Something new under the sun

sol invictus said:
If you believe that, you don't believe in general relativity. The inevitability of the formation of black holes when the total energy within a region reaches a certain cutoff (and it doesn't matter what form the energy takes - adding magnetic fields makes it worse) can be proven rigorously.

Do you believe in GR?
Click to expand...
.
I don't believe that Carlqvist and Alfvén's model of plasma cloud collapse has anything to do with black holes, and certainly has no relationship to whether I believe in general relativity or not.

It does look like their paper is based on known laboratory physics of plasmas, and they have made their case quite rigorously.
 
iantresman said:
.
I don't believe that Carlqvist and Alfvén's model of plasma cloud collapse has anything to do with black holes, and certainly has no relationship to whether I believe in general relativity or not.
Click to expand...

You claimed magnetic fields can stop gravitational collapse. According to GR that is simply false (and no laboratory experiment on earth has any direct bearing on this) if the region is either sufficiently large (at fixed density) or sufficiently dense (at fixed size). Such regions always collapse to form BHs, period. That's a good example of where you can get utterly wrong answers by naively extrapolating the results of meter-sized experiments to astrophysical scales.

The regions at the centers of galaxies are known from observations and simulations to be incredibly dense. I don't know for certain whether they are proven to exceed the bounds I just mentioned (and therefore must be black holes in GR is correct), but they at least come close.
 
BeAChooser said:
I've not said black holes are necessarily a fiction (although has anyone actually seen one?) ... just their ubiquitous use to explain away every little unexplainable observation Big Bang encounters. Especially when other physics is already available that would seem to explain those observations. Plus the fact that they now seem to number as many as stars in the heaven. :D
Click to expand...


Again, you purposefully confuse "observable" with "visible". Black holes are detected indirectly by their gravitational effects on other objects, accretion disks (which we've imaged), emissions from the accretion disks, and polar jets.

Using your line of thinking, I suppose that you will maintain that ultra-violet & infra-red radiation as well as the wind are all not "observable" because they aren't visible.


Actually, general relativity did not "predict" dark energy. Lambda was actually added to the equation by Einstein in order to make the universe static. And for no other reason.
Click to expand...


I concede this point concerning Einstein - that term was inserted by Einstein as a "correction." However, it should be noted that another physicist, Alexander Friedman, did use GR to predict such a cosmological constant (what we now call "dark energy") in 1922...

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

"He discovered the expanding-universe solution to general relativity field equations in 1922, which was corroborated by Edwin Hubble's observations in 1929.(Ferguson, 1991: 67). Friedman's 1924 papers, including "Über die Möglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krümmung des Raumes" (On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature of space) published by the German physics journal Zeitschrift für Physik (Vol. 21, pp. 326-332), demonstrated that he had command of all three Friedman models describing positive, zero and negative curvature respectively, a decade before Robertson and Walker published their analysis.

This dynamical cosmological model of general relativity would come to form the standard for the Big Bang and steady state theories. Friedman's work supports both theories equally, so it was not until the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation that the steady state theory was abandoned in favor of the current favorite Big Bang paradigm."

There is more to general relativity than just Einstein, pal...


And far as it "predicting" black holes is concerned, Einstein actually said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities should be avoided.
Click to expand...


And Einstein was wrong. He was wrong about a lot of stuff, like his opposition to a fully developed quantum theory.


One month after the black hole concept was first introduced in 1939 by Oppenheimer and a graduate student, Einstein wrote a paper ("On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses", Annals of Mathematics, Oct. 1939, vol 40, No 4, pp 922-936) wherein he stated (calling black holes "Schwartzschild singularities") that "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the ‘Schwartzschild singularities’ do not exist in physical reality."
Click to expand...


The concept of infinite gravitational collapse (what we now call "black holes") into a singularity was first proposed in 1915 by Karl Schwartzchild, you moron. Where do you think the term "Schwartzchild singularities" came from?

Here's a link if you don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

"The Schwarzschild solution is named in honour of its discoverer Karl Schwarzschild, who found the solution in 1915, only about a month after the publication of Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was the first exact solution of the Einstein field equations other than the trivial flat space solution. Schwarzschild had little time to think about his solution. He died shortly after his paper was published, as a result of a disease he contracted while serving in the German army during World War I."

See?! Einstein's equations did predict the existence of black holes, though they weren't called "black holes" until later. Duh...


And here is what Einstein wrote in 1945 (Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity) regarding the big-bang singularity: "Theoretical doubts [concerning the creation of the universe] are based on the fact that [at the] beginning of the expansion, the metric becomes singular and the density becomes infinite. . . In reality, space will probably be of a uniform character, and the present [relativity] theory will be valid only as a limiting case. . . One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."
Click to expand...


And Einstein was wrong. His theory was right, but he just didn't want to accept its conclusions concerning an expanding spacetime. The fact that you keep harping on the incorrect conclusions drawn by Einstein again show how you keep missing the point and attempting to present information out of context.

Typical woo behavior...


So it's probably inaccurate to claim GR predicted black holes or BBC. :D
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. Learn some history in addition to physics.


No, you need only adopt either Narlikar's QSSC or SCC cosmology. Both still adhere to GR but both do not require a BB or ubiquitous BHs. :D
Click to expand...


More Big Gnomes?
 
One month after the black hole concept was first introduced in 1939 by Oppenheimer and a graduate student, Einstein wrote a paper ("On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses", Annals of Mathematics, Oct. 1939, vol 40, No 4, pp 922-936) wherein he stated (calling black holes "Schwartzschild singularities") that "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the ‘Schwartzschild singularities’ do not exist in physical reality."
Click to expand...

As MattusMaximus has already pointed out, black holes were predicted well before you seem to think they were. However, I should also point out that this quote is technically correct. Schwartzschild singularities do not exist in physical reality. The reason for this is very simple - conservation of angular momentum. A Schwartzschild black hole does not rotate. Since it is essentially impossible to have any collection of matter with zero angular momentum, and even if such a thing happened, the first interaction with anything else would spoil it. Schwartzschild black holes are theoretically possible under general relativity, but can't actually happen in the real world.

However, this says absolutely nothing about black holes in general. Schwartzschild ones were the first found, being by far the simplest ones to find, but there are many other types of black hole predicted by general relativity. Some of them also have problems that mean they are unlikely, or impossible, in the real world. Many of them don't.

People who deny black holes are faced with a similar problem to that of creationists. Creationists love to claim that evolution doesn't happen, the problem is that evolution is an inevitable conequence of certain conditions. If you have imperfect self-replicators and competition for limited resources, there is no logical way to avoid evolution happening. The same is true of black holes. They are simply an inevitable consequence of relativity. In fact, they are an inevitable consequence of a finite speed of light. The problem isn't on our side, it's that the deniers have to come up with some logical explanation of how it can be possible for them not to exist.
 
Cuddles said:
As MattusMaximus has already pointed out, black holes were predicted well before you seem to think they were. However, I should also point out that this quote is technically correct. Schwartzschild singularities do not exist in physical reality. The reason for this is very simple - conservation of angular momentum. A Schwartzschild black hole does not rotate. Since it is essentially impossible to have any collection of matter with zero angular momentum, and even if such a thing happened, the first interaction with anything else would spoil it. Schwartzschild black holes are theoretically possible under general relativity, but can't actually happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

Well... I haven't read that paper, but I don't think that's the kind of "do not exist" Einstein had in mind. Rotating black holes are smoothly connected to Schwarzschild in the sense that when you take the angular momentum small, the solution reduces to Schwarzschild. That's clear outside the hole, but it's true even inside if you take any perturbation away from exact rotational symmetry (because the inner Cauchy horizon is unstable to forming a spacelike singularity). And anyway, rotating holes have singularities too.

The real solution to the problem of singularities is cosmic censorship - black hole singularities (it seems) are always cloaked by event horizons. As long as you're not unfortunate enough to fall into one, physics remains perfectly under control and you can predict the results of any experiment you could do with very good accuracy.
 
Last edited:
iantresman said:
.
I think you're not far wrong. The magnetic field in a plasma cloud may stop gravitational collapse. This was investigated by Per Carlqvist in 1988, resulting in the eponymous Carlqvist Relation, peer reviewed in (ref, full text). As Carlqvist and Hannes Alfvén mention in another paper, the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud resulting in a pinch.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ian, but how does that allow the plasmoid to overcome gravity and where does the energy come from to maintain against gravity.

The issue is that the mass of the plasmoid will still cause it to contract, and at some point it has to get more energy to sustain against the pull of gravity.

I did not see where the Carlqvist relation provides for the repulsive force and it still will require energy to maintain against gravitational collapse.

It is shown that magnetic fields, which have generally been regarded as obstructing the condensation of interstellar clouds, will promote the contraction of such clouds under certain conditions and may even constitute the main mechanism for contraction.
Click to expand...
is what the abstract for the linked paper says.
 
Last edited:
iantresman said:
.
I don't believe that Carlqvist and Alfvén's model of plasma cloud collapse has anything to do with black holes, and certainly has no relationship to whether I believe in general relativity or not.

It does look like their paper is based on known laboratory physics of plasmas, and they have made their case quite rigorously.
Click to expand...


Uh, the abstract talks about magnetic fields causing a collapse, not maintaining a plasmoid against gravitational collapse.

You can't escape the black hole, light has been demonstrated to be bent by gravity, if you bend it enough you have a black hole.
 
sol invictus said:
You claimed magnetic fields can stop gravitational collapse.
Click to expand...
.
I don't think I did. I noted that Carlqvist's and Alfvén's paper said that magnetic fields may counteract gravitation collapse of a plasma cloud. I refer you to:

II.4. Do Magnetic Fields Aid or Counteract a Compression? (p.498) in "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.​

Now, it may be that while magnetic fields counteract gravitational collapse, they may not be able to prevent it; once grain sizes increase, gravity certainly plays the dominant role. But magnetic plasmas whose particle size is less than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Period. (See Gravitoelectrodynamics)
 
Dancing David said:
Sorry Ian, but how does that allow the plasmoid to overcome gravity and where does the energy come from to maintain against gravity.

The issue is that the mass of the plasmoid will still cause it to contract, and at some point it has to get more energy to sustain against the pull of gravity.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not like that. Gravity acts on all forms of energy. There is no way to add energy to prevent gravitational collapse - once you are close to the bound, adding energy (of any form) makes the problem worse, not better.

iantresman said:
Now, it may be that while magnetic fields counteract gravitational collapse, they may not be able to prevent it; once grain sizes increase, gravity certainly plays the dominant role. But magnetic plasmas whose particle size is less than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Period. (See Gravitoelectrodynamics)
Click to expand...

OK, that is a concrete claim for once. It's also totally wrong (as usual with plasma cosmology) - and it's wrong at a level that anybody who has studied even a little general relativity will recognize immediately.

It violates singularity theorems which have been proven rigorously (by Stephen Hawking and others).

The conditions for gravitational collapse have nothing to do with particle or "grain" sizes, or any other local characteristic of the fluid or matter in question. They are extremely simple, and depend only on the total mass in some region and the size of that region. Such conditions are non-local and simply cannot be expressed in terms of some characteristics of the particles making up the plasma (or whatever).
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Uh, the abstract talks about magnetic fields causing a collapse, not maintaining a plasmoid against gravitational collapse.

You can't escape the black hole, light has been demonstrated to be bent by gravity, if you bend it enough you have a black hole.
Click to expand...


And light is an electromagnetic wave, which means that magnetic effects are already competing against gravity near a black hole...

... and they lose. Gravity wins.
 
sol invictus said:
Actually it's not like that. Gravity acts on all forms of energy. There is no way to add energy to prevent gravitational collapse - once you are close to the bound, adding energy (of any form) makes the problem worse, not better.
Click to expand...
.
I stand corrected. It just occurred to me that you are referring to "Gravitational Collapse" of a massive body, whereas I was discussing the collapse, gravitationally, of a plasma cloud (a non-massive body).
 
iantresman said:
.
I stand corrected. It just occurred to me that you are referring to "Gravitational Collapse" of a massive body, whereas I was discussing the collapse, gravitationally, of a plasma cloud (a non-massive body).
Click to expand...

I am talking about plasma clouds. I'm also talking about the collapse of massive bodies, giant tubes of toothpaste, regions full of visible light, and absolutely everything else in the universe.

Again, this argument is completely independent of the details of the stuff inside. When I said it depends on the total mass, I meant the energy equivalent - so if there is some mass and some energy, the condition for collapse depends on the total of the two.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Actually it's not like that. Gravity acts on all forms of energy. There is no way to add energy to prevent gravitational collapse - once you are close to the bound, adding energy (of any form) makes the problem worse, not better.



.
Click to expand...

Cool, I just figured that there was an idea that somehow the magnetism was holding the plasma in expansion against gravitational attraction. So i assumed that energy would would get used and have to be replaced to have a plasmoid that does not contract.
 
Originally Posted by iantresman
Now, it may be that while magnetic fields counteract gravitational collapse, they may not be able to prevent it; once grain sizes increase, gravity certainly plays the dominant role. But magnetic plasmas whose particle size is less than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Period.
Click to expand...


sol invictus said:
OK, that is a concrete claim for once. It's also totally wrong (as usual with plasma cosmology) - and it's wrong at a level that anybody who has studied even a little general relativity will recognize immediately.
Click to expand...


Well i have studied it (although briefly), and I see nothing wrong with that statement. This the whole probem with gravity, it barely has any effect at a particle level at all, only on large scales, and so is very hard to test. Gravity at atom/molecule level is negligable, and only comes into play significantly when you get above dust size, so I see nothing wrong with the statement that small particles are more effected by EM forces.

Millikan made an oil drop hover by applying an electric field to it in his original experiment, making the electric force surpass the force of gravity on something as large as a oil drop. When it comes to dust size and below (until you reach the weak and strong force), EM forces really do reign supreme.

Improvements in our knowledge of the absolute value of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, have come very slowly over the years. Most other constants of nature are known (and some even predictable) to parts per billion, or parts per million at worst. However, G stands mysteriously alone, its history being that of a quantity which is extremely difficult to measure and which remains virtually isolated from the theoretical structure of the rest of physics. Several attempts aimed at changing this situation are now underway, but the most recent experimental results have once again produced conflicting values of G and, in spite of some progress and much interest, there remains to date no universally accepted way of predicting its absolute value.
Click to expand...


It violates singularity theorems which have been proven rigorously (by Stephen Hawking and others).
Click to expand...


How does the fact that EM forces far dominate gravity at small scales violate singularity theorem?


The conditions for gravitational collapse have nothing to do with particle or "grain" sizes, or any other local characteristic of the fluid or matter in question. They are extremely simple, and depend only on the total mass in some region and the size of that region.
Click to expand...


Yes, those gravitational collapse equations are very simple, and dont take into account many variables. I totally agree.



I have a question that has been bugging me for a while, maybe you could answer it Sol, or anyone else.

Take a large, Isolated, nebula that is collapsing in on itself, and contains an overall charge of any value spread out across its length (lets say 20 C overall). Since it is isolated, there is no surrounding conducting medium to discharge the cloud.

Now the only thing I can see resulting from this situation is a star with a charge on it. If the gravitational force is compressing the plasma to a certain size, as this happens the repulsive force of the similar charges inside the plasma will increase with time, until the compressive force of gravity equals the repulsive force of the ions, leading to a state of equilibrium where the collapsing force equals the repulsive force. I think this may be why some people think that gravity itself plays a part in 'charging' stars. Would this work? i can't think of a reason why this would not happen, given the original conditions.
 
iantresman said:
.
I stand corrected. It just occurred to me that you are referring to "Gravitational Collapse" of a massive body, whereas I was discussing the collapse, gravitationally, of a plasma cloud (a non-massive body).
Click to expand...


You're kidding me, right? As Sol just pointed out, this makes no sense whatsoever...

Plasmas are basically composed of electrons and ions, which are made of protons & neutrons, all of which have mass -- so plasma clouds have mass!

But beside that point, iantresman is again ignoring the effects of relativity theory (which you EU-PU woos accept, I think) because even if the plasma was non-massive (pure energy) it would still be affected by gravity due to...

E = mc2
This is precisely the reason why light (photons) is affected by gravity. Photons are massless, yet they have a mass equivalence by that equation, so the path of a photon is bent by a gravitational field.

Yet another example of butchering well-known physics to make their crack-pipe "theories" have some semblance of reality. If these EU-PU woos keep flapping their arms like this, eventually they're going to achieve liftoff :rolleyes:
 
Zeuzzz said:
Well i have studied it (although briefly), and I see nothing wrong with that statement.
Click to expand...

Then you didn't understand it - which we already knew.

This the whole probem with gravity, it barely has any effect at a particle level at all, only on large scales, and so is very hard to test. Gravity at atom/molecule level is negligable, and only comes into play significantly when you get above dust size, so I see nothing wrong with the statement that small particles are more effected by EM forces.
Click to expand...

It's completely false, that's what's wrong with it.

Look - your argument is like saying, I don't know - the existence of nuclear bombs is not very important for the growth of trees. That's a true statement... unless there's a nuclear war and all the trees die during the resultant nuclear winter.

It is true that gravity is a much weaker force than EM when it's acting only on two charged particles. But the fundamental fact about physics that you guys seem not to be able to comprehend is that it's a much, much stronger force than EM when it's acting on lots of particles. That's true even if the particles all had the same charge, if there are enough of them.

Millikan made an oil drop hover by applying an electric field to it in his original experiment, making the electric force surpass the force of gravity on something as large as a oil drop. When it comes to dust size and below (until you reach the weak and strong force), EM forces really do reign supreme.
Click to expand...

Had Millikan tried to do an experiment with an oil drop the size of the galaxy, the answer would have been rather different. Or to make a better analogy, if you had a trillion Millikan oil drop experiments distributed in some region, their mutual gravitational attraction would cause them to form a black hole and get crunched at the singularity, thus rather strongly affecting the results of each.

How does the fact that EM forces far dominate gravity at small scales violate singularity theorem?
Click to expand...

The claim was that we can ignore gravitational forces. That is false and violates the theorem if the cloud of plasma is large enough, regardless of what precisely it's composed of.

Yes, those gravitational collapse equations are very simple, and dont take into account many variables. I totally agree.
Click to expand...

They take into account all the relevant quantities. In this case, simple=general.

I have a question that has been bugging me for a while, maybe you could answer it Sol, or anyone else.

Take a large, Isolated, nebula that is collapsing in on itself, and contains an overall charge of any value spread out across its length (lets say 20 C overall). Since it is isolated, there is no surrounding conducting medium to discharge the cloud.

Now the only thing I can see resulting from this situation is a star with a charge on it.
Click to expand...

The result could be a cloud of gas, or it could be a star, or it could be a black hole, all depending on various numbers (such as the size and density of the cloud, the temperature of the particles inside, and angular momentum, etc.). The charge might fly out away from the rest of the cloud (if it's attached to a small number of particles), or it might remain bound. There are many possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Now the only thing I can see resulting from this situation is a star with a charge on it. If the gravitational force is compressing the plasma to a certain size, as this happens the repulsive force of the similar charges inside the plasma will increase with time, until the compressive force of gravity equals the repulsive force of the ions, leading to a state of equilibrium where the collapsing force equals the repulsive force. I think this may be why some people think that gravity itself plays a part in 'charging' stars. Would this work? i can't think of a reason why this would not happen, given the original conditions.
Click to expand...


Even if it did happen, I don't see how this gives any validity to the Electric Universe claims because these effects would not be significant on interstellar and larger scales.

This is by the admission of the people who wrote the paper that Zeuzzz continually references on this point... they conclude that such electrostatic effects would be weaker than gravity by a factor of 1036. That's right, the people who wrote the paper on electrostatically-charged stars say that on large scales, gravity wins!

Yet Zeuzzz keeps coming back again and again to the same old argument, taking that paper out of context, and this time trying from a different direction. The last time is outlined here in post #188 of this thread.

Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woos - no matter how many times you make a bad argument, it is still a bad argument. Repeating it again and again just makes you look like a fool, a liar, or both.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
How does the fact that EM forces far dominate gravity at small scales violate singularity theorem?
Click to expand...

Gravity, unlike E&M, is nonlinear. So let's suppose we take some cloud with some mass density and some charge density, such that the gravitational attraction balances the electric repulsion. Now, if gravity were linear, then we could take this same ratio and apply it to a more dense (both charge and mass) system, or a larger system of the same density, and find the same result. But it's not. It's nonlinear, which means that you can generate infinite forces with finite mass (which is what the event horizon of a black hole is). You cannot do that with electromagnetism. So what happens is that past a certain mass, it no longer matters how strong you try to make the electromagnetic forces: gravity has already won, collapse is inevitable. and it will only accelerate (due to the nonlinearity) as that collapse proceeds.
 
MattusMaximus said:
This is a point that I have made repeatedly about Zeuzzz's referencing of this paper - he does so quite dishonestly. I originally posted about this way back in post #18.

He presents this as some kind of "evidence" for his plasma/electric/crack-pipe universe claims, but he intentionally leaves out a critical observation by the authors.
Click to expand...


On the global electrostatic charge of stars

I have done no such thing, i fact, i have continually stated the exact context in which i cite that paper, and its not to use their (very theoretical) value of the charge on the sun. As i said (about three seperate times) it is an interesting paper as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a net charge, a proposition that was widely thought not possible by most astronomers, who view the universe and entireley neutral.

Thats why i said:

"I disagree with their method for working out the charge, but it is a good paper as it indicates that the sun can ehibit a net charge and an electric field, a fact widely denied by conventional astronomy"

"Now what they actually do to determine what the charge on the sun is they work out the minute charge separation that should occur between electrons and protons in the suns field, based on an array of assumptions. So I am still of the opinion that their method for working out the charge is very theoretical, the actual value could be far in excess of their prediction, or caused by something completely different. It is a good paper however, as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a substantial net charge."

And if you actually read the paper, you will find a whole host of assumptions that could throw off their value of 77C by a very considerable amount. For example their model can only be applied to a an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star in the first place, and so obviously falls short of being accurate in this respect. When you factor in things like the different forces acting on protons and electrons due to centripetal force (due to mass differences) when the star is spinning, the actual value of separation between charges could be far in excess of this.

Can you find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd, and would very much like to see a separate derivation of the charge...

As i said previously, To find the charge on the sun you would have to take varying measurements of the strength of the E-field at separate radii and extrapolate what the strength is at the sun. But so far, i don’t think any such measurements have been made.


While the paper does argue for the existence of a net charge on the Sun, in the middle of the second page of that paper, the authors state:

"We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10−36 of the magnitude of gravity. However, if we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron."
Click to expand...


I changed the part you underlined to emphasise the important piece of information in that text. No one claimed the attraction between like stars was significant, infact, no-one said anything about attraction between stars, we were talking about the effects that the suns E-field would have on different charged particles, modelling the satelite as a particularly large one.


See that?! The effect is only large if acting on individual charges (protons, electrons, and ions). The authors of the very paper Zeuzzz keeps citing for "evidence" of the electric universe say that over large distance scales (interstellar) the electrical effects they are discussing are weaker than gravity by 36 orders of magnitude!
Click to expand...


Yes. And? Please state where i was claiming that the charge on stars has any effect over interstellar ranges? I am well aware of the distances involved, and how astronomically impossible it is for that amount of charge ( 77 C ) to have any effect over that distance. You seem to be inferring things i have not said.

If you read my previous post, i said exactly this, that the EM forces effect small particles mainly.


So, Zeuzzz is claiming that this paper supports his EU claims by inferring that if such an effect exists on the Pioneer probe then just imagine the effects elsewhere, which supposedly explain large-scale structures in the universe over million and billions of light-years. Yet the paper clearly doesn't support these claims, so why does he keep referencing it?
Click to expand...


Originally posted by Zeuzzz
it is a good paper as it indicates that the sun can ehibit a net charge and an electric field, a fact widely denied by conventional astronomy
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I have done no such thing, i fact, i have continually stated the exact context in which i cite that paper, and its not to use their (very theoretical) value of the charge on the sun. As i said (about three seperate times) it is an interesting paper as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a net charge, a proposition that was widely thought not possible by most astronomers, who view the universe and entireley neutral.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction to be made between saying that the sun can have zero charge and saying that the charge of the sun is negligible. I know of no astronomers who would ever conclude the former. The latter, however, is not disproved by the existence of a small 77 C charge. For some purposes it is not be negligible. For many purposes, it most definitely is.

And if you actually read the paper, you will find a whole host of assumptions that could throw off their value of 77C by a very considerable amount. For example their model can only be applied to a an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star in the first place, and so obviously falls short of being accurate in this respect.
Click to expand...

Well, let's consider some of these points. What happens if the charge is not spherically symmetric? The field will increase in some locations and decrease in others. If the equilibrium field results from balancing the flow of positive and negative currents, then to first order in deviations from spherical symmetry, this should have no net effect: it will drive up positive currents in some locations, drive down negative currents in others, but basically end up a wash. Would higher-order corrections be warranted? No. Why? Because the sun is a plasma: its own conductivity precludes large variations in charge density distribution.

As for being quiet, well, just like with the non-spherical charge distribution, to first order that will not create any net effect, merely create some fluctuations in the total charge about the average. Big deal.

None of these objections indicate we should expect a significant error, let alone one of many orders of magnitude.

When you factor in things like the different forces acting on protons and electrons due to centripetal force (due to mass differences) when the star is spinning, the actual value of separation between charges could be far in excess of this.
Click to expand...

As for the rotation, what difference might that make? Well, it would change the force needed for containment by the combined gravitational and electric fields, due to centripedal acceleration. But that's also going to change the shape of the sun. So we can judge how important that contribution is by examining the deviation of the sun's geometry from perfectly spherical. Does it deviate significantly? Nope, not even close. Therefore, centripedal acceleration is negligible compared to gravity alone for our sun, and rotation can be ignored.

As i said previously, To find the charge on the sun you would have to take varying measurements of the strength of the E-field at separate radii
Click to expand...

False. Gauss's law says measurements at one radius will suffice. Assuming symmetry, one position is good enough. I've already pointed this out.
 
sol invictus said:
It's completely false, that's what's wrong with it.
Click to expand...


Stop digging yourself a hole sol. Gravity is pretty much negligable at this level, that why whenever you use an electrostatics equation for particles, there isn't any variable for gravity, because at the scale of atoms it has very little effect. Gravity effects every piece of matter in the universe, but it is amazingly weak, on small scales


It is true that gravity is a much weaker force than EM when it's acting only on two charged particles. But the fundamental fact about physics that you guys seem not to be able to comprehend is that it's a much, much stronger force than EM when it's acting on lots of particles.
Click to expand...


Well, duh. I know how gravity works, i also know that it is incredibly weak (even negligable) in comparison to EM forces at the atom / molecule level. Of course for large size structures gravity is the dominant force in the universe, but not at smaller levels.


Had Millikan tried to do an experiment with an oil drop the size of the galaxy, the answer would have been rather different.
Click to expand...


Really? you being patronising deliberately?


Or to make a better analogy, if you had a trillion Millikan oil drop experiments distributed in some region, their mutual gravitational attraction would cause them to form a black hole and get crunched at the singularity, thus rather strongly affecting the results of each.
Click to expand...


Well yes. But when you are speaking about the atom level there is not this much mass, and so at that level any effects that arrised from this mass due to gravity will be incredibly small. So that is a bit of a stupid analogy.


The claim was that we can ignore gravitational forces. That is false and violates the theorem if the cloud of plasma is large enough, regardless of what precisely it's composed of.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, i can't see that claim, and i certainly dont agree with it.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Hmmm, i can't see that claim, and i certainly dont agree with it.
Click to expand...

Then you either didn't study GR or didn't understand what you studied. You acted as though you knew what I was talking about when I referred to singularity theorems, but evidently you don't.

Read Zig's two posts above if you want to learn something; he explained it quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Well, duh. I know how gravity works,
Click to expand...


Obviously not, because you keep screwing it up.


i also know that it is incredibly weak (even negligable) in comparison to EM forces at the atom / molecule level. Of course for large size structures gravity is the dominant force in the universe, but not at smaller levels.
Click to expand...


No one here has ever argued that gravity dominates between individual charged particles on the small scale.

So which is it Zeuzzz? Is it gravity or is it your EM-plasma gnomes that are dominating the large scale structure of the universe? You seem to be contradicting pretty much all of your earlier arguments here, especially when you stated that gravity was "not a fact, just a theory" and that the "big bang is a joke."

No to mention that many of your clueless EU-PU brethren have been arguing about plasma-this and plasma-that for various large-scale structures in the universe... blah, blah, blah.

So, which is it? Our modern theories of gravitation and big bang cosmology go hand in hand -- so are you now accepting BBC? Is gravity now "real", or are you going to try squirming into another line of loony argumentation?

Again, you show another contradiction in your arguments. I've lost count by now...
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?
Click to expand...


Why would we trust your reading of any papers you reference since you've shown that a) you don't know what you're talking about, and b) you don't seem to care?

Answer my question: Is gravity now "a fact" in your eyes?
 
Ziggurat said:
False. Gauss's law says measurements at one radius will suffice. Assuming symmetry, one position is good enough. I've already pointed this out.
Click to expand...


I also pointed out similar errors to Zeuzzz concerning Gauss' Law on the first page of this thread, and he and the other EU-PU woos keep on keepin' on...

It's almost funny - like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
 
Zeuzzz said:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?
Click to expand...

There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.
 
sol invictus said:
There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.
Click to expand...


Sol, you are a better man (I assume a man - gender is tough to determine online) than I... I lost patience with Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woos long ago. Could you tell? ;)

I should take a page from you on attempting to be a wee bit calmer in my arguments, though I find it very difficult when contronted with such maddeningly self-imposed delusion.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Sol, you are a better man (I assume a man - gender is tough to determine online) than I... I lost patience with Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woos long ago. Could you tell? ;)
Click to expand...

Neither Sol nor Sol Invictus has a very well-defined gender :-).

I did notice your posts sounded a little peeved a few times....

I should take a page from you on attempting to be a wee bit calmer in my arguments, though I find it very difficult when contronted with such maddeningly self-imposed delusion.
Click to expand...

I certainly understand. BAC, for example, is a classic internet troll - (s)he isn't interested in the subject, only the arguments and reactions. There's no point in carrying on a conversation with someone like that unless it entertains you.

The two here seem marginally more reasonable, at least at the moment (although I remain unconvinced that neither of them is a BAC-puppet).
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.
Click to expand...

I happen to have that book on my shelf and the argument is short and simple enough to summarise it here.

Suppose the star has a net charge (Znete). Then the condition than an additional charge of the same sign will not be expelled by Coulomb forces is

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
\frac{(Z_\text{net}e)e}{R^2} \leq \frac{G Mm}{R^2} \leq \frac{G(Am)m}{R^2}
\]
[/latex]

In this equation A is the total number of baryons in the star and m the mass of the proton. The second equality means that, because of the gravitational binding, the mass of the star M is less than Am. So we arrive at a very simple bound for Znet:

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
Z_\text{net} /A < (m/e)^2
\]
[/latex]

For a proton, (m/e)2 ~ 10-36, so the maximum charge is

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
Z_\text{net} < 10^{-36} A
\]
[/latex]

So the average charge per nucleon in the star is ridiculous (this does not mean that there can't be charged zones in the star, it's only a result about the average or total charge).

This reasoning has been carried out assuming the star had a positive net charge. The bound on a negative charge would be even lower, because the mass of the electron is almost 2000 times smaller than that of the photon.

We can use this bound to estimate the maximum charge on the Sun. If the mass of the Sun is around 2·1033 g, then it has A ~ 1057. If we plug this value into the bound given by Glendenning, we get a maximum charge of the order of 100 C.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Using your line of thinking, I suppose that you will maintain that ultra-violet & infra-red radiation as well as the wind are all not "observable" because they aren't visible.
Click to expand...

No, because they are DIRECTLY visible to sensors. Nothing has to be inferred.

MattusMaximus said:
Quote:
Actually, general relativity did not "predict" dark energy. Lambda was actually added to the equation by Einstein in order to make the universe static. And for no other reason.

I concede this point concerning Einstein - that term was inserted by Einstein as a "correction."
Click to expand...

A correction whose sole purpose at the time was to make the universe static.

MattusMaximus said:
However, it should be noted that another physicist, Alexander Friedman, did use GR to predict such a cosmological constant (what we now call "dark energy") in 1922...
Click to expand...

That's not accurate (Wikipedia is often not the best source to rely on). Friedmann's overall solution may have allowed for a cosmological constant but in fact the specific solution he sought and used as the basis for an expanding universe assumed a ZERO cosmological constant.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Om...g=GCb_kvZIFQMv90fMyw3lH5K8oq0&hl=en#PPA105,M1 "101 Things You Didn't Know About Einstein: Sex, Science, And the Secrets of the Universe, Cynthia Phillips and Shana Priwer, 2005 ... snip ... By 1922, a Russian mathematician named Alexander Friedmann was working on creating a model of the universe that didn't]/b] require the cosmological constant, and he met with success. ... snip ... The Friedmann equation works within the larger framework of general relativity, but excludes the cosmological constant in an effort to represent the universe as dynamic."

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_...g=dTByPko0t4aMc5gwkoJlegN6bpY&hl=en#PPA367,M1 "The physical universe: an introduction to astronomy By Frank H. Shu ... snip ... "In 1922, Friedmann discovered two classes of nonempty cosmological models which did not require the cosmological constant; and they were also discovered independently by Lamaitre."

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051230-2.htm From PhysicsToday ... "Only then was much attention given to the expanding-universe models introduced in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925), in which no cosmological constant is needed."

MattusMaximus said:
There is more to general relativity than just Einstein, pal...
Click to expand...

And more sources than just wikipedia? :D

MattusMaximus said:
Quote:
And far as it "predicting" black holes is concerned, Einstein actually said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities should be avoided.

And Einstein was wrong.
Click to expand...

Really? Oh how the mighty have fallen. One moment he's almost a God to you folks. The next ... dirt. :)

But in any case, I haven't seen any true proof that black holes exist. Just a claim inferred from observations that might very well be explained by much more ordinary and well tested physics.

MattusMaximus said:
The concept of infinite gravitational collapse (what we now call "black holes") into a singularity was first proposed in 1915 by Karl Schwartzchild, you moron.
Click to expand...

:) To be more precise, Schwartzchild's paper described a structure that he called a point mass ... later dubbed a singularity. Using GR, he found that matter could *theoretically* be drawn into a point with virtually no volume and an infinite density. It was the specific application of the singularity to the fate of stars (a real world entity) that drew Einstein's response. In 1928 Chandrasekhar hypothesized that a dying star might form a point with enough gravitational pull to trap light. Then in 1939, Opppenheimer theorized that the gravitational pull of a star with infinite density would cause light rays to devitate from their path and bend towards the star. Along with a graduate student named Snyder, Oppenheimer developed equations demonstrating the possibility of a star collapsing in upon itself and forming a black hole. It was the claim they might be real entities that Einstein finally challenged.

MattusMaximus said:
See?! Einstein's equations did predict the existence of black holes, though they weren't called "black holes" until later. Duh...
Click to expand...

But lot's of equations produce singularities that aren't real entities.

MattusMaximus said:
And Einstein was wrong. His theory was right, but he just didn't want to accept its conclusions concerning an expanding spacetime.
Click to expand...

So now you think yourself brighter than Einstein? :)

MattusMaximus said:
Quote:
So it's probably inaccurate to claim GR predicted black holes or BBC.

You're an idiot. Learn some history in addition to physics.
Click to expand...

:D

MattusMaximus said:
Quote:
No, you need only adopt either Narlikar's QSSC or SCC cosmology. Both still adhere to GR but both do not require a BB or ubiquitous BHs.

More Big Gnomes?
Click to expand...

Hardly. I suggest you use Wikipedia like you always do. :D
 
Reality Check said:
BeAChooser: Try to guess what a plasmoid with a mass of 2.6 million solar masses and a radius of no more than 1 AU is?
Click to expand...

Actually, mainstream theory says a black hole with that mass would have a radius much, much smaller than an AU. :D

But more to the point, who says the mass has to be 2.6 million suns? The researchers own report gave a lower bound estimate (meaning that some solutions of their data and understanding of theory might allow that result) of only 40,000 suns. A plasmoid that size is quite conceivable. And would a mass of 40,000 suns in a region 1 AU in diameter be a black hole?
 
Dancing David said:
Sorry Ian, but how does that allow the plasmoid to overcome gravity and where does the energy come from to maintain against gravity.
Click to expand...

David why do you insist on demonstrating that you haven't even tried to understand what plasmoids are made of or what forces form them?
 
sol invictus said:
BAC, for example, is a classic internet troll - (s)he isn't interested in the subject, only the arguments and reactions. There's no point in carrying on a conversation with someone like that unless it entertains you.

The two here seem marginally more reasonable, at least at the moment (although I remain unconvinced that neither of them is a BAC-puppet).
Click to expand...

Still hiding, sol? :D

For the record, I post only under the BeAChooser screenname. Period.

But given how often Sol shows up to say "me too" to something Ziggurat wrote, maybe a case could be made he's a ZIG-puppet. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
For the record, I post only under the BeAChooser screenname. Period.
Click to expand...

I believe you about that. Not that it makes much difference, you're still dishonest and clueless.

But given how often Sol shows up to say "me too" to something Ziggurat wrote, maybe a case could be made he's a ZIG-puppet. :D
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Sol pointed out an error I made once. I'm far too arrogant to be willing to do that to myself. Really, don't you know anything about me yet?
 
BeAChooser said:
No, because they are DIRECTLY visible to sensors. Nothing has to be inferred.
Click to expand...


More hand-waving and goal-post moving... are atoms directly visible? What about electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc? Do these fit with your definition of directly observable?

It seems that you're making up your own definitions of "observable" as it suits you. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your arguments.


A correction whose sole purpose at the time was to make the universe static.
Click to expand...


Duh... :boggled:


That's not accurate (Wikipedia is often not the best source to rely on). Friedmann's overall solution may have allowed for a cosmological constant but in fact the specific solution he sought and used as the basis for an expanding universe assumed a ZERO cosmological constant.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure about that... in his 1924 paper, Friedman came up with solutions to Einstein's equations for an expanding universe that clearly showed situations of positive, negative, and zero curvature. It seems to me that this would include a cosmological constant term in the calculations (which is now interpreted as dark energy). Perhaps I'm wrong on this; maybe Sol or Zig can correct me if I've erred in this assertion?


http://books.google.com/books?id=Om...g=GCb_kvZIFQMv90fMyw3lH5K8oq0&hl=en#PPA105,M1 "101 Things You Didn't Know About Einstein: Sex, Science, And the Secrets of the Universe, Cynthia Phillips and Shana Priwer, 2005 ... snip ... By 1922, a Russian mathematician named Alexander Friedmann was working on creating a model of the universe that didn't]/b] require the cosmological constant, and he met with success. ... snip ... The Friedmann equation works within the larger framework of general relativity, but excludes the cosmological constant in an effort to represent the universe as dynamic."

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_...g=dTByPko0t4aMc5gwkoJlegN6bpY&hl=en#PPA367,M1 "The physical universe: an introduction to astronomy By Frank H. Shu ... snip ... "In 1922, Friedmann discovered two classes of nonempty cosmological models which did not require the cosmological constant; and they were also discovered independently by Lamaitre."

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051230-2.htm From PhysicsToday ... "Only then was much attention given to the expanding-universe models introduced in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925), in which no cosmological constant is needed."
Click to expand...



That's talking about his 1922 paper, not his 1924 papers. Why do I sense a quote mine here?


Really? Oh how the mighty have fallen. One moment he's almost a God to you folks. The next ... dirt. :)
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. No one on this thread has ever treated Einstein like a god. He didn't even accept the implications of his own theory of gravity when it applied to the universe - his theory was right about an expanding universe, but he couldn't accept it. He was also wrong about rejecting a fully developed quantum theory. It doesn't make GR wrong, it made him wrong on those specific points. Where'd you learn about science - from the back of a cereal box?


But in any case, I haven't seen any true proof that black holes exist. Just a claim inferred from observations that might very well be explained by much more ordinary and well tested physics.
Click to expand...


Somehow I think no amount of proof would satisfy you and the other EU-PU woos. That would require you to question your crack-pipe "theories" and learn some real cosmology.


:) To be more precise, Schwartzchild's paper described a structure that he called a point mass ... later dubbed a singularity.
Click to expand...


At the heart of black holes is a singularity. This is just more word game hand-waving on your part... flap-flap-flap.


But lot's of equations produce singularities that aren't real entities.
Click to expand...


Like your equations that predict the behavior of the universe according to your fictional EU-PU cosmology? Oh, that's right, you haven't ever actually provided any such calculations or predictions despite the repeated requests by many on this thread. It's pretty easy to make a bunch of bald assertions when you know they can never be tested because you don't provide quantifiable predictions. Sigh... life as a woo must be so hard.


So now you think yourself brighter than Einstein? :)
Click to expand...


When it comes to modern BBC and quantum mechanics (just to name two things), yes. He didn't have any access to the info we do now about the cosmic background radiation, quasars, etc and he basically rejected the implications of quantum mechanics. I have access to the former and have embraced the latter - so yes that does make me brighter than him. Of course, many people like me are also brighter than him, but we have the advantage of hindsight and better access to newer information.

I might also add that I think (for the same reasons) we're brighter than Newton, Galielo, and Darwin.

Again, where'd you learn about science? Or do you just make it up as you go along?


Hardly. I suggest you use Wikipedia like you always do. :D
Click to expand...


I reference Wikipedia for the benefit of the lurkers, since many of them do not have physics training. I don't really care whether or not you approve, because you are beyond reason. The only thing you care about is proselytizing your EU-PU woo...

If you want to do real science, quit hanging around on these boards. Try hanging with the big dogs and submit your ideas to the journals, propose some damned predictions of your cosmology, and take your lumps like everyone else.

Otherwise, you're just a smack-talkin' woo.

Sigh... can't help fools...
 
Ziggurat said:
I believe you about that. Not that it makes much difference, you're still dishonest and clueless.
Click to expand...

I just find it hard to comprehend how more than one person can believe this nonsense. Plus there's plenty of circumstantial evidence - for example, Zeuzzz recently admitted in a post here to having sockputted on other fora, and his/her first few posts were awfully similar in style and subject to BACs.

That's ridiculous. Sol pointed out an error I made once. I'm far too arrogant to be willing to do that to myself. Really, don't you know anything about me yet?
Click to expand...

We also had an argument about the many worlds interpretation of QM, if I recall. Actually you said something interesting there which I'm still thinking about (although of course you were still wrong :)).
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.
Click to expand...
.
There are quite a few papers that calculate a charge on the Sun, which vary according to model. Whether they are correct is another matter.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom