Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz said:
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?

[Peratt references]
Click to expand...


(fourth time with no comment)
Click to expand...
As RC has already noted, these have been commented on extensively already, both in this thread and others.

Also, I think you'll find - when you get around to actually reading them - that several of the >30 posts of mine I listed earlier contain direct questions to you about at least one of these documents, as well as commentary on the extent to which this work of Peratt falls short of being realistic ... in other words, Peratt may be modelling a universe, but it is not the one that we happen to live in ...
 
Reality Check said:
I will have to add these to my list of plasma structures created from various energenic sources (e.g. black holes and galactic collisions).
Click to expand...

Guess you missed this from the second source:

"these new results are puzzling as the energy produced by the black hole can only ionize gas for a distance of 50,000 light years."
 
sol invictus said:
I'm not sure there's really a distinction there. For example, would you say stars (other than the sun, say) have been directly detected, or only their "effects"?
Click to expand...

We actually see the sun because of the light generated by it. The same cannot be said for dark matter. We have NOT seen it. We don't know what it is. Even after decades and decades and decades. You only INTERPRET the motions you SEE as being the result of dark matter. But perhaps your interpretation is flawed. Perhaps you're holding the trunk and calling it a tree when in fact it's an elephant.
 
Reality Check said:
In the case of the Bullet Cluster there are 2 observations that are considered direct:

• The hot gas detected via x-rays.
• Matter detected by gravitational lensing.
Click to expand...

Hot gas emitting x-rays can exist for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with dark matter. By the way ... it's not gas ... it's plasma. And gravitational lensing calculations are based on a number of assumptions. Which may or may not be right.
 
BeAChooser said:
Hot gas emitting x-rays can exist for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with dark matter. By the way ... it's not gas ... it's plasma. And gravitational lensing calculations are based on a number of assumptions. Which may or may not be right.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read about the Bullet Cluster?
The hot gas is not the dark matter. It is the gas that has been heated by the collision of the clusters.
List the assumptions in gravitation lensing and why they may not be correct. N.B. If you read the original paper then you will see that the calculation does not depend on the distance to the Bullet Cluster.
 
BeAChooser said:
We actually see the sun because of the light generated by it. The same cannot be said for dark matter. We have NOT seen it. We don't know what it is. Even after decades and decades and decades. You only INTERPRET the motions you SEE as being the result of dark matter. But perhaps your interpretation is flawed. Perhaps you're holding the trunk and calling it a tree when in fact it's an elephant.
Click to expand...
We have seen dark matter because of the bending of light (micro-gravitational lensing). This is as good an observation as the light that we see the sun by, the radio waves used in radio telescopes or the many other techniques that astrononmers use to observe the universe.
The rotations of galaxies and motions of galaxies within galactic clusters were just the beginning of the evidence for dark matter. Your knowledge seems to be "decades and decades and decades" out of date.

A local observation that supports the existence of dark matter: Dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are 400 times more massive than their visible matter.
 
BeAChooser said:
Hot gas emitting x-rays can exist for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with dark matter.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

In the case of rich (relaxed) clusters, do you have an explanation for the quantitative observations of the hot gas/plasma that does NOT involve CDM?

I mean a consistent explanation ...
By the way ... it's not gas ... it's plasma. And gravitational lensing calculations are based on a number of assumptions. Which may or may not be right.
Click to expand...
Yep ...

... just like the rest of astronomy ...
 
Reality Check said:
Dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are 400 times more massive than their visible matter.
Click to expand...

Wow ... that gnome just keeps getting more and more important.

By the way, did you notice this statement in your source:

By knowing the minimum volume that dark matter can occupy, the researchers were able to calculate other physical properties of dark matter. One of these properties was speed, which turned out to be about 6 miles per second (9km/s). "That's about a million times faster than predictions," Gilmore said in a telephone interview.
Click to expand...

Only off by a million times? That's some predictive theory you have. :rolleyes:
 
Reality Check said:
Beacuse gas is more a general term than plasma and includes plasma. ;)
Click to expand...

Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe. :)
 
BeAChooser said:
Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe. :)
Click to expand...
The problemm is determining whether what we are observing is a plasma or just an ionized gas. If we do not know then calling it a gas is safer since that term includes plasma. Perhaps you know the ionization and Debye length parameters of the hot gas detected in the Bullet Cluster. If you do then share it with us and then we can see if it is a plasma or not. Personally I think that it is a plasma but I am not sure and so I follow the standard practise of calling it a hot gas.
 
BeAChooser said:
Wow ... that gnome just keeps getting more and more important.

By the way, did you notice this statement in your source:



Only off by a million times? That's some predictive theory you have. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Huh?

I thought this thread was about Plasma Cosmology ... am I mistaken?

If not, then can you please provide a consistent, quantitative explanation for the observations (of the dwarf galaxies) that is built from first (plasma physics) principles? Preferably one that is contained in a paper (or three) published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ...
 
BeAChooser said:
Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe. :)
Click to expand...
OK ...

And for the gas/plasma in question (that which pervades rich clusters of galaxies), what - specifically and quantitatively - are the differences in those properties (gas vs plasma), as they pertain to astronomical observations of those clusters, or potential observations of those clusters?
 
BeAChooser said:
Wow ... that gnome just keeps getting more and more important.

By the way, did you notice this statement in your source:



Only off by a million times? That's some predictive theory you have. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Unlike your unsbstantiated speculation and groping after tidbits of information.

care to put any of your pet theories to the number test?

I offer sincerely to you, you name the object, the mass, the charge and change in velocity that can be accounted for in the EM forces of the 'flat rotation curves of galaxies'. So far we have zilch from Zeuzzz, do you want to try.

It is a great idea, as many ideas are , however it has yet to be applied to reality.

Or would you rather I just ask the seven questions that you won't answer again. This being a polite version of number two question.

You haven't shown anything that would substantiate the Perrat model of galaxy rotation, nor has Zeuzzz.

(Welcome back BTW :) )
 
BeAChooser said:
Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe. :)
Click to expand...

Like this pop snippet of mainstream science:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080703113646.htm

There are plenty of sources that use the term plasma all the time. It is amazing how you focus on the 'does an angel wear tights' kind of question rather than showing that your theories mean anything.

:)
 
Reality Check said:
The problemm is determining whether what we are observing is a plasma or just an ionized gas.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL! The definition of a plasma is "ionized gas".

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/plasma.htm - Definition: Plasma is a distinct phase of matter, separate from the traditional solids, liquids, and gases. It is a collection of charged particles that respond strongly and collectively to electromagnetic fields, taking the form of gas-like clouds or ion beams. Since the particles in plasma are electrically charged (generally by being stripped of electrons), it is frequently described as an "ionized gas."

http://www.scala.com/definition/plasma.html - Just as solids, liquids and gases are states of matter, plasma is a state of matter. Specifically, plasma is ionized gas. That is, gas that has been given an electrical charge by being stripped of electrons.

http://space.about.com/od/glossaries/g/plasma.htm - Definition: plasma: A low-density gas in which the individual atoms are ionized ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) - In physical and chemical usage, plasma refers to an ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free, rather than being bound to an atom or molecule.

And how many times have we discussed that here at JREF in threads you were present?
 
BeAChooser said:
ROTFLOL! The definition of a plasma is "ionized gas".

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/plasma.htm - Definition: Plasma is a distinct phase of matter, separate from the traditional solids, liquids, and gases. It is a collection of charged particles that respond strongly and collectively to electromagnetic fields, taking the form of gas-like clouds or ion beams. Since the particles in plasma are electrically charged (generally by being stripped of electrons), it is frequently described as an "ionized gas."

http://www.scala.com/definition/plasma.html - Just as solids, liquids and gases are states of matter, plasma is a state of matter. Specifically, plasma is ionized gas. That is, gas that has been given an electrical charge by being stripped of electrons.

http://space.about.com/od/glossaries/g/plasma.htm - Definition: plasma: A low-density gas in which the individual atoms are ionized ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) - In physical and chemical usage, plasma refers to an ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free, rather than being bound to an atom or molecule.

And how many times have we discussed that here at JREF in threads you were present?
Click to expand...
In physical and chemical usage, plasma refers to an ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free, rather than being bound to an atom or molecule.

Also
<H3>Definition of a plasma
Click to expand...
Although a plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, a definition can have three criteria:[8][9][10]
  1. The plasma approximation: Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby charged particles, rather than just interacting with the closest particle (these collective effects are a distinguishing feature of a plasma). The plasma approximation is valid when the number of electrons within the sphere of influence (called the Debye sphere whose radius is the Debye screening length) of a particular particle is large. The average number of particles in the Debye sphere is given by the plasma parameter, "Λ" (the Greek letter Lambda).
  2. Bulk interactions: The Debye screening length (defined above) is short compared to the physical size of the plasma. This criterion means that interactions in the bulk of the plasma are more important than those at its edges, where boundary effects may take place.
  3. Plasma frequency: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is large compared to the electron-neutral collision frequency (measuring frequency of collisions between electrons and neutral particles). When this condition is valid, plasmas act to shield charges very rapidly (quasineutrality is another defining property of plasmas).
Click to expand...
</H3>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom