Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

Observations and the forces of nature (gravity)

In my previous post I talked about the classifications of astronomical objects, and how a strong desire (of humans) to know 'what things are, really' has lead to not only some satisfying answers (e.g. variable stars with {insert description of time variability of their light curves} ARE eclipsing binaries), but has inextricably involved the application of the physics of the day.

In this post I'd like to take a look at what the process of going from observations - in general, not just in astronomy - to fully internalised theories (in physics) is like, and what it involves. Much of this post is adapted from the second one I provided a link to, in my previous post, in another thread.

What is "gravity"? Does "gravity" exist? Is it "a force of nature"?

In that other thread, a JREF Forum member proposed a very simple test which demonstrates that gravity, as a force of nature, exists; something like this: hold a weight, such as a bottle of water, in one hand, hand facing down; with your other hand underneath it, palm up, let go of the ball ... the ball will drop into your (lower) hand; ergo, gravity exists.

But does it really? After all, all this test shows is that the weight falls when released from one's hand; to call that 'gravity' is rather underwhelming.

However, we can proceed empirically - being very careful to define just what we mean by this word - and make lots of observations, actively (doing 'tests', or 'experiments') or passively, with lots of different objects, in lots of different places, at lots of different times.

We will find - empirically - that there are plenty of cases where objects do not drop, or fall, when released; for example, a leaf on a windy day, a piece of wood released under water. And we need to confront the problem of induction too.

By being careful, and using induction, we can gradually build more and more powerful summaries of the results of hundreds, thousands, millions, ... of observations (whether active experiments or just passive observations), and in the best of these summaries the word 'gravity' will be used, as will the word 'nature'.

In that sense the word 'gravity' may be said to have great explanatory (and predictive) power.

In parallel, and to some extent overlapping, we may develop other summaries of empirical tests (of 'nature') which include another word with great explanatory (and predictive) power, 'force'.

Historically, with some anachronisms and a bit of revisionism, this gets us up to somewhere in the 1500s, maybe a bit earlier, maybe a bit later.

Now we add a true revolution, which I shall term the quantitative revolution ... we can move on from nice word summaries to adding first numbers and then equations, and 'gravity as a force of nature' becomes something whose explanatory and predictive powers expand enormously ... but only if the equations and numbers are understood! We are now in the time of Galileo (more or less).

At that time the heavens and Earth were separate - nature consisted of two almost totally independent parts, each with its own 'forces'; how the planets moved across the sky, for example, had nothing to do with how cannon balls (and feathers) fell when let go.

Then, in the myth, an apple fell on Newton's head while he was gazing at the Moon (it was daytime) ... and nature became unified, and the universal law of gravitation was published.

It was quickly tested, by 'curve fitting' - applying math to points in the sky - and found to work.

And a century or so later - well after Newton had died - a key part of Newton's law was tested in the lab.

So what does all this have to do with a persistent feature of so much EU material? A great deal actually.

First, the 'known forces of nature' that 'EU theorists' are so enamored with, are known via equations and numbers only; if you work at the 'qualitative' level, you cannot have 'known forces of nature'.

Second, a century (or more) may well pass between the first publication of the equations and numbers describing a 'known force of nature' and its testing in the lab.

Third, the application of math to points on the sky can lead to acceptance of a new 'force of nature'.

And so on.

Now we know, from reading lots of EU materials, and from the posts of such JREF Forum members as Z and MM, that many 'EU theorists' reject all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes the EU approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, plasmas, the CMB, quasars, Einstein's EFE, filaments, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).

If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of so many EU proponents' approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There are no 'observations'; there is only theory

There are no 'observations'; there is only theory.

This is the third, and final, post on astronomical observations and one aspect of how (and why) so much EU material is wrong. In a later post I'll address the persistent EU myth concerning Arp and quasars.

This month's (April 2009) 'Source of the Month' from H.E.S.S. is Cen A.

Look at Fig. 1 on that webpage; the caption reads: "Smoothed gamma-ray sky map of the region around Centaurus A. The cross indicates the position of the radio core of the active galaxy. The inset illustrates the effective point spread function of the instrument including the effects of smoothing, showing that the source appears point-like."

Is this an 'observation'?

I would expect that everyone who has posted to this thread would agree that it is, indeed, an astronomical observation.

But what is it, in reality? And how does its nature, as an observation, tell us anything about muddle-headed thinking by EU proponents?

Let's start with the name; H.E.S.S. stands for High Energy Spectroscopic System, and the H.E.S.S. website describes it like this:

H.E.S.S. is a system of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes that investigates cosmic gamma rays in the 100 GeV to 100 TeV energy range. The name H.E.S.S. stands for High Energy Stereoscopic System, and is also intended to pay homage to Victor Hess , who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936 for his discovery of cosmic radiation. The instrument allows scientists to explore gamma-ray sources with intensities at a level of a few thousandths of the flux of the Crab nebula (the brightest steady source of gamma rays in the sky).

WTF is an 'Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope'?!?

Well, if we hadn't twigged to it before, this would be a very strong clue that a H.E.S.S. 'observation' can really only be put into the same class of thing as what you might see when you look up at the sky on a cloudless, Moonless night if you fully accept that all high-tech stuff actually works as advertised ... oh, and that Cherenkov radiation really does exist, that the light the H.E.S.S. detectors detect really is Cherenkov radiation, that ...

In other words, that all the various parts of physics that are embedded in H.E.S.S. really are an accurate description of reality.

One implication of this is quite important, when it comes to thinking about the stuff you find in EU materials; namely, that to the extent that these materials use astronomical images ('observations') to make their case, they are also making a very strong statement that the authors of said material fully accept all the physics that is essential to those images being true to their (original) captions*. The fact that this is implicit, rather than explicit, in no way diminishes the inevitability of this conclusion.

Thus, to demonstrate a fatal inconsistency in an EU proposal, it may be sufficient to show that the proposal involves a denial of, or non-acceptance of, some part of textbook physics ... and as just about all of physics is involved in astronomical observations, collectively, such a fatal inconsistency is almost always inevitable.

Of course, you will almost certainly get nowhere trying this approach, in a discussion with an EU proponent, for reasons given in my last post; namely, that proponent has almost certainly missed the quantitative revolution in science, and so you cannot avoid talking past each other.

(to be continued: the EU myth of Arp and quasars)

* AFAIK, no EU theorist, or proponent, has ever presented any astronomical images that they themselves took; instead, they are all sourced from facilities such as the HST, Chandra, and the VLA.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks DRD.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The EU myth re quasars (and Arp)

To refresh our memories, here's what Z wrote, in post #1948:

Yet, the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is visually (in ordinary light) between us and the dense core of a low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy, NGC 7319, is just dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant", along with all of Arps other observations. Where he has documented well over thirty similar cases, probably even more.

One thing we could do is ask Z for clarification of his statement - where was this '2003 discovery' published, what is his source for claiming that it "is just dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant"", is it true that "all of Arps other observations" (bold added) have been also "dismissed out of hand", and so on - and if Z follow his usual track record he will vaguely answer some of these requests for clarification, after a week or more, and not answer others, and we'll learn that his original claim was a wild exaggeration, etc, etc, etc (IOW, Z has plainly demonstrated, over hundreds of posts, that he is an unreliable reporter of the work of scientists).

However, that would not stop him - or others - making similar claims in future, perhaps in other threads.

Better, let's look at 'quasars'.

In an earlier post I briefly described what the classification of astronomical objects involves, how the classifications are developed, etc.

For our purposes, now, we may consider an astronomical object as a 'quasar candidate' if it is a point source in the visual waveband (or UV or IR) and has a colour* that falls in a certain region of a multi-dimensional colour space; it becomes a 'quasar' if its spectrum shows a redshift of >0.01 (or some other minimum).

That is a purely empirical description ... as long as you don't reject any part of the modern physics textbook, I think we can all agree, can't we?

So, with this definition in hand, we can go look at the sky, and discover quasars; and, being astronomers, we will report, or publish, our observations and somehow they will all end up in one or more of the online databases.

And those databases are, for the most part, freely available, and free ... so anyone - Z, BAC, Arp, ... - can download them and do analyses.

One analysis we can do concerns the distribution of quasars, 'on the sky'; another concerns the distribution of quasars wrt galaxies; another concerns how the number of quasars varies as the database is sorted by colour, by redshift, by apparent magnitude, by ...

Now these sorts of analyses have been done, by the thousand, and form the basis for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of published papers.

And on the basis of these - and hundreds of other studies, analyses, etc - over several decades, a unified model emerged, that 'quasars' are 'AGNs' (active galactic nuclei). Further, quasars differ from Seyfert galaxies only in degree, not kind; they differ from 'type 2 quasars' only by viewing angle, and so on. Further, this unified AGN model lead to a great many new hypotheses, concerning quasars, ULXs, galaxies, .... which could be tested using observations from Spitzer, Chandra, XMM-Newton, Fermi, and so on (even Auger!).

Now comes the killer point.

If you wish to make a case that this quasar is 'in front of' this NGC object, you need to either show that this quasar is different from the ~million other ones, OR that all the ~million other quasars are also at distances from us that are radically different from their estimated Hubble flow distances! IOW, that there are at least two quite distinct classes of quasar (despite the extensive research which shows they are a single class of object) - one that is 'local', and the other which is 'cosmological'; OR that all quasars (and all other AGNs) are 'local'.

AFAIK, no one has, in a published paper, tried to make the former case.

And only a few people try to make the latter case, Arp among them.

Now of course, Arp et al. may be right ... but if so, then no only are all quasars 'local', but also the Hubble relationship is an illusion!

There's certainly no doubt that many an EU proponent claims that the Hubble relationship is, indeed, an illusion (i.e. that galaxies' redshifts do not reflect the Hubble flow and thus cannot be used to estimate their distances from us); however, they fail dismally in their attempts to provide an alternative explanation (I explore this in considerable detail in the Alternatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE thread, particularly in posts 43, 54, 72, 80, 82, 86, 89, 90, 105, 108, 110, 116, 125, and 132).

So, far from Arp's observations being "just dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant"", they have been subject to a great deal of scrutiny - especially in the 1960s and 1970s - and found seriously wanting, especially wrt the statistical analyses presented in the paper he (and colleagues) published.

To wrap up: in a world where astronomy caught the quantitative revolution many centuries ago, quasars are AGNs at distances that can be estimated from their redshifts and the Hubble relationship; to those for whom the quantitative revolution has yet to arrive, quasars can be anything you want them to be, provided you write nicely.

* this is a technical term, and has a precise meaning; suffice it to say that it is a quantitative description of broadband features of the spectrum of the object

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

I have seen the [Millennium] simulations, and seen the results, and I am dubious to say the least. Now, were the simulations based entirely on the Lambda-CDM gravity driven model of the universe, or was the large scale structure rather surveyed and then made to fit, with a couple of ad-hoc fixes to the code here and there?

Maybe I am just being naive, but I'm sure you can clarify a few points for me.

So, can you please give a detailed analysis of how gravity (an exclusively attractive field) can produce large scale filamentary structures in the universe?*

*(please do not simply say, well look at this simulation, it totally proves it!, if your going to do that then all the coding and variables used in the simulation need to be posted here and scrutinsed, so we can see what the pictures actually represent and how gravity has been modified to create filamentary structures)

(bold added)

Here's an idea Z: why don't you go read the papers which report this work?

I think you have demonstrated an ability to use the appropriate search tools to do that, and to obtain at least preprints of the relevant papers, haven't you?

Now, I will tell you that the structure you see reported emerged from the simulation, exactly as described.

IOW, no conspiracy, no pre-loading the initial conditions with the answers they wanted to get, ...

Of course, as the quantitative revolution may have passed you by, it is possible that you may not understand how the simulation was done; no worries, there are people here, in the JREF Forum, who'd be happy to answer your questions (but please, start a new thread on it, OK?). In fact, IIRC, someone has already written a post on this very topic, right here in the JREF Forum!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmological Hoax?

I have seen the simulations, and seen the results, and I am dubious to say the least. Now, were the simulations based entirely on the Lambda-CDM gravity driven model of the universe, or was the large scale structure rather surveyed and then made to fit, with a couple of ad-hoc fixes to the code here and there?

I had not noticed this before it was pointed out by DeiRenDopa. I agree with the advice to go read the papers. However, the code for these models will not be found in any paper. So, Mr. Zeuzzz, are you telling us that you believe the entire mainstream cosmology is a deliberate hoax? Do you really mean that you think scientists deliberately falsify their results? If you didn't, then why did you say that?

 

[Reality Check]

You go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation. Yet, the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is visually (in ordinary light) between us and the dense core of a low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy, NGC 7319, is just dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant", along with all of Arps other observations. Where he has documented well over thirty similar cases, probably even more.

A couple of points about this Zeuzzz:

Firstly the observations of dark matter has nothing to do with the observation of NGC 7319 (and Arp's other examples) except in the sense that they are both observations. The validity of either set of observations has no effect on the validity of the other.
In fact if you were correct then assuming that Arp's observations are correct means that the dark matter observations are also correct!

Secondly NGC 7319 as a high redshift object in front of a low redshift object is not "dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant"".
It is dismissed because it is based on the assumption that galaxies are uniformly opaque and so it is impossible for objects behind them to be imaged. That is wrong, e.g. we can see external galaxies quite well from the Earth even when we look through thick sections of the Milky Way.
It is especially false in relation with NGC 7319 which is part of the Stephan's Quintet galaxy cluster where the collision has removed most of the hydrogen gas from the interiors of the galaxies. It is this hydrogen gas that primarily obscures objects.

And a minor point: If the QSO is in front of NGC 7319 then why can we not see its host galaxy?

 

[Sol88]

First up thank you Tusenfem on your excellent post on what The Buneman instability is.

Second, Reality Check thank you for your most detailed post on the state of today's plasma physics.

Third, DeiRenDopa great work on your many post regarding some of the prolems EU/PC is perceived to have in relation to standard cosmology, very detailed and you obviously put a lot of work into writing them, same with Reality check and Tusenfem

 

[Reality Check]

Second, Reality Check thank you for your most detailed post on the state of today's plasma physics.

What post would that be?
The state of today's plasma physics is described in the many textbooks and papers on plasma physics that exist.

 

[Reality Check]

I had not noticed this before it was pointed out by DeiRenDopa. I agree with the advice to go read the papers. However, the code for these models will not be found in any paper. So, Mr. Zeuzzz, are you telling us that you believe the entire mainstream cosmology is a deliberate hoax? Do you really mean that you think scientists deliberately falsify their results? If you didn't, then why did you say that?

The Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution preprint names the software:

The Millennium Simulation was carried out with a specially customised version of the GADGET2 (Ref. ⁴⁴) code, using the “TreePM” method⁴⁵ for evaluating gravitational forces. This is a combination of a hierarchical multipole expansion, or “tree” algorithm⁴⁶, and a classical, Fourier transform particle-mesh method^47.

N.B. Zeuzzz: "specially customised version" does not mean "the large scale structure rather surveyed and then made to fit, with a couple of ad-hoc fixes to the code here and there".

An interesting little fact: The source code for the software used for the Millennium Simulation is freely available at GADGET-2 (A code for cosmological simulations of structure formation). Even more interesting is the implication that it can be run on individual PCs (simulate the universe on your home PC !).

 

[Perpetual Student]

DeiRenDopa:

Thanks for taking the time to contribute the above comments.
I am quite curious about this EU/PC cult, the existence of which I have been totally unaware of for all these decades that I have been following developments in physics and cosmology. Why does it exist? It is so odd that such a cult goes on in spite of overwhelming evidence refuting their theories.
Are they somehow similar to creationists? Probably not -- there is no religious basis to preferring their version of reality to mainstream ideas. Are they like modern "flat-earth" people?
Clearly, they dedicate a great deal of time and effort to their subject. Their knowledge of the behavior of plasmas and other EM phenomena in the laboratory indicate a knowledge of physics. So, why do they battle against mainstream ideas? Why do they believe there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress their ideas? It is all very puzzling!

 

[Sol88]

The Man has decided to join us in this disccusion

Care to show us those ashes, if you can find them. You should be aware that “gravitational systems” come with their own driving forces resulting from, well, gravity (that is why it is called a gravitational system). I think the only “ashes” you will find is the notion of a “prior electrical system” simply electrocuting itself.

Ok.

So working from the reasoning that our own solar system, at some point in time, was created and added to (i.e. did not condense out of a primal molecular cloud under gravity alone in one event) then there should be some form of evidence of the past electrical interactions.

These forms of evidence should be visible on nearly all bodies in our Sun system and nearly all bodies in Jupiter and Saturn's systems as well.

Lets look at some pictures shall we, (and no mainstream carry on that looking at pics is not proof of something)

Ok lets start close to home,

Soupdragon42's excellent video:
Planetary Scars (Extended version) Plasma Cosmology

Michael Goodspeed's excellent article The Craters Are Electric

Z. Dahlen Parker's work on
SPIDERY SCARS FROM ELECTRIC DISCHARGES
TO DUST COVERED CRT
PROVIDE A CLUE TO FORMATION
OF SIMILAR FEATURES ON PLANETARY BODIES

JstagenElectrical-discharge machining a paper in Japanese, but still with relevant pictures.

And just for some balance some mainstream articles on impacts ans scars

(Image: NASA/JHUAPL/CIW)

Bizarre spider scar found on Mercury's surface

One of the biggest surprises from the close encounter was a strange spider-shaped feature near the centre of a huge impact scar called Caloris basin. The spider shape is formed by a set of troughs that crisscross to form polygonal shapes at the spider's centre and also radiate outwards.

Lunar Impact Crater Geology and Structure

Both the Earth and the Moon are the targets of a continuing bombardment of meteorites, asteroids, and comets from outer space. The "shooting stars" that are commonly seen in the night sky are mostly dust-sized objects striking the Earth's atmosphere. Much rarer, larger objects sometimes strike the Earth or Moon, producing holes known as craters. Meteor Crater in Arizona (1.2 kilometers in diameter) is a well-known terrestrial example. Over its history, the Moon has had countless millions of craters form on its surface.

Just for starters before we move onto the other planets in our solar system.

So how could there be any sort of charging/discharging going on?

See post 1808

 

[sol invictus]

I am quite curious about this EU/PC cult, the existence of which I have been totally unaware of for all these decades that I have been following developments in physics and cosmology. Why does it exist?

Maybe it's a fetish.

Clearly, they dedicate a great deal of time and effort to their subject. Their knowledge of the behavior of plasmas and other EM phenomena in the laboratory indicate a knowledge of physics.

Are you reading the same posts I am???

 

[Sol88]

reality check, post 1988, was fair dink'm cobber!

 

[The Man]

DeiRenDopa:

Thanks for taking the time to contribute the above comments.
I am quite curious about this EU/PC cult, the existence of which I have been totally unaware of for all these decades that I have been following developments in physics and cosmology. Why does it exist? It is so odd that such a cult goes on in spite of overwhelming evidence refuting their theories.
Are they somehow similar to creationists? Probably not -- there is no religious basis to preferring their version of reality to mainstream ideas. Are they like modern "flat-earth" people?
Clearly, they dedicate a great deal of time and effort to their subject. Their knowledge of the behavior of plasmas and other EM phenomena in the laboratory indicate a knowledge of physics. So, why do they battle against mainstream ideas? Why do they believe there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress their ideas? It is all very puzzling!

Well for the most part I think that it just seems easier for some. Modern cosmology and physics require considerable math to fully understand and explore. No one can doubt the unintuitive nature of some of modern physic and quantum mechanics specifically. In fact one of the tenants of most EU/PC proponents on these threads seem to be an almost complete distain for math, it seems they find it secondary to simple personal experience and intuition. You will often find references made to ‘what I perceive from the plasma ball I got from Wal-Mart’. Certainly before the development of advance instrumentality and the associated math the makes the instrumentality not only existent but useful, personal perceptions were the only tools to explore physics and the universe. It seems to me more of a step back then a step forward. Depending on ones personal perceptions and interpretations of things we simply can not directly perceive (like quarks for example) and might find contrary to the extent of our personal experience, without the instrumentally and math that makes that instrumentality possible and the data it presents interpretable.

 

[Reality Check]

reality check, post 1988, was fair dink'm cobber!

That was your post not mine.

FYI: Clicking in a post and then clicking on the Quote button (lower right, second button, has the text Quote) allows you to reply to a post with a quotation of the post.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Clearly, they dedicate a great deal of time and effort to their subject. Their knowledge of the behavior of plasmas and other EM phenomena in the laboratory indicate a knowledge of physics.

Are you reading the same posts I am??? ____s. i.

The guru Alfvén did receive a Nobel Prize for work in plasma physics.

 

[Reality Check]

The Man has decided to join us in this disccusion

Ok.

So working from the reasoning that our own solar system, at some point in time, was created and added to (i.e. did not condense out of a primal molecular cloud under gravity alone in one event) then there should be some form of evidence of the past electrical interactions.
...snipped planetary stuff...

1. What has this got to do with cosmology?
2. Why "past electrical interactions" when there are new craters formed all the time?
3. Why are you commiting the "looks like X thus must be X" logical fallacy?
4. You do realize that a meteorite hitting a planet or moon releases a lot of energy? IMHO there may be some craters that actually have discharge patterns etched in the surface. So what?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Whence Came EU

I am quite curious about this EU/PC cult, the existence of which I have been totally unaware of for all these decades that I have been following developments in physics and cosmology. Why does it exist? It is so odd that such a cult goes on in spite of overwhelming evidence refuting their theories.

It all actually grew out of a peculiar pseudo-velikovskian cult of Saturnists. They argue that Earth used to orbit Saturn, which is bad enough, but did so in a "polar configuration", where Saturn would appear to be fixed in Earth's sky over the north pole. in the absence of some external torque, that's impossible. So they postulated that electromagnetic forces provide that torque. They imagined visual phenomena like the Biblical "pillar of fire" as a glowing plasma tower, an electric discharge connecting planets. Those people grew into the EU people. Their founding fathers, as far as I can tell, are electrical engineer Don Scott, and physicist Wallace Thornhill (who has a BS or BA in physics, but spent his career in computer system management).

I have been arguing with them now for about 15 years; they don't like me & I don't like them. But they have "morphed" and I rarely hear any of the Saturn talk anymore, it's all electric universe & electric star. The electric sun is allegedly powered by an electric current that flows in somewhere. It used to flow in through the poles, but that's before Ulysses did not observed a current. So now, as I understand it, the current is a "drift current" of super slow electrons (a few cm/sec) flowing in from all directions. How they manage to pull this off against the flow of the magnetized solar wind is something they don't explain. They always postulate the "electric" solution and assume it is correct, while postulating that the standard model cannot be right, which they proceed either to ignore, or seriously misrepresent. They completely misrepresent helioseismology and the solar neutrino problem. They actually do know something about physics, but you would never figure that out from reading their bizarre ideas.

Their ideas were born of the original idea that myths should be interpreted literally. They have told me more than once that, forced to choose, the literal interpretation of myth trumps scientific evidence. If science contradicts myth (as they interpret same) than the science must be wrong. Also see the Immanuel Velikovsky and Saturnism section of Pib Burns' Other Unorthodox Catastrophism page.

 

[Sol88]

That was your post not mine.

FYI: Clicking in a post and then clicking on the Quote button (lower right, second button, has the text Quote) allows you to reply to a post with a quotation of the post.

Oh brother!!