Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 · Mar 30, 2009

Bump

From my post 1874

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

Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
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]
And a DPF(Dense plasma focus)

Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
'Cos then we can get to the real fun stuff!!!

Sol88 · Mar 30, 2009

Zig wrote

(dark matter) Same way ordinary matter creates gravity: it has mass. Mass creates gravity.

And gravity is a force

which makes the whole DM is a force kinda moot!

So hence the need to invent DM for these galaxies, eh! Because they should fly apart right? and they should not have a flat rotational curve either!

But they don't fly apart and they do have flat rotational curves along with all the stars in it, so how the bloody hell are we going to make your (mainstream standard model) work?

Ohh, of course unobservable and untestable dark matter!! brilliant

tusenfem · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
tusenfem said:

However, that whole simulation is about dark matter and not about plasma. So, it seems gravity can create filamentation too.

Click to expand...

Dark matter is not gravity, Tusenfem, is it!

Ah, the proof is in the pudding.

Sol88 you are so stupid to put words in my mouth in front of many other witnesses.

tusenfem · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
From my post 1874

Are you still with us Tusenfem?
I need your help, if you do not mind.

mmmm are you really such a dumbass? first you put words in my mouths, and now you need my help?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Sol88 said:
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

Quote:
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.
My bold

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

what "my bold"? you nitwit cannot even bold a piece of text!

again, you quote out of context (but what is new?) this is about the creation of a double layer through the non-linear Buneman instability. However, as you are probably unable to understand the whole explanation (which is actually pretty well described on the wiki page) I will leave it at that:

in currents (for example in Birkeland currents) double layers can be created

Sol88 said:
Do they have something in common?

apart from that they both consist of charged particles? no
one is an electrical current
the other is an electric field

Sol88 said:
and whats your understanding of a plasmoid and a Dense plasma focus

A plasmoid is a selfcontained magnetic structure in a plasma, with which you don't need to occupy your feeble mind. There are enough topics already that you know nothing about, let this just be another one.

Ziggurat · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
But they don't fly apart and they do have flat rotational curves along with all the stars in it, so how the bloody hell are we going to make your (mainstream standard model) work?

Ohh, of course unobservable and untestable dark matter!! brilliant

Except it is observable. Gravitational lensing from the bullet cluster shows the presence of dark matter.

In contrast, what do the EU folks have to explain galactic rotation curves? They've got some computer simulations by Peratt which are directly contradicted by experiments such as the Eot-Wash group, as well as simple calculations like I did.

Tubbythin · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
Sweet

Plasma scaling

Huh? If your alternative cosmology cannot explain key cosmological observations (which it clearly can't) then it is quite clearly a failed theory. How does that mean I have my foot in my mouth?

So who's left? Deinrendropa decided, wisely to leave, now Tubbythin is a little sketchy as Have not seen the 'ol b bandit (Tusenfem) tonight, so just Zigguarat, Sol Invictus and me left?

I'm not sketchy. This is a thread about a supposed "cosmology". Yet this supposed cosmology cannot explain any of the key cosmological observations. Therefore it is an epic failure. What's sketchy about that?

Tubbythin · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
So therefore I know nuff'n, ehh!

Not much about physics evidently.

Dancing David · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tubby thin wrote:

I think you meant to write

Matches observation

PC: yes as per tested in the lab plasma physics

Wow that must be some lab, cosmos sized you say?

Does it have a web site I can check?

Dancing David · Mar 30, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ziggurat wrote

But DM is acting like unseen(undetectable) mass, which has active gravitational force as a property (the weakest of the four known forces)

Umm what force does gravity exert?(rhetorical)

So what stops those galaxies from collapsing into some big arse BH then?

I feel a circular argument comm'n on! careful

Momentum?
Position?

Dancing David · Mar 30, 2009

sol invictus said:
Do you know what prevents the earth from falling into the sun?

Elves and fairies?

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Ok lets start again

Ziggurt wrote

Except it is observable. Gravitational lensing from the bullet cluster shows the presence of dark matter.

In contrast, what do the EU folks have to explain galactic rotation curves? They've got some computer simulations by Peratt which are directly contradicted by experiments such as the Eot-Wash group, as well as simple calculations like I did.

And from the The Eöt-Wash Group:
Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics

Motivation

Gravity poses one of the biggest mysteries in physics: why is it so weak when compared with all the other forces of nature? For instance, a small magnet suspended above a table can easily overcome the downward gravitational pull of the entire earth and pick up a nail.

Recently, an intriguing solution to this puzzle, involving "extra" space dimensions, has been suggested. String theory requires that there are 10 space dimensions, and it is usually assumed that 7 of these dimensions are curled up in very tiny regions, so small that they cannot be detected with foreseeable technology. The new idea, due to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali , is that the apparent weakness of gravity could be explained if gravity can "leak off" into the extra dimensions while everything else is confined to the usual 3 dimensions of length, width and height. In fact these extra dimensions could be as big as a millimeter and no experiment would have detected them! Gravity would be only way to "see" these extra dimensions, but the very weakness of gravity has meant that until recently there was no way to test the theory: no one had even been able to detect the gravitational attraction between two millimeter-sized objects, much less see if the force could be stronger than expected.

The value of the energy density of the cosmological constant (3 keV/cm^3), deduced from observations of distant Type-1A supernovae, corresponds to a length scale of about 0.1mm. S.R. Beane and others have noted that this energy density could produce deviations from Newtonian behavior just below the millimeter scale.

One particular model, proposed by Raman Sundrum to account for the cosmological constant problem, posits that the graviton is actually a "fat" particle which is unable to mediate the force of gravity at length scales smaller than itself. Under such a model, the force of gravity would appear to turn off at distances below the dark energy length scale.

Additionally, string theories predict the existence of new particles which could mediate as yet unseen interactions on this distance scale. Such particles include the dilaton and moduli found in theories containing supersymmetry (SUSY). These new interactions could also be observed in a short-range torsion balance experiment.

To date, the University of Washington Eöt-Wash group, led by physics professors Eric Adelberger, Blayne Heckel and Jens Gundlach, has tested the strength of gravity at distances down to 0.06 millimeters. Thus far no deviation from Newton's gravitational inverse-square law has been found in the short length-scale regime. The UW team remains actively engaged in measurements of ever increasing complexity and precision, consistently providing the best experimental limits of gravity-strength deviations available.

Regarding the many new gravitational theories being proposed by today's leading theorists: "We don't know if these ideas are right, but they are revolutionary," Adelberger said. "There would be profound consequences if the ideas are correct. The best way to find out is to devise a way to test gravity at even shorter distances. We are working on it."

The fact that this famous fundamental constant is still so uncertain testifies to the difficulty of gravitational measurements. The recent flurry of new ideas for measuring G would surely have pleased Isaac Newton (quite a clever experimenter himself) who started this whole enterprise over 300 years ago.

Yep pretty solid science there Zigguarat (sarcasm)

Oh and well done to the team, conclusion gravity is a attractive force ONLY!!!

Nobel prize coming up!

even under EU/PC gravity is very special it acts instantaneously over distance!

The tests mean *****!

So until string theory is proven correct, it's bunk in relation to this thread.

sol invictus · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Yep pretty solid science there Zigguarat (sarcasm)

Oh and well done to the team, conclusion gravity is a attractive force ONLY!!!

Nobel prize coming up!

even under EU/PC gravity is very special it acts instantaneously over distance!

The tests mean *****!

So until string theory is proven correct, it's bunk in relation to this thread.

What are you talking about?

You realize you're spouting utter nonsense, right?

temporalillusion · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 has jumped the shark.

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

tusenfem wrote

mmmm are you really such a dumbass? first you put words in my mouths, and now you need my help?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

<sigh> I understand plenty more than you think i do, there you self righteous p**f! <sigh>

A plasmoid is a self contained magnetic structure in a plasma, with which you don't need to occupy your feeble mind

You explain to the many other feeble minds the implications a plasmoid has on a Plasma universe!

I fear that's the problem, they do not understand plasma's extra superman powers! :jaw-dropp

1815

I understand plasma and it's relation ship to the title of this thread.

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Sol invictus wrote:

What are you talking about?

Why are they talking about string theory then? And that proves gravitational lensing??

It's going to a long thread!

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Ok lets have another go and focus just for the time being on Birkeland currents(FAC's), Double layers and Plasmoids!

Because we do have an expert here with us Tusenfem, he even has a few papers out WRT plasma.

We need to take baby steps for some of the members here, so lets ask a general question first to stop any misconception.

Is it commonly believed that a black hole is at the center of our galaxy?

sol invictus · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Why are they talking about string theory then?

Nothing about that question makes any sense. You posted it. And it's from the motivation section of their site - it has little or nothing to do with the experiments they did.

And that proves gravitational lensing??

You really have no freaking clue, do you? Their experiments have nothing to do with gravitational lensing!

Sol88 said:
Does a black hole lay at the center of our galaxy?

I didn't know black holes could "lay"... if you meant "is there a black hole at the center of our galaxy", the answer is yes, almost certainly.

brantc · Mar 31, 2009

This is not proof of Dark Matter. With assumptions like colliding, and lensing, and off center mass measured by weak gravitational lensing.

A DIRECT EMPIRICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DARK MATTER ∗
Douglas Clowe1, Maru sa Brada 2, Anthony H. Gonzalez3, Maxim Markevitch4,5, Scott W. Randall4,
Christine Jones4, and Dennis Zaritsky1
ApJ Letters in press
ABSTRACT
We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657−558 (z = 0.296), a unique cluster merger,
that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the
gravitational force law. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar component and
the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based
images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show
that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass
component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8σ significance spatial
oset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained
with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in
the system is unseen.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608407v1.pdf

Those "centers of mass" are the power source for the x-ray plasma discharges responsible for those pictures. Probably lensing due to electrical(magnetism?) density...... Make the objects appear a little oblong.

Its a Birkeland current end on..... And its discharging between the 2 filaments...

The "high speed" of the "clouds" is due to the current flow which generates the x-rays.

sol invictus · Mar 31, 2009

brantc said:
Those "centers of mass" are the power source for the x-ray plasma discharges responsible for those pictures.

so brantc - do you mean the luminous clouds visible in this image are due to x-ray plasma discharges?

(this could be good....)

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Further ignorance for Soll88 - you really should learn about Plasma Cosmology some time.

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?

I have knowna about the millennium run simulation sincethe results was anounced.
It is a non-PC computer simulation of the Lambda-CDM model producing filaments that are definitley not predicted by PC.

Your simple mind seems to think that all fliaments are that same. You may as well state that the filaments in a plasma globe are "cosmic plasma filaments".

If you knew anything about PC than you would know that the cosmic plasma filaments are 35 kpc wide (100,000 light years), an average of 350 Mpc long (1 billion light years), connect galaxies and what is more important occur in pairs.

The images have filaments that are ~1 Mpc wide, ~30 Mpc long, connect galactic clusters and are single.
Only a truly ignorant person would confuse the 2 types of filaments.

Sol88 said:
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!! Or do you have another explination on what they are?

Wrong yet again Sol88. You really need to learn to read.

Dark matter is a fact since is has been actually observed. It
The computer simulation is of the Lambda-CDM model. At no stage is it run on CDM only. Some of the images are of of CDM distribution produced by the simulation.

Sol88 said:
3) Not quite sure of what you are ranting on about here, what is between the gaps under mainstream thinking?

There are no gaps (i.e. large volumes not containing stars) between the arms of spiral galaxies. Astronomers are smart. They know that visible light is not all of the electromagnetic spectrum. So they look at spiral galaxies in other wavelengths and see that there are no real "arms". There is just volumes of 10-20% greater density that happen to be brighter because they have a large number of young bright stars in them.

P.S. The stuff that they detect between the arms includes ionized gas (that is plasma for you Sol88)

!

Sol88 said:
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"?

More ignorance of PC: Peratt's model is about galaxy formation. It requires a before, i.e. an explanation of how the filaments fromed from the plasma that existsd at the time.
More ignorance of BBT: The Big Bang Theory starts after the Big Bang. It does not address what came before the BB.

Sol88 said:
5) , and note the millennium run simulations made no mention of plasma, though they did mention particles, but particles of what?

Particle as in things with position, mass, interactions, etc. You know - the common scientific use of the word particle.

Ignoring plasma is correct for large scales. Electromagnetic forces cancel out in plasma over large scales because there are attractive and repulsive forces.

Ignoring gravity is totally wrong. Gravitational forces never cancel out over large scales because they are always attractive.

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

double post

Tim Thompson · Mar 31, 2009

Is SOL88 Out of Luck?

Tim Thompson said:
Bad news: Double layers do not cause charge separation. Rather, they are caused by charge separation. So you still need too identify the root cause. If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon. If you can't do that, then you are out of luck.

Sol88 said:
1 Current carrying double layers may arise in plasmas carrying a current

2 Current-free double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties

3 Mechanically, ratio between the mass of a proton and that of an electron is about 1836 ^ Zombeck, Martin V. (2007). Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Third edition ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 14.

So what? We already know all of this. I said "If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon." All you did was repeat a bunch of very general stuff we already know. You did not answer the question.

Sol88 said:
And I did not ignore the book based on the title "fluid dynamics" as matter of fact my point 3 above requires plasma to act as a fluid.

If you're so happy about plasma being a fluid, then why did you say this? ...

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

Or perhaps you now want to tell us you were wrong and have changed your mind?

Tim Thompson said:
Evidently, tusenfem came to the same conclusion. You really have no theory, not even an hypothesis.

Sol88 said:
please see post 1893

Sol88 said:
Lets get this straight IT IS NOT MY MODEL ...

Yes, let's get this straight: OH YES IT IS YOUR MODEL. You are the one who says the standard model is wrong, and the alternate EU/PC model is correct. That makes it your model, whether you like it or not. So deal with it or quit, take your choice.

Once Again:

Tim Thompson said:
If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon. If you can't do that, then you are out of luck.

If you can't stop switching stories and dealing banal generalities, if you can't actually say something specific, about how double layers can specifically work as the root cause for a given specific observed effect, all based on either known or plausible physics, then you are in fact out of luck.

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Zig wrote And gravity is a force which makes the whole DM is a force kinda moot!

So hence the need to invent DM for these galaxies, eh! Because they should fly apart right? and they should not have a flat rotational curve either!

But they don't fly apart and they do have flat rotational curves along with all the stars in it, so how the bloody hell are we going to make your (mainstream standard model) work?

Ohh, of course unobservable and untestable dark matter!! brilliant

Sol88: You are getting more ignorant as this thread goes on

. Obviously something is killing off your brain cells - could it be prolonged exposure to Plasma Cosmology

?

Galaxies are not stars (you may have missed this in high school

). They are collections of stars :jaw-dropp

. All that galaxies need to not fly apart is the gravitational attraction between the stars that they contain.
The "bloody hell" way scientists mde the mainstream standard model work was by adding more matter to the galaxy. This matter was not visible so it was called dark. Thus "Dark Matter". :eye-poppi

Dark matter has been observed and tested. brilliant

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
And from the The Eöt-Wash Group:
Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics

The Eöt-Wash Group are mostly looking for deviations in gravitational forces from the predictions of General Relativity. This specific experiment is a test to see if there are deviations at short ranges (< 1 millimeter) from Newton's law. If these are found then it would be support for Sundrum's model or string theory. This is what scientists do - they test scientific theories even if they look right.

You do know that 1 millimeter is not a cosmological distance?

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Zig wrote

Dark matter has been observed and tested. brilliant

pegging the BS meter here Zig

Dark matter was inferred not observed or tested, period.

The Electric Universe model takes a very different approach. There was no Big Bang, no distinct creation event, and the Universe is as it always was: 99.999% plasma. Over time, the cosmic plasma organized into cells, as plasma will do, separated by differences in matter and charge densities, bounded by double layers. Along the boundaries between these cells, filaments and sheets organized into Birkeland currents. The Universe self-organized due to the electromagnetic properties of plasma.

TPOD

If plasma can charge separate, as I've shown, then the rest is history!

See my 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.

Are you saying Tim Thompson that charge separation does not occur in astrophysical plasma?

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Realtiy check :

Particle as in things with position, mass, interactions, etc. You know - the common scientific use of the word particle.

You missed electric charge, color charge, and spin, with your ignorance.

As you are most probably aware there are a few different families of particles!

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Realtiy check :

You missed electric charge, color charge, and spin, with your ignorance.

As you are most probably aware there are a few different families of particles!

You do know what "etc." means? I guess that you missed that with your ignorance.

The particles in the Millennium Simulation are not assumed to be any specific kind of particle (electron, meson, quark, etc.).

Zeuzzz · Mar 31, 2009

Reality Check said:
Dark matter has been observed and tested. brilliant

It has not been observed. It has been implied based on the assumption that gravity is the only force at work.

You go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation. Yet, the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is visually (in ordinary light) between us and the dense core of a low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy, NGC 7319, is just dismissed out of hand as being "statistically insignificant", along with all of Arps other observations. Where he has documented well over thirty similar cases, probably even more.

And you expect us to take you mere two "observations" of dark matter as some sort of definitive proof of its existance? Arp goes and looks (and finds) much more evidence to back up his previous observations and they are all dismissed 'statistically', well I put it to you when astronomers have gone looking for specific cases that prove their Dark Gnomes and come up with the observations you always refer to as 'proof of Dark Matter, it is a blantent textbook case of false a posteriori statistics.

Reality Check said:
It is a non-PC computer simulation of the Lambda-CDM model producing filaments that are definitley not predicted by PC.

I have seen the simulations, and seen the results, and I am dubious to say the least. Now, were the simulations based entirely on the Lambda-CDM gravity driven model of the universe, or was the large scale structure rather surveyed and then made to fit, with a couple of ad-hoc fixes to the code here and there?

Maybe I am just being naive, but I'm sure you can clarify a few points for me.

So, can you please give a detailed analysis of how gravity (an exclusively attractive field) can produce large scale filamentary structures in the universe?*

*(please do not simply say, well look at this simulation, it totally proves it!, if your going to do that then all the coding and variables used in the simulation need to be posted here and scrutinsed, so we can see what the pictures actually represent and how gravity has been modified to create filamentary structures)

Tim Thompson · Mar 31, 2009

What Language?

Sol88 said:
Are you saying Tim Thompson that charge separation does not occur in astrophysical plasma?

I should have guessed that English is not your native language. Sorry about that.

Tim Thompson said:
I said "If you think that double layers are responsible for observed phenomena, than you need to show that double layers can form in that environment, and transfer enough energy to power the given phenomenon." All you did was repeat a bunch of very general stuff we already know. You did not answer the question. ...
If you can't stop switching stories and dealing banal generalities, if you can't actually say something specific, about how double layers can specifically work as the root cause for a given specific observed effect, all based on either known or plausible physics, then you are in fact out of luck.

If any of those words are too long for you, try the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Since I don't know your native language, I can't do a translation for you.

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Sol Invictus wrote:

I didn't know black holes could "lay"... if you meant "is there a black hole at the center of our galaxy", the answer is yes, almost certainly.

So we can all more or less agree on the BH at the center of the milky way and most probably most others as well.

So how do we know they are BH's of all the different varieties of black holes, if we can not see them.

For simplicity will just use the SMBH at our center as some sort of standard model.

Well one way astronomer use is observation, from Wiki's BH page

Most accretion disks and gas jets are not clear proof that a stellar-mass black hole is present, because other massive, ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars and white dwarfs cause accretion disks and gas jets to form and to behave in the same ways as those around black holes. But they can often help by telling astronomers where it might be worth looking for a black hole.

On the other hand, extremely large accretion disks and gas jets may be good evidence for the presence of supermassive black holes, because as far as we know any mass large enough to power these phenomena must be a black hole.

Note worthy to mention that jets have been observed from a brown dwarf as well. Another object that mainstream dare not mention are plasmoids and dense plasma focus.

Lets for now not concern our self with abstract math and just "look" at some pretty pictures

First from the wiki BH article

And then E.Lerner's plasmoid

This image shows the form of the plasmoid at the center of the galaxy (and the particle jets created when the magnetic field begins to collapse). Image credit: E. Lerner.

Source

The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a torus. We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities.

That torus I believe is what mainstream call an event horizon!

Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another.

SOURCE

and the a real plasmoid in the center of our galaxy

Image courtesy chandra.harvard.edu

And when a Beam (electron or Ion) passes thru plasma something called Buneman instability arises from the very fact Ions are 1836 times more massive than the electron. This sets up all sorts of wonderful plasma effects, like double layers, charge separation, charge equalization channels (FAC's) and lots of funky electromagnetic effects .i.e. radio wave, visual waves, UV , Xray and gamma ray in fact the entire observational spectrum!

Which much to Tim's disgust, of haven't got the maths skills needed to "prove" this effect, though the maths is out there if that's what you need to believe in.

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Zig wrote

pegging the BS meter here Zig

Dark matter was inferred not observed or tested, period.

You need to actually read the posts. That was me replying not Zig.

Dark matter was inferred by the observations of several physical properites:

Velocity dispersions of galaxies show missing matter.
Galaxy clusters also show missing matter.
The measured orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have been found to be consistent with dark matter observations

Now we have 2 (count them Sol88) actual observations of dark matter.
This is a fact that you consistently ignore.

I do not know what you mean by "tested" but the 2 actual observation are actual tests that show dark matter exists.

Sol88 said:
TPOD

If plasma can charge separate, as I've shown, then the rest is history!

See my list!

Are you saying Tim Thompson that charge separation does not occur in astrophysical plasma?

Your list contains a number of standard plasma physics facts.
One error

"99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma" should read "99.999% of the visible matter in the observable Universe is plasma". This assumes that all the ionized gas that is actually observed is plasma - which is wrong but Sol88 cannot seem to understand that not all ionized gas is plasma.

You state "Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can “self” organize". What does this mean? If you mean that the plasma can form various shapes then that is obvious. The problem that I have is with the “self” bit. A plasma with an electric current flowing through is is under an external influence (to create the electric current). It is not organizing itself. It is being organized.

You may want to lie to us and remove "Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior".
The whole point about cosmic plasma filaments is that they are plasmas with electric currents running through them and they are stable over billions of years.

You may want to lie to us and remove "12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum." because filaments matching the cosmic plasma filaments (paired, 35 kpc wide, 350 Mpc long, connecting galaxies) have never been observed. As a PC/EU proponent you will then want them to be invisible.

Charge separation does occur in astrophysical plasma if there is an external force causing the charges to be separated.
Charges are "separated" by definition in a plasma (electrons are separated from ions). Charge separation as in double layers does not happen spontaneously in astrophysical plasmas.

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

So one theory relies on something we can study under scientific conditions, .i.e. get our hands on! That the Universe is electric

The other model needs caveats, unseen entities and is based on abstract math, that is untestable and that we will never be able to model in real time "hands" on in the lab, that model is the BB/Lambda-CDM model!

If

the visible universe is 99.999% plasma. It is worth noting that all cosmic plasma carries a magnetic field and electric currents. Even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas.

now just using logic, not abstract math, why use gravity to try a describe what happens in a universe filled with plasma?

No one thing need to be "made" up, ad-hoced or fudged under EU/PC.

Zeuzzz · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Dark matter was inferred not observed or tested, period.

Exactly Sol88. People seem incapable of distinguishing what models simply infer should be there and what we can directly test for sure. This is where a religous type faith in their theories starts to conflict with direct empirical evidence.

Are you saying Tim Thompson that charge separation does not occur in astrophysical plasma?

I'm sure that Tim will say that it does, but thats its "insignificant" in some way.

Theres a much more pertinent question that should be asked here however.

It is well known that the solid earth is charged up to millions of coulombs, such that there is an atmospheric voltage potential of something like 300,000 Volts (well deduced from lightning discharges and various geophysical consideration). [brief reference: Natural plasmas » Solar-terrestrial forms » The lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth]

How is this large charge separation and voltage maintained?

Unless someone can answer this basic question about charge separation so close home (in an evironment that is infact a very weak plasma), I see no reason why anyone can dismiss any occurence of substantially large charge separation occuring elsewhere in space.

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Apologies Zig. Reality check wrote:

Dark matter was inferred by the observations of several physical properites:

* Velocity dispersions of galaxies show missing matter.
* Galaxy clusters also show missing matter.
* The measured orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have been found to be consistent with dark matter observations

*Velocity dispersions of galaxies show missing matter.
* Galaxy clusters also show missing matter.

You are totally correct and we DO agree on this matter, under the standard model there is missing mass, that's undeniable!

So what are we going to make up, as per standard model to make our maths work?

The measured orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have been found to be consistent with dark matter observations

Just add Dark Matter!

Sol88 · Mar 31, 2009

Zeuzz wrote

It is well known that the solid earth is charged up to millions of coulombs, such that there is an atmospheric voltage potential of something like 300,000 Volts (well deduced from lightning discharges and various geophysical consideration). [brief reference: Natural plasmas » Solar-terrestrial forms » The lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth]

How is this large charge separation and voltage maintained?

You can add our Moon, Jupiters moons, Saturn's moons and comets to that as well.

But as as you said they will most probably say they are insignificant and unrelated phenomena!!

And that's just OUR solar system!

tusenfem · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
<sigh> I understand plenty more than you think i do, there you self righteous p**f! <sigh>

Sol88, what you do not seem to understand is that you cannot insult people, either by names OR by putting words in their mouths or twisting the meaning of what they write by e.g. quoting out of context and THEN expect those same people to HELP you.

If you understand plenty, maybe this would be one thing that you really should understand!

Sol88 said:
You explain to the many other feeble minds the implications a plasmoid has on a Plasma universe!

I fear that's the problem, they do not understand plasma's extra superman powers! 1815

I understand plasma and it's relation ship to the title of this thread.

Then show us by answering the questions that are posed to you.
But you can't, can you? Explain to us how the EM forces hold the Earth in place around the Sun, or the stars around the centre of the galaxy.

Plasmoids have nothing to do with cosmology, so let it be and concentrate on the questions already asked.

And plasma "superman powers" and then you link to a message written by me where I explain that plasma is mainly a gas and a fluid? Oh brother.

According to your public profile you are supposed to be 32 years old right now. From your posting methods, I think you might have just over half that age.

tusenfem · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok lets have another go and focus just for the time being on Birkeland currents(FAC's), Double layers and Plasmoids!

Because we do have an expert here with us Tusenfem, he even has a few papers out WRT plasma.

We need to take baby steps for some of the members here, so lets ask a general question first to stop any misconception.

Is it commonly believed that a black hole is at the center of our galaxy?

Does this even make sense?
Another go at double layers and FAC, sure.
And then your question is about the BH in the centre of our galaxy?
Well, my feeble mind cannot follow this reanoning.

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Exactly Sol88. People seem incapable of distinguishing what models simply infer should be there and what we can directly test for sure. This is where a religous type faith in their theories starts to conflict with direct empirical evidence.

I assume that you have found a fatal flaw or 2 or 3 in the observations of dark matter Zeuzzz. Pleases tell us about them and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

Otherwise you are just deluded. The observations are just that - observations.

Zeuzzz said:
I'm sure that Tim will say that it does, but thats its "insignificant" in some way.

Theres a much more pertinent question that should be asked here however.

It is well known that the solid earth is charged up to millions of coulombs, such that there is an atmospheric voltage potential of something like 300,000 Volts (well deduced from lightning discharges and various geophysical consideration). [brief reference: Natural plasmas » Solar-terrestrial forms » The lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth]

How is this large charge separation and voltage maintained?

Unless someone can answer this basic question about charge separation so close home (in an evironment that is infact a very weak plasma), I see no reason why anyone can dismiss any occurence of substantially large charge separation occuring elsewhere in space.

There is a quite energetic thing called the Sun. This emits something called the solar wind. That is the basic answer for your basic question.

AFAIK there is evidence for charge separation in space where there is an external power source to drive the charges apart. The Moon has already been mentioned (thanks Sol88). There is no charge separation without an external force, i.e.. an external power source.

tusenfem · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
If plasma can charge separate, as I've shown, then the rest is history!

YOU have shown that plasma can charge separate? Wow, where, when, how?

Sol88 said:
Are you saying Tim Thompson that charge separation does not occur in astrophysical plasma?

Typical Sol88 behaviour: not reading what TT has written. TT asked you to show that charge separation can happen in the situations that you want it to happen. (this is getting so tiresommmmmmmeeeeeeee)

Reality Check · Mar 31, 2009

Sol88 said:
So one theory relies on something we can study under scientific conditions, .i.e. get our hands on! That the Universe is electric

Totally wrong: The universe is electromagnetic and gravitational. We can certainly get out hands on gravity as well as electromagnetism.

Sol88 said:
So
The other model needs caveats, unseen entities and is based on abstract math, that is untestable and that we will never be able to model in real time "hands" on in the lab, that model is the BB/Lambda-CDM model!

A bit of simple logic for you Sol88: Disproving theory A says nothing about the validilty of theory B or Theory C or theory D or etc.

Try to read the topic of this thread and keep to it - "Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not".
P.S. The conclusion was that PC is no woo. It is non-science.

Sol88 said:
now just using logic, not abstract math, why use gravity to try a describe

Because electromagentism in a plasma is a short range force.

Sol88 said:
No one thing need to be "made" up, ad-hoced or fudged under EU/PC.

Have the cosmic plasma filiments that are in pairs, connect galaxies, about 35 kpc wide and 350 Mpc long been observed?
Or are they "made" up, ad-hoced or fudged EU/PC entities?

Have the the electric currents that power the Sun been observed?
Or are they "made" up, ad-hoced or fudged EU/PC entities?

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Technical Admin

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Muse

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing