Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

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??? :eye-poppi

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 :cool:

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!
Click to expand...
Here is my first question:

Have you read the paper, Sol88?

In the original, the last sentence is not bold; in the original, E and B are bold ("E x B", rather than "E x B")*.

Here is my second question:

Why did you change the bolding, Sol88?

* actually, I cannot tell if the "x" is bold in the original or not
 
Last edited:
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!
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual Sol88: All matter can create a gravitational lens. The use of gravitational lensing is a standard astromonical technique.
 
DeiRenDopa wrote
Here is my first question:

Have you read the paper, Sol88?

In the original, the last sentence is not bold; in the original, E and B are bold ("E x B", rather than "E x B")*.

Here is my second question:

Why did you change the bolding, Sol88?

* actually, I cannot tell if the "x" is bold in the original or not
Click to expand...

No, I bolded "NO DARK MATTER IS NEEDED" only!
 
Reality Check wrote:
Wrong as usual Sol88: All matter can create a gravitational lens. The use of gravitational lensing is a standard astromonical technique.
Click to expand...

And how much mass do you need for this effect to become apparent?

What if you observe gravitational lensing and there is not enough visible mass to account for it?

You reality check stated
All matter can create a gravitational lens
Click to expand...
All matter? does the moon gravitationally lens the Sun or other stars? Does my fridge magnet gravitational lens the fridge behind it?

Is gravitational lensing a property of gravity or mass? Is gravity a constant? How do you work out the mass of a galaxy?
 
Sol88 said:
Reality Check wrote:

And how much mass do you need for this effect to become apparent?
Click to expand...

That depends on how sensitive your measurements are. It's observable with the sun, which is not dark matter. I'm not sure what the lower limit is.

You reality check stated All matter? does the moon gravitationally lens the Sun or other stars?
Click to expand...

Yes, but not much. The larger the mass, the more lensing. The moon has much less mass than the sun, which in turn has much less mass than a galaxy.

Does my fridge magnet gravitational lens the fridge behind it?
Click to expand...

Yes, but not enough to detect. This should not surprise you: can you feel the gravitational attraction between yourself and your refrigerator magnet? Of course not: it's too small. But it's still there.

Is gravitational lensing a property of gravity or mass?
Click to expand...

It's an effect (not a property) of gravity, which is caused by mass.

Is gravity a constant?
Click to expand...

Of course not. That's why astronauts weigh less on the moon. Really, this is grade school science: are you honestly not aware of that?

How do you work out the mass of a galaxy?
Click to expand...

By looking at the orbital rates of material inside the galaxy. Which is basically the same way we work out the mass of the sun.
 
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa wrote
Here is my first question:

Have you read the paper, Sol88?

In the original, the last sentence is not bold; in the original, E and B are bold ("E x B", rather than "E x B")*.

Here is my second question:

Why did you change the bolding, Sol88?

* actually, I cannot tell if the "x" is bold in the original or not
Click to expand...
No, I bolded "NO DARK MATTER IS NEEDED" only!
Click to expand...
In which post did DRD write this, Sol88?

Do you remember the commitment you made?

In post#1788 - that I quoted - you stated: "Standard text book plasma physics"

Yet here, in this more recent post of yours that I am quoting, you state that you have not read the paper.

May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion (stated in your previous post, #1788), if you have not read the paper?

ETA: why did you change the bold on "E" and "B", in the original, to the default type font?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Sol88 said:
Reality Check wrote:

And how much mass do you need for this effect to become apparent?
Click to expand...
That depends on how sensitive your measurements are. It's observable with the sun, which is not dark matter. I'm not sure what the lower limit is.

You reality check stated All matter? does the moon gravitationally lens the Sun or other stars?
Click to expand...

Yes, but not much. The larger the mass, the more lensing. The moon has much less mass than the sun, which in turn has much less mass than a galaxy.

[...]
Click to expand...
GAIA will be able to detect - and measure, for the more massive objects - the light deflection (bending) of all planets in our solar system, as well as the Moon, Titan, the Galilean moons of Jupiter, ... Of course, it will not be pointed sufficiently close to Mercury or Venus to measure the bending due to their mass, but the bending due to the Sun will be detectable over the whole sky (as it is today, via VLBI observations of quasars).

Here is a webpage that contains a neat animation of the expected bending of the various objects, as they move through the sky (as seen by GAIA).
 
DeiRenDopa, Sol invictus, Reality check, I have a question for you.


Could you'se explain to me how gravity works?

Because the problem I have is I'm not quite understanding how it works, now I've read a bit about gravity on the net, but the info seems to have a lot of grey areas. :(

Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?
 
DRD wrote
Here is a webpage that contains a neat animation of the expected bending of the various objects, as they move through the sky (as seen by GAIA).
Click to expand...

Cool, pictures!! I like pretty pictures :D

Here are some nice pictures that I found!

First plasma filaments forming a galaxy.

Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif


Galaxy formation

Peratt's galaxy formation simulation animated.
Peratt's galaxy formation simulation: Simulation of plasma in two adjacent Birkeland filaments of width 35 kpc and separation 80 kpc. The axial extent of the simulation is only 10 kpc, so the formation of a 3-d disk is not demonstrated by this calculation.

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.[3]

The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.[4] Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves.
Click to expand...

And talking about filaments

Remember point 8 from the list

8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior
Click to expand...

millennium_movie.jpg


lcdmmovie.png


Gravity???????
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
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.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.
Click to expand...
May I ask you questions about this post of yours, Sol88?

If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?
 
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa, Sol invictus, Reality check, I have a question for you.


Could you'se explain to me how gravity works?

Because the problem I have is I'm not quite understanding how it works, now I've read a bit about gravity on the net, but the info seems to have a lot of grey areas. :(

Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you have asked this question.

The best answer I can give you is similar to a suggestion that I made in post #1753 of this thread (which was just echoing an earlier suggestion of tusenfem's); namely, get yourself a science degree, from a good university, with a major in General Relativity.

My suggestion acknowledges your request, and is based on my assumption of sol invictus' understanding of gravity, per the hundreds (or more) of posts he's written here, in this section of the JREF Forum, that contain content relevant to gravity.
 
Sol88 said:
DRD wrote

Cool, pictures!! I like pretty pictures :D

Here are some nice pictures that I found!

First plasma filaments forming a galaxy.

[qimg]http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/1/16/Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif[/qimg]



And talking about filaments

Remember point 8 from the list



[qimg]http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/millennium_movie.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/lcdmmovie.png[/qimg]

Gravity???????
Click to expand...
What is the source of the animation in this post of yours, Sol88?

What is the source of the images in this post of yours, Sol88?

Do you remember my earlier post where I advised you to cite your sources, when copying something directly?

IIRC, I also said that I thought that this forum has a rule about doing so, and that it is my understanding that you can be banned for persistently breaking this rule.
 
Sol88 said:
First plasma filaments forming a galaxy.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/1/16/Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif
Click to expand...
An image of a computer simulation from Peratts totally debunked theory.
Can you read Sol88:

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.
Click to expand...

ETA: A simple fact for you: The density of matter in the gaps between the arms in a spiral galaxy is 10-20% less than the density of matter of the arms. The only reason that the gaps look empty is because the spiral arms are much brighter than the gaps because they are full of bright, young stars.
Note that the original simulation was of the mass in the filaments (you may want to read Peratts original papers sometime).
Now look at your pretty picture. This has that there is no matter between the arms. This directly contradicts the actual facts. That picture alone debunks Peratts theory.
Peratts theory is a central part of Plasma Cosmology.

Thank you Sol88 for demonstrating that Plasma Cosmology is wrong! Continue with your good work. I am sure that you will present many more facts that make PC even more wrong.

Sol88 said:
And talking about filaments

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/millennium_movie.jpg

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/lcdmmovie.png
Click to expand...
Once again: Can you read Sol88?
These images come from a computer simulation that uses the Lambda-CDM model - no plasma cosmology non-science is involved. You are just showing your ignorance by citing evidence for the Lambda-CDM model in a PC thread.

Did you not even notice the lcdm part of the last image name (lcdmmovie.jpg)?

