Cont: Electric universe theories here (2)

[Sol88]

I'd say... 'old man yelling at GAS n DUST'

Disk discovery changes views on star and planet formation​

When a star forms, it is surrounded by a spinning disk of gas and dust. Over time, this material eventually forms the planets. Traditionally, scientists believed that once a disk forms, it simply loses too much over time as it feeds the star and the growing planets.

The one thing you have taught me, ziggurat, is it is not GAS but PLASMA and the dust is charged, a COMPLEX PLASMA.


Where does that leave this story...

 

[Ziggurat]

Where does that leave this story...

Where it always does: with you unable to differentiate between the actual science and general audience press reports about the science.

 

[Sol88]

So science fiction then?

From the peer reviewed paper. Not the press release.

Abstract​

Protoplanetary disks are traditionally described as finite-mass reservoirs left over by the gravitational collapse of the protostellar core, a view that strongly constrains both disk-evolution and planet-formation models. We propose a different scenario in which protoplanetary disks of pre-main sequence stars are primarily assembled by Bondi–Hoyle accretion from the parent gas cloud.

Yup, GAS same as the press release, so...

Where is the science? The science of STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS produced and sustained by ELECTRIC CURRENTS in astrophysical PLASMA? Where is that science in the mainstream gravity centric dogma?

Simple really. When I asked you a simple question, you spat the dummy and stormed off in a huff. Why?

As you then say:

That's not a case. That's just a pedestrian statement that everyone already knows. But it's also like saying you've solved an arson case because you've discovered that fire is caused by the combination of fuel, oxygen, and heat. Well, yes, that's true, but it doesn't explain any particular fire, and how those conditions came to coincide.

So why the obfuscation and rattling off, on some tangent on the fire triangle and naughty people applying "science"?

Now you finally agree STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS, ELECTRIC CURRENTS and STAR formation would have a direct bearing on the above press release on protoplanetary disks?

Angular momentum seems like an BIG issues with the formation of stars?

A key outcome of our analysis is the recognition that density fluctuations in supersonic turbulence—previously overlooked in studies of cloud and core rotation—lead to a significant increase in angular momentum at disk-forming scales. This revised understanding of disk formation and evolution alleviates several long-standing observational discrepancies and compels substantial revisions to current models of disk and planet formation.

 

[steenkh]

Where is the science? The science of STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS produced and sustained by ELECTRIC CURRENTS in astrophysical PLASMA? Where is that science in the mainstream gravity centric dogma?

Where it has always been, of course. Nothing changed here. You wouldn’t have the electric currents without the strong gravity.

Now you finally agree STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS, ELECTRIC CURRENTS and STAR formation would have a direct bearing on the above press release on protoplanetary disks?

I don’t think anyone ever ruled it out. You are the one who can’t understand that all those electric and magnetic fields are created by gravity. Nothing in your new links changes any of that.

 

[Sol88]

Where it has always been, of course. Nothing changed here. You wouldn’t have the electric currents without the strong gravity.

I don’t think anyone ever ruled it out. You are the one who can’t understand that all those electric and magnetic fields are created by gravity. Nothing in your new links changes any of that.

All those pesky ELECTRIC FIELDS in ASTROPHYSICAL PLASMA driving ELECTRIC CURRENTS?


Ok, so....

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

All powered by the DARK side!

As steenkh and ziggurat pointed out...it's gravity! I tells ya that it powers the whole PLASMA shebang!

 

[Sol88]

How powerful are these ELECTRIC FIELDS in relation to whats driving these ELECTRIC CURRENTS?

NASA Webb Explores Effect of Strong Magnetic Fields on Star Formation

Magnetic Fields and Star Formation​

Webb’s 2023 image of Sagittarius C showed dozens of distinctive filaments in a region of hot hydrogen plasma surrounding the main star-forming cloud. New analysis by Bally and his team has led them to hypothesize that the filaments are shaped by magnetic fields, which have also been observed in the past by the ground-based observatories ALMA and MeerKAT (formerly the Karoo Array Telescope).

Great hypothesis!

Now ziggurat has finally buckled and agreed that these strong magnetic fields are involve strong electric currents, how strong are the ELECTRIC FIELDS that drive them?

How do we observe ELECTRIC FIELDS in astrophysical PLASMA?

Fly a formation of probes thru them? Like the Cluster mission?

The mission​

Cluster was a constellation of four spacecraft investigating the interaction between the Sun and Earth’s magnetosphere in unparalleled detail. The magnetosphere is our shield against the charged gas that carries particles and magnetic fields outwards from the Sun.

Charged GAS?

Ummm....it's PLASMA.



Dum it down for the big bangers? Do they not now what the difference between a PLASMA and a GAS?

Ziggrat has struggled to reconcile the difference. Squares and rectangles again anyone?

 

[Sol88]

Astronomers discover explosive outflow in star-forming complex using ALMA data ​

​

"The event triggering the outflow may have occurred about 19,000 years ago and could also be responsible for powering the expanding UC HII region, given the similar dynamical ages and positional coincidence of the UC HII region with the origin of the outflow," the researchers explained.


Summing up the results, the scientists noted that the explosive outflow in G34 might be responsible for aligning the magnetic field along the outflow direction. They underlined that, all in all, their discovery is an important addition to the still small sample of rare explosive outflows observed in our Milky Way galaxy.

explosive outflow might be responsible for aligning the magnetic field along the outflow direction?

ELECTRIC CURRENTS generate and sustain strong magnetic fields, as we all now agree on.

Perhaps it was not a fictional "explosion" but the ELECTROMAGNETIC forces involved in the aligning of magnetic fields? Seeing how is the dominate force at play here.

.

 

[steenkh]

Incredulity does not solve your problems. Try again, this time coherently.

 

[Sol88]

Incredulity does not solve your problems. Try again, this time coherently.

Apologies...

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Chandra diagnoses cause of fracture in galactic 'bone'

Enormous structures resembling bones or snakes are found near the center of the galaxy. These elongated formations are seen in radio waves and are threaded by magnetic fields running parallel to them. The radio waves are caused by energized particles spiraling along the magnetic fields.

Enormous ELECTRIC CURRENTS.

Mainstream are onto it!

The researchers think the pulsar likely caused the fracture by smashing into G359.13 at a speed between one million and two million miles per hour. This collision distorted the magnetic field in the bone, causing the radio signal to also become warped.

Oh, dear...a collision in collisionless PLAMSA!

Mainstream big bangers only have a limited tool kit. This is the MAJOR limitation of a gravity only dogma.

from the PEER REVIEWED paper by clever smart people that know way more than I do...

Galactic Centre Snake or a "bone"​

We argue that the major kink is created by a fast-moving (∼500–1000 km s−1) object punching into the Snake, distorting its magnetic structure, and producing X-ray emission. X-ray emission pinpoints an active acceleration site where the interaction is taking place. A secondary kink is argued to be induced by the impact of the high-velocity object producing the major kink.

Punching snakes? High velocity impact into PLASMA?



.

 

[Sol88]

Other than snakes punching bone, what else may be responsible?

We suggest a scenario in which the major and minor kinks in the Snake result from the collision of a fast-moving non-thermal source (possibly a runaway pulsar) that punches through an otherwise smooth curved magnetic structure associated with a pre-existing Galactic Centre filament

Galactic filament? Whats that?

wiki will know...

Galactic Center filament​

Galactic Center filaments are large radio-emitting. Their cause is unknown.

Oh dear... mainstream mathamaticians have no math? gravity having trouble? dark mater/energy not quite dark enough?

Do you think maybe ELECTRIC CURRENTS?

Sorta...

. A suggestion has been made that nonthermal filaments result from the interaction of PWNs and interstellar magnetic fields (Barkov & Lyutikov 2019). Another possibility is that PWNs inject synchrotron-emitting electrons into spatially intermittent magnetic field flux tubes (Thomas, Pfrommer & Enßlin 2020), which could explain the origin of these filaments including the Snake.

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

 

[steenkh]

Yet more research by mainstream, and no confirmation of anything EU. Aren’t you getting tired of not finding support for your religion?

 

[Sol88]

ha ha ha... support?

What are you in about? The ELECTRIC universe does mot need support.

Dark matter, Dark Energy and Gravity need support. Lots of it!

$$$ Lotsa support. What's going on with CERN recnetly? Looks expensive bit kit to support the Big Bangs math...

 

[Sol88]

Did you miss them mentioning BIRKELAND CURRENTS in the PLASMA?

Enormous structures resembling bones or snakes are found near the center of the galaxy. These elongated formations are seen in radio waves and are threaded by magnetic fields running parallel to them. The radio waves are caused by energized particles spiraling along the magnetic fields.

Are you saying gravity is energizing the PLASMA?

Any support for that? Or just hand waving?

 

[steenkh]

What are you in about? The ELECTRIC universe does mot need support.

And yet, you have no mechanism or anything to drive your currents and magnetic fields.

Did you miss them mentioning BIRKELAND CURRENTS in the PLASMA?

Why should that impress me? In the real world Birkeland currents are not a magical word.

Are you saying gravity is energizing the PLASMA?

Are you trying to tell us that you have finally solved your missing energy?

 

[Sol88]

Did you miss the memo?


Big Bangers have no mechanism, this is correct.

The maths will not allow it! This is the mantra that a couple likely crew posting here espouse!

The Universe on the otherhand...

These elongated formations are seen in radio waves and are threaded by magnetic fields running parallel to them. The radio waves are caused by energized particles spiraling along the magnetic fields.

There it is...


How does gravity do that again?

Because you know

Galactic Center filaments are large radio-emitting. Their cause is unknown.

.

 

[steenkh]

Please state how you conclude that gravity can’t produce enough energy to drive these electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetism, on the other hand, is not able to provide the energy to drive itself.

Nowhere is it stated that gravity is not behind these galactic filaments. In other words, you have nothing - again. Don’t you ever get tired of missing the obvious?

 

[Sol88]

Correct the cause of these filaments are unknown.

NASA's IXPE reveals X-ray-generating particles in black hole jets​

Astronomers found that electrons must be the culprits through a process called Compton Scattering. Compton scattering (or the Compton effect) happens when a photon loses or gains energy after interacting with a charged particle, usually an electron. Within jets from supermassive black holes, electrons move near the speed of light. IXPE helped scientists learn that, in the case of a blazar jet, the electrons have enough energy to scatter photons of infrared light up to X-ray wavelengths.

Gravity can not do the majic required.

Friction has been ruled out...so no mechanism for the mainstream to produce PLASMA from their space GAS.

How does gravity produce these electric currents?

Unknown, I'd guess?

 

[steenkh]

Just where does it say that gravity is not behind “the majic”? The mechanism may not be known, but it is known that there is no other energy source with sufficient power around. And you can’t point to any.

 

[Sol88]

Just where does it say that gravity is not behind “the majic”? The mechanism may not be known, but it is known that there is no other energy source with sufficient power around. And you can’t point to any.

Does not have to be local. Have you not figured this out yet?

They are connected by filaments (ELECTRIC CURRENTS)

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Seems mainstream are the ones with the problem, of course.

gravity cant do what they want, so...darkness

 

[steenkh]

Mainstream does have a problem, but not the one you think. You have a worse problem: no mechanism whatsoever!
Your EU has failed spectacularly with comets, asteroids, and the Sun, and left you with nothing except your incredulity to solve the larger problems.

Where is EU today? Have all the researchers given up on the Nobel Prize? Are the only ones working with EU the ones who are using free energy schemes to scam the credulous?

 

[Sol88]

Remember PLASMA not GAS hoohar?

Yeah well I rest my case.

Do mainstream mean PLASMA or GAS? They are NOT the same no matter how much ziggurat bangs on about.

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE have the mechanism.

Free energy? That's was jonesdave116's red herring.

So, to reiterate STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS in ASTROPHYSICAL PLASMA are cuased by ELECTRIC CURRENTS.

Mechanism or not... There they are threading the PLASMA.

THE COSMIC WEB.

Mainstream NEED dark matter or no theory.

and there is no dark matter, there was and all ways will be PLASMA. 99.6% and you're all hung up on 0.4% of the Universe?


SPACE GAS!!!

That was good one!

 

[Sol88]

Accretion of matter​

See also: Accretion disk

Due to conservation of angular momentum, gas falling into the gravitational well created by a massive object will typically form a disk-like structure around the object. Artists' impressions such as the accompanying representation of a black hole with corona commonly depict the black hole as if it were a flat-space body hiding the part of the disk just behind it, but in reality gravitational lensing would greatly distort the image of the accretion disk.

Black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If all you have is a hammer!

GAS


We are not talking GAS at all, it is PLASMA. So why do you and the mainstream insist on GAS when it's a PLASMA?

.

 

[steenkh]

Do mainstream mean PLASMA or GAS? They are NOT the same no matter how much ziggurat bangs on about.

Ziggurat has never said that. Try again.

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE have the mechanism.

Which is?

So, to reiterate STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS in ASTROPHYSICAL PLASMA are cuased by ELECTRIC CURRENTS.

And the electric currents are powered by … ?

Mechanism or not... There they are threading the PLASMA.

Exactly. You have no mechanism.

 

[steenkh]

We are not talking GAS at all, it is PLASMA. So why do you and the mainstream insist on GAS when it's a PLASMA?

Because plasma is a gas. That’s why. Is that so difficult? There was a time when you even wrote it in your sig, so why the sudden loss of knowledge?

 

[Sol88]

Basic error schoolboy error.

mainstream think gas is PLASMA...

 

[Sol88]

Ionized gas, also known as plasma, is a state of matter where the atoms or molecules have lost or gained electrons, resulting in charged particles.

So, why not just call it PLASMA, steenkh? Mainstream just call it gas not even ionised gas.

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE just call it PLASMA.

PLASMA (not gas) DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

 

[Sol88]

This Hubble image, titled “Cosmic Reef” because of the resemblance to an undersea world, highlights the giant red nebula (NGC 2014) and its smaller blue neighbor (NGC 2020) in a vast star-forming region in the Large Magellanic Cloud. A grouping of bright, hefty stars, each 10 to 20 times more massive than our Sun, are the centerpiece of the image. Their cosmic winds and radiation shape the surrounding gas.

NASA calls PLASMA a gas!

NASA are pretty mainstream...




Why call PLASMA a gas again?

Perhaps the maths gets a little too much for the mainstream?

 

[steenkh]

Basic error schoolboy error.

mainstream think gas is PLASMA...

So you say, but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who has difficulty with the two terms.

So, why not just call it PLASMA, steenkh? Mainstream just call it gas not even ionised gas.

Perhaps because not all of it is plasma? Where is the problem?

PLASMA (not gas) DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Meaningless nonsense. Is this some sort of brain tick that you have?

NASA calls PLASMA a gas!

NASA are pretty mainstream...

Plasma is a gas, and there is definitely also gas present that is not plasma. So, again, what is the problem?

 

[Sol88]

Well there is mainstream nosed gas. Are you happy then if I say


Ionised GAS Electric fields electric currents?

You tell me what the difference between that and..

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS.

I rest my case...again!




Seems the problem mainstream has is semantics and not being able to do the math for complex PLASMA systems.


PLASMA is quicker to write as well as the correct term for "Ionised gas".

I thought the mainstream had to acheive some sorta pass mark or some such to get PAID to use outdated terms?

I 'spose you are still driving a horseless carriage?

A bit of history for you steenkh

Irving Langmuir​

As he continued to study filaments in vacuum and different gas environments, he began to study the emission of charged particles from hot filaments (thermionic emission). He was one of the first scientists to work with plasmas, and he was the first to call these ionized gases by that name because they reminded him of blood plasma.Langmuir and Tonks discovered electron density waves in plasmas that are now known as Langmuir waves.

I hope that makes sense to you.

So yeah, again

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

 

[Ziggurat]

Do mainstream mean PLASMA or GAS? They are NOT the same no matter how much ziggurat bangs on about.

Squares and rectangles aren't the same either. And yet, squares are rectangles.

I suppose this falls under set theory, which is a branch of mathematics, and we know you can't do math. So I shouldn't be surprised you still mess this up.

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE have the mechanism.

No. You have buzz words. Buzz words do not constitute a mechanism.

So, to reiterate STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS in ASTROPHYSICAL PLASMA are cuased by ELECTRIC CURRENTS.

Which just kicks the can down the road. What powers these currents?

If your answer is double layers, sit in the corner and think about what you did wrong.

 

[steenkh]

Ionised GAS Electric fields electric currents?

Still meaningless nonsense.

Seems the problem mainstream has is semantics and not being able to do the math for complex PLASMA systems.


PLASMA is quicker to write as well as the correct term for "Ionised gas".

You seem to be the only one who has problem here. I wonder why.

I also wonder what we need the bit of history for. It doesn’t support anything you say.

 

[Sol88]

Ha ha ha

No mainstream are clueless.

A for instance...NASA the experts?

Star Basics

Astronomers estimate that the universe could contain up to one septillion stars – that’s a one followed by 24 zeros. Our Milky Way alone contains more than 100 billion, including our most well-studied star, the Sun.


Stars are giant balls of hot gas – mostly hydrogen, with some helium and small amounts of other elements. Every star has its own life cycle, ranging from a few million to trillions of years, and its properties change as it ages.

Are stars balls of GAS? Not even ionised GAS in this gas, just gas. Any way lets continue to educated by the mainstream...

Birth​

Stars form in large clouds of gas and dust called molecular clouds. Molecular clouds range from 1,000 to 10 million times the mass of the Sun and can span as much as hundreds of light-years. Molecular clouds are cold which causes gas to clump, creating high-density pockets. Some of these clumps can collide with each other or collect more matter, strengthening their gravitational force as their mass grows. Eventually, gravity causes some of these clumps to collapse. When this happens, friction causes the material to heat up, which eventually leads to the development of a protostar – a baby star. Batches of stars that have recently formed from molecular clouds are often called stellar clusters, and molecular clouds full of stellar clusters are called stellar nurseries.

Gas and Dust now.

A star’s gas provides its fuel, and its mass determines how rapidly it runs through its supply, with lower-mass stars burning longer, dimmer, and cooler than very massive stars. More massive stars must burn fuel at a higher rate to generate the energy that keeps them from collapsing under their own weight. Some low-mass stars will shine for trillions of years – longer than the universe has currently existed – while some massive stars will live for only a few million years.

Eventually, all the star’s outer layers blow away, creating an expanding cloud of dust and gas called a planetary nebula.

Material cast into the cosmos by supernovae and other stellar events will enrich future molecular clouds and become incorporated into the next generation of stars.

Material? Gas n Dust one surmises from the fairytale above.

Not even IONISED GAS, PLASMA.

 

[Sol88]

Now the ESA reckon the Sun is a PLASMA? Who should we believe, steenkh?

Core
This is where the Sun generates its energy. The temperature in the core is around 15 million degrees Celsius. This, combined with the huge pressure and density of the plasma force hydrogen nuclei to fuse together, creating helium and releasing vast quantities of energy in the process. Every second, the Sun converts four million tonnes of matter into energy in this way, which begins a slow journey towards the surface.

So is the Sun a PLASMA, Ionised gas or just gas?

I can see how you'd be easily confused.

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep confusing lay audience writing with the actual state of the art. They are not the same. For example, I guarantee that you don't know what temperature actually is, and would probably struggle to even find the correct definition. Most provided definitions are wrong. And that is actually ok.

 

[Sol88]

In the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE containing 99.6% of matter/material as PLASMA, gas is insignificant and does not even get a look in.

Even worse you've put the weakest force acting on gas thru friction to conjure up a PLASMA.

Though you still call it gas, why?

Keep it simple for the simpletons and kiddies?

PLASMA is PLASMA

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

 

[Sol88]

You keep confusing lay audience writing with the actual state of the art. They are not the same. For example, I guarantee that you don't know what temperature actually is, and would probably struggle to even find the correct definition. Most provided definitions are wrong. And that is actually ok.

them "cold" molecular clouds are still ionised they are a PLASMA!

Would you like to talk tempruture and the solar PLASMA stream (wind)? Are the ELECTRON temps the same as the IONS?

Would you like me to use audience writing to simplify the concept? or your maths on type of person. Maybe I'm assuming to much and English is not your first language, math is?

Nothing wrong with audience writing per say, just use the correct terms.

Are you talking GAS or PLASMA> Two distinct SATES of matter.

Or did you miss that bit in science class in kindy? link supplied so you can brush up a bit.

 

[Sol88]

How are these STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS formed and sustained again, ziggrat?

 

[steenkh]

PLASMA is PLASMA

At least you get that right. Although it is beyond you to understand that plasma is also a gas.

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS BIRKELAND CURRENTS

More brain ticks from you. You just can’t help it, can you? If you think it releases some kind of magic, then you could try another language that might be more powerful. Try Sanskrit.

How are these STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS formed and sustained again, ziggrat?

Yes, let‘s hear how you think these STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS are sustained. So far you have poo-pooed the only mechanism available, but not been able to do anything better than claim that unsustainable electric currents are responsible. So this time, go all the way: how are the strong magnetic fields AND the strong electric currents sustained?

 

[Sol88]

Good stuff.

Lets start with the basics...PLASMA and the assumption that mainstream mathamajicians impose on it.

Not GAS, this is an import fact important that seems to raise ire of mainstream big bangers.

Here is a list where we can assume that PLASMA and GAS are indeed two different states of matter.

1. We know that the magnetic field is NOT frozen in.
2. We know PLASMA has non linear instabilities
3. We know PLASMA is FILAMENTARY and CELLULAR in nature
4. We know PLASMA can sustain an ELECTRIC CURRENT

Any issues with the above so far, steenkh?

You really need a basic understanding of PLASMA at this stage. I'll try not to overwhelm you.


.

 

[steenkh]

Listing properties that are unique to plasmas does not change the fact that plasmas are gases. Just like the fact that a square has sides of equal length does not change the fact that a square is a rectangle. An igloo has many special properties, but is still a building.