Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

leonAzul said:
Why do we need to invent "dark matter," when matter in the plasma state is a known fact?

Um ...

... perhaps because no one has yet come up with an explanation, using "matter in the plasma state", for the many observations, of many different kinds, that lead to the conclusion 'here be CDM'?

If you know of any papers which present such explanations, would you be kind enough to reference them please? I, for one, am most interested in papers which address all classes of such observations, of all classes of objects so observed.

Belz... · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Not at all, its fact. The fusion process thought to ocur in the sun has never yet been achieved continuosly on Earth.

So we don't have a solar mass' worth of hydrogen to play with...

So you still havent cracked it quite yet? eh? Even if it was achieved on Earth in a continual reaction in the near future, I still think that other fusion mechanisms are possible contendors.

In other words you cannot, will not and do not want to change your mind about this.

Zeuzzz · May 21, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Wallace Thornhill, a case of apparent (intellectual) dishonesty and (academic) fraud - background remarks.

Before presenting this case, I need to be very clear on what I mean by some key terms, and also on the background.

The scientific community has developed a set of conventions and standards regarding what is acceptable and what is not re the 'doing' of science.

Many of the conventions address communication, specifically what is acceptable in communicating scientific findings (results of experiments, details of observations, development of models and theories, etc) within the community and what is not. Many of these conventions are similar to those of other, broader communities - for example, if you quote something, you should give the source; if you use others' work, you should attribute your use properly; if you say you did such-and-such an experiment, you should have actually done it. However, I think these conventions are both more fixed and much more strict in the scientific community, so much so that deliberate, persistent breaking of the conventions almost always earns the offender the title '(academic) fraud', and there are serious consequences (such as being fired).

(Intellectual) dishonesty is also, I think, in general a much bigger issue in the scientific community than outside it; of course, one can adhere to the (scientific) conventions regarding communication while at the same time being (intellectually) dishonest in what one communicates.

Communication among scientists happens via many media and in many ways. There's an informal hierarchy to the perceived value and rigour of different forms: publication in a peer-reviewed journal is at the top (the most exacting standards, the greatest opprobrium for violating the conventions), followed by conference papers, (conference) posters, and conference presentations. Preprints, such as can be found on arXiv, occupy a rather unique position - the authors nearly always aim (or, sometimes, hope) to get them published (in a relevant, peer-reviewed, journal), and have generally tried to follow the conventions for such publication, but implicitly acknowledge that the preprint may contain errors, mistakes, omissions, and so on.

Of course, even for published papers, mistakes etc are sometimes made ... and as you'd expect, there are conventions about what to do when they are discovered. (Aside: Interestingly, there are (it seems to me) not so many (if any) clearly stated conventions about what to do if a paper is later discovered to be fraudulent (in the academic sense)).

re 'fraud': in no shape or form do I intend to use this term (or related ones, such as 'fraudulent') in a legal sense; my intent is the normal, everyday meaning ('deliberate misrepresentation' or 'intentional twisting of the truth to gain something of value' or similar) and/or as a shorthand for 'academic fraud'.

The IEEE have published a series of Thornhills publications, which passed their peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it. Who are you to write so disparagingly of Thornhill, or the IEEE? It just comes across as rather arrogant...

Would you also say the same thing about the journals that have published arps controversial material? Or any of the other copyrighted publications from any journal? Much of that is not available to see either, aswell as the IEEE publications, and many other journals, it totally depends on the journal publishing it and what their copyright policy is. Some are public, some are not, just selecting a few papers and accusing them of not being open, not adhering to the sceintific method and being frauds is a bit silly, really...

DeiRenDopa said:
"internet fora are nice that way", to quote sol invictus ... "When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts [...]"

When confronted with a detailed, word for word comparison, Zeuzzz freely admitted to copying (with (very) minor edits) without attribution:
No, that would be Donald E. Scott (sole author).

Well, way to go on completely taking what I wrote out of context and leaving out the main points I made. You conveniently made it look like I said that everything I write is copied from somewhere, when it was only that post, that I fully explained before. Do i have to repeat myself? This is about the fifth post you have brought this up, you obviously have an axe to grind. I have to wonder why to continually try to shoot the messenger and not the message, it really doesn't come across very well, DRD.

Zeuzzz · May 21, 2008

Belz... said:
In other words you cannot, will not and do not want to change your mind about this.

I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

Reality Check · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

Perhaps you can give use the testable predictions from these models in a new thread since they have nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology. I assume that their predictions of the neutrino flux from the sun matches the observations.

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. [...] it could be electric (like pulsars),

... snip ...

Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

DeiRenDopa said:

"internet fora are nice that way", to quote sol invictus ... "When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts [...]"

When confronted with a detailed, word for word comparison, Zeuzzz freely admitted to copying (with (very) minor edits) without attribution:
No, that would be Donald E. Scott (sole author).

Click to expand...

Well, way to go on completely taking what I wrote out of context and leaving out the main points I made. You conveniently made it look like I said that everything I write is copied from somewhere, when it was only that post, that I fully explained before. Do i have to repeat myself? This is about the fifth post you have brought this up, you obviously have an axe to grind. I have to wonder why to continually try to shoot the messenger and not the message, it really doesn't come across very well, DRD.

Way to go Zeuzzz!

What I wrote is correct, in context ... the context which includes the link to the post you wrote.

And yes, on this topic, I do wish to be very persistent.

For example, I have asked you several times now about several other posts you wrote ... what parts of those did you (largely) copy, and from where. You have, as yet, not answered any of those (yet you have found the time to write very long posts, in several threads, with lots of links and quotes).

I have even asked you if you'd like me to list the places that seem to me to require at least an attribution, if not an admission of direct copying; I'll repeat the offer: would you like me to list for you the various OTHER posts of yours that contain what I think is unattributed material?

Zeuzzz · May 21, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

Yes, I would suspect that the electrical energy powering much of the pulsars covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly. The X-ray and radio spectrum have been pretty well matched to the electric star model, I know that for sure.

I'm just showing you already existing theories, like I always do. I would recommend you take a look at this much cited publication for a start;

An electrically powered binary star?

We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5- min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics. [....]

Alternatives include a double degenerate Algol system (also proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs 2002), a neutron star-white dwarf pair and a unipolar-inductor model (or electric star model). The latter model would represent a third form of stellar energy after nuclear and accretion power. [....]

We propose that short-period magnetic and non-magnetic white-dwarf pairs with short orbital periods (∼ 10 min) are efficient cosmic unipolar inductors. Provided that the spin of the magnetic component and the orbit are not in perfect synchronism, a large e.m.f. can be produced across the nonmagnetic white dwarf. The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion.

The X-ray source RX J1914+24 is a candidate unipolar inductors consisting of a magnetic and non-magnetic whitedwarf pair. The two small X-ray spots on the magnetic white dwarf predicted by the unipolar-inductor model are compatible with the X-ray light curve of RX J1914+24. The luminosity
and temperature predicted by the model is also in agreement with the observed values derived from fits to the X-ray spectra. The model also explains the variation in the optical/infra-red luminosity, and the detection of only a single period. The variations in the long term X-ray intensity can be attributed to variations in the current flow. The two main inadequacies of the current accretion model (Ramsay et al. 2000a) — the lack of any polarised flux and the lack of any detectable line emission (Ramsay et al. 2000b) are naturally explained.[......]

Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

Reality Check · May 21, 2008

Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model.

Zeuzzz: Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model.

Is Peratt's galaxy formation model disproved by the actual observation of dark matter?
Why do we not see the over 200 billion galactic plasma filaments that the model predicts? Every one of about 100 billion galaxies should have 2 or more filaments extending from them. They should be producing radiation due to the currents running through them. They definitely will have gravitational effects.
Why did Peratt compare the results of his simulation (maps of plasma density) with optical photographs of galaxies?
Optical photos show light density, e.g. the spirals in spiral galaxies are areas of young (bright) stars. The density of stars between the spiral arms is almost as high as in the arms. Somewhere Peratt must have plasma density profiles of his maps but I have not seen them. Without them I have to assume that his simulation maps have a plasma density of zero (or maybe 50%) between the arms. This does not match the actual structure of galaxies.
His model of galaxy formation is a plasmoid (created from 2 galactic plasma filaments) that is rotated by electromagnetic forces. His model may include gravity though this is not explicitly stated. Galaxies contain stars. His model does not go to the level of star creation. So there are a couple of alternatives for actual galaxy rotation after stars form:

The rotation of the galaxies continues to be dominated by electromagnetic forces (no dark matter is needed). This requires that the orbits of the stars are dominated by electromagnetic forces.
The rotation of the galaxies becomes dominated by gravity. The orbits of the stars in the galaxy are then mostly determined by gravity. The velocity dispersion curves then over time reduce to the usual gravity dominated prediction. The prediction is then that we will see various stages of this in the velocity dispersion curves of galaxies and that it will be correlated with the age of the galaxy.
But we do not observe this and need dark matter.

So what case do you support (or do you have another alternative)?

One of these days Peratt really should publish the code for his simulation so that people can repeat it.

Interesting little fact: The source code for the latest Lambda-CDM computer simulation is available to the public. So anyone can test their results (if you have a spare supercomputer, lots of time or run a really small simulation.)

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

The IEEE have published a series of Thornhills publications, which passed their peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it. ... snip ...

They have?

As in 'The IEEE did publish "a series of [Wallace] Thornhills publications"'? Could you please give some more details (date(s), title(s), and so on)?

I checked the IEEE website (www.ieee.org), and found many references to "Thornhill", but only the following seem relevant to Wallace Thornhill (or even "Thornhill, W."):

* "Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "Radius scaling of titanium wire arrays on the Z accelerator
Coverdale, C.A.; Deeney, C.; Spielman, R.B.; Douglas, M.R.; Nash, T.J.; Whitney, K.G.; Thornhill, W.; Apruzese, J.P.; Clark, R.C.; Davis, J.; Peterson, D.L.; Beg, F.N.; Ruiz-Camacho, J.; Schneider, R." (not, apparently, 'our' Thornhill; there are some more like this)

* "Was the 1908 Tunguska Explosion an Electrical Event? Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "The Electrical Nature of Comets Thornhill, W.W."

You have cited the first (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM); do you have access to either of the others?

Zeuzzz · May 21, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
They have?

As in 'The IEEE did publish "a series of [Wallace] Thornhills publications"'? Could you please give some more details (date(s), title(s), and so on)?

I checked the IEEE website (www.ieee.org), and found many references to "Thornhill", but only the following seem relevant to Wallace Thornhill (or even "Thornhill, W."):

* "Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "Radius scaling of titanium wire arrays on the Z accelerator
Coverdale, C.A.; Deeney, C.; Spielman, R.B.; Douglas, M.R.; Nash, T.J.; Whitney, K.G.; Thornhill, W.; Apruzese, J.P.; Clark, R.C.; Davis, J.; Peterson, D.L.; Beg, F.N.; Ruiz-Camacho, J.; Schneider, R." (not, apparently, 'our' Thornhill; there are some more like this)

* "Was the 1908 Tunguska Explosion an Electrical Event? Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "The Electrical Nature of Comets Thornhill, W.W."

You have cited the first (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM); do you have access to either of the others?

Yes.

You just listed a series of publications published by the IEEE by Wallace Thornhill. So the answer to your question "They have?" Is yes, they have!

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz, some time ago I formed the opinion that your comprehension of the science that you read leaves, shall we say, something to be desired.

Your response to my simple question is rather strong evidence that you do not really understand much of what you read ...

Zeuzzz said:
Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would suspect that the electrical energy powering much of the pulsars covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly. The X-ray and radio spectrum have been pretty well matched to the electric star model, I know that for sure.

I'm just showing you already existing theories, like I always do. I would recommend you take a look at this much cited publication for a start;

An electrically powered binary star?

We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5- min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics. [....]

Alternatives include a double degenerate Algol system (also proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs 2002), a neutron star-white dwarf pair and a unipolar-inductor model (or electric star model). The latter model would represent a third form of stellar energy after nuclear and accretion power. [....]

We propose that short-period magnetic and non-magnetic white-dwarf pairs with short orbital periods (∼ 10 min) are efficient cosmic unipolar inductors. Provided that the spin of the magnetic component and the orbit are not in perfect synchronism, a large e.m.f. can be produced across the nonmagnetic white dwarf. The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion.

The X-ray source RX J1914+24 is a candidate unipolar inductors consisting of a magnetic and non-magnetic whitedwarf pair. The two small X-ray spots on the magnetic white dwarf predicted by the unipolar-inductor model are compatible with the X-ray light curve of RX J1914+24. The luminosity
and temperature predicted by the model is also in agreement with the observed values derived from fits to the X-ray spectra. The model also explains the variation in the optical/infra-red luminosity, and the detection of only a single period. The variations in the long term X-ray intensity can be attributed to variations in the current flow. The two main inadequacies of the current accretion model (Ramsay et al. 2000a) — the lack of any polarised flux and the lack of any detectable line emission (Ramsay et al. 2000b) are naturally explained.[......]

Click to expand...

Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

So ...

You made a claim about pulsars.

I asked for clarification, and extended the scope to (all) neutron stars, and magnetars.

You replied with a paper about white dwarfs!

Zeuzzz, I have some bad news for you ... white dwarf stars are not neutron stars.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification ("covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly") ... I look forward to reading papers explaining how the observed gamma ray spectrum from neutron stars (for example) is derived from resistive heating ...

DeiRenDopa · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Yes.

You just listed a series of publications published by the IEEE by Wallace Thornhill. So the answer to your question "They have?" Is yes, they have!

Thank you.

That's it? No other IEEE publications "of [Wallace] Thornhill's publications"?

And how did you determine that all these publications "passed [the IEEE's] peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it"?

You have cited the first, elsewhere (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM; does the offer still stand?); do you have access to either of the others?

Zeuzzz · May 21, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Zeuzzz, some time ago I formed the opinion that your comprehension of the science that you read leaves, shall we say, something to be desired.

Your response to my simple question is rather strong evidence that you do not really understand much of what you read ...
So ...

You made a claim about pulsars.

I asked for clarification, and extended the scope to (all) neutron stars, and magnetars.

You replied with a paper about white dwarfs!

Zeuzzz, I have some bad news for you ... white dwarf stars are not neutron stars.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification ("covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly") ... I look forward to reading papers explaining how the observed gamma ray spectrum from neutron stars (for example) is derived from resistive heating ...

Okay, calm down. It just so happens that this was the first publication that sprund to mind, and yes, it is about white dwarfs. If you read my post on the pulsar thread, you will see what my position is on the actual difference between a so called "neutron star" and other stars like white dwarfs or otherwise. They are very similar. And the above paper I quoted was the pioneering paper that brought the electrocmagnetic PC interpretation of pulsars, (and other similar objects that have these emmissions anyway), into the mainstream a few years ago, so its very relevant to this thread, no matter what you say.

If you wanted a publication on an electrical interpretation of the output of pulsars, just ask! no need to get angry now, is there? Using large sizes just comes across as shouting. And now your changing your position and want just an electrical explanation of the gamma rays? OK.

a quick search came up with these possible contendors;

The electromagnetic model of gamma-ray bursts

Abstract. The electromagnetic model (EMM) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and a contrast of its main properties and predictions with the hydrodynamic fireball model (FBM) and its magnetohydrodynamical extension are described. The EMM assumes that rotational energy of a relativistic, stellar-mass central source (black hole-accretion disk system or fast rotating neutron star) is converted into magnetic energy through a unipolar dynamo mechanism, propagated to large distances in the form of relativistic, subsonic, Poynting flux-dominated wind and is dissipated directly into emitting particles through current-driven instabilities.

http://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/412007/Mafiz & Dipen.pdf

Rotating and conducting neutron stars can be
understood within a model of a unipolar inductor
generating very large v x B electric fields capable
of pulling charges from the neutron star surface
against the force of gravity. Hence, the
magnetosphere of the neutron star is filled with
charge separated plasma that tends to oppose the
induced v x B electric field. The resulting field is
capable of shorting out the E|| (parallel to the
magnetic field) everywhere except a few locations.
Two places where strong E|| may accelerate
particles and generate radiation are i) near the
magnetic poles (polar caps) or ii) in the outer
magnetosphere (outer gaps). In this paper, we will
summarise pulsar gamma-ray generation models,
including the polar cap and the outer gap models
and some observational verificationss of those
models.[.....]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507697

We estimate that the vacuum electric field associated with a spinning Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object MECO (www.phys.uni-sofia.bg/~astro/abbrev.html) could be higher by a factor of ~ 10^4 than the corresponding pulsar value because of extreme relativistic Frame Dragging Effect. Thus isolated spinning MECOs could be source of UHE cosmic ray acceleration and VHE gamma-ray production. However because of the steeply varying gravitational field close to the surface of the MECO, any signal generated there would be both extremely redshifted and distorted. As a result, there may not be any significant pulsed X-ray or Radio emission from close to the surface, and consequently, the $\gamma$-ray source may appear as ``Unidentified'' and the particle accelerator may appear as ``Dark''.

And you may want to check out Beskin's interesting electromagnetic unipolar inductor theory of gamma rays from all sources in general, including for AGNs, which is overviewed here; http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/TALKS/Beskin-Mar15-07.pdf

Maybe Alfven was right when he proposed the electric unipolar inductor model for galaxies and stars, now over fifty years ago.

And you may want to check this one out too;

The state of pulsar theory

Abstract

I summarize the status of pulsar theory, now 35 years after their discovery. Although progress has been made in understanding the relevant processes involved, there are several widely held misconceptions that are inhibiting further advances. These include the idea that plasma “must” be accelerated from the magnetic polar caps (the basis for the “Hollow Cone Model”) and the idea that winds would be driven away by centrifugal forces, with large amplitude electromagnetic waves playing no role whatsoever. However, recent theoretical work is converging on a picture that closely resembles the latest HST and Chandra images, providing hope for the future. No less than three groups have recently confirmed the early Krause-Polstorff–Michel simulations showing that the fundamental plasma distribution around a rotating neutron star consists of two polar domes and an equatorial torus of trapped nonneutral plasma of opposite sign charges. Unless a lot of new physics can be added, this distribution renders the Goldreich–Julian model irrelevant (i.e., along with most of the theoretical publications over the last 33 years).

And thats it for today, I can see no matter what I post, it will either be ignored, or just receive a hand waving responce from you. I provided a paper that said that a star could recieve energy from external electrical activity, and no comment. Other people asked before why I thought that stars could be powered electrically, but no doubt will ignore this and ask me another question without addressing this material. I really wonder why I bother, I may aswell post on other science fora where I usually get a far warmer and interested reception discussing PC material.

Dancing David · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out...

I take it back

:dl:

You are saying that it is even a possibility that electricity makes the sun shine.

Boom goes the sun, no more light, unless you still want to violate gausses law.

Dancing David · May 21, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

Why, you just said that the sun might be powered by electricity like a pulsar.

:dl:

I can't wait to see how you either run away or blame us for misinterpreting what you said
"I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars),"

Dancing David · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
And thats it for today, I can see no matter what I post, it will either be ignored, or just receive a hand waving responce from you. I provided a paper that said that a star could recieve energy from external electrical activity, and no comment. Other people asked before why I thought that stars could be powered electrically, but no doubt will ignore this and ask me another question without addressing this material. I really wonder why I bother, I may aswell post on other science fora where I usually get a far warmer and interested reception discussing PC material.

Ah yes, the other science fora where you don't have to produce numbers or evidence and you can just engage in fuzzy minded speculation. You are the one who says things not supported by the numbers and evidence, when asked for numbers, you don't have them.

And I can see you have already forgotten that for enough energy to flow electrically into the sun to make it shine at it's current luminosity, it would go boom.

No electric sun.

:gnome:

-Sun go boom!

Tubbythin · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

So... of these alternatives, which of them are consistent with the following:
1)The fact that the Sun is in hydrostatic equilibrium
2)The closeness of the Sun's spectrum to a blackbody.
3)The observed neutrino flux.
4)The abundances of the elements up to iron-56.
5)The Hertzprung-Russell diagram.
6)The mass-luminosity relation.

???

ETA: if it can explain 6) together with being consistent with 1-5 then that would make it more impressive.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

Tubbythin said:
So... of these alternatives, which of them are consistent with the following:
1)The fact that the Sun is in hydrostatic equilibrium
2)The closeness of the Sun's spectrum to a blackbody.
3)The observed neutrino flux.
4)The abundances of the elements up to iron-56.
5)The Hertzprung-Russell diagram.
6)The mass-luminosity relation.

???

ETA: if it can explain 6) together with being consistent with 1-5 then that would make it more impressive.

I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

Reality Check · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

Any answers to Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model yet?

Belz... · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out.

Let's try to steer clear of arguments from ignorance, shall we ?

It's not like we're guessing that the sun is powered by fusion based on tarot readings, here.

I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods.

Do any of them account for the observations ? And if so, how ?

Belz... · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives.

nice

.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

(emphasis added)

What research have you done, Zeuzzz, to determine the extent to which astronomers have considered alternatives?

What research of your own have you done, Zeuzzz, on any alternatives? Starting with a clear statement of hypotheses, and going on to working out, in quantitative terms, what the phenomenology would be.

What proposals do you have, Zeuzzz, for specific observations or experiments that would test any alternatives?

If you think that because the inside of the Sun is inaccessible a model cannot 'prove' what goes on there, for reasons of logic, does it follow that no model of what goes on there can ever be ruled out?

And, more generally, to what extent does this approach to 'proof' underlie your alternative view of science?

I've said this before, several times (and you've ignored what I wrote): "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) as defined by what you write and materials you have cited, is woo ... because at its core it uses logic, methods, approaches, and so on that are quite different than those used in normal science.

So, can we get back to discussing whether PC is woo or not?

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

Let's try to steer clear of arguments from ignorance, shall we ?

It's not like we're guessing that the sun is powered by fusion based on tarot readings, here.

Belz... said:
All that's well and fine, but I have a question: What makes you and other proponents of this theory think, to start with, that stars are EM-powered ?

To which I gave a direct link of various models for electrically powered stars; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3722101&postcount=448

Which you completely ignored, along with all the other electric star models I have posted in other threads/posts.

No, I think that the

Is all yours, my friend. And I dont expect your going to comment on it now either...

Dancing David · May 22, 2008

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3722101&postcount=448

Discusses the white dwarfs in a binary pair, what evidence was presented to lead to this conclusion and how can you decide that the sun is the same way?

Hmmmm?

Another question you won't answer.

Just like what replication and other data support this one paper you cited:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111358

From 2001 that means at least 6 years to do more work. Do they say it applies to stars like the sun? Hmmm.

Did you really think that this is what powers our sun?

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

Reality Check said:
Any answers to Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model yet?

I dont want to have repeat myself. Its really quite tedious. I answer a question, you disagree with my answer, and just keep asking me the same question. D'David has perpetually asked me what value of charge on stars could be added into Peratts model since he wants to try to work out how it works on a smaller scale than Peratt dealt with. I have continually stated what I think the value could be, about 10^4±~2, but he still keeps asking me this question as if i've never answered it. The trouble is that he'll be working out the magnetostatic force in a neutral gas, not plasma, where the range has been shown to be much larger, which is implied directly from the length of already existing galactic magnetic fields. Which i've said about ten times too.

And some of those questions are just plain silly. Lets reverse some of them.

Why did Peratt compare the results of his simulation (maps of plasma density) with optical photographs of galaxies?

(Maybe because areas of high plasma density would be more energetic and release more optical light? And maybe becasue it was a galactic dimensioned simulation trying to replicate a galaxy?)

Why do you think that astronomers compare the shape of gravitational galaxy formation theories to galaxies? surely anyone can see that an exclusively attractive field can not form structures like this, so why do they compare their results to the shape of galaxies? It looks like a bunny, its is a big gravitational bunny.

Is Peratt's galaxy formation model disproved by the actual observation of dark matter?

[The observations that have implied that dark matter (whatever the hell that is) is there according to gravitational models]

Isnt the current galaxy formation model falsified by the actual observation of large EM structures in space which it exlcludes from its model?

Why do we not see the over 200 billion galactic plasma filaments that the model predicts? Every one of about 100 billion galaxies should have 2 or more filaments extending from them.

Why are nearly all galaxies completely different? Shouldn't all the galaxies we see be the same shape as the gravitational relationships are essentially the same for them all? And why do we observe filaments extending from the plane of the majority of galaxies? why are many galaxies alligned along these planes?

His model of galaxy formation is a plasmoid (created from 2 galactic plasma filaments) that is rotated by electromagnetic forces. His model may include gravity though this is not explicitly stated.

Well thats just plain wrong. What do you think the mass in his simulation was doing? just there for effect? the gravitational force in his model is the main one that creates the high current density at the centre due to its attractive nature, and thus the high optical brightness we observe at the centre of all galaxies.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

OK Zeuzzz, you know what's coming next, don't you?

Zeuzzz said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Zeuzzz, some time ago I formed the opinion that your comprehension of the science that you read leaves, shall we say, something to be desired.

Your response to my simple question is rather strong evidence that you do not really understand much of what you read ...
So ...

You made a claim about pulsars.

I asked for clarification, and extended the scope to (all) neutron stars, and magnetars.

You replied with a paper about white dwarfs!

Zeuzzz, I have some bad news for you ... white dwarf stars are not neutron stars.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification ("covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly") ... I look forward to reading papers explaining how the observed gamma ray spectrum from neutron stars (for example) is derived from resistive heating ...

Click to expand...

Okay, calm down. It just so happens that this was the first publication that sprund to mind, and yes, it is about white dwarfs. If you read my post on the pulsar thread, you will see what my position is on the actual difference between a so called "neutron star" and other stars like white dwarfs or otherwise. They are very similar. And the above paper I quoted was the pioneering paper that brought the electrocmagnetic PC interpretation of pulsars, (and other similar objects that have these emmissions anyway), into the mainstream a few years ago, so its very relevant to this thread, no matter what you say.

If you wanted a publication on an electrical interpretation of the output of pulsars, just ask! no need to get angry now, is there? Using large sizes just comes across as shouting. And now your changing your position and want just an electrical explanation of the gamma rays? OK.

a quick search came up with these possible contendors;

The electromagnetic model of gamma-ray bursts

Abstract. The electromagnetic model (EMM) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and a contrast of its main properties and predictions with the hydrodynamic fireball model (FBM) and its magnetohydrodynamical extension are described. The EMM assumes that rotational energy of a relativistic, stellar-mass central source (black hole-accretion disk system or fast rotating neutron star) is converted into magnetic energy through a unipolar dynamo mechanism, propagated to large distances in the form of relativistic, subsonic, Poynting flux-dominated wind and is dissipated directly into emitting particles through current-driven instabilities.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

More bad news Zeuzzz: GRBs are not neutron stars.

http://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/412007/Mafiz & Dipen.pdf

Rotating and conducting neutron stars can be
understood within a model of a unipolar inductor
generating very large v x B electric fields capable
of pulling charges from the neutron star surface
against the force of gravity. Hence, the
magnetosphere of the neutron star is filled with
charge separated plasma that tends to oppose the
induced v x B electric field. The resulting field is
capable of shorting out the E|| (parallel to the
magnetic field) everywhere except a few locations.
Two places where strong E|| may accelerate
particles and generate radiation are i) near the
magnetic poles (polar caps) or ii) in the outer
magnetosphere (outer gaps). In this paper, we will
summarise pulsar gamma-ray generation models,
including the polar cap and the outer gap models
and some observational verificationss of those
models.[.....]

Click to expand...

Right ... standard, textbook plasma physics.

And what is the "source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts"? (that's my original question, remember? I added some emphasis - shouting - because you seem to have ignored what I wrote, yet again)

Well, Mofiz and Bhattacharya provided the answer, right on page one of the paper you cited (I added emphasis, in case you have difficulty reading the words):

But as the pulsars that are detected in gamma rays
spend most of their spin-down energy in gammarays [... ] Rotation powered pulsars [...]

Got that?

The source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars is the rotation of those stars!

Sheesh.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507697

We estimate that the vacuum electric field associated with a spinning Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object MECO (www.phys.uni-sofia.bg/~astro/abbrev.html) could be higher by a factor of ~ 10^4 than the corresponding pulsar value because of extreme relativistic Frame Dragging Effect. Thus isolated spinning MECOs could be source of UHE cosmic ray acceleration and VHE gamma-ray production. However because of the steeply varying gravitational field close to the surface of the MECO, any signal generated there would be both extremely redshifted and distorted. As a result, there may not be any significant pulsed X-ray or Radio emission from close to the surface, and consequently, the $\gamma$-ray source may appear as ``Unidentified'' and the particle accelerator may appear as ``Dark''.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

More bad news Zeuzzz: MECOs are not neutron stars.

And you may want to check out Beskin's interesting electromagnetic unipolar inductor theory of gamma rays from all sources in general, including for AGNs, which is overviewed here; http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/TALKS/Beskin-Mar15-07.pdf

Okey dokey ...

From page 16 (emphasis added): "The energy source is the kinetic energy of the rotation."

Maybe Alfven was right when he proposed the electric unipolar inductor model for galaxies and stars, now over fifty years ago.

Really?!?!

Or maybe, just maybe, you have so little understanding of what you read that you make quite ridiculous connections? I mean, mistaking various plasma physics mechanisms as the proximate cause of electromagnetic radiation for "electric" (presumably you meant to say "electricity") is bad enough; to draw the completely illogical conclusion that the ultimate cause ("fuel source", to use your term) is "external electric activity" just displays mind-boggling ignorance, especially coming from someone who is, by their own words, a physics major! :eye-poppi

And then you go compound your error by making a connection to an idea that has no relevance to any of the material you cited!!

Do you have the faintest idea what a unipolar inductor is?

... snip ...

And thats it for today, I can see no matter what I post, it will either be ignored, or just receive a hand waving responce from you. I provided a paper that said that a star could recieve energy from external electrical activity, and no comment.

You did no such thing; please stop lying.

None of the material you cited has anything to do with "external electrical activity" being the "fuel source" of any stars (except in your own, grossly ignorant, understanding of basic physics).

Other people asked before why I thought that stars could be powered electrically, but no doubt will ignore this and ask me another question without addressing this material.

... snip...

Right.

If you are interested in actually learning something about plasma physics, astrophysics, unipolar inductors, energy sources, and so on, I would be only too pleased to help you (as would, no doubt, several others).

However, if all you do is search for words and phrases that you think may support your own, grossly ignorant, understanding, and spam them willy-nilly throughout this forum, then you are behaving like a troll (and should be treated accordingly).

Finally, to repeat what sol invictus said, way back towards the beginning of this thread (emphasis added):

The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).

He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

Zeuzzz, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

robinson · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
To which I gave a direct link of various models for electrically powered stars; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3722101&postcount=448

Which you completely ignored, along with all the other electric star models I have posted in other threads/posts.

Hey! I know what you mean. You seem to have ignored (along with everybody else) my link to a paper that describes a pulsar as being the result of currents in a magnetic field.

robinson · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I answer a question, you disagree with my answer, and just keep asking me the same question.

Welcome to the JREF forums! Where the groupmind decides what is real, and what is not!

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

Dancing David said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3722101&postcount=448

Discusses the white dwarfs in a binary pair, what evidence was presented to lead to this conclusion and how can you decide that the sun is the same way?

Hmmmm?

Another question you won't answer.

Ask a question, and then accuse me of not answering it before I've even read it! Your skepticality is truly beyond reproach

I was merely pointing out that electrically powered stars have been starting to gain ground in some literature, which certainly adds some amount of credence to the idea that some of the suns energy output could be created from an electrical component, as well as the usual nuclear reactions. We know how dynaic the sun is, I would certainly think that the current under its surface would be more than capable of creating some energy. And also, the speed of the sunspot penumbra and other motions we see on the surface definitely indicate its much more active and dynamic than the old model, in which the "gas" slowly convects from the core to the surface, taking hundreds of years. If you look at the speed of some of the structures on the surface that are thousands of miles across, they can vanish and reappear in seconds, implying that the suns more dynamic than current models attribute to it. And moving plasma creates electric currents. Remember how much lightning/electricity was created in a small volcanic eruption I showed earlier?

Another fact that I find interesting is that at any moment there are about 2000 thuderstorms taking place on the Earth. In total these are responsible for transferring negative charge down to the ground at 1800A. At this rate the groud should gain -1.6x10⁸ C per day. If this gain in charge was not balanced by a loss of positive the ground would soon become so charged that lightning strikes would not be possible due to repulsion. If there is a slight delay in the positive charges escpaing back out in the Earth (by a process which geologists admit is not fully understood yet), or in the sun, a net charge will be set up due to this fact. And since the suns a lot bigger, this could be a substantial amount larger than the Earth. Thats is admittedly just hypothesis, but a hypothesis that hasn't been ruled out from anything i've seen.

And the Reynolds number is so large, any convection must be turbulent, not laminar, flow. But the photospheric ‘tufts’ that we do observe are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that reach from the Sun’s radiative zone all the way up to the photosphere. How these stable columns can exist in the highly turbulent convection zone is what is being currently questioned. Dr. Eugene N. Parker, perhaps the most eminent solar astronomer, worried in print that, “the Reynolds number [in the convection zone] is on the order of 10¹² and, perhaps worse, the convective zone is vertically stratified.”

Just like what replication and other data support this one paper you cited:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111358

From 2001 that means at least 6 years to do more work. Do they say it applies to stars like the sun? Hmmm.

Did you really think that this is what powers our sun?

No, I think that electric currents like this could provide a fraction (maybe even a significant fraction?) of the suns energy output. I dont know for sure, and I am willing to accept aspects of the nuclear model, as I said i'm an agnostic on this subject of the energy source. I cant think of any reason to rule out electrically generated energy emanating from the sun, in other words the energy could not produced exclusively at its core but throughout it as well, whether by electric currents or other fusion methods. I just think that alternatives should now be considered along with the nuclear core H-fusion model.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
OK Zeuzzz, you know what's coming next, don't you?(emphasis added)

More bad news Zeuzzz: GRBs are not neutron stars.
Right ... standard, textbook plasma physics.

And what is the "source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts"? (that's my original question, remember? I added some emphasis - shouting - because you seem to have ignored what I wrote, yet again)

Well, Mofiz and Bhattacharya provided the answer, right on page one of the paper you cited (I added emphasis, in case you have difficulty reading the words):Got that?

The source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars is the rotation of those stars!

Sheesh.
(emphasis added)

More bad news Zeuzzz: MECOs are not neutron stars.
Okey dokey ...

From page 16 (emphasis added): "The energy source is the kinetic energy of the rotation."

Really?!?!

Or maybe, just maybe, you have so little understanding of what you read that you make quite ridiculous connections? I mean, mistaking various plasma physics mechanisms as the proximate cause of electromagnetic radiation for "electric" (presumably you meant to say "electricity") is bad enough; to draw the completely illogical conclusion that the ultimate cause ("fuel source", to use your term) is "external electric activity" just displays mind-boggling ignorance, especially coming from someone who is, by their own words, a physics major!

And then you go compound your error by making a connection to an idea that has no relevance to any of the material you cited!!

Do you have the faintest idea what a unipolar inductor is?

You did no such thing; please stop lying.

None of the material you cited has anything to do with "external electrical activity" being the "fuel source" of any stars (except in your own, grossly ignorant, understanding of basic physics).
Right.

If you are interested in actually learning something about plasma physics, astrophysics, unipolar inductors, energy sources, and so on, I would be only too pleased to help you (as would, no doubt, several others).

However, if all you do is search for words and phrases that you think may support your own, grossly ignorant, understanding, and spam them willy-nilly throughout this forum, then you are behaving like a troll (and should be treated accordingly).

Finally, to repeat what sol invictus said, way back towards the beginning of this thread (emphasis added):Zeuzzz, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Wow. What a post. Seems quite similar to other posts I have read here. And yes, we could talk about "astrophysics, unipolar inductors, energy sources, and so on" and how PC proponents (mainly Alfven) pretty much invented the faraday electrical motor (unipolar inductor) mechanism for use in space over fifty years ago if you want, and what progress has been made to this theory since by various astrophysicisists. And i said that that list was from a brief search, you really expect me to find 100% accurate things from a thirty second google search to answer the question you posed?

And please stop quoting sols ridiculous posts about me, I could quote some of the things he said about metaphysical magnetic field lines interacting as physical things, getting "tangled up" in his tangle theory to explain magnetic reconnection, but that would just provoke a host of more angry reactions from him like the one you quoted above, and I really dont want to encourage that sort of behaviour. Thats why I left it. Anyone who reads that thread can see who the one dodging questions really was.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
(emphasis added)

What research have you done, Zeuzzz, to determine the extent to which astronomers have considered alternatives?

Not much, as I cant seem to find much material to research, despite not hearing any reasons to dismiss alternatives. Even though some alternative energy sources have been considered on other stars, applying them to our own sun seems to have been largely overlooked, which I find a bit odd. Our sun is a star after all.

What research of your own have you done, Zeuzzz, on any alternatives? Starting with a clear statement of hypotheses, and going on to working out, in quantitative terms, what the phenomenology would be.

Alternatives have not even been considered from what i've seen, which again, at the risk of repeating myself, I find odd as I have found no substantiative reasons to dismiss some other energy releasing process.

What proposals do you have, Zeuzzz, for specific observations or experiments that would test any alternatives?

Observations of stars that seemingly disprove current nuclear theories seem interesting. And these events are better explained with the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram, which has the distinct advantage in that it can explain many stars apparent sudden evolution, as electric stars may move suddenly anywhere on the main sequence if their electrical environment is disturbed. The nuclear model of stars says that it should take millions of years for stars to evolve through their various stages. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, which contradicts the standard model and supports the electrical model. Like star FG Sagittae which has changed from blue to yellow since 1955, the time of a human lifetime! Another is V838 Mon "It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime." Its Shown here in picture of day; "V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles."

And there are many more variable stars like this that are extremely hard to explain with traditional nuclear models, and seem to be exactly what you would expect from Alfvens star model and his supernova model. You can see many of them here; http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/

Also, It has been found that the broadening of spectral lines in an electric field, which is known as the "Stark effect," increases for hotter stars. This strongly supports an electrical interpretation of the H–R diagram, in which as the current density on the stars surface increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter. The more significant is this relationship, the more closely will the plot approach a straight line, stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line due to their variation in size. Its probably also worth noting that Eddington himself also acknowledged, "If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube..."

If you think that because the inside of the Sun is inaccessible a model cannot 'prove' what goes on there, for reasons of logic, does it follow that no model of what goes on there can ever be ruled out?

Yes. Until we work out a method more accurate than helioseismology, which can give good results, but is hardly a conclusive method by PC standards, or otherwise. We may beable to acually "see" inside the sun in the future with various other methods being developed, that way models could start being falsified or proved.

And, more generally, to what extent does this approach to 'proof' underlie your alternative view of science?

Quite strongly. Things that we can not be sure of should not become entrenched in the theories we create, or we are basing theories on assumptions that could turn out to be wrong. Thats the PC way, and why things like dark energy, dark matter, strange matter, the expansion field, and other dubious things (that have usually been created to patch up the holes in the Big Bang theory) are disregarded until we have some sort of empirical conclusive experimental proof of their existance. Hopefully creating a cosmology not based on an array of assumptions.

I've said this before, several times (and you've ignored what I wrote): "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) as defined by what you write and materials you have cited, is woo ... because at its core it uses logic, methods, approaches, and so on that are quite different than those used in normal science.

PC uses methods different to science? It aheres to the scientific method to a much higher degree than modern cosmology, for sure. "The Big Bang framework for cosmoology has had more independent adjustable parameters than observable data points, giving it almost no powers of prediction, the key characteristic of scientific theories."

See this for a start: Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

So, can we get back to discussing whether PC is woo or not?

Can we get back to discussing how woo the Big Bang is too? Get a bit of perspective on the dubious question in the title of this thread.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

robinson said:
Hey! I know what you mean. You seem to have ignored (along with everybody else) my link to a paper that describes a pulsar as being the result of currents in a magnetic field.

Really?!?!?

You know robinson, I give you credit for admitting that you don't actually understand the physics that you read (not like Zeuzzz, who pretends to understand, then goes on to write appallingly ignorant posts, based on pretty severe misunderstanding of what he's read).

So, in this case, let me set you straight (again; I've already been over this, and several other points ...).

The proximate cause(s) of the emission of EM/photons from neutron stars is/are described in many (hundreds) of papers, in the form of models. Almost all those models make use of plasma physics.

This is not unusual in modern astrophysics; plasma physics is a key part of a great many models used to account for a very wide range of astronomical observations, from AGNs (active galaxy nuclei; quasars are one class of AGN), to YSOs (young stellar objects), to SNR (supernova remnants), to solar flares.

If 'plasma cosmology' were nothing other than 'the application of plasma physics to astronomy', then we can all go home; it would then be just a strange synonym for part of modern astrophysics.

The woo part of PC, however, comes from the strong implication in your post (and the somewhat contorted, mangled explicit statements in many of Zeuzzz'): the claim that the ultimate cause of many of these phenomena is giant interstellar/intergalactic (Birkeland) currents ("external electrical activity" and "powered electrically" are Zeuzzz' latest stand-ins).

So, robinson, do you understand the distinction? Or would you like someone to go over it, in more detail?

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Tell you what Zeuzzz, if you ever decide to apply for a job as a spin-meister for a polly, I'd be only too happy to write a glowing recommendation ... you are exceptionally good at spin ...

Zeuzzz said:
Wow. What a post. Seems quite similar to other posts I have read here. And yes, we could talk about "astrophysics, unipolar inductors, energy sources, and so on" and how PC proponents (mainly Alfven) pretty much invented the faraday electrical motor (unipolar inductor) mechanism for use in space over fifty years ago if you want, and what progress has been made to this theory since by various astrophysicisists.

{insert image here, to convey laughter}

So, instead of actually defending your claim (that the "fuel source" of pulsars is "external electric activity", remember?), you do exactly what sol invictus described ("Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.").

I suggest that you go back to your physics textbooks, swot up for those exams, get your BSc (or whatever) ... and then come back to continue this discussion.

And i said that that list was from a brief search, you really expect me to find 100% accurate things from a thirty second google search to answer the question you posed?

Indeed.

I expected pretty much what you wrote (spam); I hoped for an actual answer to my original question.

How hard would it actually be, Zeuzzz, to say that you don't have any material to back up your claim? (that the "fuel source" of pulsars is "external electric activity", remember?)

Don't you think a little honesty would do wonders for The One True Cause (and its name shall be PLASMA COSMOLOGY!)?

And please stop quoting sols ridiculous posts about me, I could quote some of the things he said about metaphysical magnetic field lines interacting as physical things, getting "tangled up" in his tangle theory to explain magnetic reconnection, but that would just provoke a host of more angry reactions from him like the one you quoted above, and I really dont want to encourage that sort of behaviour. Thats why I left it. Anyone who reads that thread can see who the one dodging questions really was.

"He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away"

There, I went and quoted it again, this time in plain text (so it will appear if you quote mine).

If you really think you have a point to make about magnetic reconnection (other than to once again display your superb capabilities as a spin-meister), why not revive the thread? After all, with Alfvén, Birkeland, and Scott (or is it Talbott? I can't remember) on your side, you can't possibly be wrong, can you?

Dancing David · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I dont want to have repeat myself. Its really quite tedious. I answer a question, you disagree with my answer, and just keep asking me the same question. D'David has perpetually asked me what value of charge on stars could be added into Peratts model since he wants to try to work out how it works on a smaller scale than Peratt dealt with. I have continually stated what I think the value could be, about 10^4±~2, but he still keeps asking me this question as if i've never answered it.

Outright misrepresentation! I then asked you what charge would be needed to accelerate a star to a flat rotaion curve in the galaxy. Which you didn't answer. I have not asked you since I LOOKED UP THE VALUES for the magnetic field and then you agreed to them. I have asked you what is the rest of the story, to which you provide vague and meaningless answers. So does that make you uncomfortable? You say that this model will make it work, how?

If you don't like charge then how?

Does the model provide a means of modeling tha flat rotation curves or not.

If you don't want it to be a charged star moving in a magnetic field then what is it?

The trouble is that he'll be working out the magnetostatic force in a neutral gas, not plasma, where the range has been shown to be much larger, which is implied directly from the length of already existing galactic magnetic fields. Which i've said about ten times too.

More lies! I asked you how it would work to explain the movement of stars, which you simply refused to answer.

You could have answered, couldn't you? You could have explained yourself, couldn't you? You could have answered me, couldn't you.

So big whoop there is pleasma and it has a measured magnetic field, what else do you want to add to the mix?

What else in the model is needed to make the stars move in a flat rotation curve?

Well, what do you think needs to be added?

You are a story teller now Zeuzzz, I asked you how it could work, you refused to answer, I asked you what charge would be needed to move what mass, and you refused to answer. So cgarge is not enough, what else do you want to add to the model/

What makes stars move in a flat rotation curve?

So if you want to say that Perrat's models does not explain the galactic rotation curve as measured by stars that is fine. But if you think Perrat's model can provide for the flat rotation curves of galaxies as obseved in stellar motions then answer the question.

How does Perrat's model do it?

But you are changing what I asked you, even if a star is plasma, which it is, then it does not change the fact that it will need a huge charge for it to move at the rate provided by observation if we use gravity minus dark matter. Even if a star is surrounded by a sparse plasma it doesn't change things, what forces, fields are needed to accelerate the star more than gravity minus dark matter?

You want to whine that i am doing the model wrong, okay, how do you make it right?

How does it work?

Explain youself.

So you still haven't answered the questions as it applies directly the motion of stars in a glalaxy being faster than can be explained by gravity minus dark matter.

I asked you directly about how Perrat's model could explain the flat galaxy rotation curve of stars, and you just want to change the question. You were busy going on about Birkeland steel ball at the time and I aked you about flat rotation curve, which is when you came out with the 'semi-rigid struce of galaxies due to EM forces'. But as usual when you were asked for numbers and data, you refused to answer. (Just as you have refused to say how Birlkeland's ball relates to the processes of the sun.)

There is very good reason to believe that plasma had a strong role in the BBE universe. But you ignore that I have said that, I have said along with other that plasma is part of the mix.

So that is why I asked those questions Zeuzzz, where does the flat rotation curve come from, how does PC explain it, we have the mass, we have the field strenth, what makes the rest of it work?

Which is what I asked you to begin with. A force free configuration won't do it, what will?

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
DeiRenDopa said:

What research have you done, Zeuzzz, to determine the extent to which astronomers have considered alternatives?

