Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Gravity causes stars to leave the clusters. The clusters "evaporate". This can be called "gravitational evaporation".


Now you are getting it. Gravity is the cause of the stellar streams through gravitational tidal forces. I assume that you know about tidal forces, e.g you have heard of tides ?

ETA: A few links for you
The Andromeda Stream
What is a Stellar Stream?
Milky Way's Tidal Forces Ripping Apart Star Clusters
Four New Stellar Debris Streams in the Galactic Halo


Saturn's rings are not a "charged dusty plasma". They are a charged dust with possibly some plasma in it.

I will assume that you are just ignorant rather than a blatant liar.


Someone more knowledgeable might tell us exactly how much plasma is in icy rings.

There is a plasma ring around Saturn but it is not part of Saturn's rings. It is not contained within the visible rings of Saturn. It starts outside of the rings.

The plasma is thought to be formed from icy material ejected from Saturn's moons.
Saturn Ringed by Electric Doughnut


Gravity.

Thanks RC, maybe you could tell us about Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus or even rhea's rings? all the same are they?

How does gravity make and or keep a ring system around Rhea?

Plasma!!! majic stuff that

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks RC, maybe you could tell us about Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus or even rhea's rings? all the same are they?

How does gravity make and or keep a ring system around Rhea?

Plasma!!! majic stuff that

Let me get this straight - you think the rings of planets are not gravitationally bound?

Have you noticed that the orbits of the planets lie in a plane passing through the sun - just like the rings of Saturn? Do you think that's because of plasma too?

 

[Tubbythin]

Thanks RC, maybe you could tell us about Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus or even rhea's rings? all the same are they?

How does gravity make and or keep a ring system around Rhea?

Plasma!!! majic stuff that

Imho, the rings aren't all that interesting. Its the gaps in the rings that are of more physics interest.

 

[Tubbythin]

Let me get this straight - you think the rings of planets are not gravitationally bound?

Have you noticed that the orbits of the planets lie in a plane passing through the sun - just like the rings of Saturn? Do you think that's because of plasma too?

I wouldn't be surprised if he thought our tides were due to plasma.

 

[Sol88]

Ok what role does plasma play in the Universe then?

tubythin, sol, ben m et cetera?

 

[ben m]

Ok what role does plasma play in the Universe then?

tubythin, sol, ben m et cetera?

"What role does plasma play in the universe?"

Most of the baryonic matter in the Universe is, indeed, ionized. Therefore, the properties relevant to the short range behavior of matter all include plasma effects. These short-range properties are the opacity and the pressure (or equation-of-state). So, when you're calculating the hydrostatic structure of a star, or the optical properties of a corona, it's all plasma all the time. This is standard, mainstream stuff to which the self-proclaimed "PC" movement has contributed nothing since Alfven went off the deep end.

There are other astrophysical systems where pressures come into play (and opacity less so), and here again plasma physics is important insofar as the equation-of-state of a plasma (which includes the pressure) is a bit different than the equation-of-state of a gas. Major examples are: understanding how stellar winds and stellar explosions redistribute metals; understanding the termini of astrophysical jets; understanding shocks. There are yet other systems where fancier plasma physics dominates: compact-star accretion disks, for example, can have both plasma-y pressure and strong magnetic fields exerting Lorentz forces. This is standard, mainstream stuff to which the self-proclaimed "PC" movement has contributed nothing whatsoever.

Finally, there's the large-scale astrophysics: how do objects orbit the galaxy, how do galaxies orbit clusters, how did galaxies form in the first place, how is the space between galaxies expanding? On these scales, we know what effect plasma physics has: none. Gravity has an effect, and it acts exactly the same way on plasma as on gas as on stars as on black holes. It exerts F = gmM/r^2, or a = gM/r^2, and it does so whether or not the M and m are ionized, magnetized, self-magnetized, dark matter, baryons, or whatever. Large-scale astrophysical systems are hugely affected by gravity, not at all affected by pressure, and certainly not affected by things like the Lorentz force law, and therefore you can understand them perfectly well without dealing with the plasma physics.

You can imagine a different Universe in which there were huge, coherent magnetic fields acting on huge charged galaxy-like objects via huge currents. Fun to imagine, eh? Our universe isn't like that. Sorry.

Even if it were, one of the neat things plasma physics does is to neutralize itself. If you ever could charge up a galaxy, plasma properties would automatically, quietly bleed off the charge (no thunderbolts involved.) If you could ever set up a really large galaxy-scale electric current, electromagnetism and plasma physics would tend to make the current turbulent---i.e. breaking up and destroying any possible large-scale, long-range magnetic field and replacing it with a cloud of short-range, small-scale fields.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks RC, maybe you could tell us about Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus or even rhea's rings? all the same are they?

How does gravity make and or keep a ring system around Rhea?

Plasma!!! majic stuff that

Nice of you to point out these good examples of planetary science and your ignorance of how to do simple research.
Planetary Rings

1. Gravity does not "make" planetary rings.
2. Gravity "keeps" planetary rings in the same way that it "keeps" a ring system around the Sun (the asteroid belt).

Guess what - things in orbit around a planet tend to stay in orbit around a planet!

Are we ever going to get any plasma cosmology related posts from you Sol88?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_rings

 

[sol invictus]

Ok what role does plasma play in the Universe then?

It makes up most baryonic matter (which is a small fraction of the total matter density). It affects the dynamics of gas and dust clouds. It's important for understanding star formation and stellar dynamics, gamma ray bursts, supernovae, photon and cosmic ray propagation, etc. Generally speaking, it makes up a significant part of astrophysics, and most astrophysicists use plasma physics and plasma equations at some point.

One exception are cosmologists, for whom it plays almost no part at all (with a few exceptions, like understanding the structure of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background).

 

[temporalillusion]

Also Guybrush Threepwood, temporalillusion, and any others who've been reading along but not actively participating.

Sorry, don't have a good answer, I kind of stopped reading Zeuzzz's posts quite a while ago in this thread

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Back to Alice's Restaurant ...

Have you ever had a Thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat? How about two, in as many days?

If so, what did it consist of (apart from the company of Alice, her husband Ray, and Facha the dog)?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Please stay on topic DRD.

But I have to say, quickly checking the responces in this thread since my last post



I'm not even going to bother replying to anything until someone gives something substantiative to reply to based on what I posted.

Ziggurats post about the longest ranging force in nature has been about the only post with substance in the last 6 pages. Which I will reply to when I have time.

But meanwhile

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Please stay on topic DRD.

But I have to say, quickly checking the responces in this thread since my last post



I'm not even going to bother replying to anything until someone gives something substantiative to reply to based on what I posted.

Ziggurats post about the longest ranging force in nature has been about the only post with substance in the last 6 pages. Which I will reply to when I have time.

But meanwhile

(bold added)

Well, how about those dozens of unanswered questions, relating directly to what you have posted from page 1?

You promised to answer them, more than once IIRC, but seem to have given up after only the first two or three ...

You want to be taken seriously? you want your opinions and posts to be respected? How about staying engaged in the conversation then?

 

[Dancing David]

Please stay on topic DRD.

But I have to say, quickly checking the responces in this thread since my last post



I'm not even going to bother replying to anything until someone gives something substantiative to reply to based on what I posted.

Ziggurats post about the longest ranging force in nature has been about the only post with substance in the last 6 pages. Which I will reply to when I have time.

But meanwhile

I see so you can't answer RC's posts about the Perrat's model, still can't define your alleged model and then just dismiss whatever anyone else has to say.

Usual.

 

[Dancing David]

I might read them if there was any chance of galactic sized plasma filaments actually existing and so being observed. But as DRD has shown, this is not the case.

ETA: I assumed that you are talking about the Peratt papers. But you could mean the ones in your GRB web page. Do you?


Peratt assumes more than a galaxy. He assumes:

• That galactic plasma filaments estimated to have an width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and an average length of 350 megaparasec (1 billion light years) can exist.
• That pairs (or triplets or quartets, etc.) of these galactic plasma filaments came into being about 13 billion years ago (the ages of galaxies).
• That these pairs (or triplets or quartets, etc.) of these galactic plasma filaments were parallel.
• That the galactic plasma filaments have a current flowing through them (no cause of this current is specified).
• That gravity has no role in galaxy formation.

I (unlike you) know that the usage of gravitational forces on all of the matter involved gives matches to the actual data. This is a big difference from Peratt's model which produces no match at all to the actual data.
I (unlike you) know that dark matter is not an assumption. It is currently two actual observations (i.e. dark matter separated from visible matter). It is also dozens of observations of dark matter mixed with visible matter in galactic clusters like Abell 1689.

Your missed out a reply to:

I hope that you are not going continue with being obsessed by your reliance on an obviously invalid theory like Peratt's.

I have read them. I (unlike you) know that the paper assumes the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments. These are the ones in his very wrong plasma model of galaxy formation. Thus it is wrong from the start.

Why would someone waste their time publishing a refutation of an obviously wrong theory?
Any astronomer will get to his comparison of the mass distributions produced by the computer simulation with the light distributions in galactic images, laugh at the obvious mistake and move on.
I do hope that you know that spiral galaxies are only spirals in images. Their mass is actually distributed in a disc with a central bulge.

I do not and have never claimed "to know the *truth* of the matter". What I do know that Peratt's model of galaxy formation is invalid because it does not match the actual data. There of course the other minor problems, e.g. ignoring gravity, the invisible galactic sized plasma filaments, etc.

I have in fact read many of his papers. For example I found out the names of the plasma computer simulation software he used (which you seemed ignorant of). I have even seen the source for one of them. Have you?

I haven't looked into them in detail. But the material is there for those that want to, like I posted.

The issue I see with the electric discharge model of craters is that it lacks numbers and a complete model (from what I have seen). There are a lot of compelling reasons suggesting a link, the scale invarient nature of discharges, the self similarity tranformations that allow it, the spherules link, the 'splattering' evidence, the 'bobble' in the center of crater analogous to the bobble in plasma discharge experiments .... and all the other reasons in that paper. But as of yet, I have seen no model with numbers put forward. Thus I remain Skeptical.

Mainly because there exists no defintive model to be skeptical of, just a collection of vague but still interesting ideas.

As for the Iron sun, I really have not looked into it. I'll let michael do the talking for that one, or explain how it fits into PC, because I dont have a clue.




Just check in the peer reviewed journals and ignore non mathematical webpages that merely suggest vague ideas. As long as the maths hasn't been hypostatized, then its okay.

Now, what are your comments on the problems with all the publications I linked to in post 2460?

If you know of any peer reviewed refutations then please cite them, or come up with your own. Me, i'll put my trust in the Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the IEEE journals until I see valid critisism of the bulk ideas therin, not merely nitpicking the odd sentence here and there.

Thats what the peer review and trusted science journals are for, afterall. Separating the crackpot nonsense from the real science.

Namely (links in post 2460 above)

* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, 1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996
* Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103 1997
* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol246, 1998

And finally, for a direct comparison of the original plasma cosmology model, and the predictions it made and a comparison with the predictions of the Big Bang, I suggest,




Or lerners wiki article gives a good (though not fully representative) summary: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wiki.htm (based on some of the older models)

Tis not all though. There is more.

Hmm, looks like a substantiative reply and a lot of misdirection by you.

 

[Zeuzzz]

[*] Z is a mildly drug-addled early 20-something that was reasonably bright before taking too much E and burning holes in his brain

Whoaaaa! Hold your stereotypical horse there for a minute matey. Since this is so off topic, and something I get so annoyed about, I suggest signing up to the pharamacology section at drugs forum and speaking to some qualified pharmacologists and me (username Synesthesiac) about MDMA burning holes in your brain (which it categorically doesn't when taken infrequently in recommended clinical dosages, like I have, and hundreds of millions of other people) and whatever other misconceptions your have about it. You wouldn't last a second.

I'm at univeristy and I have a social life. Get over it. Your just jealous

Or start a thread here, be my guest. You might even learn something interesting outside of that little physics box of yours. You may want to check these out before saying anything stupid:

Govenment Scientist Caught Lying About Dangers of MDMA "Holes in the Brain Scandal"
MDMA Brain Scans Showing Neurotoxicity Discredited
Exaggerating MDMA's Risks to Justify A Prohibitionist Policy
MDMA. So... why do people use it?

You can take a wild guess which one I think is most likely

The last one. Obvious

So Z - if you're really interested, why not pursue studies in science and try to overturn the big bang and become famous?

I dont have to. Other people have suggested valid models which have already done this, and they remain without published rebuttals. But they are not famous. And their work is underappreciated and developed to far less precision that the dominant paradigm.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I see so you can't answer RC's posts about the Perrat's model, still can't define your alleged model and then just dismiss whatever anyone else has to say.

Usual.

I did answer RC's post here.

He didn't read the papers, just stated a whole load of things that were misrepresentations and wrong, in a blunt way that did not progress the discussion at all.

And its not about what I post, its about what I reference and link to. If I posted the papers I link to in their entirety they would be instantly removed due to the rules. On the previous page where I actually went to the bother capturing a print screen picture of one of the papers I linked to (because no-one had obviously read it), pasting it, cropping it, uploading it here, and posting it, no-one said a thing about it! Must be one of those dark posts that you cant see or detect I guess

Where? HERE.

I'm not holding my breath even now.

All I get is relentless requests to re-answer questions that are either a) already answered by me, but people disagreed with me so remain unresolved b) are misrepresentations and wrong c) maybe valid and I'm ignoring them because I dont know the answer yet or d) contain adhoms, accusations, or offhand disparaging non scientific remarks (I just skip these posts)

No-one came up with any direct quote from any of the papers I linked to and said why any of it was remotely wrong. People simply ignored it and the links I supplied.

I would expect that I could keep one line of argument at a time and try to resolve some things for good. There's one of me (with some support, on occasions), and lots of people arguing against me. As said previously. A critique of that above model would be a brilliant start. But, as I said before, the main ideas behind plasma cosmology and all the information you want to know can be seen in the links I suggest in this post.

I wait with baited breath that someone will read the links, explain the problems therein, explain why the papers are published repeatedly in reputable journals such as Astronomy and Astrophysics if they are so wrong, and why there are generally no (similar) peer reviewed rebuttals in the literature. I could post the abstracts, again, for the fiftieth time, or post the whole papers and have them all taken down, but whats the point? Eventually someone will have to read them.

I wont have the time to respond in detail for ages admittedly, but my cards are on the table now for all to see. And I look forward to reading the rebutalls in the future.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You know, bold added ...

I did answer RC's post here.

He didn't read the papers, just stated a whole load of things that were misrepresentations and wrong, in a blunt way that did not progress the discussion at all.

And its not about what I post, its about what I reference and link to. If I posted the papers I link to in their entirety they would be instantly removed due to the rules. On the previous page where I actually went to the bother capturing a print screen picture of one of the papers I linked to (because no-one had obviously read it), pasting it, cropping it, uploading it here, and posting it, no-one said a thing about it! Must be one of those dark posts that you cant see or detect I guess

Where? HERE.

I'm not holding my breath even now.

All I get is relentless requests to re-answer questions that are either a) already answered by me, but people disagreed with me so remain unresolved b) are misrepresentations and wrong c) maybe valid and I'm ignoring them because I dont know the answer yet or d) contain adhoms, accusations, or offhand disparaging non scientific remarks (I just skip these posts)

No-one came up with any direct quote from any of the papers I linked to and said why any of it was remotely wrong. People simply ignored it and the links I supplied.

I would expect that I could keep one line of argument at a time and try to resolve some things for good. There's one of me (with some support, on occasions), and lots of people arguing against me. As said previously. A critique of that above model would be a brilliant start. But, as I said before, the main ideas behind plasma cosmology and all the information you want to know can be seen in the links I suggest in this post.

I wait with baited breath that someone will read the links, explain the problems therein, explain why the papers are published repeatedly in reputable journals such as Astronomy and Astrophysics if they are so wrong, and why there are generally no (similar) peer reviewed rebuttals in the literature. I could post the abstracts, again, for the fiftieth time, or post the whole papers and have them all taken down, but whats the point? Eventually someone will have to read them.

I wont have the time to respond in detail for ages admittedly, but my cards are on the table now for all to see. And I look forward to reading the rebutalls in the future.

Why bother Z?

I mean, in the long history of this thread you have posted links to a great many papers ... only to have other JREF Forum members read them, comment on them, ask you questions about them, etc, etc, etc.

Some of those people waited with held breath that you would read those comments, critiques, and questions, and explain away the many fatal flaws in the ideas contained therein (well, they may have done so the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth times, but gave up after that). The questions etc were, on many occasions repeated, only to be ignored by you again, and again, and again.

For example, the 1996, 1997 (two), and 1998 Peratt papers you reference in post#2603 (and in #2460) were covered several times in the history of this thread, including at least once by me. And can you guess how you responded to the comments, critiques, and questions presented on those?

And you wonder why people begin to think you're a troll! Sheesh!

 

[sol invictus]

Whoaaaa! Hold your stereotypical horse there for a minute matey. Since this is so off topic, and something I get so annoyed about, I suggest signing up to the pharamacology section at drugs forum and speaking to some qualified pharmacologists and me (username Synesthesiac) about MDMA burning holes in your brain (which it categorically doesn't when taken infrequently in recommended clinical dosages, like I have, and hundreds of millions of other people) and whatever other misconceptions your have about it. You wouldn't last a second.

I think I'll just rely on the empirical evidence I have in front of me.

 

[Tubbythin]

I wait with baited breath that someone will read the links, explain the problems therein, explain why the papers are published repeatedly in reputable journals such as Astronomy and Astrophysics if they are so wrong, and why there are generally no (similar) peer reviewed rebuttals in the literature.

Because nobody writes rebuttals to papers that nobody cares about. Simple really.

 

[ben m]

All I get is relentless requests to re-answer questions that are either a) already answered by me, but people disagreed with me so remain unresolved

Surely you've noticed: sometimes if you answer a question and I disagree with your answer, it's because I think your answer is wrong, not because I think your answer raises further questions for debate.

You've just suggested a completely general rule under which it's impossible to prove you wrong. If you spent five hours defending the statement 1+1=3, you could just say, "I will not answer any more questions about 1+1, I already answered them and I consider it unresolved."

c) maybe valid and I'm ignoring them because I dont know the answer yet

First: Scientists do not ignore questions they don't know the answers to. They admit that they don't know the answers, and perhaps quantify their ignorance with error bars.

Second: There is a limit to how much "I don't know the answer" is worth. When a perpetual-motion inventor "doesn't know the answer" to a bunch of questions about what forces act on what part of his magneto-overbalanced wheel-o-matic, I do not consider this a reason to delay judgement on whether his machine will work. Again, you've devised a perfect criterion for never losing an argument. "Oh, you say that Peratt predicts different rotation speeds for gas, stars, and black holes? And that this explicitly disagrees with the data? In that case---well it's over my head, the jury must still be out!"

No-one came up with any direct quote from any of the papers I linked to and said why any of it was remotely wrong. People simply ignored it and the links I supplied.

We pointed out dozens of explicit problems with Peratt's papers. If you've read and understand the paper direct quotes are superfluous---unless you want to argue, "Hang on, the paper doesn't make the claim you're disproving, you misread it". Which you never, IIRC, did.

I wait with baited breath that someone will read the links, explain the problems therein,

Done, repeatedly

explain why the papers are published repeatedly in reputable journals such as Astronomy and Astrophysics if they are so wrong,

Because wrong papers get published all the time. It's part of the process.

and why there are generally no (similar) peer reviewed rebuttals in the literature.

See the previous post by Tubbythin.