Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

It is also pretty clear that proponents of such a "plasma cosmology" are merely creationists attempting to undo the accepted science of big bang cosmology because it doesn't fit with your religious beliefs. Too bad, but I live in the 21st century, unlike you and your creationist brethren.

wow! where did that come from? Could you show me any evidence at all that plasma cosmology proponents are creationists? or is that just word-salad?

heres a few plasma cosmologists, maybe you should check if they are creationists. I very much doubt it.

*Hannes Alfven. Recieved a Nobel prize for his work
*Anthony Peratt. Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy
*Timothy E. Eastman. Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups
*Gerrit L. Verschuur. PhD, University of Manchester, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis. He is the author of "Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery"

Yup, he's wrong - that is, if you're even representing his research properly. You're claims aren't even consistent within your own arguments. By definition, a plasma is composed of both negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. And it should be noted that not all positively charged ions are protons - you'd think that someone with an understanding of physics would know this.

Yes, but the very nature of the solar wind being a plasma mean that these positively and negatively charged particles can, and do, separate into currents and filaments.

There is even evidence of these incoming currents of particles in the ISM, flowing between stars.

Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

Filamentary structures in molecular clouds and the existence of subfilaments of sinusoidal shape and also of helixlike structures are investigated. For two dark clouds, the Lynds 204 complex and the Sandqvist 187-188 complex, such shapes and the possible existence of helices wound around the main filaments are studied. All these features suggest the existence of electric currents and magnetic fields in these clouds. On the basis of a generalization of the Bennett pinch model, the magnitudes of the currents expected to flow in the filaments are derived. Values of column densities, magnetic field strengths, and direction of the fields are derived from observations.

Scientists seem to be inadvertantly confirming what plasma cosmology proponents have been saying for years. The flow of electric currents observed in the interstellar medium is a direct consequence of the electric model, but has no place in standard models.

As close as i've got is so far is some sources suggesting that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 10⁵K (1), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (2), and that it may form its own current sheet (3), and that even the molecular clouds show these electric currents themselves (4).

(1) The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book) http://books.google.com/books?id=Io...nized&sig=ZLgucerNwozysa_V6TSB_52ShNQ#PPT1,M1

(2) The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book) http://books.google.com/books?id=Io...nized&sig=ZLgucerNwozysa_V6TSB_52ShNQ#PPT1,M1

(3) Current Sheet Formation in the Interstellar Medium Zweibel, Ellen G. Brandenburg, Astrophysical Journal v.478, p.563 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...478..563Z

(4) Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds Carlqvist, Per; Gahm, Gosta F. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ITPS...20..867C

 

[MattusMaximus]

wow! where did that come from? Could you show me any evidence at all that plasma cosmology proponents are creationists? or is that just word-salad?

Oops... I assumed that you were a creationist because whenever I'd heard people make such arguments in the past, they were doing so with the express desire to tear down big bang cosmology as a way of pushing creationism.

Okay, so you're not a creationist? Well then, good for you. You're still a moron, but not a Bible-thumping one at least.

Get back to me once you've actually learned something about physics and have the intellectual integrity to not misrepresent the papers authored by real scientists.

Until then, I leave you with this thought...

 

[Ziggurat]

On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of astronomy and Astrophysics

They say the sun should have about 77 Coulombs. That's tiny. How big a force do you think that should be exerting on a spaceship? Can you even estimate it? Or are you just going to wave your hands?

I should point out that that value they use is likely an underestimate,

Based on what? I've asked you that before. You have never provided an answer. I am left to conclude that it's because you want it to be so.

if the path of pioneer is casued exclusively by the E-field,

But we have no reason to think that is the case, and you have not shown that the E-field is or even can be anywhere near large enough. Try to do a calculation for once. If you can.

 

[Dancing David]

Don't ask for math, math can mean anythin!

 

[Zeuzzz]

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up the "Plasma Universe" pseudoscience. You obviously didn't realize that you were talking to a physics and astronomy teacher. Wow, talk about a world of woo...

Comparison of the "Plasma Universe" to Mainstream Cosmology

Linking to wikipedia to back up your claims? you trust wiki? I dont. If you want to see a version of wikipedia that is not closely moderated by people not experts in that particular field, it looks a lot different. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages nearly every paper cited is peer reviewed.

So, i can either believe a small section on a wikipedia page, or the hundreds of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. I wonder which i am more likely to believe?

If you have any scientific refutations of plamsa cosmology, preffereably peer reviewed, then please post them, they would make for interesting reading.

 

[Dancing David]

Linking to wikipedia to back up your claims? you trust wiki? I dont. If you want to see a version of wikipedia that is not closely moderated by people not experts in that particular field, it looks a lot different. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages nearly every paper cited is peer reviewed.

So, i can either believe a small section on a wikipedia page, or the hundreds of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. I wonder which i am more likely to believe?

If you have any scientific refutations of plamsa cosmology, preffereably peer reviewed, then please post them, they would make for interesting reading.

Hiya Zeuzz,

You seem to actualy want to talk and learn , as opposed to the wave and shout technique. You are using a ploy here. If you want to maintain credibility it is better to debate and critique the ideas of the wiki article. That way you will demonstrate your critical thinking skills and not just seem to be a radical on a soap box with a sign that says "The End is Near"..

Take it or leave it, the gauntlet is down, if you respond to the points and present evidence then you strenthen your case and we have better debate.

 

[iantresman]

YOU are the idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. [..]
You're still a moron, but not a Bible-thumping one at least.

.
Name calling is very weak argument.

Comparison of the "Plasma Universe" to Mainstream Cosmology

.
You'll note that not one of the citations provided (in this section) actually mentions the Plasma Universe, nor are any page numbers provided. I suspect that whoever wrote this section was providing their own personal opinions as the citations do not corroborate them. The Wiki article is also full of errors.

• I am not aware of any source that described Plasma Cosmology as a "non-standard cosmology", and certainly not the proponent claimed in the citation.
• "His most famous cosmological proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ionized matter and anti-matter " is actually attributed to Oscar Klein, and is called "Klein-Alfvén Cosmology"
• The reference does not support the claim that "electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on the largest scales."
• It is rubbish to suggest that "Alfvén came to this conclusion by extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales"
• It is rubbish that "Afvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations". See "Alfven's programme in solar system physics", Brush, Stephen G., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 577-589. He wrote: "Alfvén’s approach to science follows the prediction-testing method [.. and] should have acquired credit by their successful predictions"
• "Examples of the highly speculative nature of Alfvén's conclusions include factually inaccurate explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents". The citation never says it is "factually inaccurate", nor does it suggest star formation using Birkeland currents, but due to an "instability .. of `dust' triggering off a gravitationally assisted accretion."

And so it goes on.

 

[iantresman]

By definition, a plasma is composed of both negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. And it should be noted that not all positively charged ions are protons - you'd think that someone with an understanding of physics would know this.

.
Excluding, of course, charged particle beams which may consist of just one kind of charged particle (eg. electron beams, proton beams and ion beams) (ref)

And of course, while all plasmas include charged particles, not all collections of charged particles are plasmas. And indeed the definition of a plasma is more complicated than this, resulting in, for example, clouds of neutral H I hydrogen gas being classified as a cold plasma, because it's low degree of ionization (less than 10^-4) is sufficient to give it certain characteristics of a plasma.

 

[Yllanes]

.
Excluding, of course, charged particle beams which may consist of just one kind of charged particle (eg. electron beams, proton beams and ion beams) (ref)

A charged particle beam consisting of only one kind of particle is not a plasma. By definition a plasma is quasineutral.

 

[The Gnomon]

Perhaps physicists don't yet know all there is to know about gravity yet. It seems that five flyby spacecraft have seen unaccounted for accelerations, and NASA physicists are looking for a new explanation:

Without a doubt, "physicists don't yet know all there is to know about gravity." No-one claims they do. If they did, there wouldn't be any work for them, would there?
Physical science is a process. That process has produced a large body of information which has led to hypotheses which have proven to be useful in technological application. There is no dogma, there's just what works. No "scientific belief," just accumulated experience, systematically studied.

As to possible causes of the spacecraft deviating from predicted course- I suspect that anyone having something serious to contribute would not be posting here, but posting on a physicist's discussion site. For most of us, all we can put forth is our own beliefs. I prefer the hypothesis that demons from an alternative universe are messing with us. Like most of the postings on this site, this is not falsifiable.

 

[robinson]

That demons from another Universe thing actually has some supporters.

 

[Complexity]

The problem with the peer-review process is that, if one is a fool, one's peers are fools.

Zeuzzz is merely another in a long line of people who have taken the easy, anti-intellectual, beyond-reality path and yearn for some attention, however dismissive.

Zeuzzz is woo and is not worth another moment of anyone's time.

 

[iantresman]

A charged particle beam consisting of only one kind of particle is not a plasma. By definition a plasma is quasineutral.

.
From Physics of the Plasma Universe, published 1992 by Springer-Verlag, section Ι. Cosmic Plasma Fundamental, section 1 .1 Plasma.

"Plasma consists of electrically charged particles that respond collectively to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually clouds or beams of electrons or ions, or a mixture of electrons and ions, but also can be charged grains or dust particles" (my emphasis)​

A beam in a fully ionized plasma no longer becomes a non-plasma. It will still have the tendency to become neutralized, even if it is not able to do so instantaneously. Likewise electric double layers produced two charge separation regions, both of which also violate quasi-neutrality; but each charged region is still considered a plasma.

As far as I know, quasi-neutrality is a characteristic of plasmas, not a requirement, and the factors that do define a plasma (a) the plasma approximation (b) bulk interactions (c) plasma frequency, do not depend on quasi-neutrality.

However, it may well be that certain specialist areas do not consider charged particle beams to be "quasi-neutral" plasmas, and differentiate them accordingly.

 

[sol invictus]

It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old.

 

[sol invictus]

Now, you'd think from listening from some of the people on this forum that the scientists that found and are exploring this anomaly would be castigated for going against the established physics here, since that's what happens with their pet theories (see the arguments about the electric sun, for example). The difference between this and, say, the "iron sun hypothesis" is that there is evidence of a break with the established theory, and the possibility is literally being jumped on by physicists. Even those not involved (see the article) are not holding doubts in the face of the evidence.

Contrast and compare.

Yes, of course. When there's interesting observational data that might indicate something wrong with the standard paradigm people jump on it immediately. If someone can figure out why this is happening, and if the reason is actually something interesting (which remains to be seen), whoever gets it will become very, very famous.

The electric sun is just some idiotic idea that totally conflicts with data (not to mention Aristotelian logic). It's not comparable at all.

You do have to bear in mind that (at least in the case of the Pioneer anomaly) there were a lot of possible boring prosaic explanations for the data. Some of them do involve electromagnetic forces (kind of) - for example some effect related to our poor understanding of the solar wind/interstellar medium interface. However that doesn't work for this more recent data.

Based on lots of experience, scientists know that when something that looks new and exciting comes along it's probably not really exciting and new, so they tend to be skeptical (and rightly so - you have to be selective about the topics you choose to pursue, or you'd never get anything done).

 

[iantresman]

The problem with the peer-review process is that, if one is a fool, one's peers are fools.

Zeuzzz is merely another in a long line of people who have taken the easy, anti-intellectual, beyond-reality path and yearn for some attention, however dismissive.

Zeuzzz is woo and is not worth another moment of anyone's time.

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

 

[robinson]

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

That explains a lot.

 

[Ziggurat]

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan

I cannot claim I understand Zeuzzz, nor do I especially care to. I can state, however, that he's got no clue about physics. I do not need to understand him in order to determine that much of what he says is simply wrong.

 

[robinson]

I don't understand half of what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make you a fool.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand half of what you are trying to say

Well there's a surprise.

The thing is, I do understand the claims Zeuzzz is making. I don't know why he makes such claims, but I understand the claims themselves. And I understand that they're wrong, and why they are wrong. Can you say as much?