Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

Which it doesn't. How many times do you have to be told that?

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

If I'm a dim wit, you're a vegetable.

Sol88 said:
So the metal is subjected to a magnetic field to "make" it magnetic even AFTER the magnetic field is removed!

That's one way to magnetize a ferromagnet, yes. But it also happens spontaneously at low temperatures. If you knew any physics at all, you'd know that that's is one of the most basic examples of a second-order phase transition, studied in every statistical physics course.

My original statement was "Magnetic fields require an electric current".

Click on the hyperlink of external magnetic field and you get this

Magnetic fields surround and are created by electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields.

Click to expand...

Get it!!

How stupid is it possible to be? Did you not read past the first comma in that sentence? Did you not notice that there are two other possibilities - which by the way are precisely the examples I gave you many posts back, as you would recognize if you had any clue what you're talking about?

You're making yourself look really, really, really dumb....

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

!

And on the fridge magnet thing so it never rears it ugly head again in our discussions

reality check wrote:

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

Of which this statement is extremely important from the link

All permanent magnets (materials that can be magnetized by an external magnetic field and which remain magnetized after the external field is removed) are either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic, as are the metals that are noticeably attracted to them.

So the metal is subjected to a magnetic field to "make" it magnetic even AFTER the magnetic field is removed!

My original statement was

"Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Click on the hyperlink of external magnetic field and you get this

A magnetic field is a vector field which can exert a magnetic force on moving electric charges and on magnetic dipoles (such as permanent magnets). When placed in a magnetic field, magnetic dipoles tend to align their axes parallel to the magnetic field. Magnetic fields surround and are created by electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields. Magnetic fields also have their own energy, with an energy density proportional to the square of the field intensity.

Get it!!

wonder how all that remnant surface magnetism we see on Mars, our Moon...etc etc came about?

So for clarification of facts I said nothing about the special properties of ferromagnatisims ability to retain it's magnetism after the ELECTRIC CURRENT has been turned off! And I consead DRD it may have been to broad a generalization to use "Magnetic fields require an electric current" in this context, but for arguments sake, I'm I correct?

As per "Electric currents make Magnetic fields" or "Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Your choice.

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist.

or is that your final answer?

Are we sweet on the, not all magnetic fields need an electric current (either down a wire or thru a plasma!) to manifest?

Or ya going to call the logical inconsistencies contained in that whole red herring carry on sound scientific evidence against the EU/PC idea?

Zeuzzz · Mar 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
I'm a dim wit

Couldn't have put it better myself.

* Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?

Noooooooooot.

* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

Yeeeeeeeees.

* Does this make it correct?

Dont ask me. Ask its proponents. Lerner/Peratt being the obvious ones. I wonder if anyone here has bothered to actually talk to them or ask them for their recent opinions on the status of plasma cosmology? Their emails are easily found online, and I'm sure they would reply to any queries, or even sign up here to discuss anything if asked.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

SI wrote:

That's one way to magnetize a ferromagnet, yes. But it also happens spontaneously at low temperatures. If you knew any physics at all, you'd know that that's is one of the most basic examples of a second-order phase transition, studied in every statistical physics course.

Happen often does it?

Why on Earth would that be relevant, bar the words magnetism, in a discussion on the flow of electrons thru a plasma and that it generates a magnetic field!! I mean Reality check wrote:

Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism

Are we also clear on the flow of charged particles thru a plasma is an electric current and it generates magnetic fields, among other more exotic stuff?

Which, Tusenfems, has stated generates certain characteristics, as per standard scientific method.

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Happen often does it?

Yes, all the time.

And of course refrigerator magnets are only one of a huge number of examples. Just about every elementary particle has an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment. No electric current in sight.

Why on Earth would that be relevant, bar the words magnetism, in a discussion on the flow of electrons thru a plasma and that it generates a magnetic field!!

You started this, not I. You gave a list of "facts" about physics. As I pointed out many of them were wrong, and you decided to pursue this one for some reason. In the process, you've revealed your near-total ignorance of physics (as if it wasn't already obvious), your inability to read or comprehend what you've read, and generally made yourself look like an utter buffoon (my favorite is when you quoted a sentence which gave several examples of how to generate B fields other than electric currents.... as evidence that the only way to generate B fields is with electric currents - and then insulted other posters for their stupidity).

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Looking at the list again we see some common ground emerging;

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES

Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE

Plasma can be “cellular”. YES

Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES

Dust can become a Plasma. YES

Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow)

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I later tried to clear that statement up, what I tried to convey is when any (Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects) all or some of those three do something we can detect it in the EM spectrum.
which was a YES as well.

I'd like to progress this thread to it's logical conclusion in a timely fashion and to make things easy, which ones are not correct?

This is to aid me 'ol cobber DRD get a handle on the definitions, terms, spelling and grammar problems I has got?

Bearing in mind the whole ferro-magnatisim, FAC's and plasma globe filament episode.

While I admit a few of those points may not have been explained well enough before posting, leaving a little to much Grey area. If you read the list and you pick any you think I've misunderstood, I'd be more than happy to show my line of reasoning!

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

So for clarification of facts I said nothing about the special properties of ferromagnatisims ability to retain it's magnetism after the ELECTRIC CURRENT has been turned off! And I consead DRD it may have been to broad a generalization to use "Magnetic fields require an electric current" in this context, but for arguments sake, I'm I correct?

DRD did you read this?

Might clear up some confusion!

Tim Thompson · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
I'd like to progress this thread to it's logical conclusion in a timely fashion and to make things easy, which ones are not correct?

In that case you are going about it all wrong, and your list only makes matters more confusing, not less. Electromagnetism, electric currents, plasmas and plasma physics are all deeply involved in the standard, mainstream physics and cosmology, just as they are in your alternate view.

So what you should really be doing is pointing out observational evidence which will differentiate between the claims of plasma cosmology, electric universe, and standard cosmology. So what if the universe is mostly plasma, standard astrophysics and cosmology already take that into account in great detail. How does the treatment differ in your view from the mainstream? What specific observed phenomena are wrongly explained in the mainstream view, but correctly explained in your view? And try to keep the list short, or you just add to the confusion.

If you really want to progress to a conclusion, start at the top. Pick the one observed phenomenon that you think is the strongest evidence that verifies your view, and at the same time the strongest evidence that falsifies mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Tim T wrote:

In that case you are going about it all wrong, and your list only makes matters more confusing, not less. Electromagnetism, electric currents, plasmas and plasma physics are all deeply involved in the standard, mainstream physics and cosmology, just as they are in your alternate view.

Is the list correct Tim? Without agreement on those FACTS I have no theory

Any errors I've made?

If you really want to progress to a conclusion, start at the top. Pick the one observed phenomenon that you think is the strongest evidence that verifies your view, and at the same time the strongest evidence that falsifies mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

Exactly want I'd like to do, but without agreement on the terms, definitions and everybody involved in this discussion understanding of plasma, I fear we will run into more pointless tail chasing exercises!

I mean look at the Ferrromagnetism posts :boggled:

And the post on the characteristics of a current thru a plasma with or without a field line! :boggled:

And yes I agree that's the best way, when we agree on the terms and everyone's understanding of plasma phenomena, then I maybe able to concentrate on one particular favorite of mine, well two closely related one's actually

Sound fair.

First those mistake's in the list!

Which one do you not agree on Tim, wholly or partially?

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
If ya going to have a go Potzy, get ya facts straight first! I NEVER said MAY or MAY NOT follow a field line wrt a plasma filament inside a plasma globe!!!

Ahhhh, but what you forget is that this whole discussion about a plasma ball and Birkeland currents was started up by your good friend and confident Zeuzzz. Here is where that started with Zeuzzz telling us that:

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 ...

That is where the link started between plasma balls and Birkeland currents. Then you, Sol88, came up with the following answer on my mystification about why EU/EC/ES/PU/PC proponents would say the two are the same (well at least according to Zeuzzz) in this message

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!

Well, electricity in a plasma, so what? The discussion was about Birkeland currents, which flow in the magnetosphere along the magnetic field lines, which is not the case in a plasma ball. And thus the whole stupid comment by Zeuzzz is moot, it should have stopped there.

Sol88 said:
And you are correct sunshine, we were NOT talking about FAC's I was stating the properties of a current flowing thru a plasma are, as you agreed,

But that was not the discussion, you diverted away from it, suddenly wanting to discuss general currents (but still in the Birkeland discussion frame).

Sol88 said:
Then I said If a field line was add to the equation you could call it a FAC, which you also agreeded to

So I am under NO misunderstanding on the hows and whys here, though you seem to be confused!

But still you have not given an answer about what conditions are on the magnetic field in order to produce field aligned currents. Does it always happen? Can I just sprinkle a bit of magnetic fairy dust in the plasma and then all the currents that may or may not flow in the plasma will become field aligned?

Sol88 said:
I mean you seem very slow today me 'ol mate, do you understand what the first picture in that post represents?

Yeah, it's my old age and overweight that makes me slow.

The first pic was a wire with current and circular magnetic fields around it, according to the right hand rule as someone would emphasize.

Sol88 said:
Replace the wire with a flow of electrons thru a plasma? Whats different than what a stated here: t's no mystery!

Though they 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!

One of the differences is that in a plasma a current is NOT guided, it can go anywhere and does not have to follow the line that is does have to follow when it is in a wire. A rather significant difference I would say. That is why the discharges (in the plasma ball or in lightning) are so jagged, the current searches for the least resistance.

Sol88 said:
I'll reiterate they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Do you UNDERSTAND? Separate for a minute your FAC/Birkeland current rant and read the question?

I understand that you want to have "electrical wires" in a unmagnetized plasma.

Sol88 said:
If we add a field line to that same flow of electrons thru a plasma, very basically we call it a FAC!!! And all we have done is added a field line!!!

Really?? you just add a field line and then whammy the current will flow along the field? So, what kind of magnetic field are you putting in there? How about the auroral electrojet, where the current is flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field? Oh boy, you really need to learn a lot still about plasmas and magnetic fields.

Sol88 said:
On the money my friend! Is that not wot a Birkeland current does?

I realize there is more to, like that field line is connect to something as you suggest

Indeed, Birkeland currents have a magnetic field shoved down their throats, however, I was not thinking like you that the magnetic field needs to be connected or something. Neither am I suggesting that in what I wrote: Just putting in a magnetic field does not do anything, don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents? Your understanding of Birkeland currents is, at the least, flawed.

What does the magnetic field need to make the currents flow along it, now what would that be?

Sol88 said:
I understand the conditions well enough thanks!

Apparently not, because I have not seen you writing it down yet.

Sol88 said:
Like the ones that connect the Sun and the Earth!!!! Or Jupiter and Io?

Well, the Io flux tube admittedly does adhere to the condition that I am hoping for you will write down at some point.

Sol88 said:
You totally missed the point with your knicker twisting EU idiots don't know the difference between a plasma ball filament and a FAC rant. I made a clear distinction between a flow of electricity thru a plasma in general and it's characteristics!

You add a field line to a plasma ball filament and that's a field aligned current!

Oh, Sol88, you know this is not the first discussion on the EU bunk, neither here nor on other boards, and invariably all the proponents of this idea can never come up with any real models about anything, because they do not understand plasma physics. They think that "oh charges, flowing, current, magnetic field, model!!! YEAH!!" If it only were so simple

Now lemme see, a plasma ball is a model for lightning. There are field lines in the Earth's atmosphere, why does lightning not follow these field lines? Why are lightning bolts not Birkeland currents?

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
This is my understanding of a PLASMA/Plasma/plasma

Definition of a plasma

Although a plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, a definition can have three criteria:[8][9][10]

1. The plasma approximation: Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby charged particles, rather than just interacting with the closest particle (these collective effects are a distinguishing feature of a plasma). The plasma approximation is valid when the number of charge carriers within the sphere of influence (called the Debye sphere whose radius is the Debye screening length) of a particular particle are higher than unity to provide collective behaviour of the charged particles. The average number of particles in the Debye sphere is given by the plasma parameter, "Λ" (the Greek letter Lambda).
2. Bulk interactions: The Debye screening length (defined above) is short compared to the physical size of the plasma. This criterion means that interactions in the bulk of the plasma are more important than those at its edges, where boundary effects may take place. When this criterion is satisfied, the plasma is quasineutral.
3. Plasma frequency: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is large compared to the electron-neutral collision frequency (measuring frequency of collisions between electrons and neutral particles). When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics.

Click to expand...

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

Tubbythin · Mar 27, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

The Big Bang had no funding at all. It happened about 13.7 billion years before anyone invented currency (at least here on Earth).

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Couldn't have put it better myself.

* Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?

Noooooooooot.

* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

Yeeeeeeeees.

* Does this make it correct?

Dont ask me. Ask its proponents. Lerner/Peratt being the obvious ones. I wonder if anyone here has bothered to actually talk to them or ask them for their recent opinions on the status of plasma cosmology? Their emails are easily found online, and I'm sure they would reply to any queries, or even sign up here to discuss anything if asked.

If you would bother studying some of the stuff that even Lerner and Peratt write, you might even add constructively to the discussion.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Like the ones that connect the Sun and the Earth!!!! Or Jupiter and Io?

Click to expand...

Well, the Io flux tube admittedly does adhere to the condition that I am hoping for you will write down at some point.

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

As Io circles around Jupiter and through the plasma torus, an enormous electrical current flows between them. Approximately 2 trillion watts of power is generated. The current follows the magnetic field lines to Jupiter's surface where it creates lightning in the upper atmosphere. The first black and white Hubble Space Telescope image (top) shows the flux tube, where Io and Jupiter are linked by an electrical current of charged particles. Volcanic emissions from Io flow along Jupiter's magnetic field lines, through Io, to Jupiter's north and south magnetic poles. In the second black and white image, auroral emissions are visible at Jupiter's north and south poles. The ultraviolet image below shows how the structure and appearance of Jupiter's aurora changes at it rotates.

Is that Ok?

Would you agree on the 2trillion watts as a ball park figure?

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Oh, Sol88, you know this is not the first discussion on the EU bunk, neither here nor on other boards, and invariably all the proponents of this idea can never come up with any real models about anything, because they do not understand plasma physics. They think that "oh charges, flowing, current, magnetic field, model!!! YEAH!!" If it only were so simple

My friend it is simple!

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

So space is not filled by plasma then, tusenfem?

Is it dark matter that I'm nit taking into account?

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

Would you agree on the 2trillion watts as a ball park figure?

You don't have to explain the Io or Europa flux tube to me, I worked on them. I know the currents that should flow there etc. etc. etc.

And what do you want to say here?

Do you or do you not know what condition a magnetic field has to have to make currents mainly parallel to the field? THAT is the question, and the answer is sooooooooooooooooooooo simple, but apparently you have problems giving or finding the answer.

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
tusenfem said:

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

Click to expand...

So space is not filled by plasma then, tusenfem?

Is it dark matter that I'm nit taking into account?

And here is Sol88 again putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. Did you see me say here that I think space is not filled with plasma? (by the way you say that space IS plasma). I was just bouncing YOUR question back to you, after I basically gave you the definition of a plasma.

Apparently, you can only discuss things by moving away from the topic, by putting words in peoples mouth, making strange conjectures. This is soooo tiresome.

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
My friend it is simple!

Really? That is why there are so many handwaving articles on thunderbolts without any support whatsoever.

How well versed are you in plasma physics, Sol88, how long have you studied it, did you go to college, or did you just skim the Wiki pages?

Dancing David · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Are you stating that all these galaxies have QSO's associated with them?

Depends on what you mean by association. I am pointing out that there is no suppressions of Arp's material as someone claimed, and that Hubble certainly has taken images of Arp galaxies.

The statistics that Arp uses are not the ones that he could use and therefore his results are not meaningful. The same sue of statitis's in all sorts of fields would have held back epidemuiology to the last century.

There is no case for Arp galaxy/QSO association. No more than ice cream causes drowning.

Dancing David · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
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!

That is a rather weak case for establishing PC as a theory, just because something looks like it might be something? The pages I linked to sure can lead you to ane xplanation of shockwaves and planetary spheres.

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data

Dancing David · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Please see post 1630

I asked what basis there was to claim Arp has made a valid claim in the face of possible sample bias and error, you resorted to sarcasm instead of addressing the issue. Not a very good tactic.

Now you just say that you believe there is a case, despite the fact that the sample bias issue has not been addressed.

So no refutation of BBE/cosmological redshift? Just your belief?

Not much of a case, welcome to the JREF.

Dancing David · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
DRD

All right I may have made a cock up, As far as I knew it was telescope time.

But are you saying he was denied puplication rights as well?

Oooh he didn't get the scope time he wanted.

That is teh basis of a conspiracy theory?

Him and 99.999% of all astronomers at some point.

Maybe you should try presenting your

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data

Quoting Thuderbolts of Woo is not much of a demonstration of PC as a theory.

There was no supression of Arp's work, he was not denied because of his theory.

Dancing David · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Dude you are missing the point here, but as I'm a slow learner could you explain this statement from your quoted wiki page

How is the external magnetic field made?

So drop the fridge magnet thing eh!!

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

Sol88, you made the statement, without qualifiers that magnetism required an electric current.

You should learn to use the quote button and remember that your wrote it.

Welcome to the JREF, we all have to defend our thinking all the time.

try using the following to establish PC as a theory:

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

DD wrote

That is a rather weak case for establishing PC as a theory, just because something looks like it might be something? The pages I linked to sure can lead you to an explanation of shockwaves and planetary spheres.

Maybe DAncing D u missed the list

or Tusenfem

How well versed are you in plasma physics, Sol88, how long have you studied it, did you go to college, or did you just skim the Wiki pages?

Versed enough to know about the basics as already noted

posted here again for posters to mull over

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES

Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE

Plasma can be “cellular”. YES

Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES

Dust can become a Plasma. YES

Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow thru a plasma, nothing to do with Ferromagnetisim!)

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I later tried to clear that statement up, what I tried to convey is when any (Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects) all or some of those three do something we can detect it in the EM spectrum.
which was a YES as well.

Point one still remains unanswered by Tusenfem, can space be considered filled with plasma or just plasma in space?

I do not need the maths, to know this answer.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

try using the following to establish PC as a theory:

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data

DD, read the list in post 1705!

tell me where my logic has gone out the window.

After you've read the list have a look at these pretty pictures

I'm think'n plasma and what it can do according to my list, not gravity! How would a force that is only attractive, be able to cause those structures?

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Point one still remains unanswered by Tusenfem, can space be considered filled with plasma or just plasma in space?

Incomprehensible gibberish.

By the way, while it's true that there are no ferromagnetic materials in space (as far as I know), that was simply the example you chose to fixate on. Space is full of electromagnetic radiation. Do you know what EM radiation is? I didn't think so... it's oscillating electric and magnetic fields. And guess what - there are no currents (or even charges) in sight. EM radiation can and does exist in a perfect vacuum.

Moreover, your favorite substance - plasma - is capable of amplifying magnetic fields by huge factors, again with no significant currents involved.

Zeuzzz · Mar 27, 2009

tusenfem said:
If you would bother studying some of the stuff that even Lerner and Peratt write, you might even add constructively to the discussion.

If you would go back and read all the roughly 1600 or so posts in this thread you would find out that I have already discussed, at great length, Lerner and Peratts various PC related theories. You've joined this discussion too late i'm afraid my friend. If you want any specifics then I'll be more than happy to trawl back through the thread and find what you are looking for.

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
I'm think'n plasma and what it can do according to my list, not gravity! How would a force that is only attractive, be able to cause those structures?

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFlzyxSQhTc&feature=related

That's a simulation that includes only gravity, and yet produces all sorts of structures (some filamentary, some not) on all scales in the simulation. And it matches observations quite closely, because gravity is the only relevant force on cosmological scales.

To understand the origin of things like the spiral arms of galaxies, one obviously needs to include other forces besides gravity - because every single one of those images was taken using EM radiation, and therefore what you see are the luminous parts and not the dark parts.

Of course that's not a problem - it's only internet nutjobs that ignore the laws of physics they don't like. Professionals of course include them all, or make controlled approximations when it's valid to do so.

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
DD wrote
Maybe DAncing D u missed the list
or Tusenfem

Seen the list, whaddayawantwiddit?

lemme go through it, I put my answers in bold

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE NO, space is space, plasma is plasma, plasma can fill a space though

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE NO, 99% of all matter in the universe is plasma

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES correct

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES sometimes in special cases

Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES correct

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES plasma can be described by the theories of plasma physics.

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE self organized is a rather difficult term, it means different things to different people

Plasma can be “cellular”. YES okay

Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES okay

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES yes

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES yes

Dust can become a Plasma. YES nah not really, one can have dusty plasmas in which the dust is a minor component. the heavier the particles get the more difficult it is to get them to do collective behaviour

Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow thru a plasma, nothing to do with Ferromagnetisim!) in that limited definition of magnetism okay I guess

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES not exactly only when the positive and negative particles flow at different speed, such that there is a NET charge flow

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE not in my magnetic cleanliness room you won't

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES yes

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general no not in general, there are major exceptions. I guess I have to give the solution because your knowledges it too little to be of any use. When the magnetic field strength is too small then the thermal velocities of the particles can easily overcome the Lorentz force, and thus are NOT magnetized and THUS do not need to follow the field lines. On the other hand, there is the auroral electrojet, where currents are flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field of the Earth!

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles. NO, I have given the definition of a plasma (you copied it in another post) a cloud of charged particles is not a plasma per se

So, there is my answer to your "list".

Sol88 said:
Versed enough to know about the basics as already noted

Well, obviously you did not know that the magnetic field needs to be strong enough to magnetize the plasma. And when there are both a magnetic field and an electric field in a plasma, at an angle to eachother, the plasma will move in the direction perpendicular to both the magnetic and the electric field, no matter how strong the magnetic field is. INTERESTING!!

Sol88 said:
Point one still remains unanswered by Tusenfem, can space be considered filled with plasma or just plasma in space?

I do not need the maths, to know this answer.

Like I said above, space is space, plasma is plasma. Plasma can fill space, and it does. Indeed, no math needed for that, because plasma behaves like any gas in a space, it will fill it up if it can.

So, where does this leave us? I have no idea anymore why we have this useless discussion, other than you like to present your presumed knowledge about plasmas.

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
If you would go back and read all the roughly 1600 or so posts in this thread you would find out that I have already discussed, at great length, Lerner and Peratts various PC related theories. You've joined this discussion too late i'm afraid my friend. If you want any specifics then I'll be more than happy to trawl back through the thread and find what you are looking for.

and still you are spouting EU nonsense, and useless messages.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Looking at the list again we see some common ground emerging;

1 Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE

2 99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE

3 Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES

4 Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES

5 Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES

6 Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES

7 Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE

8 Plasma can be “cellular”. YES

9 Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES

10 Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES

11 Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES

12 Dust can become a Plasma. YES

13 Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow)

14 A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

15 We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE

16 Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

17 Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general

18 Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles.

19 Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I later tried to clear that statement up, what I tried to convey is when any (Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects) all or some of those three do something we can detect it in the EM spectrum.
which was a YES as well.

Click to expand...

I'd like to progress this thread to it's logical conclusion in a timely fashion and to make things easy, which ones are not correct?

This is to aid me 'ol cobber DRD get a handle on the definitions, terms, spelling and grammar problems I has got?

Bearing in mind the whole ferro-magnatisim, FAC's and plasma globe filament episode.

While I admit a few of those points may not have been explained well enough before posting, leaving a little to much Grey area. If you read the list and you pick any you think I've misunderstood, I'd be more than happy to show my line of reasoning!

(I added numbers)

How does it go?

Ah yes ... whoaa there big boy, back the truck up!

First, only two folk responded to all the items on the list, si and DRD, and a few others - directly or indirectly - to some items (1 and 2: tusenfem (post#1646), edd (#1658), RC (1663), PS (1669);13: RC (1676)); in addition tusenfem commented on the list in general.

Next, you're making one of those mistakes in logic again, this time it's applying a meaning to statements that are beyond what the statements actually say (more later).

Then, in post#1679 you provided a definition of plasma, but no one has commented on your list in light of your clarification (as far as I can see).

Recall what I said, many posts ago now, about discussions needing to have a certain minimum common understanding? and that that minimum included the meanings of key words (or terms or phrases)?

In this respect, "common" means unanimous ... everyone engaged in the discussion needs to share the same understanding (modulo minor variations) of the key terms; otherwise it won't be a discussion.

So, counting you as a participant, and allowing only "YES", "NO", and "UNKNOWN" as the answers, where do we stand on your list, when the question is "Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?"?

Here's my take, to date:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Space is a PLASMA. NO

2 99% of Space is plasma. NO

3 Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES

4 Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s UNKNOWN

5 Plasma is an excellent conductor. UNKNOWN

6 Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. UNKNOWN

7 Plasma is self organizing. NO

8 Plasma can be “cellular”. NO

9 Plasma can be “filamentary”. NO

10 Plasma we can observe in a lab/space NO

11 Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. NO

12 Dust can become a Plasma. UNKNOWN

13 Magnetic fields require an electric current. NO

14 A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

15 We observe magnetic fields everywhere. UNKNOWN

16 Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

17 Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. NO

18 Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO (it's a cloud of charged particles - NO)

19 Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum. NO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now there is another question concerning the list that we can answer, at least tentatively, and it's a question that is close to what you originally asked, which was "which one(s) of these do I misunderstand?" (I'm paraphrasing).

We can rephrase this, and ask "In light of the clarifications Sol88 has provided, does Sol88 appear to understand these terms/phrases in a manner consistent with their common use by physicists?" This time we allow four answers, "YES", "NO", "UNCERTAIN", and "UNKNOWN".

Here's my take on the answer to those questions, to date:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Space is a PLASMA. NO

2 99% of Space is plasma. NO

3 Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges. YES

4 Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s UNCERTAIN

5 Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES

6 Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. UNCERTAIN

7 Plasma is self organizing. UNKNOWN

8 Plasma can be “cellular”. UNKNOWN

9 Plasma can be “filamentary”. UNKNOWN

10 Plasma we can observe in a lab/space UNCERTAIN

11 Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. NO

12 Dust can become a Plasma. UNKNOWN

13 Magnetic fields require an electric current. NO

14 A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

15 We observe magnetic fields everywhere. UNCERTAIN

16 Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

17 Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. NO

18 Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. UNCERTAIN

19 Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum. NO
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(to be continued)

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ...

Zeuzzz · Mar 27, 2009

Dancing David said:
Oooh he didn't get the scope time he wanted.

That is teh basis of a conspiracy theory?

I would not call it a conspiracy theory, more a good case study of how people who have very controversial ideas can be sidelined by scientific institutions, corporate facility owners, and even scientific journals themselves.

Saying that, the whole arp fiasco is not a conspiracy theory at all, where one instituation or organisation turned its back on him or refused him telescope time due to his controversial findings there was always another one which welcomed his work and input. So he was far from silenced. I suggest reading his book, "seeing red", or reading some of the reviews about just how badly Arp was treated for simply challenging the status quo. Whether his material is right or not.

Many other scientists have been blackmailed, and told if they assosciate themselves with Chip Arp then they would have certain privelages rebuked, and problems getting positions or promotions in certain institutions. A few testimonies from people who recieved such blackmails can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrPmEYtplk

Not very scientific behaviour to say the least. But certainly not a conspiracy theory, as its all out in the open for anyone to see.

Maybe you should try presenting your

1. Model
2. Predictions
3. Data

Okay, theres a few separate ones to choose from, but in terms of predictions Lerners model has made the most sucessful predictions and probably fits the data best out of the various other PC models.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang, Lerner, E. J.
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1268-1275,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ITPS...31.1268L [full text]

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10^-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2s level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large scale structures and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

Well it certianly fits the data better than the original Big Bang predictions for element abundances, large scale structure of the universe, and the properties of the CMB, and other areas. Thats undisputable.

There was no supression of Arp's work, he was not denied because of his theory.

Incorrect. There was definate supression of Arps work, temporarily and by certain organisations, individuals and scientific journals, but this was short lived and other institutions soon let him get his telescope time back, let him publish all his material, and enabled his models to be publically available, all within a very short time period following the original supression.

Conspiracy? No. Just how corporate science works. You start publishing material that undermines the whole premise of the journal your publishing in, then the editors are not going to be happy. Neither are the people who let you use the telescope. Or the institutions that fund your reserch. Cosmology always tends to bring out a certain, shall we say, religous type of reaction in some people, even many top scientists that study it. Some snap out of it and realise the errors in their ways*, some just plow on with a cult like ferver, thinking that they are gaining some sort of divine special knowledge about the universe, and anyone like arp who questions their religous revelations about the nature of the universe has committed blasphemy and must be either silenced or ignored.

* http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102057 Michael S. Turner snaps out of it after reading Mike Disneys sobering paper entitled The case against cosmology, making the comment: "Cosmology is the dot com of the sciences. Boom or bust. It is about nothing less than the origin and evolution of the Universe, the all of everything. It is the boldest of enterprises and not for the fainthearted. Cosmologists are the flyboys of astrophysics, and they often live up to all that image conjures up. It is hardly surprising then that words written about cosmology are rarely balanced. They verve to one extreme or the other. .... Once or twice, I have probably been guilty of irrational exuberance when it comes to cosmology."

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

(continued)

There's a broader context to your list, Sol88, one that several people have commented on ... physics.

In your list there are many words that have precise, specific meanings in physics*, among them:

space

plasma

charge

charge separation

conductor

self-organising

cellular

filamentary

dust

magnetic field

electric current

accelerated

electromagnetic spectrum.

Further, these meanings include quite clear limits; they are intended to be used in quite specific contexts. For example, microscopic vs macroscopic (crudely, where quantum effects dominate vs where they are mostly trivial).

And one big danger that you need to be always aware of - if you approach a topic in the manner of your list - is that you may overlook or misunderstand the precision and specificity of the definitions and/or the contexts and limits they may be used within.

The 'fridge magnets' discussion is a good example of this: within the context of plasma physics it may be OK to say "Magnetic fields require an electric current"; however, within the context of atomic physics or condensed matter physics it is not.

In one respect you are very brave, possibly foolhardy; you seem to be trying to develop a cosmological theory from the ground up, starting with postulates that are (it seems) ad hoc terms and phrases taken from different parts of physics and astronomy ... and you seem to want to sidestep much of the physics that these snippets come from.

(to be continued)

* sometimes more than one, per word; one part of physics may use a word with one meaning, and another part of physics use the same word with a different meaning ... 'charge' is an example, 'dust' is another

Tubbythin · Mar 27, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Conspiracy? No. Just how corporate science works.

What the hell is "corporate science"?

Skwinty · Mar 27, 2009

Tubbythin said:
What the hell is "corporate science"?

Google corporate science and you get 122 million hits

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Dow/corporate_science_CHEJ.htm

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

DeiRenDopa wrote:

I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ...

Quantify "somewhat" within the context of this conversation?

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
I would not call it a conspiracy theory, more a good case study of how people who have very controversial ideas can be sidelined by scientific institutions, corporate facility owners, and even scientific journals themselves.

What "corporate" facilities? What are you talking about?

Scientists are people. As such, they are certainly susceptible to jealousy, fear, etc. No one likes the idea of having their life's work overturned. On the other hand, young scientists have a huge amount to gain from overturning established ideas - in fact that's the most rapid route to fame and success. So even if you ignore all the evidence (as you do) and focus just on sociology, there's always an unstable balance between the defense of established ideas and the assault of new ones, and as a result things are always changing. However if that were it, it would be possible for an establishment to take control and suppress new ideas, thereby greatly slowing the pace of change.

But when you add in the elements that make this science - primarily logical consistency, experimental evidence, and falsifiability - the picture changes somewhat. It is no longer possible to suppress new ideas if they're supported by data. If they're not, though, they die rather rapidly apart from a few individuals that cling to them no matter what.

Conspiracy? No. Just how corporate science works.

Again - what in the world is "corporate science", particularly with regard to astrophysics?

Your description of Turner's article is totally distorted. Here's what he actually says:

Michael Turner said:
Before I begin my sober assessment of cosmology, let me discuss the mission statement for
the enterprise. As one might expect, this is where the divergence of views often begins. By
my deﬁnition, cosmology is the scientiﬁc quest to understand the most salient features of the
Universe in which we live. Since most of the history of the Universe is uninteresting thermal
equilibrium, the interesting moments, those rare departures from thermal boringness which
lead to notable features today, are a manageable set.

Others take a much diﬀerent view. As an extreme example consider Disney(2000), who
deﬁnes cosmology as the quest to understand the entire space-time history of the Universe (in
response to Disney, see Peebles 2000). Not surprisingly, he concludes that the achievements
of cosmologists have been minimal and that cosmology may not be a science at all. While
more than two decades ago the relativist Ellis (1975) educated us all on the impossibility
of Disney’s goal –we are absolutely limited in our knowledge of the Universe by our past
lightcone–that has not prevented signiﬁcant progress toward understanding how the basic
features of our portionof the Universe came about as well as their implications for the
Universe as a whole.

(my bold).

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Skwinty said:
Google corporate science and you get 122 million hits

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Dow/corporate_science_CHEJ.htm

Sure. Now try "corporate science" astrophysics.

110 hits, and at least the first few are random (i.e. documents that happen to contain both terms).

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Muse

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher