Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Reality Check said:
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:
Click to expand...


So this is it? Two observations?

Arp documents well over twenty quasars connected to galaxies, both of which have different redshifts, and you and your debunker crew dismiss them as statistically insignificant. Then you expect me to take just two observations of "dark matter" and act as if this is significant in some way?

If thats the case, then I'll choose two of arps quasar galaxy allignments and put them as my signature as definitive proof that redshit is not an accurate measure of distance. Would that be okay?
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
[sarcasm]No, it's absolutely impossible to test gravity in a lab.[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...


We talking just about cavendish's method here?

Apart from the cavendish experiment, are there any other methods to test gravity in experimental ways in laboratory controlled conditions?

I mean, could anyone measure the gravitational pull of a large object like Ayers Rock?

As far as i'm aware, gravities so weak it makes such rigorous experimental proof hard to accomplish as other forces are so much stronger and so interfere with accurate measurements.

There are the experiments with lead balls (I think), which tend to give dubious results depending on who's doing them and now efficient their methods of negating EM forces are.

And then theres the lack of evidence that the gradient of g stays constant as you descend into the Earth, which is still based on the inferred total mass of the Earth only, still with little empirical evidence. When such evidence has tried to be put forward, it often deviates slightly from what newtonian gravity would predict, if I recall correctly from my previous rants in this thread.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So this is it? Two observations?

Arp documents well over twenty quasars connected to galaxies, both of which have different redshifts, and you and your debunker crew dismiss them as statistically insignificant. Then you expect me to take just two observations of "dark matter" and act as if this is significant in some way?

If thats the case, then I'll choose two of arps quasar galaxy allignments and put them as my signature as definitive proof that redshit is not an accurate measure of distance. Would that be okay?
Click to expand...
No. You are just being foolish Zeuzzz.

Arp's examples are not statistically significant because they are not statistics (even though he states probabilities). They are examples that he has cherry picked from an unknown number of observations. What people expect a competent scientist to do with a hypothesis like Arp's "QSO's are emitted from AGN galaxies" is either:
  • Find an observation that confirms this (there need only be 1), e.g. a QSO actually being ejected from an AGN galaxy.
    Or
  • If the only evidence available is alignment of QSOs to AGN galaxies then the possibility of random alignments has to be considered. That is where statistics comes in
Arp did not find an observation. He needed to collect statistics on the cases that fit his hypothesis and compare it to a null hypothesis, e.g. QSOs are emitted from dwarf galaxies (i.e. non-AGN galaxies).

There are no statistics needed in an observation:
  • How many observations of the Sun are needed before its existence becomes "statistically significant"?
  • How many observations of the orbit of a planet around the Sun are needed before its orbit is "statistically significant"?
  • How many observations of the orbits of the stars around the center of the Milky Way before the orbits become "statistically significant" enough for us to measure the mass of the object that they orbit.
  • How many observations of the separation of dark matter from visible matter in colliding galactic clusters before the separation becomes "statistically significant".
 
Reality Check said:
Arp's examples are not statistically significant because they are not statistics (even though he states probabilities). They are examples that he has cherry picked from an unknown number of observations.
Click to expand...


Just like you cherry picked the two galaxies that act as proof of dark matter? And ignore the other ones?
 
Zeuzzz said:
We talking just about cavendish's method here?

Apart from the cavendish experiment, are there any other methods to test gravity in experimental ways in laboratory controlled conditions?

I mean, could anyone measure the gravitational pull of a large object like Ayers Rock?

As far as i'm aware, gravities so weak it makes such rigorous experimental proof hard to accomplish as other forces are so much stronger and so interfere with accurate measurements.

There are the experiments with lead balls (I think), which tend to give dubious results depending on who's doing them and now efficient their methods of negating EM forces are.

And then theres the lack of evidence that the gradient of g stays constant as you descend into the Earth, which is still based on the inferred total mass of the Earth only, still with little empirical evidence. When such evidence has tried to be put forward, it often deviates slightly from what newtonian gravity would predict, if I recall correctly from my previous rants in this thread.
Click to expand...
Experiments on gravity are common. However thay all seem to use a form of the Cavendish experiment's "lead balls".
You may want to start with the experiments of the Eöt-Wash Group of the University of Washington.
Googling also gives good results. Here is an interesting web page: Bending Spacetime in the Basement.