Click to expand...

Not much, as I cant seem to find much material to research, despite not hearing any reasons to dismiss alternatives.

Earth to Zeuzzz, Earth to Zeuzzz, come in Zeuzzz!

Maybe, just maybe, instead of displaying your ignorance, you might consider asking questions? :jaw-dropp

Like on PhysicsForums? (no wait, you've banned there, haven't you, for violating their rules....) or BAUT? (you haven't been banned there too, have you?)

Even though some alternative energy sources have been considered on other stars,

They have?

I mean, other than as shown on crackpot websites (like thunderblots), or when you googled, added 1 and 1 and got 58723408935?

applying them to our own sun seems to have been largely overlooked, which I find a bit odd. Our sun is a star after all.

What research of your own have you done, Zeuzzz, on any alternatives? Starting with a clear statement of hypotheses, and going on to working out, in quantitative terms, what the phenomenology would be.

Click to expand...

Alternatives do not exist from what i've seen, which again, at the risk of repeating myself, I find odd as I have found no substantiative reasons to dismiss some other energy releasing process.

Way to spin, Zeuzzz, way to spin!

No, dude, I meant what research have you actually done?

Like what hypotheses have you formulated? What models have you made? What phenomenology have you derived from those models?

What proposals do you have, Zeuzzz, for specific observations or experiments that would test any alternatives?

Click to expand...

Observations of stars that seemingly disprove current nuclear theories seem interesting. And these events are better explained with the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram, which has the distinct advantage in that it can explain many stars apparent sudden evolution, as electric stars may move suddenly anywhere on the main sequence if their electrical environment is disturbed. The nuclear model of stars says that it should take millions of years for stars to evolve through their various stages. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, which contradicts the standard model and supports the electrical model. Like star FG Sagittae which has changed from blue to yellow since 1955, the time of a human lifetime! Another is V838 Mon "It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime." Its Shown here in picture of day; "V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles."

And there are many more variable stars like this that are extremely hard to explain with traditional nuclear models, and seem to be exactly what you would expect from Alfvens star model and his supernova model. You can see many of them here; http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/

(emphasis added)

What is this "the electric star interpretaion" [sic]? Where has it been published?

And what are these models? Where have they been published?

What were the steps you took to conclude "better explained" and "seem to be exactly"?

Also, It has been found that the broadening of spectral lines in an electric field, which is known as the "Stark effect," increases for hotter stars. This strongly supports an electrical interpretation of the H–R diagram, in which as the current density on the stars surface increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter. The more significant is this relationship, the more closely will the plot approach a straight line, stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line due to their variation in size. Its probably also worth noting that Eddington himself also acknowledged, "If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube..."

... snip ...

Now this wouldn't, by any chance, be another piece of plagiarism, would it?

What is your source, Zeuzzz?

(to be continued)

BeAChooser · May 22, 2008

robinson said:
You seem to have ignored (along with everybody else) my link to a paper that describes a pulsar as being the result of currents in a magnetic field.

I didn't. In fact, I greatly enjoyed reading it.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

BeAChooser said:
I didn't. In fact, I greatly enjoyed reading it.

I can't quite make you out BAC.

On the one hand, you are prepared (at times) to devote considerable time and effort to the nitty-gritty of the ideas you so obviously believe in (the 'Arp' thread, for example).

On the other you seem about as ignorant of physics as robinson and Zeuzzz, but haven't said much about your level of understanding.

Then again, when someone (me, in this case) actually worked with you on your ideas (the 'Arp' thread), you did a Zeuzzz - ran away.

So let me ask you this, BAC: do you understand the difference between proximate and ultimate causes? And why, despite a masterful display of spin, Zeuzzz has confused the two (deliberately, perhaps)?

Finally, given your ignorance, do you want to learn? or do you just want to spam?

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
So, instead of actually defending your claim (that the "fuel source" of pulsars is "external electric activity", remember?), you do exactly what sol invictus described ("Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.").

So your going to explan then how the field lines (that dont actually exist other tan describing the vector field that we model) release this energy? I suggest you read that thread, and post Sols answers to this question, about "tangles" so we can all have a laugh

I expected pretty much what you wrote (spam); I hoped for an actual answer to my original question.

which was what? An alternative explanation for the radiation pulses from pulsars? I believe you later changed this to only gamma rays? so which is it?

How hard would it actually be, Zeuzzz, to say that you don't have any material to back up your claim? (that the "fuel source" of pulsars is "external electric activity", remember?)

I never said that the entire fuel source of pulsars is electrical activity, it has been found out that the pulses we detect from them are likely due to electric activity, and also that other stars can get a lot of their energy from electrical activity.

what I said was "I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another...." Reading that, I can actually see why you thought that, I should have outlined that the electrcal model proposed so far for white dwarfs and pulsars is not the complete energy source for them, but provides a significant fraction, and includes and electrical explanation for the energy that produces the pulses. Sorry if you misinterpretted my statement, maybe I should have made it clearer. You didn't seem to think this in the post you wrote afterwards, which said "Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?", which would be true. And some publications have recently proposed exactly this (although I'm not sure about every single waveband, but definately the pulses we detect, X-ray, and radio)

Don't you think a little honesty would do wonders for The One True Cause (and its name shall be PLASMA COSMOLOGY!)?
"He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away"

There, I went and quoted it again, this time in plain text (so it will appear if you quote mine).

Indeed. Sol seemed to run away from his little field line explanation of releasing energy pretty quickly too, when contrasted to Alfvens far more realistic current disruption approach.

If you really think you have a point to make about magnetic reconnection (other than to once again display your superb capabilities as a spin-meister), why not revive the thread? After all, with Alfvén, Birkeland, and Scott (or is it Talbott? I can't remember) on your side, you can't possibly be wrong, can you?

"And please stop quoting sols ridiculous posts about me, I could quote some of the things he said about metaphysical magnetic field lines interacting as physical things, getting "tangled up" in his tangle theory to explain magnetic reconnection, but that would just provoke a host of more angry reactions from him like the one you quoted above, and I really dont want to encourage that sort of behaviour. Thats why I left it. Anyone who reads that thread can see who the one dodging questions really was."

If you think that anything from that thread disproves the PC current disruption method of releasing the energy and provides strong evidence in the case of magnetic reconnection, I seriously suggest you do exactly this, and bring it up here, so we can discuss it. But I would severely advise against using Sols exaplanation of tangled field lines. You might aswell say that the equator is hot because the line of the equator gets tangled up with the lines of lattitude and longtitude

robinson · May 22, 2008

BeAChooser said:
I didn't. In fact, I greatly enjoyed reading it.

Alright then! I was hoping somebody who understands the maths could look at it, and maybe explain what they are talking about. It is all very interesting, but the maths and theory is very complicated. At least to me.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Master Poster

Fiend God

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Fiend God

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned