Something new under the sun

[BeAChooser]

who of course linked the the plasma universe web site so I ignored it until now.

See what we mean, folks?

 

[BeAChooser]

it will have to suffice for now as there seems to be no other paper addressing the net charge the sun could possesses.

Nor interest on the part of NASA and the mainstream community to find out.

 

[BeAChooser]

If exhibiting an explicit and simple solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects

How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

 

[BeAChooser]

The second problem is that he is using equations describing plasmoids (I may be mis-recalling but I assume that you will correct me). He uses similarity transformations to scale the plasmoid up to galactic size. This makes the plasma 1 big plasmoid. Is this realistic?

You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, they are. Can you explain them with gravity? Especially the second one. Can you offer an explanation for what appear to be two filaments of plasma that are wound in a helix structure?

That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics.

That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where?

What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study?

What about grounding in electric universe Scientology or plasma cosmology voodoo?

No, I'm invoking human nature ... a story that we've already seen played out a thousand times in a thousand different circumstances. Have you ever read the story of Alfven's struggle to get his ideas (which have now been proved correct) accepted by the mainstream astrophysics community? Hmmmm?

In other words your pessimistic view of human nature. In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!).
Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted. But it is the proof that got then accepted (good old scientific method - you should learn about it some time).

Obviously not since there are many scientists who don't agree with mainstream astrophysics and Big Bang gnomes ... or for that matter other widely held theories ... like Global Warming (which curiously enough they say is primarily due to solar output, not human activities). Tell me, RC ... do you believe that GW (if it is really occuring at all) is dominated by human activities?

There are scientists who disagree with mainstream astrophysics.
As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so. Thus I have to do what you do and trust the experts who are fairly split on whether it is caused by humans (most agree that is is happening). There are plenty of other threads on this if you want to ask there.

Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

Why should he when gravity works?

And formally, I suppose you could claim that plasma cosmology wasn't proposed until the 1960's ... by Alfven. But the physics and phenomena that I'm most concerned about mainstream scientists ignoring were discovered by plasma physicists much earlier. Birkeland suggested electrical explanations for aurora and other space phenomena in 1908. It was 1913 when Birkeland predicted that plasma was ubiquitous in space (you folks wanted a successful prediction?). He did his terrella experiments long before Zwicky needed dark matter.

Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space".

Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen.

So why didn't they reject the paper (oh - maybe someone was too scared it to submit to their review)

You might be surprised at how much money is *invested* in the theory of Big Bang and proving it correct. Care to count the number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that have justified their construction by pointing to the Big Bang theory?

Actually I would not be surprised. It must be all of 1% of the scientific budget of the world. There are a large number of space probes, telescopes (of all kinds), and particle physics facilities that are researching the universe and they do tend to sex up their budget requests with Big Bang references. So what? Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects?

 

[Reality Check]

1. Stars are plasma, and he is using the overall field produced by all them as a whole. Modelling every star in the galaxy individually would be quite a task.

2. Not true (see below)

3. Individual stars do not enter into it, he is modelling the galaxy. Just the same as many large galaxy models using gravity take the mean amount of mass per unit area in the galaxy. They do not put in the individual effects of every star.

4. This would be negligable (especially when the mass and forces of stars is taken into account and compared to it). And i expect that CIV would soon ionize any of the neutral regions that were once thought to exist.

5. When you take into consideration the huge size of the galaxy to stars, this is negligable.


Hmmmm, maybe reading his material would be an idea? (how many times have i said that now?!?)

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

So you are stating that the plasma in a star is exactly the same as the plasma in the interstellar medium? That is it has the same density and so gravity can be ignored when considering the interaction of stars with each other?

 

[BeAChooser]

We have observed dark matter

No, you have NOT *observed* the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

At the end of the day, you are going to judge for yourself whether Plasma Cosmology (the study of the Plasma Universe), is bunkum.

I am and it is.

Because all space plasmas are magnetized, and the weak local magnetic field overwhelms gravitational forces at a distance. For example, the smaller-scale interplanetary medium (a plasma) although it is populated with the Sun, planets and asteroids, is influenced more by the interplanetary magnetic field than gravity, resulting in the largest structure in the Solar System, the heliospheric current sheet.

That is true in the gaseous plasma itself but note your own words "weak local magnetic field". The magnetic fields have little effect on things outside the plasma.

The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is where you would expect to find experts on plasmas. If the Moon was made of green cheese, you'd consult a food scientist, not a lunar scientist.

Can I conclude that the cosmology part of these papers is unimportant or some sort of afterthought by the authors? Or are you saying that the authors purposely published in IEEE so that they could avoid review by cosmologits?

You wouldn't expect new ideas to be supported by the status quo. Alfvén himself wrote that he had to submit papers to more obscure journals because referees did not understand his papers, and, cosmologists did not like someone trained as an electrical engineer infringing on their area of expertise.

You are correct new ideas are never supported by the status quo, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations for electormagnetism, General Relativity and a 100 more new ideas.

University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, notes:

"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S. Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. "​

Alfvén's work in space physics is right. I do not disagree with that.

 

[Reality Check]

How can something "reconnect" that the mainstream admits can't be open in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

Read the posting that Zeuzzz seems to be incapable of reading and be a better man (or woman) than him (or her).

 

[Reality Check]

You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.

I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it? Or it is just part of the model?
Previously you were claiming a "core plasmoid" to take the place of the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. If that is right why cannot a plasmoid be the size of a galaxy?

 

[BeAChooser]

That is exactly what they are - low density plasma filaments possibly self-collimated, totally described by conventional plasma physics.

You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-07242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's not what experts in plasma say. And they can (and have) demonstrated you are wrong in both lab experiments and using large scale computer models of EM/plasma physics.

So you are stating that plasmas are not ionized gas (mostly hydrogen) where there can be a separation between the negative and positive charges, e.g. double-layers. That they are actually just all one charge or the other? Or that some of the charge of one sign vanishes and so where?

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

What about grounding in electric universe Scientology or plasma cosmology voodoo?

An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding.

In other words your pessimistic view of human nature.

No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published.

In your view scientific theories are never challenged and new theories are always ignored (poor neglected Einstein!).

Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen?

Some of Alfven's have now been proved correct and are now accepted.

Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time.

As for GW, I do not know. I am not qualified to say so.

So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well dark matter was first suggested in the 1930's by Zwicky ... right? And he introduced it to explain how gravity and gravity alone could account for the rotation curves of galaxies. But did Zwicky ever look at the possibility that EM forces were the cause? Can you point us to a single reference where he did?

Why should he when gravity works?

It *works* only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of *something* that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies.

Please cite the plasma cosmology paper by Birkeland in which Birkeland predicted that "plasma was ubiquitous in space".

Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser?

Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Perhaps because at the time cosmologists and astrophysicists were only "grounded" in gravity ... so it was natural for them to look for an explanation that only involved gravity ... even if it meant accepting a bunch of gnomes that can't be seen.

So why didn't they reject the paper

Because the reviewers were just as "grounded" in gravity.

Are you claiming that every scientist in the world or even every cosmologist in the world is budgeted by or is working for one of these projects?

Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you.

 

[BeAChooser]

I am merely asking whether a plasmoid the size of a galaxy is a realistic object. Is it?

No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the *expertise* in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming.

 

[Reality Check]

No, you have NOT *observed* the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.

They are not inferences even though "infer" appears in the article (unless you want to call everything that plasma "cosmology" is based on an inference). They are calculations as valid as or even more valid as those in plasma cosmology.
Read the article - the dark matter observation itself uses gravitational lensing. This is the same bending of light that happens in telescopes but on a cosmic scale. Redshift and velocity measurments were probably used to confirm that the dark matter was associated with the cluster (rather than just wandering around the universe).

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked Zeuzzz:

That reminds of another insignificant question: What happens in plasma "cosmology" when 2 galactic clusters collide as with the Bullet Cluster?
I assume that part of the plasma turns dark, ceases to interact strongly with matter and splits apart from the rest of the plasma. Can you outline the mechanism?

 

[Reality Check]

No, what you are doing is throwing out a strawman because you are unwilling to even open a link by Peratt or Alfven and learn what they propose. You are demonstrating that you are not the least interested in learning about this. You've already made up your mind ... I guess because you think you have the *expertise* in this subject to know what is right and wrong ... unlike in the case of Global Warming.

Actually I know that I do not have the expertise in this subject to know what is right and wrong. That is the reason that I ask questions!
I have stated my credentials before but perhaps not in this thread - a Master of Physics earned 20 years ago but never really used (followed by 20 years in IT).

 

[Reality Check]

You are hand waving. Everything that I find on the internet regarding "self-collimated" plasmas (e.g., http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-07242007-162442/ ) indicates that term has to do with EM effects ... not gravity. And it describes those effects affecting plasmas at a distance ... which you indicated couldn't happen. And what they describe sounds suspiciously like the known interaction of Birkeland currents ... without apparently recognizing it.

You asked what they look like to me. They look like plasmas. Their internal features look like typical plasma features. They are in a roughly straight line so they may be possibly self-colilmated (a term I have seen associated with the M87 jets). There are many other possibilities. They could be reminants of a jet. They may be contrained by a magnetic field of some sort. They may be contrained by gravity, e.g. part of a much large structure in orbit around something (a galaxy?).

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

I want to understand - that is why I ask questions in the vague hope that I will get some clear answers.

An astrophysics community that doesn't even seem to recognize such long established plasma physics phenomena as Birkeland currents when they are staring them in the face is sadly deficient in any form of grounding.

No, a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. You seem to think of science as some sort of idealistic, ivory tower utopia when in fact it is now a business which has long been subject to the whims of human nature in terms of what is accepted or not accepted ... funded or not funded ... published or not published.

Of course I take a realistic and pragmatic view of human nature. In an "idealistic, ivory tower utopia" every scientific paper would be peer-reviewed by a number of anonymous reviewers in every area that the paper covers. In the real world a paper covering multiple areas can be published in a journal covering one area and reviewed by reviewers expert in that one area. In a small enough area the reviewers can even be friends or workmates of the authors.

Now did I actually say that? Of course not. Do you like strawmen?

Did you read the story of what it took before they were accepted? Since you don't appear to want to actually read anything about that, I'll tell you what it took. The death of his mainstream opponents who happened to control the scientific establishment at the time.

That is actually one of the ways that new ideas get accepted. I hope all the deaths were natural !

So you are claiming you know that mainstream astrophysics is correct because you are qualified to say so?

I am not. I hoped you were. What are your qualifications?

It *works* only if he imagines the existence in vast quantities (5 times more than the stuff he actually does know exists) of *something* that he cannot see and that acts differently than most of what he can see. A gnome. But at least I guess you admit that he did NOT consider the possibility that EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies.

Gravity works because "EM effects were responsible for the rotation curve deviation of those galaxies" is wrong. Dark Matter is responsible.

Why? Are you just too lazy to look it up using your browser?

Looked it up, cannot find it, thus it does not exist, therefore he lied to me?

Kristian Birkeland, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, 1913. "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space."

Nice quote. It shows that Kristian Birkeland was an insightful and probably very smart scientist.That you can cut and paste. And nothing more.

Of course not. You do like throwing out strawmen, don't you.

Hey I have a great teacher in you !

 

[Reality Check]

Just for a change here is a new question for all you plasma cosmologists and EU theorists:
Part of the evidence for Dark Matter is missing matter in galactic clusters. I have read the paper on the plasma model that explains the galatic rotation curve that is explained by dark matter in conventional cosmology. This lead to me thinking about galactic clusters but I could not find anything definite on the web to do with plasma cosmology.

Has anyone applied the plasma cosmology model to galactic clusters?

 

[robinson]

What a co-incidence! I point out some of the stupid assumptions in Mattus' calculation, point out that I already did this calculation before anyway (here) and concluded myself that this force was largely negligible, point out that the pioneer anomaly is not even really applicable to the ES theory, and that the value he used for the charge on the spacecraft would quite literally make it explode, and he then states that I am on ignore! someone quote this post so he can read it.

I have Mattus on ignore, so please stop responding to his nonsense.

This guy is hilarious! 1C on the spacecraft would obliterate it, and 100 C on the sun is what standard astronomers currently think the charge on the sun is anyway

You probably posted a link to that, but could you do it again? How do we know what charge the sun has?

The fifth problem is doubtful and one that I may need help on. I suspect that a mass of plasma treated as one big gravitational body behaves differently from a mass of stars treated as a gravitational body each.

Stars are a large mass of plasma. Your statement makes no sense. Almost everything in the Universe is plasma.

 

[robinson]

Plasma. EM. Currents, loops, magnetic field lines breaking. This and the other topics discussing electricity and magnetism and plasmas and dark matter and energy and unexplained acceleration of probes, they have all expanded the knowledge of the Universe.

Now make it stop. My brain is going to explode.

 

[Reality Check]

You probably posted a link to that, but could you do it again? How do we know what charge the sun has?

The theory tells us about 77 coulombs.

Stars are a large mass of plasma. Your statement makes no sense. Almost everything in the Universe is plasma.

There are various types of plasma that differ according to their parameters - see the electron density vs temperature diagram in the article. The center of the sun is emormously different from the interstellar plasma by factors of 10³⁰ (electron density) and 10⁶ (temperature). Stars are dense bodies. My expectation is that they would be affected mostly by gravity like other dense bodies (e.g. Jupiter). They would not be affected much if at all by EM in interstellar plasma. This suggests to me that they are not included in the plasma model of the galaxy.
However I am not an expert in this area and expect to be corrected.

 

[sol invictus]

My expectation is that they would be affected mostly by gravity like other dense bodies (e.g. Jupiter). They would not be affected much if at all by EM in interstellar plasma.

That is absolutely correct. Claiming that stars must behave just like interstellar gas because the particles in both are ionized makes as much sense as saying that chunks of lead and styrofoam will have the same behavior in the ocean since both are solids.

If we're back to the claim that the rotation curves of galaxies are affected by electromagnetic forces, here's something to think about. We've known since the 1970's that stars orbit around the galactic center too fast given how much visible matter there is. Let's see what contribution EM forces could make to that.

We know what the maximum charge on a star is - around 100C. We know that the orbital speeds of stars in a typical galaxy are 100s of km/s - let's say 250 km/s, using numbers for the Milky Way at 10,000 parsecs. The visible mass of our galaxy inside that radius is about 50 billion solar masses. So the acceleration due to gravity is G M/r^2 ~ 10^-4 m/s^2. As a check, this should be roughly v^2/r (that's the virial theorem, or just the equation for an orbit), and it's close at this level of accuracy (the actual discrepancy is part of the evidence for DM).

OK, so the acceleration is about 10^-4. Now, given an object with a mass of 10^30 kg and a charge of 100C, how big of an electric field would one need to create that acceleration? Well, the answer is E = F/q = ma/q=10^24 V/m . How about a magnetic field? Well, then we have B = ma/qv = 10^19 T.

Let me give you a sense of how utterly ridiculous these numbers are. There is a maximum possible electric field in nature. Any larger, and electrons and positrons will be produced spontaneously from the vacuum, creating a current that neutralizes the field (that's called Schwinger pair production). The value of that critical field is about 10^17 V/m.

As for magnetic fields, the most highly magnetized objects known to mankind are a bizarre kind of compact object, probably a supernova remnant, called magnetars. These have a field (very close to their surface) of perhaps as much as 10^11 T.

A realistic number for the magnetic field in the galaxy is nanoTesla. Using that gives an acceleration which is 28 orders of magnitude less than the acceleration due to gravity.

Draw your own conclusions.