Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

OK, maybe one or two more ...
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Finally, I gave a link to a landmark HKP (Hubble Key Project) paper, on the determination of H0, and asked you how the team were able to make a consistent estimate of H0 if there were no relationship between distance and redshift (over extra-galactic distances). You didn't answer that question.

Why not?
Click to expand...
Sure, why don't I try and answer that

If you'll have a crack at this
or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.
Click to expand...
Fair?
Click to expand...
No.

But it seems I was working on a reply while you wrote that ... I'm looking forward to your attempt at answering my question.

(BTW, I do hope that you'll take the trouble to go read all the tusenfem posts I provided links to, plus the context in which they were written. If, after reading all that, you still wish to repeat your claim - based solely on a PR it seems - then please do so).
 
Sol88 said:
No

See this story /hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/13/full/
Click to expand...

That story has nothing to do with the question, which was "In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?" It's about a type II supernova, which as every child knows are not standard candles.

I'm not interested in engaging you on physics, because it's obvious that you a) have no idea what you're talking about, and b) have a very powerful agenda that will almost certainly prevent you from ever learning or changing your position.

Still, will you answer a question? Why? How did you first get interested in EU/PC? What convinced you - someone who clearly has no training in physics - that it is correct and worth advocating on internet fora?
 
Sol88 said:
plus you did not answer my question here
DeiRenDopa said:
But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist,
Click to expand...
This one is very simple, I'll rephrase so as to be unambiguous

Do you, DeiRenDopa believe, in Birkeland currents? A simple yes or no would do.
Click to expand...
Oh dear.

I really, really, really would like you to take up my suggestion, and actually read the material in the 30+ pages of this thread before you started posting.

You see, this section of the JREF Forum is titled "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology".

I take it as axiomatic that discussions in this section are based on scientific methods, approaches, etc (or are, explicitly, discussions of those methods) ... hence a question like "Is Plasma Cosmology woo or not?" means "scientific woo", and the approach we should all be taking to answering it is one based on science (its methods, techniques, etc).

Now I read that you - like MM - want to talk about beliefs.

Where did you get the idea that science is about beliefs?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anyway, to the question itself ...

What are "Birkeland currents"? Well, the answer to that question depends upon how they are defined, and if we're discussing science, then the best answers are to be found in textbooks and papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

I think that if you find such materials, you will get a good definition ... and you will find that the term has a rather narrow meaning (the more general one is "field aligned currents") ... per the WP entry you quoted.

Next, do they exist? Well, that takes us into some rather deep areas of the relationship between science and reality, and I'd rather not go there just now thank you. Suffice it to say that the concept behind the term has considerable explanatory and predictive power, when applied to certain terrestrial phenomena (e.g. aurorae).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But you know the worst part, Sol88?

It's your (apparent) dishonesty.

You see, my question was "But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?" Note that teensy word "these"?

And what does this word point to?

Why, it points to "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere"! :mad:

IOW, your very own choice of a particular kind of Birkeland current!

So, was it mere sloppiness that lead you to make the (logically invalid) leap from a particular kind of Birkeland current to all such currents? Or was the elision coldly deliberate? Or is there some other explanation?

I would really like an answer to these questions; it will help me - and no doubt others here - to appropriately contextualise your posts.
 
Sol88 said:
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?

Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim

Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
More bunny pictures, how about providing the numbers for whatever vague stuff you think you are talking about. Plasma can explain galaxy rotation curves or the accelerating expansion of the universe/

Do tell.
That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! :rolleyes: So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??

The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, now we have and with what we've discovered it should be given the credit it deserves and put to rest, it just does not work and no matter what you add to it to try and make it work it will not! it so passe and 19th century :)
Click to expand...
Uhm, so explain the reshift phenomena, and please point to theories that can and do explain it. We have seen a lot of not so very good ones.
The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!! :)

Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth??

I'd love a debate again without you being able to push the panic button! :eek:
Click to expand...

Sure present your models, you predictions and your data.

Would love to see it!

Welcome to the forum.
 
