Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

You were talking about solar wind. So I replied about solar wind. Now we have yet another derail from you about something unrelated to plasma cosmology. Who would figure !

I have seen this nice bit of physics before. There are lots of shock waves in the universe. This is not even a really big shock wave. The shock waves in the Bullert Cluster are millions of light years across.

Now you bring up mythical "plasmoids" and give them the even more mythical ability to create jets. They do not exist in galactic centers.
SMBH do exist in galactic centers.

ETA:
You may want to learn a little about plasmoids. They need an external power source like a star, plasma and a magnetic field to form. They do not have a mass of 4.3 million solar masses in a volume with a radius less than that of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun.

Ahhh haaa!! now you are cottoning on RC! you have two ingredients in the recipe already, plasma and magnetic fields (which by the way, in case you still do not understand the gist of this thread REQUIRE and electric current!! yes I know your fridge magnet doesn't by we are talking magnetic fields, not ferromagnatisim)

 

[Sol88]

Nearsighted No More: Astronomers Resolve Milky Way’s Mysterious X-Ray Glow

Lead author Mikhail Revnivtsev, of Munich Technical University in Garching, Germany, and his colleagues report that the formerly unresolved X-ray glow has a spectrum characteristic of a hot (100 million degrees Kelvin) optically thin plasma, with a prominent iron emission line.

But the gravitational well of the Galactic disk is far too shallow to confine such a hot interstellar medium; it would flow away at a velocity of a few thousand kilometers per second, exceeding the speed of sound in the gas.

Replenishing such energy losses would require a source that exceeds all plausible energy sources in the Milky Way — including supernovae — by orders of magnitude, they write.

Based on their observations, the team is proposing that the hot plasma is instead bound to many faint sources: plain old stars.

How did the gas get to 100 million kelvin in the first place?

 

[sol invictus]

Gravitational collapse? you are joking, right?

No gravitational collapse? You are joking, right?

Ahhh haaa!! now you are cottoning on RC! you have two ingredients in the recipe already, plasma and magnetic fields (which by the way, in case you still do not understand the gist of this thread REQUIRE and electric current!!

How many times do you have to be told: magnetic fields do not require electric current. The current is the CURL of the magnetic field. I know you don't have the slightest clue what that is, so I'll help you out: it's a particular kind of derivative. If that particular derivative of the magnetic field is zero, there is no current.

I've given you many examples of that - permanent magnets are only one. Another is light. Another is a constant B field. Etc. etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Ahhh haaa!! now you are cottoning on RC! you have two ingredients in the recipe already, plasma and magnetic fields (which by the way, in case you still do not understand the gist of this thread REQUIRE and electric current!! yes I know your fridge magnet doesn't by we are talking magnetic fields, not ferromagnatisim)

They need an external power source like a star, plasma and a magnetic field to form

Ahhh haaa!! now you are cottoning on Sol88!
There is no external power source for your mythical super-massive plasmoid.
In addition any plasmoid that is 4.3 million solar masses in a volume with a diameter of 44 million kilometers (less than Mercury's orbit!) will gravitationally collapse to create a super-massive black hole.

 

[Reality Check]

Nearsighted No More: Astronomers Resolve Milky Way’s Mysterious X-Ray Glow

How did the gas get to 100 million kelvin in the first place?

Plasma physics.

 

[Dancing David]

Gravitational collapse? you are joking, right?

I see that you are dodging a direct question, try answering it.

Mass of 3 million suns
Area less than 2 AU sphere (likely less than 1 AU) (and probably a whole lot smaller)

Now that is a whole lot of mass, and it has a lot of gravitational attraction,
so the mass in that area tends to draw together under the force of gravity
it reaches a point where there is so much mass concentrated in such a small area that light is bent to a degree that it can not leave the area
it reaches a point where is contracts to a very small area smaller than the Moon
it has an area where mass and energy can not leave the gravitational field.

(IE a black hole)

Now you are saying that all this mass is extended and exists in a plasmoid of some sort and that it is not a black hole, so I ask

What keeps it from undergoing gravitational collapse? (Contraction to a black hole)
How does it have enough energy to maintain an extended shape and stay a plasmoid?

So there should be:
- a mechanism to keep the huge mass from collapsing to a black hole

What is it?

 

[Reality Check]

Nearsighted No More: Astronomers Resolve Milky Way’s Mysterious X-Ray Glow
How did the gas get to 100 million kelvin in the first place?

The Bad Astronomer has a blog entry called Chandra cuts through the fog about how Chandra resolved the X-ray background into discrete objects in the galactic center (this is the image in your link). He explains the sources of the X-rays

This is good news; it hardly seemed possible that there was a source of energy that could keep so much gas heated to millions of degrees. But now we have another question: what the heck are the point sources? Most likely they’re white dwarfs, stars like the Sun whose lives are over, and all that’s left is the hot, dense core. If a white dwarf is in a tight orbit around a normal star, it can draw material off that star. This matter piles up on the dwarf and gets very hot, emitting X-rays. It can also build up to a critical point and undergo massive spontaneous fusion, again blasting out X-rays.
There are most likely other sources of X-rays in there as well, including highly magnetic binary stars, neutron stars, and black holes.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Double layers and cosmic rays

Guys, I decline to play shot gun roulette (and no, I'm not going to bother defining it). As I originally stated back on the Bridgman post, a scatter gun approach is not productive.

I can run around trying to put out spot fires or conduct a discussion on a tightly focussed subject matter, I choose the latter.

I've established the electromagnetism is common in near-space around Earth and the interplanetary medium, along with gravity, I might add. (Unless, there are some still in denial about that concept.) And, no, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. You guys have been discussing this for some time, and if you don't know that electromagnetism is common in the solar system -- I can't help you.

The two questions I put forward as possible discussion points were synchrotron radiation being a product of electric currents and double layers. Which one would you like to discuss?

tusenfem stated: "Whatever do you mean with "dynamo of electromagnetism"? A double layer is just a small scale (several 10s of deBye lengths) charge separation in a plasma, either driven by the presence of a current or by a boundary of two plasmas with different properties. There is absolutely NO dynamo there, but maybe you understand the word dynamo different from its usual definition."

That's in the laboratory, but electromagnetism is known to be scalable up to 14 orders of magnitude if not up to 20 orders of magnitude or beyond. No limit on scalability has been encountered, yet for electromagnetism.

If that is true, then tusenfem, your discussion has some validity in the laboratory, but again, I ask you, tusenfem, what is the limit on the size and power of double layers?

After all, with the scalability of electromagnetism established, then to contend that double layers don't also scale up, some identifiable factor of limitation must be identified or it shall be assumed that double layers also scale up.

And, yes, double layers accelerate electrons and ions in opposite directions.

tusenfem states: "Whatever do you mean with "dynamo of electromagnetism"?

Double layers accelerate both electrons and ions.

Acceleration, constant force equalls acceleration, is the key to dynamic electromagnetic processes.

And to violate my precept slightly, Reality Check attempts to say that electromagnetism is limited to atomic distances, that's an old carnard. It is well known that the force of electromagnetism has unlimited distance, same as gravity, the only difference is the strength (39 orders of magnitude) and that electromagnetism is like a computer that works -- it has a 0 and a 1, attraction and repulsion, gravity only has attraction.

This is why electromagnetism is dynamic and gravity is static, or in other more analogous terms, gravity is "passive" and electromagnetism is "active".

Electromagetism will form into celular and filimentary structure in a multi-tiered fashion because multiple double layers at multiple scales and discontinuities can form. Gravity, on the other hand is solely dependent on mass. There is no self "organization" with gravity.

There is self-organization with electromagnetism. That is why the double layer is central to the electromagnetic theory.

(bold added)

In a series of earlier posts I addressed Anaconda's first talking point ("synchrotron radiation being a product of electric currents"), finding no good evidence for them from a wide range of astronomical observations (principally detection of sources of electromagnetic radiation that is undoubtedly synchrotron radiation).

In this post I'll take a look at Anaconda's second talking point, which I have highlighted (bold).

Unlike some of my earlier posts, this one will not contain colored photographs*. If anyone would like lots of links, so they can read up on this topic, just ask.

Cosmic rays (CRs) were discovered by Hess, nearly a century ago now. Today the term is used to refer to energetic particles from beyond the Earth's magnetosphere (in the early days the term was used more broadly), and a distinction is made between such particles originating in the Sun (solar flares, solar wind), 'anomalous CRs' (which originate in the heliosheath), and galactic CRs (which originate beyond the solar system heliosphere). I'm going to focus on galactic CRs, and simply call them CRs.

The particles which comprise CRs include both matter and anti-matter; AFAIK, the only antimatter particles confidently detected are positrons and anti-protons (though there is at least one ambitious planned mission to research the antimatter component in much greater detail).

The energy spectrum of the electrons is quite steep, which is easily explained by the fact that they lose energy over relatively short (interstellar) distances, via synchrotron radiation (the magnetic fields in the ISM is strong enough), so these CRs cannot really tell us much about possible double layers (DLs) as places where they were initially accelerated.

Protons dominate the +vely charged CR particles; the elemental and isotopic composition of CRs has been determined with considerable precision, though that precision declines with energy. The existence, and abundance, of unstable isotopes** in CRs strongly implies that CRs have a relatively short lifetime (millions or tens of millions of years) ... this provides some interesting constraints on DLs as a possible source of CRs.

The CR energy spectrum is quite simple: up to ~10^18 eV ("the ankle"), beyond which it is essentially flat (to ~10^20 eV), it is a broken power law, with the break - where it becomes steeper - occurring at ~PeV energies ("the knee"). This observed spectrum strongly constrains DLs as a possible source of CRs.

The magnetic fields of the Milky Way (MW) ISM are fairly well determined, from a variety of observations; these fields prevent lower energy CRs from escaping the MW, and also scramble their direction. The higher the energy, the more easily a CR can escape the MW; the higher the energy, the smaller the deflection the ISM magnetic fields cause (so the highest energy CRs - the UHECRs - will arrive here on Earth in a direction only a degree or so off). This constrains DLs as a source of (lower energy, to the knee) CRs to being located within the MW. This 'trapping' of CRs by the MW magnetic fields provides a straight-forward explanation for the steepening of the spectrum (knee to ankle); namely, we see fewer high energy CRs because they escape.

All this is pretty clean, and clear, and I am surprised that no PC proponent seems to have attempted to model CR production, in terms of MW DLs anyway. And this is despite the fact that Peratt published two papers in which galaxy-sized DLs play a central role (so why didn't he do some simple, straight-forward extra work to estimate the CR energy spectrum that his model would produce?). And as Anaconda has, apparently, absquatulated, we can't ask him.

So what is, or are, the acceleration mechanism(s) responsible for CRs? And are the UHECRs different from the rest in key ways?

Very interesting questions, but as my focus is on PC, I'll say only that a wide range of astronomical and CR observations are consistent with (lower energy) CRs arising predominantly in the shocks caused by debris from supernovae meeting the ISM, and higher energy ones originating in AGN jets.

OK, one for Arlo, from 2004 (credit H.E.S.S. and ASCA) - "High energy particle acceleration in the shell of a supernova remnant"

* whether 8 x 10, glossy, with or without circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each (can anyone pick what I'm referring to?)
** other than those created by spallation

 

[Zeuzzz]

Blah blah, I dont see how what you posted is relevent to PC. Maybe you could spell it out for me?

In terms of how synchrotron radiation is created in plasma cosmology, I posted the publications outlining the detailed mechanisms previously. But I doubt that anyones going to comment on them, because they're in respected journals and contain maths and stuff.

Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

In plasma, electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of 10³⁶, and electromagnetism is ~10⁷ times stronger than gravity even in neutral hydrogen regions, where the degree of ionization is a miniscule 10^–4.
The observational evidence for galactic-dimensioned Birkeland currents is given based on the direct comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extra-galactic sources including quasars and double radio galaxies.

Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...00045503.pdf?arnumber=45503&authDecision=-203

The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ITPS...18...26P

With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.

Also, in terms of the general production of cosmic rays (or (CRs) as you refer to them) it may be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Alfvens and others alternative models of production of gamma ray bursts and general cosmic rays. Dont have the time to give exact references, but the gamma ray spectrum is covered quite well by this article I wrote up at PU.com, the references should all be full texts and readable. Ian only lets you reference peer reviewed journal publications (or what he considers "non controversial" arxiv papers) on his site, so there should be no moaning about woo-woo please.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Gamma_ray_bursts

I'll be back In a while.... as promised....

 

[Reality Check]

Blah blah, I dont see how what you posted is relevent to PC. Maybe you could spell it out for me?

What ben m posted is relevent to PC because it is a limit on the size of double layers which yet another proponent (Anaconda) said PC needs.

In terms of how synchrotron radiation is created in plasma cosmology, I posted the publications outlining the detailed mechanisms previously. But I doubt that anyones going to comment on them, because they're in respected journals and contain maths and stuff.

The papers are by Anthony L. Peratt and are based on his invalid model of galaxy formation and so can be safely ignored.

Also, in terms of the general production of cosmic rays (or (CRs) as you refer to them) it may be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Alfvens and others alternative models of production of gamma ray bursts and general cosmic rays. Dont have the time to give exact references, but the gamma ray spectrum is covered quite well by this article I wrote up at PU.com, the references should all be full texts and readable. Ian only lets you reference peer reviewed journal publications (or what he considers "non controversial" arxiv papers) on his site, so there should be no moaning about woo-woo please.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Gamma_ray_bursts

I'll be back In a while.... as promised....

And how is this relevant to PC?

This is an alternative plasma physics explanation of some (probably low energy) gamma ray bursts. From your web page this is a "large-voltage, high-temperature plasma pinch discharge mechanism".
There is even mention of double layers (see ben m's post)!

The big problem with the page is that you do not cite any comparisons between the plasma pinch model and intergalactic GRBs. In fact most of the citations are about terrestrial GRBs.

P.S. Have you heard about Gamma-ray burst GRB 090423A?

 

[Sol88]

This is so much nonsence, what you wrote down here, Sol88, that I don't want to waste my sunny Easter Monday, trying to correct all the mistakes you and Alexeff made.

First learn physics, Sol88, maybe then we can have a real discussion.

Maybe you could help me understand just what real physics you think I should know, lets take my interpretation of this diagram below;

Now from my point of view, EU/PC, then why can't the flux transfer and sputtering combine to produce effect similar in appearance to this

or indeed this

LINK

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

(bold added)

....snip loads of cosmology stuff.....

* whether 8 x 10, glossy, with or without circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each (can anyone pick what I'm referring to?)

Finally, I can contribute to this thread. 'Alice's Restaurant' by Arlo 'son of Woody' Guthrie.

"You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant, (excepting Alice)"

You must be older than you sound DRD

 

[Dancing David]

Finally, I can contribute to this thread. 'Alice's Restaurant' by Arlo 'son of Woody' Guthrie.

"You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant, (excepting Alice)"

You must be older than you sound DRD

Tricky the Mod, sits on the group W bench.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Bah. This is never going to end. I need to draw a line a some point. I think we need to start three separate threads. One for plasma cosmology and cosmologically relevant theories peer reviewed and published in respected journals. One for the more speculative electric universe theories (of which Sol88 seems to be the forum 'expert' on, so he could contribute to that one no doubt) and one for the difference between real experimentally verified plasma physics used by plasma cosmologists in their work, and the mathematically elegant pseudoplasma type models that so many people have been lead to believe define all there is to know about plasmas.

What ben m posted is relevent to PC because it is a limit on the size of double layers which yet another proponent (Anaconda) said PC needs.

I wasn't talking about BenM's post. I was talking about DRD's waffle above.

The papers are by Anthony L. Peratt and are based on his invalid model of galaxy formation and so can be safely ignored.

So your not even going to read them, just as I thought. I presume the journal of astronomy and astrophysics has been informed of your discovery, or you can reference a (similar) peer reviewed refutation of his (various) detailed published papers?

You claim to know the *truth* of the matter. Truth is not science.

Whether or not his model of galaxy formation is right or not is a matter of opinion. Its not a fact. And until you look at some of the material you'll be none the wiser.

Sure, it suffers flaws on stellar scales and clashes with standard Newtonian gravity. Just like Newtonian gravity suffers big flaws on galactic scales in explaining rotation curves and clashes with the plasma universe model, but, on this scale, Peratts model remains the best for explaining galaxy morphology.

Physics has survived a long time without a unified theory to account for all scales. Two main realms exist, the atomic realm, where quantum physics and particle physics are consistent, and we can ignore gravity. Or we have the other realm of gravity and cosmology, where we can usually ignore the lesser scales. Theres also the strong, weak, EM and gravitational forces, which do certainly have some linkage, but lack a definitive unification. Theres no viable theory of quantum gravity waiting round the corner last time I checked.

The EM field obeys laws vastly different from those that govern the behaviour of hypothetical dark matter. Thats all we assume to know about it. Its dark. So it doesn't effect the EM field. Thus the two theories can exist side by side. With various EM theories (like peratts) being applied to large scales, we have taken a step in the right direction of unification by no longer needing two theories side by side but having one definitive model. Or the converse could be true. And the EM field seems to be the most inextricably linked to all the forces. Note that the laws of electromagnetism do not dictate whatever exists in the world. There can be quarks or not, neutrino's or not, dark matter or not. Similarly you could consider the strong and weak force as not necessarily requiring the EM field. We can easily ignore a world with EM forces but no strong force, or the reverse. Either possibility could be consistent.

Just like with galaxy formation. We can ignore gravity and include EM, which works perfectly on one scale, or we can ignore EM and include gravity, which works perfectly on another scale. The universe is not as simple as it looks. The unification of all scales is exactly what physics is about. But no truths will come out of it, science does not give you truth. All science gives you is internal self consistency. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. The problem of quantum gravity and infinities and huge (or small) values in Gravity, GR and QT is a prime example of how nature punishes impudent theorists that dare break her unity. There really are different worlds and scales in which we live, each have their own laws dynamics and characteristics, there’s the world of our molecules, of our atoms, of our sub atomic particles, all the way to the deepest unified field theories and all the way up to the largest cosmological scales.

The work on the various Self-similarity phenomenon, scale invariant phenomenon (particularly the EM field which makes the PC model work so well), universality ideas and renormalization groups are certainly a step in the right direction. But there are no answers yet.

So stop simply proclaiming the truth and just get on with looking at some of the alternative explanations before dismissing them.

And how is this relevant to PC?

I dont know, ask DRD, she started it with the above random post about cosmic rays. I was just replying with the plasma physics explanation which is most consistent with the ideas in PC.

This is an alternative plasma physics explanation of some (probably low energy) gamma ray bursts. From your web page this is a "large-voltage, high-temperature plasma pinch discharge mechanism".
There is even mention of double layers.

Really? Well, what you just said is all correct! You seem to be catching on well. Keep it up

The big problem with the page is that you do not cite any comparisons between the plasma pinch model and intergalactic GRBs. In fact most of the citations are about terrestrial GRBs.

I'm afraid you are wrong. There is a plasma model for galactic GRBs on cosmological scales. Just start heading down the EM spectrum a bit too, and you can see where this could end up, and its potential cosmological relevance.

Maybe you missed it, but one of the most detailed and recent papers on this model to look at would be the following.

I'll even attach a picture of the main bulk of the material since people seem to have a rampant habit of avoiding reading my links and dismissing them without even reading them.

Mei Wu, Li Chen and Ti-Pei Li Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. Vol. 5 (2005), No. 1, 57–64

P.S. Have you heard about Gamma-ray burst GRB 090423A?

I have, heard about it on the BBC, it actually made the News headlines. All can be explained with the above model, I'm sure.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sol88, This may help. I'm not endorsing it, or denying it, I'm just adding to the debate. I'm more an EU skeptic than a proponent.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287076

Plasma-Generated Craters and Spherules
Ransom, C.J. Thornhill, W.
Vemasat Res. Inst., Colleyville;

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Aug. 2007
Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Part 1
On page(s): 828-831
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands,
ISSN: 0093-3813
INSPEC Accession Number: 9608338
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TPS.2006.888590
Current Version Published: 2007-08-13
Abstract

Plasma discharges that produced craters in various materials often created spherules in or around the craters. Both individual spherules and joined spherules were created. This paper describes the experimental arrangement.

But AGAIN, this is NOT plasma cosmology. It should be in another thread. No-ones fault, this thread has sort of evolved into a dumping place for anything which is non standard cosmology or alternative astro-physics.

From the above

.....snip....
The experimental duration when not
using pulsed discharges was between 1 and 20 s. The test
samples were either powders or solids. As it is difficult to make
a uniformly smooth surface, photographs were taken of the
sample surface before and after a test.
Most plasma-discharges were created with a 12 000-V
120-mA supply that could be run with a voltage doubler.
Smaller voltage supplies and a 100 000 V · μA discharge coil
were used to develop a wide variation of plasmas. This paper
applies to results using the high-current power supplies. [....]

As a test of the laboratory plasma/planetary body analogy,
we produced spherules on meteorites discovered on earth. For
example, spherules were made on Korra Korrabes, which is
an H3 chondritic meteorite from Namaland, Namibia (Fig. 5).
Spherules were also made on the Gold Basin meteorite found
in Mohave County, Arizona. In general, the spherules produced
on the chondrites were much smaller than the spherules in the
other materials discussed in this paper.
(Fig. 7, right). Diatomaceous earth spherules had multiple small
void areas (Fig. 8, left), but did not appear to have a hollow
center. Perlite spherules are translucent and contain multiple
small spherules (Fig. 8, right).
One common feature of some plasma-discharge-generated
craters is the concomitant formation of a spherule at its bottom
(Figs. 3, 9, and 10). Typically, under the conditions described
here, the laboratory spherule is about 3 mm in diameter in
a crater that is about 7 mm in diameter. This ratio is also
about the ratio of the M1501228a as photographed by the
Mars Global Surveyor (Fig. 11) suggesting that the laboratory
crater/spherule and the Martian crater/spherule have a common
origin: A Z-pinched electrical discharge to the surface.
Spherules are found on the surface without craters, under the
surface without craters and also inside craters. Details about
craters and other surface features caused by plasma discharges
will be the subject of another paper.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plasma-generated spherules are common. At Vemasat, we
created spherules from electrical discharge plasma contact
phenomena using various types of iron oxides, carbonates,
manganese dioxide, aluminum, magnesium silicate, rutile (titanium
oxide), perlite, and diatomaceous earth. Hematite makes
spherules that are usually hollow and have relatively thick
Fig 11. NASA photo M1501228a from the Mars Global Surveyor.
walls. Lava rock has always made hollow spherules with relatively
thin walls. Perlite makes a large transparent spherule
with a number of smaller transparent spherules inside the large
spherule.
Barthelemy, Margot, and Chaker noted that plasma ablation
creates hemispheres; however, we cannot distinguish at this
time between the spherules being caused by a plasma effect or a
surface tension effect. This may also depend on the conditions.
Fig. 7 and Peratt’s work [5] provide indications that plasmagenerated
spherules may be caused by more than surface
tension.
Moradian and Mostaghimi noted various methods for measuring
surface tension and difficulties of using those methods
for different materials [6]. It is likely that experiments of the
nature described here have direct applicability in determining
the surface tension of various materials.
The most feasible mechanism for the production of “blueberries”
on Mars was the presence of plasma induced electrical
surface discharges much like that of other terrestrial planets that
might have once had water. It appears that there is enough other
evidence to assume that Mars once had significant water.
It may be significant in the context of these experiments that
the formation of similar spherical chondrules in meteorites has
been attributed by various authors to plasma discharges in the
protoplanetary solar nebula [7].
.....snip....

I suggest moving this to another thread or doing something about this ridiculous situation before we're heading for another derail.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bah. This is never going to end. I need to draw a line a some point. I think we need to start three separate threads. One for plasma cosmology and cosmologically relevant theories peer reviewed and published in respected journals. One for the more speculative electric universe theories (of which Sol88 seems to be the forum 'expert' on, so he could contribute to that one no doubt) and one for the difference between real experimentally verified plasma physics used by plasma cosmologists in their work, and the mathematically elegant pseudoplasma type models that so many people have been lead to believe define all there is to know about plasmas.

[...]

(bold added)

There may well be a place for such discussions (plasma cosmology, electric universe theories), but that place clearly is not the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF Forum.

Why?

Because neither of these is science (and we don't discuss woo in the science section, do we?).

Of course, Z may have changed his mind (yet again) and now has a definition of plasma cosmology that makes it clear it is science ... but if so, Z has, as yet, not provided any such.

So stop simply proclaiming the truth and just get on with looking at some of the alternative explanations before dismissing them.

[...]

Why?

