Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Reality Check · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
...snipped Sol88's usual high school nonsense...

Charles M. Snell and Anthony L. Peratt
(1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Via springerlink
The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

Click to expand...

You have the emphasis in the wrong place so I fixed it.

The actual existence of dark matter means that the conclusion of that paper is wrong and thus the simulation is also wrong. But this is actually only one flaw in this false theory.

Reality Check said:
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.

Reality Check · Mar 29, 2009

Ziggurat said:
You can keep saying that all you want to, it's still not true. And I already demonstrated why. The calculations are actually quite easy, they're freshman level physics. You claim that my calculations are wrong, but can't say why. That's... rather telling.

We may have to consider the possiblity that Sol88 is a high school student. In one post he mentions going to school. In that case we have to take in account his ignorance of freshman level physics.

On the other hand, I remember that the force of a magnetic field on a moving charge (qv x B) was taught in high school.

Tim Thompson · Mar 29, 2009

Cosmic Magnetic Fields

Tim Thompson said:
Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

Sol88 said:
How so Tim Thompson ? ... I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim! as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

Sol88 said:
My Revised EU/PC assumptions ...
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

Well, to begin with, I note that you revised the list, such that items 6 & 7 are now different; in item 6 a flow of "like charged particles" has become simply "a flow of charged particles", and in item 7 "magnetic fields require electric currents" has become simply "electric currents generate magnetic fields". Your revised item 7 is certainly correct, and item 6 is of course an arbitrary definition, but by that revised definition of an electric current it is now true, I think, that "magnetic fields require an electric current". So your revised list has made my objection obsolete and the point moot.

However, your revised list raises an interesting question:

Sol88 said:
My Revised EU/PC assumptions ...
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

What force separates the charges? It can't be gravity; after all, the whole point of the plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravity. But what other force is there? And what are the conditions under which this unknown force can pull charges apart? What are the astrophysical environments in which this charge separation happens? Inquiring minds want to know!

Sol88 said:
Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

So you ignore the book because you don't like the words "Fluid Dynamics" in the title? The application of fluid dynamics to plasma dynamics is called magnetohydrodynamics, and it was invented by Hannes Alfven. Indeed, that's what he got a share of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for; the prize citation reads "for fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics". So, you're wrong. Fluid dynamics and plasma dynamics, while not exactly the same thing, are deeply intertwined, and for the limited purpose of this discussion, they are in fact the same thing.

Sol88 said:
So you need suitable configuration of gas or fluid for an efficient dynamo, which needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation of said suitably configured gas or fluid to turn mechanical energy into magnetic energy! Simple

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is simple, despite the rolling eyes. Almost everything that is not solid experiences differential rotation. The sun is a differential rotator, and probably all stars are. Galaxies commonly are, and even the Earth is a differential rotator (the solid core rotates faster than the rest of the planet). Likewise, turbulent & non-uniform motions are ubiquitous. So despite that you may need to roll your eyes, this is not a problem.

Sol88 said:
My understanding of dynamo theory, from the link above ... Ok that could work, but why would point's 3, 6 and 7 not work more efficiently than an alpha-Omega dynamo?

They might well work more efficiently than an alpha-omega dynamo, or any other dynamo, for all I know. However, they cannot work more efficiently unless they first actually happen. It is by no means obvious that your proposal even meets the bare requirement of being physically possible at all. First you have to define the strange force that causes charge separation in the first place, then you have to show that the same force, or some other mysterious force will hold the charges apart so they make nice orderly currents instead of simply slamming back together at once, as one would expect. And you have to confine the currents to flow by magic in the desired geometry to create nice, almost dipolar magnetic fields. Now that's something to roll your eyes around at.

But there is no fundamental problem with dynamo generation of galactic magnetic fields. If you go back to the book you shun because you don't like the title (Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics), you will find that there is a chapter 5 entitled "Magnetic Fields in Galaxies" which will tell you all about it. The seed field that is amplified by the dynamo is generated in the plasma by a process called Biermann's Battery (Biermann, 1950), where an electron pressure gradient will induce an electric field because of the enhanced mobility of low mass electrons compared to high mass protons & ions, and that in turn induces a weak magnetic field.

So the reality is that your proposed mechanism for generating magnetic fields is highly dubious and probably just plain impossible, whereas the standard dynamo theory presents no fundamental problems of possibility or probability. Meanwhile, aside from the book, see Kulsrud & Zweibel, 2008 for a good review on the origin of cosmic magnetic fields.

ben m · Mar 29, 2009

Let me just say two things:

Peratt and Snell, 1995

Abstract The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show lsquoflatrsquo rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.

I want to be perfectly unambiguous about this.

There is a simple experimental result which unambiguously rules out Peratt's model. The Eot-Wash test was a measurement of the forces on a test mass in a laboratory. Their test mass---a carefully-shielded metal object---was sensitive to (a) its acceleration towards the Moon, (b) its acceleration towards the Sun, and (c) its acceleration towards the Galactic Center.

The experiments (there were several) showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Moon at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Moon. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Moon also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Sun at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Sun. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Sun also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Galactic Center at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Galactic Center. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Galactic Center also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity---and explicitly the opposite of what you expect if this acceleration is due to electromagnetism[/I]. If the Earth/Sun system were, as Peratt alleges, getting Lorentz-force-law'ed towards the Galactic center, this force would not act directly on Eot-Wash's shielded, neutral test mass---it would only act on the test mass via the Earth and the lab dragging the mass along.

The fact that Eot-Wash observed zero non-gravitational acceleration towards the Galactic center tells us that Peratt's hypothesis is wrong. Sorry. No way around it.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epDone.html

Tim Thompson · Mar 29, 2009

Galaxy Rotation & Dark Matter

Sol88 said:
Charles M. Snell and Anthony L. Peratt

You know, if you are going to cite the abstract of a paper, you might try reading that abstract first, just to make sure it says what you think it says. So, for instance, here is the abstract again, but with my emphasis instead of yours.

Snell & Peratt said:
The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

This 1995 paper, which has since garnered no citations at all, looks only at the neutral hydrogen gas. Of course the physical mechanism cited in the paper (there is more than just an abstract you know) could never affect the motion of stars in a galaxy. And since we see stars on the same flat rotation curves as we see the gas, the Snell & Peratt paper would seem to be not very useful.

But note that neutral hydrogen is not a plasma, so one might be excused for wondering how it gets steered by magnetic fields and controlled by plasma processes. The short answer is that it isn't. The paper relies on the assumption that a specific process will happen during galaxy formation, when the hydrogen is mostly ionized

Snell & Peratt said:
For the case of a fully ionized hydrogenic plasma, the ions drift inwards until they reach a radius where the temperature is well below the ionization potential and the rate of recombination of the hydrogen plasma is considerable. Because of this "ion pump" action, hydrogenic plasma will be evacuated from the surroundings and neutral hydrogen will be most heavily deposited in regions of strong magnetic field.

Whether or not this process, seen in the laboratory according to Snell & Peratt, will work in the significantly different environment of a forming galaxy is open to question. But it is postulated in this paper as the reason for a correlation between magnetic fields and HI regions.

But the method fails to deal with the motion of stars, and that is significant. See, for instance, Tsiklauri, 2008, whose method is similar to that of Snell & Peratt. He too handles only the gas, and concludes in his abstract that "The model is applicable to gas and plasma dynamics, while flat rotational curves for stars would need some other explanation, as stars would be more affected by gravity than electromagnetic forces such as the Ampere force."

There are several attempts in the literature to do away with dark matter in galaxy rotation curves, in various ways (i.e., Banhatti, 2008; Capozziello, Cardone, & Troisi, 2007; Cooperstock & Tieu, 2005; Moffat, 2005 & etc.). So this is an area of active research, and there are alternative ideas on the table. Contrary to what one might think from reading the various threads, the mainstream is not some lock-step conspiracy of mindless robots that need to be awakened to the "alternative way"; been there, done that. But we do require "alternatives" that actually make sense. Since making sense has never been a major discussion board criterion, we get threads like this.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Ziggurat wrote:

Plasma gets referred to as a gas in the general press because that's what people understand.

Well, well, well, really?

Read the bloody list!!!

Gas as per most people's understanding is not plasma, just the same as space is not a plasma, as I've been told!

And in many ways, plasmas do behave just like gasses (for example, they can follow the ideal gas law fairly well), so it's really good enough for the purposes of that story. In fact, there isn't even a clean dividing line between gas and plasma - there's no phase transition between the two states.

I mean come on that's why most people do not understand plasma, they think it's close enough to a gas for intents and purposes and that's good enough!

When people have done that they've run into a few problems, like having to invoke dark matter and dark energy!!!

So I see your problem here, gas IS NOT plasma and plasma is not GAS.

Ask Tusenfem for clarification if you do not believe me! :eye-poppi

Ziggurat · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
When people have done that they've run into a few problems, like having to invoke dark matter and dark energy!!!

Uh, no. The evidence for dark matter has nothing to do with the distinction between gas and plasma (a distinction I doubt you even understand). The calculations I presented earlier demonstrate that. So do the actual experiments by the Eot-Wash group that ben linked to earlier.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Ok Tim Thompson first as 'he's questions are indeed logical!

Tim wrote

However, your revised list raises an interesting question:

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
My Revised EU/PC assumptions ...
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

Click to expand...

What force separates the charges? It can't be gravity; after all, the whole point of the plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravity. But what other force is there? And what are the conditions under which this unknown force can pull charges apart? What are the astrophysical environments in which this charge separation happens? Inquiring minds want to know!

And further down

because of the enhanced mobility of low mass electrons compared to high mass protons & ions, and that in turn induces a weak magnetic field.

This is very important for charge separation as we shall see.

Now lets take something that causes charge separation to occur close to home so to speak, shall we!

And before we start, under the "mainstream" model this was not predicted.

First I must cook dinner for my two school aged kids.

but here's a paper by
Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell

A Dynamic Fountain Model for Lunar Dust

ABSTRACT

Abstract
There is much evidence to show that lunar “horizon glow” and “streamers” observed at the
terminator are caused by sunlight scattered by dust grains originating from the surface. The dust
grains and lunar surface are electrostatically charged by the Moon’s interaction with the local
plasma environment and the photoemission of electrons due to solar UV and X-rays. This effect
causes the like-charged surface and dust particles to repel each other, and creates a near-surface
electric field. Previous models have explained micron-sized dust observed at ~10 cm above the
surface, by suggesting that charged grains “levitate” in the local electric field; however this
cannot account for observations of 0.1 ��m-scale grains at ~100 km altitude. In order to explain
the high-altitude dust observations, we propose a dynamic “fountain” model in which charged
dust grains follow ballistic trajectories, subsequent to being accelerated upward through a narrow
sheath region by the surface electric field. These dust grains could affect the optical quality of
the lunar environment for astronomical observations and interfere with exploration activity

Charge separation is a common place garden variety plasma physics phenomena Tim, get with the program son!

They never told me that the Apollo mission observed weather and levitating dust on the moon! Why NOT!

Moon Storms

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.

Moon Fountains

"The Moon seems to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles," Stubbs explains. "We use the word 'fountain' to evoke the idea of a drinking fountain: the arc of water coming out of the spout looks static, but we know the water molecules are in motion." In the same way, individual bits of moondust are constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion.

Snip

If that's what happens on the day side of the Moon, the natural question then becomes, what happens on the night side? The dust there, Stubbs believes, is negatively charged. This charge comes from electrons in the solar wind, which flows around the Moon onto the night side. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes.

Day side: positive. Night side: negative. What, then, happens at the Moon's terminator--the moving line of sunrise or sunset between day and night?

Simple simple simple my kids do it all the time and NASA scientist are still groping in the dark like my well informed friend Tim Thompson!! :jaw-dropp

Grab a balloon and do it yourself!

Get with the program here boys and girls! :boggled:

So all you have to do is STICK something in a plasma flow and whalla

Like Tim Thompson said

because of the enhanced mobility of low mass electrons compared to high mass protons & ions,

Plasma is majik, to mainstream scientist!

Lets start there for a charge separation mechanism shall we Tim? and see if we can expand on that.

And shall we throw Io into the picture at this time as well?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
DRD wrote:

Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence - a JREF Forum thread started by DRD.

If you want history, be prepared to do a lot of reading ... it's a rich and wonderfully absorbing one, full of examples of astronomy (and astrophysics) at its finest.

Click to expand...

Oh MY GOD!!!

Have you read your own thread sport!

Just a few choice snippets

Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'.

'Cold' refers to the average speed of this matter with respect to the CMB frame of reference; basically it just says this stuff isn't zipping round the universe nearly at the speed of light, unlike cosmic rays and neutrinos (the former is an example of 'hot matter', the latter 'hot dark matter').

'Dark' refers to transparency to all forms of electromagnetic radiation; DM and photons are like two ships in the night, they pass each other by without either noticing the other. In practical, astronomical, terms this simply means DM does not emit light (or gamma rays, or x-rays, or ... or radio), nor does it absorb it.

'non-baryonic' means the CDM is made up of stuff other than the molecules, atoms, nuclei, and electrons we are made up of (and the Sun, and cosmic rays, and neutron stars, and dust, and gas, and ...). Neutrinos are 'non-baryonic'; however, they are not 'cold'. The question of whether black holes get counted as non-baryonic or not will be covered in the cases where it is necessary to eliminate them as a possible explanation for the various observations.

Click to expand...

So, ok so far we all agree!

Well, galaxies

cannot hold together without CDM

Click to expand...

or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

Click to expand...

very important the bold part!

Which we also all agree on!

Dancing David chipped in with more "proof" of OBSERVATIONAL fact!

The observations are facts?

Stars rotate around galaxies as though there is more matter than we can see.

Click to expand...

STARS rotate around galaxies is if there were more matter than VISIBLY observed!

We all agree on that as well!

DRD then wrote an exce;;ent example of OBSERVATIONAL evidence

observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies
The main technique used to estimate the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies, as a function of radius from the centre (nucleus) is to derive a rotation curve from observations of the light (radio, etc; electromagnetic radiation - I'll use 'light' as a synonym) emitted by such galaxies. {rest of quote skipped - DRD}

Click to expand...

I'll bold the parts of think may be relevant to this topic!

And yes I read the thread DRD!

To summarize from a quote on absoluteastronomy.com

The rotation curve of a galaxy
Galaxy {rest of quote skipped - DRD}

Click to expand...

[qimg]http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/g/ga/galacticrotation2.svg.png[/qimg]

Whats the scoop there? that's the second time a cut and paste has added the information form a hyperlink automatically.

It was superposed to read

The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas (plasma??) in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo

Click to expand...

Is that a succinct enough summery?

I have a general question, before I start on what you have presented.

When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?

For example, in your post (that I am quoting; it's #1787 in this thread), where do the quotes in the list below come from (as in, which thread and what post; or what website)?

A) "Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence - a JREF Forum thread started by DRD.

If you want history, be prepared to do a lot of reading ... it's a rich and wonderfully absorbing one, full of examples of astronomy (and astrophysics) at its finest."

B) the quote beginning "Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'."

C) the quote beginning "Well, galaxies"

D) the quote beginning "The observations are facts?"

E) the quote beginning "observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies"

F) the quote beginning "The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots"

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
So from the LIST

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
9. Dust can behave as plasma.

We could logical explain mainstreams dark matter problem, with standard text book PLASMA physics, as we all agreed on in the list.

Charles M. Snell1 and Anthony L. Peratt1
(1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USAVia springerlink

Abstract The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show lsquoflatrsquo rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

Click to expand...

Do you get it DeiRenDopa???

Standard text book plasma physics

So yes I agree there is a "missing mass" with standard Newtonian, General and special relativity physics, but NOT with plasma physics!

End of DARK matter story in relation to this thread

Or are you Saying Snell and Perratt by implication Alfven are incorrect on the assumption of PLASMA behavior?

Please try and allay my confusion here!

May I ask you questions about this post of yours, Sol88?

If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?

Reality Check · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok Tim Thompson first as 'he's questions are indeed logical!

Tim wrote

And further down

This is very important for charge separation as we shall see.

Now lets take something that causes charge separation to occur close to home so to speak, shall we!
...snipped Lots of Moon stuff...

Sol88: You do realize that you and Tim Thompson are talking about charge separation in plasma (as in Plasma Cosmology)?

The last time that I looked, the Moon was not a plasma.

His original question remains:

Tim Thompson said:
What force separates the charges? It can't be gravity; after all, the whole point of the plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravity. But what other force is there? And what are the conditions under which this unknown force can pull charges apart? What are the astrophysical environments in which this charge separation happens? Inquiring minds want to know!

You need to say what this mysterious force in a plasma is. A Nobel prize awaits you!

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tim Thompson said:

or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics

Click to expand...

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

I hate to bring it to you, Sol88, but at least half of plasma phyisics is fluid dynamics. I guess you do not understand the H in the theory called MHD, which I guess you are familiar with, because some dude called Halfen or something like that, got some Nobbel thingy for it.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

The last time that I looked, the Moon was not a plasma.

His original question remains:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
What force separates the charges? It can't be gravity; after all, the whole point of the plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravity. But what other force is there? And what are the conditions under which this unknown force can pull charges apart? What are the astrophysical environments in which this charge separation happens? Inquiring minds want to know!

Click to expand...

You need to say what this mysterious force in a plasma is. A Nobel prize awaits you!

Jeez I duno take your pick of the many mechanisms available?

Double layer (plasma)

There are two different kinds of double layers, which are formed differently:

[edit] Current carrying double layers

Current carrying double layers may arise in plasmas carrying a current. Various instabilities can be responsible for the formation of these layers. One example is the Buneman instability which occurs when the streaming velocity of the electrons (basically the current density divided by the electron density) exceeds the electron thermal velocity of the plasma. Double layers (and other phase space structures) are often formed in the non-linear phase of the instability. One way of viewing the Buneman instability is to describe what happens when the current (in the form of a zero temperature electron beam) has to pass through a region of decreased ion density. In order to prevent charge from accumulating, the current in the system must be the same everywhere (in this 1D model). The electron density also has to be close to the ion density (quasineutrality), so there is also a dip in electron density. The electrons must therefore be accelerated into the density cavity, to maintain the same current density with a lower density of charge carriers. This implies that the density cavity is at a high electrical potential. As a consequence, the ions are accelerated out of the cavity, amplifying the density perturbation. Then there is the situation of a double-double layer, of which one side will most likely be convected away by the plasma, leaving a regular double layer. This is the process in which double layers are produced along planetary magnetic field lines in so-called Birkeland currents.

[edit] Current-free double layers

Current-free double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties. We explain how they form (neglecting the ions which are considered solely as a neutralizing background). Consider a plasma divided into two regions by a plane, which has a higher electron temperature on one side than on the other (the same analysis can also be done for different densities). This means that the electrons on one side of the interface have a greater thermal velocity. The electrons may stream freely in either direction, and the flux of electrons from the hot plasma to the cold plasma will be greater than the flux of the electrons from the cold plasma to the hot plasma, because the electrons from the hot side have a greater average speed. Because many more electrons enter the cold plasma than exit it, part of the cold region becomes negatively charged. The hot plasma, conversely, becomes positively charged. Therefore, an electric field builds up, which starts to accelerate electrons towards the hot region, reducing the net flux. In the end, the electric field builds up until the fluxes of electrons in either direction are equal, and further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented. The potential drop is in fact exactly equal to the difference in thermal energy between the two plasma regions in this case, so such a double layer is a marginally strong double layer.

The details of the formation mechanism depend on the environment of the plasma (e.g. double layers in the laboratory, ionosphere, solar wind, fusion, etc.). Proposed mechanisms for their formation have included:

* 1971: Between plasmas of different temperatures[16]
* 1976: In laboratory plasmas[17]
* 1982: Disruption of a neutral current sheet[18]
* 1983: Injection of non-neutral electron current into a cold plasma[19]
* 1985: Increasing the current density in a plasma[20]
* 1986: In the accretion column of a neutron star[21]
* 1986: By pinches in cosmic plasma regions[22]
* 1987: In a plasma constrained by a magnetic mirror[23]
* 1988: By an electrical discharge[24]
* 1988: Current-driven instabilities (strong double layers)[25]
* 1988: Spacecraft-ejected electron beams[26]
* 1989: From shock waves in a plasma[27]
* 2000: Laser radiation[28]
* 2002: When magnetic field-aligned currents encounter density cavities[29]
* 2003: By the incidence of plasma on the dark side of the Moon's surface[30]

One, more or a combination of all we be a good place to start and Tusenfems the man to ask here! very complex stuff indeed

See points

3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

So I postulate electricity as one of the main culprits here! Hell even just placing something in the way of a flowing quasi-neutral plasma will do it! Like most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets we OBSERVE in our local plasma environment, Sol's!

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
who said anything about dark matter?

there is no DM problem under the electric universe!

So why are we talking about a non problem ?

you tell me why dark matter needed to be postulated in the first place?

Hiya Sol**,
You will probably address this soon, so I am sure there will be a post or two before you read this.

There is a problem when it comes to why Dark Matter (particle/energy that interacts only gravitationally) is hypothesized.

There are these things called galaxies, which are large aggregates of stars. And through visual observation of the galaxies a number of things can be determined:

1. Rough estimate of matter in the galaxy.
2. Relative speeds of motion of stars in the galaxy. (And star clusters around the galaxy)

So then using standard theories of motion and gravitation something strange happens:

3. Bodies in motion around the common center of gravity of a galaxy are moving faster than can be accounted for by the estimated mass of the galaxy. (By a huge factor no less.)

So I will ask you then, in the PC/EU model how to account for the motion of bodies in galaxies without the hypothesized Dark matter?

I will tell you however, most of them have been addressed on this forum, in a number of threads. So perhaps some caution would be advised in presenting possible alternatives to the DM theory.

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
I mean come on that's why most people do not understand plasma, they think it's close enough to a gas for intents and purposes and that's good enough!

When people have done that they've run into a few problems, like having to invoke dark matter and dark energy!!!

So I see your problem here, gas IS NOT plasma and plasma is not GAS.

Ask Tusenfem for clarification if you do not believe me!

Plasma in all cases can be considered a GAS. It is created from a gas and retains ALL the properties of a gas, as it gets ionized, i.e.:

a gas (plasma) will try to fill the whole space available
a gas (plasma) temperature is defined by the kinetic energy of the particles
a gas (plasma) adheres to the gas law P V = n R T.
a gas has a polytropic index of 5/3, if I am not mistaken (but I could be) plasma has a polytropic index of 4/3

The only thing is that a plasma has some extra superman powers, like it consists of charged particles, and is susceptible to electromagnetism, which makes it (for me) more interesting that a gas or a fluid.

This is why Hannie was able to use fluid mechanics (to confuse you even more, a gas is also a fluid, so a plasma is a fluid) to create his MHD theory for which he got the Nobble medal (or something like that).

But, at the moment I am working on Ganymede's magnetosphere and its interaction with the Jovian magnetospheric plasma and magnetic field. And what do I find on the boundary (or at least think, I am only 95% sure) Kelvin-Helmholtz waves! Which are a perfect fluid dynamical process on the boundary of a shear flow.

Apparently, you have also decide just to forget my little mention about charge separation in cosmic plasmas. Although, it can happen (e.g. double layers) it is only the least player in generating electric fields in the universe. Like I said before, moving magnetic fields are the main player here.

Dear Sol88, before you make a statement, you might want to think about it. In your youthfull audacity, you think you have the truth on your side. However, apparently you only have part of the truth, which is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, I do not see any improvement in the near future, so in this discussion we are bound to go on in circles untill easter and pentecost fall on the same day.

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
So from the LIST

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
9. Dust can behave as plasma.

We could logical explain mainstreams dark matter problem, with standard text book PLASMA physics, as we all agreed on in the list.

Charles M. Snell1 and Anthony L. Peratt1
(1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USAVia springerlink

Do you get it DeiRenDopa???

Standard text book plasma physics

So yes I agree there is a "missing mass" with standard Newtonian, General and special relativity physics, but NOT with plasma physics!

End of DARK matter story in relation to this thread

Or are you Saying Snell and Perratt by implication Alfven are incorrect on the assumption of PLASMA behavior?

Please try and allay my confusion here!

That is nice, you have at least linked to a source, so Bravo, you have done better than many.

The issue I will ask you, and it may be hard to answer, because there is not a free version of the paper is this:

1. What is the needed charge upon the stars?
2. What is the needed magnetic field strength?

It will take more than just an abstract to demonstrate this, after all if Perrat has truly suggested an alternative to DM then he will get the Nobel.

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
sol invictus

you are talking about dark matter being directly observed here aren't you?

'Cos that's news to me!

I've seen a nice picture of the bullet cluster that is supposed to be directly observational evidence of dark matter!

And if the same rule applies to "looking" at pictures that EU/PC proponents have to adhere to, then it's hypocritical to say look at this picture.

Ziggurat wrote:

And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

Whaaaat!!

Sure, you show why and maybe we can believe you, why are they wrong?

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Double layer (plasma)

Oh, I lovvit when you quote "my" DL page.

For one thing, the charging of the moon is a solid state phenomenon, because, different from plasmas, in solid state only the electrons are able to move freely. So your whole comment about the moon has nothing to do with plasma physics, only with electrodynamics (and NO electrodynamics and plasma physics are NOT synonymous).

Sol88 said:
One, more or a combination of all we be a good place to start and Tusenfems the man to ask here! very complex stuff indeed

Neither of the two DL creation mechanisms applies to the moon, where particle impact and UV radiation kick out electrons from the surface and thus create a positive moon and a negative layer around it. So, I am not sure where you are going here, and just dropping the ball in my field is not going to get anything done. So, you better tell me (us) what exactly you want.

But that is the whole purpose of your "discussion" isn't it? You just drop some facts and move on without explaining what you want, and hope that people come up with some ideas for you. I am not playing with you, here is your ball back, first tell me which game we are playing, then I will see if I am interested.

Sol88 said:
See points

So I postulate electricity as one of the main culprits here! Hell even just placing something in the way of a flowing quasi-neutral plasma will do it! Like most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets we OBSERVE in our local plasma environment, Sol's!

Ahhhh your point again, what do you want with those points. Those points alone don't do crap, you have to come up with a model of what you want to do, but that (see above) you leave to the others, so later you can say (using what others wrote for you) "wow, look what I made, mummy!".

So, try to make a distinction what you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss plasmas, do you want to discuss the interaction of plasma with solid state (which would be useless at the moment because apparently we are talking about Peratt's crap about galaxy formation and rotation curves). Make up your frakking mind and stay on topic.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Hi Ben M

There is a simple experimental result which unambiguously rules out Peratt's model. The Eot-Wash test was a measurement of the forces on a test mass in a laboratory. Their test mass---a carefully-shielded metal object---was sensitive to (a) its acceleration towards the Moon, (b) its acceleration towards the Sun, and (c) its acceleration towards the Galactic Center.

well then that's settled then, I was unaware the gravity could be shielded! because Ziggurat made a statement that directly contradicts your post on the Eot-Wash test!

What an incredibly ignorant statement. Of course gravity scales across many orders of magnitude. And unlike electric and magnetic fields, gravity cannot be shielded which in practice makes it a far longer range force than electromagnetism.

so how carefully shielded was that test mass!

Who's wrong? Or like so many other things in mainstream science they are both correct?

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Get with the program blondie!

The EU/PC does not NEED dark matter so you are correct in your statement that and you'll be hard pressed to find one that will!

Because just using plasma physics the rotational problem is NOT A PROBLEM IT DOES NOT EXSIST, but if you are stuck in your it's gotta be gravity only view well...

And again, for the Perrat model to be correct:

1. What charges are needed on the stars?
2. What magnetic field is needed?

Just asserting that an old paper by Perrat proves something, does not prove it.

(Here is a hint, the charge on the stars is going to be huge.) The magnetic field strength of our galaxy is very low.

Perrat's model has a problem here, would you like to actually defend it or are you just going to thump the paper without discussing the details. (I know it is not available on line)

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

ben m said:
Let me just say two things:

Peratt and Snell, 1995

I want to be perfectly unambiguous about this.

There is a simple experimental result which unambiguously rules out Peratt's model. The Eot-Wash test was a measurement of the forces on a test mass in a laboratory. Their test mass---a carefully-shielded metal object---was sensitive to (a) its acceleration towards the Moon, (b) its acceleration towards the Sun, and (c) its acceleration towards the Galactic Center.

The experiments (there were several) showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Moon at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Moon. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Moon also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Sun at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Sun. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Sun also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Galactic Center at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Galactic Center. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Galactic Center also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity---and explicitly the opposite of what you expect if this acceleration is due to electromagnetism. If the Earth/Sun system were, as Peratt alleges, getting Lorentz-force-law'ed towards the Galactic center, this force would not act directly on Eot-Wash's shielded, neutral test mass---it would only act on the test mass via the Earth and the lab dragging the mass along.

The fact that Eot-Wash observed zero non-gravitational acceleration towards the Galactic center tells us that Peratt's hypothesis is wrong. Sorry. No way around it.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epDone.html

Thanks Ben.

Dancing David · Mar 29, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
You know, if you are going to cite the abstract of a paper, you might try reading that abstract first, just to make sure it says what you think it says. So, for instance, here is the abstract again, but with my emphasis instead of yours.

This 1995 paper, which has since garnered no citations at all, looks only at the neutral hydrogen gas. Of course the physical mechanism cited in the paper (there is more than just an abstract you know) could never affect the motion of stars in a galaxy. And since we see stars on the same flat rotation curves as we see the gas, the Snell & Peratt paper would seem to be not very useful.

But note that neutral hydrogen is not a plasma, so one might be excused for wondering how it gets steered by magnetic fields and controlled by plasma processes. The short answer is that it isn't. The paper relies on the assumption that a specific process will happen during galaxy formation, when the hydrogen is mostly ionized

Whether or not this process, seen in the laboratory according to Snell & Peratt, will work in the significantly different environment of a forming galaxy is open to question. But it is postulated in this paper as the reason for a correlation between magnetic fields and HI regions.

But the method fails to deal with the motion of stars, and that is significant. See, for instance, Tsiklauri, 2008, whose method is similar to that of Snell & Peratt. He too handles only the gas, and concludes in his abstract that "The model is applicable to gas and plasma dynamics, while flat rotational curves for stars would need some other explanation, as stars would be more affected by gravity than electromagnetic forces such as the Ampere force."

There are several attempts in the literature to do away with dark matter in galaxy rotation curves, in various ways (i.e., Banhatti, 2008; Capozziello, Cardone, & Troisi, 2007; Cooperstock & Tieu, 2005; Moffat, 2005 & etc.). So this is an area of active research, and there are alternative ideas on the table. Contrary to what one might think from reading the various threads, the mainstream is not some lock-step conspiracy of mindless robots that need to be awakened to the "alternative way"; been there, done that. But we do require "alternatives" that actually make sense. Since making sense has never been a major discussion board criterion, we get threads like this.

Thanks Tim.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Tusenfem wrote

So, try to make a distinction what you want to discuss. Do you want to discuss plasmas, do you want to discuss the interaction of plasma with solid state (which would be useless at the moment because apparently we are talking about Peratt's crap about galaxy formation and rotation curves). Make up your frakking mind and stay on topic.
Today 09:09 PM

That's harder than getting the whole EU/PC out of mainstreams metaphysical tag!!!

How bout me and you talk DL's and charge separation.

And well leave DM and rotation curves to Sol invictus and DRD?

Is that Ok?

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Maybe DD has an answer

so how carefully shielded was that test mass!

Who's wrong? Or like so many other things in mainstream science they are both correct?

post 1819

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Tusenfem, have you aware/heard of plasma wakefield acceleration (PWFA)?

Seems a new kid on the block, is it?

This may have some bearing on our now focused discussion, wrt you, me and DL and charge separation.

Quick intro for those unaware of the process.

Plasma acceleration

Basic concept

A plasma consists of fluid of positive and negative charged particles, generally created by heating a dilute gas. Under normal conditions the plasma will be macroscopically neutral, an equal mix of electrons and nucleons in equilibrium. However, if an external electric field is applied, the plasma will separate, with the particles being attracted to the external field. A particle injected into such a plasma would be accelerated by the charge separation, but since the magnitude of this separation is generally similar to that of the external field, nothing is gained in comparison to a system that simply applies the field directly to the particle, which is the case in existing accelerator designs.

It is this "wakefield" that is used for particle acceleration. A particle injected into the plasma near the high-density area will experience an acceleration toward (or away) from it, an acceleration that continues as the wakefield travels through the column, until the particle eventually reaches the speed of the wakefield. Even higher energies can be reached by injecting the particle to travel across the face of the wakefield, much like a surfer can travel at speeds much higher than the wave they surf on by traveling across it. Accelerators designed to take advantage of this technique have been referred to colloquially as "surfatron"s.

And this article is very interesting on it's potential uses, surf's up dude! Riding the Plasma Wave of the Future
by Matthew Early Wright

I believe the military have tested this for it's obvious purposes!

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem wrote

That's harder than getting the whole EU/PC out of mainstreams metaphysical tag!!!

How bout me and you talk DL's and charge separation.

And well leave DM and rotation curves to Sol invictus and DRD?

Is that Ok?

Everything you need to know about double layers you can read in the wiki page (well as an introduction). After that you might want to read the wonderful monograph by Michael Raadu and after that maybe the first three of this list here.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
I have a general question, before I start on what you have presented.

When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?

For example, in your post (that I am quoting; it's #1787 in this thread), where do the quotes in the list below come from (as in, which thread and what post; or what website)?

A) "Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence - a JREF Forum thread started by DRD.

If you want history, be prepared to do a lot of reading ... it's a rich and wonderfully absorbing one, full of examples of astronomy (and astrophysics) at its finest."

B) the quote beginning "Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'."

C) the quote beginning "Well, galaxies"

D) the quote beginning "The observations are facts?"

E) the quote beginning "observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies"

F) the quote beginning "The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots"

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem, have you aware/heard of plasma wakefield acceleration (PWFA)?

Seems a new kid on the block, is it?

This may have some bearing on our now focused discussion, wrt you, me and DL and charge separation.

Oh please! "New kid on the block", I heard about this process (but never studied it myself) when I started my PhD in 1989, ah and indeed, from ADS the first paper is from 1985. However, I do not start a discussion on "unknown" wiki pages, if anything, first you might want to read some papers, and then make a link to double layers etc.

However, I see that you offer to discuss one topic (DL) and immediately your attention is gripped by something else. I don't see much future in a real discussion here.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Sorry DeiRenDopa

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Nothing would please me more DRD!

They are quotes from your thread from yourself, BenBurch and Dancing disco david!!

DRD's

Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'.

'Cold' refers to the average speed of this matter with respect to the CMB frame of reference; basically it just says this stuff isn't zipping round the universe nearly at the speed of light, unlike cosmic rays and neutrinos (the former is an example of 'hot matter', the latter 'hot dark matter').

'Dark' refers to transparency to all forms of electromagnetic radiation; DM and photons are like two ships in the night, they pass each other by without either noticing the other. In practical, astronomical, terms this simply means DM does not emit light (or gamma rays, or x-rays, or ... or radio), nor does it absorb it.

'non-baryonic' means the CDM is made up of stuff other than the molecules, atoms, nuclei, and electrons we are made up of (and the Sun, and cosmic rays, and neutron stars, and dust, and gas, and ...). Neutrinos are 'non-baryonic'; however, they are not 'cold'. The question of whether black holes get counted as non-baryonic or not will be covered in the cases where it is necessary to eliminate them as a possible explanation for the various observations.

OK, time to start.

And

observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies
The main technique used to estimate the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies, as a function of radius from the centre (nucleus) is to derive a rotation curve from observations of the light (radio, etc; electromagnetic radiation - I'll use 'light' as a synonym) emitted by such galaxies.

Benburch

Well, galaxies cannot hold together without CDM or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

And it appears that when galaxies collide, the CDM, which does not appear to interact with baryonic matter (or itself) except gravitationally, shoots on past the parent galaxy as it experiences no drag in the interaction, but the stars and gas of the baryonic side of the galaxies DO interact mechanically and so slow. And you can detect the effects of this in analysis of these galaxies.

and the disco man himself DD

The observations are facts?

Stars rotate around galaxies as though there is more matter than we can see.

Now I hope that put's your mind to rest, deiNreDoper, or would you like hot links, time, date and/or glasses to read your post?

Is the baby in bed now, or do you have something else that needs clearing up?

sol invictus · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
you are talking about dark matter being directly observed here aren't you?

Yes.

I've seen a nice picture of the bullet cluster that is supposed to be directly observational evidence of dark matter!

Right. Do you understand what that image is, and how it was made? It shows the following (oversimplified in the hope you might understand it):

1) when those two clusters collided, most of their luminous mass (which is - you guessed it - plasma, or at least ionized gas) stuck together and remained more or less at the point where they collided. That's expected, because plasma interacts very strongly, so it sticks ti itself.

2) the stars (which are a small part of the luminous mass) passed right through and went whizzing along without noticing the collision. That's expected too, because there's lots of room in between stars, they only interact gravitationally, and the gravitational attraction isn't enough to make the stars in the two clusters stick together and remain in the center.

3) this is the crucial one - almost all the mass, as determined using gravitational lensing, is with and around the stars - even though the stars are a small fraction of the luminous mass. Therefore, there is some very large component of the mass of those clusters which is non-luminous and which interacts at least as weakly as stars - i.e., dark matter!

And if the same rule applies to "looking" at pictures that EU/PC proponents have to adhere to, then it's hypocritical to say look at this picture.

EU/PC proponents do things like look at pictures of electrical arcs on a brass sphere and say: "Look - the sun is made of iron!!!!!". This is an actual image of real, actual galaxy clusters in the sky which shows the presence of dark matter through gravitational lensing. In other words, it's an image of dark matter. What better evidence for its existence can you think of?

And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

Zig's calculations were utterly trivial, and completely correct. The idea that the orbits of stars around galaxies could be affected by EM forces is totally absurd, and can be discarded in 20 seconds after the kind of estimate he did.

Sol88 said:
Do you understand Sol Invictus, dark matter???

Yes, sol88, I understand, dark matter!!!!!

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Tusenfem wrote

Everything you need to know about double layers you can read in the wiki page (well as an introduction). After that you might want to read the wonderful monograph by Michael Raadu and after that maybe the first three of this list here.

That, I ,need to know?

Is a FAC a DL?

and no I can not read the papers, as I'm not an AGU member

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Sorry DeiRenDopa

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Click to expand...

Nothing would please me more DRD!

They are quotes from your thread from yourself, BenBurch and Dancing disco david!!

[...]

Thank you.

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

AND

"For example, in your post (that I am quoting; it's #1787 in this thread), where do the quotes in the list below come from (as in, which thread and what post; or what website)?"

By "clear reference", wrt posts from threads in the JREF Forum, I mean the thread name (or a link to it) and the post number (or a link to it).

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
May I ask you questions about this post of yours, Sol88?

If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

Sol invictus wrote

Right. Do you understand what that image is, and how it was made? It shows the following (oversimplified in the hope you might understand it):

1) when those two clusters collided, most of their luminous mass (which is - you guessed it - plasma, or at least ionized gas) stuck together and remained more or less at the point where they collided. That's expected, because plasma interacts very strongly, so it sticks ti itself.

2) the stars (which are a small part of the luminous mass) passed right through and went whizzing along without noticing the collision. That's expected too, because there's lots of room in between stars, they only interact gravitationally, and the gravitational attraction isn't enough to make the stars in the two clusters stick together and remain in the center.

3) this is the crucial one - almost all the mass, as determined using gravitational lensing, is with and around the stars - even though the stars are a small fraction of the luminous mass. Therefore, there is some component of the mass of those clusters which is non-luminous and which interacts at least as weakly as stars - i.e., dark matter.

Point 1 from your list

The plasma that "stuck" together or other wise doing what plasma does when it interacts, as per my list, seems logical!

Point 2 The stars being much more compact and massive than the plasma they are immersed in, would most likely keep on go'n!

Point 3 gravitational lensing like dark matter is fictional and completely made up! You need dark matter to create a Grav lens and a grav lens to detect dark matter!

APOD

Explanation: Two billion light-years away, galaxy cluster Abell 1689 is one of the most massive objects in the Universe. In this view from the Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys, Abell 1689 is seen to warp space as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity -- bending light from individual galaxies which lie behind the cluster to produce multiple, curved images. The power of this enormous gravitational lens depends on its mass, but the visible matter, in the form of the cluster's yellowish galaxies, only accounts for about one percent of the mass needed to make the observed bluish arcing images of background galaxies. In fact, most of the gravitational mass required to warp space enough to explain this cosmic scale lensing is in the form of still mysterious dark matter. As the dominant source of the cluster's gravity, the dark matter's unseen presence is mapped out by the lensed arcs and distorted background galaxy images.

I mean come on Sol invictus :jaw-dropp

If that not your text book garden variety circulus in probando than i do not no what is!

I repeat again for our slower learners here, there is NO dark matter problem under the EU/PC paradigm!

There is under MOND, LAMBDA-CDM, Big Bang....etc etc in fact ALL theories that do not have Electromagnetism as the DOMINATE force at play a problem with MASS. If you ever find the Higgs Boson maybe we could revisit this post?

I mean don't get me wrong gravity is still a force, as I found out last year when I broke my back paragliding, but it is not the dominate force at play here!

And by the way, maybe only a small thing, but could you Sol invictus the self declared guru on CDM tell me where the burst of star formation is in the collisions of MACS J0025.4-1222 and 1E 0657-56?

Galaxies are often observed to have a burst of star formation after a collision or close encounter between two galaxies.

Wiki

Eh!!!

Sol88 · Mar 29, 2009

DRD wrote :

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

If you ask nicely sure!

as for

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

No I can't be arsed chasing some time wasting shenanigans on your behalf, but noted that in the future I will endeavor to, when quoting, always provide a clear reference, even without being asked!

DRD wrote in post 1833 in the thread titled "Plasma cosmology Woo or not" on Sunday the 29th March 2009 at approximately 1500 UTC.

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Sure go ahead, but nearly my bed time, school tomorrow you know!

sol invictus · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Point 3 gravitational lensing like dark matter is fictional and completely made up! You need dark matter to create a Grav lens and a grav lens to detect dark matter!

Sorry, I don't understand.

Are you saying they didn't observe gravitational lensing by the Bullet cluster, and are just making it up? If so, does that apply to every other observation of gravitational lensing ever made, and to the deflection of starlight by the sun (which was first observed in 1919)? And to the correlations between weak lensing and structure? Etc. etc.?

If so, you're claiming a huge number of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to fool the world that gravitational lensing is real - altering images, faking data, etc. If that's what you think, this conversation is over.

That needs to be dealt with before this can continue.

tusenfem · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem wrote

That, I ,need to know?

Is a FAC a DL?

and no I can not read the papers, as I'm not an AGU member

Yeah, need to know, you better read the wiki first, because if your first question is "is a FAC a DL" than it is quite obvious that you do not know what a double layer is and that apparenty, you have not even read through the whole wiki page.

Just to be sure you understand, the answer is NO!

I will see if I can get a pdf of the Raadu paper, my three papers (well let's make that two, the third is too advanced and a bit speculative) you can, naturally get from me.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
DRD wrote :

My questions - in post 1809 - were two:

"When you quote something, can you always provide a clear reference, if asked?"

Click to expand...

If you ask nicely sure!

Thank you.

I hope that, having made this commitment, you will stick to it.

And, should you omit such clear references in any post in future, that you will "be arsed" to chase "some time wasting shenanigans" on behalf of your own credibility and honesty.

Sound like a plan to you?

as for

As you can see, you have not provided clear references to any of the posts (those from the JREF Forum), that you quoted.

Could you please provide them?

Click to expand...

No I can't be arsed chasing some time wasting shenanigans on your behalf, but noted that in the future I will endeavor to, when quoting, always provide a clear reference, even without being asked!

[...]

Wrt the labelling in my post #1809, here are the answers:

A: post #1775, this thread

B: OP, thread titled Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence

C: post #2 in that 'DRD' thread

D: post #4, same thread

E: post #7, same thread

F: Wikipedia's Galaxy rotation curve entry

Sol88, can you please confirm that these are, in fact, the correct references?

Now concerning C. Here's how Sol88 quoted it:

Well, galaxies

cannot hold together without CDM

Click to expand...

or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

to which he added: "very important the bold part!"

Here's what the actual BenBurch post is:

Well, galaxies cannot hold together without CDM or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

And it appears that when galaxies collide, the CDM, which does not appear to interact with baryonic matter (or itself) except gravitationally, shoots on past the parent galaxy as it experiences no drag in the interaction, but the stars and gas of the baryonic side of the galaxies DO interact mechanically and so slow. And you can detect the effects of this in analysis of these galaxies.

Notice the difference?

In Sol88's post, it appears that BB is quoting something; in fact he is not.

In Sol88's post, it appears that BB's post contains bold; in fact it does not.

Sol88, did you intend to distort the BB post? If so, why?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
[...]

DRD wrote in post 1833 in the thread titled "Plasma cosmology Woo or not" on Sunday the 29th March 2009 at approximately 1500 UTC.

Bump.

Sol88, I would like you to answer my questions.

Click to expand...

Sure go ahead, but nearly my bed time, school tomorrow you know!

Thank you.

I shall proceed to ask some questions about post#1788; I look forward to reading your answers to them.

ben m · Mar 29, 2009

Sol88 said:
Hi Ben M

well then that's settled then, I was unaware the gravity could be shielded! because Ziggurat made a statement that directly contradicts your post on the Eot-Wash test!

Sorry, Sol, you need to devote more than three brain cells to this before you'll understand what the experiment was.

You *cannot* shield gravity; you *can* shield electromagnetism.

(1) The Eot-Wash mass was shielded against any Galactic electromagnetism.
(2) The Earth and Sun are *not* shielded against any Galactic electromagnetism. (3) Nevertheless the Earth, Sun, and the Eot-Wash test mass all had exactly the same acceleration towards the Galactic Center. (4) Therefore, this acceleration was not due to electromagnetism.

"Galactic acclerations are due to electromagetism" is no some side detail side-result of Peratt's model---it's the whole point.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Unregistered

Muse

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Master Poster

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Master Poster

Master Poster

Unregistered