Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

I've spoken to my head of physics at kent uni and hes now reading Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" which he got from the plasma section of the astrophysics library. He said that if there are mistakes in it then it will have be be removed from their collection.

May I be so bold as to ask: have you read this book, Z?

What shortcomings did you find (assuming you read it)?

Since no-one in this thread has some up with rebuttals of it,

Refresh my memory, please ... when (i.e. post number(s)) was it introduced?

I doubt he will. Its one of the books that lecturers recommend to students studying astrophysical plasmas he told me, along with others.

It is? May I be so bold as to ask what (at least some of) the others are?

And do they recommend the book in its entirety, or just some chapters?

Till then we can simply continue with you ignoring the material therein and ignoring the near hundreds of citations it has had in the literature without any rebuttals.

Thanks for the input.

May I be so bold as to ask what do you, Z, consider to be a "rebuttal"?

I've also promised to lend him Alfvens cosmic plasma and The Big Bang never happemed (Lerner) as hes found this subject highly interesting since I introduced him to it.

Perhaps you could also consider inviting him to read this thread, and, even better, sign up as a JREF member, and join in the discussion.

I, for one, would be delighted to have a person of the kind you describe join in this thread!

Guess that soon he'll be another respected sceintist to add to Sols now titanic list of crackpots (ie, scientists that dare to have an open mind and consider rival theories)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?

I seem to remember certain posts on the subject of a "NASA meeting" (or some such), where two "academics" sparred (or some such). I also seem to remember that your concept of "academics" was not quite the same as others' (or has my memory failed me?).

And DRD, shutup, please, your constant attacks on me and whining are making me feel guilty that i've damaged your mental health in some way due to the material ive posted.

I look forward to you answering - genuinely answering - the dozens of direct, pertinent questions concerning the various ideas you've posted in this thread (shall I remind you of what they are?).

 

[Tubbythin]

1. Theories can be made to fit any curves you want to a certain extent. Add more layers and you get a better ability for your set of equations to fit whatever curve you may have. The history of BB cosmology on this count does not seem very good to me.

Hmm. The history of BB cosmology is landmarked by the prediction and future observation of the cosmic microwave background. Plasma cosmology, afaik, has no sensible answer to this - probably the most important discovery in the history of cosmology! Moreover, the agreement between the prediction and experimental results for the power spectrum of the CMBR is truly phenomenal. This relies on precisely one parameter. No prediction of so called plasma cosmology has ever come close to this.

I can understand new discoveries, but when you have a good theory the predictions come first and the discoveries second. From what I have read, this does not seem to be the course for BB. Inflation came only after the shock of the discovery of flatness and spatial homogeneity not working well together.

Huh? That's what science does. That's how it differs from religion. When theories do not match the data, tentative new theories are proposed and tested. Do you think we should reject this approach to science?

Plus, I am sorry, but I have a real hard time believing in a theory that has a field existing only around the beginning of time and with particles named Inflatons. It seems very ad hoc to me.

What does it matter the particles are called? Why should the universe have looked the same 13.7 billion years ago as it does now? We could assume a static, unchanging universe that violates the second law of thermodynamics. But it'd be an assumption that is in total conflict with an unbelievable amount of experimental data.

Add in Dark matter and energy having most of the universe being non-normal matter and it seems like to me you have some seriously huge fudge factors.

I really don't get why the fact that most of the Universe is "non-normal" is surprising. The composition of the Earth is nothing like the composition of the total Solar system, and yet you don't find this surprising. 24% of the "normal matter" of the universe is in the form of an element that wasn't discovered til 1868.

Dark matter I have read has some serious curve fitting issues as well (problems fitting radial velocity versus radius

Err. This is precisely (one of the) reason(s) dark matter is needed! You seem to have been seriously misled here.

, plus, how many models of Dark matter are there? Which one is it already?)

We don't know. That's why there are many models. We could just arbitrarily pick one. But that would be the antithesis of science.

. How did those halos get there around the galaxies in the first place? If they are so massive collectively, why don't they just coelesce into the center of galaxies instead of forming these monstrous sized halos?

Angular momentum conservation largely I think.

Plus, no one has yet directly detected dark matter.

Depends on your definition of direct.

Is that something I should feel confident about when in comparison if you look at the predictions for other types of matter such as with Dirac and antimatter or the rest of the zoo of particles in the Standard model they all were found in pretty much short order time. It makes me very suspicious that dark X is just dark thinking.

This isn't true. We're still waiting for the Higgs. We've been waiting for close to 50 years.

 

[Reality Check]

Let me respond to a couple posts at once. Starting with Reality Check and ending with Ziggurat.
...
I already said I agreed that I have no problem with believing the numbers astronomers have come up with in regard to large masses in little spaces. For Sag A* to be a black hole though requires two things, to have the numbers you quoted (agreed), and for GR to predict that black holes exist (not agreed). Quoting those numbers does absolutely nothing for your argument in this regard because the question is about whether GR predicts Black Holes. The only way to advance your argument is to see my paper, review it, and say it has a flaws I would think. I need your email since this is a pdf unless there is another way for me to send it to you or people you trust to review it.

So you have totally overturned the work of Schwarzschild and his derivation of the Schwarzschild metric (solution) to GR?
It is this solution that describes black holes.
This is the solution that is has been looked at by scientists for 95 years and derived by many 1000's of students over that period.

Your mathematical proof that it is wrong will be interesting. This is a bit of a derail of this thread so I suggest that you start a new thread. When you do so you can add your paper as an attachment.

However, given that

• GR is usually taught as a post graduate subject in its full glory rather than the more basic version taught to undergraduates.
• You seem to be an undergraduate.

then it is likely that the flaws are obvious.

Note that the observations of Sagittarius A* is not the only evidence for black holes. My favourite is the following which shows that the observed black holes do not have any surface.

Black holes also have another property - matter vanishes into the event horizon. This means that astronomers can compare observations of black hole candidates to objects that definitely have surfaces, i.e. neutron stars. Type I X-ray bursts are a characteristic of matter hitting a surface. They are seen when matter falls onto the surface of a neutron star, is compressed and heated as it accumulates which leads to thermonuclear reactions (and X-rays). For some reason any in-falling matter from the accrual disk of Sagittarius A* and the observed black hole candidates are not accumulating on a surface. So either there is no in-falling matter around these stars (unlikely) or we have event horizons:

• Advection-dominated Accretion and Black Hole Event Horizons; Narayan, Garcia & McClintock, Astrophysical Journal Letters 478(2): L79-L82, April 1997.
• Quasi-regular X-Ray Bursts from GRS 1915+105 Observed with the IXAE: Possible Evidence for Matter Disappearing into the Event Horizon of the Black Hole; Paul, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 492(1): L63-L66, January 1998.
• New Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons from Chandra; Garcia, et al., Astrophysical Journal 553(1): L47-L50, May 2001.
• On the Lack of Type I X-Ray Bursts in Black Hole X-Ray Binaries: Evidence for the Event Horizon?; Narayan & Heyl, Astrophysical Journal 574(2): L139-L142, August 2002.
• Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes; Done & Gierlinski, Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society 342(4): 1041-1055, July 2003.
• The Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons; Remillard, et al., Astrophysical Journal 646(1): 407-419, July 2006.

 

[Reality Check]

I've spoken to my head of physics at kent uni and hes now reading Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" which he got from the plasma section of the astrophysics library. He said that if there are mistakes in it then it will have be be removed from their collection. Since no-one in this thread has some up with rebuttals of it, I doubt he will. Its one of the books that lecturers recommend to students studying astrophysical plasmas he told me, along with others.

Till then we can simply continue with you ignoring the material therein and ignoring the near hundreds of citations it has had in the literature without any rebuttals.

I've also promised to lend him Alfvens cosmic plasma and The Big Bang never happemed (Lerner) as hes found this subject highly interesting since I introduced him to it.
...

Zeuzzz, I am not aware of any posters in the forum stating that the first 2 booke are some sort of crank "plasma cosmology" books like Lerner's.

Anthony Peratt's book does mention his rather bad interpretation of certain particle-in-cell simulations as looking like galaxies but the rest is standard plasma physics. It is a bit old (1992).

Alfven's book was a good textbook for when he wrote it (1982) but is definitely outdated. It may contain references to his invalid scientific theory also called plasma cosmology but nothing to do with the "plasma comology(s)" in this thread.

Lerner's book is a crank popular science book that is also outdated (last edition in 1992?) by the latest data from WMAP, etc. I think that your head of physics will soon see that.

See Ned Wright's Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" and Lerner's reply Dr Wright is wrong. In the latter, note that:

• He may be right about the state of knowledge of the large scale universe in 1992. However I am not aware of any problems with super-voids in current simulations.
• He has been shown to be wrong about dark matter (see my signature).

tensordyne:
You may not be aware of the flaws in listed about Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
The basic one is that his computer simuation produced things that look like photos of spiral galaxies predicting that there is no mass between their arms. But in fact the density of stars between the arms in spiral galaxies is only 10-20% less than the arms. The arms show up more brightly in photos because they contain more young, bright stars than the gaps between them.
The computer simulation should have produced disks not spirals.
Likewise (but not known in 1985) double-lobed radio galaxies were produced by the computer simuation but these are actually double-lobed radio emissions from elliptical galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

See Ned Wright's Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" and Lerner's reply Dr Wright is wrong.

One thing that I had not noticed before in Ned Wright's Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" is a link to a yet another calculation that has been done many times in this thread (and elsewhere):

The Sun is very massive, and we know the acceleration of the Sun as it goes around the Milky Way. Therefore we can compute the force needed to keep it in orbit and compare this to the electromagnetic forces. Thus it was easy for Ted Bunn to show that electromagnetic forces are 100 million billion times too small to affect the orbit of the Sun in the Milky Way.

 

[tensordyne]

for the record

I don't think you could have picked a worse example than Einstein. SR is (IMO at least) one of the most surprising and ground-breaking theories in the entire history of physics which insisted on the rejection of classical mechanics that had stood humankind so well for hundreds of years... and yet it was accepted almost immediately by virtually the whole scientific community.

For the record I was referring to Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. Then again, I can not think of anyway to prove my assertion then to quote "Introducing Quantum Mechanics" from the introducing series of comic books which by no means is a scholarly reference. So, oh well. Take your own pick of theory that was not recognized for its importance immediately.

 

[Zeuzzz]

get the pm tensordyne?

soz im being impatient

This page makes an interesting read, especially when you consider these exotic plasma types of fusion driven by double layers producing the fusion energy in space often attributed to gravitationally bound standard model type nuclear fusion steller events http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_glow_discharge#Fusion_in_Glow_Discharges

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes reality check they are old, most of the relevent science is in the journals and already linked to previously in this thread, however they are good at describing the science used in those papers.

And yes DRD I have read it. And yes i would like reminding.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sol and ziggurat I think that some people need to know the difference between ideal conditions / mathematical models and physical reality, as soon as you start making points even based on 'infinitely thin lines' your point is moot as there is no such thing, and I've never claimed there has been. Though I understand your pointing it out to prove the mathematical properties of the 1/r^2 relationship.

The dimensions of the hypothesised filaments are in the relevant papers. Maybe you yourselves could post the dimensions used and then explain why the biot savart force law under a bennet pinch condition does not hold.

Also consider the purely attractive nature of gravities fields role in determining the longest range force in the universe (no linear, or infinite, or remotely substantial lines of mass will ever form due to this attribute)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And yes DRD I have read it.

Glad to hear it.

What shortcomings did you find (assuming you read it)?

Refresh my memory, please ... when (i.e. post number(s)) was it introduced?

It is (one of the books that lecturers recommend to students studying astrophysical plasmas, along with others)? May I be so bold as to ask what (at least some of) the others are?

And do they recommend the book in its entirety, or just some chapters?

May I be so bold as to ask what do you, Z, consider to be a "rebuttal"?

I look forward to you answering - genuinely answering - the dozens of direct, pertinent questions concerning the various ideas you've posted in this thread (shall I remind you of what they are?).

And yes i would like reminding.

I shall be happy to oblige.

While I'm hard at work, obliging you, do you think there's a chance you could reciprocate, by answering some of my other questions?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I shall be happy to oblige.

While I'm hard at work, obliging you, do you think there's a chance you could reciprocate, by answering some of my other questions?

Infact forget it sorry but im not going to even pretend I have enough time to reinvest my time and energy into this thread, I have more pressing real world matters at the moment and I would likely not spend enough time to put my side across well enough. Even my current posts are brief as it is, so im going to say bye to this thread until I have more spare time.

 

[Reality Check]

This page makes an interesting read, especially when you consider these exotic plasma types of fusion driven by double layers producing the fusion energy in space often attributed to gravitationally bound standard model type nuclear fusion steller events http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_glow_discharge#Fusion_in_Glow_Discharges

Your interpretation that this has much to do with actual stars in this universe is way wrong.

It could be a possible energy source in the very precise engineering that we are capable of. It is possible that once in a while a star may accidently produce the same conditions that we can produce reliably and produce fusion in this way.

The first mistake is that double layers do not cause electrical discharges. They separate charges and accelerate electrons. Electrical discharges require the breakdown of a dielectric (insulating) material. Plasmas are really good conductors.


Real stars like the sun are observed to produce a flux of neutrinos that matches the predicted fusion in the core of the star. This fusion would also produce gamma rays. But (and this the second mistake):

• Real stars like the sun are not observed to produce the gamma rays that fusion produces.

The conclusion is obviously that something absorbs the gamma rays, i.e. that whatever creates the neutrinos is deep witin the sun. Therefore there cannot be any significant (as in measurable) fusion on the surface of the sun.
The third mistake is that the one electric universe/plasma cosmology citation is to a Thornhill paper that is refered to as a way to produce teh spectrum of stars (which oddly enough does no seem to be mentioned in the abstract). This looks like an electric universe theory not a "plasma universe" theory.


See also some of the content of Tim Thompson's posts in another thread:

• Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely.
• Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. II
• Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. III
• Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. IV

 

[Reality Check]

Sol and ziggurat I think that some people need to know the difference between ideal conditions / mathematical models and physical reality, as soon as you start making points even based on 'infinitely thin lines' your point is moot as there is no such thing, and I've never claimed there has been. Though I understand your pointing it out to prove the mathematical properties of the 1/r^2 relationship.

The dimensions of the hypothesised filaments are in the relevant papers. Maybe you yourselves could post the dimensions used and then explain why the biot savart force law under a bennet pinch condition does not hold.

Also consider the purely attractive nature of gravities fields role in determining the longest range force in the universe (no linear, or infinite, or remotely substantial lines of mass will ever form due to this attribute)

Firstly you seem to be spouting the invalid science of Perrat's model yet again: see Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation for the problems with these filaments actually existing.


I think that you are missing the point that sol invictus and Ziggurat are making.

1. There is an idea that there exists cosmic plasma filaments that have never been detected.
2. Add that there is an enormous current flowing through the filaments. You do not know where this current comes from. You do not know where the current goes to.
3. The Biot Savart force law states that there will be a force that varies as 1/r between 2 of these filaments when they are infinitely long. This is an good approximation for finite filaments far from the endpoints of the filaments.
4. Newtonian gravity states that there will be a force that varies as 1/r between 2 of these filaments when they are infinitely long. This is an good approximation for finite filaments far from the endpoints of the filaments.
5. Which force dominates depends on the current through, mass of and distance between the filaments. Gravity is always attractive. The Biot Savart force is attractive for parallel currents and repulsive otherwise.

If you want to waste your time with a debunked theory then you can do the math.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi, welcome to thr forum.

Just some general notions that you will have to get used to:
1. People critique people's ideas here, that is why the forum exists, to hone critical thinking.
2. Any person will be called on repeatedly to defend their ideas.
3. People will be asked to provide citation for material.
4. There will be discussion of definitions.

We all treat each other this way all the time, it is the way the forum operates. And please understand, Sol I may seem curt and most likely is, but if you are interested in physics, he and many posters here are very knowledgeable.

He may seem testy because this thread has already been over the ideas you presented, and they have been discussed at some length. he can really be quite good to people like me who have some knowledge but are clueless.

Those last replies are very good. I like the debye length answer because it definitely introduces doubt into my mind, which is always a good thing. I would beg your indulgence for you to consider what I have as lingering concerns. I will not try and cite them in any way because they are just what are on my mind. Think of them as a mostly regurgitation of PC/EU talking points so far as I have been able to determing. I hope that your grasp of the subject may put these concerns to bed if possible Reality Check.

1. Theories can be made to fit any curves you want to a certain extent.

Not really, that is a matter of some debate on the forum, But no, a theory can only be stretched so far. A revision is different fro just adding to a theory. But no certain theories fail because they do not match the data. You can only bend a theory so far and then it still does not match the data.

Newton’s and Keppler’s laws still apply and many scales, they are revised by GR and SR.

Add more layers and you get a better ability for your set of equations to fit whatever curve you may have. The history of BB cosmology on this count does not seem very good to me.

I suggest gently that perhaps then you need to really learn about it, I think this is a false sense of what the theory actually is, and a common topic on SMT.

I can understand new discoveries, but when you have a good theory the predictions come first and the discoveries second. From what I have read, this does not seem to be the course for BB. Inflation came only after the shock of the discovery of flatness and spatial homogeneity not working well together.

And that is the way science works, you add when you realize the current theory does not model something. Science is always about approximate models.

Plus, I am sorry, but I have a real hard time believing in a theory that has a field existing only around the beginning of time and with particles named Inflatons.

gently, that is not what the theory says at all.

It seems very ad hoc to me. Add in Dark matter and energy having most of the universe being non-normal matter and it seems like to me you have some seriously huge fudge factors.

Dark matter I have read has some serious curve fitting issues as well (problems fitting radial velocity versus radius, plus, how many models of Dark matter are there? Which one is it already?). How did those halos get there around the galaxies in the first place? If they are so massive collectively, why don't they just coelesce into the center of galaxies instead of forming these monstrous sized halos?

this a majot derail in a thread about Plasma Cosmology.

Plus, no one has yet directly detected dark matter. Is that something I should feel confident about when in comparison if you look at the predictions for other types of matter such as with Dirac and antimatter or the rest of the zoo of particles in the Standard model they all were found in pretty much short order time.

Not true. Have you heard of the Yukawa particles? When were the pions detected, when were the Gell-Mann theories made and tested?

It makes me very suspicious that dark X is just dark thinking.

I ask a simple question, do you believe neutrinos exist?

they are very similar to dark matter (as theorized), seriously, they are.

2. Comets do not act right according to astronomers.

this is where you should be asked.

Can you cite your source?

They are not made of water

Can you cite your source?

and yet are supposed to give off copious amounts of it because spectrographic techniques reveal that OH radicals are in the coma of comets. That does not make sense. Deep impact hit comet Tempel 1 and exploded far too much given what astronomers predicted beforehand.

Not really.
Can you cite your source?

It even had an initial spark as predicted in one of Wallace Thornhill's 17 predictions came true while none of the astronomers predictions worked out. Comets have been observed to give off X-ray light, how does that make sense when you should just have light from the sun sublimating rocky ice? Which gets to the other point, observations found that comets are not made of ice on the surface but look like asteroids.

Not really.
Can you cite your source?

3. Halton Arp, what is the deal? I do not think his cosmological ideas are probably correct but he does seem to have been unfairly abused.

not really again, he is a very smart man who has made some poor choices, his statistics are deplorable.
he could use random sample sets and control set to determine the truth of what he thinks is happening. He won't.

Why is it that galactic red-shifts absolutely have to be cosmological? Is there no other mechanism to explain it that is maybe less cosmos shaking?

If you examine them and they have been, the answer is no.

4. Black Holes do not exist. Sorry, you have more of a chance convincing me that the above three set of points are true then that black holes exist.

perhaps you have a lot to learn here?
1. is the path of light effected by gravitation?

Yes, there are things that have energy-densities that astronomers say they do. I do not doubt that. What I seriously doubt is that Black Holes are a prediction of GR. In fact, I know they are not. I have proven it using GR.

this is dangerous terriotry, if you are not up on the math and GR then you will become so, but if you think you can disprove it, you had better know your math, GR and have a very thick skin.

I don't expect you to believe me without seeing the proof, or even believe me if you do so the proof but I my honest appraisal is that it is true that Black Holes are not predictions of GR.

I can explain it partly as an analogy without going into the full math. This is just an analogy and NOT my proof. Imagine you solve the E field for a sphere of constant charge density. Apply Gauss' law and you get that outside the sphere the E field is proportional to 1/r^2 but inside it is proportional to r. If you were to screw up and say the outside solution is the same for the inside, the conclusion would then be that there is a charge singularity inside the sphere. Of course this is nonsense. From the derivation I have done something very similar to this is what happens for "Black Holes". If you want my proof I will email it to you Reality Check if you give me your email address.

i gently suggest you avoid this topic unless you really have a very firm grasp of the math involved.

Aren't black holes supposed to be important and needed for astronomy to explain some aspect of the universe? Look at Black Holes in all seriousness. They have a singularity where the rules of physics are supposed to break down. How is that explained, they are clothed in an event horizon, new unknown physics (new unknown physics seems to be garnered for a lot of problems in astronomy) occurs at the singularity.

this is a mis-statement and very vague.

Something else. Inside a black hole the signature for the metric switches once you get passed the event horizon, which is odd. It takes infinite clockmaker time to traverse a distance outside of the event horizon which has finite clockmaker distance (observer at infinity) but only takes finite proper time to make this happen. What in the world is that about?

If I did not know what I know about the real solution to the Schwarzschild case I would think these are signs that some aspect of GR does not make sense.

So, that is what is on my mind. I know I did not do anything in the way of citing anything.

well, this is the PC thread, so each of teh seperate topic do not belong here.

Just think of these (except for my own black hole comments) to be talking points if you want. Talking points that you can at your leisure deal with as you see fit. I can only say that the public at large is being asked to believe in some pretty incredible things if you follow astronomy. As of yet, I am not convinced. Please allay my doubts if you can Reality Check. It is not easy being a heretic. You too often get burned at the stake.

Please avoid statement like that last one, if your ideas are good, then you can defend them, if your ideas are in error, they will be handed back to you, with the errors pointed out.

But that stuff about heresy is for the Politics forum.

 

[Dancing David]

I think I write too much in a single post for it to be useful. Maybe we can use this last post as a map and go from there. Maybe I will start a new thread on the Black Hole subject in the future. To be honest, let me now only reply to the last part of the message. I think it is a bit naive to assume that even if I was to submit such a proof to a leading physics journal, that it would get in eventually, and even barring some miracle that it did get in, that that would make the slightest bit of difference, let alone a Nobel Prize.

I do not have a lot of trust that anything that I write would be taken even remotely seriously. A lot of peoples jobs depend on black holes existing. I know about the seedy side of the history of science and it does not give me a whole lot of confidence in that regard. Of course, you do not know if you don't try, so maybe I will just for laughs and to help beef up whatever paper I do write (because undoubtedly the review, if it takes it even somewhat seriously, will have good critiques on ancillary issues of the paper).

Psychology unfortunately plays out just as much for scientists as it does for the guy on the street, maybe even more so. Plank and Einstein's work were not heralded when they first came out. Wegener (eeek, I think that is his name) died in the frozen wastes long before his theories of plate tectonics were accepted. I imagine you might have a name to add to this list. Scientists as far as I can tell are surprisingly ideological in a way. I wish most scientists were Popper fans but most to me to be fans of Kuhn instead. In fact, most people in general are Kuhn-like in aspect so far as I can tell.

Thanks for the exclamation points and the critique and I am always happy to have you jump in on any post. Sorry for the dreary mood of this post. I am just trying to be realistic.

I see, this belongs in Religion and Philosophy, save the martyr act fro a crowd taht cares, here you defend your ideas and not make such outrageous claims.

I am beginning to wonder why you came here, perhaps you should save the dramatics and present your ideas, if others point out what they see as errors, save the drama, defend your ideas.

If you can't defend your ideas with starting this sort of political spin, then you can't defend your ideas very well.

they will stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, my main complaint with your posts is the constant going into peoples heads.

That's funny, because that's exactly what you were doing when trying to explain why none of the experts and professionals in the field ever caught what you, an amateur without much experience, discovered to be fatal flaws in the theory. You opened yourself up to that line of argument. If you don't like the results, well, there's an old saying about heat and kitchens...

 

[Ziggurat]

Sol and ziggurat I think that some people need to know the difference between ideal conditions / mathematical models and physical reality, as soon as you start making points even based on 'infinitely thin lines' your point is moot as there is no such thing, and I've never claimed there has been. Though I understand your pointing it out to prove the mathematical properties of the 1/r^2 relationship.

No, I don't think you really do.

The dimensions of the hypothesised filaments are in the relevant papers. Maybe you yourselves could post the dimensions used and then explain why the biot savart force law under a bennet pinch condition does not hold.

I never said it didn't. If you're close enough to the line source, it will. But what counts as close enough to the line source for 1/r scaling is exactly the same for gravity OR current. If the magnetic field scales as 1/r because you're close enough to the line, then so does the gravitational field. That's my point, and you completely missed it. Because I guarantee you, any line current is also going to be a line mass.

Also consider the purely attractive nature of gravities fields role in determining the longest range force in the universe

Indeed, I have. The purely attractive nature means the field is never weaker than 1/r², whereas for electric and magnetic fields, long-range forces tend to be 1/r³ (dipole) or weaker fields, because currents loop and charges don't separate much.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Gravity forms filaments II

Also consider the purely attractive nature of gravities fields role in determining the longest range force in the universe (no linear, or infinite, or remotely substantial lines of mass will ever form due to this attribute)

I am not sure what is meant here, exactly. But if I take the words "linear" and "line" literally, then this is a factually false statement. Gravity most certainly will reproduce the filamentary (roughly "linear") large scale structure of the universe. See, e.g., Emergence of Filamentary Structure in Cosmological Gravitational Clustering; Sathyaprakash, Sahni & Shandrin, Astrophysical Journal Letters 462: L5, May 1996 and citations thereto. The formation of linear structures on more local scales is equally valid under gravity. See, e.g., Gravitational Collapse and Filament Formation: Comparison with the Pipe Nebula; Heitsch, Ballesteros-Paredes & Hartmann, Astrophysical Journal 704(2): 1735-1742, October 2009.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

2. Comets do not act right according to astronomers. They are not made of water and yet are supposed to give off copious amounts of it...

Comets are found to be made of water - look up Deep Impact.
If you are thinking of the totallay insane electric comet idea then have a look at The electric comet fantasy completely debunked!

[...]

To add to RC's link: tusenfem, in post#41 of that JREF thread, provides an erroneous link to a thread in BAUT forum (and even if the link were valid, it's dead). The BAUT forum thread is Electric Comets.

However, a more detailed critique of Thornhill's material, which is what you may be thinking of, tensordyne, is to be found in a different BAUT forum thread, New results from the "Stardust" mission, particularly starting with post#64

 

[DeiRenDopa]

3. Halton Arp, what is the deal? I do not think his cosmological ideas are probably correct but he does seem to have been unfairly abused. Why is it that galactic red-shifts absolutely have to be cosmological? Is there no other mechanism to explain it that is maybe less cosmos shaking?

(bold added)

There's a JREF thread in which I go over this last question in some detail (the answer, in short, is "no, there isn't"); I'll see if I can dig it up.

Wrt Arp and quasars.

Quasars are merely one kind of AGN; there's QSOs, Seyferts, LINERs, blazars, BL Lac objects, and much more.

Assume, for now, that these are a single kind of astronomical object.

If so, then their redshifts are either indicative of distance (per the Hubble relationship), or not (per Arp's 'intrinsic redshift').

Establishing that just one of these is, indeed, at a distance from us consistent with the Hubble relationship is sufficient to show that they all are (and so Arp's idea is wrong inconsistent with all relevant observational evidence).

Enter gravitationally lensed quasars - one quasar, several images (I take it that you're familiar with strong gravitational lensing, tensordyne). Do such things exist, and if so from an analysis of their light curves (flux vs time), can consistent estimates of the distance to such objects be made, and if so, are those distances consistent with the Hubble relationship?

The answers are yes, yes, and yes.

Now one object may simply be an anomaly, for a wide range of possible reasons.

However, there are now ~100 such; see, for example, CASTLES (I don't know how up to date this is).

Assume that AGNs are a heterogeneous class; specifically, that there are 'local' AGNs (with 'intrinsic redshift', per Arp) and there are 'Hubble' AGNs (with 'Hubble relationship' redshifts).

The first thing to note is that none of the astronomers who have written papers on 'AGNs are local' - not Arp, not G. Burbidge (before he passed the second Chandrasekhar limit), not Bell, ... - have ever suggested this (and, to the best of my knowledge, neither has any EU/PC advocate).

The second thing is this: how to distinguish between the two kinds of AGN?

I'm sure you'd agree, tensordyne, that the 'burden of proof' for such an idea should rest with those who propose it. Such an idea should be extremely easy to test; there are, now, some ~1 million AGNs recorded in various astronomical databases (actually, considerable more; the ~1 million is for quasars alone), nearly all of them open.