Death Star Galaxy

Everyone knows the only Death-Star-looking astronomical object is Mimas:

Mimas_moon.jpg
 
Last edited:
From the article:

much like how a stream of water from a hose will splay out after hitting a wall at an angle.
Click to expand...

Notice how mainstream astrophysicists keep treating charged plasma like it is neutral gas ... making analogies to water and fluid flow and completely ignoring electromagnetic effects?

Notice this more complete report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7148671.stm

It quotes Martin Hardcastle, co-author of the discovery, saying "There are still basic unanswered questions about how these jets work." "We don't know how exactly they're generated close to the black hole, what they're made of, how fast they're going, or how they evolve with time."

But I thought the Big Bang supporting mainstream had it all figured out. They and their proponents have certainly been dismissive of anyone who suggests they don't.

But it is a cool picture David.
 
BeAChooser said:
Notice how mainstream astrophysicists keep treating charged plasma like it is neutral gas ... making analogies to water and fluid flow and completely ignoring electromagnetic effects?
Click to expand...


No, science writers for the news treat charged plasma like it's a neutral gas, so that they can make analogies that lay people can understand. The actual astrophysicists take the charge characteristics of the plasma into account in their models.
 
Last edited:
tracer said:
The actual astrophysicists take the charge characteristics of the plasma into account in their models.
Click to expand...

Want to bet?

Here are some descriptions of their largest model yet.

http://www.physorg.com/news116170410.html "December 06, 2007, Supercomputer simulation of universe may help in search for missing matter ... snip ... Much of the gaseous mass of the universe is bound up in a tangled web of cosmic filaments that stretch for hundreds of millions of light-years, according to a new supercomputer study by a team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder."

Notice in that article that they don't refer to the material as plasma and they don't seem to recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments.

Continuing from the article:

"Professor Moffat adds, ‘If the multi-billion dollar laboratory experiments now underway succeed in directly detecting dark matter, then I will be happy to see Einsteinian and Newtonian gravity retained. However, if dark matter is not detected and we have to conclude that it does not exist ... "

All they talk about is gravity.

Continuing from the article:

"It took the researchers nearly a decade to produce the extraordinarily complex computer code that drove the simulation, which incorporated virtually all of the known physical conditions of the universe reaching back in time almost to the Big Bang, said Burns. The simulation -- which uses advanced numerical techniques to zoom-in on interesting structures in the universe -- modeled the motion of matter as it collapsed due to gravity and became dense enough to form cosmic filaments and galaxy structures."

Gravity gravity gravity.

Here are more sources on this from the same authors ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610851 "AMR Simulations of the Cosmological Light Cone: SZE Surveys of the Synthetic Universe,
Eric J. Hallman (1), Brian W. O'Shea (2), Michael L. Norman (3), Rick Wagner (3), Jack O. Burns (1), ... snip ... (Submitted on 27 Oct 2006) We present preliminary results from simulated large sky coverage (~100 square degrees) Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (SZE) cluster surveys using the cosmological adaptive mesh refinement N-body/hydro code Enzo. Download the PDF file from that link and read the article. Here is what it states about the method they are using: "The simulation used to generate the light cones described in this poster is of a 512 Mpc/h comoving volume of the universe, with the following cosmological parameters: ... snip ... . The simulation was initialized on a 512 3 root grid with 5123 dark matter particles, corresponding to a dark matter (baryon) mass resolution of 7.2 × 10 10 (1.1 ×10 10) M ?/h and an initial comoving spatial resolution of 1 Mpc/h. The simulation was then evolved to z=0 using a maximum of 4 levels of adaptive mesh refinement. This simulation results in a higher dynamic range than achieved by any previous AMR cosmological simulation representing such a large physical volume."

There is no mention of EM effects ... just gravity.

And here's a description of the code they are using and what is modeled:

http://www.sdsc.edu/News Items/PR081707_enzo.html "08.17.07 ... snip ... We need to zoom in on these dense regions to capture the key physical processes -- including gravitation, flows of normal and ‘dark’ matter, and shock heating and radiative cooling of the gas,' said Norman. 'This requires ENZO’s ‘adaptive mesh refinement’ capability.'"

And again you can see there is no mention of EM effects.

Here's a third source: http://www.nsf.gov/news/overviews/co...creensaver.jsp "This image shows the distribution of visible matter -- galaxies, quasars, and gas clouds -- inside a cube-shaped volume 248 million light-years on a side, the product of the world's most complex scientific simulation of the evolution of the universe ever performed. University of California, San Diego, cosmologist Michael Norman ran his Enzo program ... snip ... tracking more than a billion particles of visible matter and dark matter ... snip ... The simulation begins only 30 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was a uniform sea of hydrogen and helium gas and dark matter. Over time, irregularities in density of about one part in a thousand are amplified by the action of gravity to form clusters of galaxies in enormous sheets and strings separated by immense voids."

Again, not one mention of electro-magnetic forces.

Still another source: http://www.sdsc.edu/us/sac/projects/enzo.html "We were able to use the Enzo code, developed for cosmological simulations of the early Universe, in an entirely new regime -- to model supersonic turbulence, the sort that prevails in molecular clouds throughout our own Milky Way galaxy and in many other situations," said Norman."

Sorry, but they are clearly modeling neutral gas and using methods more suited to studying supersonic flight than electromagnetic phenomena.

And even when mainstream astrophysicists do mention an electromagnetic phenomena, they only talk about magnetism and resort to all sorts of bogus theories involving frozen-in, tangled, open and reconnecting field lines. They never talk about electric currents and fields, and electromagnetic phenomena in plasma such as birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches.
 
BeAChooser said:
Notice how mainstream astrophysicists keep treating charged plasma like it is neutral gas ... making analogies to water and fluid flow and completely ignoring electromagnetic effects?
Click to expand...

"Fluid" does not mean liquid. Liquids are a subset of fluids, but "fluid" includes liquids, gases, and plasmas. Hell, it's even used to describe electrons inside metals. The use of the term in no way demands any comparison to water at all. You've got a lot to learn.
 
BeAChooser said:
Notice in that article that they don't refer to the material as plasma
Click to expand...

Because it's not plasma. Plasmas require very high temperatures, and you only get a lot of that with 1) stars and 2) the VERY early stages of the universe. Otherwise, electrons and nuclei (mostly just protons) combine to form gas. And gas is neutral, which means it will neither exert not respond to an electric or magnetic field. But (and here's the big surprise) it still produces and responds to gravity. Gee... why might gravity be the dominant force in the large-scale dynamics of gasses? Hmmm....

and they don't seem to recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments.
Click to expand...

That's nice. But what happens to plasma cannot explain what we see gas doing.

All they talk about is gravity.
Click to expand...

I wonder why that might be. Maybe because at those scales, it's the only significant force acting on gasses.

"08.17.07 ... snip ... We need to zoom in on these dense regions to capture the key physical processes -- including gravitation, flows of normal and ‘dark’ matter, and shock heating and radiative cooling of the gas,' said Norman. 'This requires ENZO’s ‘adaptive mesh refinement’ capability.'"

And again you can see there is no mention of EM effects.
Click to expand...

Umm... radiative cooling? That's actually an EM effect.

Sorry, but they are clearly modeling neutral gas and using methods more suited to studying supersonic flight than electromagnetic phenomena.
Click to expand...

Well gee, when you're modelling a gas and not a plasma, doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for gasses and not for plasmas? And do you understand what the term "supersonic" means in this context? It's got nothing to do with flight as such.
 
Don't try to reason with BeACrackpot - it rolls off him like water of a quack's back. :)

I'm rather proud of that one, if I do say so myself... lack of sleep, probably.
 
Ziggurat said:
"Fluid" does not mean liquid. Liquids are a subset of fluids, but "fluid" includes liquids, gases, and plasmas.
Click to expand...

Well DUH. Did I say anywhere that "fluid" means "liquid". No.

Ziggurat said:
The use of the term in no way demands any comparison to water at all.
Click to expand...

Yet they did. Let me quote again from the thread's article:

much like how a stream of water from a hose will splay out after hitting a wall at an angle.
Click to expand...

Now try to show me ANYWHERE in the models that mainstream astrophysicists are using to describe production of jets, stars or the behavior of galaxies where they include such things as currents, electric fields, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. You probably can't do it.
 
Never mind that nowhere in any of those sources is there a single mention of anything that requires a charged plasma in order to be happening. Lots of gravity, though.
 
BeAChooser said:
Want to bet?

Here are some descriptions of their largest model yet.

http://www.physorg.com/news116170410.html "December 06, 2007, Supercomputer simulation of universe may help in search for missing matter ... snip ... Much of the gaseous mass of the universe is bound up in a tangled web of cosmic filaments that stretch for hundreds of millions of light-years, according to a new supercomputer study by a team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder."

Notice in that article that they don't refer to the material as plasma and they don't seem to recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments.

Continuing from the article:

"Professor Moffat adds, ‘If the multi-billion dollar laboratory experiments now underway succeed in directly detecting dark matter, then I will be happy to see Einsteinian and Newtonian gravity retained. However, if dark matter is not detected and we have to conclude that it does not exist ... "

All they talk about is gravity.

Continuing from the article:

"It took the researchers nearly a decade to produce the extraordinarily complex computer code that drove the simulation, which incorporated virtually all of the known physical conditions of the universe reaching back in time almost to the Big Bang, said Burns. The simulation -- which uses advanced numerical techniques to zoom-in on interesting structures in the universe -- modeled the motion of matter as it collapsed due to gravity and became dense enough to form cosmic filaments and galaxy structures."

Gravity gravity gravity.

Here are more sources on this from the same authors ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610851 "AMR Simulations of the Cosmological Light Cone: SZE Surveys of the Synthetic Universe,
Eric J. Hallman (1), Brian W. O'Shea (2), Michael L. Norman (3), Rick Wagner (3), Jack O. Burns (1), ... snip ... (Submitted on 27 Oct 2006) We present preliminary results from simulated large sky coverage (~100 square degrees) Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (SZE) cluster surveys using the cosmological adaptive mesh refinement N-body/hydro code Enzo. Download the PDF file from that link and read the article. Here is what it states about the method they are using: "The simulation used to generate the light cones described in this poster is of a 512 Mpc/h comoving volume of the universe, with the following cosmological parameters: ... snip ... . The simulation was initialized on a 512 3 root grid with 5123 dark matter particles, corresponding to a dark matter (baryon) mass resolution of 7.2 × 10 10 (1.1 ×10 10) M ?/h and an initial comoving spatial resolution of 1 Mpc/h. The simulation was then evolved to z=0 using a maximum of 4 levels of adaptive mesh refinement. This simulation results in a higher dynamic range than achieved by any previous AMR cosmological simulation representing such a large physical volume."

There is no mention of EM effects ... just gravity.

And here's a description of the code they are using and what is modeled:

http://www.sdsc.edu/News Items/PR081707_enzo.html "08.17.07 ... snip ... We need to zoom in on these dense regions to capture the key physical processes -- including gravitation, flows of normal and ‘dark’ matter, and shock heating and radiative cooling of the gas,' said Norman. 'This requires ENZO’s ‘adaptive mesh refinement’ capability.'"

And again you can see there is no mention of EM effects.

Here's a third source: http://www.nsf.gov/news/overviews/co...creensaver.jsp "This image shows the distribution of visible matter -- galaxies, quasars, and gas clouds -- inside a cube-shaped volume 248 million light-years on a side, the product of the world's most complex scientific simulation of the evolution of the universe ever performed. University of California, San Diego, cosmologist Michael Norman ran his Enzo program ... snip ... tracking more than a billion particles of visible matter and dark matter ... snip ... The simulation begins only 30 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was a uniform sea of hydrogen and helium gas and dark matter. Over time, irregularities in density of about one part in a thousand are amplified by the action of gravity to form clusters of galaxies in enormous sheets and strings separated by immense voids."

Again, not one mention of electro-magnetic forces.

Still another source: http://www.sdsc.edu/us/sac/projects/enzo.html "We were able to use the Enzo code, developed for cosmological simulations of the early Universe, in an entirely new regime -- to model supersonic turbulence, the sort that prevails in molecular clouds throughout our own Milky Way galaxy and in many other situations," said Norman."

Sorry, but they are clearly modeling neutral gas and using methods more suited to studying supersonic flight than electromagnetic phenomena.

And even when mainstream astrophysicists do mention an electromagnetic phenomena, they only talk about magnetism and resort to all sorts of bogus theories involving frozen-in, tangled, open and reconnecting field lines. They never talk about electric currents and fields, and electromagnetic phenomena in plasma such as birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches.
Click to expand...

This is a repeat of another post in another thread.

Very close to spam BAC.
 
BeAChooser - Please only play in those threads that I don't read.

You irked me at 'hello'.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because it's not plasma. Plasmas require very high temperatures, and you only get a lot of that with 1) stars and 2) the VERY early stages of the universe. Otherwise, electrons and nuclei (mostly just protons) combine to form gas. And gas is neutral, which means it will neither exert not respond to an electric or magnetic field. But (and here's the big surprise) it still produces and responds to gravity. Gee... why might gravity be the dominant force in the large-scale dynamics of gasses? Hmmm....



That's nice. But what happens to plasma cannot explain what we see gas doing.



I wonder why that might be. Maybe because at those scales, it's the only significant force acting on gasses.



Umm... radiative cooling? That's actually an EM effect.



Well gee, when you're modelling a gas and not a plasma, doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for gasses and not for plasmas? And do you understand what the term "supersonic" means in this context? It's got nothing to do with flight as such.
Click to expand...

Ziggy, BAC assumes that all the universe is plasma. He defines it that way, he refuses to discuss with people, he insists that every thing in the universe is plasma and that these huge EM currents flow through space, he is some sort of follower of Arp and Scott. The plasma cosmology is much cooler than the electric sun.

He will accuse you of being part of the BBE conspiracy to supress, ignore and deny funding to his private desires.
 
Schneibster said:
Never mind that nowhere in any of those sources is there a single mention of anything that requires a charged plasma in order to be happening. Lots of gravity, though.
Click to expand...

That is his point, he mixes plasma cosmology with the electric sun. He beleives that the BBE theory is about to collapse and is only existing due to the duplicity and willing suppression of his pet theories. So he is upset that someone is modeling the universe without assuming that everything is plasma.
 
BeAChooser said:
Well DUH. Did I say anywhere that "fluid" means "liquid". No.



Yet they did. Let me quote again from the thread's article:



Now try to show me ANYWHERE in the models that mainstream astrophysicists are using to describe production of jets, stars or the behavior of galaxies where they include such things as currents, electric fields, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. You probably can't do it.
Click to expand...


Beware BAC, Ziggy is one of the people who does understand the math and the physics, so be sure that you really undersatnd the stuff you sling around. If it is bogus, the underlying mistakes will be shown.
 
A recent tour of BAC

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100935

In this one , in the final page he is discussing an alternative solution to general relativity. (He likes the plasma steady state universe).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99727

An introduction to Thunderbolts and a brief tour of BACs thoughts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595

The Motherlode also staring TVFrank's four questions

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595
 
BeAChooser - If you believe the results Enzo produces are fundamentally wrong then either:
a) Justify why the included physics is wrong (not incomplete - it necessarily has to take shortcuts and reduce the number of particles in the simulation and so on, but actually wrong)
or
b) Add in all your plasma physics to the Enzo code (Enzo is open source) or one of its equivalents (or heck, write your own), and run a simulation of something with the accepted amount of baryonic matter, introducing none of what you insultingly call gnomes, and produce better simulations of our observations of the universe

If you cannot produce better results, don't expect anyone to listen. I'm certainly yet to see anything remotely convincing from the plasma cosmology crowd.
 
BeAChooser said:
Now try to show me ANYWHERE in the models that mainstream astrophysicists are using to describe production of jets, stars or the behavior of galaxies where they include such things as currents, electric fields, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. You probably can't do it.
Click to expand...

So what? I don't find examples of astrophysicists using such things as Bragg scattering, negtive indexes of refraction, or Bose-Einstein condensation either. Want to know why? Because they're not applicable. Extra-solar matter is not plasma. And we can tell because plasma does not look the same as gas. Why should we use plasma physics to describe things that are not plasmas?
 
Ziggurat said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice in that article that they don't refer to the material as plasma

Because it's not plasma.
Click to expand...

Really? You believe that?

The thread's article doesn't say what comprises the jet. Another source on the current discovery says its "charged particles", but that again is rather vague. But the galaxies and gas they do mention in the thread's article are indeed mostly plasma. And production of these charged particle jets should be explained in THAT context. If there is an electromagnetic explanation for jets and some of the galactic behavior now attributed to black holes and bogus magnetic physics, then it should be considered rather than just ignored as mainstream researchers are currently doing.

If you look at articles on the production of jets by black holes, you will find they again do not mention electromagnetism. They talk about gravity and magnetic phenomena that for some reason they have been unable to demonstrate in laboratories: such as frozen-in, tangled, open and reconnecting magnetic fields. Plus they add in huge amounts of dark matter to make galaxies rotate correctly. There is no mention in any mainstream article that there is an ELECTROmagnetic explanation for jets that actually has been seen in laboratories and can be modeled using state of the art computer codes based on proven physics. There is no mention that electromagnetism was proven decades ago to be capable of explaining the rotation curves too.

Now let's look at the question of whether the jet is plasma by looking at more general articles on the subject of jets coming from black holes. There is no reason to suspect this particular jet is any different than all the other jets. Right?

Here's a mainstream source on the nature of jets:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Mirabel/Mirabel6.html

It starts by noting that "the processes by which the jets are accelerated and collimated are still not clearly understood, but it is believed that several of the concepts proposed for extragalactic jets can be extended to galactic jets."

As an aside, could it be the reason they still do not clearly understand these jets (and that's an understatement as the quote I previously cited by an astronomer on the subject demonstrates) is that the underlying phenomena they assume responsible are gnomes?

You will read in that article that in order explain jets from black holes, mainstream researchers have had to posit a "magnetized accretion disk" and magnetic field lines frozen into the disk. The first sounds like a gnome and second most certainly is one.

Now ignoring their use of bogus magnetic field physics, let's see how these authors explain the acceleration and collimation of the jet. They state "The magnetic field lines are taken to be frozen into the disk and the plasma is assumed to follow them like a "bead on a wire", at least close to the disk. If the field line forms an angle with the plane of the disk smaller than 60°, the displacements of the plasma from its equilibrium position become unstable. This happens because along these field lines the component of the centrifugal force will be larger than the component of the gravitational force and the plasma will be accelerated outwards."

Oh my. That seems to be saying the jets are plasma. :)

Let's see what other sources say.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_antics_021111.html "Among the most powerful phenomena in space are the jets of material spat out by supermassive black holes, which anchor many galaxies. These hypervelocity streams of superheated gas, called plasma, are concentrated into two narrow paths that travel in opposite directions, along a galaxy."

Oh my. That clearly says the jets are plasma.

Let's look some more.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_jets_040817.html "At the centers of some galaxies are supermassive black holes that can hold more material than a billion Suns, theorists say. From some of these galaxies, focused beams of hot gas shoot into space at more than 99 percent the speed of light. The plasma emits X-rays, radio waves and other radiation, all of which has been widely observed."

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/512533 "lack hole jet sources are modeled as collimated relativistic plasma outflows with radiation beamed along the jet axis due to strong Doppler boosting."

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/DPP04/baps/abs/S400.html "Mini-conference on Astrophysical Jets ... snip ... Relativistic Plasma Jets from Black Hole Accretion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411080753.htm "Sarazin's team found that the two merging supermassive black holes in Abell 400 appear to be swallowing gas from their host galaxy, and each is ejecting a pair of oppositely-directed jets of radio-emitting plasma."

And I could go on and on and on. Even the jets from neutron stars are plasma. http://www.news.wisc.edu/13894 "Material from the companion star is drawn by gravity into a spinning disk that spirals slowly toward the neutron star, accreting onto its surface and somehow powering the plasma jets that beam energy and matter into space at nearly the speed of light."

So it looks like you are wrong, all the way around. Maybe "You've got a lot to learn." :D

Ziggurat said:
Well gee, when you're modelling a gas and not a plasma, doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for gasses and not for plasmas?
Click to expand...

And now that I've proven they are modeling plasma, not a "gas", doesn't it kind of make sense to use methods for plasmas and not for gases? ;)
 
Schneibster said:
Never mind that nowhere in any of those sources is there a single mention of anything that requires a charged plasma in order to be happening.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true at all. First of all, I think I just proved rather convincingly that the jet is plasma ... charged particles. And second, the mainstream's explanation uses magnetic fields, bogus though they are, to influence and accelerate those "charged" particles. :)
 
Dancing David said:
This is a repeat of another post in another thread.

Very close to spam BAC.
Click to expand...

If you folks keep making the erroneous claims, you are going to get the facts posted back at you every time. If you are so concerned about spam, maybe YOU should have corrected the misimpression that the other poster had, David. And by the way, the definition of spam included the word "UNsolicited". My response was solicited.
 
Dancing David said:
Ziggy, BAC assumes that all the universe is plasma.
Click to expand...

David, is this another topic where you did no further research beyond reading the initial article? Are you also under the mistaken impression that the jets aren't plasma? I suggest you look at the post I offered above that cites source after source that state quite clearly that the jets are plasma. You want to argue with those sources?

And by the way, *I* don't assume that the universe we can see is mostly plasma. That's what even the mainstream community thinks. You want me to prove that to you too? Or will you use your browser?
 
Dancing David said:
Beware BAC, Ziggy is one of the people who does understand the math and the physics, so be sure that you really undersatnd the stuff you sling around. If it is bogus, the underlying mistakes will be shown.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat on the jets - "Because it's not plasma."

Here are some additional sources, David.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_jet "Relativistic jets are extremely powerful jets of plasma which emerge from the centers of some active galaxies, notably radio galaxies and quasars."

http://www.globaljetwatch.net/public/target/ " From this disc oppositely-directed jets of hydrogen are fired away from the black hole ... snip ... The launch of jets from black holes is a phenomenon exhibited by many objects in space—even in distant quasars whose black holes are as massive as a billion suns. Yet even though these jets are common, the means by which matter and angular momentum are ejected from the vicinity of a black hole is poorly investigated and poorly understood. ... snip ... Studying SS433 helps enormously: as the jets are launched from its black hole, emission lines from the Balmer hydrogen series are seen, especially the so-called H-alpha line. The motion of the jet plasma that is moving away from us shifts the wavelength of the line and reddens it, and the jet plasma that is moving towards us gives a blue-shifted line. "

http://jelley.wustl.edu/x-ray/obs.shtml "In the case of so-called Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), accretion of interstellar matter onto the black hole gives rise to extremely powerful, double sided collimated plasma outflows, so-called jets."

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/public/som/Som_11_06.htm "A pair of jets - plasma streams - emerges from the region of the black hole"

www.nature.com/physics/highlights/7014-1.html "A powerful jet of plasma shoots out of the black hole 3C273"

Should I continue?
 
Hey BAC, since the sun is made of plasma, what's the net charge on the sun? Order of magnitude, in Coulombs please.
 
edd said:
BeAChooser - If you believe the results Enzo produces are fundamentally wrong then either:
a) Justify why the included physics is wrong
Click to expand...

I already did.

The jets are plasma (surely you don't doubt that now). The source galaxy is almost all plasma. We KNOW that the magnetic field of the galaxies has the shape of a homopolar motor. We KNOW that electric currents are flowing in intergalactic space and in the plasmas that comprise galaxies. We know that electromagnetism can take plasma filaments and wind them into the shape of galaxies and during that process produce jets of synchrotron radiation that have the characteristics, duration and energy levels of the jets seen coming from galaxies. This was demonstrated decades ago in simulations published in peer reviewed papers in mainstream astrophysics journals by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs that I have linked repeatedly on this forum. The production of jets from the sort of plasmoids that would exist at the heart of the galaxy model postulated by Alfven and Peratt was demonstrated in experiments by Eric Lerner decades ago and I've provided links to that type of data too.

The Enzo code does NOT model electric currents, magnetic fields from electric currents, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. It models gravity and the fluid flow of neutral gas. This is proven by simply looking at the descriptions I already posted of the code on this thread. And the models being used to model the magnetic fields in blackholes are MHD models. Here is what the original creator of the MHD model, Hannes Alfven (who got a Nobel Prize for the work), had to say in 1986 about the use of MHD by astrophysicists: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources."

Q.E.D.

edd said:
If you cannot produce better results, don't expect anyone to listen.
Click to expand...

The real problem here is that folks like you aren't listening even with better results being broadcast and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. It seems you are enamored with your gnomes and if you have a problem with a gnome you invent more gnomes to patch the other gnomes.

And by the way, you might want to provide a little education to the rest of those defending Big Bang and mainstream astrophysics so they at least know that more than 99% of the baryonic matter is plasma. Otherwise they will continue to make fools of themselves like they have on this thread. :)
 
Ziggurat said:
Hey BAC, since the sun is made of plasma, what's the net charge on the sun? Order of magnitude, in Coulombs please.
Click to expand...

Actually we don't know the net charge of the sun (or the charge in specific regions) since no measurements have been taken and NASA apparently isn't interested in making such measurements.

Anyone who claims we do is the sort of fool who might ... for example ... claim that the jets from black holes are neutral matter when every source imaginable says they are plasma.

But I tell you what, Ziggurat ... would you like to discuss comet observations and how well they agree with your preferred model as opposed to the electric sun / electric comet model? :)
 
BeAChooser said:
Careful, David, lest I post a *recent tour of David_Dancing*, starting with your belief that the jets from black holes aren't plasma but neutral gas. :)
Click to expand...

You would have a hard time doing that so go ahead, you are the one who uses absolute language. I don't believe that you can demonstrate that i made that statement.

:P

You could probably just assert that I did.

:)
 
BeAChooser said:
I already did.

The jets are plasma (surely you don't doubt that now). The source galaxy is almost all plasma. We KNOW that the magnetic field of the galaxies has the shape of a homopolar motor. We KNOW that electric currents are flowing in intergalactic space and in the plasmas that comprise galaxies.
Click to expand...
Whoops, there is that absolute statement. Some people would disagree that 'plasmas comprise galaxies'.

Such strong and bold statements.
We know that electromagnetism can take plasma filaments and wind them into the shape of galaxies and during that process produce jets of synchrotron radiation that have the characteristics, duration and energy levels of the jets seen coming from galaxies. This was demonstrated decades ago in simulations published in peer reviewed papers in mainstream astrophysics journals by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs that I have linked repeatedly on this forum.
Click to expand...
And still unreplicated.

1. demonstrate that galaxies are mainly plasma.
2. demonstrate that stars have a sufficient gharge for them to be effectd by the allged magnetic field.
3. demonstrate that the galactic magnetic field is of sufficient strenth to move ths stars.

Possible is different than proven. Could be possible. Some parts haven't been demonstrated yet.
The production of jets from the sort of plasmoids that would exist at the heart of the galaxy model postulated by Alfven and Peratt was demonstrated in experiments by Eric Lerner decades ago and I've provided links to that type of data too.
Click to expand...
That makes three people you cite a lot. Some sites would say that intragalaic magnetic field is in milli-guass, where can you demonstrate the larger field needed. Please don't cite pop science pages please. i would really like to know. Possible is very different than demonstrated.
The Enzo code does NOT model electric currents, magnetic fields from electric currents, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. It models gravity and the fluid flow of neutral gas. This is proven by simply looking at the descriptions I already posted of the code on this thread. And the models being used to model the magnetic fields in blackholes are MHD models. Here is what the original creator of the MHD model, Hannes Alfven (who got a Nobel Prize for the work), had to say in 1986 about the use of MHD by astrophysicists: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources."

Q.E.D.



The real problem here is that folks like you aren't listening even with better results being broadcast and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. It seems you are enamored with your gnomes and if you have a problem with a gnome you invent more gnomes to patch the other gnomes.
Click to expand...
the problem is that you cite the same sources over and over.

Please don't tell me that there is a conspiracy that keeps people from replicating Perrat's work.
And by the way, you might want to provide a little education to the rest of those defending Big Bang and mainstream astrophysics so they at least know that more than 99% of the baryonic matter is plasma.
Click to expand...
Whoopps there upi go again, you just stated that the vast majority of the universe is plasma.

Source, data, Citations.
Otherwise they will continue to make fools of themselves like they have on this thread. :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Pot:Kettle Kettle:Pot
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually we don't know the net charge of the sun (or the charge in specific regions) since no measurements have been taken and NASA apparently isn't interested in making such measurements.

Anyone who claims we do is the sort of fool who might ... for example ... claim that the jets from black holes are neutral matter when every source imaginable says they are plasma.

But I tell you what, Ziggurat ... would you like to discuss comet observations and how well they agree with your preferred model as opposed to the electric sun / electric comet model? :)
Click to expand...

So what do hypothesize to be the charge of the sun?

Your theory, you give the figure. Eh?

I think you make a huge error is mixing plasma consmology and the lectric sun.

But whatever.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because it's not plasma. Plasmas require very high temperatures, and you only get a lot of that with 1) stars and 2) the VERY early stages of the universe.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true at all. The state of matter depends on both temperature and pressure, and since most of the universe is at very low pressure, BaC is entirely correct that the vast majority of matter is in the plasma state. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that this is relevant on a large scale. Since the overall charge of a plasma is (usually) neutral, the electric and magnetic fields fall off very quickly, and on any kind of astronomical scale, only gravity is relevant.
 
BeAChooser said:
David, is this another topic where you did no further research beyond reading the initial article? Are you also under the mistaken impression that the jets aren't plasma? I suggest you look at the post I offered above that cites source after source that state quite clearly that the jets are plasma. You want to argue with those sources?

And by the way, *I* don't assume that the universe we can see is mostly plasma. That's what even the mainstream community thinks. You want me to prove that to you too? Or will you use your browser?
Click to expand...


So you can link to hundreds of little pop science snippets and some mainstream articles but you can't show me that mainstream science says that 99% of the universe is plasma.

Okay.

:)
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually we don't know the net charge of the sun (or the charge in specific regions) since no measurements have been taken and NASA apparently isn't interested in making such measurements.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what the charge is, and yet you're convinced that not only must it have one, but that it's got to be large enough to be a driving force in solar dynamics. Alright then, what does the electric sun model predict the charge of the sun should be? What's the minimum charge needed to produce the supposed effects this model is supposed to explain?
 
BeAChooser said:
I already did.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. You may wish to reread my earlier post.

The jets are plasma (surely you don't doubt that now).
Click to expand...
Certainly not. I've studied high energy astrophysics and know when there's a plasma about and when there isn't. The fact you see synchrotron emission from these jets really says enough, but plasmas do not explain the wide range of observations that the standard cosmological model does.

The Enzo code does NOT model electric currents, magnetic fields from electric currents, Birkeland currents, double layers or z-pinches. It models gravity and the fluid flow of neutral gas. This is proven by simply looking at the descriptions I already posted of the code on this thread.
Click to expand...
Tiresome. I never claimed it did. If you read what I was saying, I was specifically directing you to go build models that perform better than it that are based on no dark matter and electromagnetic effects alone. I've never seen such a model. I should also add that it was somewhat in jest that I suggested you do this, as it'd be no small undertaking for what I expect would be disappointing returns.

The real problem here is that folks like you aren't listening even with better results being broadcast and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. It seems you are enamored with your gnomes and if you have a problem with a gnome you invent more gnomes to patch the other gnomes.
Click to expand...
You continue with your pointless 'gnome' insults. There are issues that need explaining, and dark sector explanations are currently the best. To describe these as gnomes is a gross error.

And by the way, you might want to provide a little education to the rest of those defending Big Bang and mainstream astrophysics so they at least know that more than 99% of the baryonic matter is plasma. Otherwise they will continue to make fools of themselves like they have on this thread. :)
Click to expand...
I'd recommend people look up the epoch of reonisation (I still cannot post URLs!). Yes, the universe is mostly ionised. This does not mean your explanations are correct. Certainly as most of the lines of enquiry that justify that are ones that you would presumably claim are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom