Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Dancing David]

Doom...doom...doom, I tell you, the bell tolls for PC!

 

[The Man]

Doom...doom...doom, I tell you, the bell tolls for PC!

Indeed, death by self-electrocution

I find it curious that PC/EU should be considered complimentary positions. When in fact the plasma in ‘plasma cosmology’ would short circuit that ‘electric universe’. A fact that has been repeatedly mentioned on these threads.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Interlude - love of pictures?

One thing that struck me reading the two Peratt papers was the prominence given to images, as a demonstration of the consistency between his model and astronomical results.

In Paper I, for example, after tying down some parameters in his scaling relationships (by reference to one double-lobed radio galaxy, CygA), instead of showing greater consistency by using the same scaling to show quantitative consistency with (radio loud) quasars, he presents a lot of images and declares similarity of morphology ... and even has isophotes in those from the simulations as well as quasar/galaxy radio images, but neglects to include a legend (stating what the quantitative levels are)!

In Paper II much the same ... lots of images from the simulations presented, showing various shapes, but no intensity scale given, side-by-side with optical images of galaxies, also without any intensity scales.

And then I remembered this exchange between myself and Z, from a bit earlier:

[...]

Why I do think it's the very same person who claimed that a document (conference presentation), by Peratt and Scott (and others?), on how ancient stone carvings were clear evidence of high-energy (atmospheric) plasma phenomena (and so concrete evidence in support of the woo-ist of EU woo ideas?), was a peer-reviewed paper!

You haven't the slightest clue about that material, as you have just demonstrated. The point of that work is the amazingly striking similarities between dozens of seemingly comepltely separate ancient artworks all over the world that had no way of contacting each other and the auroral phenomenon they could have all seen to make their artwork the same. Thats a VERY BREIF description. The problem of why such separate groups of ancient tribes have largely the same exact art is an entirely mainstream mystery also in many other journals. Peratt et al are merely one more group that have proposed an explanation. If you would like I can start a thread about this material; it doesn't belong here, your derailing this thread, again, and making arguments from ignorance, again.

[...]

Now it turns out that I got the Peratt document wrong ...

... the primary material seems to be Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current, Z-pinch aurora as recorded in antiquity, which has Peratt as the sole author (no Scott in sight), and is a 2003 IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science paper. Here's the abstract:

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 produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified according to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurrence of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, millennia ago.

Again, lots of images, and an apparent disregard for even back-of-the-envelope consistency checks ...

... and one can only wonder what the reviewers were thinking when they OK-ed this for publication!

Much the same material is published again, in 2008, in Evidence for an intense solar outburst in prehistory, this time with W. F. Yao as co-author, and in Physica Scripta.

Now for someone whose affiliation, in 2008, is listed as "Applied Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM", isn't it odd that Peratt seems not to have thought of the effect of a between one and two orders of magnitude increase in the solar wind, on the rate of production of C14 and Be10 for example? Surely such a dramatic, recent change should leave a screamingly obvious signature in the calibration curves of C14 dating, shouldn't it? And it is but the work of an hour or two to check, vs weeks or months of effort collecting and classifying petroglyph images, to discover that no such signal has been found, and that this topic has been intensively studied (for obvious reasons); here is one example, from 2004:

By mixing processes in the atmosphere, the C-14 produced by cosmic rays reaches the biosphere and part of it is incorporated in the biomass of trees. Some tree trunks can be recovered from below the ground thousands of years after their death and the content of C-14 stored in their tree rings can be measured. The year in which the C-14 had been incorporated is determined by comparing different trees with overlapping life spans. In this way, one can measure the production rate of C-14 backward in time over 11,400 years, right to the end of the last ice age. The research group have used these data to calculate the variation of the number of sunspots over these 11,400 years. The number of sunspots is a good measure also for the strength of the various other phenomena of solar activity.

The method of reconstructing solar activity in the past, which describes each link in the complex chain connecting the isotope abundances with the sunspot number with consistent quantitative physical models, has been tested and gauged by comparing the historical record of directly measured sunspot numbers with earlier shorter reconstructions on the basis of the cosmogenic isotope Be-10 in the polar ice shields. The models concern the production of the isotopes by cosmic rays, the modulation of the cosmic ray flux by the interplanetary magnetic field (the open solar magnetic flux), as well as the relation between the large-scale solar magnetic field and the sunspot number. In this way, for the first time a quantitatively reliable reconstruction of the sunspot number for the whole time since the end of the last ice age could be obtained.

I don't want to stretch this too far, but there's another parallel that jumped out at me ...

You recall what TimT said about the EU crowd? about how they elevate the work of 'the ancients' (myths, etc) to the point of valuing it more than the results from contemporary science? about the phrase Anaconda used?

Now back to radio synchrotron emission from galaxy clusters ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I second DD's thanks.
Always a good post from DRD although some replies to certain posters can be a bit rough

Thanks, and thanks to DD too.

Also, what DD said about reviewing the history of a certain JREF Forum member's posts (or two, if you count me too).

A question to you, Skwinty, if I may: given the rules of this internet discussion forum, and the explicit scope of this part of it (Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology), what approaches do you think would be appropriate wrt posters such as Z, BAC, and S88? What approaches do you think would be inappropriate (though still within the Forum's rules)?

I'm curious about this for several reasons, one of which is what brought me here in the first place (namely, to find out why some threads, such as this one, are so incredibly long ... yet the science is, or should be, ~90% done and dusted within a page or two).

 

[Skwinty]

Also, what DD said about reviewing the history of a certain JREF Forum member's posts (or two, if you count me too).

You show remarkable restraint with your replies, but you can sure hammer them home.

A question to you, Skwinty, if I may: given the rules of this internet discussion forum, and the explicit scope of this part of it (Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology), what approaches do you think would be appropriate wrt posters such as Z, BAC, and S88?

After they have been proven wrong and show no sign of repenting, ignore them.

What approaches do you think would be inappropriate (though still within the Forum's rules)?

The observation of rule 12 and be civil and polite.

I'm curious about this for several reasons, one of which is what brought me here in the first place (namely, to find out why some threads, such as this one, are so incredibly long ... yet the science is, or should be, ~90% done and dusted within a page or two).

I came here for education in Science etc, not too read bickering and endless arguments. You are correct that the science should be done and dusted within a few pages.

If poster A makes a claim and ten posters reply with the OP's wall of text being quoted again and again, its no wonder there are so many pages.
Also, when posters get personal with each other, the argument intensifies and the endless loop just continues.

I fully understand the frustration felt by many of the competent members of this forum, but I would expect them to be civil and polite in accordance with the MA. If they cannot comply with the MA, then just ignore the difficult poster and they will soon stop their nonsense.

 

[Perpetual Student]

After they have been proven wrong and show no sign of repenting, ignore them.
_______From Skwinty

I very much agree with this comment. It often seems to (a semi-informed participant like) me that after these characters have been shown to be full of themselves and nothing more, the debate goes on and on with no purpose or end in sight. Mozino, Sol88, et al. have demonstrated that they are as indefatigable as they are incapable of following a logical discussion and will continue their inane comments indefinitely.

 

[Sol88]

I very much agree with this comment. It often seems to (a semi-informed participant like) me that after these characters have been shown to be full of themselves and nothing more, the debate goes on and on with no purpose or end in sight. Mozino, Sol88, et al. have demonstrated that they are as indefatigable as they are incapable of following a logical discussion and will continue their inane comments indefinitely.

Mmmm... So we have planets/moons spinning in space that GENERATES it's own ELECTRIC currents and the attendant MAGNETIC fields which when met with a different density and/or temperature/densities of plasmas and/or there magnetic fields, does some very complex non linear, down right funky, behavior!

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

Scale that to galaxy size magnetic fields and "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

 

[Klimax]

Mmmm... So we have planets/moons spinning in space that GENERATES it's own ELECTRIC currents and the attendant MAGNETIC fields which when met with a different density and/or temperature/densities of plasmas and/or there magnetic fields, does some very complex non linear, down right funky, behavior!

And what?It is often property of certain metals in cores in some cases.

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

What does terrestrial lightining have to do with Sun? There is no Earth-to-Sun flow of electricity.Opposite flow is result of charged particles,that's all.
Terrestrial lightining is only between atmosphere and ground or atmosphere2atmosphere.(and some more,but never extending beyond!)

Scale that to galaxy size magnetic fields and "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

Scale that and effect vanishies as Sol showed.Gravity cannot be blocked,electric field yes.In fact you would get at best a large scale capacitor,since you would have two charged objects and between them insulator or dielectricum and charges won't be large as every object has limited capacity.Try to go over and electric force between charged side will tear apart them.
And most of plasma is anyway electrically neutral in space.

 

[Reality Check]

Mmmm... So we have planets/moons spinning in space that GENERATES it's own ELECTRIC currents and the attendant MAGNETIC fields which when met with a different density and/or temperature/densities of plasmas and/or there magnetic fields, does some very complex non linear, down right funky, behavior!

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

Scale that to galaxy size magnetic fields and "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

"very complex non linear, down right funky, behavior" that all scientists know about and just happen to be powered by the Sun's solar wind and planetary magnetic fields.

You ignore the fact that

1. Galaxies are not planets even though they do have a small magnetic field.
2. Galaxies are not surrounded by the solar wind from super-galactic stars.
3. The physical fact that EM effects are cosmologically small scale.

Scale that to galaxic size magnetic fields that are much weaker than planetary magnetic fields and magic "blobs" of plasma's of different densities and temperatures and Whooaaaaa nothing happens !

 

[GeeMack]

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

Sometimes it's hard to tell you and Mozina apart. Twin sons of different mothers?

 

[Belz...]

Mmmm... So we have planets/moons spinning in space that GENERATES it's own ELECTRIC currents and the attendant MAGNETIC fields which when met with a different density and/or temperature/densities of plasmas and/or there magnetic fields, does some very complex non linear, down right funky, behavior!

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

Scale that to galaxy size magnetic fields and "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

What the hell are you on, anyway ?

 

[The Man]

What the hell are you on, anyway ?

... "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

How else would one explain such “down right funky, behavior?”

 

[Ziggurat]

Mmmm... So we have planets/moons spinning in space that GENERATES it's own ELECTRIC currents

Nope.

Terrestrial lightning is a very beautiful example of the Earth communicating to the Sun, via the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere-lithosphere coupling!!

Complete and utter nonsense. The only role the sun plays in lightning is providing the heat which drives winds.

Scale that to galaxy size magnetic fields and "blobs" of plasma's of different densityies and temperatures and Whooaaaaa

Your ignorance is simply staggering. You cannot scale terestrial lightning to galactic sizes precisely because they're largely plasmas, and plasmas are conductors. There is no dielectric breakdown field for plasmas, because current can flow at any field. Which also means that unlike an insulating gas (the atmosphere), plasmas cannot support large charge separations. For someone obsessed with the idea that mainstream physics is ignoring the properties of plasmas in the universe, it's remarkable how often you ignore those very properties yourself.

 

[Sol88]

Nope.

Post 2432
Shows this is indeed the case for a lot of our planets and moons and why then, would the Sun's magnetosphere NOT act as a very large electrical generator. To parse from the paper

The model is based on the fact that each rotating planet and star is immersed in a nonrotating conducting plasma cloud, which constitutes a Faraday electrical generator. This Faraday generator is assumed to be the primary source of the magnetic field, in contrast to present models that assume that the flow of magma in the planets’ cores is responsible.

Complete and utter nonsense. The only role the sun plays in lightning is providing the heat which drives winds.

Rich, how's the Suns heat effect the wind here on Earth? By what process does the Suns heat play in the 864Km winds generated at +50 Latitude on Uranus!

Heat has little to do with it! Check out it magnetosphere and Aurora? That might have more to do with it!

Your ignorance is simply staggering. You cannot scale terestrial lightning to galactic sizes precisely because they're largely plasmas, and plasmas are conductors. There is no dielectric breakdown field for plasmas, because current can flow at any field. Which also means that unlike an insulating gas (the atmosphere), plasmas cannot support large charge separations. For someone obsessed with the idea that mainstream physics is ignoring the properties of plasmas in the universe, it's remarkable how often you ignore those very properties yourself.

You know little of plasma's and their "funky" behavior my friend you may like to look up or even just ask an expert like Tusenfem about things like double layers and charge separation in plasma's!

People just don't get it, do they!

 

[Ziggurat]

Post 2432
Shows this is indeed the case for a lot of our planets and moons and why then, would the Sun's magnetosphere NOT act as a very large electrical generator.

I guess you missed my response. That paper is junk, and demonstrates a profound incompetence in working with electromagnetism.

Rich, how's the Suns heat effect the wind here on Earth?

By radiating upon the earth and warming it unequally, leading to convection. Duh.

Heat has little to do with it! Check out it magnetosphere and Aurora? That might have more to do with it!

Heat has everything to do with driving winds. And winds are what create charge separation which leads to lightning. The aurora is a rather different phenomenon than lightning, which should be obvious even to someone who can only think with pictures.

You know little of plasma's and their "funky" behavior my friend you may like to look up or even just ask an expert like Tusenfem about things like double layers and charge separation in plasma's!

I didn't say you couldn't get any charge separation in a plasma. I said you couldn't support large charge separation in a plasma. And you don't get lightning, because there's no dielectric breakdown field, because plasmas are already conducting.

People just don't get it, do they!

No, you really don't.

 

[Dancing David]

How else would one explain such “down right funky, behavior?”

George Clinton?

 

[Belz...]

Your ignorance is simply staggering. You cannot scale terestrial lightning to galactic sizes precisely because they're largely plasmas, and plasmas are conductors. There is no dielectric breakdown field for plasmas, because current can flow at any field. Which also means that unlike an insulating gas (the atmosphere), plasmas cannot support large charge separations. For someone obsessed with the idea that mainstream physics is ignoring the properties of plasmas in the universe, it's remarkable how often you ignore those very properties yourself.

What I find amazing is that we should at least see SOME of those space-born lightning strikes once in a while. Or are they made of invisible concrete, like the World Trade Center ?

 

[Belz...]

Rich, how's the Suns heat effect the wind here on Earth? By what process does the Suns heat play in the 864Km winds generated at +50 Latitude on Uranus!

Heat has little to do with it!

Sol, just because Plasma Cosmology is your pet theory doesn't mean you need it to explain EVERYTHING.

Next thing you'll tell us is that the other three forces don't really exist ("Gravity and nuclear forces ? Bah! They're both causes by electromagnetism!")

 

[The Man]

George Clinton?

“PC/EU/GC”? It does have a downright funky ring to it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I didn't say you couldn't get any charge separation in a plasma. I said you couldn't support large charge separation in a plasma.

XXX- I'm somewhat confused by this statement. How are you suggesting that the aurora are sustained for days on end exactly? What "sustains" that process? -XXX

(EDIT)

Nevermind that last question, I went back to your original post and I understand now what you were trying to suggest. You are correct.

And you don't get lightning, because there's no dielectric breakdown field, because plasmas are already conducting.

Most plasmas are not fully ionized, they are "dusty". I fail to see why you think there would be no possibility of ionizing some of the materials, or a further ionizing of the materials due to an electrical discharge.