Something new under the sun

BeAChooser said:
Yes, just like he said that there was no evidence that filaments out there are made of plasma. :D
Click to expand...


Straw man... you've now lost the ability to read? Hell I guess so since I just posted about this. Can't quite find that method of testing your EU-PU nonsense, eh? I know, I know. You're "looking for it."

Ah well, this whole endeavor has been fun, but like Sol Invictus and other folks around here who are serious about physics & cosmology, I think it's time to punch the ol' ignore button on you trolls.

Have fun working on your Nobel Prize ;)
 
MattusMaximus said:
No dice pal.
Click to expand...

You are hand waving, MM. Earlier in this thread you posted that "It'd be nice if the woos could show any evidence that the filaments of which they speak are by their nature made of plasma." So I did, in a rather long post. And you totally ignored my response. So were you just handwaving about your detailed knowledge of filaments, MM? :D
 
Reality Check said:
Is your motto "Nothing but electricity even with the lack of a large body of evidence"?
Click to expand...

No, I believe in gravity, too.

What I don't trust are all these invisible, inferred gnomes that you've created to prop up your mainstream cosmology and astrophysics theories.

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
You are hand waving, MM. Earlier in this thread you posted that "It'd be nice if the woos could show any evidence that the filaments of which they speak are by their nature made of plasma." So I did, in a rather long post. And you totally ignored my response. So were you just handwaving about your detailed knowledge of filaments, MM? :D
Click to expand...
Since it is unlikely that MM will answer, I may as well.
There is plenty of evidence of matter in between galaxies and this is probably in the form of filaments. All the articles that I have seen mention the filiments as part of the WHIM (Warm/Hot Intergalactic Meduim). This paper states that their results favour a "photoionized, cool gas" with a temparture less then 100,000 K. A plasma physicist would be better qualified to say whether a gas with this temperature could be a plasma or not. To my mind it looks a bit low for a plasma.

The big point is that these filaments are also supporting evidence for Big Bang cosmology.
 
Reality Check said:
states that their results favour a "photoionized, cool gas" with a temparture less then 100,000 K. A plasma physicist would be better qualified to say whether a gas with this temperature could be a plasma or not. To my mind it looks a bit low for a plasma.
Click to expand...

You pick a report that is talking about one specific quasar and conclude the filaments that are found ubiquitously beyond earth aren't generally plasma? Then I guess when NASA says that 99+ percent of the visible matter in the universe is plasma they are wrong? :rolleyes:

You also ignored the statement that "Contrary to theoretical expectations, this gas is not the shock-heated warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM)". It's NOT WHIM and the theoretical expectations that the result is contrary to happens to be the basis of the computer model you mentioned earlier. That model requires the presence of warm-hot dark matter to form those long filaments. Now why would dark matter be warm but all the other material out there be cool? Hmmmmm?

By the way ... do you think the gas inside this lamp is over 100,000 K :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-lamp_2.jpg

Reality Check said:
The big point is that these filaments are also supporting evidence for Big Bang cosmology.
Click to expand...

No, the big point is that MM won't give Zeuzzz even a few hours to write a response but he's had days to respond to my post proving he was wrong ... and didn't. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
What do you think conditions are like inside a plasmoid, David? Is it really hot? Are the plasmas fast moving? Think about that, then tell us what will keep Betelgeuse from collapsing before it runs out of fuel?
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the question BAc, and it shows.

The issue is that if the plasmoid allegedly at the center of the galaxy was fusing elements to maintain kinetic pressure against gravity it would burn through its feul very quickly.

You are just dodging, you now have your Miracle Gnome, the Plasmoid at the center of the Galaxy. if it is using fusion like Betelgeuse then it would burn through it's feul very rapidly and then go supernova.

You can't answer a direct question.

What would keep it expanded BAC? How long will it be that way?

It can be hot and it can be fast moving but it will collapse, you didn't answer the question, why not?

Your gnome has no clothes, how does it stay expanded?
 
BeAChooser said:
Gee David, seems to me I've been told recently that even a miniscule amount of particles, if they were all the same charge, would blow the sun up. :)
Click to expand...
did it have 40,000 solar masses BAC?

Gosh you sure act ignorabt, why would you do that. You are referencing the electric sun model as debunked bt Ziggy, the sun is not 40,000 solar masses now is it.

You may make money panedring for the the powers that be, but political tactics just show you can't answer a direct question.

It sort of shows.
Is it? Afterall, mainstream astrophysicists are talking all the time about open field lines. So there must be monopoles all over the universe. :)
Click to expand...
More arm waving, you ignored the point i wa smaking, because it sort of deflated your Miracle Gnome one Mr, plasmoid at the Center of the Galaxy.

What will keep the plasmoid expanded BAC. Not astar but a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses in an area between 43 AU or 1 AU in radius.

Are you going to answer or just flap your arms some more.
Gee David, I thought you'd figure out that the particles in the plasmoid are really hot and moving very fast. :)
Click to expand...


Gee, you sure act ignorant. How is that going to keep them from being gravitationaly collapsing, you are acting more ignorant by the moment. Just because they are hot does not mean they won't coolapse, don't compare it to a tar, answer the question.


Funny, you still haven't provided an answer, your gnome is showing.

;)
 
BeAChooser said:
Yeah, like the amount of dark matter and dark energy ... whatever they be. :D
Click to expand...

or your three magic Gnomes.

Papa Gnome Arp's Association between Arp galaxies and QSOs.

Mama Gnome Peratt's Magnetic Field Large Enough to Twirl the Galaxy. (Which is probably just your mistaken interpretation and not his fault)

and

Baby Gnome the Plasmoid that Defies Gravity.

I hope you like being Goldilocks and the Three Gnomes BAC.

;)
 
BeAChooser said:
You know of any reason why they couldn't scale to larger systems? By the way: this ties into Zeuzzz's discussion of scalability. :D
Click to expand...

So what supplies the force to keep your Miracle Gnome at the Center of the Galaxy from Collapsing BAC.

Let us read your wisdom.

What provides for the expanded and not collapsed state of the plasmoid? please elucidat how it stays expanded or violates gravitation.

It's only 40,000 solar masses.
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually, you can't, since your bath water isn't a plasma under the influence of electromagnetic effects.

But you do demonstrate the selective blindness of mainstream supporters ... treating the galaxy once again as if it were a neutral fluid.

Your motto is ANYTHING but electricity. And the latest gnome is dark energy stars. Ever hear of them, RC? :D
Click to expand...


You have got your own Gnomes begging for attention, please answer the questions.

1. Is Arp's sample of galaxies and QSOs a census or does it have the potential have sampling error?

2. What size would the magnetic field have to be for Perrat's model to cause the galaxy to have a flat rotation curve/ has it been measured yet?

3. What force is going to keep a 40,000 solar mass within a sphere of radius 43AU to 1 AU from undergoing gravitational collapse? (Hint don't mention stars , i haven't checked the fusion rate for a 40,000 solar mass star but it might be very very short lived.)
 
BeAChooser said:
You pick a report that is talking about one specific quasar and conclude the filaments that are found ubiquitously beyond earth aren't generally plasma? Then I guess when NASA says that 99+ percent of the visible matter in the universe is plasma they are wrong? :rolleyes:

You also ignored the statement that "Contrary to theoretical expectations, this gas is not the shock-heated warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM)". It's NOT WHIM and the theoretical expectations that the result is contrary to happens to be the basis of the computer model you mentioned earlier. That model requires the presence of warm-hot dark matter to form those long filaments. Now why would dark matter be warm but all the other material out there be cool? Hmmmmm?

By the way ... do you think the gas inside this lamp is over 100,000 K :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plasma-lamp_2.jpg



No, the big point is that MM won't give Zeuzzz even a few hours to write a response but he's had days to respond to my post proving he was wrong ... and didn't. :D
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring the fact that the gas that the paper is looking at does not look like the theoretical properties of WHIM. I am stating what they found. Can you state the model that the paper used?
 
BeAChooser said:
Well in this case, the scientist was talking about that billion sun mass, not the event horizon.

So why didn't the scientist just say the billion sun mass collapses to a point with ... well .... zero size?
Click to expand...


Because it is not zero, theoretically it is at the Plank limit or scale.
 
BeAChooser said:
We all noticed you had NO response whatsoever to my post on filaments earlier in this thread ... when you denied they are made of plasma.

Were you just hand waving, MM?
Click to expand...


You still haven't answered the Three Gnomes of BAC and provided more than vague non-responses.

You haven't asnwered the questions, why?
 
BeAChooser said:
You are hand waving, MM. Earlier in this thread you posted that "It'd be nice if the woos could show any evidence that the filaments of which they speak are by their nature made of plasma." So I did, in a rather long post. And you totally ignored my response. So were you just handwaving about your detailed knowledge of filaments, MM? :D
Click to expand...


How about real answers to real questions:

1. Did Arp make a representative census of QSOs and galaxies or is there a sampling error? (No ,'he did the best he could' is not allowed.)

2. What size would the magnetic field have to be for perrat's model to move the galaxy in a flat rotational curve?

3. What will keep a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses in an area of 43 AU radius from undergoing collapse to a black hole?
 
What is the largest mass a star might have?

I hate to burst BAC's model of 40,000 solar mass plasmoid, I wonder what the Eddington Limit is and how you get past it if you are not colliding degenerate stars or black holes?

Should involve a lot of hand waving, maybe some pictures...

You know BAC, I really feel that there is a lot of merit to Plasma Cosmology, but the pushing of it beyond it's limits is very sad...
 
Dancing David said:
You know BAC, I really feel that there is a lot of merit to Plasma Cosmology, but the pushing of it beyond it's limits is very sad...
Click to expand...


Sarcasm? No really, I'd love to hear these merits - from someone who seems to actually know some physics. Please elaborate... (unless you're being sarcastic).
 
BeAChooser said:
No, I believe in gravity, too.

What I don't trust are all these invisible, inferred gnomes that you've created to prop up your mainstream cosmology and astrophysics theories.

:D
Click to expand...


Do you mean inferred gnomes like galactic-sized plasmoids? Or other inferred gnomes like large charges (> 100 Coulombs) on stars? :D
 
Reality Check said:
Since it is unlikely that MM will answer, I may as well.
Click to expand...


Thanks again RC. That was an interesting reference - I was taking a different tack on the whole issue, which you also outlined earlier as well... there is much more to the universe than the visible, baryonic (yes, most of which is plasma) matter that composes only 4% of what we observe. And yes, that other 96% or so does form into various structures like those we've been discussing.

For these woos to continually harp on their claim that 99.999-->% of the entire universe is plasma is just amazing. Of course, when you're married to an idea that doesn't fit the data, some people just keep on deluding themselves.

The big point is that these filaments are also supporting evidence for Big Bang cosmology.
Click to expand...


Kudos for trying, but did you really expect him to actually understand (much less accept) this? You know, "the big bang is a joke" and all that rot.

Again, kudos for trying. I've finally lost patience with these clowns and used the "ignore" feature for the first time in 2 years. I must say it's kind of nice. :)
 
Reality Check said:
Do you mean inferred gnomes like galactic-sized plasmoids? Or other inferred gnomes like large charges (> 100 Coulombs) on stars? :D
Click to expand...


You know, since the main topic of this thread is supposed to be about the Pioneer Anomaly, but these EU-PU woo keep hanging around, I decided to do a little calculation this morning.

(Though I'm "ignoring" some of the woos I'm still sticking with the thread)

So, assume the woos are right when they claim the Sun has about 100C of charge, and also assume the Pioneer 11 probe has about 1C of net charge on it as well. How does this fit the data?

Horribly... because here's the calculation via Coulomb's Law:

F = kQq / r2
where k = 9x109 Nm2/C2, Q = 100 C, q = 1 C, and r = 1.05x1013 m (the distance to the last known contact, I think, with Pioneer 11 probe).

Result when you plug n' chug the numbers: F = 8.16x10-15 N

Now when you take the mass of the Pioneer 11 probe into account, where m = 259 kg...

Theoretical acceleration: a = F/m = 3.15x10-17 m/sec2
... which is about 7 orders of magnitude too low to account for the Pioneer Anomaly. So in order for these claims to have any validity at all, the net charge on the Sun and Pioneer probe together would have to be higher by a factor of 10,000,000.

Nutty, nutty, nutty...
 
MattusMaximus said:
Sarcasm? No really, I'd love to hear these merits - from someone who seems to actually know some physics. Please elaborate... (unless you're being sarcastic).
Click to expand...

I know just enough to get in trouble. I feel that some of the EM forces that are exagerated by the usual PC proponents are looked at by the mainstream community. They just don't run around yelling the sky is falling all the time. there is some plasma in the universe, even if it doesn't jump through all the hoops that BAC wants it to.

I think that the coronal temperature is an area where what BAC has suggested may turn out to be correct ( or it may tun out to be wrong) that some form of fusion may occur in the corona.

Of course it is just speculation, and I don't think that EM forces suddenly dominate everything all the time.
 
Dancing David said:
The issue is that if the plasmoid allegedly at the center of the galaxy was fusing elements to maintain kinetic pressure against gravity it would burn through its feul very quickly.
Click to expand...

David, you once again demonstrate that you've made NO attempt AT ALL to understand the galactic model of Alfven, Peratt and Lerner. Because fusion at the center of the galaxy is NOT claimed to be the source of the energy that is making the core plasmoid's plasmas hot and fast moving. Now I suggest you go back and reread everything I've posted on the homopolar (unipolar) galaxy model. The answer is there. :D
 
iantresman said:
.
Indeed, the heliospheric current sheet is clearly not have the largest structure by mass, and clearly the primary force on Jupiter and Sun are gravity. But the primary force on the Solar Wind is electromagnetic, overcoming Solar gravity with ease. The Sun flares, city power stations get knocked off line.
Click to expand...

Planets don't get knocked out of orbit, though, do they ?
 
BeAChooser said:
David, you once again demonstrate that you've made NO attempt AT ALL to understand the galactic model of Alfven, Peratt and Lerner. Because fusion at the center of the galaxy is NOT claimed to be the source of the energy that is making the core plasmoid's plasmas hot and fast moving. Now I suggest you go back and reread everything I've posted on the homopolar (unipolar) galaxy model. The answer is there. :D
Click to expand...


Dodging and evasion noted.

you are not asnwering three simple question.

Saying you have already answered just shows that you are incapable of answering. Why not post relevant quotes from your prior posting. (I can tell you why, because you don't have an answer. Be short , concise and to the point. All you have is bluff and bluster, no brilliance.)

Give a three sentence summary to the three questions, that would be nine sentences.

You are just arm waving.

You don't have an answer.

Try answering each question, explain your model, you are engaging in vague hand waving. (as usual and because you are incapable of understanding and explaining your own modles you resort to saying that I have a comprehension problem. Spell out you answers, I bet you can't and I bet you won't. I offer an apology on the Community Forum if you show a clear concise answer to the three questions I have asked.)

1. Are Arp's statistical association of galaxies and QSOs possibly a result of sampling error, why or why not?

2. What size magnetic field (or other magic gnome that potentialy could be detected) is required for the Perrat model of galaxy rotation. What observable force would move the stars and how could it be measured? (Your assertion is not a force, it is a farce. ;) )

3. What force is going to keep a 40,000 solar mass plasmoid or otherwise, from undergoing gravitational collapse?

You say that it will work BAC, but you REFUSE yet again to explain yourself. Hand waving and opaqueness to ensue I am sure.

BTW: You were the one who brought up a star , Betelgeuse, so I mentioned Eddingtons' Limit.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Of course it is just speculation, and I don't think that EM forces suddenly dominate everything all the time.
Click to expand...


What you're saying is pretty reasonable, and I have no qualms with it. And your final point is quite correct. In fact, it's the same thing most on this thread have been maintaining all along - on large size scales, gravity dominates, not EM-forces. That's not to say such forces don't exist, they just don't exist in the context as presented by the woos.
 
Dancing David said:
I think that the coronal temperature is an area where what BAC has suggested may turn out to be correct ( or it may tun out to be wrong) that some form of fusion may occur in the corona.
Click to expand...


I missed this point earlier... how the heck would fusion take place in the Sun's corona? That just makes no sense to me.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I missed this point earlier... how the heck would fusion take place in the Sun's corona? That just makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...


Well that means it is bad speculation. You seem to know your stuff, I knew it wasn't a z-pinch, which was BAC's candidate.

Do we have an idea of why the corona is so hot?
 
Dancing David said:
Do we have an idea of why the corona is so hot?
Click to expand...


Not for sure. The two main candidates now seem to be Wave Heating and Magnetic Reconnection. Both approaches have some merit, but both also are missing key pieces of the hot corona puzzle.

So, long story short... we don't know why the solar corona is so hot. If someone can figure it out, there could be a Nobel Prize in their future.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Not for sure. The two main candidates now seem to be Wave Heating and Magnetic Reconnection.
Click to expand...


I bet your not sure, astronomers have been trying to solve the mystery of coronal acceleration and heating for years now to no avail.

I just have to add a quick comment here before I return tomorrow. These two solutions that you have offered are very theoretical. I have addressed the erroneous concept of magnetic reconnection before (not that i expect you to even look at or consider it), and I should point out that the various waves and other solutions have been offered all appear to fall short of the mark. None has been found to fully solve the problem of coronal heating and acceleration, despite years of effort to sove this outstanding problem is solar physcs.

http://cluster.irfu.se/ks/bib/prl06corona.pdf
During the past 50 years there have
been many attempts to solve this outstanding problem in
astrophysics, and there are more than 20 different models
and mechanisms for coronal heating proposed in the literature;
see reviews [6–8].
Click to expand...


It appears that the most simple solution, acceleration by the suns E-field, has been overlooked. The paper above makes use of millions of separate tiny particle sized E-fields to produce the acceleration, but they also seem to overlook the possibility that a global electric field could be causing the same type of effect.


So, long story short... we don't know why the solar corona is so hot. If someone can figure it out, there could be a Nobel Prize in their future.
Click to expand...


Well someone who has already won one, Hannes Alfven, may have already proposed a solution inadvertantly by use of the electric acceleration field produced by a double layer in a plasma, and the subsequent thermalization of particles that would result in this acceleration above the photosphere. Of course though, this requires a certain amount of charge separation still not accepted by conventional astronomers, and while this value falls short of the more speculative values often proposed by EU proponents, it is still out of the range accepted by modern astronomy.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I have addressed the erroneous concept of magnetic reconnection before (not that i expect you to even look at or consider it),
Click to expand...

No. You were shown an explicit solution to Maxwell's equations which reconnects. You were shown about 20 papers published by an experiment which has measured the characteristics of reconnection in a plasma lab. And yet you still make false statements about it.

You played a similar little game with the charge of the sun. After being forcefed the necessary basic electromagnetic facts which make it obvious that it's utterly impossible for the sun to have a large charge, you more or less acknowledged that that is the case. You have now flipflopped in another thread and gone back to asserting the charge on the sun can be a billion C, or whatever ludicrous figure your crank ideas require at the moment.

Furthermore, you have failed to produce even a single prediction - not one single prediction - from the "theory" you're constantly babbling about.

Frankly, you're really starting to irritate me. I see no point in continuing a dialog with you. Given that you have completely ignored the irrefutable evidence for magnetic reconnection and continue to repeat the stupid and blatant lie that it violates Maxwell's equations, I see little chance that you will ever acknowledge anything else either, no matter what the evidence is. You are evidently a religious person, and I long ago learned not to debate matters of faith with true believers.

I will give you until tomorrow to produce a single prediction of "plasma cosmology", if only because I'm looking forward to the opportunity to thoroughly debunk it. Failing that (as I expect), you will go on permanent ignore.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Because it is not zero, theoretically it is at the Plank limit or scale.
Click to expand...

You mean the Planck limit. 10-35 meters?

So you figure 1 billion solar masses will collapse to that?

In how much time?

And why is that the limit?

Do we really understand the physics at that scale well enough to be sure?

Or are you all just waving hands?

:D
 
Zeuzzz said:
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus
... snip ... The two main candidates now seem to be Wave Heating and Magnetic Reconnection.

I bet your not sure, astronomers have been trying to solve the mystery of coronal acceleration and heating for years now to no avail.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Wave Heating ...

http://www.physorg.com/news107704099.html "Scientists find elusive waves in sun's corona, August 30, 2007... snip ... Scientists for the first time have observed elusive oscillations in the Sun's corona, known as Alfvén waves, that transport energy outward from the surface of the Sun. ... snip ... Alfvén waves are fast-moving perturbations that emanate outward from the Sun along magnetic field lines, transporting energy. Although they have been detected in the heliosphere outside the Sun, they have never before been viewed within the corona, which is the outer layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Alfvén waves are difficult to detect partly because, unlike other waves, they do not lead to large-intensity fluctuations in the corona. In addition, their velocity shifts are small and not easily spotted. ... snip ... The waves may provide answers to questions that have puzzled physicists for generations, such as why the Sun's corona is hundreds of times hotter than its surface."

http://space.newscientist.com/chann...c-ripples-may-solve-mystery-of-suns-heat.html Magnetic ripples may solve mystery of Sun's heat, 30 August 2007 ... Elusive magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves have been spotted shimmering in the Sun's outer atmosphere, or corona, for the first time. The waves travel 10 times faster than the speed of sound and may help crack the mystery of why the corona is so much hotter than the Sun's visible surface. At 2 million degrees Celsius, the corona is hundreds of times hotter than the Sun's visible surface, which lies beneath it and simmers at a mere 5000° C. But figuring out what injects so much heat into the corona has eluded scientists for decades. One idea is that the corona is heated by magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves. These waves – which had been observed in the solar wind but never in the corona – are vibrations of the Sun's magnetic field lines. ... snip ... The waves Tomczyk's team has observed appear to carry too little energy to account for the heating of the corona, by a factor of at least 10,000."

Gee ... only a factor of 10,000! :D

The various articles on this lead one to believe the researchers don't have any appreciation of why they are called Alfven waves. They've missed the obvious. Alfven wrote in a letter to Nature in 1942 that "If a conducting liquid is placed in a constant magnetic field, every motion of the liquid gives rise to an E.M.F. which produces electric currents. Owing to the magnetic field, these currents give mechanical forces which change the state of motion of the liquid. Thus a kind of combined electromagnetic-hydrodynamic wave is produced." In short, an Alfvén wave is a wave that occurs in a plasma due to the interaction of the magnetic fields and electric currents within it. These Alfven waves are indicative of electric currents flowing in a plasma filament where the field aligned currents flow in parallel to the magnetic fields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom