Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

For several centuries now - since the time of Newton, perhaps Galileo - physics has been quantitative,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Denial is a really ugly but highly relevant defense mechanism on your part. What's wrong with that "quantitative" presentation? Really, the denial thing is pretty much where each and every one of you goes when asked to produce a physical demonstration of concept. Whereas discharges do and have been empirically linked to each and every one of the key observations on my A-E list, your "magnetic reconnection" theory is a total dud in the lab and has produced *NONE* of the things on that list. Even Tim's beloved papers on experimental MR theory all *REQUIRE* "current carrying filaments" to make them work.

The whole denial thing is getting really, really, really, boring at this point, along with the personal attack dribble. What you can't produce in actually laboratory conditions on Earth, you make up for with pure denial and an endless string of personal insults.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you cite the definition of "circuit energy" that you are using from a textbook or published paper (i.e. what you have as "the source of magnetic energy" but hopefully with actual mathematics)?

Cosmic Plasma, page nine:

In many theories, it is taken for granted that the behaviour of a plasma depends only on the local parameters (e .g ., density, temperature, magnetic field) . This can be quite misleading . As an example, in a non-curlfree (i .e ., current carrying) plasma, the properties of the plasma are not only a function of the local parameters, but also of the outer circuit in which the current I closes (1I .5). Figure II .16 shows a simple circuit consisting of an electromotive force Vb , a resistor Ro, and an inductance L . By changing R 0 and/or L, the behavior of the plasma may be changed in a drastic way . The value of Ro decides whether the plasma is relatively stable or oscillating . If the plasma contains a double layer which explodes, the circuit energy iLI2 is released in the layer . Hence, the violence of the plasma explosion is determined largely by the circuit.

In his book Alfven describes all the math and draws lots of pretty circuit diagrams for you and everything.

FYI, this is yet another example of that denial thing, or maybe it's a willful ignorance thing because Alfven's work has been cited repeated by every EU proponent in this thread. Have you read any of his work? If so, how you could not understand "circuit energy"?

 

[ben m]

Cosmic Plasma, page nine:

Thank you.

Yep, once again: that's exactly the E = 1/2 IL^2 term that I identified for you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5479900#post5479900 . It's the same thing as E = (integral) 1/2mu0 B^2---exactly precisely the same, containing no additional physics.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, this is yet another example of that denial thing, or maybe it's a willful ignorance thing because Alfven's work has been cited repeated by every EU proponent in this thread. Have you read any of his work? If so, how you could not understand "circuit energy"?

FYI, this is an example of your mind-reading thing.
The question was for brantc. You have no idea what he means by "circuit energy".
As for reading a 30 year old book on a fst changing field file plasma physics - no thank you. I would rather read a modern plasma physics book that has the benefits of the latest research in it. Perhaps one of the textbooks that Tim Thompson recommends

• Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes
• Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp
• Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan
• The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson
• Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud
• Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata
• Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker

The last book looks especially interesting but you will really want to ignore its introduction (available in a Google Books preview) where the E, j and B, v paradigms are mentioned.

But now we have a definitive answer for what you mean by "circuit energy".
As ben m states you are merely using a rarely used term for the total inductive energy in an array of circuits which just happens to be the same thing as the energy stored in the B field from that array. In other words there is no different physics involved.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

FYI, this is yet another example of that denial thing, or maybe it's a willful ignorance thing because Alfven's work has been cited repeated by every EU proponent in this thread.

Speaking of wilful ignorance, why is it that the EU theories have nothing to do with Alfven's model of the universe?

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Kwalish Kid!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Speaking of wilful ignorance, why is it that the EU theories have nothing to do with Alfven's model of the universe?

What 'eu' theories are you talking about? Many have a link.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

What 'eu' theories are you talking about? Many have a link.

Take your pick. Produce an Electric Universe proponent and there are a couple of things that are guaranteed. One is that they grossly misrepresent some serious astronomical issue. Another is that they are not a proponent of Hannes Alfven's cosmological model. However, they like bringing up his name because a) he had an alternative cosmological model (even though they don't believe it) and b) he won a prize.

It's an example of the poor grasp of science in general and astronomy and cosmology in particular that plasma cosmologists tend to have. When it comes to cosmological models, plasma cosmologists cite old papers, papers that have been addressed or refuted conclusively by other papers or by published observations. When asked to produce evidence, they stick to papers about laboratory experiments or observations of the sun without any clear connection to cosmological dynamics. They constantly deny that there is evidence for the standard cosmological model, probably because they studiously avoid actually reading comprehensive works on cosmology. Additionally, they tend to focus on cosmological pseudo-problems, like questions of what started the big bang. This is of no help to anyone, as the "big bang" language is a straw man name attached to the theory by an opponent and the standard cosmological model and there is no big bang event that is part of the standard cosmological model.

Probably this has all been brought up before. In the end it hardly matters, since real proponents of plasma cosmology are simply acolytes of a sort. They have given up their reason in this area and have decided to follow along.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Take your pick. Produce an Electric Universe proponent and there are a couple of things that are guaranteed. One is that they grossly misrepresent some serious astronomical issue. Another is that they are not a proponent of Hannes Alfven's cosmological model. However, they like bringing up his name because a) he had an alternative cosmological model (even though they don't believe it) and b) he won a prize.

It's an example of the poor grasp of science in general and astronomy and cosmology in particular that plasma cosmologists tend to have. When it comes to cosmological models, plasma cosmologists cite old papers, papers that have been addressed or refuted conclusively by other papers or by published observations. When asked to produce evidence, they stick to papers about laboratory experiments or observations of the sun without any clear connection to cosmological dynamics. They constantly deny that there is evidence for the standard cosmological model, probably because they studiously avoid actually reading comprehensive works on cosmology. Additionally, they tend to focus on cosmological pseudo-problems, like questions of what started the big bang. This is of no help to anyone, as the "big bang" language is a straw man name attached to the theory by an opponent and the standard cosmological model and there is no big bang event that is part of the standard cosmological model.

Probably this has all been brought up before. In the end it hardly matters, since real proponents of plasma cosmology are simply acolytes of a sort. They have given up their reason in this area and have decided to follow along.

So are you going to produce an eu theory of your choice or just dodge the question?

Hows about http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

 

[ben m]

So are you going to produce an eu theory of your choice or just dodge the question?

He didn't dodge the question, he said---"take your pick".

Hows about http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Good, that's what "take your pick" means---are you willing to stand by labelling this solar corona paper as "the Electric Universe"? (I thought EU was supposed to be a cosmology theory, but never mind me.) Observation of the sun, check. Cites Alfven, check. No connection to Alfven-Klein cosmology, check. Cites very old literature, check. (This is a post-2006 paper, yet its only post-1991 citations are from pop-sci magazine Scientific American and an article in Peratt's journal. Heck, it cites a solar neutrino paper from 1979 (!!!???) which is conspicuously wrong in light of all post-1998 data.)

 

[tusenfem]

Good, that's what "take your pick" means---are you willing to stand by labelling this solar corona paper as "the Electric Universe"? (I thought EU was supposed to be a cosmology theory, but never mind me.) Observation of the sun, check. Cites Alfven, check. No connection to Alfven-Klein cosmology, check. Cites very old literature, check. (This is a post-2006 paper, yet its only post-1991 citations are from pop-sci magazine Scientific American and an article in Peratt's journal. Heck, it cites a solar neutrino paper from 1979 (!!!???) which is conspicuously wrong in light of all post-1998 data.)

Well that is about the level that Scott understands modern solar physics.

For the rest, this paper is conspicuously deplete from any "hard science" it is more assume this and make believe that, really a waste of paper.

Also, it was said by Zeuzzz that this was a "highly discussed" paper at that conference, or something of the kind, however, I never found on the website of that meeting that Scott even presented this, maybe it was a poster.

ETA: Ah yes I found it in the "NASA Pseudo-skeptic" thread

3) Is "Solar Surface Transistor Action published in Pulsed plasma science 2007: PPPS07 Paper 350734" "material published in [a] reputable peer reviewed journal" ?

No, its a conference abstract that was considered worthy enought to be discussed at length with the editors of a "reputable peer reviewed journal", that being the IEEE Journal of Pulsed Power Plasma Science (2007)

If it needs to be discussed at length with the editors of a journal, it can hardly mean that the content was non-controversial.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I will simply stand by ben m here. Thanks, sir.

 

[ben m]

Well that is about the level that Scott understands modern solar physics.

For the rest, this paper is conspicuously deplete from any "hard science" it is more assume this and make believe that, really a waste of paper.

It is really remarkably bad. On page 1 the author says "let's assume the voltage distribution looks like this". That's 100% of the cause-and-effect in the paper. What sustains this distribution? What sort of current and B field (the B fields are measured, by the way)? What drives such a current? Is it stable or unstable? Don't ask, Scott just puts it there by fiat. He then spends most of a column working through the algebraic steps of Gauss's Law, to translate this into a charge and electric field distribution as though it was a sophomore-level E&M problem set. He then makes a horrible handwaving argument about ion "velocities", concluding in a statement about temperatures that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Scott then repeats the EU reconnection-is-wrong dogma, including the usual misunderstanding of field lines, Maxwell's Equations, and reconnection itself. This is the only mention of magnetism in the paper, as the author completely ignores the presence of a 1 Gauss field over most of the Sun's surface (and 1000+ g in sunspots).

 

[tensordyne]

Plasma Universe Occam's Razor

Well, first off, you've got the talking point wrong: electromagnetism is frequently referred to as being 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, not 39 times stronger. Rather major difference, and one which on its surface would seem to bolster your case, so it's a strange mistake for you to be making. But the thing is, comparisons between fundamental forces are only meaningful in relation to a particular interaction. For example, different objects have different charge-to-mass ratios, so the strength of gravitational to electric forces is going to be different as well. So where does that 39 orders of magnitude factor comes from? It comes from the comparison of the gravitational attraction of a single proton to a single electron compared to the electrical attraction of a single proton to a single electron.

But of course, when you want to talk about anything large, you're not talking about single electrons and single protons. Even ignoring neutrons (which feel gravity just as strongly as protons but don't feel electric fields at all), most of the universe is made up of fairly balanced amounts of protons and electrons. In fact, it's precisely because electricity is so strong that most of the universe is very close to charge neutral.

Or that is the whole question in the last sentence. Sorry, I have wanted to respond to this for a while so I have no idea how far along this whole thread is to non-existence but I would like to revive it if possible.

So the last sentence made a knowledge claim, any evidence for this? I guess that is next in the post. I could see agreeing with it if you said that most of the universe is charge shielded, unfortunately you can have systems that are charge shielded and still very dynamic. That is what plasma double layers are about.

So for example, let's consider the interaction between the earth and the moon. Now, the protons on earth will repel the protons on the moon, much more strongly than gravity. But they'll also attract the electrons on the moon much more strongly than gravity. So we need to consider the net electric force on the moon. And because the moon is very close to charge neutral, that net electric force on the moon turns out to be FAR weaker than gravity.

Yep, and Plasma Cosmology advocates would not deny that in the earth-moon system is a system where gravity plays a stronger role then em forces. This says nothing about whether the large-scale structure of the universe is dominated by em forces versus gravitational ones.

Galaxies have been found to be axially aligned on average. From what I have read, large magnetic fields in space have been measured. Electrical fields can not be measured. A magnetic field requires a current, and a large magnetic field requires a large current. I wish I had the sources where I got this. All the same, the point is that even if a stellar system has planets that react more to gravity then to em forces in order to determine their path it is not logical to assume this means that large scale structures in the universe do not have their movements dictated by em forces.

Ever hear about how comets act wrongly according to conventional astronomy? Giving off water when they are not made of water; Deep Impact flashing like crazy when it hit a comet when according to the astronomers of the time it should have barely been detectable.

So to claim that electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravity is highly misleading. Sometimes they are, often they are not. And precisely because electric forces have both attractive and repulsive contributions, and precisely because more complex behavior like shielding is possible, and precisely because electron-proton electrostatic interactions are so strong, electric forces tend to cancel each other out. And the larger length scale you look at, the closer to total cancellation you tend to get. But gravity? It's always attractive, and it can never be shielded. So the larger length scales you look at, the more important it becomes.

Sorry, but has anyone pointed out the fact that plasma flows in filaments, of which many have been observed? That these filaments have a twisted pair current pointing in the same direction. Do your physics. The magnetic field of a coax cable (analog of filament) goes like 1/r. Gravity goes like 1/r^2. So which should be stronger now?

Crunch the numbers sometime, see if the forces involved come anywhere close to the strength of gravitational attraction between the sun and the earth. You will find that gravity dominates the interaction, and electricity is a very minor perturbation. And interesting one, to be sure, and one responsible for some neat effects like the aurora, but still far less important than gravity. So small, in fact, that you don't even need to consider them if you want to calculate the earth's orbit.

Already covered this. Solar systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems is the canonical response. It is interesting to point out though where Plasma Cosmology ideas are at their weakest. That happens in the Electric Sun model. For that model to be correct, their should be a current of plasma connecting the Sun to the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy. As of yet no such current has been detected.

I would not bet against it though. The last guy to bet against Plasma Cosmology ideas was Sydney Chapman, a British Mathematician. The historical parallels here are pretty apt. You see, Chapman, like the BB advocates of today thought they could read the mind of God through equations and did not need any silly things like experiments to give them intuition on anything.

Now reluctantly Astronomers have had to admit they are wrong and Birkeland was right because of direct satellite measurements of the current. The question though is, why stop with the Earth? If the Earth has a closed circuit plasma circuit with the sun, so should the other planets. What is more interesting though is, if the sun has a Birkeland current with the Earth, why wouldn't the Sun, that is like the Earth spherical with North and South Poles, not have some Birkeland type currents with respect to the Greater Milky Way Galaxy, and so on.... The answer is .... there is no answer. It should.

You are betting against Historical precedent by betting that the Sun is not part of some larger galactic electrical system.

Nobody is denying that electromagnetic forces are present throughout the universe. But large-scale structures are driven by gravity, not electromagnetism, because at large scales, gravity is far stronger. Every measurement you reference is in line with this basic fact.

Sorry, I have no idea what this is about so will skip it mostly. It is referencing something prior in this thread. I do find the statement "But large-scale structures are driven by gravity, not electromagnetism, because at large scales, gravity is far stronger" to be a blanket statement that is not given any further support then the rather weak sauce of planets having trajectories mostly affected by gravity.

Let me see, who am I to trust, Plasma Physicists who have seen experimentally pretty much all of the same phenomena that are observed in the larger scale structures in the Universe, which by all sides in the debate is admitted to be made up in its visible form of 99.999% plasma,

versus

a series of Theoreticians that have come up with increasingly more and more exotic explanations to the point where now the Universe is supposed to be only 1% or less visible; where the Universe came about during a single point of creation (Yay! The Big Bang supports the Church, how great) that breaks the Law of Energy Conservation; that has as one of its ideas that Galaxies have a "Halo" of Dark Matter that is surrounded around galaxies (has never been observed after 20+ years looking for it either!) in just the right way to allow for the rotation curves that are seen and never quite fit; that has an unknown form of energy that allows the universe to speed up; that has been around for 13.4 Billion Years when some observed stars have been observed that have been figured out to be 80+ billion years old; that postulates a field whose sole contribution to existence occurred very shortly after the Big Bang and is called the Inflaton Field; That has gotten its vaunted element abundances obviously wrong because there is way too much Lithium out there; Should I go on?

Here is a thought, Occam's Razor. If 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma, why don't we see how well treating the universe as being made up of all plasma gets us?

You imagine something that simply isn't the case. That's why. Could it just be possible that you don't actually know what you're talking about?

He might not be the best advocate for Plasma Cosmological ideas. Oh well, hopefully I will be better up to the challenge.

 

[Zeuzzz]

boom back to life.

This thread is so long and contains so much information about plasma cosmology the thread search tool should come in very handy for anyone arguing their position, either side.

 

[sol invictus]

So the last sentence made a knowledge claim, any evidence for this? I guess that is next in the post. I could see agreeing with it if you said that most of the universe is charge shielded, unfortunately you can have systems that are charge shielded and still very dynamic.

Nonsense. Charge is charge, it cannot be shielded except by the opposite charge. If it's shielded, the object is charge neutral. That's a basic law of electrodynamics (it's called Gauss' law - look it up, since you've plainly never heard of it).

From what I have read, large magnetic fields in space have been measured.

Your understanding is wrong. Yes, there are magnetic fields in space. Yes, they are somewhat larger than expected. But they are not large.

The galactic magnetic field near the center of the galaxy is weaker than the earth's field by a factor of more than 1,000, and more like 10,000 or 100,000 in the halo. When was the last time you noticed something heavier than a compass needle move under the influence of the earth's field? When was the last time a "magnetic satellite" was launched? The relative strength of EM fields to gravity gets weaker and weaker the larger and more massive the object is. Their effect on very massive objects like stars or galaxies as a whole is absurdly small.

A magnetic field requires a current

Wrong.

Anyway, enough of this. Like most PC/EU advocates you haven't the faintest clue about electricity, electric field, magnetic fields, or gravity.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Or that is the whole question in the last sentence. Sorry, I have wanted to respond to this for a while so I have no idea how far along this whole thread is to non-existence but I would like to revive it if possible.

So the last sentence made a knowledge claim, any evidence for this? I guess that is next in the post. I could see agreeing with it if you said that most of the universe is charge shielded, unfortunately you can have systems that are charge shielded and still very dynamic. That is what plasma double layers are about.

Yep, and Plasma Cosmology advocates would not deny that in the earth-moon system is a system where gravity plays a stronger role then em forces. This says nothing about whether the large-scale structure of the universe is dominated by em forces versus gravitational ones.

Galaxies have been found to be axially aligned on average.

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

From what I have read, large magnetic fields in space have been measured.

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

Electrical fields can not be measured. A magnetic field requires a current, and a large magnetic field requires a large current. I wish I had the sources where I got this.

Yes, that would be exceedingly helpful.

You might like to read up on MHD (magnetohydrodynamics), where its assumptions are reasonable (and where not), and how it's been used - by astrophysicists - to model large-scale magnetic fields, such as those observed in spiral galaxies.

All the same, the point is that even if a stellar system has planets that react more to gravity then to em forces in order to determine their path it is not logical to assume this means that large scale structures in the universe do not have their movements dictated by em forces.

That's certainly true ... and is why astrophysicists go to great lengths to determine the relative strengths of various forces acting on observed astronomical objects, such as the stars, dust, gas, and plasma in spiral galaxies.

Ever hear about how comets act wrongly according to conventional astronomy?

No; source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

Giving off water when they are not made of water; Deep Impact flashing like crazy when it hit a comet when according to the astronomers of the time it should have barely been detectable.

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

Sorry, but has anyone pointed out the fact that plasma flows in filaments, of which many have been observed?

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

That these filaments have a twisted pair current pointing in the same direction.

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

Do your physics. The magnetic field of a coax cable (analog of filament) goes like 1/r. Gravity goes like 1/r^2. So which should be stronger now?

No doubt.

However, the physics you describe depends upon the existence of the "twisted pair current pointing in the same direction", and the values of the currents.

Already covered this. Solar systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems is the canonical response. It is interesting to point out though where Plasma Cosmology ideas are at their weakest. That happens in the Electric Sun model. For that model to be correct, their should be a current of plasma connecting the Sun to the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy. As of yet no such current has been detected.

I would not bet against it though. The last guy to bet against Plasma Cosmology ideas was Sydney Chapman, a British Mathematician. The historical parallels here are pretty apt. You see, Chapman, like the BB advocates of today thought they could read the mind of God through equations and did not need any silly things like experiments to give them intuition on anything.

Let's take a look at the "Electric Sun model", where there is current flow from the Sun to the heliosphere.

Start with "from the sun": let's assume it's the cathode, i.e. the place to which electrons flow; let's also assume that the actual cathode is the photosphere, which is 700,000 km from the centre of the Sun (we can adjust the numbers a bit later).

Next, "to the heliosphere": let's assume this is the surface of a sphere, whose radius is 100 au, with the Sun at its centre.

Now in this "Electric Sun model", the Sun is powered by a "current flow", so in this model, the current must produce ~3.8 x 10^26 W, which is the observed power (energy per second) of the Sun.

How does the "current flow" produce this power? Let's assume it does so by converting the kinetic energy of the electrons into electromagnetic radiation, on (or at) the photosphere. We won't worry ourselves about how this happens ("electrical processes" perhaps), for now.

Let's keep it simple and assume that electrons arrive at the photosphere at the same rate as they leave the heliosphere - x electrons leave the heliosphere in one second, and x electrons arrive at the photosphere in one second. In other words, electrons are neither created nor destroyed between the heliosphere and photosphere, and that the current flow is a steady one.

So, how many electrons leave the heliosphere every second? Well, the electron density there is 10 million per cubic metre, and the electrons are moving at 6 million metres per second (again, we can adjust the numbers later), so across each square metre of heliosphere surface there will be 60 trillion electrons crossing every second. Now the heliosphere's surface is ~3 x 10^27 square metres, so 1.8 x 10^41 electrons depart for the photosphere every second.

How fast are these electrons moving when they reach the photosphere? Well, let's keep it very simple and use the part of Newtonian physics which says that the kinetic energy of a body moving at speed v is half its mass times v squared. Now the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and every second 1.8 x 10^41 electrons give up their kinetic energy for light. So we have a simple equation (Ne is the number of electrons, m the mass of an electron, and v its speed):

1/2 mv^2 * Ne = 3.8 x 10^26

which, when we plug in the numbers, gives us the speed of the electrons as 700 million metres per second.

Before I proceed to check this model against empirical reality (i.e. results of experiments in the lab), I'd like you, tensordyne, to check this model for any flaws, errors, shortcomings, etc.

Of course, every other JREF member reading this is more than welcome to do so too, but if you could, please limit your comments to any mistakes I may have made in my math.

I should add that I have developed this model using only the simplest formulae/math I could; in fact there's little here beyond arithmetic; some extremely simple algebra; the standard definitions of things like energy, power, and density; and the formula for kinetic energy.

Now reluctantly Astronomers have had to admit they are wrong and Birkeland was right because of direct satellite measurements of the current.

Actually, Birkeland was wrong, very wrong.

First, the observed solar wind is net neutral (it is composed of electrons and positive ions); Birkeland said it was made up of electrons.

Second, the solar wind moves at a fair clip, but nowhere near the relativistic speeds Birkeland predicted.

The question though is, why stop with the Earth? If the Earth has a closed circuit plasma circuit with the sun, so should the other planets. What is more interesting though is, if the sun has a Birkeland current with the Earth, why wouldn't the Sun, that is like the Earth spherical with North and South Poles, not have some Birkeland type currents with respect to the Greater Milky Way Galaxy, and so on.... The answer is .... there is no answer. It should.

Well, it shouldn't, because what you've described is not what is observed (Birkeland got the main part wrong, remember?)

You are betting against Historical precedent by betting that the Sun is not part of some larger galactic electrical system.

What does this mean, exactly?

Sorry, I have no idea what this is about so will skip it mostly. It is referencing something prior in this thread. I do find the statement "But large-scale structures are driven by gravity, not electromagnetism, because at large scales, gravity is far stronger" to be a blanket statement that is not given any further support then the rather weak sauce of planets having trajectories mostly affected by gravity.

I won't speak for Zig, but the empirical, observational basis is far, far, far stronger than that (are you interested to know what it is?)

Let me see, who am I to trust, Plasma Physicists who have seen experimentally pretty much all of the same phenomena that are observed in the larger scale structures in the Universe,

They do?

Source? Note: I'm not saying they haven't, but I'd like to see the basis for your statement.

which by all sides in the debate is admitted to be made up in its visible form of 99.999% plasma,

versus

a series of Theoreticians that have come up with increasingly more and more exotic explanations to the point where now the Universe is supposed to be only 1% or less visible; where the Universe came about during a single point of creation (Yay! The Big Bang supports the Church, how great) that breaks the Law of Energy Conservation;

I believe this is called a strawman. Sources please!

that has as one of its ideas that Galaxies have a "Halo" of Dark Matter that is surrounded around galaxies (has never been observed after 20+ years looking for it either!) in just the right way to allow for the rotation curves that are seen and never quite fit;

I believe this is called a strawman. Sources please!

that has an unknown form of energy that allows the universe to speed up; that has been around for 13.4 Billion Years when some observed stars have been observed that have been figured out to be 80+ billion years old;

I believe this is called a strawman. Sources please!

that postulates a field whose sole contribution to existence occurred very shortly after the Big Bang and is called the Inflaton Field;

I believe this is called a strawman. Sources please!

That has gotten its vaunted element abundances obviously wrong because there is way too much Lithium out there;

I believe this is called a strawman. Sources please!

Should I go on?

Yes please ... only this time stick to claims you can support with appropriate references.

Here is a thought, Occam's Razor. If 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma, why don't we see how well treating the universe as being made up of all plasma gets us?

It's a great idea; want to start by providing detailed quantitative models of observed astronomical phenomena, based on your various hypotheses?

The only ones that have been provided, so far, in this thread have all been shown to contain fatal inconsistencies (so, good luck!)

He might not be the best advocate for Plasma Cosmological ideas. Oh well, hopefully I will be better up to the challenge.

I hope so too!

 

[Ziggurat]

So the last sentence made a knowledge claim, any evidence for this?

Yes, lots. Any large-scale charge imbalance would create large-scale currents, which would create immense magnetic fields over huge regions of space. No such magnetic fields are observed.

I could see agreeing with it if you said that most of the universe is charge shielded

As Sol pointed out, how do you think charge shielding is accomplished?

unfortunately you can have systems that are charge shielded and still very dynamic.

I never suggested otherwise. But that's not the issue. The issue is what drives large-scale structure. Small-scale dynamism doesn't necessarily lead to large-scale structure. In the case of electromagnetism and the cosmos, it doesn't.

Yep, and Plasma Cosmology advocates would not deny that in the earth-moon system is a system where gravity plays a stronger role then em forces. This says nothing about whether the large-scale structure of the universe is dominated by em forces versus gravitational ones.

Actually, it does. Individual atoms in close proximity interact via electromagnetism more strongly than via gravity. And yet, the earth-moon system is dominated by gravity. Why? Because EM forces are shielded at larger length scales (because the earth and the moon are approximately charge neutral), whereas gravity is not. This scale issue favors gravity more strongly the larger the system becomes.

Galaxies have been found to be axially aligned on average. From what I have read, large magnetic fields in space have been measured.

Large magnetic fields have been measured near pulsars, for example. But average magnetic fields over something the size of a galaxy? Nope, they aren't large at all. They're pretty darned small.

All the same, the point is that even if a stellar system has planets that react more to gravity then to em forces in order to determine their path it is not logical to assume this means that large scale structures in the universe do not have their movements dictated by em forces.

Actually, it pretty much does. What do you think creates structure? Motion does. If motion is dominated by gravity, so is structure.

Ever hear about how comets act wrongly according to conventional astronomy?

Nope.

Giving off water when they are not made of water;

Um... they are made of water. Not only water, but water is quite definitely a component of comets.

Deep Impact flashing like crazy when it hit a comet when according to the astronomers of the time it should have barely been detectable.

Sounds like the structure and detailed composition of comets may not be well understood. This is not terribly surprising, but it's also not at all significant in regards to larger questions about the universe.

Sorry, but has anyone pointed out the fact that plasma flows in filaments, of which many have been observed? That these filaments have a twisted pair current pointing in the same direction. Do your physics. The magnetic field of a coax cable (analog of filament) goes like 1/r. Gravity goes like 1/r^2. So which should be stronger now?

Indeed, this argument has been raised before in this forum, and the critical flaw in it exposed too. I hope you take what I say next as constructive criticism and not an insult, but this claim reveals that you don't know much physics (and seem a bit confused about wiring too- twisted pair and coaxial are not the same). Both gravity and electromagnetism have 1/r² field dependence for point sources. That includes both point charges AND point current elements. To get the field of extended objects, you need to integrate over your source. When you do that with a line source, be it a line current, a line charge, or even a line mass, you get the same thing: 1/r dependence. So to claim that magnetism scales as 1/r when gravity scales as 1/r² is simply wrong.

And the 1/r dependence only works at distances shorter than the length of your line source. If the line source is NOT infinite, what do you get? Well, in the case of a line current, it's got to loop back around. The field from a current loop at large distances is a dipole field, which scales as 1/r³. But the field of a mass loop is still 1/r².

Already covered this. Solar systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems is the canonical response.

Which is essentially a non-answer. What were these prior systems? No answer consistent with known physics and observations has been put forth.

It is interesting to point out though where Plasma Cosmology ideas are at their weakest. That happens in the Electric Sun model. For that model to be correct, their should be a current of plasma connecting the Sun to the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy. As of yet no such current has been detected.

Indeed. Because it's not there. Such a current would create a large magnetic field which would be detectable. Furthermore, it wouldn't explain the neutrino flux from the sun.

I would not bet against it though. The last guy to bet against Plasma Cosmology ideas was Sydney Chapman, a British Mathematician. The historical parallels here are pretty apt. You see, Chapman, like the BB advocates of today thought they could read the mind of God through equations and did not need any silly things like experiments to give them intuition on anything.

I'm afraid you're simply wrong. It's the Plasma Cosmology folks who are ignoring experimental evidence, not big bang cosmologists.

Now reluctantly Astronomers have had to admit they are wrong and Birkeland was right because of direct satellite measurements of the current. The question though is, why stop with the Earth? If the Earth has a closed circuit plasma circuit with the sun, so should the other planets. What is more interesting though is, if the sun has a Birkeland current with the Earth, why wouldn't the Sun, that is like the Earth spherical with North and South Poles, not have some Birkeland type currents with respect to the Greater Milky Way Galaxy, and so on.... The answer is .... there is no answer. It should.

Maybe it does. But tell me: do you think that this current has any significant effect on the orbit of the earth? If so, please present evidence. If not, why should we expect any such current between the sun any the greater Milky Way to have any significant effect on the galactic orbit of the sun?

Try putting numbers on some of these quantities. How big a current does your model need? What effect should this current have on the sun? If you actually try to work the numbers, you will find that the currents required to achieve anything significant (in terms of powering the sun, affecting its galactic orbit, etc) as absurdly large, and observations already demonstrate such large currents do not exist.

You are betting against Historical precedent by betting that the Sun is not part of some larger galactic electrical system.

Except that's not my claim. My claim is that large-scale structures are dominated by gravity. And that's very much betting with historical precedent.

I do find the statement "But large-scale structures are driven by gravity, not electromagnetism, because at large scales, gravity is far stronger" to be a blanket statement that is not given any further support then the rather weak sauce of planets having trajectories mostly affected by gravity.

Then you need to learn more physics. And then you need to learn how to do calculations. Time and time again, plasma cosmology falls on its face when any actual calculations are attempted. When you learn how to do basic calculations, you will understand why plasma cosmology is not accepted by the physics community.

Let me see, who am I to trust, Plasma Physicists who have seen experimentally pretty much all of the same phenomena that are observed in the larger scale structures in the Universe, which by all sides in the debate is admitted to be made up in its visible form of 99.999% plasma,

Small problem with your particular appeal to authority (which, btw, is a logical fallacy): most plasma physicists do NOT advocate anything like "plasma cosmology" or "electric universe" theories.

a series of Theoreticians that have come up with increasingly more and more exotic explanations to the point where now the Universe is supposed to be only 1% or less visible

The evolution of cosmology has been driven by observation. These "increasingly more and more exotic explanations" explain the increasingly detailed observational record we have of the universe. "Plasma cosmology" and "electric universe" theories? They cannot. Hell, they still can't even explain the perfect black body line shape of the cosmic microwave background.

where the Universe came about during a single point of creation (Yay! The Big Bang supports the Church, how great)

Your fear that physics might match one detail of some religions is irrational.

that breaks the Law of Energy Conservation

No, it doesn't. But this is an amusing claim, given that some plasma cosmology ideas explicitly break energy conservation. Often along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Seriously, if the universe is infinitely old, why hasn't it already experienced heat death?

that has as one of its ideas that Galaxies have a "Halo" of Dark Matter that is surrounded around galaxies (has never been observed after 20+ years looking for it either!)

It has been observed.

in just the right way to allow for the rotation curves that are seen and never quite fit;

They do fit. But it's rather amusing that you think this is an argument for electric universe ideas. We've been over this topic in the past too on this board, where people have claimed that magnetic fields are responsible for galactic rotation curves. The numbers don't work. Not by about 22 orders of magnitude. That's not a factor of 22, that's a factor of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

when some observed stars have been observed that have been figured out to be 80+ billion years old

Source?

Here is a thought, Occam's Razor. If 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma, why don't we see how well treating the universe as being made up of all plasma gets us?

What exactly do you think plasma is? And what property of plasma prevents gravity from dominating its large-scale behavior?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

interesting, a sarcastic post written in jest about a members posting style to try to create a more positive atmosphere in this thread is a breach of a rule.

A short reply with a similar sarcastic erroneous psycho babble in return to me would have shown at least some lighthearted banter could have relieved the oft emotive and confrontational nature in this thread.

Since during this thread some members have proclaimed i am a crackpot junkie drug user with holes in my brain, who does nothing but lie and has not made a single valid point, whilst making up i have a degree in physics, meaning i am a deceiptful "nutter", a conpiracy nut whos always wrong and is driven by Iconoclastism to give myself a superior self image so i feel special. Something like that anyway.

The reasons that people seem to make such unsubstantiated off topic claims is unclear, but these remarks seem to reveal a odd pattern of being brought up after i have made valid points people have ignored.

going back through this thread (should i have the time) it will reveal so many posts written in this manner i expect some people will get so many warnings and infractions, bans will have to be instated.

But i wont. People just need to chill and take differences in opinion in good faith without seeing them as some sort of attack on their very being they have to defend.

And no i have not seen any evidence that the biot savart force law (or amperes) are only short acting 1/r relationships and break down at larger distances. The 1/r relationship seems to stay unchanged from microscopic current systems up to planetary scales where the Biot-Savart law is observed in planetary current systems, and seemingly still obeying 1/r even up to gigantic distant nebulae such as the "elephant trunk" formations observed in the huge Rosette nebula, and many others. This 1/r force is by far the longest acting force in nature even compoared to gravities 1/r².

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3953jdmkqy8vennp/
Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula
Journal - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 280, Number 4 / June, 2002

Abstract New observations show that dark elephant trunks in the Rosette nebula are often built up by thin filaments. In several of the trunks the filaments seem to form a twisted pattern. This pattern is hard to reconcile with current theory. We propose a new model for the formation of twisted elephant trunks in which electromagnetic forces play an important role. The model considers the behaviour of a twisted magnetic filament in a molecular cloud, where a cluster of hot stars has been recently born. As a result of stellar winds, and radiation pressure, electromagnetic forces, and inertia forces part of the filament can develop into a double helix pointing towards the stars. The double helix represents the twisted elephant trunk. A simple analogy experiment visualizes and supports the trunk model.

PS, sprry for spelling mistakes am using a very annoying mini keyboard