Soll88: Another point about Halton Arp's hypothesis:
What would happen to Hubble's law if astronomers ignored the existence of QSOs?

The answer is basically nothing. Hubble proposed his law in 1929. QSOs were discovered in the 1950's. Hubble's law was thus established without QSOs.
I think that the confirmation of Hubble's law for higher z does not depend exclusively on QSOs (a real astronomer may confirm this).
 
Birkeland current carry electricity!

You guys a trippers :eye-poppi
Auroral Birkeland currents can carry about 1 million amperes.[2] They can heat up the upper atmosphere which results in increased drag on low-altitude satellites.

Birkeland currents can also be created in the laboratory with multi-terawatt pulsed power generators. The resulting cross-section pattern indicates a hollow beam of electron in the form of a circle of vortices, a formation called the diocotron instability[3] (similar, but different from the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability), that subsequently leads to filamentation. Such vortices can be seen in aurora as "auroral curls".[4]
Click to expand...

Please, get with the program, it's been tested empirically! they a current carrying ELECTRICAL transmission lines!

Now you can wrap it up in fancy math you can even change a few words but a spade is a spade! :)

please re read the THEMIS press release! hell go dig out some papers onit if it make you feel better! quoted again for our slower members here.

In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," [9] [10] noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"[11]
Click to expand...

Now to my unegemacated brain, those solar wind particles are Mmm...electrons! That is the scientific descriptions of an electric current, and when it moves wahalla a magnetic field!

650,000 amps a lot is it? :rolleyes:

And my point here, along with MM's I'm sure is, it reconfirms Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction.

How many times do the mainstream have to re confirm Birkelands model, among a few other reconfirmed models, say the Schumann resonance or the Van Allen belts to name a few!

You can call them field aligned currents if that makes you feel more secure, but I'd like to give credit were credit is due, they are BIRKELAND currents.

full stop end of story.

So I feel it will be waste of time to pile thru Tusenfem disinformation when I've already read mr Phd's stuff.

If you still are not quite sure what they do, shall we bring this up?

Flux tube
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A flux tube is a generally tube-like (cylindrical) region of space containing a magnetic field, such that the field at the side surfaces is parallel to them. Both the cross-sectional area of the tube and the field contained may vary along the length of the tube, but the magnetic flux is always constant.

As used in astrophysics, a flux tube generally has a larger magnetic field and other properties that differ from the surrounding space. They are commonly found around stars, including the Sun, which has many flux tubes of around 300 km diameter. Sunspots are also associated with larger flux tubes of 2500 km diameter. Some planets also have flux tubes. A well-known example is the flux tube between Jupiter and its moon Io.
Click to expand...


FLUX TUBES

So DeiRenDopa this is your final say then?
Anyway, to the question itself ...

What are "Birkeland currents"? Well, the answer to that question depends upon how they are defined, and if we're discussing science, then the best answers are to be found in textbooks and papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

I think that if you find such materials, you will get a good definition ... and you will find that the term has a rather narrow meaning (the more general one is "field aligned currents") ... per the WP entry you quoted.

Next, do they exist? Well, that takes us into some rather deep areas of the relationship between science and reality, and I'd rather not go there just now thank you. Suffice it to say that the concept behind the term has considerable explanatory and predictive power, when applied to certain terrestrial phenomena (e.g. aurorae).
Click to expand...
 
But you know the worst part, Sol88?

It's your (apparent) dishonesty.

You see, my question was "But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?" Note that teensy word "these"?

And what does this word point to?

Why, it points to "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere"!

IOW, your very own choice of a particular kind of Birkeland current!

So, was it mere sloppiness that lead you to make the (logically invalid) leap from a particular kind of Birkeland current to all such currents? Or was the elision coldly deliberate? Or is there some other explanation?

I would really like an answer to these questions; it will help me - and no doubt others here - to appropriately contextualise your posts.
Click to expand...

You see, my question was "But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?" Note that teensy word "these"?
Click to expand...

Yes they can do Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents

Three-dimensional plasma simulations of interacting galactic-dimensioned current filaments show bursts of synchrotron radiation of energy density 1.2 x 10 to the -13th erg/cu cm which can be compared with the measured cosmic microwave background energy density of 1.5 x 10 to the -13th erg/cu cm. However, the synchrotron emission observed in the simulations is not blackbody. In this paper, the absorption of the synchrotron emission by the current filaments themselves (i.e., self-absorption) is analyzed in order to investigate the thermalization of the emitted radiation. It is found that a large number of current filaments (greater than 10 to the 31st) are needed to make the radiation spectrum blackbody up to the observed measured frequency of 100 GHz. The radiation spectrum and the required number of current filaments are a strong function of the axial magnetic field in the filaments.
Click to expand...

So whats the blue here? :mad: :rolleyes:

I'd like to ask our mainstream overlords have we ever looked for
"Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere"!
Click to expand...

'cos if mainstream do not want to believe in them then why look for them eh?

Maybe you should google, ulysses mission + "field aligned currents"

Interesting eh?
 
Last edited:
So we can have charge separation in space, mainstream says only on small scales, EU/PC say up to galactic scales and higher, so there are a few OOM there.

We have a physical mechanism to connect them, Birkeland currents which mainstream says only affect terrestrial Aurora. EU/PC say the can stretch many thousands of light years, again a few OOM's there.

And we have a way for that charge separation to build and maintain tremendous electric fields aka the double layer and particle acceleration!

And by the way, we have OBSERVED them, no math needed no make believe "dark" stuff etc etc but seems mainstream are still puzzled by these phenomena?

This is a statement of fact, unless there is some sort of conspiracy and mainstream do really acknowledge the power plasma plays in forming, shaping and running the stuff we "see", and they just dumb down their data for us mere mortals!

The rest is just dott'n the I's and cross'n the T's
 
Last edited:
Sol88: "Auroral Birkeland currents" carry current (auroral = planetary). So what has this to do with cosmology?

Please give your citations for the papers on the observations of cosmic Birkeland currents.
 
Sol88 said:
And by the way, we have OBSERVED them, no math needed no make believe "dark" stuff etc etc but seems mainstream are still puzzled by these phenomena?
Click to expand...
And by the way, we have OBSERVED dark matter (see my signature).
We have also observed dark energy (remember that that is just a label for the cause of the observed deviation from Hubble's law).

How many cosmic Birkeland currents have been observed, sol88?
 
Sol88 said:
Yes they can do Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link sol88 to yet another really old paper (1988!). Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years.

The abstract has "It is found that a large number of current filaments (greater than 10 to the 31st) are needed to make the radiation spectrum blackbody up to the observed measured frequency of 100 GHz.". This is the 1988 observed measured frequency.

A good scientist would use the WMAP (or the earlier COBE data) and update their prediction. So what is the latest prediction from Peter, William; Peratt, Anthony L.?

You missed these questions about their other paper:
Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed?

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions?

In addition:
How does the thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents reproduce the observed power spectrum of the CMB?
This is quite important. Peter and Peratt (or a colleague?) will certainly have published a paper with a match to the power spectrum from their theory. Otherwise the theory is not worth much.
 
Thermalization of Synchrotron

Sol88 said:
Yes they can do Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents
Click to expand...
Reality Check said:
Thank you for the link sol88 to yet another really old paper (1988!). Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
Let us read the abstract:
Three-dimensional plasma simulations of interacting galactic-dimensioned current filaments show bursts of synchrotron radiation of energy density 1.2 x 10-13 erg/cm3 which can be compared with the measured cosmic microwave background energy density of 1.5 x 10-13 erg/cm3. However, the synchrotron emission observed in the simulations is not blackbody. In this paper, the absorption of the synchrotron emission by the current filaments themselves (i.e., self-absorption) is analyzed in order to investigate the thermalization of the emitted radiation. It is found that a large number of current filaments (greater than 1031) are needed to make the radiation spectrum blackbody up to the observed measured frequency of 100 GHz. The radiation spectrum and the required number of current filaments are a strong function of the axial magnetic field in the filaments.

There are about 10,000 galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), which implies about 1.65x1012 galaxies visible at HUDF parameters over the entire sky, which would take 452,087.67 years of exposure time on the HST. Figure about 4x1012 galaxies as guess at the number in the observable universe, to account for the magnitude limit of the HUDF. If we need 1031 currents, that's about 2.5x1018 currents per galaxy. For a galaxy with a volume like the Milky Way, that's about 32,000 currents per cubic light year of volume. That's not impossibly many, but it's a lot of currents to try to explain. Furthermore, if we are to see, from here, the thermalized radiation from these currents, there must be no extinction between us & them. That too is very hard to try to explain. So the numbers themselves make this look like an improbable affair.

But remember that prior to the COBE observations, it was not actually known the the CMB was indeed thermal. The long wavelength tail of the blackbody curve looks like a power law that strongly resembles synchrotron emission, and observations were really not precise enough to tell the difference with statistical significance. So the process of thermalizing the emission as described here by Peratt really only amounts to slightly changing the shape of the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the radiation.

But once the CMB FIRAS data were published (Mather, et al., 1994), and the rollover at the top of the blackbody curve had at last been measured, the result was the most precise blackbody curve ever measured.

I note that all of the 6 citations to Peratt's paper are from Peratt, with I believe one exception. Peratt himself never made a followup study that I can see, to show that the thermalization would not just reproduce a curve only slightly deformed from the original synchrotron, but also the rollover, which unlike the long wavelength tail, is extremely sensitive to temperature.

So, as Reality tells us, "Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years". Now, instead of measuring a CMB SED that look a lot like synchrotron, we can see the part that does not look at all like synchrotron. Can Peratt thermalize into that shape as well? Only Peratt can say.
 
Reality Check Sol88: "Auroral Birkeland currents" carry current (auroral = planetary). So what has this to do with cosmology?

Please give your citations for the papers on the observations of cosmic Birkeland currents.
Click to expand...

Dude you do not really grasp the concept here do you?

You tell me what a Birkeland current has to do with cosmology!

You do understand the basic premise of the EU/PC theory that plasma, unlike gravity, it is scalable over many OOM's :jaw-dropp

And there is a plethora of observations of cosmic Birkeland currents and plasma interactions, but the mainstream has got it mixed up with hot gas, shock fronts, winds and so on.

As an example perhaps you could tell me a little more about double radio galaxies? Say this one A Large Double Radio Source from a Spiral Galaxy: 0313-192

Are the lobes and the central galaxy connected? How? :)

And remember under the EU/PC paradigm black holes are the same as dark matter/energy, just names for things the mainstream do not understand!

Perhaps reading this paper may get things going A Model For A Plasma Universe
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
You do understand the basic premise of the EU/PC theory that plasma, unlike gravity, it is scalable over many OOM's :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

What an incredibly ignorant statement. Of course gravity scales across many orders of magnitude. And unlike electric and magnetic fields, gravity cannot be shielded, which in practice makes it a far longer range force than electromagnetism.
 
So, as Reality tells us, "Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years".
Click to expand...

Good one Tim, it took them 65years to REDISCOVER Birkelands PREDICTIONS!!!

So progression is a bold word to use in that context :)
 
What an incredibly ignorant statement. Of course gravity scales across many orders of magnitude. And unlike electric and magnetic fields, gravity cannot be shielded, which in practice makes it a far longer range force than electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was not aware that Gravity was scalable, forgive my ignorance on gravity, maybe you could fill me in?

Is it because the greater the mass the greater the gravity? Can we scale it down to test in a lab?

Is long range attractive, short range repulsive a property a gravity?

Please tell me, I'd like to know? How does gravity work? What makes it?

These problems DO NOT exist in electromagnetism :eek:
 
Reality Check said:
Please give your citations for the papers on the observations of cosmic Birkeland currents.
Click to expand...

Why would you need papers to demonstrate this when the vast majority of galaxies can patently been seen to have a highly filamentary struture (with the exceptions of a few more unqiue types, of course, galaxies are inherently varied in their structure and shape)

The proof is in the pudding. To make the theory of a gravity centric universe fit with observations you have no choice but to come up with the Big Bang as an intial starting point, and these formations are merely a transient step in galaxy formation, that can NOT be sustained in the long term due to the exclusively attractive nature of the gravitational field.

Lets take for example a certain galaxy you may be familiar with. The Milky way.


filamentsti4.jpg




http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.227..175W
The image of a spiral galaxy is one of the most tantalizing images in nature. It demands that we ask: why do so many galaxies present this morphology? We currently have two main schools of thought concerning galaxy morphology, one based on gravitational effects and the other based on electromagnetic effects. The older gravitational models can explain how spirals might form, but they also predict that the spirals would quickly disintegrate. And the observed pervasiveness of spirals seems to imply not only their formation, but also their persistence over time. The newer plasma cosmology model is an improvement in that it explains how spirals might form and persist so long as plasma persists. But the formation of charge-neutral stars seems to return the scenario to the gravitational domain, and to subsequent dissolution. Clearly we need an additional idea to account for pervasive and persistent spiral galaxy structure. The present paper attempts to uncover a previously unrecognized gravitational mechanism that can serve as a viable candidate for sustaining persistent spiral galaxy structure.
Click to expand...


Their gravitational solution does not make sense btw (why its not very cited and has not been picked up). And neither does the plasma cosmology explanation either due to the potential (or lack thereof) of net charge on stars. Which is where you start getting into Electric universe theories and net charges on stars as a potential explanation. Peratts model works amazingly well at explaining galaxy formation and structure on galactic scales based on large scale plasma filaments (extremely well infact), but falls down at explaining them at lower stellar scales.

Which ever scale is the most important to explain fully is where the argument will likely never be resolved. One works on the large scale but falls down at the lower stellar/planetary scales, the other works very well on the stellar planetary scale but falls down on the larger scale. Both should be considered on their individual merits, as there a problems with both.
 
Time for a spin off thread, me thinks

Mmmm...Should I go for me 'ol fav the ELECTRIC comet? yeah maybe it very interesting, or should I go for our ELECTRIC Moon?

Lets do the moon thing first, as levitating dust sounds highly woo to most people.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Sorry I was not aware that Gravity was scalable, forgive my ignorance on gravity, maybe you could fill me in?

Is it because the greater the mass the greater the gravity? Can we scale it down to test in a lab?
Click to expand...

Well, duh.

Is long range attractive, short range repulsive a property a gravity?
Click to expand...

Are you for real? Gravity is attractive at all ranges. Everyone knows that.

These problems DO NOT exist in electromagnetism :eek:
Click to expand...

They don't exist with gravity either.
 
can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
My friend you tripp'n? irrelevant wouldn't be the word I'd have used!




Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not, pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!
Click to expand...
That is a silly thing to say. He can and could prove his theory with the Sloan Survey.

But that would show his statistics to be bogus and appalling. It is not an issue of scope time, you are aware of the number of Arp objects observed by Hubble aren't you?

The problem is he is using really backwards statistics. He could do it the right way, but that is his problem.

Using teh Sloan Sirvey he could show that there are control groups and standard deviations, then he could show that his sample of galaxy/QSO associations rise to any sort of significance.

Ooops, he doesn't use control groups!
If you say so, but it's not your job to say over and over again and tell readers here the dogma YOU believe, when most people here can learn for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah and let us see what you have other than the same old , same old.

Arp is a bad place to start, great man. Can't seem to understand how statitics work.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Thank you for the link sol88 to yet another really old paper (1988!). Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years.

The abstract has "It is found that a large number of current filaments (greater than 10 to the 31st) are needed to make the radiation spectrum blackbody up to the observed measured frequency of 100 GHz.". This is the 1988 observed measured frequency.

A good scientist would use the WMAP (or the earlier COBE data) and update their prediction. So what is the latest prediction from Peter, William; Peratt, Anthony L.?

You missed these questions about their other paper:
Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed?

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions?

In addition:
How does the thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents reproduce the observed power spectrum of the CMB?
This is quite important. Peter and Peratt (or a colleague?) will certainly have published a paper with a match to the power spectrum from their theory. Otherwise the theory is not worth much.
Click to expand...
You know what's disappointing?

We already went through this - and considerably more - with Z, many pages ago.

Who'd've predicted that a new member, a self-declared ardent fan of PC/EU, would trot out the very same papers!? :p

Sol88, Z has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of some, for his consistent behaviour in introducing material like this and then abandoning all subsequent discussion on it, specifically, in ignoring challenges and questions on it.

I see from the ~1 day you've been posting here that you have already left a trail of unanswered questions about material you yourself posted.

Just like Z.

Do you think it would help if I began each of my posts with a repetition of all the unanswered questions? Of course, I shall be careful to include only those directly relevant to the topic of this thread (whether PC is (scientific) woo or not) ...
 
Zeuzzz said:
can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.
Click to expand...
What is this image, Z?

I tried the link, without the .jpg part, and got this: http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/

"Lepton-Quark Studies Group, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, M.I.T."

Not exactly what I'd've expected, in terms of a source for the structure of the MW.

And the "image" itself ... isn't it merely an artist's impression?

If so, then whatever "highly filametary structure" anyone can see in it surely comes from the artist's own mind, doesn't it?

What does this have to do with the Milky Way galaxy in which we live?
 
Yeah and let us see what you have other than the same old , same old.

Arp is a bad place to start, great man. Can't seem to understand how statitics work.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...sorry I'm a bit slow, I can see now it's a bit of a witch hunt for the poor ol bugger for daring to call into question a foundation block of the BB cosmology :blush:

but he's not the only one

How's about

Martin L. Bernet1, Francesco Miniati1, Simon J. Lilly1, Philipp P. Kronberg2,3 & Miroslava Dessauges–Zavadsky4

Abstract

Abstract

The origin and growth of magnetic fields in galaxies is still something of an enigma1. It is generally assumed that seed fields are amplified over time through the dynamo effect2, 3, 4, 5, but there are few constraints on the timescale. It was recently demonstrated that field strengths as traced by rotation measures of distant (and hence ancient) quasars are comparable to those seen today6, but it was unclear whether the high fields were in the unusual environments of the quasars themselves or distributed along the lines of sight. Here we report high-resolution spectra that demonstrate that the quasars with strong Mg ii absorption lines are unambiguously associated with larger rotation measures. Because Mg ii absorption occurs in the haloes of normal galaxies7, 8, 9, 10, 11 along the sightlines to the quasars, this association requires that organized fields of surprisingly high strengths are associated with normal galaxies when the Universe was only about one-third of its present age.
Click to expand...

This questions the distance/age assumption of the BB.

As does NGC 7319


“If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe,” he adds. “If this is the case, this discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away and can be used to do cosmology.”
Click to expand...

maybe this The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319

Abstract
A strong X-ray source only 8'' from the nucleus of the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 7319 in Stephan's Quintet has been discovered by Chandra. We have identified the optical counterpart and show that it is a QSO with ze = 2.114. It is also an ultraluminous X-ray source with LX = 1.5 × 1040 ergs s-1. From the optical spectra of the QSO and the interstellar gas of NGC 7319 together, we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas.
Click to expand...

So lay off the poor fela, shooting the messenger does not change the message! :D

Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???

Naahh :boggled:

'Cos it solves a whole lot more problems than redshift=distance/age ASSUMPTION :) that mainstream MUST repeat MUST hang onto. otherwise...:boxedin:

Simple really :)
 
Last edited:
You know what's disappointing?

We already went through this - and considerably more - with Z, many pages ago.

Who'd've predicted that a new member, a self-declared ardent fan of PC/EU, would trot out the very same papers!?

Sol88, Z has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of some, for his consistent behaviour in introducing material like this and then abandoning all subsequent discussion on it, specifically, in ignoring challenges and questions on it.

I see from the ~1 day you've been posting here that you have already left a trail of unanswered questions about material you yourself posted.

Just like Z.

Do you think it would help if I began each of my posts with a repetition of all the unanswered questions? Of course, I shall be careful to include only those directly relevant to the topic of this thread (whether PC is (scientific) woo or not) ...
Click to expand...

sure mate go right ahead, but whats good for the goose...

Shall I start my post with your unanswered questions?

Lets clear a few up then eh?

Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed? No

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions? Don't now them personaly, maybe you could ask them next time you see 'em?

How does the thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents reproduce the observed power spectrum of the CMB? Did'nt that recieve some attention a few post ago or are we missing each other here?

More?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Dude you do not really grasp the concept here do you?

You tell me what a Birkeland current has to do with cosmology!
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing since
  1. A Birkeland current is a "specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphereWP".
  2. You have presented absolutley no evidence that Birkeland current exist on the comic scale.
 
Dude, dude and dude
Absolutely nothing since

1. A Birkeland current is a "specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphereWP".
Click to expand...

Did your copy and paste not extend a bit further? I'll add it then

A Birkeland current is a specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphere. Lately, the term Birkeland currents has been expanded by some authors to include magnetic field aligned currents in general space plasmas.
Click to expand...

My bold!

Typical
 
Zigurat wrote
Quote:
Is long range attractive, short range repulsive a property a gravity?
Are you for real? Gravity is attractive at all ranges. Everyone knows that.
Click to expand...

And there my friend is your problem, that's all gravity does!!! Hence your need to make up Dark matter/energy to explain acceleration :)

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
 
Zeuzzz said:
Why would you need papers to demonstrate this when the vast majority of galaxies can patently been seen to have a highly filamentary struture (with the exceptions of a few more unqiue types, of course, galaxies are inherently varied in their structure and shape)

The proof is in the pudding. To make the theory of a gravity centric universe fit with observations you have no choice but to come up with the Big Bang as an intial starting point, and these formations are merely a transient step in galaxy formation, that can NOT be sustained in the long term due to the exclusively attractive nature of the gravitational field.

Lets take for example a certain galaxy you may be familiar with. The Milky way.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5014/filamentsti4.jpg


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.227..175W

Their gravitational solution does not make sense btw (why its not very cited and has not been picked up). And neither does the plasma cosmology explanation either due to the potential (or lack thereof) of net charge on stars. Which is where you start getting into Electric universe theories and net charges on stars as a potential explanation. Peratts model works amazingly well at explaining galaxy formation and structure on galactic scales based on large scale plasma filaments (extremely well infact), but falls down at explaining them at lower stellar scales.

Which ever scale is the most important to explain fully is where the argument will likely never be resolved. One works on the large scale but falls down at the lower stellar/planetary scales, the other works very well on the stellar planetary scale but falls down on the larger scale. Both should be considered on their individual merits, as there a problems with both.
Click to expand...

You are showing your ignorance Zeuzzz.
For a start we are talking about Birkeland currents not arbitrary filamentary structures. In order for the filaments to be be Birkeland currents you need to quote the paper showing the currents in them.

There are good explanations of galactic structure including the filaments. This includes the fact that these are long term structures.

You are back to your usual non-science:
  • "net charges on stars as a potential explanation" is totally impossible since the maximum charge is many orders of magnitude too small (was it 1016 or 1027 or something in between? - you should be able to tell us Zeuzzz).
  • Peratts model works amazingly well at showing nothing at all since it is wrong:
    • He ignores gravity - his simulation software is a plasma simulation package.
    • He compares his simulation to photos of galaxies not actual mass distributions of galaxies.
    • He predicts galactic plasma filaments as wide as galaxies and 10,000's of light years long that have large currents. These have never been detected.
    • What has been detected in actual observations is dark matter. Peratts model requires that dark matter does not exist.
 
Zeuzzz said:
can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.
Click to expand...
I cannot see the "clearly highly filametary structure".
I can see the spiral arms that have been explained using gravitational theories that include actual physical entities.
 
Sol88 said:
Dude, dude and dude

Did your copy and paste not extend a bit further? I'll add it then

My bold!

Typical
Click to expand...
"Lately, the term Birkeland currents has been expanded by some authors to include magnetic field aligned currents in general space plasmas."
may not mean what you think it means, especially since there is no citation for that.

There is a difference space plasmas in general (they exist) and the cosmic plasma filaments (no evidence that these exist) with Birkeland currents required by some of the mutually inconsistent theories included in the umbrella of PC.
 
Oh I see I have to hold your hand

You have presented absolutely no evidence that Birkeland current exist on the comic scale.
Click to expand...

Ok cosmic scale Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode so we do not "see" them, though we do pick up there radio and magnetic signatures and when they enter glow mode mainstream call them Jets, ever heard of them or shall we go for a walk down that garden path as well?

Looksie here

Summary: A laboratory plasma experiment shows how magnetic forces can help explain the for-
mation of astrophysical jets.
Astrophysical jets are one of the truly exotic sights in the universe. How they form is a curious
mystery. They are usually associated with accretion disks, which are disks of matter spiraling into
a massive central object such as a black hole. The jets are narrow, fast, and extend for extreme
distances along the disk axis. Jets and accretion disks are known to accompany widely varying
types of astrophysical objects, ranging from infant star systems to binary stars to galactic nuclei.
While the mechanism for jet formation is the subject of much debate, many theoretical models
predict that jets form as the result of magnetic forces.
Now, plasma physicists at the California Institute
Click to expand...

So how'd they do that in the lab, let see...

By placing two concentric copper electrodes and
a coaxial coil in a large vacuum vessel and driving as much as 150 kilo-Amperes of electric current
through a hydrogen plasma, they have succeeded in producing jet-like structures [Fig. 1(a)] that
not only resemble those in astronomical images, but also develop remarkable helical instabilities
[Fig. 1(b)] that could help explain the wiggled structure observed in some astrophysical jets.
Click to expand...

Amazing! Electricity and magnetic fields might have something to do with there formation, whood of thunk that :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Oh I see I have to hold your hand



Ok cosmic scale Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode so we do not "see" them, though we do pick up there radio and magnetic signatures and when they enter glow mode mainstream call them Jets, ever heard of them or shall we go for a walk down that garden path as well?
Click to expand...
Yes. Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.
 
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Zigurat wrote

And there my friend is your problem, that's all gravity does!!! Hence your need to make up Dark matter/energy to explain acceleration

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
YES: Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics
Click to expand...

And the results?

I like the little caveat on the bottom
© 1987-2008 Eöt-Wash Group. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, DOE or NASA. Trouble? Comments? Contact cah49#at#u.washington.edu
Click to expand...
 
Sol88
P.S. About the Wikipedia article on Birkeland current: If you had taken the time to read further down you would have seen a section on Cosmic Birkeland currents!

This section is strange since it states "Plasma physicists suggest that many structures in the universe exhibiting filamentation are due to Birkeland currents" and then only mentions one plasma physicist as a bit of text ("Peratt (1992)") rather than a citation.

Of course the weakness of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article. The fact that this section generalizes, only mentions Peratt and has no citations suggests a PC proponent has added it.

Personally I can accept that large scale Birkeland currents could exist but these will have no cosmological significance. It is a pity that there is no physical evidence for these large scale Birkeland currents!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
And the results?

I like the little caveat on the bottom
Click to expand...
Read the web site.

The "little caveat" is standard. The experiments that the group does are their experiments and they are responsible for "any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)" in the web site..
 
Zeuzzz said:
Why would you need papers to demonstrate this when the vast majority of galaxies can patently been seen to have a highly filamentary struture (with the exceptions of a few more unqiue types, of course, galaxies are inherently varied in their structure and shape)
Click to expand...

Hey Zeuzzz - who took that picture of the milky way? :rolleyes:

You're that ridiculously naive (I'll pick a nice word), aren't you?

The facts are that structure is not filamentary on cosmological scales (the scale of galaxy clusters or groups, that is). See here for example. The origin of spiral arms within galaxies is fairly well understood. But of course the arms are very little of the mass in galaxies - it's just that the matter there is luminous.
 
Yes. Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.
Click to expand...

Do we "see" the ones that connect us to the sun? And are they really there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom