Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
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?)

Yeah, for posting a video about plasma cosmology! That was amazingly stupid reason, and I've never posted anything at baut. Why talk about this anyway? not really progressing the subject at hand is it? (how many times have i said this!?!?!?)

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, they have! Like in the publications I listed that propose the unipolar inductor electrical star model for white dwarfs as the source of their energy. And others. Can you actually see my posts?

heres one, and there are more; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05190.x

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?
(emphasis added)

I keep telling you, I'm not a scientist! I dont form my own hypothesis! I just read what i can with an open mind, and try to deduce what models are best. And my "research" (if you really want to call it that) has shown that the electrical interpretation is a valid contendor to the nuclear one.

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

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

In the various journals they are published in. Check out Alfvens heliospheric current circuit for a start, or some of the other more recent proposals based on essentially the same idea (ref, ref). Does that search function on your browser work?

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

The exact reasons I listed in this post, of being able to explain many stars that are a complete enigma to the nuclear model.

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..."

Maybe there?

Or is this going to be something else you ignore?

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Spin baby, spin!

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

DeiRenDopa said:

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?)

Click to expand...

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.

Spin baby, spin!

Read it again: "the fuel source ... could be electric (like pulsars)"

No ambiguity there.

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)

... snip ...

Spin baby, spin!

Perhaps you read too quickly ... perhaps English is not your native language ... perhaps you forgot your own words ("fuel source") ... perhaps you are so grossly ignorant of the relevant physics that you don't understand the difference between what's in all those papers and "pulsars' fuel source is external electrical activity" (that's a paraphrase) ... perhaps ...

As examples of spin, what you write is hard to beat Zeuzzz ... pity this isn't a spin forum ...

"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." (you know the source)

So, got any "concrete or quantitative prediction of PC", in regard to the "fuel source" of pulsars? One that's inconsistent with mainstream astrophysics, that is ...

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Spin baby, spin!

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

Yes, they have! Like in the publications I listed that propose the unipolar inductor electrical star model for white dwarfs as the source of their energy. And others. Can you actually see my posts?

heres one, and there are more; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05190.x

Spin baby, spin!

Dude, your ignorance is showing (again).

Sure those models include a unipolar inductor! And the abstract even includes words so beautiful to your ears ("powered principally by electrical energy")!!

But did you actually read the paper (and the dozens like it)??

The "fuel source" for these systems, in the various models, is the either same as for neutron stars (rotation), or the kinetic energy of the objects in their mutual orbit (some models also have accretion disks, in which the 'fuel source' would be gravity).

There is no "external electrical activity" (other than that in your imagination, or misunderstanding of the physics); all the electrical activity is internal (to the system).

At this point I'm about done with any specifics Zeuzzz; I'm going to concentrate on "PC is woo" because of its widespread, and explicit, use of logic, methods, approaches etc that are at odds with those in standard science. Based on what you have written in support of PC, I will see if I can include something about 'spin' as an important attribute ...

I keep telling you, I'm not a scientist! I dont form my own hypothesis! I just read what i can with an open mind, and try to deduce what models are best. And my "research" (if you really want to call it that) has shown that the electrical interpretation is a valid contendor to the nuclear one.

Spin baby, spin!

It can surely only be called "a valid contendor" [sic] as long as you apply the right mixture of spin and ignorance.

"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." - applies here too, doesn't it?

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

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

Click to expand...

In the various journals they are published in. Check out Alfvens heliospheric current circuit for a start, or some of the other more recent proposals based on essentially the same idea (ref, ref). Does that search function on your browser work?

... snip ...

Thanks, I will check them out.

(to be continued)

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Spin baby, spin!Spin baby, spin!

Read it again: "the fuel source ... could be electric (like pulsars)"

No ambiguity there.
Spin baby, spin!

I did not say that "the fuel source of pulsars is electricty", like that editted quote you just posed implies. Indeed, spin baby, spin. One of the energy sources for pulsars has been proposed to be electric power, but I never said that they were get all their energy from the electrical currents in question, which is what you are trying to make out I said. I was quite open about what i meant, I listed many different energy sources, including nuclear, and provided evidence for the electrical claim too, as I have done many times previously. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll quote what I said again: "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 electrical model proposed so far for white dwarfs and pulsars is not the entire energy source for them, but provides a significant fraction, and other publciations also include and electrical explanation for the energy that produces the pulses [as predicted by Peratt]. 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)"

There. Now are you going to spend another post making accusations, or address the material your bickering about?

Perhaps you read too quickly ... perhaps English is not your native language ... perhaps you forgot your own words ("fuel source") ... perhaps you are so grossly ignorant of the relevant physics that you don't understand the difference between what's in all those papers and "pulsars' fuel source is external electrical activity" (that's a paraphrase) ... perhaps ...

As examples of spin, what you write is hard to beat Zeuzzz ... pity this isn't a spin forum ...

It never stops! read the quote in italics above, in which I quite openly clarified your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

So, got any "concrete or quantitative prediction of PC", in regard to the "fuel source" of pulsars? One that's inconsistent with mainstream astrophysics, that is ...

No, they have not addressed the entire power source of pulsars, and I never said they had. An electrical power source has been proposed for very similar types of stars however by others, with a few papers also now proposing it for pulsars too. If you want predictions about the energy source of the pulses we detect from them, then yes, they made an extremely accurate prediction about this years ago, which stated that the pulses may originate from a periodic electrical discharge, not from emmission points on the surface, which is now considered a perfectly viable theory.. I'll quote it (again!)

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf

Because of the losses in the dielectric media and in synchrotron emission, the periodicity of the propagating pulses increases. However the experiment dramatically showed that there are glitches, the flow of electron flux across the magnetosphere, can shorten the line and concomitantly the period. The fractional frequency stability scaling versus measurements interval up to about 30,000,000 s for pulsars is nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks. This supports the pulsar surface-magnetosphere relativistic double layer model; itself a trapped ion mechanism [.....]

Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. This effect is produced when the magnetically insulated voltage pulse reaches the pulsar surface. Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region. This tends to create a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse [...]

The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit (Hannes Alfvén 1981).[2] This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.

And heres a few papers written after that one that have come to the same conclusions;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0920

Electric currents j flow along the open magnetic field lines from the polar caps of neutron stars. Activity of a polar cap depends on the ratio = j/c GJ, where GJ is the corotation charge density. The customary assumption ≈ 1 is not supported by recent simulations of pulsar magnetospheres and we study polar caps with arbitrary. We argue that no significant activity is generated on field lines with 0 < x < 1. Charges are extracted from the star and flow along such field lines with low energies. By contrast, if > 1 or < 0, a high voltage is generated, leading to unsteady e± discharge on a scale-height smaller than the size of the polar cap. The discharge can power observed pulsars. Voltage fluctuations in the discharge imply unsteady twisting of the open flux tube and generation of Alfv´en waves. These waves are ducted along the tube and converted to electromagnetic waves, providing a new mechanism for pulsar radiation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=cbecd5f60224218edaebf78cc95b2884

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).

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Spin baby, spin! Spin baby, spin!

Dude, your ignorance is showing (again).

Sure those models include a unipolar inductor! And the abstract even includes words so beautiful to your ears ("powered principally by electrical energy")!!

The "fuel source" for these systems, in the various models, is the either same as for neutron stars (rotation), or the kinetic energy of the objects in their mutual orbit (some models also have accretion disks, in which the 'fuel source' would be gravity).

There is no "external electrical activity" (other than that in your imagination, or misunderstanding of the physics); all the electrical activity is internal (to the system).

I think your confused as to what an an external energy source is. The energy these stars recieve is being recieved externally from the particles flowing into them in the currents, just like alfvens heliospheric current circuit. The electrical power is the new source of energy, which is being recieved externally to the stars.

The paper by Wu et al explicitly states that currents are flowing between the binaries. What do you think that the currents flowing between the two objects is made of then? is the region in between the stars that transports the electric currents somehow internal in your mind? Its an external source for the electrical power of the star is releasing. And guess where he got this idea from? read the very first reference in that paper and see (number [1]) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

I think you'll find that anything outside of a star would be counted as external to that star.

Oh!!! I see, so you define an arbitrary point where the "system" is, and anything inside this point is now counted as not external to the system now? and so therefore is not actually external at all?

If you read a paper that said "Two stars transport electrical energy between them in the form of electrcal currents, which provides the energy output for them, over a distance of 10AU", I expect you would just turn around and say "No, all the electrical activity is internal (to the system)"

Or one that said "All the stars in the galaxy are linked by the currents that flow between them and provide a percentage of their overall energy", you would just say "No, all the electrical activity is internal (to the galactic system)"?

Or one that said "All the galaxies are linked by the currents that flow between them and transport particle energy between them", you would just say ""No, all the electrical activity is internal (to the universal system)"?

Anything that is outside a star would be counted as external. Unless you want to push back your definition of where this line is even further. And thats exactly what this electric model by Wu, and many others, is proposing, an elecrical energy input from the currents. You can work out the energy supplied by any current, and thats exactly what is being done here.

"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." (Kinwah Wu, 2001)

And you say that the energy "is the either same as for neutron stars (rotation), or the kinetic energy of the objects in their mutual orbit" is the either same as for neutron stars (rotation), or the kinetic energy of the objects in their mutual orbit", well, I think you need to revise your position here.

Indeed, I dont think its me that doesn't actually "read the paper (and the dozens like it)??" but someone else.

At this point I'm about done with any specifics Zeuzzz; I'm going to concentrate on "PC is woo" because of its widespread, and explicit, use of logic, methods, approaches etc that are at odds with those in standard science. Based on what you have written in support of PC, I will see if I can include something about 'spin' as an important attribute ...
Spin baby, spin!

All you can do is make accusations of spin. Oh dear.

It can surely only be called "a valid contendor" [sic] as long as you apply the right mixture of spin and ignorance.

"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." - applies here too, doesn't it?

Well, I've stated some pretty concrete things in the last few posts, about the PC model of pulsars, Alfvens heliospheric cicuit, alternative explanation for the HR diagram, and many others, but you seem to remain utterly ignorant of them, and just make accusations of me spinning things. And why dont you quote these things about magnetic reconnection you keep bringing up? since your so keen to bring this up repeatedly? or dont you understand his explanation either? And you even now say yourself "I'm about done with any specifics Zeuzzz, I'm going to concentrate on "PC is woo" and admit your going to write a whole load of posts instead about your new catchphrase, spin, and me instead. Unbelieveable. :eye-poppi

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

(continued)

Spin baby, spin!

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

I keep telling you, I'm not a scientist! I dont form my own hypothesis! I just read what i can with an open mind, and try to deduce what models are best. And my "research" (if you really want to call it that) has shown that the electrical interpretation is a valid contendor to the nuclear one.

How prophetic (or is it actualistic? I get confused so easily ...)

Let's take a look at the very next part of your post, shall we?

DeiRenDopa said:
DeiRenDopa said:

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

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

Click to expand...

In the various journals they are published in. Check out Alfvens heliospheric current circuit for a start, or some of the other more recent proposals based on essentially the same idea (ref, ref). Does that search function on your browser work?

Okay ...

Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with the question I asked?!?

Let's review the origin, shall we?

Zeuzzz: "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 [...] 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."

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

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

So let's be really charitable this time, and assume Zeuzzz simply pressed the wrong button ... because neither of those references has anything whatsoever to do with "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", nor anything to do with stars being powered by electric currents.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

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

Click to expand...

The exact reasons I listed in this post, of being able to explain many stars that are a complete enigma to the nuclear model.

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..."

Click to expand...

Maybe there?

Or is this going to be something else you ignore?

Ah yes, silly me.

I'd forgotten that in the alternative science which PC relies upon the logic of false dichotomy is revered.

But that's OK, if these are, indeed, the steps you took to conclude "better explained" and "seem to be exactly", and the sources you used are the two you cited, then what is there to discuss? I mean, there's no content, no logic (other than false dichotomy), no observations, ... and above all no "electrical model".

Zeuzzz, this isn't even crackpot material, it's barely even word salad!

One more time: where's the paper(s), published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, that present this (magical?) "electrical model"?

And no dancing or dodging this time, please, nor any more spinning.

DeiRenDopa · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I did not say that "the fuel source of pulsars is electricty", like that editted quote you just posed implies. Indeed, spin baby, spin. One of the energy sources for pulsars has been proposed to be electric power, but I never said that they were get all their energy from the electrical currents in question, which is what you are trying to make out I said. I was quite open about what i meant, I listed many different energy sources, including nuclear, and provided evidence for the electrical claim too, as I have done many times previously. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll quote what I said again: "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.

I don't know which is worse ...

Your attempts at spin, or your ignorance.

Whatever "electrical" mechanisms there might (or might not) be for the proximate cause of the electromagnetic emissions from a pulsar, or a neutron star, or a close double white dwarf binary system, or ... it is ridiculous to step from such mechanisms to "external electrical activity" as an "energy source".

Unless, of course, there is a good solid case to fill in the gap.

However, so far, all you have presented is spin and ignorance ... no models, no papers, no observations, no logic (other than that of false dichotomy), nothing.

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 electrical model proposed so far for white dwarfs and pulsars is not the entire energy source for them, but provides a significant fraction, and other publciations also include and electrical explanation for the energy that produces the pulses [as predicted by Peratt].

Huh?!?

There was one paper cited, in another thread, that proposed a particular mechanism.

That paper has not been cited by anyone, not even Peratt.

The mechanism he presented, while interesting, seems to leave a great deal to be desired, in terms of accounting for the relevant observations.

The many other, plasma physics-based, mechanisms - published in the hundreds and hundreds of papers on this topic - have only the most trivial similarity to Peratt's mechanism.

Is that the best you can do, in terms of a PC explanation?

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)"[/I]

There. Now are you going to spend another post making accusations, or address the material your bickering about?

... snip ...

Nope, I'm simply going to repeat what sol invictus said:

"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."

So far as I can see, the 'electric star' material you have cited is all mainstream astrophysics.

However, the words you spin together tell a quite different story, one which pure Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill ('electric stars'), in which giant interstellar currents provide the external electrical activity necessary to power (in part or in full) the Sun and all the stars.

What is quite missing, so far, is any connection between the standard astrophysics and the woo.

Reality Check · 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.
.. snip D'David stuff...
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.

I have looked in Peratt's papers and he does not state this. Do you have a citation rather than "Maybe because"? The problem with your reason is that there does not seem to be any plasma at all between the arms and so no light at all. This is not seen in the photographs.

You are right - "astronomers compare the shape of gravitational galaxy formation theories to galaxies". They compare the actual shape of galaxies (basically disks + halos) to the results of the models.

Zeuzzz said:
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]

There is no implication. There is a direct observation. If you have posted a proof that the observation is wrong or even some compelling reasons that it could be wrong then please provide a link to it.

As an aside: What is the aspect of PC that removes the need for dark matter in galactic clusters?

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

I guess you mean the fact that astrophysicists now take seriously that galactic magnetic fields ("EM structures?") can have an effect on the velocity dispersion curves in galaxies. This effect is estimated to be about 10 km/s (0.5%) for stars like the Sun and get larger for stars further out. In other words the predicted velocity dispersion curve dips slightly less below the observed velocity dispersion curve.
That is not enough to remove the need for dark matter.

Zeuzzz said:
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 aligned along these planes?

You better tell all of those silly astronomers that insist on classifying galaxies that they are wrong - every galaxy is unique!

There are filaments extending from the plane of the majority of galaxies - they are just not those predicted by Peratt. They are too small (not close to the width of the galaxy or even ~1kpc) and too short (billions of light years?).
As for the alignment: the Lambda-CDM model + (and this will please you) magnetic fields in the cosmic filaments predicted by it is one explanation.

Zeuzzz said:
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 center due to its attractive nature, and thus the high optical brightness we observe at the centre of all galaxies.

Well thats just plain wrong.
Peratt's 1986 papers do not mention the gravitational force except as an analogy to the electromagnetic force. The only mass that appears in his equations is the total mass of the filaments (and that of the electron). I can find no mention of the mass of the particles used in the simulations. And in the first paper there is:

The simulations are carried out with the three-dimensional electromagnetic particle codes SPLASH and TRISTAN [36].
[36] Principles and capabilities of 3-D, E-M particle simulations by Buneman, O.; Barnes, C.W.; Green, J.C.; Nielsen, D.E.

As I stated: His model may include gravity though this is not explicitly stated.
(emphasis added).

Which of the alternatives for his model do you support (or do you have another): Once stars have formed in a galaxy

Electromagnetc forces continue to dominate and determine the velocity dispersion curves or
Gravitational forces become dominate and determine the velocity dispersion curves?

Reality Check · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz: Peratt wrote a paper in 1996 called "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas". It has 1 page about gravitation (modelling the formation of stars from plasma) and this is a description of the transformation of the model from an electromagnetc model to a gravitational model.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with the question I asked?!?

It implies that stars can have currents that travel towards them. And when this incoming current component increases substantially this is what causes the gain in energy and supernova explosions as the current density dramatically increases. Alfven proposed that a supernova is a star that recieves so many incoming particles in the electric circuit that the double layer on its surface becomes large enough to make the internal constituents of the star highly unstable due to the charge build up, essentially an exploding Double layer, and as Ziggurat and Sol stated elsewhere "Charges that high would make the star quite literally explode". Because the external circuit primarily drives the formation of the double layer, the supernova doesn't have to release the energy from an internal, or even a local source. Just like the weird explosion from no where that was detected, nothing there, but the electrical energy converged on this area and exploded; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071218-mysterious-explosion.html
Shock waves and heat are by-products of a phenomenon that is primarily electrical, and the recent "non-resonant instability" proposal by Bell and others seem to imply this electrical activity and extreme particle acceleration, from the exploding double layer in Alfvens model, is a very plausable mechanism for the acceleration of particles and generation of gamma rays we observe.

Zeuzzz: "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 [...] 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."

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

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

They have been published in:

*Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings of a Workshop held in Huntsville
*Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 54, no. 2
*Cosmic Plasma (much cited academic book written by aflven
*Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.376, p.288-291 (2001)
And more.....

Hannes Alfvén considered the heliospheric current sheet to be part of a heliospheric current system, as he believed all cosmic plasmas to be part of a "plasma circuit". [2] [3]

The Sun behaves as a unipolar inductor producing a current that flows outwards along both axes B2, and inwards in the equatorial plane, C, and along Solar magnetic field lines B1. The current closes at a large distance, B3.

References:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987dla..conf..183S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1978Ap&SS..54..279A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978Ap&SS..55..487A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73305181

So let's be really charitable this time, and assume Zeuzzz simply pressed the wrong button ... because neither of those references has anything whatsoever to do with "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", nor anything to do with stars being powered by electric currents.

But the various papers I posted above most certainly do propose electrical power as a new form of stellar energy other than nuclear or accretion, starting with the work of Wu et al, and all the other publications that have also expanded on the stars using electrical power idea, delivered from the external circuits that Alfven first proposed over fourty years ago now... Read the very first citation from the paper that proposes this electrcal power releasing mechanism. I'll save you the time its this, by Alfven, all the way back in 1963, and shows how ahead of his time he was since this electrical idea has only become widely accepted very recently; http://www.amazon.com/Cosmical-electrodynamics-Fundamental-principles-International/dp/B0007IT7TA

"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." (Kinwah Wu, 2001) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

I could list the other papers based on this electrical unipolar inductor energy releasing mechansim from the ones I have already, but I'm getting very tired of doing this.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

In here; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A

also gets a mention in this publication; http://www.springerlink.com/content/t8652n11506064u7/

And theres a few more I remember reading about in the Astronomical Journal, but I cant remember the names... I'll have another look if I can remember who published them...

...snip...

In the electric star model, the important variable is the current density at the star's photosphere [represented by the x-axis in Fig. 9(a) and ].

To conform with the electrical engineering convention, the horizontal axis of the H–R diagram is reversed [Fig. 9]. Mathematically, we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also the major factor in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity).
As the current density increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter.

In both models, the main sequence is a static scatter plot. In the standard model, stars evolve off the main sequence. However, when the enviroment of electric stars are disturbed, they will change position significantly and suddenly anywhere on the main sequence. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, that contradict the standard model and support the electrical model [......]

And I listed just a couple of direct observations that disprove the curent nuclear interpretation of the spectra, and support the electrical interpretation. There are many, many more examples like this of these 'variable stars' that are better explained with the electrical interpretation, rather than the nuclear one based on million year cycles.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

Ah yes, silly me.

I'd forgotten that in the alternative science which PC relies upon the logic of false dichotomy is revered.

Click to expand...

Also elaborated on in this;
Trends in apparent time intervals between multiple supernovae occurrences

But that's OK, if these are, indeed, the steps you took to conclude "better explained" and "seem to be exactly", and the sources you used are the two you cited, then what is there to discuss? I mean, there's no content, no logic (other than false dichotomy), no observations, ... and above all no "electrical model".

Zeuzzz, this isn't even crackpot material, it's barely even word salad!

One more time: where's the paper(s), published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, that present this (magical?) "electrical model"?

And no dancing or dodging this time, please, nor any more spinning.

Click to expand...

And this one provides an pretty good overview of the original proposal; The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants

And also this one; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..832T

And i'm really sorry DRD, I must have missed your responce to my original point where I explained what the electrical interpretation of the HR diagram is, primarily due to the current density on the stars surface, and what advantages it has over the existing nuclear theory in explaing direct observations that contradict the current one. If you have a valid scienfitic reason to dismiss this, then please, post it, instead of writing the sort of posts above. You really think i've posted much PU stuff here at all yet? So could you stop assuming that everything I write is woo before even considering it, and just open your mind for two seconds.

I also pointed out that the very person who invented the nuclear model himself, eddington, said "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..."

Zeuzzz said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hopefully this time, the third time i've posted it, you may actually back up your assertions that this is all crackpot with a scientific reason, Instead of just saying things like "Zeuzzz, this isn't even crackpot material, it's barely even word salad!" I really do give up. I can see no point in posting anything here if you dismiss it in such a disparaging way before even assessing it at all. Goodbye.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

double post

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

Reality Check said:
Zeuzzz: Peratt wrote a paper in 1996 called "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas". It has 1 page about gravitation (modelling the formation of stars from plasma) and this is a description of the transformation of the model from an electromagnetc model to a gravitational model.

Check out the recent progress being made on GEMS theory.... (but ignore the stupid "american antigravity" site that persists in promoting it for their own selfish reasons based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "antigravity" actually implies, keep to the journal entries on it)

Dancing David · May 22, 2008

[/lurk] Which is going to be where I am for a while since I have found the conversation with Zeuzzz to be exactly like a conversation with BAC

I was the one who started the bunny thing, I said in reference to Zeuzzz saying that Birkeland's metal sphere is just like the sun, that he was engaging in "it looks like a bunny, so it must be a bunny", however Zeuzzz has never produced any numbers or data to suggest why the speculative theories match the data. Gravitational rotation does.

[lurk]

Reality Check · May 22, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Check out the recent progress being made on GEMS theory.... (but ignore the stupid "american antigravity" site that persists in promoting it for their own selfish reasons based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "antigravity" actually implies, keep to the journal entries on it)

I have seen some articles on GEMS theory. Hopefully it will progress enough so that Peratt's model can be extended to include gravity.

Zeuzzz · May 22, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
So far as I can see, the 'electric star' material you have cited is all mainstream astrophysics.

Yep, all based fundametally on the pioneering work of plasma cosmologists on unipolar inductors and electric stars, started by Alfven and colleugues years ago. We could discuss some of the recent advances that have been on this model made by various mainstream astrophysicists at length if you want. You may deny this, but its an incontrivertible fact.

However, the words you spin together tell a quite different story, one which pure Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill ('electric stars'), in which giant interstellar currents provide the external electrical activity necessary to power (in part or in full) the Sun and all the stars.

This is a thread about plasma cosmology, please dont bring up this type of material. Stick to the peer reviewed stuff. Just as robinson said, if you cant refute the information, just go back to the most controversial stuff and try desparately to link the two. I never mentioned that model here, or any of those things, and I really have to wonder why you have to resort to bringing this up in this thread.

What is quite missing, so far, is any connection between the standard astrophysics and the woo.

How nice. Considering that this certain aspect of astrophysics you mention is based on plasma universe principles first proposed by PU proponents many years ago this point shows extreme ignorance. Goodbye. Nothing fruitful is going to come of any conversation here with people like you that just continually ignore what I say and make accusations. Theres no point.

The Man · May 22, 2008

robinson said:
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.

If you will provide the link to your original post I can take a look at it and perhaps help clarify the theory for you, although I doubt I can give you much help with the math (mine isn’t that great either). I can not promise a quick reply but the following might help in the meantime.

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

Three distinct classes of pulsars are currently known to astronomers, according to the source of energy that powers the radiation:

Rotation-powered pulsars, where the loss of rotational energy of the star powers the radiation

Accretion-powered pulsars (accounting for most but not all X-ray pulsars), where the gravitational potential energy of accreted matter is the energy source (producing X-rays that are observable from Earth), and

Magnetars, where the decay of an extremely strong magnetic field powers the radiation.
Although all three classes of objects are neutron stars, their observable behaviour and the underlying physics are quite different. There are, however, connections. For example, X-ray pulsars are probably old rotation-powered pulsars that have already lost most of their energy, and have only become visible again after their binary companions expanded and began transferring matter on to the neutron star. The process of accretion can in turn transfer enough angular momentum to the neutron star to "recycle" it as a rotation-powered millisecond pulsar.

So although charged particles driven by magnetic fields are an element, the underlying power source is the neutron star itself (its rotational energy, gravitational field and/or magnetic field).

A similar “dynamo model” for quasars stems from the “Membrane Paradigm” of Black Holes.

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

Reality Check · May 23, 2008

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

Matter in the plasma state tends to emit radiation. This means that we can detect it and plug it into our calculations for the velocity dispersion curves for galaxies and the behavior of galaxies in galactic clusters. These calculations are then compared to observations and we find that

Galactic velocity dispersion curves do not decrease with distance from the center as expected even if we add in the latest results of the effect of the galactic magnetic field on the rotation.
There is not enough mass in galactic clusters to account for the measured orbital velocities of galaxies in them.

Thus there has to be something that is not emitting radiation and has mass to account for the difference between the calculations and the observations. We call this "dark matter".

This has been confirmed by the direct observation of dark matter in the Bullet Cluster.

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I think your confused as to what an an external energy source is. The energy these stars recieve is being recieved externally from the particles flowing into them in the currents, just like alfvens heliospheric current circuit. The electrical power is the new source of energy, which is being recieved externally to the stars.

... snip ...

Ah yes.

Here, for once, there does seem to be a genuine misunderstanding (rather than spin and ignorance).

I'll discuss this at greater length later.

DeiRenDopa said:
DeiRenDopa said:

It can surely only be called "a valid contendor" [sic] as long as you apply the right mixture of spin and ignorance.

"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." - applies here too, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Well, I've stated some pretty concrete things in the last few posts, about the PC model of pulsars,

Now that is about as close to an outright lie as anyone could expect!

All you have posted, in this thread, "in the last few posts", concerning pulsars is "consistent with mainstream astrophysics", because it is mainstream astrophysics!

Alfvens heliospheric cicuit,

OK, so your references weren't simply a mistake.

First, your references have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand ... not only do they not, in any way, relate to observations of any star except the Sun, but they are also well within mainstream astrophysics (in this case, it's called 'space physics', and as you have noted, it has come a very long way since Alfvén died).

Second, you presented these in answer to my question about papers on "Alfvens star model and his supernova model"; the two references are nothing of the sort.

alternative explanation for the HR diagram,

Huh?!?

You did nothing of the sort (please don't keep lying).

You wrote some word salad that depends (totally?) on some magical "electrical model", which you have been asked about, several times (nothing concrete to date).

and many others, but you seem to remain utterly ignorant of them, and just make accusations of me spinning things. And why dont you quote these things about magnetic reconnection you keep bringing up?

Because, a) it is irrelevant to this thread (which is, remember, whether PC is woo or not), and b) there is already a thread on it, and c) you have chosen to run away from the thread in which it's discussed, and d) I think you are using this as an excuse to avoid addressing the gaping holes in the case you have presented so far (in this thread).

since your so keen to bring this up repeatedly? or dont you understand his explanation either? And you even now say yourself "I'm about done with any specifics Zeuzzz, I'm going to concentrate on "PC is woo" and admit your going to write a whole load of posts instead about your new catchphrase, spin, and me instead. Unbelieveable.

Yep, that's how it goes.

You present some Lerner and some Peratt papers; I comment on them; you completely ignore everything I write.

You present some more Peratt stuff; others comment on it; you dance, dodge, and avoid discussing it.

You present some 'electric star' stuff; I tell you it's a mixture of standard astrophysics and deep, deep woo (leavened with gross ignorance on your part, or worse - deliberate deceit); you dance and dissemble and try changing the topic/moving the goalposts.

Do you enjoy trolling, Zeuzzz?

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Check out the recent progress being made on GEMS theory.... (but ignore the stupid "american antigravity" site that persists in promoting it for their own selfish reasons based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "antigravity" actually implies, keep to the journal entries on it)

And what, may one dare to ask, has GEMS got to do with Plasma Cosmology?

The Man · May 23, 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.

I have asked this question a few times already and have as yet to receive an answer.

Can you tell me what force or forces the “force free configuration” you refer to is considered to be free from?

You did link a couple of papers and that only told me the authors “force free configuration” (force free magnetic field applications) that they were referring to. Both the authors and I understood their application of the term “force free”. What I am trying to find out is that if you understand the application of the term “force free” as you have been using it.

Underlying elements of a theory or concept may not be “woo” but the concept itself or perhaps just its presentation can be. Quantum mechanical principles are not “woo”, however, quantum mechanics are claimed as the basis for many concepts that are clearly “woo” since those concepts exceed the applicable tenets or do not even relate to quantum mechanics. This happens when one really doesn’t (or relies on the fact that others don’t) understand what they are talking about when they evoke QM (or other) principles.

Another aspect of “woo”, dealing more with presentation, concerns inconsistency in that presentation. In one of your posts on this thread (I tried to find it to link but it was taking too much time) you referenced material that suggested neutron stars were unlikely due to neutron repulsion, yet in the same post you also linked material that suggested stars might be powered by a neutron star like core. So which is it? This indicates that you are only interested in any and all “alternatives” regardless of their consistency with each other. If you want to present a viable alternative cosmology you must first determine the specific aspects (whichever of the “alternatives” you prefer) of that cosmology that are at least consistent with each other. Otherwise, you are just presenting a hodgepodge of counter indicating concepts just to be “alternative” and that, sir, is “woo”.

leonAzul · May 23, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
leonAzul said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

No, papers that address such observations are not freely available for citation on the "internetz"--they cost anywhere from $5.00 to $32.00 apiece

Yet I am actively researching abstracts along those lines...to be continued...

Back on topic according to the OP.

Going back to the title of this thread, I would suggest that it is not necessarily "woo-ish" to critically examine the roles that magnetism and matter in the plasma state play in the behavior of objects in the cosmos. I agree with the OP that labeling this line of inquiry as "Plasma Cosmology", as if it were a proven theory, is at least dramatic, if not disingenuous. Yet it does not follow that adopting so-called "Plasma Cosmology" as a working hypothesis were necessarily a WOMBAT.

More importantly I would like to raise the question as to how the intervening matter in the plasma state between ourselves and the observed phenomena colors our observations. Turbulence in matter in the liquid state is well documented, ditto in the gaseous state. (If such research has been done concerning the dynamics of matter in the plasma state, then by all means, please point me to it.)

The Man · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I think your confused as to what an an external energy source is. The energy these stars recieve is being recieved externally from the particles flowing into them in the currents, just like alfvens heliospheric current circuit. The electrical power is the new source of energy, which is being recieved externally to the stars.

The problem is that we can easily measure the charged particles and their energy leaving the sun. External currents powering the sun would require higher energy flow into the sun then leave the sun. This calculation has been done on other threads, but where is the stream of charged particles entering the sun sufficient to at least power the solar wind (charged particles leaving the sun) let alone power the sun. Unless you can find an equivalent amount of charged particles entering the sun as the solar wind then you can not even account of an externally powered solar wind let alone an externally powered sun. Having a significantly greater energy density then the solar wind (for an externally powered sun or solar wind) it should be even easier to detect. Since we do not find an excess of either positive or negative charges leaving the sun (direct current application) or the balanced charges of the solar wind periodically pulsating to and fro (alternating current application), this light bulb concept of the sun is flawed in that aspect. The energy of the electrons leaving a light bulb is less then that of when they were impingent upon that light bulb (voltage drop). Based on conservation of energy the energy required to be impingent upon the sun is at least equal to or greater then the energy leaving it. The energy leaving the sun is easily detectable, why isn’t that equal or greater energy required to externally power (entirely or in any significant part) the sun (or solar wind) at least as detectable?

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

leonAzul said:
No, papers that address such observations are not freely available for citation on the "internetz"--they cost anywhere from $5.00 to $32.00 apiece Yet I am actively researching abstracts along those lines...to be continued...

... snip ...

Have you tried arXiv?

There are some astro papers that do not appear as preprints here, but not many; it only goes back to 1992, but that is nearly always far enough back; they are preprints, but most times the differences with the actual published paper are unimportant.

And it's free!

Reality Check · May 23, 2008

leonAzul said:
Back on topic according to the OP.

Going back to the title of this thread, I would suggest that it is not necessarily "woo-ish" to critically examine the roles that magnetism and matter in the plasma state play in the behavior of objects in the cosmos. I agree with the OP that labeling this line of inquiry as "Plasma Cosmology", as if it were a proven theory, is at least dramatic, if not disingenuous. Yet it does not follow that adopting so-called "Plasma Cosmology" as a working hypothesis were necessarily a WOMBAT.

The usual definition of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

However a different definition of Plasma Cosmology seems to have emerged in this thread. There is no one posting that defines this PC so all I can give you is my interpretation:

Plasma Cosmology is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory. The collection (may) include

Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).

This has the nice advantage for PC advocates that this version of PC can never be disproved since it is not a scientific theory. Every theory in the collection has to be proved false individually and new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time.

leonAzul said:
More importantly I would like to raise the question as to how the intervening matter in the plasma state between ourselves and the observed phenomena colors our observations. Turbulence in matter in the liquid state is well documented, ditto in the gaseous state. (If such research has been done concerning the dynamics of matter in the plasma state, then by all means, please point me to it.)

The dynamics of matter in the plasma state is a well researched area. A Google search gives many results.
I think that any papers about this on the web will be quite technical so I suggest that you look for a textbook on plasma physics.

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

The collection (may) include

* Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
* Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
* Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
* Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
* Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).

Others presented, or cited, in this thread include:

* Lerner's explanation of the CMB (there's a Peratt one too, but it hasn't been introduced yet)
* Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced)
* various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
* something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).

An important part of PC is 'actualistic' vs 'prophetic'; at least this component of PC is explicitly philosophical.

Various meta-features of PC have come to light, including:

* extreme tolerance of internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies between theory and observation, and conflicts with avowed philosophical bases
* strong tendency to employ the logic of false dichotomy
* radical idea on falsification (i.e. one theory can falsify another; observations are not required)
* non-acceptance (outright rejection?) of channels and conventions on publication of research (e.g. peer-review not necessary, sources do not necessarily need to be cited).

The Man · May 23, 2008

leonAzul said:
Going back to the title of this thread, I would suggest that it is not necessarily "woo-ish" to critically examine the roles that magnetism and matter in the plasma state play in the behavior of objects in the cosmos. I agree with the OP that labeling this line of inquiry as "Plasma Cosmology", as if it were a proven theory, is at least dramatic, if not disingenuous. Yet it does not follow that adopting so-called "Plasma Cosmology" as a working hypothesis were necessarily a WOMBAT.

No doubt, that the roles of magnetism and mater in the plasma state play in the behavior of objects in the cosmos, just look at the sun, a big ball of plasma with substantially influential magnetic fields. It is not a matter of labeling PC a proven theory so much that is it even a workable, or self consistent theory within its own tenants. Until plasma cosmologists (and their advocates) can come up to some consensuses of those tenets it is neither workable or a theory but just a WOMBAT (I apologize to all wombats that might see this)

leonAzul said:
More importantly I would like to raise the question as to how the intervening matter in the plasma state between ourselves and the observed phenomena colors our observations. Turbulence in matter in the liquid state is well documented, ditto in the gaseous state. (If such research has been done concerning the dynamics of matter in the plasma state, then by all means, please point me to it.)

What, so our observations may be deluded based on this “intervening matter in the plasma state”, which we regularly use to produce the microchips you find in your electronic components? Or is it the uncontrolled aspects of turbulence that you refer to? If you want some references in that aspect please look up chaos theory, it is a matter that is being well researched. Otherwise, astrophysical plasmas (lots of space + little plasma) fall under the category of “force free” and “collisionless” plasmas (non maxwellian energy distributions) where that turbulence is more dependent on forces of somewhat less then local origin (or other then the thermal interaction between particles), mostly due to magnetic fields encountered then internally counter generated and sustained within a local region of plasma (also being well researched). Search for any of those terms and, like me, you will find more information then you can easily muddle through

robinson · May 23, 2008

Reality Check said:
Matter in the plasma state tends to emit radiation.

That may be the huge stumbling block of current physics. We don't know that much about plasma in space. Without experiments, we can't really say that all plasmas emit radiation. Then there are the unknowns, like Plasma crystals.

leonAzul said:
Going back to the title of this thread, I would suggest that it is not necessarily "woo-ish" to critically examine the roles that magnetism and matter in the plasma state play in the behavior of objects in the cosmos.

Indeed, indeed.

leonAzul said:
More importantly I would like to raise the question as to how the intervening matter in the plasma state between ourselves and the observed phenomena colors our observations.

Now that is an astute observation. While plasma seems to be the focus of many, the other thing involved with plasma cosmology (whatever that actually means), is what moving plasmas do. Then there is the even more difficult thing to observe out there, and that is free electrons and protons. As well as exotic plasmas, of which we know almost nothing yet.

The Man · May 23, 2008

robinson said:
That may be the huge stumbling block of current physics. We don't know that much about plasma in space. Without experiments, we can't really say that all plasmas emit radiation. Then there are the unknowns, like Plasma crystals. .

Wow, robison, could you possibly get any more “woo” in your posts.

Who said “all plasmas emit radiation”?

If we are creating and experimenting with it (plasma crystals) it can’t be unknown and it can not be something we know almost nothing about, can it? Although we still can learn a lot form it, hence the experiments.

Do you understand the difference between melting condensed matter and uncondensed matter or free electrons and protons, the former being exotic plasma which we can create to experiment with, as you have shown, the latter being the plasma most Plasma Cosmologists refer to?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/PK-3-Plus.html#overview

There, the electrically charged dust particles arrange in a regular macroscopic crystal lattice. This structure allows for an investigation of the properties of condensed matter on the kinetic level. This means that basic processes, such as melting, can be followed by observing the motion of individual particles. PK-3 will give investigators a better understanding of plasma in space and will determine the critical points for the plasma.

Description
PK-3 Plus is a symmetrical driven radio-frequency plasma discharge with special features for the investigation of complex plasmas under microgravity conditions. As a second generation laboratory, PK-3 Plus provides major new possibilities for these investigations due to its design improvements relative to the first long-term experiment PKE-Nefedov. The PK-3 Plus apparatus allows investigations at neutral gas pressures between 0.05 - 2.5 millibar and radio frequency (rf) power of 0.01 - 1 W. The complex plasma can consist of monodisperse particles in a size range from 1 - 20 micrometers. Up to six particle sizes can be added to the experimental volume. It is possible to change the number of particles, the composition of particles, the plasma conditions and the neutral gas pressure during one experiment. The particle cloud can be excited by an electrical low frequency signal on the electrodes (0.1 - 100 Hz at a maximum amplitude of 50 V) or by a low frequency modulation of the rf-amplitude in different wave forms (sinusoidal, square, pulse, etc.).

robinson said:
Now that is an astute observation. While plasma seems to be the focus of many, the other thing involved with plasma cosmology (whatever that actually means), is what moving plasmas do. Then there is the even more difficult thing to observe out there, and that is free electrons and protons. As well as exotic plasmas, of which we know almost nothing yet.

Crap, all this time we have been looking at free electrons and protons as plasma, now we find “there is the even more difficult thing to observe out there, and that is free electrons and protons”, oh wait, that isn’t more difficult.

leonAzul · May 23, 2008

The Man said:
What, so our observations may be deluded based on this “intervening matter in the plasma state”, which we regularly use to produce the microchips you find in your electronic components?

Patent goat blather. The plasma state of matter at STP is only achievable with massive amounts of energy input. To the best of my knowledge, all of the microchips in my equipment were manufactured at or near STP. And no plasma involved

The preponderance of research into the dynamics of plasma has been conducted at or near STP, whilst the bulk of matter in the plasma state exists in the rest of the universe...

Back on topic--or near to it.

Periodically re-examining the quality of our observations is not woo. It is the very essence of the scientific method.

Belz... · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:

Yes, you're confused, indeed.

You seem to be implying that the fusion sun theory is on par with the other ones. I'm sure you're aware of the evidence in favour of it. Do competing theories explain the evidence, also ? And if so, how ?

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

Of course I ignored it: it didn't answer my question.

What makes you and other proponents of this theory think, to start with, that stars are EM-powered ?

TO START WITH. I don't care about the stuff you found later on. I'm looking for the initial event that made you go that way. Crap, a five year-old could've answered that, by now.

Belz... · May 23, 2008

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

And here we have robinson, the new hammegk.

Wangler · May 23, 2008

Reality Check said:
Every theory in the collection has to be proved false individually and new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time.

Gee, this seems to be just like the concordance cosmology!

Can't recover a flat universe? Add inflation!

Can't easily resolve Hubble constant time dependence? Add dark energy!

Can't easily resolve velocity dispersions on large or small scales? Add non-baryonic dark matter!

Wangler · May 23, 2008

[latex] post^{2} [/latex]

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

Commenting on only two of these ...

Wangler said:
Gee, this seems to be just like the concordance cosmology!

Can't recover a flat universe? Add inflation!

Can't easily resolve Hubble constant time dependence? Add dark energy!

This one's a grey area (excuse the pun) ...

... it depends on what you mean by 'cosmology'.

Observations of the 'Hubble constant time dependence' (or similar) can certainly be - and should be - a feature in any cosmological model, because, like large-scale structure, it is a 'big' feature of the observed universe.

However, you can tackle the observations (high-z supernovae, for example) without necessarily invoking any cosmological models.

Can't easily resolve velocity dispersions on large or small scales? Add non-baryonic dark matter!

Nah, this is obfuscation, or misunderstanding, or ...

CDM is certainly an important component of ΛCDM models (duh!), and at the cosmological level there's an extraordinary consistency (which I'll address when I get round to the 'cosmology' part of my thread on the observational evidence for CDM).

HOWEVER, you need CDM for objects as small as dwarf galaxies, and as close to home as our own galaxy. And historically the observations of CDM had little to do, directly, with any cosmological models, if only because the observational constraints on the average mass-energy density of the universe were too broad.

I'm a little surprised at seeing you write this Wrangler ... I thought you understood the historical and observational record - re CDM - better than this.

Zeuzzz, or BAC, or robinson, on the other hand ...

Dancing David · May 23, 2008

Wangler said:
Gee, this seems to be just like the concordance cosmology!

Can't recover a flat universe? Add inflation!

Can't easily resolve Hubble constant time dependence? Add dark energy!

Can't easily resolve velocity dispersions on large or small scales? Add non-baryonic dark matter!

Perhaps science is not about truth but approximation.

robinson · May 23, 2008

Reality Check said:
Matter in the plasma state tends to emit radiation.

The Man said:
Who said “all plasmas emit radiation”?

From recent observations with our new instruments, it is becoming obvious that we know very little about plasma in space.

We know even less about magnetic fields and electric currents in space. The problem is observing something (that is very far away), that doesn't emit any radiation. We are limited to measuring and viewing secondary effects.

In a weird way, it is the same problem with black holes, that are not "feeding". Without something else interacting with a black hole, it is invisible. Same for plasma, electric currents and magnetic fields, all of which may be connected.

Of course this may be off topic, concerning plasma cosmology, which is still a nebulous topic.

BeAChooser · May 23, 2008

robinson said:
From recent observations with our new instruments, it is becoming obvious that we know very little about plasma in space.

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

BeAChooser · May 23, 2008

BeAChooser said:
As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Or should they have said ... *Looks like Dark Matter to me.*

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

I shall respond to robinson's post in a manner he has is clearly fully in favour of ...

robinson said:
From recent observations with our new instruments, it is becoming obvious that we know very little about plasma in space.

That claim is utter nonsense.

We know even less about magnetic fields and electric currents in space. The problem is observing something (that is very far away), that doesn't emit any radiation. We are limited to measuring and viewing secondary effects.

Not true.

In a weird way, it is the same problem with black holes, that are not "feeding". Without something else interacting with a black hole, it is invisible. Same for plasma, electric currents and magnetic fields, all of which may be connected.

Such terrible logic and huge fallacies.

Of course this may be off topic, concerning plasma cosmology, which is still a nebulous topic.

{insert your own fave robinson quote here}

robinson · May 23, 2008

I tend to be forgiving of scientist trying to make sense out of our Universe. It is terribly difficult to observe and measure things happening so far away. And so much of what is going on is just not visible.

The same problem occurs right near our own planet. The things in our own Solar System are still mysterious. And we have probes and scopes and all kinds of measuring devices, right there on top of the action.

These cosmic events, that occur millions of light years ago/away, we are only glimpsing a little of what is/was there.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Illuminator

Unbanned zombie poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Illuminator

Fiend God

Fiend God

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Banned