And you are still being an idiot about citations.
The Millennium Simulation Project is the source for the images.
The Millennium Run used more than 10 billion particles to trace the evolution of the matter distribution in a cubic region of the Universe over 2 billion light-years on a side. It kept busy the principal supercomputer at the Max Planck Society's Supercomputing Centre in Garching, Germany for more than a month. By applying sophisticated modelling techniques to the 25 Tbytes of stored output, Virgo scientists have been able to recreate evolutionary histories both for the 20 million or so galaxies which populate this enormous volume and for the supermassive black holes which occasionally power quasars at their hearts. By comparing such simulated data to large observational surveys, one can clarify the physical processes underlying the buildup of real galaxies and black holes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Boys, boys,boys(Girls?)! Get'n a little hot under the feet, is it! :D

Lets start with DRD

DRD wrote
I'm glad that you have asked this question.

The best answer I can give you is similar to a suggestion that I made in post #1753 of this thread (which was just echoing an earlier suggestion of tusenfem's); namely, get yourself a science degree, from a good university, with a major in General Relativity.

My suggestion acknowledges your request, and is based on my assumption of sol invictus' understanding of gravity, per the hundreds (or more) of posts he's written here, in this section of the JREF Forum, that contain content relevant to gravity.
Click to expand...

In response to Sol88's question
DeiRenDopa, Sol invictus, Reality check, I have a question for you.


Could you'se explain to me how gravity works?
Click to expand...

my bold
Good scientific approach there DRD! :rolleyes:

No takers? Maybe you could throw in a link to a post you think is relevant to the question!

Or better yet pony up your own thoughts DeiRenDopa, instead just the typical mainstream Rote learning as would happen if I was unfortunate enough to have to go to Uni to understand the maths be behind an incorrect theory!!!
 
Last edited:
DRD wrote
What is the source of the animation in this post of yours, Sol88?

What is the source of the images in this post of yours, Sol88?

Do you remember my earlier post where I advised you to cite your sources, when copying something directly?

IIRC, I also said that I thought that this forum has a rule about doing so, and that it is my understanding that you can be banned for persistently breaking this rule.
Click to expand...

Did you follow the links?
 
further REALITY check wrote :
A summary of the flaws in Peratt's galactic model:

1 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).
2 The model totally fails apart if dark matter is actually observed. Dark matter has actually been observed twice (see my signature).
3 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.
4 He starts the simulation with the filaments already there. Where were they before and what formed them?
5 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.
Click to expand...

Number added for clarity.

1) Reality check care to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to have a look at the millennium run simulation! Tell me what do you see?

2) Dark matter is fictions! Though as you'll note some of the millennium run simulations are modeled on nothing more then DARK matter and guess what the morphology "looks" like inter connected FILAMENTS!! :jaw-dropp Or do you have another explination on what they are?

3) Not quite sure of what you are ranting on about here, what is between the gaps under mainstream thinking?

4) Ahh the old chicken and egg conundrum! And very easy to answer, though I could just as well ask you, what came before the "big bang"?

5)
Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn’t matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities
Click to expand...
, and note the millennium run simulations made no mention of plasma, though they did mention particles, but particles of what?

Quote from an excellent article by Wal Thornhill on his website HOLOSCIENCE

Thank you Sol88 for demonstrating that Plasma Cosmology is wrong! Continue with your good work. I am sure that you will present many more facts that make PC even more wrong.
Click to expand...
See above article.

More on the article later, some juicy tid bits to discuss there :)

And you are still being an idiot about citations.
Click to expand...

Sorry just cut and pasted the address, which was not the main millennium run page.
 
Last edited:
So Sol88,

I take it you have left the field when trying to discuss the PC/EU alternatives to DM?

Despite your insistence

1. Plasma is not Dark Matter, nor can it account for the gravitational effects that are observed.


a. Plasma emits and interacts with the EM very well. So it is not 'dark'.
b. Perrat's model does not address the galaxy rotation curves, it does address how neutral hydrogen would behave:
-What charge would a star need to be accelerated to the visible/observed level, under the PC/EU model?
-Given that the magnetic field of our galaxy is known.

Now, I note that you have dodged these questions and pretended I did not ask them.

You have said that under PC/EU there is no need for dark matter, so I am asking you to explain how the model works.

You have made the claim and I am asking for the particulars. Then we can move on to other parts of PC/EU model.


BTW: I am not a disco boy, I am a 'country' dancer and caller, squares and contras.
YeeHaw!
 
Sol88 said:
Boys, boys,boys(Girls?)! Get'n a little hot under the feet, is it! :D

Lets start with DRD

DRD wrote
I'm glad that you have asked this question.

The best answer I can give you is similar to a suggestion that I made in post #1753 of this thread (which was just echoing an earlier suggestion of tusenfem's); namely, get yourself a science degree, from a good university, with a major in General Relativity.

My suggestion acknowledges your request, and is based on my assumption of sol invictus' understanding of gravity, per the hundreds (or more) of posts he's written here, in this section of the JREF Forum, that contain content relevant to gravity.
Click to expand...
In response to Sol88's question
DeiRenDopa, Sol invictus, Reality check, I have a question for you.


Could you'se explain to me how gravity works?
Click to expand...
my bold
Good scientific approach there DRD! :rolleyes:

No takers? Maybe you could throw in a link to a post you think is relevant to the question!

Or better yet pony up your own thoughts DeiRenDopa, instead just the typical mainstream Rote learning as would happen if I was unfortunate enough to have to go to Uni to understand the maths be behind an incorrect theory!!!
Click to expand...
Sol88,

In post #1849, you wrote this:
DeiRenDopa, Sol invictus, Reality check, I have a question for you.


Could you'se explain to me how gravity works?

Because the problem I have is I'm not quite understanding how it works, now I've read a bit about gravity on the net, but the info seems to have a lot of grey areas.

Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?
Click to expand...
I have added some bold.

In my reply to your post, I tried to answer your question "Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?"

In this post of yours, that I am quoting, you omitted this question of yours; may I ask why?

After all, if you did not want anyone to answer it, why did you ask it?

Now, as to "No takers? Maybe you could throw in a link to a post you think is relevant to the question!" ... I do not know if there are any online course on General Relativity, but even if I did know of any, I would not recommend them to you, because it seems clear that you lack a grasp of the areas of mathematics that would be required to undertake such a course

Now, as to "Or better yet pony up your own thoughts DeiRenDopa, instead just the typical mainstream Rote learning as would happen if I was unfortunate enough to have to go to Uni" ... I do not know which universities you have familiarity with (perhaps you could say a few words?), but I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that any university, in any department, relies upon rote learning.

Now, as to "to understand the maths be behind an incorrect theory!!!" ... I assume you are referring to General Relativity (please confirm); if so, then you may be interested to know that a great deal of "the maths be behind" it is the same as the math behind plasma physics (of the "standard text book" kind, that you mentioned in post #1788).

At a later time, I would like to ask you about what appears to be a grossly ignorant claim (i.e. that GR is an incorrect theory in contemporary physics).
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
DRD wrote
What is the source of the animation in this post of yours, Sol88?

What is the source of the images in this post of yours, Sol88?

Do you remember my earlier post where I advised you to cite your sources, when copying something directly?

IIRC, I also said that I thought that this forum has a rule about doing so, and that it is my understanding that you can be banned for persistently breaking this rule.
Click to expand...
Did you follow the links?
Click to expand...
Yes, I did.

On the first one, I clearly did not read it carefully enough; the source does not claim copyright, nor make requests concerning credit (I do not know what the original Peratt source states, re either).

On the second one, there appear the following words, immediately above the images you copied:
Copyright statement:

When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are bold in the original (though I may have the wrong shade of red).

I did not see that you gave any credit, even though you clearly used "material of this page".
 
DD wrote:
Despite your insistence

1. Plasma is not Dark Matter, nor can it account for the gravitational effects that are observed.
Click to expand...

I never said it was plasma! please enlighten all here and show in which post I stated plasma was dark matter!

Now, I note that you have dodged these questions and pretended I did not ask them.
Click to expand...

Easy there Allemande, I've asked a few that were answered with deafening silence!

Here's a boomer for you, wrt dark matter inferred from the result of the only two examples (galaxy collisions) where are the starburst formations in those two collisions?
The ingredients of a starburst

Firstly, a starburst must have a large supply of gas available to form stars. The burst itself may be triggered by a close encounter with another galaxy (such as M81/M82), a collision with another galaxy (such as the Antennae), or by another process which forces material into the center of the galaxy (such as a stellar bar).
Click to expand...

Remember all the rubbing and bumping and friction mainstream think is going on, would this not imply star formation? Because there obviously was enough "gas" mass (plasma) to cause gravitational lensing!!!

Quote:
The gas clouds from the merging galaxies, however, found the going much tougher. As the clouds ran together, the rubbing and bumping of their gas molecules caused friction to develop. The friction slowed the clouds down, while the stars they contained kept right on moving. Before long, the galaxies slipped out of the gas clouds and into clear space.

With the galaxies in open space, Chandra scientists found dark matter hiding.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Did Zeuzzz ever defend his "corporate science" remark?
Click to expand...
Not that I saw ...

... reminds me of a post by sol invictus, months and months ago, commenting on his posting behaviour ... but I can't find it just now (does anyone know which one I'm referring to?)
 
Copyright statement:
When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

LINK HERE

Original link in post 1850 did not post the copyright disclaimer.

Anything else DRD?
 
Sol88 said:
Copyright statement:
When material of this page is used, credit has to be given to the author(s) as well as to the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

LINK HERE

Original link in post 1850 did not post the copyright disclaimer.

Anything else DRD?
Click to expand...
Yep.

I clicked on the link in post 1850, and on the link in the quote of post 1850 (just to be sure that you had not edited 1850 after I quoted it).

In both cases, the link (the word "filaments" tagged with [ URL ] tags) takes you to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/data_vis/

That is the page which contains the images, and the copyright statement.

Further, the Millennium Run page that you provide a link to (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/index.shtml) seems to contain only two of the four images you included in your post (1850).

Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.
 
Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.
Click to expand...

Sure as long as they have some bearing on this thread other than some spellin, grammar, copyright or hyper link probems! if they are may I suggest you start a thread on them and we'll duel there!

Oh put them in a succinct numbered list please!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Oh, and I have several posts containing simple, straight-forward questions, about material you have written, that I would appreciate you taking the time to answer.
Click to expand...
Sure as long as they have some bearing on this thread other than some spellin, grammar, copyright or hyper link probems! if they are may I suggest you start a thread on them and we'll duel there!
Click to expand...
Most of them have a very direct bearing on this thread ... and the rest concern your apparent insouciance when it comes to making, and keeping, publicly declared commitments (i.e. they concern holding you to your word, as written).

Oh put them in a succinct numbered list please!
Click to expand...
Sure thing; I've added numbers, in bold, to the questions.

From post #1847:

In post#1788 - that I quoted - you stated: "Standard text book plasma physics"

Yet here, in this more recent post of yours that I am quoting, you state that you have not read the paper.

1) May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion (stated in your previous post, #1788), if you have not read the paper?

In that same post:

2) why did you change the bold on "E" and "B", in the original, to the default type font?

(For avoidance of doubt, this has a very direct bearing on this thread, to plasma physics and the published work of Peratt, for example)

In post#1851:

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

4) If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?
 
Last edited:
Two more questions, Sol88.

Both are from post#1860, and I've added numbering - following on from above - in bold.

In my reply to your post, I tried to answer your question "Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?"

5) In this post of yours, that I am quoting, you omitted this question of yours; may I ask why?

AND

6) After all, if you did not want anyone to answer it, why did you ask it?
 
1) Arrive at what conclusion? WhAT on Earth are you on bout?

please see post 1843

I did not bold ExB!!!

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

4) If I may, will you try to answer them in a logical manner?
Click to expand...

WTF :confused:

Two more questions, Sol88.

Both are from post#1860, and I've added numbering - following on from above - in bold.

In my reply to your post, I tried to answer your question "Can you help me understand it to your level of knowledge?"

5) In this post of yours, that I am quoting, you omitted this question of yours; may I ask why?

AND

6) After all, if you did not want anyone to answer it, why did you ask it?
Click to expand...

Mate lay off the pipe eh!

You've got circles in circles going on in the windmills of your mind.

Can you answer what is gravity, under your own merits, because it appears to the casual reader here you can not!
 
DeiRenDopa:

You appear to be falling into a masochistic snake-pit in dealing with Sol88. Perhaps you should consult with a professional before you sink further into the abyss.
 
Sol88 said:
1) Arrive at what conclusion? WhAT on Earth are you on bout?

please see post 1843

I did not bold ExB!!!
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The two letters were in bold in the original paper, you chose to unbold them; why?

If you would please click on the link I provided, you will find the post which contains the original of my questions.

In post #1788, you stated this, concerning the Snell and Peratt paper you cited: "Standard text book plasma physics".

Yet, in post #1843, you stated that you have not read the paper.

My question is: how do you know if the Snell and Peratt paper is "Standard text book plasma physics" if you have not read it?

WTF :confused:



Mate lay off the pipe eh!

You've got circles in circles going on in the windmills of your mind.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Sol88, do you remember the commitments you made, concerning certain essentials that must be in place if we are to have a discussion? If not, I'd be happy to remind you of them. All I am doing is trying to do is hold you to your word, as written in this thread; so far I have had but limited success.

Can you answer what is gravity, under your own merits, because it appears to the casual reader here you can not!
Click to expand...
I do not understand your question, so what follows may not be an answer (apologies in advance).

The general theory of relativity (GR, for short) is a theory which provides a quantitative description of gravity.

GR has been tested, by experiment and observation, thousands of times since it was published in 1916. To date, AFAIK, it has passed all such tests, with flying colours.

As such, it is one of the most successful theories in modern science.

At the personal level, everyone and anyone can interpret GR any way they wish ... provided quantitative explanations and predictions derived from those interpretations produce the same observables as those to be found in standard textbooks on GR.

Sol88, as I may have said before, I think you may be having difficulty with the nature of contemporary science, not just with gravity; in particular, you seem to have an expectation that successful theories must have neat, obvious, intuitive interpretations. Further, you seem to think that successful theories have a core component that is non-mathematical. If either of my (tentative) conclusions is even partly correct, then may I suggest that you abandon this thread, for now, and devote your time and energy to understanding the quantitative nature of modern science?
 
Sol88 said:
1) Reality check care to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to have a look at the millennium run simulation! Tell me what do you see?

2) Dark matter is fictions! Though as you'll note some of the millennium run simulations are modeled on nothing more then DARK matter and guess what the morphology "looks" like inter connected FILAMENTS!! :jaw-dropp Or do you have another explination on what they are?

3) Not quite sure of what you are ranting on about here, what is between the gaps under mainstream thinking?
Click to expand...

The lack of logic here is so complete it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's see - a simulation that includes ONLY GRAVITY - no plasma, no EM forces - produces filamentary structures just like the ones we see in our universe. From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.

Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong. :confused::confused:

Oh yeah, about gravity - yes, sol88, of course we could explain it. You wouldn't understand the explanation, so I doubt anyone will bother to try - but then, you wouldn't understand the explanation of EM forces either. Gravity is in some ways much better understood than EM (in many situations one can make even more accurate predictions with it, for example).
 
Last edited:
Are you still with us Tusenfem?

I need your help, if you do not mind.

WRT double layers and FAC's Birkeland currents, perhaps you could clear some confusion up for me?

From your wiki page on double layers HERE about DL formation

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.
Click to expand...

My bold

What is meant by DL's are produced along a so called Birkeland current (FAC)?

Do they have something in common?

and whats your understanding of a plasmoid and a Dense plasma focus

From wiki
A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning,[1] magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere,[2] and objects in cometary tails,[3] in the solar wind,[4][5] in the solar atmosphere,[6] and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.

The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a "plasma-magnetic entity":[7]
Click to expand...

And a DPF(Dense plasma focus)

Intense bursts of X-rays and charged particles are emitted, as are nuclear fusion neutrons when operated in deuterium. There is ongoing research that demonstrates potential applications as a soft X-ray source
Click to expand...

Positive characteristics

An important characteristic of the dense plasma focus is that the energy density of the focused plasma is practically a constant over the whole range of machines, from sub-kilojoule machines to megajoule machines, when these machines are tuned for optimal operation. This means that a small table-top-sized plasma focus machine produces essentially the same plasma characteristics (temperature and density) as the largest plasma focus. Of course the larger machine will produce the larger volume of focused plasma with a corresponding longer lifetime and more radiation yield.

Even the smallest plasma focus has essentially the same dynamic characteristics as larger machines, producing the same plasma characteristics and the same radiation products and radiation characteristics. This is due to the scalability of plasma phenomena.

See also plasmoid, the self-contained magnetic plasma ball that may be produced by a dense plasma focus.
Click to expand...

'Cos then we can get to the real fun stuff!!!
 
Last edited:
Suggestion for Sol88:

You appear to live in a fanciful world of anti-establishment cosmology and physics. It is apparent from your posts that you lack an understanding of the very physics you attempt to refute. That would be similar to a child debating the correctness of a common multiplication table without having yet mastered an understanding of it.
My suggestion would be to take a few years off and try to learn more basic mathematics and basic physics, so you will better prepared to understand the playing field your on.
 
Sol Invictus wrote:
The lack of logic here is so complete it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's see - a simulation that includes ONLY GRAVITY - no plasma, no EM forces - produces filamentary structures just like the ones we see in our universe. From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.

Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong.

Oh yeah, about gravity - yes, sol88, of course we could explain it. You wouldn't understand the explanation, so I doubt anyone will bother to try - but then, you wouldn't understand the explanation of EM forces either. Gravity is in some ways much better understood than EM (in many situations one can make even more accurate predictions with it, for example).
Click to expand...

Not gravity but some unknown force, DARK MATTER!

From The Millennium Simulation Project
The movies below shows the dark matter distribution in the universe at the present time, based on the Millennium Simulation, the largest N-body simulation carried out thus far (more than 1010 particles). By zooming in on a massive cluster of galaxies, the movie highlights the morphology of the structure on different scales, and the large dynamic range of the simulation (105 per dimension in 3D). The zoom extends from scales of several Gpc down to resolved substructures as small as ~10 kpc.
Click to expand...

And mainstream do not at this time know what DM is but look what structures the DM simulation made. I'm not stateing DM is plasma but..
Quote:
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior
Click to expand...

Sol invictus wrote:
Let's review: in a simulation of the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect), the results are consistent with observation. Sol88 takes this as evidence that the standard model is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes let's, review shall we Sol invictus.

Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...
the standard model which ignores EM forces (for the good reason that including them would have no effect)
Click to expand...


From that, sol88 seems to conclude that plasma cosmology is correct.
Click to expand...

Yes :cool:
 
Last edited:
Perputual student writ:
Suggestion for Sol88:

You appear to live in a fanciful world of anti-establishment cosmology and physics. It is apparent from your posts that you lack an understanding of the very physics you attempt to refute. That would be similar to a child debating the correctness of a common multiplication table without having yet mastered an understanding of it.
My suggestion would be to take a few years off and try to learn more basic mathematics and basic physics, so you will better prepared to understand the playing field your on.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion PS, but math is NOT need for understanding of the concept behind the EU/PC paradigm!!

And yes the physics is very basic, complex to model mathematically (ask Tusenfem, if he is around still) but still very basic concept se my 15 point list!

1. 99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
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.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.
Click to expand...

like ya know dude like charges repel, opposites attract. Is that to simple for you!

Or do you need the math to understand it??? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You don't even know the meanings of the terms you're using! That makes it very difficult to communicate.

Sol88 said:
Not gravity but some unknown force, DARK MATTER!
Click to expand...

Dark matter is not a force. Fundamental error #1.

And mainstream do not at this time know what DM is but look what structures the DM simulation made. I'm not stateing DM is plasma but..
Click to expand...

Fundamental error #2: those simulations did not include EM interactions. How many times do I have to tell you that? Regardless of what DM is in reality, in those simulations it was not a plasma - it was a dust of particles that interact only gravitationally, and yet the simulations agree very well with observation.

Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...
Click to expand...

We might, except your item #1 is FALSE. And your claim that EM forces are so much stronger than gravity is also false, when applied to large net-neutral structures (like astrophysical plasmas, dark matter, galaxies, stars, etc.).
 
Sol88 said:
Take your statement above regarding EM forces on a universe that contains matter (mass) in which 99% is plasma, as per point 1 on my list, and which is 36 - 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (Comparison with the gravitational force) and I think I see the problem...
Click to expand...

The problem is that you repeatedly fail to understand that 99% of the mass of the Universe isn't plasma and that the EM force on a galactic (or bigger) object is not 36-39 orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom