Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 said:
And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
Click to expand...

[sarcasm]No, it's absolutely impossible to test gravity in a lab.[/sarcasm]

Although I suspect your mother may have done some experiments with it... which seem to have involved dropping you head-first.
 
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!
Click to expand...


Ahhh the heart of the matter, scuse the pun!

They can transfer matter and energy and scientifically speaking INFORMATION.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what happens when those electrons get wherever there going? They don't just vanish my friend. I'm not saying I know so don't ask but how do the manifest?
 
Sol88 said:
And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
Click to expand...

I already told you. The answer is yes. I linked to a page that references a number of experiments which do exactly that. Some of them are not exactly recent, you know. Why aren't you already familiar with the Cavendish experiment, for example?
 
To have a meaningful discussion, the parties need to have mutual understanding of the words (terms) they use, and of the way the words are linked to form meaning.

If we are having a discussion that we wish to characterise as about science, or on science, or some part of science, then I think we need to agree that a key foundation is logic.

With me so far Sol88?

If so, perhaps it would be fruitful to spend some time on whether we agree on the logic that we need to use? I mean, if we don't, then the words we write will not be part of a discussion, will they?

Sadly, I think there's abundant evidence - in the posts you, Sol88, have written - that you are working from a quite different form of logic than that which is used in science.

For example, on the one hand you quote some material - with apparent approval - that says that Arp "was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"; yet merely a day or so later you cite a paper, by Arp, published in ApJ, that is exactly a publication of his results.

Do you see the inconsistency? Do you acknowledge it?

Do you understand that what you write thus seems illucid?

If not, then I'll try harder to show you how illogical your posts, and points, are (if I can).

If so, then do you accept that we must find a way to get to common ground wrt logic, if this exchange is to be a science-based discussion?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Ahhh the heart of the matter, scuse the pun!

They can transfer matter and energy and scientifically speaking INFORMATION.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, what happens when those electrons get wherever there going? They don't just vanish my friend. I'm not saying I know so don't ask but how do the manifest?
Click to expand...
What electrons and from where?
What powers these Birkeland currents?
 
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Erm, so the paper gets the gravitational situation wrong, and the electromagnetic solution is by your own admission wrong, so what are we supposed to take away from this link?
 
Sol88 said:
Do we "see" the ones that connect us to the sun? And are they really there?
Click to expand...
No we do not "see" them. We do not detect then either.

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?
[\quote]
Sol88: For the second time:
Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.

Sol88 said:
Looksie here

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

Amazing! Electricity and magnetic fields might have something to do with there formation, whood of thunk that :)
Click to expand...

Astronomers know that galactic jets are electromagnetic phenomena powered by supermassive black holes, infant star systems, binary stars, etc.
Actually read your Looksie here and note the compete absence of Birkeland currents or even magnetic field aligned currents. There are electric currents and magnetic fields and an external power source.

Sol88:For the first time:
What is the external power source for the Birkeland currents in plasma cosmology?
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Wow, are you stuck in yur confirmation bias or what?

I am not on a witch hunt of Arp.

I, you won't believe this, feel that the PC has some merit, when the scales and energies are in the area of the early universe.

Now as to Arp, I have read his papers and looked at the material.

The point is that there is not a statistical correlation to talk about.

It could be random alignment, that is why you have to have control groups to see if the Arp galaxy/QSO association is a valid one.

Am I getting through to you or will your confirmation bias that I am 'xy and z that hates Plasma Cosmology' just get in the way?
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



This questions the distance/age assumption of the BB.

As does NGC 7319




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

Abstract

So lay off the poor fela, shooting the messenger does not change the message! :D
Click to expand...
It is an issue that he does not take a control group, something that could be done very easily.
Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???
Click to expand...
Of course it could, duh?

But that does not mean it is, there is a lot of data to look at.
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 :)
Click to expand...

get off the political bandwagaon and you might talk about your alleged refutation of the redshift hypothesis.

BTW I will look at that paper in a bit. I think it has been read by me.
 
Hiya Sol**,

Yep have looked at that QSO and galaxy alignment.

here is the deal there are considerations to make:
1. What evidence is there that the QSO is embedded in the galaxy ?
2. What evidence is there that it is not just a random alignment?

Are you with me so far?

I have yet to see a compelling case for 1)

and it could be random alignment, so I don't see that you have slain cosmological redshift.

Now if you use the Sloan Survey to take control groups : random points of the sky, non Arp galaxies, and then generate your sample from those

then you show that Arp association areahigher in frequency than the random sample, you could show that these sorts of possible random aligments are not random.
Or you could show that there are Arp galaxies that have a QSO association higher than 'normal'.

That is how you use frequencty statistics to determine if something rises above the level of 'noise'.

You haven't slain cosmological redshift as a possibilty.
 
Reality Check said:
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!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have only been able to edit the first small part of the Birkeland current page on WIKI. When one looks in the discussion page, you can see all the other items that still need to be rewritten. I would only use the first small introductory part, most of the rest is rather useless.
 
edd said:
Erm, so the paper gets the gravitational situation wrong, and the electromagnetic solution is by your own admission wrong, so what are we supposed to take away from this link?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Ms. Whitney seems to like herself a lot, with 9 of the 19 references, and then I love it when the author like to show how "well read" they are with citing Einstein (1955), Lienard (1898), Wiechert (1900). But the best references are "Van Flandern" and "Lerner". Please remind me not to submit to Adv. Space Sci anymore!!!!!
 
tusenfem said:
Not to mention that Ms. Whitney seems to like herself a lot, with 9 of the 19 references, and then I love it when the author like to show how "well read" they are with citing Einstein (1955), Lienard (1898), Wiechert (1900). But the best references are "Van Flandern" and "Lerner". Please remind me not to submit to Adv. Space Sci anymore!!!!!
Click to expand...
Well yes, I was contemplating a suitable criticism of the paper but then I realised I couldn't find any bits that it would be particularly relevant to criticise, given noone seemed to be supporting any of it. Quite baffling. :confused:
 
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
I already told you. The answer is yes. I linked to a page that references a number of experiments which do exactly that. Some of them are not exactly recent, you know. Why aren't you already familiar with the Cavendish experiment, for example?
Click to expand...

Nice tangent Reality, how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

So, ReaLity, could you tell me HOW gravity works? Hear from you soon! :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Nice tangent Reality, how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

So, ReaLity, could you tell me HOW gravity works? Hear from you soon! :)
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what sort of answers this question gets!

Here's my (contemporary) science-based one:

Within its domain of applicability, the general theory of relativity (GR for short) is consistent with all the relevant experimental results and observations published to date. Clifford Will's 2006 Living Reviews in Relativity - The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment - provides a concise summary of just how good this consistency is.

So the answer to the question "How does gravity work?" is something like "GR provides a good description (of how gravity works)", or perhaps "the best description of how it works that we have, today, is GR".
 
To have a meaningful discussion, the parties need to have mutual understanding of the words (terms) they use, and of the way the words are linked to form meaning.

If we are having a discussion that we wish to characterise as about science, or on science, or some part of science, then I think we need to agree that a key foundation is logic.

With me so far Sol88?
Click to expand...

Ahhh DRD!

I could not agree more! We have been reading the same book,we are just on different pages :eek:

See the thing with EU/PC line of thinking is no new physics is required, we can test it in the lab, the math behind is quite mature and there are no need to "make up" or place a handle on an unknown observation.

The leap of faith, mainstreamers/uninformed need to take, is just what the EM force can do! Unfortunately for the mainstream, the NEW evidence our technological advances are giving us are yielding mystery and surprise after surprise for the aminstream because they choose to ignore ELECTRICITY AND CHARGE SEPERATION in cosmological plasma's, though they do admit it's somthing to do with them wrascaly tangly magnetic fields/line thingies.

The EU/PC on the other hand embrace that CHARGE moving thru PLASMA create a large proportion of what we observe, and any new observation the first thing they tend to give preferentiality to is the EM force, as tested in the lab and scaled.


So yes in response to your statement
If so, then do you accept that we must find a way to get to common ground wrt logic, if this exchange is to be a science-based discussion?
Click to expand...

I agree :) Unfortunately the problem I see relates to the points I made above :boggled:

Dark matter/energy, black holes, magnatars, QSO...and so on CAN NOT be tested in the lab and plasma CAN! :eye-poppi

That's about, under my understanding, as scientific as you can get, correct?
 
For example, on the one hand you quote some material - with apparent approval - that says that Arp "was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"; yet merely a day or so later you cite a paper, by Arp, published in ApJ, that is exactly a publication of his results.

Do you see the inconsistency? Do you acknowledge it?
Click to expand...

No I made a statement from what I've read thru many sources, if you do not believe me drop Arp an email and ask the man!

The whole point is the is DOUBT as you accept
Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???
Of course it could, duh?

But that does not mean it is, there is a lot of data to look at.
Click to expand...
but it could be eh!

So my line of thought is if they MAY be wrong on redshift equals distance thing, well there goes a whole corner of the foundation of the expanding universe/BB! and hence all the political shenanigans that may go with ego/power struggles that go with it, not really my concern!

But I reiterate, doubt has been cast!
 
and it could be random alignment, so I don't see that you have slain cosmological redshift.
Click to expand...

Please DD, humor me, lets do a thought experiment. Lets say it's not a random alignment and indeed there is a high redshift object in FRONT of a low redshift?

Could you tell me what that means?
 
Hello Tusenfem, how the bung 'ol?
Lately, I have only been able to edit the first small part of the Birkeland current page on WIKI. When one looks in the discussion page, you can see all the other items that still need to be rewritten. I would only use the first small introductory part, most of the rest is rather useless.
Click to expand...

Ok lets circumvent the whole wiki/Birkeland current thing, shall we, and like DRD said lets all read from the same page?

Could you answer if there MAYBE Birkeland current outside of our magnetosphere and if they could how big/long could they get, using standard plasma physics, which I believe you are somewhat of a boffin on, and if so what shall we call the, if not Birkeland currents?

I believe if they are basically the same as the one we observe close to home then should we not give the man some credit, he did top himself for the ridicule he received from the mainstream after all? Remember it took them 65yrs to REDISCOVER is "stuff".

How relevant would is studies be if we could have put a science platform above our atmosphere sometime in the 1900's? And found that whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland.

That's an interesting thought experiment for ya!
 
Within its domain of applicability, the general theory of relativity (GR for short) is consistent with all the relevant experimental results and observations published to date. Clifford Will's 2006 Living Reviews in Relativity - The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment - provides a concise summary of just how good this consistency is.
Click to expand...

So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then? Mercury's precession? Gravity probe A & B? What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon? etc etc...messy messy messy!
 
And please would the relevant people I've asked question off at least attempt to answer them, BEFORE I have to ask the torrent of questions that will come from those answers!
 
Sol88:For the first time:
What is the external power source for the Birkeland currents in plasma cosmology?
Click to expand...

The million dollar question, ummm....God/BH!!

That's keep them people of strong faith happy and place's a label on one of the Universes biggest unknowns!
 
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
To have a meaningful discussion, the parties need to have mutual understanding of the words (terms) they use, and of the way the words are linked to form meaning.

If we are having a discussion that we wish to characterise as about science, or on science, or some part of science, then I think we need to agree that a key foundation is logic.

With me so far Sol88?
Click to expand...
Ahhh DRD!

I could not agree more! We have been reading the same book,we are just on different pages :eek:

See the thing with EU/PC line of thinking is no new physics is required, we can test it in the lab, the math behind is quite mature and there are no need to "make up" or place a handle on an unknown observation.

The leap of faith, mainstreamers/uninformed need to take, is just what the EM force can do! Unfortunately for the mainstream, the NEW evidence our technological advances are giving us are yielding mystery and surprise after surprise for the aminstream because they choose to ignore ELECTRICITY AND CHARGE SEPERATION in cosmological plasma's, though they do admit it's somthing to do with them wrascaly tangly magnetic fields/line thingies.

The EU/PC on the other hand embrace that CHARGE moving thru PLASMA create a large proportion of what we observe, and any new observation the first thing they tend to give preferentiality to is the EM force, as tested in the lab and scaled.


So yes in response to your statement
If so, then do you accept that we must find a way to get to common ground wrt logic, if this exchange is to be a science-based discussion?
Click to expand...
I agree :) Unfortunately the problem I see relates to the points I made above :boggled:

Dark matter/energy, black holes, magnatars, QSO...and so on CAN NOT be tested in the lab and plasma CAN! :eye-poppi

That's about, under my understanding, as scientific as you can get, correct?
Click to expand...
I am heartened by your response, Sol88, thanks.

To recap the key point: we agree to use logic to connect words (and terms).

We also agree that, in general, the common framework for discussion here should be science, its methods, techniques, and so on.

However, we need to spend some time discussing just what this entails, as (for example) it's clear you have a very different view of science than any scientist I know (and than most of the regulars who post in threads I post in, here in this forum).

But before we do that, we do need to get another thing clear: to what extent do you intend to post, in this section, ideas about conspiracies (to suppress research, perhaps)?

Now that may be a topic that takes some time to come to a mutual understanding of; however, it will be time very well spent ... if only because discussions will not get derailed by non-science viewpoints.

Sound OK to you, Sol88?
 
Sol88 said:
Nice tangent Reality, how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!

So, ReaLity, could you tell me HOW gravity works? Hear from you soon! :)
Click to expand...
Curvature of space - look up General Relativity. Hear from you soon :)

P.S. You should start quoting posts properly - that was not my post you quoted.
 
Sol88 said:
So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's sorted out yet.

Mercury's precession?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The precession of Mercury's perhelion was General Relativity's first big triumph! If you want details, well, I suggest you google them. But I doubt you've got the math background to handle the calculations in any detail.

Gravity probe A & B?
Click to expand...

GPA confirmed gravitational time dilation (one of GR's predictions), and GPB results are still being analyzed, but preliminary results appear to confirm frame dragging (another GR prediction).

What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon?
Click to expand...

This is a popular misconception: the event horizon itself is well understood, and GR has no problems dealing with either side of it. In fact, if you're passing through the event horizon, you won't observe any change upon crossing it (though it is a one-way trip).

messy messy messy!
Click to expand...

Well, the math is messy, but that's the only sense in which GR is "messy".
 
Sol88 said:
Dark matter/energy, black holes, magnatars, QSO...and so on CAN NOT be tested in the lab and plasma CAN! :eye-poppi

That's about, under my understanding, as scientific as you can get, correct?
Click to expand...
We cannot "test" stars, planets or galaxies in the lab either - are you advocating that we ignore them?
What we can do in the lab is verify the laws of physics. These laws then allow us to analyse observations and derive through logic what is happening.

Plasma can be tested in the lab. Gravity can be tested in the lab. Now tell me which one is more important and in what situations. :eye-poppi

Scientists know that electromagnetic phenomena like plasma will tend to have no effect over large distances (in general) because the attractive and repulsive forces balance out. The exceptions are when there is a energetic power source such as super-massive black holes, infant star systems, binary stars, etc. These give electromagnetic effects which are small scale in cosmology terms. Small scale in cosmology means less than millions of light years, large scale starts at billions of light years and in between is medium scale.

Scientist know that gravity will always have an effect over any distance because it is always an attractive force.

A major problem with EU proponents is this "science has to be verified in labs here on Earth" concept that they think is part of the scientific method. The scientific method is not only about experiments in labs. It includes people actually looking at the universe and observing things. Newton's law of gravity was not tested in labs until about 100 years after he proposed it. It was observations of the orbits of the planets that were the basis for F = G M1M2/r2.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, the math is messy, but that's the only sense in which GR is "messy".
Click to expand...

Well if we're talking about normal blackholes it would get quite messy on approach to the event horizon too - what with spaghettification and everything.
 
Sol88 said:
Nice tangent Reality,
Click to expand...

You quoted me, not Reality Check. Can you not even keep track of who you're quoting? Leave that bit which says "quote=Ziggurat;######" inside the tags, and people can track back to the post you're quoting. You can also nest quotes within quotes, which is what you should have done when you wanted to include your own words.

how amazing that way back 1797 that could work out the bigger the mass the larger the attraction!!!
Click to expand...

That isn't the amazing part at all. The amazing part is that they managed to get enough sensitivity to make their measurements with reasonable accuracy.
 
Tubbythin said:
Well if we're talking about normal blackholes it would get quite messy on approach to the event horizon too - what with spaghettification and everything.
Click to expand...

For large black holes, tidal forces near the event horizon don't have to be large for objects falling in, so you don't necessarily get spaghettification until close to the singularity.
 
Sol88 said:
So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then? Mercury's precession? Gravity probe A & B? What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon? etc etc...messy messy messy!
Click to expand...
Your lack of knowledge is definitely messy messy messy!

So lets educate you a bit:
Pioneer anomalies have never been explained by anyone - read the list of possible causes and note that GR is not mentioned. The closest thing related to GR is Modified Newtonian dynamics.

GR explains Mercury's precession (Tests of general relativity).

GR explains what happens in the other side of an event horizon (any description of a black hole will tell you this).

Gravity probe A & B are tests of GR.
Gravity Probe A
Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that gravity slows the flow of time, and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million.
Click to expand...
Gravity Probe B
Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite-based mission which launched on April 20th, 2004. The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005, and data analysis is expected to continue through 2010. Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress-energy tensor (the distribution, and especially the motion, of matter) in and near Earth, and thus to test related models in application of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Initial results confirmed the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging effect was similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by initially unmodeled effects). Work is continuing potentially to as late as March 2010, to model and account for these sources of unintended signal, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging signal if it exists at the expected level. By August 2008 the uncertainty in the frame-dragging signal had been reduced to 15%, and the December 2008 NASA report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to less than 0.5%.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
For large black holes, tidal forces near the event horizon don't have to be large for objects falling in, so you don't necessarily get spaghettification until close to the singularity.
Click to expand...

I know. That's why I inserted "normal". Admittedly I should have said "not supermassive blackholes" or something because "normal" is rather ambiguous. (Is there a term for a blackhole that isn't supermassive?)
 
edd said:
Erm, so the paper gets the gravitational situation wrong, and the electromagnetic solution is by your own admission wrong, so what are we supposed to take away from this link?
Click to expand...


A sense of confusion.

...Just that spiral structures are hard to explain with gravity. Unless the Big Bang and tonnes of Dark matter are bungled into the picture.
 
Reality Check said:
You are showing your ignorance Zeuzzz.
For a start we are talking about Birkeland currents not arbitrary filamentary structures.
Click to expand...


Birkeland currents are arbitrary filamentary structures. That scale perfectly from macroscopic, to the currents seen in plasma balls, to the birkeland currents in the aurorae, to huge stellar current, to 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae, and when you look at most galaxies shape, they obviously continue this scaling to galactic levels. As one would expect from a basic scientific method called extrapolation where no more measurements can be made.

In order for the filaments to be be Birkeland currents you need to quote the paper showing the currents in them.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by currents in them? This is a non-sequitor

There are good explanations of galactic structure including the filaments.
Click to expand...


Oh thats it, Dark Matter, and the one piece of 'direct observational evidence' for it, the Bullet cluster. A posteriori statistics spring to mind? You use this to discresdit arps work, then use it (even more extremely) to prove your Dark Gnomes.

This includes the fact that these are long term structures.
Click to expand...


Sniff sniff, whats that smell? ********.


[*]"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).
Click to expand...


Agreed. Plus planetary magnetophere shapes can tell us that anyway. We'll have to wait and see what the EU crowd come up with. Probably a new force completely that works in a different dimension to EM or gravity.

[*]Peratts model works amazingly well at showing nothing at all since it is wrong:
Click to expand...

Wrong. It shows a different model that you dislike.

[*]He ignores gravity - his simulation software is a plasma simulation package.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He includes gravity, and the mass of the stars in the galaxy. Which is what creates the dense core.

[*]He compares his simulation to photos of galaxies not actual mass distributions of galaxies.
Click to expand...

Mass distribution is roughly proportional to the brightness in the pictrues (thus why centres of galaxies generally = brightest), to its a reasonable step to take.

[*]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.
Click to expand...


Have you seen the Milky way recently? Theres a couple of huge ones right there for you.

[*]What has been detected in actual observations is dark matter. Peratts model requires that dark matter does not exist.
Click to expand...


Reference? No Bullet cluster, please. Something that is statistically significant and consistant would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
A sense of confusion.

...Just that spiral structures are hard to explain with gravity. Unless the Big Bang and tonnes of Dark matter are bungled into the picture.
Click to expand...
Actually spiral structures are easy to explain with gravity, e.g. Density wave theory and the SSPSF model.

You are a bit confused yourself:
The Big Bang has nothing to do with spiral structures.
Dark matter has nothing to do with spiral structures, just the velocity curve.
 
Sol88 said:
So how does GR explain the pioneer anomalies then?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Which means:

a) it isn't there at all
b) it's due to something other than gravity
c) it's due to gravity and GR is wrong

b) is overwhelmingly probable considering there are several rather prosaic possibilities.

Mercury's precession?
Click to expand...

What an utterly idiotic question. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is very strong evidence for GR.

Gravity probe A & B?
Click to expand...

Gravity probe A was intended to test GR, and did so. GR's prediction was confirmed by it.

GPB hasn't finished data analysis. Preliminary confirm GR's predictions.

What happens on the other side of a GR event horizon?
Click to expand...

GR answers that too - although you'll have some difficulty testing the prediction and coming back to tell anyone about it.

etc etc...messy messy messy!
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it's the most elegant and beautiful theory in the history of science.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually spiral structures are easy to explain with gravity, e.g. Density wave theory
Click to expand...


1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.

and the SSPSF model.
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with how the arms retain their structure.

You are a bit confused yourself:
The Big Bang has nothing to do with spiral structures.
Click to expand...

Why not? Where did the galaxies come from then?

Dark matter has nothing to do with spiral structures, just the velocity curve.
Click to expand...

It has to do with both when you factor in time and the complete evolution as a necessity. Instead of a snap shot model.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Birkeland currents are arbitrary filamentary structures. That scale perfectly from macroscopic, to the currents seen in plasma balls, to the birkeland currents in the aurorae, to huge stellar current, to 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae, and when you look at most galaxies shape, they obviously continue this scaling to galactic levels. As one would expect from a basic scientific method called extrapolation where no more measurements can be made.
Click to expand...

We can extrapolate the known cases of Birkeland currents to higher scales. This leaves some problems for any use in cosmology:
  • All the known cases have power sources for the current, e.g. power sockets for plasma balls, the Sun for aurorae, stars for "huge stellar current", more stars for 'elephant fingers' and "crab fingers" in distant nebulae and (one you missed) black holes for galactic jets.
    What is the power source of cosmic Birkeland currents?
  • Extrapolation gives you a hypothesis. It remains as a hypothesis until you find an actual case of a cosmic Birkeland current, i.e. one that is large scale in cosmology terms (billions of light years but millions would be OK for me).
Zeuzzz said:
Oh thats it, Dark Matter, and the one piece of 'direct observational evidence' for it, the Bullet cluster. A posteriori statistics spring to mind? You use this to discresdit arps work, then use it (even more extremely) to prove your Dark Gnomes.
Click to expand...
Read my signature and actually look at the TWO observations rather then just babbling away.
AFAIK no statistics are used (but I do not know that much about micro-gravitation lensing so there may be some averages or other stuff there).

Zeuzzz said:
Sniff sniff, whats that smell? ********.
Click to expand...
Could it be Zeuzzz's head exploding? :rolleyes:

Zeuzzz said:
Wrong. He includes gravity, and the mass of the stars in the galaxy. Which is what creates the dense core.
Click to expand...
No he does not. If he did you as the expert in all things Perratt would give a citation to the actual simulation software that he used.
I am going by memory but I recall that it is a plasma only simulation package.

Zeuzzz said:
Mass distribution is roughly proportional to the brightness in the pictrues (thus why centres of galaxies generally = brightest), to its a reasonable step to take.
Click to expand...
The brightness in the spiral arms is because the arms have concentrations of young, bright stars. This is analogous to sun spots appearing dark against the sun.
My impression is the density between the arms is only slightly less than the the density of the arms (a real astronomer may correct me).
But Peratt's simulation has zero density between the arms. This is probably a limitation of the software but means that he cannot compare the images.

Zeuzzz said:
Have you seen the Milky way recently? Theres a couple of huge ones right there for you.
Nope - and neither have you other than artist impressions.

Read the point:
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
Click to expand...
So even images of other galaxies do not have Peratt's galactic filaments.

Zeuzzz said:
Reference? No Bullet cluster, please. Something that is statistically significant and consistant would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
See my signature - no statistics are needed.

What we have in both cases are two galactic clusters that have collided. The visible matter in the clusters has separated from a bunch of dark matter.

To quote the second observation:
August 27, 2008: A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory. The observations of the cluster known as MACS J0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated the dark from ordinary matter and provide an independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster. These new results show that the Bullet Cluster is not an anomalous case.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.
Click to expand...
Ages of theories do not matter unless they have been falsified by experiments or observations. The density wave theory is still valid.

P.S. note "have greater mass density (about 10-20% greater)" for spiral arms - not the 100% predicted by Perratt.

Zeuzzz said:
Nothing to do with how the arms retain their structure.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that the spiral arms are like the arms of a starfish. They are not. They are regions of high formation of stars. The young stars make the arms brighter than their surroundings.
That Wikipedia article is a stub. You may have to (gasp! horror!) do your own research.

Zeuzzz said:
Why not? Where did the galaxies come from then?
Click to expand...
Galaxies formed after the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not the cause of the structure of spiral galaxies.

Zeuzzz said:
It has to do with both when you factor in time and the complete evolution as a necessity. Instead of a snap shot model.
Click to expand...
You have a point - dark matter may have an influence on the evolution of the spiral structures (like normal matter). Or it might not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom