Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[sol invictus]

Not if electrostatic repulsion was the thing stopping the star from collapsing in the first place, instead of hydrostatic equilibrium from the energy being produced at the core, ie, the nuclear model.

WE ALREADY HAD THIS CONVERSATION. If the star has a net charge, it has an electric field at its surface. That's a consequence of Gauss' law. If it has a charge large enough for EM forces on its motion to be significant, the field at the surface would be incredibly large and it would immediately explode. You model is ruled out by something like a factor of a trillion.

Are you still trying to make it easier for you to come to terms with by denying that "plasma cosmology" exists? why use quotation brackets?

Because it doesn't exist - just a mishmash of woo that doesn't deserve either of those two words in its name.

Due to the magnetic moments of the atoms, which is related to the motion of charge.

Wrong.

Care to address anything else in my post?

Why the XXX should I? You're a liar, a troll, and a conspiracy theorist. You have no interest in science or in learning, and I'm not going to waste my time talking to you.

 

[Zeuzzz]

WE ALREADY HAD THIS CONVERSATION. If the star has a net charge, it has an electric field at its surface. That's a consequence of Gauss' law. If it has a charge large enough for EM forces on its motion to be significant, the field at the surface would be incredibly large and it would immediately explode. You model is ruled out by something like a factor of a trillion.

If the universe was a neutral gas, then maybe what you say is true, but it is not. Its plasma. Simple 1/r² laws that you are using can not be applied, as the interacting volume increases as r³. And my post was not about charge on stars anyway, just the one comment right at the top, it was about the assumptions and bold extrapolations of gravity, which you have chosen to completely ignore.

Because it doesn't exist - just a mishmash of woo that doesn't deserve either of those two words in its name.

So you are going to ignore the things that you cant answer? good. Glad to have cleared that up.

Hopefully someone else will.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You're a liar, a troll, and a conspiracy theorist. You have no interest in science or in learning, I'm not going to waste my time talking to you.

Good. Please stop. You obviously have no interest in learning anything new, you just presume that everything you have ever learnt is all 100% correct, that we nearly know everything there is to know in the universe, to you your physics book is your bible, and any rival scientific theory is seen as blasphemy and must be silenced, this is why you get so angry and hurl personal comments at anyone that commits the sin of endorsing a scientific theory that is at odds with your personal world view. But hey, who am I to say this, I suppose you know it all.

You said you put me on ignore a number of times now, yet you obviously think that what I post is worth your time as you keep responding in your usual angry and confrontational way.

I think that it is highly likely that the hierarchy of structures in the universe, the lab, earth, solar system, galactic to cosmos does not stop at the laws that we use in the solar system, but requires a corresponding hierarchy of theories. Inventing new entities and new free parameters to simulations will not be sufficient; this type of approach seems to me to be a modern day version of the epicycles of Ptolemy. Extrapolating theories beyond their true testable scope should be avoided, unless we want to walk down the path of ever more complex theories piled up ontop of each other in an attempt to try to hold on to the basic law underlying them all, this type of approach merits a warning from history.

The amount of research that is done in cosmology based on this unverified extrapolation of gravity over some 14 orders of magnitude is quite a remarkable spectacle.

 

[Reality Check]

The amount of nonsense that pc cosmology has based generated on this unverified extrapolation of plasma over some 14 orders of magnitude is quite a remarkable spectacle.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The amount of nonsense that pc cosmology has based generated on this unverified extrapolation of plasma over some 14 orders of magnitude is quite a remarkable spectacle.

Nonsense. I outlined the assumptions in scaling gravity above in a clear way. No-one has responded to them. You have not outlined any of the assumptions in plasma scaling, and have infact cited a wikipedia page on plasma scaling based on the work of the worlds two leading plasma cosmology proponents, in an attempt to try to disprove plasma cosmology. Such an action demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking. Time for a reality check, realitycheck. Did you see this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3837537&postcount=733

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. I outlined the assumptions in scaling gravity above in a clear way. No-one has responded to them. You have not outlined any of the assumptions in plasma scaling, and have infact cited a wikipedia page on plasma scaling based on the work of the worlds two leading plasma cosmology proponents, in an attempt to try to disprove plasma cosmology. Such an action demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking. Time for a reality check, realitycheck. Did you see this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3837537&postcount=733

What assumptions? All I saw was your mention of dark matter and dark energy which has nothing to do with scaling.

