values (macroscopic values).

One more time for the especially dumb:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.
Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.

 

[Reality Check]

The central tenets of the plasma cosmology non-science are

1. Electromagnetic forces will be dominant at cosmological scales (but PC does not provide any evidence of this).
2. The universe is eternal, i.e. there was no Big Bang (even though PC cannot explain the evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state).

Zeuzzz and Sol88 have added the dogma that dark matter does not exist. So here is a tidbit from a blog entry about the recent removal and replacement of WFPC2 on the Hubble Space Telescope and its observation of dark matter: The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4 with a pretty picture to please Zeuzzz and Sol88:

What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.

In my opinion the central spherical bulge is evidence of the dominance of gravity on the mass of the cluster.

If Zeuzzz or Sol88 claim that the extra mass is something like the IGM then:

• They will have to give up on the first tenet of PC since there is no EM domination of the IGM shown.
• More importantly the IGM density is too low:
  

  The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies.^WP

  (1000 H atoms per cubic meter = 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in that cubic meter. Concentrate this in a plane to compare it with the diagram and there is 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in 100*100 centimeters or 1.67 x 10^-17 g/sq-cm)

 

[edd]

(1000 H atoms per cubic meter = 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in that cubic meter. Concentrate this in a plane to compare it with the diagram and there is 1.67 x 10^-21 grams in 100*100 centimeters or 1.67 x 10^-17 g/sq-cm)

I don't understand how you're doing your translation from grams per cubic metre to grams per square metre.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't understand how you're doing your translation from grams per cubic metre to grams per square metre.

Just assuming that all of the H atoms are squeezed into a plane and so giving the PC guys a couple of extra magnitudes to play with.

 

[edd]

The calculation's wrong and it's really unnecessary to be quite so generous.

Lets go from your number of 1.67x10^-21 g/m³. If we take the depth of the cluster to be 800,000 light years (which is probably on the generous side) that gives a surface mass density of 0.001 g/cm² - vastly greater than your 10^-17g/cm² but still a long way off the densities of order one that are on that plot.

So you can give them an extra 10¹⁴ their way and still they're way way off the mark.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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



[continues lurking]

This might be interesting ... if Peratt (or anyone else) had bothered to follow through.

The paper you cite was published in 1995; the study of pulsars hasn't stood still since then.

In particular, high energy observations (in the x-ray and gamma wavebands) have added a great deal to our understanding of them, and these would severely constrain any Peratt-type model (if he, or anyone else, had bothered to follow through). See this recent preprint, and the papers it cites, for example.

I suggest that if you genuinely, seriously, really, truly have an interest in "alternative plasma cosmology based model of pulsars", then you should do some serious, genuine, true, real research (such as modifying Peratt-type models and show how they can account for the high-energy pulse timing, for example).

 

[Reality Check]

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others (Sol88 may have another definition) is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. From memory it is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).

Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

• General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
• Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
• Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
• Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe.

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

 

[Sol88]

Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

* General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
* Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
* Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
* Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe.

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

The BB theory is untenable!

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure empirical science!

Anthony L. Peratt

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., themesoscale. Thus plasma science has an important contribution to make in understanding the connection between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. Plasma is a system composed of a large number of particles which interact primarily, but not exclusively, through the electromagnetic field. The problem of understanding the linkages and couplings in multi-scale processes is a frontier problem of modern science involving fields as diverse as plasma phenomena in the laboratory to galactic dynamics.
Unlike the first three states of matter, plasma, often called the fourth state of matter, involves the mesoscale and its interdisciplinary founding have drawn upon various subfields of physics including engineering, astronomy, and chemistry. Basic plasma research is now posed to provide, with major developments in instrumentation and large-scale computational resources, fundamental insights into the properties of matter on scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic. In all cases, these are treated as mesoscale systems. Thus, basic plasma research, when applied to the study of astrophysical and space plasmas, recognizes that the behavior of the near-earth plasma environment may depend to some extent on the behavior of the stellar plasma, that may in turn be governed by galactic plasmas. However, unlike laboratory plasmas, astrophysical plasmas will forever be inaccessible to in situ observation. The inability to test concepts and theories of large-scale plasmas leaves only virtual testing as a means to understand the universe. Advances in in computer technology and the capability of performing physics first principles, fully three-dimensional, particle-in-cell simulations, are making virtual testing a viable alternative to verify our predictions about the far universe.

Very enlightening if you care to read it!

Also the extent at which plasma and it's associated radiation extend into galaxy and clusters is another nial in the BB coffin!

Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe

An international team of astronomers has mapped the density and temperature of X-ray-emitting gas in the outskirts of a distant galaxy cluster. The results, obtained with the orbiting Japanese X-ray telescope Suzaku, give the first complete X-ray view of a galaxy cluster, and provide insight into how such clusters come together.

“These Suzaku observations are exciting because we can finally see how these structures, the largest bound objects in the universe, grow even more massive,” said Matt George, the study’s lead author at the University of California, Berkeley.

SNIP

In PKS 0745-191, the gas temperature peaks at 164 million degrees Fahrenheit (91 million C) about 1.1 million light-years from the cluster’s center. The temperature declines smoothly with distance, dropping to 45 million F (25 million C) more than 5.6 million light-years from the center

And after reading ADVANCES IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF ASTROPHYSICAL AND SPACE PLASMAS. PART II. ASTROPHYSICAL FORCE LAWS ON THE LARGE SCALE. it seems entirely possible for my wild crackpot theory about the spider crater on Mercury we jousted about a few pages back in post 2236 as some merit!

Plasma focus discharge on mercury
Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, 2008. ICOPS 2008. IEEE 35th International Conference on
Volume , Issue , 15-19 June 2008 Page(s):1 - 1
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/PLASMA.2008.4590652

Summary:On January 14, 2008 the NASA space probe Messenger came within 200-km of Mercury, photographing a plasma focus discharge penumbra etched into the surface. The pattern recorded is identical to that etched on steel plates in experimental discharges: 112-rays from a discharge channel terminating at and producing a thick torus, here 40 km wide. The rays emanate from the 2-3 GA termination as shown in the bottom figure, the etched lines differing from radial overlay lines only by surface conductivity irregularities. Previously, we reported the observation of a surface-traveling, infrared-radiating, plasma focus penumbra on the Jovian satellite Io whose effluent concentrated into filaments whose terminus was a narrow, well-defined, concentric annulus

Any chance of someone being able to obtain a copy of that paper for me?

So according to Peratt, plasma phenomena can be scaled to the cosmological scale, iow we live in a Plasma universe!

every single one of RC's points above are non existent under EU/PC and thats why it trumps the BB hands down!

 

[Sol88]

I though YOU were the expert on EU, Sol88

• 
  [1]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a gas and a plasma?
  [2]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a ionized gas and a plasma?
  [3]Dear Sol88 do you know the difference between a MHD and a plasma physics?
  [4]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, what does it mean?
  [5]Are you going to, or have you already send Lerner and Peratt that email?
  [6]Are you going to present us a plasma physics model that does not need gas laws (would be different though, to get the total plasma pressure, but I am looking forward to your effort)
  [7]Do you understand the principle of quasi-neutrality of a plasma and what effect this has on gravitational effect on said plasma?

[/color]

I guess that is enough for now.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No
6 No
7 Yes

 

[Reality Check]

The BB theory is untenable!

The BB theory fits the facts!

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure empirical science!

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is pure speculation!

Anthony L. Peratt

Very enlightening if you care to read it!

Did you? Here is the first sentence

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., the mesoscale.

More of your ignorance Sol88: mesoscale = of intermediate scale.
He is talking of scales between galactic and bigger than galactic, i.e. bigger than galaxies but smaller than the distane between galaxies.
In fact many papers on mesoscale astronomy talk abut galaxies, e.g. Mesoscale Flows in Multiphase Hydrodynamic Models of Galaxy Disks.

The BBT is even more empirical than EU/PC. It has computer simulations and calculations that actually match observations such as the large scale structure of the universe, the thermal spectrum of the CMBR, the power spectrum of the CMBR and most of nucleosynthesis (except Li).

And did you notice the date of March 1996?

Also the extent at which plasma and it's associated radiation extend into galaxy and clusters is another nial in the BB coffin!

Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe

That is a really dumb link for this thread. Read the article. It is about the intracluster medium moving under the influence of gravity.
Guess what - on galactic scales gravity dominates EM !

And after reading ADVANCES IN NUMERICAL MODELING OF ASTROPHYSICAL AND SPACE PLASMAS. PART II. ASTROPHYSICAL FORCE LAWS ON THE LARGE SCALE. it seems entirely possible for my wild crackpot theory about the spider crater on Mercury we jousted about a few pages back in post 2236 as some merit!

Plasma focus discharge on mercury
Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, 2008. ICOPS 2008. IEEE 35th International Conference on
Volume , Issue , 15-19 June 2008 Page(s):1 - 1
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/PLASMA.2008.4590652

Any chance of someone being able to obtain a copy of that paper for me?

So according to Peratt, plasma phenomena can be scaled to the cosmological scale, iow we live in a Plasma universe!

He is wrong. He is using exactly the same woo as you are - the pictures look alike and so the causes must be the same. He ignores that fact that there is not enough energy to produce the Spider Crater on Mercury by factors of millions.

We live in a ~4% plasma universe. The observed facts are that most of the universe's matter & energy is not plasma.

every single one of RC's points above are non existent under EU/PC and thats why it trumps the BB hands down!

They are non existent because EU/PC excludes them as explanations by fiat. That is religion not science.

Yet another epic fail by Sol88 !

 

[tusenfem]

For those interested in the Peratt nonsense: here is the abstract with two pictures in pdf. It would be nice if Sol88 would present the paper by Peratt that shows that this is a discharge. The abstract is only handwaving, and referring to Io, which is in a totally different situation compared to Mercury. Maybe Peratt has also found petroglyphs to show that Mercury discharged.

Then the other stuff about the "largest bound structures" as quoted above by Sol88, from which the observations show that the X-ray emitting gas is gravitationally bound to the cluster:

Astronomers believe the gas in the inner part of a galaxy cluster has settled into an ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity. But in the outer regions, where galaxies first begin a billion-year plunge towards the cluster’s center, the gas remains in a disordered state because it’s still falling inward.

Nowhere does it claim that the bound state is due to plasma cosmology, but it does say that it is gravitation. Thanks for putting another nail into the coffin of your version of plasma cosmology.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No
6 No
7 Yes

Wow, that is a more lucent answer than I expected from you.
Note: with this kind of answer Sol88 has put himself out of the game, we cannot expect anything from him.

 

[Sol88]

Astronomers believe the gas in the inner part of a galaxy cluster has settled into an ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity. But in the outer regions, where galaxies first begin a billion-year plunge towards the cluster’s center, the gas remains in a disordered state because it’s still falling inward.

Tusenfem wrote

Nowhere does it claim that the bound state is due to plasma cosmology, but it does say that it is gravitation. Thanks for putting another nail into the coffin of your version of plasma cosmology.

bugger how did I not see that what do you think they are implying then with the

ordered “relaxed” state in equilibrium with the cluster’s gravity

statement? I mean if it's in equilibrium, then against what?

And the the 'ol shock waves to heat the GAS to PLASMA emitting X-ray energies! wHoOh boy!!!

Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., the mesoscale.

You say tomato I say tomato

Meta Galactic

: the entire system of galaxies : universe

Atomic to the galactic, as above so below

As has been publicized in these pages many times, though, a change in thought often occurs when it is least expected. When the time for change comes to pass, change is inevitable. The growing number of adherents to the Electric Universe conception of how the cosmos operates means that further changes to human thought are coming soon.


Stephen Smith