Unless and until you make it clear that either a) these "alternative explanations" are not part of plasma cosmology, or b) plasma cosmology is defined in a way that makes it science, wouldn't dismissing these explanations be the most rational thing to do*?

Z, it seems that you continue to ignore the 800 pound gorilla sitting on you; why?

* unless, of course, we agree we're no longer in the realm of science

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Finally, I can contribute to this thread. 'Alice's Restaurant' by Arlo 'son of Woody' Guthrie.

"You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant, (excepting Alice)"

You must be older than you sound DRD

Well done, GT!

How old do I sound? And if I am familiar enough with Alice's Restaurant, how old do you think that makes me?

Another of my faves from the song: "this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-... and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

The papers are by Anthony L. Peratt and are based on his invalid model of galaxy formation and so can be safely ignored.

So your not even going to read them, just as I thought. I presume the journal of astronomy and astrophysics has been informed of your discovery, or you can reference a (similar) peer reviewed refutation of his (various) detailed published papers?

You claim to know the *truth* of the matter. Truth is not science.

Whether or not his model of galaxy formation is right or not is a matter of opinion. Its not a fact. And until you look at some of the material you'll be none the wiser.

Sure, it suffers flaws on stellar scales and clashes with standard Newtonian gravity. Just like Newtonian gravity suffers big flaws on galactic scales in explaining rotation curves and clashes with the plasma universe model, but, on this scale, Peratts model remains the best for explaining galaxy morphology.

Physics has survived a long time without a unified theory to account for all scales. Two main realms exist, the atomic realm, where quantum physics and particle physics are consistent, and we can ignore gravity. Or we have the other realm of gravity and cosmology, where we can usually ignore the lesser scales. Theres also the strong, weak, EM and gravitational forces, which do certainly have some linkage, but lack a definitive unification. Theres no viable theory of quantum gravity waiting round the corner last time I checked.

The EM field obeys laws vastly different from those that govern the behaviour of hypothetical dark matter. Thats all we assume to know about it. Its dark. So it doesn't effect the EM field. Thus the two theories can exist side by side. With various EM theories (like peratts) being applied to large scales, we have taken a step in the right direction of unification by no longer needing two theories side by side but having one definitive model. Or the converse could be true. And the EM field seems to be the most inextricably linked to all the forces. Note that the laws of electromagnetism do not dictate whatever exists in the world. There can be quarks or not, neutrino's or not, dark matter or not. Similarly you could consider the strong and weak force as not necessarily requiring the EM field. We can easily ignore a world with EM forces but no strong force, or the reverse. Either possibility could be consistent.

Just like with galaxy formation. We can ignore gravity and include EM, which works perfectly on one scale, or we can ignore EM and include gravity, which works perfectly on another scale. The universe is not as simple as it looks. The unification of all scales is exactly what physics is about. But no truths will come out of it, science does not give you truth. All science gives you is internal self consistency. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. The problem of quantum gravity and infinities and huge (or small) values in Gravity, GR and QT is a prime example of how nature punishes impudent theorists that dare break her unity. There really are different worlds and scales in which we live, each have their own laws dynamics and characteristics, there’s the world of our molecules, of our atoms, of our sub atomic particles, all the way to the deepest unified field theories and all the way up to the largest cosmological scales.

The work on the various Self-similarity phenomenon, scale invariant phenomenon (particularly the EM field which makes the PC model work so well), universality ideas and renormalization groups are certainly a step in the right direction. But there are no answers yet.

So stop simply proclaiming the truth and just get on with looking at some of the alternative explanations before dismissing them.

[...]

I'm sure RC will respond to this, your latest, piece of woospam Z, but in the meantime ...

Would you be so kind as to answer the following question with a clear "Yes, I have read them all" or "No, I have not read them all"?

Have you, before now, read the following posts in this thread?
post#2475
post#2495
post#2496
post#2500
post#2522

 

[temporalillusion]

I'm not that old and I love Alice's Restaurant!

"Blood and guts and veins in my teeth, I wanna kill."

 

[Skwinty]

I'm not that old and I love Alice's Restaurant!

"Blood and guts and veins in my teeth, I wanna kill."

Me too, but I prefer the "Who the *$%# is Alice" version.

ETA: OOps, wrong Alice, must be going senile....