As for plasma scaling - that is your claim not mine. It is up to you to support it not me.

ETA:
If you want a good, modern and critical review of the status of gravitational physics have a look at: Why do we Still Believe in Newton's Law ? Facts, Myths and Methods in Gravitational Physics

 

[Zeuzzz]

ETA:
If you want a good, modern and critical review of the status of gravitational physics have a look at: Why do we Still Believe in Newton's Law ? Facts, Myths and Methods in Gravitational Physics

Thanks for pointing out this excellent publication. I would highly recommend it to anyone reading this thread in finding out the assumptions in Newtons law of gravity that can not be justified. Infact the sources that he uses are very similar to the ones that I read most of the material from in the above post, (mainly http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v59/i1/p157_1, and others). For example he lists all of the gravitational anomalies I showed above that are found when measuring the gradient of g in deep mines, etc, and he uses the exact same graph that I posted above to demonstrate the scales on which gravity lacks validation. He even has a section on the problem of checking that the exponent 1 on M in Newtons law is correct, and also agrees that gravity has been extrapolated far beyond what should be scientifically sound. Infact thats a brilliant publication, as it asseses each separate scale that gravity has been applied to and clearly demonstrates the issues faced when extrapolating gravity to larger scales based on 1 or 2 laboratory based experiments.

You might want to read my lengthy post above, which pretty much addresses all of the main points in that paper. And Sol said it was all woo and chose to ignore it, shows how much he knows And indeed, Why do we Still Believe in Newton's Law? The author of that paper certainly seems to think that we should not.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What assumptions? All I saw was your mention of dark matter and dark energy which has nothing to do with scaling.

Just incase you missed it here it is again. I didn't once mention dark matter or energy, and they are nothing to do with my arguments. I was referring to the indesputable scaling problems, and amazingly bold extrapolations that we use when modelling gravity at large scales.

However, the following quote from a very popular book on astronomy, is quite remarkable:

Galactic dynamics (page 635)

The above cited 'bold extrapolation' of gravity seems to have encountered problems even in the solar system now, with the pioneer and voyager anomalies, so it seems very naive to presume that gravity functions how we currently model it when applied to much larger scales.

Many tests show that gravity obeys an inverse square law in terms of distance, but little work has been done on observations that test the dependence on the field mass, M. Since mass estimates of the whole universe depend on it, determining the absolute value of G is kinda important. The thing is that they all tend to give different values for G, and whereas other (fundamental) constants in nature achieve an accuracy of over 12 decimal places the value of the gravitational constant lags behind with far greater uncertainty, with only about 3-4 decimal places remaining undisputed by various methods. This indicates that we still have a lot to learn about the true nature of gravity.

A lot of work has been done on determining the value of G. What seems lacking however are test which test the spatial and temporal dependence of G, which can also be used to test Newtons law as well. At the atomic level, although you can work out the ratio of electric and gravitational forces at 2.27x10³⁹ (respectively), this has never been measured as particles this size are too light to be used as field masses. Gravity is amazingly illusive at this small scale, and remains so right up to much larger scales. At the standard laboratory scale the torsion balance is the usual method, done usually over a distance of 10 – 30 cm, which is the method used by originally by cavendish, which has changed very little to this day. One further method is by using a superconducting gravimeter and a moving mass (see http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/10/6/311).


And that’s about it from methods of determining G directly. We only have direct confirmation of this law over a very small scale range, from laboratory to geological size, it is presumed from this that it applies exactly to all other scales. Other larger scale methods like satellite based experiment’s to find the value of G, such as LLG, are in fact finding the product M_EG, using the mass of the Earth, under the presumption it is correct, and other larger scale estimates use generally use the mass of the sun (inferred from the mass of the Earth) to determine G.

Another interesting way to test gravity would be check the dependency of Newtons law on the amount of field mass in question. Which is an idea lacking much experimental verification too. When M = m (in F=GMm/r²) the law becomes symmetric, but a deviation for large masses would not violate the equivalence principle, at least within its experimental constraints which apply mostly to test masses. It is often claimed that any physical theory has to be linear in the weak-field-limit, but this cannot be definitively proven, mainly due to the amazingly weak nature of gravity making tests for this very hard. We just perform an extrapolation of our mathematical methods, which should be tested. There are plenty of ways to test the r² term in Newtons law, but testing the exponent 1 on M is much more difficult to prove.

Torsion balance experiments typically use masses in the range 5 – 20 Kg, and this is the mass at which we base our most accurate measurements of G. And this mass range goes up to about 10⁷ Kg with lake experiments to measure gravity (see: Determination of the gravitational constant with a lake experiment.), which achieved results close to laboratory values, but not to such a high degree of accuracy. Generally, the more mass is used the less reliable the value becomes. And when you get to the solar system scale satellite data of planetary orbits can not be used to find the field mass dependence of Newtons law (ie, the exponent of M not equal to 1 in F=GMm/r²) as the same data is used to measure the mass. You can use Keplers law to test the validity of the inverse square relationship, but this can not reveal an exponent of M different from 1. This problem stems from not being able to find independent mass estimates of these larger scale objects (apart from some very crude methods with a very high amount of uncertainty), and so from the mass range of the moon \earth (10²³ kg) all the way up to sun, no accurate test for this exists. When dealing with the galactic scale (from 10³⁹ to 10⁴⁴) you run into the same problem of not having independent mass estimates. And this applies to all scales above the solar system. Solar mass to light ratio measurements for galaxies do not fit the dynamically determined mass, and so dark matter is invented to explain this failure of Newton’s law. And right up on the cosmological scale Newtons law fails, and so dark energy is invoked to explain the anomalies. So over time Newtons law has been patched up with numerous ad hoc solutions, but maybe instead of just assuming these entities exist and can explain away everything we should just consider that the law of gravity is plain wrong when applied to large scales. This is where theories like MOND and others come in. And while MOND presents more problems than it solves (in my opinion), it has been very useful in pointing out another problem with Newtons law, that it is poorly tested for accelerations below 10⁻¹⁰ms⁻².

The amount of research that is done in cosmology based on this unverified extrapolation of gravity over some 14 orders of magnitude is quite a remarkable spectacle.

There are considerable gaps in our knowledge about how gravity functions at large scales. Take a look at this graph for example;

Generally objects fall into three groups at different scales. The group on the left are the only area where direct absolute measurements of G are possible, from tiny scales up to geological scales. Everything else on this table, from our satellites up to super-massive black holes are extrapolations of Newtons law that remain to be tested, as even the middle group are testing Keplers law rather than Newtons. For the group on the right, none of them offer any sort of undisputable evidence for Newtons law, without having to invoke quantities such as dark matter or energy. To put it simply, tests of the field mass dependence are entirely determined by only 1-2 independent types of experiments on the small scale. The extrapolation to the other larger objects is assumed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

As for plasma scaling - that is your claim not mine. It is up to you to support it not me.

You linked to a page on plasma scaling at wikipedia, and the only major recent citation they give is to Peratts publication; Advances in the numerical modelling of space plasma. Which can be seen here; http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesI.pdf

Not included is his follow up publication, here; http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf

I have posted these publications three times already on this page alone.

Incase you cant be bothered to read it and all the material in it on plasma scaling and plasma EM forces on the large scale, I'll quote some of it from my various resources, but you understand that it is very long, and if i post the whole thing it will be removed for copyright reasons. Maybe this is the reason why no-one takes PC seriously, no-one reads all the blo*dy links I post. So heres an extract, if its not too long;

Thus, solids, liquids, and gases are the most identifiable forms of matter on earth and their transference to other 'masses' in the universe, such as the planets and their satellites, but also to the stars and galaxies seemed reasonable in the development of astronomical theories (Figure 2).

The merits of the artist's concepts depicted in Figure 2 are straightforward. This is a picture fully consistent with Newton's laws and the general development of astrophysics since his time. The only unknowns have to do with the properties of the solid (or gaseous or liquid) matter itself. The basic force law is

F = mG + radiation forces, (1)

where G is the gravitational constant. The force between two objects separated a distance r is

F = -GMm/r², (2)

where m1 and m2 are the respective masses of the objects. In this scenario, space, being treated as a vacuum, is safely ignored. As G is assumed constant, all interpretations of observed astrophysical forces F are then determined by m. Generally and especially at galactic and super-galactic dimensions, F is too large to be explained by the observed mass leading to the necessity of unobserved masses of various and differing magnitudes to balance Equations (1) and (2). Because the observed forces are so much greater than that predicted in this model, hypotheses such as 'black-holes' have arisen and the search for their existence has been of the highest priority in the field since their suggestion in 1969.

Today, one can question the relevance of Equations (1) and (2) to the study of the dynamical properties of astrophysical objects and the evolution of the universe. Contrary to popular and scientific opinion of just a few decades ago, space is not an 'empty' void. Planetary and interplanetary spacecraft probes have shown space to be filled with high energy particles, magnetic fields, electric fields, and highly conducting plasma. The ability of plasmas to produce electric fields, either by instabilities brought about by plasma motion or the movement of magnetic fields, has popularized the term 'Electric Space' in recognition of the electric fields systematically discovered and measured in the solar system.

1.2. THE FOURTH, OR 'FUNDAMENTAL' , STATE OF MATTER

For plasma, now often popularly referred to as the 'fourth state of matter',' the force laws are given by

F = mG e (E v x B) + radiation forces, (3)

where E, B, and v are the electric and magnetic field strengths, and the plasma velocity across field lines, respectively. The force between charges q is

[latex]{\frac{-q^2}{4{\pi}e{0}r{2}}}[/latex] (4)

(excuse the weird equations, latex works weirdly on this forum for some reason. The text before the fraction should be ontop, or just put a 1 over the missing fraction line and they are equivalent)

where e₀ is the permittivity of free space. When the charges q are in motion with velocity u, the forces between the resulting currents I = qv are

[latex]{F=\frac{-\mu_{0}I_{1}I_{2}}{2{\pi}r}}[/latex] (5)

It is noteworthy that Equations (4) and (5) are inherently 10³⁶-10³⁹ orders of magnitude stronger than are Equations (1) and (2). It is especially noteworthy that Equation (5) follows an r^-1 dependency instead of the r^-2 dependencies of the gravitational and electrostatic force laws Equations (2) and (4), making it the longest range force law in the universe. In addition, Equation (5) can be positive in sign, i.e., repulsive, when the interacting currents flow in the opposite sense. This can lead to scenarios where matter distributed for hundreds of megaparsecs can appear to fall towards no observable matter (e.g., a missing 'great attractor'). The importance of electromagnetic forces on cosmic plasma cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (— 10 ^-4 parts ionized), the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10⁷. [....]

And I provided the proof under which Maxwells equations, unlike gravity or electrostatics, are scale invarient. Maybe I should do this again too.

For example, take the electric field E(x,a), which by Maxwell are represented by [latex]\nabla^{2}E=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\delta^{2}E}{\delta{a^2}}[/latex] [and also the equivalent form magnetism applies, using B(x,a) ], for the transformation [latex]x \rightarrow \lambda{x}[/latex] and also [latex]\lambda{x} \rightarrow \lambda{x}[/latex], the relationship holds, giving scale invariant field equations. Maxwell’s Electromagnetism is scale invariant.

What more evidence do you want? Empirical observations of this scaling from laboratory to cosmic?

Heres a couple for now;

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: from laboratory to cosmic plasmas.
FROM MACROSCOPIC SIGNS OF NANODUST IN SPACE TO PROBABLE SIGNIFICANCE OF ELECTRODYNAMICS AT COSMOLOGICAL LENGTH SCALES
Similarity of structuring in the range 10-5 cm to 10^23 cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe
Interrelationship between plasma phenomena in the laboratory and in space

 

[sol invictus]

If the universe was a neutral gas, then maybe what you say is true, but it is not. Its plasma. Simple 1/r² laws that you are using can not be applied, as the interacting volume increases as r³.

Gibberish. As usual, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the laws of electromagnetism - the subject you claim to love so much.

you just presume that everything you have ever learnt is all 100% correct, that we nearly know everything there is to know in the universe, to you your physics book is your bible, and any rival scientific theory is seen as blasphemy and must be silenced, this is why you get so angry and hurl personal comments at anyone that commits the sin of endorsing a scientific theory that is at odds with your personal world view.

One thing that makes you so entertaining is how far off the mark everything you say is - not just the physics. I have written multiple papers about alternative gravity models - it's one of the focuses of my research. The idea that I'm somehow wedded to Newtonian or Einstein gravity is just.... dumb. Like everyone else in the field, I'm constantly looking for alternatives, trying new ideas, searching for something that can account for dark energy elegantly, etc. Because of this I know very well what the evidence is and what the constraints are. There are very few - if any - alternative models which can survive both the experimental and theoretical constraints.

In fact, gravity has been tested with extreme accuracy on every scale from around a millimeter to scales considerably larger than the solar system, and with good accuracy out to the Hubble length. Moreover we have a lot of theoretical knowledge - most theories you might try are either not self-consistent or end up violating some non-obvious experimental constraint.

You see, zeuzzz, to build a real theory of physics you actually have to work. You spend years studying electrodynamcs, gravity, stellar physics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, quantum field theory, experimental data. You can't simply take some plasma experiments you happen to be fond of an extrapolate them to the universe. It just doesn't work.

You said you put me on ignore a number of times now, yet you obviously think that what I post is worth your time as you keep responding in your usual angry and confrontational way.

Wrong as usual. I put you on ignore once, but in the end I decided it was entertaining to respond to some of your nonsense.

 

[Tubbythin]

.
Not if electrostatic repulsion was the thing stopping the star from collapsing in the first place, instead of hydrostatic equilibrium from the energy being produced at the core, ie, the nuclear model. It often helps to know the model you are arguing against before critisising it.

How could electrostatic repulsion give hydrostatic equilibrium?

 

[sol invictus]

Because gravity is not scale invarient. Neither are electrostatics. Most of Maxwells equations for electroare.

For example, take the electric field E(x,a), which by Maxwell are represented by [latex]\nabla^{2}E=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\delta^{2}E}{\delta{a^2}}[/latex] [and also the equivalent form magnetism applies, using B(x,a) ], for the transformation [latex]x \rightarrow \lambda{x}[/latex] and also [latex]\lambda{x} \rightarrow \lambda{x}[/latex], giving scale invariant field equations. Maxwell’s Electromagnetism is scale invariant.

What is this garbage? What the heck is "a"? If I change several nonsense symbols (like that curly delta) that equation looks vaguely like one of Maxwell's equations in vacuum, but of course even then it doesn't apply in a plasma. As for scale invariance, Maxwell's equations are more than that - they are actually conformally invariant. But your statement about x->lambda x (and lambda x -> lambda x') is gibberish, and more importantly the presence of a plasma breaks the invariance completely - don't you know anything about your favorite topic? Haven't you ever heard of the Debye length, or the plasma frequency? Tell us, oh zuezzz, how can a theory with a scale be scale invariant?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Gibberish. As usual, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the laws of electromagnetism - the subject you claim to love so much.

Ha! Go on then, say why this quote, taken from a mainstream publication from a respected journal is gibberish and maybe I'll believe you. I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521626072

“By definition, plasmas are an interactive mix of charged particles, neutrals, and fields that exhibits collective effects. In plasmas, charged particles are subject to long-range, collective Coulomb interactions with many distant encounters. Although the electrostatic force drops with distance (~1/r²), the combined effect of all charged particles might not decay because the interacting volume increases as r³. Magnetic field effects are often global with their connections reaching to galactic scales and beyond”

One thing that makes you so entertaining is how far off the mark everything you say is - not just the physics. I have written multiple papers about alternative gravity models - it's one of the focuses of my research. The idea that I'm somehow wedded to Newtonian or Einstein gravity is just.... dumb. Like everyone else in the field, I'm constantly looking for alternatives, trying new ideas, searching for something that can account for dark energy elegantly, etc. Because of this I know very well what the evidence is and what the constraints are. There are very few - if any - alternative models which can survive both the experimental and theoretical constraints.

In fact, gravity has been tested with extreme accuracy on every scale from around a millimeter to scales considerably larger than the solar system, and with good accuracy out to the Hubble length. Moreover we have a lot of theoretical knowledge - most theories you might try are either not self-consistent or end up violating some non-obvious experimental constraint.

You see, zeuzzz, to build a real theory of physics you actually have to work. You spend years studying electrodynamcs, gravity, stellar physics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, quantum field theory, experimental data. You can't simply take some plasma experiments you happen to be fond of an extrapolate them to the universe. It just doesn't work.

So your still not going to comment on the above paper that reality check posted as a "good, modern and critical review of the status of gravitational physics", which outlines the major assumptions and bold extrapolations of gravity that can not be justified? Many of the points I infact posted myself above that you dismissed as woo and did not respond to? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702009v2

 

[Zeuzzz]

What is this garbage? What the heck is "a"? If I change several nonsense symbols (like that curly delta) that equation looks vaguely like one of Maxwell's equations in vacuum, but of course even then it doesn't apply in a plasma. As for scale invariance, Maxwell's equations are more than that - they are actually conformally invariant. But your statement about x->lambda x (and lambda x -> lambda x') is gibberish, and more importantly the presence of a plasma breaks the invariance completely - don't you know anything about your favorite topic? Haven't you ever heard of the Debye length, or the plasma frequency? Tell us, oh zuezzz, how can a theory with a scale be scale invariant?

Oh dear. Take a look at the scale invarience page at wikipedia, which shows the exact relationship I posted! they just use t instead of a to represent one of the variables; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance#Scale_invariance_of_field_configurations

Massless scalar field theory

Another example of a scale-invariant classical field theory is the massless scalar field (note that the name scalar is unrelated to scale invariance). The scalar field, \varphi(\mathbf{x},t) is a function of a set of spatial variables, \mathbf{x}, and a time variable, t. We first consider the linear theory. Much like the electromagnetic field equations above, the equation of motion for this theory is also a wave equation [...]

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sol, what do you make of these publications, which show numerous long distance EM forces in plasmas on the large scale that are comparable, if not stronger on occasions, to gravity?

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A .L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 [Adobe annotated edition]

(fourth time with no comment)

 

[Reality Check]

You linked to a page on plasma scaling at wikipedia, and the only major recent citation they give is to Peratts publication; Advances in the numerical modelling of space plasma. Which can be seen here; http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesI.pdf

Not included is his follow up publication, here; http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf

I have posted these publications three times already on this page alone.

I have read these before and basically they are the same stuff that we have already debunked in this thread. The diagrams of galactic formation look very familiar, almost as if the simulations have not been run again since 1987.

And I provided the proof under which Maxwells equations, unlike gravity or electrostatics, are scale invariant. Maybe I should do this again too.

General Relativity (you may have heard of it) is as scale invariant as Maxwells equations. In fact the 2 can be combined into 1 theory: Kaluza–Klein theory.

What more evidence do you want? Empirical observations of this scaling from laboratory to cosmic?

Heres a couple for now;

Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: from laboratory to cosmic plasmas.

I cannot access the full article: What is their definition of a "cosmic plasma", e.g. is it inter-galactic medium or is it on a larger scale.

FROM MACROSCOPIC SIGNS OF NANODUST IN SPACE TO PROBABLE SIGNIFICANCE OF ELECTRODYNAMICS AT COSMOLOGICAL LENGTH SCALES

This is a tiny bit wooish as it cites Peratt's "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity” paper quoting:

The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols (primarily, petroglyphs). This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current z-pinches to these patterns...

The rest gives a another pc theory to add to the list: Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe.

Similarity of structuring in the range 10-5 cm to 10^23 cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe

See the previous link.

Interrelationship between plasma phenomena in the laboratory and in space

Nice editorial and nothing to do with scaling beyond the solar system.

Papers included in this special issue serve to synthesise our current understanding of processes related to the coupling and feedback at disparate scales. Categories of topics included here are (1) ionospheric physics and (2) Alfvén-wave physics, both of which are related to the particle acceleration responsible for auroral displays, (3) whistler-mode triggering mechanism, which is relevant to radiation-belt dynamics, (4) plasmoid encountering a barrier, which has applications throughout the realm of space and astrophysical plasmas, and (5) laboratory investigations of the entire magnetosphere or the plasma surrounding the magnetosphere. The papers are ordered from processes that take place nearest the Earth to processes that take place at increasing distances from Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
• Iron Sun?
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section).

PC completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled withouth any problems to cosmic scales.

 

[Zeuzzz]

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section).

PC completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled withouth any problems to cosmic scales.

Nonsense. I outlined the assumptions in scaling gravity above in a clear way. No-one has responded to them. You have not outlined any of the assumptions in plasma scaling, and have infact cited a wikipedia page on plasma scaling based on the work of the worlds two leading plasma cosmology proponents, in an attempt to try to disprove plasma cosmology. Such an action demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking.

I'll address your other bullet points, and error in reasoning tomorrow when i'm not so tired I'm seeing double.

 

[Tubbythin]

Really, you need two?

It was your post that was badly written, not mine.

Yep, crap, lets just give up. Game over.

If we discovered the laws f physics were not invariant under translation the yes, we might as well give up. Thankfully there's no evidence of that.

Well, dir. 1/r²

Again it was your post that was badly written. Its pretty hard to tell with you when you're explaining what you mean badly and when you're just being rubbish at physics.

This has nothing to do with anything. COM is all very well, and I'm not trying to undermine that. I suggest you read the rest of my post where I elaborate on my position, not just the first few sentences.

I notice you ignored my question at the start of the post.

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. I outlined the assumptions in scaling gravity above in a clear way. No-one has responded to them. You have not outlined any of the assumptions in plasma scaling, and have infact cited a wikipedia page on plasma scaling based on the work of the worlds two leading plasma cosmology proponents, in an attempt to try to disprove plasma cosmology. Such an action demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking. Time for a reality check, realitycheck. Did you see this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3837537&postcount=733

I think that I have found the post where you "outlined the assumptions in scaling". I thought that it was the one you linked to but it may be this one.
If that is so then the assumptions seem to be in

There is no definitive law for gravity at all scales. Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is the formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts an equal attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity. It is assumed, and assumed is the correct word here, that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of the Earth or whether it be deep inside the Earth. When using the Cavendish balance to determine the mass of the Earth, it is assumed that each particle exerts a fixed force upon all others. This assumption rules out the very real possibility that particles near the surface of a planet might exert a force greater/less than those deep down.

I think that the real proof of the scalabiliy of gravity comes with the scalability of General Relativity. This built into the theory (like it is built into Maxwell's equations). There are also large scale observations that confirm GR, e.g. gravitational lensing. The confirmation of Newtons's law at lower scales is nice to have. I agree that there are big gaps.
IMHO the match between the Lambda-CDM model large scale structures and the observed large scale structures is support for GR (but not evidence since maybe MOND theories could produce the same results).

The equations governing plasma do not have scalability built into them. In fact thay have inherently unscalable pararmeters such as the Debye length. That is why similarity transformations have to be used to translate the plasma parameters into dimensionless parameters that can often be scaled subject to limitations. The observations of plasma scaleability also has the same problem as gravity: big gaps in the scales. We have seen big plasma structures, e.g. 5000 lightyear long jets from supermassive blcak holes, and know about large diffuse plasma such as the intragalactic meduim. But there is no evidence of plasma dominated structures at cosmic scales.

There is evidence of gravity dominated structures at cosmic scales - the walls, filaments and voids seen in the distribution of galaxies and predicted by the Lambda-CDM simulation.

If you can claim that this is actually plasma domination then I would be interested in the paper that contains the simulation that duplicates the structure (published since 2003 so that the latest data is compared).

 

[BeAChooser]

We have seen big plasma structures, e.g. 5000 lightyear long jets from supermassive blcak holes, and know about large diffuse plasma such as the intragalactic meduim. But there is no evidence of plasma dominated structures at cosmic scales.

http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2007/03/05/index.html "Researchers from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) and the University of Tokyo used Subaru's Suprime-Cam camera to discover an unusual streak of ionized hydrogen gas associated with a galaxy 300 million light-years from Earth. The filament of gas is only 6 thousand light-years wide, yet extends 200,000 light-years, about the distance between the Milky Way Galaxy and its companion, the Large Magellanic Cloud."

http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2002/04/index.html "Observations with Suprime-Cam on Subaru Telescope have detected for the first time long filaments of ionized hydrogen gas extending 110,000 light years above the disk of a galaxy. In the new image, the gas shows up in red and purple and appears to burst out of the center of the galaxy, reaching as far as the upper-left corner of the image. This galaxy, called NGC 4388, belongs to the Virgo Cluster, a large group of galaxies some 60 million light years from our own Milky Way galaxy."

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_releases/press_092007.html "the comet-like tail was observed in X-ray light with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and in optical light with the Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope in Chile. The feature extends for more than 200,000 light years and was created as gas was stripped from a galaxy called ESO 137-001 that is plunging toward the center of Abell 3627, a giant cluster of galaxies."