[Continuation] Electric universe theories here (2)

[Sol88]

Oh...

microquasar, the smaller version of a quasar, is a compact region surrounding a stellar black hole with a mass several times that of its companion star.[1] The matter being pulled from the companion star forms an accretion disk around the black hole. This accretion disk may become so hot, due to friction, that it begins to emit X-rays.[2] The disk also projects narrow streams or "jets" of subatomic particles at near-light speed, generating a strong radio wave emission.

WIKI

hot, due to friction

 

[Sol88]

That's one big ELECTRIC CURRENT.

eROSITA survey unveils asymmetries in temperature and shape of our Local Hot Bubble​

Our solar system dwells in a low-density environment called the Local Hot Bubble (LHB), filled by a tenuous, million-degree hot gas emitting dominantly in soft X-rays.

Gas?

The highlight of this work features the discovery of a new interstellar tunnel towards the constellation Centaurus, potentially joining our LHB with a neighboring superbubble. The research is published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

interstellar tunnel? What's that?

The SRG/eROSITA diffuse soft X-ray background

I. The local hot bubble in the western Galactic hemisphere​

The EMLHB map shows clear anti-correlation with the local dust column density. In particular, we found tunnels of dust cavities filled with hot plasma, potentially forming a wider network of hot interstellar medium.

Found tunnels of dust cavities filled with hot plasma.... would that dust be charged, one wonders...

 

[Sol88]

It all started with a Big Bang: The quest to unravel the mystery behind the birth of the universe​

Grabs

How did everything begin? It's a question that humans have pondered for thousands of years. Over the last century or so, science has homed in on an answer: the Big Bang.

So, there you have it. The 14 billion-year story of our universe begins with a cataclysmic explosion everywhere in space, which we call the Big Bang. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. This explosion is really a period of explosive expansion, which we call cosmic inflation. What happens before inflation, though? Is it a spacetime singularity, is it spacetime foam? The answer is largely unknown.


In fact, it might even be unknowable, because there is a mathematical theorem which forbids us from accessing information about the onset of inflation, much like the one that prevents us from knowing about the interiors of black holes.

Forbidden? Unknowable?



.

 

[Sol88]

Chokes on

But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the center of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.

Mathamajics!

As far as science can tell, there is no before; the Big Bang is the onset of time.

There is NO BEFORE!





.

 

[Sol88]

But wait, there's more!

This rapidly fluctuating situation is called spacetime foam.


In spacetime foam, causality does not apply, because there are closed loops in spacetime where the future of an event is also its past (so its outcome can also be its cause)

Spacetime Foam

In order to understand how physics works at a singularity like the Big Bang, we need a theory for how gravity behaves according to quantum theory. Unfortunately, we do not have one. There are a number of efforts on this front like loop quantum gravity and string theory, with its various incarnations.

You need a bigger



.

 

[Sol88]

When we go backwards in time through the history of the cosmos, the distances and volumes shrink, while the average energy density grows. At the Big Bang, distances and volumes drop to zero, all parts of the universe fall on top of each other and the energy density of the universe becomes infinite. Our mathematical equations, which describe the evolution of space and the expansion of the cosmos, become infested by zeros and infinities and stop making sense.

However, nature is not accurately described by general relativity alone, even though the latter has been around for more than 100 years and has not been disproven. General relativity cannot describe atoms, nuclear fusion or radioactivity. These phenomena are instead addressed by quantum theory.

Ummm...what about PLASMA?

 

[Sol88]

Moving on further in time, the universe is filled with a strange substance called quark-gluon plasma. As the name suggests, this "primordial soup" was made up of quarks and gluons. These are sub-atomic particles that are responsible for the strong nuclear force. Quark-gluon plasma was artificially generated in 2010 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and in 2015 at the LHC.


Quarks and gluons have a strong attraction for one another and today are bound together as protons and neutrons, which in turn are the building blocks of atoms. However, in the hot and dense conditions of the early universe, they existed independently.


The quark-gluon plasma didn't last long. Just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, as the universe expanded and cooled, quarks and gluons clumped together as protons and neutrons, the situation that persists today. This event is called quark confinement.




As the universe expanded and cooled still further, there were fewer high energy photons (particles of light) in the universe than there had previously been. This is a trigger for the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This is when the first atomic nuclei—the dense lumps of matter made of protons and neutrons and found at the centers of atoms—formed through nuclear fusion reactions, like those that power the sun.

Ahhh... there it is!




Was a PLASMA and still is a PLASMA.

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at interstellar and intergalactic scales. In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity).

There is no beginning and therefore no end! The UNIVERSE is matter in the PLASMA state threaded with ELECTRIC CURRENTS.









.

 

[hecd2]

If you think an ionised gas (also known as a plasma) is not a gas, you’re wrong. But if you think a quark-gluon plasma is a state of matter anything like an ionised gas you’re even wronger.

ETA: they are of course mediated by different fundamental forces; the first by electromagnetism, the second by the strong nuclear force.

 

[Sol88]

If you think an ionised gas (also known as a plasma) is not a gas, you’re wrong. But if you think a quark-gluon plasma is a state of matter anything like an ionised gas you’re even wronger.

ETA: they are of course mediated by different fundamental forces; the first by electromagnetism, the second by the strong nuclear force.

I think that you think that GAS laws are applicable at a division by zero error...

In a stunning discovery, Suh and her team found that LID-568 appears to be feeding on matter at a rate 40 times its Eddington limit. This limit relates to the maximum luminosity that a black hole can achieve, as well as how fast it can absorb matter, such that its inward gravitational force and outward pressure generated from the heat of the compressed, infalling matter remain in balance.

Black hole in early universe appears to be consuming matter at over 40 times its theoretical limit​

Quick question

What state is this MATTER in?

GAS? or PLASMA?

Take as much time as you need.


Please don't feed the black holes...

 

[steenkh]

I think that you think that GAS laws are applicable at a division by zero error...

Quick question ​

What state is this MATTER in?

GAS? or PLASMA?

Take as much time as you need.


Please don't feed the black holes...

Another quick question: what relevance has your lack of understanding physics concepts to the Electric Universe: the pseudo-scientific idea that cannot even predict the orbit of a satellite.

 

[Sol88]

predict the orbit of a satellite

Orbit? Pfffft...Electric Universe make satellite

​

The specific TSS-1R mission objectives were: characterize the current-voltage response of the TSS-orbiter system, characterize the satellite's high-voltage sheath structure and current collection process, demonstrate electric power generation, verify tether control laws and basic tether dynamics, demonstrate the effect of neutral gas on the plasma sheath and current collection, characterize the TSS radio frequency and plasma wave emissions and characterize the TSS dynamic-electrodynamic coupling.

STS-75​

All of a sudden predicting the orbit (ballistics) is less important.

 

[steenkh]

Orbit? Pfffft...Electric Universe make satellite

All of a sudden predicting the orbit (ballistics) is less important.

STS-75 would never be able to test this if the orbit could not be predicted, or calculated. Likewise with every other mission, be it orbiting the Earth, or sent to investigate the solar system. You want to do away with relativity and gravity, but you have nothing to put in its place, except magical words like PLASMA that you have emptied of all meaning.

And as it has been pointed out before, you can’t even explain why the Sun is round, because electrical forces can’t keep it that way.

 

[Sol88]

STS-75 would never be able to test this if the orbit could not be predicted, or calculated. Likewise with every other mission, be it orbiting the Earth, or sent to investigate the solar system. You want to do away with relativity and gravity, but you have nothing to put in its place, except magical words like PLASMA that you have emptied of all meaning.

And as it has been pointed out before, you can’t even explain why the Sun is round, because electrical forces can’t keep it that way.

Why would "I" want to do away with relativity and gravity?

The EUtards are not "doing away with it" , just relegate it to it's correct time and place.

Clears throat...again

In a stunning discovery, Suh and her team found that LID-568 appears to be feeding on matter at a rate 40 times its Eddington limit. This limit relates to the maximum luminosity that a black hole can achieve, as well as how fast it can absorb matter, such that its inward gravitational force and outward pressure generated from the heat of the compressed, infalling matter remain in balance.

What matter? Simple question. Gas n Dust?

or

PLASMA

Eddington limit

The mass of the proton appears because, in the typical environment for the outer layers of a star, the radiation pressure acts on electrons, which are driven away from the center. Because protons are negligibly pressured by the analog of Thomson scattering, due to their larger mass, the result is to create a slight charge separation and therefore a radially directed electric field, acting to lift the positive charges, which, under the conditions in stellar atmospheres, typically are free protons. When the outward electric field is sufficient to levitate the protons against gravity, both electrons and protons are expelled together.

 

[steenkh]

Why would "I" want to do away with relativity and gravity?

The EUtards are not "doing away with it" , just relegate it to it's correct time and place.

Clears throat...again

OK. Then it will be easy for the EUtards to explain why the Sun is a ball and not rectangular, right?

What matter? Simple question. Gas n Dust?

or

PLASMA

Eddington limit

Not being an expert, I can't answer it, but I also don't see the relevance of this question.

 

[jonesdave116]

What matter? Simple question. Gas n Dust?

or

PLASMA

"The mass of the proton appears because, in the typical environment for the outer layers of a star, the radiation pressure acts on electrons, which are driven away from the center. Because protons are negligibly pressured by the analog of Thomson scattering, due to their larger mass, the result is to create a slight charge separation and therefore a radially directed electric field, acting to lift the positive charges, which, under the conditions in stellar atmospheres, typically are free protons. When the outward electric field is sufficient to levitate the protons against gravity, both electrons and protons are expelled together."

Which is what I have told you umpteen times to explain why the claims of the idiot Scott, about only ions leaving in the solar wind, and it being a current, are complete nonsense. Remember? Ambipolar field? Quasi-neutrality? Because ions are heavier, they feel gravity more than puny electrons, which are easily thermally accelerated to escape velocity in the corona. Ions aren't.
If that were not addressed by the plasma itself, by the setting up of an electric field, only electrons would leave the Sun in the solar wind. And that would create an enormous space charge hereabouts. Which isn't there. And, conversely, the Sun would charge up positively, and promptly explode due to Coulomb repulsion. It hasn't.
Ringing any bells? So, you have just quoted a passage that confirms what I have been telling you for ages, and that contradicts the silly claims of your bedfuddled EE. How many times are you going to fail to understand basic science when it is explained to you, and then, just months later, quote the same damn thing as if it is some sort of revelation?????? That was rhetorical, btw.

 

[jonesdave116]

BTW, still getting used to the new format. I thought the forum had closed after a number of failed login attempts over the past weeks. Some posts might be a bit messy until I get used to it.

 

[jonesdave116]

What matter? Simple question. Gas n Dust?

or

PLASMA

All sorts of matter. It is a press realease for the scientifically challenged. You should appreciate it. You see, published papers, for peers, are where the science is explained in detail for those that understand it. Not in PRs for people who may be biologists or bricklayers. Read the papers. And then you can question the science with actual science, eh? Or not. Most likely.
You have the same problem as that suffered by the clowns Thornhill and Scott. They baulk at PRs that don't say 'plasma' (because most people think it is something to do with blood), whilst having precisely zero understanding of plasma physics themselves! As they have shown for a number of decades. One of them can no longer entertain the world with his ignorance, whilst I believe the other is in his dotage and is unlikely to amuse us again. You, however, still have time to provide more comedy value. And undoubtedly will.

 

[jonesdave116]

Oh...

WIKI

hot, due to friction

Strewth! Yep, friction. Collisions. They cause heat. Got it? A collisional plasma as opposed to a non-collisional one.

 

[jonesdave116]

Orbit? Pfffft...Electric Universe make satellite

​

All of a sudden predicting the orbit (ballistics) is less important.

That was a predicted effect. Which is why they did it! And has precisely nothing to do with the orbit, or the inability of EUists to explain gravity or orbital mechanics. And has been explained to you for decades, and not just here. Want me to dig up some old posts from BAUT/Cosmoquest? You didn't understand it then, you still don't understand it now. For the physics challenged - move a conductor through a magnetic field, and what happens? Answers on a postcard.

 

[jonesdave116]

Chokes on



Mathamajics!




There is NO BEFORE!





.

And? Arguments from ignorance are not valid arguments. And you have no alternatives.

 

[jonesdave116]

e.g Winds of change: Webb reveals forces that shape protoplanetary disks



Why start at hot gas and dust and not a COMPLEX PLASMA? Ilaria Pascucci

a fast collimated jet traced by [Fe ii], I'm sure you are aware of what they are saying?

What they are saying, if you bothered to read the paper (some hope), is that the overwhelmingly neutral gas surrounding the protostar is pulled in towards it. It isn't hot enough to be very ionised. A magnetic field is already present in the molecular cloud from which the protostar formed. And that molecular cloud, as has been explained, has an ionisation fraction of ~ 10^-6 - 10^-8. As things get closer to the protostar, things heat up. I read the paper some weeks ago, and can't recall whether this is due to any heat from the protostar, or due to collisional (frictional) heating.
So, in the inner parts of the disk, it gets warm enough to ionise those atoms with low first ionisation potentials (FIPs). Fe is a perfect example. It is why we can detect Fe II (Fe+) in the solar photosphere. It is easily stripped of its outer electron. Meanwhile, the bulk photosphere itself is ~ 99.99% neutral GAS.
Also from memory, it is the morpholgy of this magnetic field as it contracts with the protostar, that launches the jets. Just as happens with BH jets, although they will mostly be ionised. It doesn't directly influence the neutral H, but the neutral H is carried along due to ion-neutral friction.
Even the abstract of that paper will tell you that they are also detecting this jet within broader cavities of neutral H2 and CO. And the detection of those two species tells us that we are dealing with a cool environment. 'Cool' as in coldish. Although it is also 'cool' in the parlance of 1970s hippies. I think I downloaded the paper via the usual........methods. I seem to remember that the temperatures in this disk in the area of interest were a few thousand K. Not going to ionise much of anything at that temperature.

As it stands, I don't have a VPN on this lappie, so can't access sci-hub from the UK ATM. The paper may be on another lappie at home, which is too heavy to take to the pub

 

[jonesdave116]

This EUtard, is again TELLING intelligent people on this thread, there is a difference between GAS and PLASMA.

The FACTS are PLASMA is a STATE of matter quite distinct from GAS. Not sure why you would even question this FACT!

Well, not to go over the same things Ziggurat pointed out (without any answer), what is the ionisation fraction of a GAS whereby we can call it a plasma? Where it will also behave as a plasma? At what ionisation fraction do plasma effects dominate? The ISM? Probably. That is ~80% neutral gas though. The solar photosphere? Hmmm. That is ~ 99.99% neutral gas ( ~ 1 part in 10 000). Molecular clouds? Nah. Ionisation fraction from 1 part in a million to 1 part in billions. So, where is it Sol? Some magical wonderland only know to the mythologists of EU? None of whom are plasma physicists. None of whom have ever studied the subject. None of whom have ever experimented in the subject area.
What should we do here Sol? Leave it to plasma physicists, or hand over the whole field to unqualified mythologists? None of whom are even published on the subject? And don't understand it? And believe in physics violating woo? Tough one that. I know in which direction I am leaning.

 

[Sol88]

Well, not to go over the same things Ziggurat pointed out (without any answer), what is the ionisation fraction of a GAS whereby we can call it a plasma? Where it will also behave as a plasma? At what ionisation fraction do plasma effects dominate? The ISM? Probably. That is ~80% neutral gas though. The solar photosphere? Hmmm. That is ~ 99.99% neutral gas ( ~ 1 part in 10 000). Molecular clouds? Nah. Ionisation fraction from 1 part in a million to 1 part in billions. So, where is it Sol? Some magical wonderland only know to the mythologists of EU? None of whom are plasma physicists. None of whom have ever studied the subject. None of whom have ever experimented in the subject area.
What should we do here Sol? Leave it to plasma physicists, or hand over the whole field to unqualified mythologists? None of whom are even published on the subject? And don't understand it? And believe in physics violating woo? Tough one that. I know in which direction I am leaning.

Indeed, what fraction?

Evidence for Magnetically-Driven Accretion in the Distal Solar System​

Magnetic fields likely played a key role in transporting mass toward the Sun and angular momentum away from the Sun in the early solar system.

Approximately, that much apparently!






.

 

[steenkh]

Indeed, what fraction?

Asked by the guy whose magical forces can’t keep the Sun as a ball or the Solar system together

 

[jonesdave116]

Indeed, what fraction?

Evidence for Magnetically-Driven Accretion in the Distal Solar System​

Approximately, that much apparently!






.

And how do EUists form a protostar to start doing those things from a cloud of neutral gas? A cloud in which the ionisation fraction is as close to zero as makes no difference? How did all that neutral gas start coming together?

 

[jonesdave116]

What they are saying, if you bothered to read the paper (some hope),.......

As it stands, I don't have a VPN on this lappie, so can't access sci-hub from the UK ATM. The paper may be on another lappie at home, which is too heavy to take to the pub

Turns out it isn't available via sci-hub. Often the case with recent Nature papers. However, I had already downloaded it from Max Planck. Good mate of mine;

'The nested morphology of disk winds from young stars revealed by JWST/NIRSpec observations'
Pascucci, N. et al (2024)

https://www.mpg.de/23535510/pascucci__2024_natureastronomy_diskwind.pdf

It's also on Researchgate.

Swift summary;

Close to the protostar, there is a jet ~ perpendicular to the disk. This jet is nested within a hollow cavity, enclosed within other outflows at lower velocities and higher opening angles (less perpendicular), which consist of H2 and CO. The presence of those species tells us that it is not very warm where they are seen.

Fig. 1 of the paper shows the species detected. These include the Fe II line (Fe+). There is also the aforementioned CO and H2. H2 is usually pretty much impossible to detect directly in molecular clouds because it is too cold. It is usually traced by using CO as a proxy. Here, however, it has been heated somewhat, producing detectable emissions. Added to the previous are CO, H2O and CO2 ices. So, pretty damned cold where they are seen. And not at all surprising that they are there, as comets include those ices, and they formed out in the backblocks of the young solar system.

Figs. 2, 3 & 4 show the nested morphology rather nicely, with the detections from Fe II, H2 and CO.

The paper is quite short, and relies on references therein to refer the reader to the mechanisms of jet production. In terms of the wider angle CO and H2 emissions, photoevaporation is expected to produce their lower velocity outflows.

 

[jonesdave116]

ELECTRONS will be diverted in one direction, and the POSITIVELY CHARGED nuclei will be diverted in the opposite direction are Astrophysical jets

Nope. The electrons and ions are heading out in the same direction in astrophysical jets. + & - above the plane, and + & - below the plane. Unlike the nonsense propsed by Lerner, where you have a jet of solely electrons in one jet, and a jet of solely ions in the other jet! Strewth! That is because he doesn't understand what plasmoids are, and thinks they can explain black hole images and jets. Which is only a step or two above flat earth.

 

[jonesdave116]

EUtards already told ya how PLANETS form but no...GAS and GRAVITY!

No they didn't. They have no mechanism for planetary formation, nor for star formation. Certainly nothing that is scientifically valid and supported by evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

No they didn't. They have no mechanism for planetary formation, nor for star formation.

Sure they do. Double layers! Z pinch! Plasmoids!

Certainly nothing that is scientifically valid and supported by evidence.

Oh. Yeah, that whole evidence requirement puts a bit of a damper on things.

 

[Sol88]

And how do EUists form a protostar to start doing those things from a cloud of neutral gas? A cloud in which the ionisation fraction is as close to zero as makes no difference? How did all that neutral gas start coming together?

Amazingly the EUist don't!

The cloud is already ionised! Its close to zero but not quite. The ionised portion will respond to the ELECTROMAGNETIC force predominantly!

Any neutral gas is just along for the ride.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET...

The CHARGED DUST.

You're welcome!

 

[jonesdave116]

Amazingly the EUist don't!

The cloud is already ionised! Its close to zero but not quite. The ionised portion will respond to the ELECTROMAGNETIC force predominantly!

Any neutral gas is just along for the ride.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET...

The CHARGED DUST.

You're welcome!

The ionisation fraction is as close to zero as makes no difference. I part in 10s to 100s of millions. And the tiny number of ions will not drag the neutrals along with them at those ionisation fractions. As I recall reading recently somewhere. And why would EM forces cause neutral gas to form into a sphere? What is the morphology of this extremely weak magnetic field?
And why would the dust be charged? You don't even have a star to to charge it yet! Once again, for the hard of physics - the only ionisation agent available before a star is formed in those neutral clouds, are cosmic rays.

 

[Sol88]

The ionisation fraction is as close to zero as makes no difference. I part in 10s to 100s of millions. And the tiny number of ions will not drag the neutrals along with them at those ionisation fractions. As I recall reading recently somewhere. And why would EM forces cause neutral gas to form into a sphere? What is the morphology of this extremely weak magnetic field?
And why would the dust be charged? You don't even have a star to to charge it yet! Once again, for the hard of physics - the only ionisation agent available before a star is formed in those neutral clouds, are cosmic rays.

What turns the GAS into a PLASMA?

oh, wait...

Finally, they settled on another possibility, the tidal disruption of a gas cloud, one that was bigger than the binary itself. When the cloud encountered the black holes, gravity ripped it apart, forming filaments around the pair, and friction started to heat it. The gas got particularly dense and hot close to the black holes.

Swift Observatory studies a pair of gas-churning monster black holes​

friction of course!

further to your space GAS...

The gas got particularly dense and hot close to the black holes.

What state was matter in just after the Big Bang? GAS or PLASMA?

 

[Sol88]

Discovery of three galactic 'red monsters' in early universe challenges current models of galaxy formation​

Oh no, again?

The results indicate that the formation of stars in the early universe was far more efficient than previously thought, challenging existing galaxy formation models. The study is published in Nature.

A challenge? Challenge accepted.

In the theoretical model favored by scientists, galaxies form gradually within large halos of dark matter. Dark matter halos capture gas (atoms and molecules) into gravitationally bound structures. Typically, only about 20% of this gas at most is converted into stars in galaxies.

Dark matter...

Ultra-massive galaxies account for as much as 17 per cent of the total cosmic star-formation-rate density Dickinson, M. Cosmic star-formation history. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415–486 (2014)." href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08094-5#ref-CR17">17</a> at redshifts between about five and six.

Redshift as a measure of distance/age...?

Maybe not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Amazingly the EUist don't!

Yes. We know. They can’t explain anything quantitative. Or anything at all, really. All they can do is spout buzzwords. And you aren’t even very good at that part.

 

[jonesdave116]

What turns the GAS into a PLASMA?

oh, wait...

Swift Observatory studies a pair of gas-churning monster black holes​

friction of course!

further to your space GAS...

The gas got particularly dense and hot close to the black holes.

What state was matter in just after the Big Bang? GAS or PLASMA?

And what has any of that got to do with molecular clouds? Zilch. Try to stay on topic.

 

[jonesdave116]

Discovery of three galactic 'red monsters' in early universe challenges current models of galaxy formation​

Oh no, again?



A challenge? Challenge accepted.



Dark matter...




Redshift as a measure of distance/age...?

Maybe not.

Definitely is a measure of distance. And, as they say in the abstract, "We find no tension with the Λ cold dark-matter model in our sample." Of course, EU has no valid model for galaxy formation, nor for star formation. Last time I looked, they needed z-pinches in neutral gas to form stars!

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, EU has no valid model for galaxy formation, nor for star formation.

Let's cut to the chase.

 

[jonesdave116]

Dark matter...

And how do the mythologists of EU explain galaxy rotation curves? And the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters? And in CMB observations? And others.

The short answer is that they can't. The long answer is that theeeeeey caaaaannn't. Whenever you try to pin them down on any of this stuff they just run away, or refer to crackpot nonsense from Eric Lerner. However, he can't explain galaxy rotation curves. He thinks that EM effects will do it. They can't. People have run the figures on that, and it is many orders of magnitude out. Somewhere around 20 oom, iirc. Which leaves two options, or a combination of both - you either invoke enormous galactic magnetic fields, or you put a massive charge on the Sun. Neither are observed to exist. And the latter cannot exist without messing with the solar wind. And the former are measured to be in the range of ~ 1 nT or less. And that is why Lerner never did the maths for his silly idea. And he cannot explain the lensing observations of colliding clusters. Nor can he explain the existence of the CMB, let alone the evidence for the existence of dark matter gained from observing it.

He also cannot explain cosmological redshift. He introduces 'tired light' with an 'equation' that only works for distances much less than z = 1. And requires light to remember how far it has traveled! So, at this point EUists often invoke Halton Arp, whose nonsense was debunked decades ago.
And then we could move on to other evidence for cosmic expansion, including accelerated expansion (dark energy). Again, EU have no explanations for the evidence for that expansion. Cosmological redshift, as mentioned above, plus supernovae 1a time dilation measurements. And the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect on the CMB photons. And the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data.

So, until the high priests of EU can come up with some valid alternative explanations for all of the above, and more, they would be better off keeping quiet on the subject. And we all know that is not going to happen because they have precisely nobody with a clue about any relevant physics. Dead or alive.

 

[jonesdave116]

What turns the GAS into a PLASMA?

oh, wait...

Swift Observatory studies a pair of gas-churning monster black holes​

friction of course!

further to your space GAS...

The gas got particularly dense and hot close to the black holes.

What state was matter in just after the Big Bang? GAS or PLASMA?

What turns the GAS into a PLASMA?

oh, wait...

friction of course!

And where are you getting the friction from in a very cold cloud of neutral gas? And where is the spectroscopic evidence for any significant ionisation in those clouds, before a star switches to the main sequence and creates a bubble on ionised gas around it, which we can detect as H II regions?

 

[Ziggurat]

And how do the mythologists of EU explain galaxy rotation curves? And the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters? And in CMB observations? And others.

The short answer is that they can't. The long answer is that theeeeeey caaaaannn't. Whenever you try to pin them down on any of this stuff they just run away, or refer to crackpot nonsense from Eric Lerner. However, he can't explain galaxy rotation curves. He thinks that EM effects will do it. They can't. People have run the figures on that, and it is many orders of magnitude out. Somewhere around 20 oom, iirc.

I did the calculations on this forum a few years ago. Yeah, it was about 20 orders of magnitude too small.

Which leaves two options, or a combination of both - you either invoke enormous galactic magnetic fields, or you put a massive charge on the Sun. Neither are observed to exist. And the latter cannot exist without messing with the solar wind.

Large magnetic fields aren't simply not observed, they are observed to not exist. A subtle but important distinction, though it will probably be lost on Sol88.

And a sufficiently large charge on the sun to do what EU folks need wouldn't simply mess with the solar wind. That's really under-selling it. A sufficiently large charge to do what they need would make the surface of the sun explode at relativistic speeds. I ran the numbers on that too.

So, until the high priests of EU can come up with some valid alternative explanations for all of the above, and more, they would be better off keeping quiet on the subject. And we all know that is not going to happen because they have precisely nobody with a clue about any relevant physics. Dead or alive.

I'd be interested in seeing them have a valid alternative explanation for anything. Anything at all. But they don't.