Dark matter and Dark energy

[Belz...]

I just realized there has been little discussion of Dark Energy. Why is that?

Why, because it's a fairy tale that the scientistics made up and are using to explain what they can't explain. In reality, they KNOW that god did it.

 

[Belz...]

If you really want to know, why don't read the following by Anthony Peratt, a well-qualified expert in both EM effects and the behavior of plasmas:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap&SS.227..167S

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

I asked you a straight question, Chooser. How far ?

gnomophobia?

Cute. May I interpret this to mean that you simply want to champion a dead horse ? Or do you have an actual reason ?

Actually, the various threads have proven that most of your so-called "qualified people" either can't be bothered with looking up and reading the links I've offered ... or don't understand what they read.

Why ? Because they disagree with you ? So far, you haven't been very successful at explaining why their objections are wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

Ziggurat, what is the definition of a saddle point?

A saddle point is a point from which two directions of the field are outgoing and two are incoming. Imagine a mountain pass, and take the gradient of the height function. That gradient will look qualitatively like Zig's magnetic field at the origin (it's called a saddle because mountain passes and saddles both have that feature).

At first, it seems to me that your equation describes a point source. I assume that your unit vectors follow convention?

But when I work the math, I determine that the two-dimensional form of the divergence integral works out to 1/2 y^2 -1/2 x^2, evaluated along a unit circle centered on the origin, this is indeed zero.

No need to do an integral - the divergence is just zero. What's more relevant is the curl, which is pointing in the z direction with magnitude a-b. So this field configuration requires a constant volume current density flowing in the z direction. When a-b changes sign, the current reverses direction. So this type of reconnection corresponds to a time-varying volume current.

What's interesting is that, since the curl depends only on a-b and the divergence is zero, we are free to change a+b while still satisfying Maxwell's equations. We could take a+b = 0, for example, which describes circular rather than hyperbolic field lines. But this is as expected - to specify a vector field you must specify its curl, divergence, AND its normal components along some boundary.

 

[Beth]

Interesting article here that may shed some light on dark energy:

Graphite Whiskers, Rather Than Dark Energy, Could Explain Dimness Of Stellar Explosions


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228143538.htm

 

[sol invictus]

Interesting article here that may shed some light on dark energy:

Graphite Whiskers, Rather Than Dark Energy, Could Explain Dimness Of Stellar Explosions


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228143538.htm

Hmmm - that kind of idea has been tried several times before. The problem with explaining supernova dimming by absorption is that absorption almost always affects the spectrum (that is, it absorbs more in certain frequencies than others), and that isn't seen. So unless this graphite has very weird properties it's not going to work.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But isn't that essentially what mainstream theorists have suggested ... that dark matter particles started out essentially at rest with respect to other dark matter particles? How would they acquire escape velocity from each other?

Uh... no. They, like everything else following the big bang, would have had a thermal distribution of energies and hence velocities

First, how can something that isn't influenced by EM have much of a "thermal" distribution? Can you explain that? Everything I read seems to indicate that thermal involves EM or at least the ability to retain EM. Second, even if it can, that doesn't mean they still wouldn't be "essentially" at rest compared to escape velocity. How do you know what the initial velocities were? Admit it ... you know even less about the thermal distribution and initial velocities of dark matter than you do about dark matter itself. You can't even tell us where it came from in the Big Bang. Unlike dark energy, there isn't even a term in the Big Bang solution that might represent it. So who is "hard to take seriously" here, Ziggurat? Me? Or the guy with his arms full of gnomes?

 

[Ziggurat]

At first, it seems to me that your equation describes a point source. I assume that your unit vectors follow convention?

Yes: i is unit vector in x direction, and j is unit vector in y direction. Look at the equations closer: the x dependence of the field determines the y component, and the y dependence determines the x component.

But when I work the math, I determine that the two-dimensional form of the divergence integral works out to 1/2 y^2 -1/2 x^2, evaluated along a unit circle centered on the origin, this is indeed zero.

You messed up.
dB_x/dx = d(by)/dx = 0
and
dB_y/dy = d(ax)/dy = 0

 

[Dancing David]

First, how can something that isn't influenced by EM have much of a "thermal" distribution? Can you explain that? Everything I read seems to indicate that thermal involves EM or at least the ability to retain EM. Second, even if it can, that doesn't mean they still wouldn't be "essentially" at rest compared to escape velocity. How do you know what the initial velocities were? Admit it ... you know even less about the thermal distribution and initial velocities of dark matter than you do about dark matter itself. You can't even tell us where it came from in the Big Bang. Unlike dark energy, there isn't even a term in the Big Bang solution that might represent it. So who is "hard to take seriously" here, Ziggurat? Me? Or the guy with his arms full of gnomes?

Considering your arm load of gnomes and flailing, ianbility to answer direct question, it isn't Ziggy....

Where do the elements past iron come from?

What is the field strenth needed to make perrat's model work?

What are the conditions that a z-pinch would need to create elements past He?

What age is the universe?

ETA:

In fact BAC in looking at what Poisson values/distributions are the questions I asked about statistical methodology become evn more imporatnt!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

So to determine the ration correctly you need to now the occurence of the event of 'Qso in arc radius x' for the normative values of either 'QSO within arcradius x for a non-Arp galaxy' or 'QSO within arcradius x for a random point on the sky!

So you would need all three or two of the Poisson values to get an accurate number.

Is the Poisson distribution for QSOs:Arp objects meaningfully different than the Poisson distribution for the oether two states?

Without it the 'rarity' of the occurance is not meaningful.

 

[Wangler]

Thanks, Guys!

Sol and Zig,

Thanks for the math help. I'm a little rusty on my vector calculus!

Zig, I tried too hard, looking at my information regarding gauss's law and divergence of a 2-d vector field. I didn't see that it was simply the partial space derivative.

Very interesting, even if it has little to do with the thread topic.

Thanks again!

Keith

 

[BeAChooser]

I can't say I've looked into the effects of such reconnections enough to evaluate what they do

Well let me help you.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/35tps04-scott-pt2.pdf , "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, Donald Scott, October 2006 ... snip ... In 1961, Dungey proposed magnetic reconnection, an idea that Giovanelli conceived in 1946, to explain solar flaring. It has become widely accepted among astronomers that when more or less oppositely pointing field lines approach each other, they can abruptly 'short circuit,' 'merge,' or reconnect.' In this reconnected configuration, the field lines are bent tightly like the elastic strings of a catapult. When the field lines suddenly straighten, they supposedly fling out plasma in opposite directions. The reason that they suddenly straighten is assumed to be the second term in the MHD pressure equation"

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So is wikipedia wrong that Gauss' law requires field lines be closed?

No, that is correct (though more precisely, the divergence is always zero). And I showed you how reconnection can happen without the field lines ever being open. You don't seem to be able to figure out what I showed you, though. Does the field I demonstrated ever have open field lines?

How can something RECONNECT, if it wasn't ever open? How does the field get into the configuration where energy releases such as those in solar flares are postulated in the first place? The answer, as point out by Donald Scott above and confirmed in paper after paper put out by the mainstream community, is that it supposedly happens when oppositely pointing field lines approach each other, OPEN, and then RECONNECT. Why did you think they call it "magnetic reconnection", Ziggurat? So if wikipedia is right, then magnetic reconnection must be bogus.

And there's more to the story. The mainstream claims that energy is stored by the magnetic fields at the reconnection site and suddenly released to produce various space phenomena (such as solar flares). For example, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/programmes/MRT/mrt.html states "Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental process ... snip ... whereby magnetic field lines are broken (BAC - in other words, they OPEN, contrary to Gauss' law) and reconnected in an electric current singularity that is resolved by magnetic diffusion. It has the effect of converting inflowing magnetic energy into bulk kinetic energy, heat and fast particle energy."

But here's the problem ... again from Scott's article (http://members.cox.net/dascott3/35tps04-scott-pt2.pdf ) "Alfven addressed this point by noting that the second term (BAC - in the MHD pressure equation) is equivalent to the pinch effect that is caused by electric currents. ... snip ... The central point in Fig. 1 (BAC - which is a picture of your saddle point, Ziggurat) from which energy is supposedly released by magnetic reconnection (merging) is a neutral point, one at which the magnetic field strength is zero valued. ... snip ... Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point. If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral. The energy that is stored at any point in a magnetic field is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the magnetic flux density at that point, i.e, ... (BAC - see equation in the paper) ... where B_f is the magnitude of the magnetic field and dv is a small volume element. Thus, if B_f = 0 at any given point, then the stored energy there would be W_B = 0. No energy is stored at a neutral point ... snip ... No energy release can occur from any point at which no energy is stored. However, a large amount of energy can be stored in and released from the surrounding field structure but only if either or both currents I take on lower values. ... snip ... Investigators who prefer to avoid explicit mention of electric currents as a primary cause of cosmic energy releases fall back on magnetic reconnection as an explanation." And I would add that investigators who fail to mention electric currents don't really understand what is going on.

 

[Ziggurat]

How can something RECONNECT, if it wasn't ever open?

Did you not read the scenario I detailed? Because you have failed (multiple times now) to address ANY of the details. Is the field line through the point (-1,1) not in fact disconnecting from (1,1) and connecting to (-1,-1)? Yes, indeed it is. Does the field ever violate Gauss's law? No it doesn't. You are studiously avoiding addressing the actual field I gave you. I wonder why? Scratch that: I know exactly why.

The divergence is always zero. The problem with phrasing it as "the field lines are close" rather than "the divergence is always zero" is that you can miss what happens when a=b in my scenario. Where does the field line through (-1,1) go? Does it go through (1,1), or does it go through (-1,-1)? Well it sort of goes through both. And it can do that because it hits a saddle point when a=b. So if you insist upon looking at specific field lines, then you can think of it as the field line branching when it hits the saddle point, connecting to the new point before disconnecting from the old point, and never openning. But frankly, I don't care how you think about it. It reconnects, and the field always has a divergence of zero.

But thanks for sharing the fact that you still don't get the math.

The answer, as point out by Donald Scott above and confirmed in paper after paper put out by the mainstream community, is that it supposedly happens when oppositely pointing field lines approach each other, OPEN, and then RECONNECT.

I posted a field configuration where oppositely pointed field lines approach each other (consider the field lines passing through (-1,1) and (1,-1)), MERGE, and then reconnect. No openning required. If someone ever said they were opening, well, they could be using imprecise language, they could misunderstand it (you evidently do), but there's no requirement that they actuall be open - or more precisely, that the divergence ever be nonzero.

So if wikipedia is right, then magnetic reconnection must be bogus.

Except I've provided proof by counterexample that you can have magnetic reconnection without violating Gauss's law. And you can't address my scenario, can you? Of course not.

But here's the problem ... again from Scott's article(http://members.cox.net/dascott3/35tps04-scott-pt2.pdf )

Link doesn't work

The central point in Fig. 1 (BAC - which is a picture of your saddle point, Ziggurat) from which energy is supposedly released by magnetic reconnection (merging) is a neutral point, one at which the magnetic field strength is zero valued. ... snip ... Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point.

Zero B-field doesn't mean zero current. Current gives you the curl of the B-field, and the curl can be nonzero even at points where the field is zero. And in my case, the curl is indeed nonzero at the origin for a not equal to b. And while reconnection for (-1,1) happens when a=b, for other points it happens when a is not equal to b, and there is a current at the origin. Whoever this guy is, either he's talking about a specific field configuration which is NOT in fact a generalized scenario of magnetic reconnection, or he made an elementary and rather major mistake. In either case, I'm hardly impressed.

 

[Ziggurat]

First, how can something that isn't influenced by EM have much of a "thermal" distribution? Can you explain that?

It's got mass. So maybe it interacted with the Higgs bosons. There aren't really any free Higgs bosons flying around now, but there would have been early enough.

Everything I read seems to indicate that thermal involves EM or at least the ability to retain EM.

Well, you misunderstand, as you so often do. The vacuum EM field has thermal properties, and so IF something interacts via EM effects (which is most matter), those effects will be important to its thermal characteristics, but they are not a requirement. Look up the basic equations of thermodynamics. Look up the definition of entropy and temperature. You will find that they refer to the energy of the system and the density of states, but they do not specify the form that energy takes. That generality is, in fact, at the heart of why thermodynamics is so bloody powerful.

Second, even if it can, that doesn't mean they still wouldn't be "essentially" at rest compared to escape velocity.

That depends upon the individual particle's masses. If they're light enough (like neutrinos), that will pretty much always be the case. But even with ordinary matter, it's only through the loss of energy that most of it was ever able to condense out of clouds into more compact forms, so we don't even need to assume that dark matter was super-light.

How do you know what the initial velocities were?

I don't. But unlike you, I understand enough to know what they could be.

Admit it ... you know even less about the thermal distribution and initial velocities of dark matter than you do about dark matter itself. You can't even tell us where it came from in the Big Bang. Unlike dark energy, there isn't even a term in the Big Bang solution that might represent it.

News flash: there's no solution in general relativity that tells us where ordinary matter came from either. Why? Because the relevant equations aren't part of general relativity. They're particle physics. If dark matter theories are correct, then we're still a long way from having a good particle theory of dark matter. Wow, who would have thought - science is involved with trying to figure out things we don't understand yet!

So who is "hard to take seriously" here, Ziggurat? Me?

Yes, you.

 

[sol invictus]

Did you not read the scenario I detailed?

Either BAC can't understand the math and yet continues to argue about something he can't comprehend - in which case he's a fool - or he understands and yet continues to argue the contrary - in which case he's a liar.

Which is it, BAC?

Back to the real world, let me point out that magnetic reconnection in plasma has been verified countless times in numerical simulations AND confirmed experimentally at the Princeton Plasma Physics lab. There is no question of its existence.

Zig gave an example of planar reconnection, but there are (harder to visualize) possibilities which don't take place in a plane. Roughly Zig's case is like a peanut outline turning into a figure-8 and pinching off at the center. Everything is confined to a plane. But instead you can imagine a loop undergoing a twist. When the lines cross at the center of the loop due to the twist, they can reconnect and split the loop apart into two.

 

[iantresman]

Back to the real world, let me point out that magnetic reconnection in plasma has been [..] confirmed experimentally at the Princeton Plasma Physics lab. There is no question of its existence.

.
Sounds interesting, do you have a citation to a paper?

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
This might be a z-pinch on the surface of our own sun:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/MDI_T171_000317_11.gif

You can see filaments all coalescing into or emanating from a single point.

over there it's a sun spot.

Yes, David, there is sunspot in that image. But there is something else above it, which I guess you can't (or simply won't) see.

Quote:

This might be one in what the mainstream claims is a pulsar:

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg

The shape of the discharge matches that of a z-pinch and there is a synchrotron jet just like a z-pinch can produce.

Wandering and waving.

No, David ... just more phenomena that your closed mind simply won't let you see or understand. Tell us, David, what mainstream phenomena do you think produced the "bow-like" arcs in that image or the coalescing filaments in the previous one? They infer the presence of a z-pinch at least as much as galactic rotation curves infer dark matter (provided you ignore electromagnetic effects otherwise the inference is even stronger).

As is most of what follows.

I think the shape and characteristics of SN 1987A are strong evidence of z-pinch phenomena. There are even peer reviewed scientific articles on it like the one I linked earlier on this thread which your side of this debate ignores ... just like you ignore the peer reviewed articles suggesting that the flat shape of rotation curves is due to electromagnetism and that many high redshift objects are statistically associated with low redshift objects to a highly improbable degree. Ignoring papers like these is what your does when they have no rebuttal.

That does not explain the other characteristic of supernovae in the least, is a z-pinch going to produce the elements past iron BAC, you have avoided that question repeatedly.

No I haven't, David. You just haven't really tried to understand what has been posted over these many threads ... as anyone who reads this thread can easily see is a characteristic of you.

BAC - Third, the mainstream assumes that except for the ratios of hydrogen and helium in ordinary stars, the composition doesn't change.

Except for when it does, you are just asserting without understanding. The composition does change, whatever. Where does carbon and oxygen come from?

Do you think that carbon and oxygen come from stars burning happily on the main sequence? Those are the ones I'm talkng about here, David. Are you trying not to understand?

I have not said that z-pinches can not occur and the corona seems a good candidate. But is it going to be enough to go past iron?

Why not, David? Mainstream theory claims that heavy elements are created under the following conditions due to several neutron capture processes (see http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html ).

One is the s-process and that source says "about half of the elemental abundances between Fe and Bi are produced by the s process, which is associated with stellar He burning scenarios of evolved Red Giant stars." Now according to the mainstream, helium fusion begins at about 0.1 GK with red giants eventually seeing core temperatures on the order of 3 GK which will produce Fe. Do you know how hot a z-pinch can get, David? Sandia Labs has already achieved over 3.7 GK in their z-pinch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine).

According to http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html , the "r process, which is responsible for the production of about half of the heavy-element abundances including Th and U, is characterized by enormous neutron densities ... snip ... and time scales of a few seconds. These conditions clearly point to an explosive scenario, e.g., core collapse Supenovae". But the densities in the plasmoids of z-pinches can also be very high. Now granted those densities aren't maintained very long in lab experiments but the phenomena that EU theorists have identified as z-pinches in space clearly do have very long durations. In fact, this press release from LLNL (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7430 ) states that "Large lasers and Z-pinch generators in laboratories are recreating conditions relevant to astrophysical phenomena of the universe such as supernovae".

Finally, http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html states that there "are 32 proton rich nuclei between Se and Hg, which can neither be produced by the s process nor the r process. These nuclei are attributed to the p process, which requires high temperatures of about 2-3 GK." But as I already noted, laboratory z-pinches have already achieved those temperatures. And the temperatures achieved seem to just keep going up and up.

And one more thing, David. What do you suppose happens to those high velocity jets produced by z-pinches when they hit a cloud of plasma or gas in the vicinity?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=310582 "2005 ... snip ... Fusion and nucleosynthesis by hypervelocity impact using hybrid magnetic fields ... snip ... The electromagnetic acceleration ... snip ... results in a converging beam of particles reaching a velocity above 1000 km/s. Lithium, gold, and uranium rings are considered and transient temperatures ranging from 10⁸ to 10¹⁰ °K are expected. In the presence of deuterium and tritium fusion reactions will occur and the capture of the released neutrons may result in the synthesis of heavier elements."

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mkuchner/rpjet2.pdf "2002 ... snip ... SOME NUCLEOSYNTHESIS EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH R-PROCESS JETS ... snip ... material in the jets should have a velocity of about 0.5c corresponding to a kinetic energy of about 140 MeV per nucleon. In this paper some of the nucleosynthesis consequences of this scenario are further explored. " Why that paper even mentions z-pinches, David.

So you are going to know say that every thing is in the local area.

David don't misrepresent what I posted. That's just plain dishonest. Unless, of course, you want to admit that you didn't take the time to actually read what I posted. Then your response would be stupid.

now the wonder gnome says that that they split apart.

Come now, who has the biggest gnome? The side that suddenly discovers the star was a binary and labels it a new type of star in order to explain why something that usually takes hundreds or thousands of years appears to have taken only a few months (even though they still admit they can't explain it even with half a dozen models)? Or the side whose model simply says that under great electrical stress a body of plasma might split in two?

And you don't understand that the mainstream model allows for stars to change their position on the HR diagram very quickly, in some cases less than a month.

Please provide a link to support this claim ... as I provided links to support my statement to the contrary. The notion that stars can move off the main sequence and become supergiants in a matter of weeks is contrary to established mainstream theory. Period.

Furthermore, provide a link suggesting that stars can evolve from one type of star on the main sequence into another that is still on the main sequence but at the opposite end of it in a matter of months. The notion that they do that is contrary to long established mainstream theory. Period.

This is what the mainstream says should happen:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/StarOutcomes.JPG

http://universe-review.ca/I08-03-HRevolution.jpg

They do not move along the main sequence as you seem to dishonestly want folks to believe, David.

Now I think its time to simply go back to ignoring you. Life's too short.

 

[BeAChooser]

Interesting article here that may shed some light on dark energy

Thanks for the heads up. This will one more peer reviewed work that Big Bang, redshift is distance proponents will probably ignore. Afterall, apparently carbon whiskers in space are no longer a gnome. And we all know they only seem able to see gnomes.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, David, there is sunspot in that image. But there is something else above it, which I guess you can't (or simply won't) see.

That still doesn't answer the original question, which was about red giants as I recall.

No, David ... just more phenomena that your closed mind simply won't let you see or understand. Tell us, David, what mainstream phenomena do you think produced the "bow-like" arcs in that image or the coalescing filaments in the previous one? They infer the presence of a z-pinch at least as much as galactic rotation curves infer dark matter (provided you ignore electromagnetic effects otherwise the inference is even stronger).

You are changing the topic again which was about the red giants.

You are avoiding giving explanations and trying distraction.

I think the shape and characteristics of SN 1987A are strong evidence of z-pinch phenomena. There are even peer reviewed scientific articles on it like the one I linked earlier on this thread which your side of this debate ignores ... just like you ignore the peer reviewed articles suggesting that the flat shape of rotation curves is due to electromagnetism and that many high redshift objects are statistically associated with low redshift objects to a highly improbable degree. Ignoring papers like these is what your does when they have no rebuttal.

You haven't answered the pointed question of what magnetic field strength would be required and if that has been observed yet.

So you are ignoring the question, because you don't understand it or can't answer it.

Which?

the statistics still are uncontrolled, will you address that?

No I haven't, David. You just haven't really tried to understand what has been posted over these many threads ... as anyone who reads this thread can easily see is a characteristic of you.

Wow, that is still not an answer.

So instead of answering question you now try character slurs, how quaint of you Karl.

Just can't answer the question, so arm waving will ensue.

Do you think that carbon and oxygen come from stars burning happily on the main sequence? Those are the ones I'm talkng about here, David. Are you trying not to understand?

I am asking you a pointed question, current theory says that the temperature and pressure needed are available to create those elements.

Does z-pinch do that or not?

Why not, David? Mainstream theory claims that heavy elements are created under the following conditions due to several neutron capture processes (see http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html ).

One is the s-process and that source says "about half of the elemental abundances between Fe and Bi are produced by the s process, which is associated with stellar He burning scenarios of evolved Red Giant stars." Now according to the mainstream, helium fusion begins at about 0.1 GK with red giants eventually seeing core temperatures on the order of 3 GK which will produce Fe. Do you know how hot a z-pinch can get, David? Sandia Labs has already achieved over 3.7 GK in their z-pinch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine).

So it gets hot, does it meet the other criteria or are you just waving one of your magic gnomes around, the Mr. Z-pinch, so can you show where a z-pinch would produce higher elements and what conditions it would occur in? (Theoretical of course)

that is a legitimate question, and it could be yes, under these conditions.

Right now you are just waving and not answering.

According to http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html , the "r process, which is responsible for the production of about half of the heavy-element abundances including Th and U, is characterized by enormous neutron densities ... snip ... and time scales of a few seconds. These conditions clearly point to an explosive scenario, e.g., core collapse Supenovae". But the densities in the plasmoids of z-pinches can also be very high.

But do they get high enough?

High is not enough by the current model, gravitational pressure is insufficient and it requires a pressure wave.

So are plasmoids dense enough?

Now granted those densities aren't maintained very long in lab experiments but the phenomena that EU theorists have identified as z-pinches in space clearly do have very long durations. In fact, this press release from LLNL (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7430 ) states that "Large lasers and Z-pinch generators in laboratories are recreating conditions relevant to astrophysical phenomena of the universe such as supernovae".

Finally, http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/nuc-astro/HeavyElements_e.html states that there "are 32 proton rich nuclei between Se and Hg, which can neither be produced by the s process nor the r process. These nuclei are attributed to the p process, which requires high temperatures of about 2-3 GK." But as I already noted, laboratory z-pinches have already achieved those temperatures. And the temperatures achieved seem to just keep going up and up.

And one more thing, David. What do you suppose happens to those high velocity jets produced by z-pinches when they hit a cloud of plasma or gas in the vicinity?

I really don't care, it could be.

But that does not yet explain nucleosynthesis under the z-pinch model, which could be likely, but what does the theory say?

remember that stars are commonly seen to have these elements and in certain proportions, which the BBE has a partial explanation for.

Jets are not an answer yet.
Can you answer or are you just waving your magic wand :The Z-pinch.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=310582 "2005 ... snip ... Fusion and nucleosynthesis by hypervelocity impact using hybrid magnetic fields ... snip ... The electromagnetic acceleration ... snip ... results in a converging beam of particles reaching a velocity above 1000 km/s. Lithium, gold, and uranium rings are considered and transient temperatures ranging from 10⁸ to 10¹⁰ °K are expected. In the presence of deuterium and tritium fusion reactions will occur and the capture of the released neutrons may result in the synthesis of heavier elements."

Which heavier elements?

That is a jet, how do you get from there to the general proportions and the proportions in a red giant?

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mkuchner/rpjet2.pdf "2002 ... snip ... SOME NUCLEOSYNTHESIS EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH R-PROCESS JETS ... snip ... material in the jets should have a velocity of about 0.5c corresponding to a kinetic energy of about 140 MeV per nucleon. In this paper some of the nucleosynthesis consequences of this scenario are further explored. " Why that paper even mentions z-pinches, David.

Why you still have a lot of splaining to do.

how does it get distributed in the general proportion of H, He and LI and the proportion seen in the exterior of gas giants.

You got a long trip ahead.

David don't misrepresent what I posted. That's just plain dishonest. Unless, of course, you want to admit that you didn't take the time to actually read what I posted. Then your response would be stupid.

can't answer question so you get rude, still can't answer, what didn't I understand?
Your lack of explanation?

Come now, who has the biggest gnome? The side that suddenly discovers the star was a binary and labels it a new type of star in order to explain why something that usually takes hundreds or thousands of years appears to have taken only a few months (even though they still admit they can't explain it even with half a dozen models)?

the standard model allow for the transition of a giant to occur in a very short period, why are you ignoring that?

And you are suggesting some sort of static young universe model.

You are the one whose explanation of a red giant was "whatever reason" which is an "insert miracle here" and you assert that z-pinches can produce higher elements but no explanation of the theory to explain it.

So wave away, two more questions you can't answer.

Or the side whose model simply says that under great electrical stress a body of plasma might split in two?

A model that can't explain how stars shine or nucleosynthsis 9at least that you have explained), and now you are resorting to "whatever reason".

My, your inability to explain your own ideas is getting worse.

You don't get it, I think that plasma cosmology has great merit, and it was discussed how the z-pinch can transform H into He, but there is a lot of assertion and a whole lot of nothing in the electric sun.

So show where you can account for the general proportion of elements and the specific proportion of elements the way the BBE does.

Please provide a link to support this claim ... as I provided links to support my statement to the contrary. The notion that stars can move off the main sequence and become supergiants in a matter of weeks is contrary to established mainstream theory. Period.

Okay will do, how about you answering direct questions?

Furthermore, provide a link suggesting that stars can evolve from one type of star on the main sequence into another that is still on the main sequence but at the opposite end of it in a matter of months. The notion that they do that is contrary to long established mainstream theory. Period.

Blah, blah blah, the HR diagram is that not another magic unit.

This is what the mainstream says should happen:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/StarOutcomes.JPG

http://universe-review.ca/I08-03-HRevolution.jpg

They do not move along the main sequence as you seem to dishonestly want folks to believe, David.

Now I think its time to simply go back to ignoring you. Life's too short.

And so you show you can't even understand your own theory much less explain it.

I asked a lot of questions about your magic wonder gnome the z-pinch.

You aren't answering them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the heads up. This will one more peer reviewed work that Big Bang, redshift is distance proponents will probably ignore.

You really can't seem to get anything right. This might affect distance measurements of type 1a supernovae because those measurements are based upon brightness, and not on redshift. That might change the exact form of the relationship between distance and redshift (which is related to the expansion rate of the universe), but it won't change the fact that distance and redshift are related, with farther objects being more highly redshifted.

 

[Dancing David]

BAC, I am in my usual state of confusion, what is it exactly about red giants and the mainstream model that you don't like in terms of a time line:
1. that it takes considerable time for the H/He ratio to sink to the level that gravitational collapse is intiated, that takes a considerable time.
2. the event of gravitational collapse and the fusing of he which takes considerably shorter.

Which part is it that you are objecting to?

How you doing at that magnetic field? What strenth does it need to be?
Can z-pinch provide for fusion of hevay elements especialy those past iron?

 

[sol invictus]

.
Sounds interesting, do you have a citation to a paper?

Here are 20 or so:

http://mrx.pppl.gov/