I would not expect g to remain constant as you descend into the Earth since at the center of the Earth the force of gravity balances out (g = 0). Maybe you meant the gravitational constant G.
 
Here is a much cleaner and simpler explanation for the shape of the filaments. He gives all the math.
And this is a fundamentally different explanation which is what I mean by my mind was not going to change by learning the math for what I consider to be the "incorrect" approach. I dont understand all of this but it appears to be simpler as well as the correct approach, and I consider this math worth learning as well as I can. I am not against math used correctly.

Manifestations Of Electric Currents in Interestellar Molecular Clouds.
P. Carlquist and G. F. Gahm
http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/publications/reports/1991/3233.pdf

This paper has a few more observations and some better pictures.

The Lynds 204 Complex: Magnetic Field Controlled Evolution?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=619&epage=619&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

So I guess the question now is where is the power source???

Not that it is crucial to showing the filaments are electrical in nature but that the power source is the next step in the chain the needs explaining.

I think that if there is a feasible power source, that would go a long way towards people accepting the PU modelish.
 
About Peratt including gravity in his simulation:
I still remember reading what the name of the software he used was and that it was a plasma simulation but the source still eludes me.

ETA: Found the source!
On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas (1983) and the name of the software is SPLASH. No mention of the particles in the simulation being massive - just electromagnetic and relativistic.

The paper itself does have a couple of equations that include gravity and the gravitational constant G but this is s discussion of an axially magnetized, gravitationally bound, configuration of the model (not the software).

I note that the
3-Dimensional Particle-in-Cell Simulations of Spiral Galaxies (1990) by A.L. Perrat; W. Peter and C. M. Snell has the abstract:
The advent of 3D electromagnetic, and fully relativistic particle simulations allows a detailed study of a magnetized plasma galaxy model. When two such models are simulated, an interaction yielding results resembling observational data from double radio sources, including the emission of synchrotron radiation, are obtained. Simulation derived morphologies, radiation intensities, frequency spectra and isophote patterns are produced by the model which can be directly compared to observational data. Long-time simulation runs (of about 10 to the 9th years) show the evolution of barred spiral galaxies with large-scale bisymmetric magnetic field distributions having 100-micro-G field strengths.
Click to expand...
No mention of gravity.

P.S. This is the size of the galactic filament that Peratt predicts:
In the galactic dimensioned Birkeland current model, the width of a typical filament may be taken to be 35 kpc (~10^21m) separated from neighboring filaments by a similar distance. Since current filaments in laboratory plasmas generally have a
width/length ration on the range of 10^-3 - 10^-5 a typical 35 kpc wide filament may have an overall length between 35 Mpc and 3.5 Gpc with an average length of 350 Mpc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A summary of the flaws in Peratt's galactic model:
  • None of the at least 200 billion filaments that are 35 kpc wide and an average of 350 Mpc long have been detected (2 filaments per galaxy, at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe).
  • The model totally fails apart if dark matter is actually observed. Dark matter has actually been observed twice (see my signature).
  • Peratt compares his simulation images (positions of particles or mass distributions) to optical images. His images go to zero mass density between the arms. There is possibly an unstated cutoff value used since the images are in black and white. The arms in spiral galaxies are actually only 10-20% more dense than the gaps. They look empty in optical images because the arms are much brighter than the gaps. Therefore Peratts images should not have gaps.
  • He starts the simulation with the filaments already there. Where were they before and what formed them?
  • No mention of gravity or mass used in the SPLASH plasma particle-in-cell simulation descriptions. It may be implicit in the use of the word "particle" or not. Peratt implies gravity is not included by stating that the plasma equations in his model can be transformed to mass equations, i.e. a plasma model or a mass model but not a plasma+mass model.
 
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
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!
Click to expand...
We need to be clear about this, so let's put it to bed before moving on, shall we?

Do you accept that my post was limited to illustrating a logical inconsistency?

If you don't accept that, then we need to work out why ... because that's what I intended.

The logical inconsistency itself comes about as follows:

* you start with an absolute statement ("Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results") - there are no qualifiers, nothing limiting the scope of the claim

* logically, then, the claim can be shown to be false (that's a term in logic, and my comment is about only the logic) if a single counter-example can be proposed (there may, of course, be other ways to show - logically - that it is false)

* a counter-example was provided, therefore the claim is falsified.

Do you see why - within the scope of this example - what Arp may or may not feel is irrelevant? If not, then we need to work on that.

Do you see why - within the scope of this example - that what you read, whether in many sources or just one, is irrelevant (except where you read that Arp's results had been published, pace TPOD)? If not, then we need to work on that.

The whole point is the is DOUBT as you accept but it could be eh!

[...]
Click to expand...
No; the whole point of my post was to illustrate a logical inconsistency.

Sol88, we really, really need to agree on this FIRST.

Then we can clarify the conspiracy/suppression/political shenanigans/ego/power struggles/etc parts, in respect of their role in discussions here.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So this is it? Two observations?

Arp documents well over twenty quasars connected to galaxies, both of which have different redshifts, and you and your debunker crew dismiss them as statistically insignificant. Then you expect me to take just two observations of "dark matter" and act as if this is significant in some way?

If thats the case, then I'll choose two of arps quasar galaxy allignments and put them as my signature as definitive proof that redshit is not an accurate measure of distance. Would that be okay?
Click to expand...
I addressed the question of the causes of redshift in the spectra of astronomical objects in this JREF Forum thread.

I also addressed the observational evidence for cold dark matter in another JREF Forum thread (would you like a link?).

In both, the logical chains are much, much stronger than your one-liners Z, as I think you well appreciate.

Back to "filaments" ... to what extent are you using the term "filaments" to describe the structure seen in visual waveband images of some galaxies (a sub-class of spirals, perhaps)?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Just like you cherry picked the two galaxies that act as proof of dark matter? And ignore the other ones?
Click to expand...

We knew about dark matter long before the bullet cluster. That was as direct an observation of it as is possible short of detecting its decay products and correlating them with density (which may have already happened). But the evidence available before was already overwhelming.
 
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...

I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.
These discharges are equivalent to lightning, they do not flow along the magnetic field, they just search the path of least resistance inside the ball and discharge.
It is a complete mystery to me that proponents of EU don't understand how a plasma ball works.
 
tusenfem said:
It is a complete mystery to me that proponents of EU don't understand how a plasma ball works.
Click to expand...

The EU proponents on this forum don't understand Maxwell's equations, let alone plasma balls. Most of them seem to be kids that read some crank website somewhere and got the idea it would be fun to pretend to know physics by throwing fancy-sounding terms around and attacking the "mainstream".

The only interesting thing about EU is the psychology of the people obsessed with it. I have no idea how or why this particular dumb idea, out the huge spectrum of dumb ideas, has apparently succeeded in attracting so many adherents. My guess is there's a negative feedback mechanism at work...

Zeuzzz or "Sol", can you enlighten us? Where did you first hear about EU/PC, and why did you become so obsessed with it? Are you interested in learning "mainstream" physics too? Or is it just that you draw some enjoyment from feeling like an iconoclast?
 
We need to be clear about this, so let's put it to bed before moving on, shall we?

Do you accept that my post was limited to illustrating a logical inconsistency?

If you don't accept that, then we need to work out why ... because that's what I intended.
Click to expand...

No I do not, your post wrt this subject is very limited! :rolleyes:

Clear on what exactly? :confused: logical inconsistencies? :confused:

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?

This is your beef against the merits of the EU/PC? :confused:

For avoidance of doubt here are all three papers I could dig up in chronological order on H.Arp after he was denied Telescope time

January1998 QUASARS AROUND THE SEYFERT GALAXY NGC 3516

ABSTRACT
We report redshift measurements of Ðve X-rayÈemitting blue stellar objects located less than 12@ from
the X-ray Seyfert galaxy NGC 3516. We Ðnd these quasars to be distributed along the minor axis of the
galaxy and to show a very good correlation between their redshift and their angular distance from NGC
3516. Moreover, the redshifts of these Ðve quasars are 0.33, 0.69, 0.93, 1.40, and 2.10, which are very near
the peaks of the redshift periodicity distribution (i.e., z\0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, and 1.96). All these observed
properties strikingly conÐrm, around this single example of a Seyfert, the composite picture derived from
previous physical associations of quasars with low-redshift active galaxies.
Click to expand...

February 2002 ARGUMENTS FOR A HUBBLE CONSTANT NEAR H0 = 55

ABSTRACT
Recent analyses of Cepheid distances to spiral galaxies have led to the announcement of a Hubble constant
of H0 ¼ 72 8 km s1 Mpc1. The new Cepheid distances, however, show that there are numerous redshift
distances with large excesses that cannot be due to peculiar velocities. Ignoring these discordant redshifts, if
the Hubble constant is calibrated with Cepheid distances of low-redshift spirals, then a value near H0 ¼ 55 is
obtained. Use of independent distance criteria such as Tully-Fisher and group membership verifies this value
and leads to three conclusions: (1) the peculiar velocities of galaxies in space are characteristically small;
(2) Sc companions to normal Sb galaxies tend to be less luminous, with younger stellar populations and small
amounts of nonvelocity redshift; and (3) ScI and other purportedly overluminous spiral galaxies have large
amounts of intrinsic redshift.
Click to expand...

October 2004 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 800 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 ¼ 2:114. It is
also an ultraluminous X-ray source with LX ¼ 1:5 ; 1040 ergs s1. 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...

I state again, I am not here to defend Arp, as you say
Do you see why - within the scope of this example - what Arp may or may not feel is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

but his work is not irrelevant! :rolleyes:

This quote sums up my feelings,

Proponents of alternative theories are looking for the kind of revolution Kuhn discussed. “How . . . do scientists respond to the awareness of an anomaly in the fit between theory and nature?” he asked. A revolution in viewpoint grows out of the sense that “an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way.”
Click to expand...

Interesting read if your up to it. Getting Past the Big Bang


So the baby's in bed now! :faint:
 
Last edited:
I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.
These discharges are equivalent to lightning, they do not flow along the magnetic field, they just search the path of least resistance inside the ball and discharge.
It is a complete mystery to me that proponents of EU don't understand how a plasma ball works.
Click to expand...

It's no mystery!

Though the may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

electromagnetism_simple_275x300.jpg


The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths that may develop in a plasma
Click to expand...

And there tendency to braid into pairs.

filament.gif


Interesting eh! :eye-poppi

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale! :jaw-dropp

And a real big one, but still following the same laws as the plasma globe jobs!

Cygnus-loop.gif

Cygnus-loop

Or 'cos your the expert! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
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 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!
Click to expand...

So because an uncited source says Arp has been denied publication, you say something wrong?

Okay.

So then you say doubt has been cast, but you don't understand the basis for casting the doubt?

Welcome to the JREF, when you make a claim you will be asked to support it.

So which part of Arp's work casts doubt upon the cosmological redshift?
 
Sol88 said:
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?
Click to expand...

that there is a source of anomalous redshift?

Please humor me, thought experiments are nice. Data and observations are better.

This is the JREF, if you want to discuss things, you will be asked to support them.

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data


You made the claim that the cosmological redshift has been refuted. The QSO/galaxy association is possible but currently it doesn't even cast a shadow of doubt.

What evidence is there that it is not just a random alignment?

Now pony up.
 
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...


Hi Zeuzzz, you haven't shown us more than a bunny picture, you can do better than that.

First, do the spirals exist as more than a positional alignment? You do knwo our sun is not fixed in it's spiral arm and that it passes through them?
 
Sol88 said:
Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale! :jaw-dropp

Or 'cos your the expert, am I wrong?
Click to expand...

You're wrong. :jaw-dropp

A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines. The image you posted shows precisely the opposite (and at least the first image has nothing to do with plasma, by the way).
 
The only interesting thing about EU is the psychology of the people obsessed with it. I have no idea how or why this particular dumb idea, out the huge spectrum of dumb ideas, has apparently succeeded in attracting so many adherents. My guess is there's a negative feedback mechanism at work...
Click to expand...

Flip reverse and back atya!

The only interesting thing about BB is the psychology of the people obsessed with it. I have no idea how or why this particular dumb idea, out the huge spectrum of dumb ideas, has apparently succeeded in attracting so many adherents. My guess is there's a negative feedback mechanism at work...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Just like you cherry picked the two galaxies that act as proof of dark matter? And ignore the other ones?
Click to expand...


Zeuzzz, you should be ashamed of yourself! This is below you and you are resorting to semantic/philosophical ragument.

It is NOT the alignment of the galaxies that is the possible evidence that supports the dark matter hypothesis.

You are just whining here, please don't shame yourself so.

Discuss the data, not some silly analogy that dosn't apply. What about the two galaxy interactions is considered to show the possibility of dark matter?

It is not the alignment.
 
So which part of Arp's work casts doubt upon the cosmological redshift?
Click to expand...

[sarcasm]None of it! It's in totally agreement with the Hubble constant[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

Or 'cos your the expert, am I wrong?
You're wrong.

A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines. The image you posted shows precisely the opposite (and at least the first image has nothing to do with plasma, by the way).
Click to expand...

Say whaaa? Tripper!

Do you know what's being discussed here?

Cos maybe you could show your ignorance on the subject and tell me what happens when an electric current passes thru a plasma?

What should we look for?
 
Sol88 said:
[sarcasm]None of it! It's in totally agreement with the Hubble constant[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So, you resort to a non-response.

i ask you in truth because I would like to talk about it.

If you are here to have a tantrum, then please act like a toddler.

I ask because I did look at what Arp has to say.

From what i can tell, there is not a compelling case at this time that the Arp galaxy/QSO association is more than a product of sample bias and sample error.

So while in the 1960s and 1970s when the QSO phenomena was new, these were likely things to talk about, I am asking what is the basis of the Arp association? It has been thirty years now.

Does that bother you?

That is what is done here on the JREF, examine the basis of a claim.

At this time the Arp galaxy/QSO association is rather unfounded, does it bother you that I politely ask what the basis of the association is?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081115.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081104.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080731.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080721.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080430.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071101.html


So look here, these are all these great pictures that reference he Arp catalouge of galaxies. So his work is know, commonly referenced. he is a great astronomer. But the theory that there are QSOs associated with these galaxies, that si what is not substantiated by the data. So is having a tantrum your usual debate style, or do you want to disucss this?

Here is the deal, there is a way, and a rather cheap one as well to establish control groups for the QSO/Arp galaxy association. Then Arp can show that is association rises above the level of noise.

Samples:
1. QSO association with random points on the sky.
2. QSO associations with non Arp catalogue galaxies.
3. OSO associations with Arp galaxies.

By comparing 3) to 1) & 2) it can be determined if the Arp assication is more than random alignment.
 
Last edited:
Sure uh huh, the Cygnus loop?

And so how is the shock wave of a stellar explosion supposed to demonstrate a Birkeland current?

Have you looked at the whole structure of the Cygnus loop?
Click to expand...

You know I may be wrong! I was not aware of a shock wave there, maybe you could tell the mechanism on how that works? How does a stellar explosion cause the observed structure?

I in my ignorance, just thought it LOOKED like an electric current passing thru a plasma!
 
Sol88 said:
It's no mystery!

Though the may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

[
Click to expand...

Ahh well, Sollyboy, you have not learned anything since you got banned from BAUT, not surprising.

You claim Birkeland currents, are flowing in a plasma ball.
You quoted from the wiki page about Birkeland currents:

Wiki & Tusenfem said:
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...

You now say: Though the may not be following a magnetic field line

Ehhhhhh, Hello!!!!!!, can anybody pick up the clue phone??????????????

Birkeland currents are magnetic field aligned currents, discharges in a plasma ball are NOT magnetic field aligned (just like lightning is not magnetic field aligned) and thus they are not Birkeland currents, not even in the broadest interpretation of the term Birkeland current.

Sol88 said:
And there tendency to braid into pairs.
Click to expand...

Which is NEVER seen in a plasma ball.
You are such a fraud, you just change definitions as you like it. No wonder the EU/EC/ES/PU/PC community cannot get their story straight.
 
Last edited:
From what i can tell, there is not a compelling case at this time that the Arp galaxy/QSO association is more than a product of sample bias and sample error.
Click to expand...

Fine that's your view, not mine! I believe from said papers there is a case at this time, done!
 
Tusenfem, 'ol mate?

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.

You know a little about it a believe!

Enlighten us all poor misunderstanding souls :rolleyes:

No please do!
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
The only interesting thing about EU is the psychology of the people obsessed with it. I have no idea how or why this particular dumb idea, out the huge spectrum of dumb ideas, has apparently succeeded in attracting so many adherents. My guess is there's a negative feedback mechanism at work...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah the EU/EC/ES/PU/PC proponents are a special breed. Like you see here and as could be seen on BAUT, no real discussion is possible with Sol88. He will just throw loads and loads of text and images and quotes at you, even if they are wrong, and the normal people have to try and set it all straight (e.g. the Birkeland current thingy right now, I wonder what MM is thinking about Sol88 's "help").

This is sort of trying to win the discussion by heaping up false evidence and hope not everything can be set straight and thus ... you win. yeahhhh

Then Zeuzzz is a whole different story. He seems to want to understand stuff sometimes, and it even sounds like he "learns" something. But then another crackpot will come along (in this case Sol88) and the switch is flipped back and the old nonsense comes spouting out again.

Ah well, at least I am normal! Now, if you don't mind I have to adjust my tinfoil hat.
 
So look here, these are all these great pictures that reference he Arp catalouge of galaxies. So his work is know, commonly referenced. he is a great astronomer. But the theory that there are QSOs associated with these galaxies, that si what is not substantiated by the data. So is having a tantrum your usual debate style, or do you want to disucss this?
Click to expand...

Are you stating that all these galaxies have QSO's associated with them?
 
Before you go spouting off like over on the BAUT forum, answer the question!

I bet you won't just go off on some rant again!

The question is simple.

Tusenfem, 'ol mate?

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma?

You know a little about it a believe!

Enlighten us all poor misunderstanding souls

No please do!
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
I in my ignorance, just thought it LOOKED like an electric current passing thru a plasma!
Click to expand...

And that is the whole problem of the EU/ES/EC/PU/PC defined in one single sentence: just thought it LOOKED like.
 
How's that answer going Tusenfem?

So I can visualize it a bit clearer could you try an add some diagrams or picture with your explanation.
 
Sol88 said:
What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.
Click to expand...

Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:
  • plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)
  • instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)
  • double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)
  • filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)

That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.
 
Sol88 said:
How's that answer going Tusenfem?

So I can visualize it a bit clearer could you try an add some diagrams or picture with your explanation.
Click to expand...

Sol88 I know you are an obnoxious jerk, but I might just be away from the PC so, go frakkin answer question put to you for real, like I just did for you. Get a life!

Sol88 said:
Before you go spouting off like over on the BAUT forum, answer the question!

I bet you won't just go off on some rant again!
Click to expand...

I never ran off at BAUT, but at some point there is just so much stupidity one can take for a week or so.
And ranting is your way of answering questions, and that be unedumacated rants to!
 
Last edited:
Sol88
I bet you won't just go off on some rant again!

The question is simple.

Question:Quote:
Tusenfem, 'ol mate?

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma?

You know a little about it a believe!

Enlighten us all poor misunderstanding souls

No please do!
Click to expand...

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
How's that answer going Tusenfem?

So I can visualize it a bit clearer could you try an add some diagrams or picture with your explanation.
Click to expand...
Sol88 I know you are an obnoxious jerk, but I might just be away from the PC so, go frakkin answer question put to you for real, like I just did for you. Get a life!
Click to expand...

OK, I'm sorry Tusenfem, It's no use gettn narkie at each other, does nuthn for the thread, so truce ay! :)

Perhaps you could help me? Aren't you a plasma physicist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom