Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 said:
Cool, what about surface area of the double layer? Lets take the Earths puny little DL how many m2 would that cover? or better still lets take the heliosphere how many m2 does that cover?

What happens to all those electron and ions arriving from outside the sun's DL as well as the + & - from inside the DL?

Can GAS do any of these things, tusenfem?
Click to expand...
GAS (the state of matter cannot) Plasma which is a gas can as any idiot knows.
 
And for any the really really dumb there is alway Wikipedia: Plasma
In physics and chemistry, plasma is a partially ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free rather than being bound to an atom or molecule. The ability of the positive and negative charges to move somewhat independently makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter. Plasma typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds, as seen, for example, in the case of stars. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container, but, unlike gas, in the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers (see section 3, below).
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
And for any the really really dumb there is alway Wikipedia: Plasma
Click to expand...


Seems you finally got it, RC!

PLASMA is NOT a GAS!!!

If in doubt my friend, please reread your link, I'll highlight the part you are failing to understand!

Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter.
 
Sol88 said:
Seems you finally got it, RC!

PLASMA is NOT a GAS!!!

If in doubt my friend, please reread your link, I'll highlight the part you are failing to understand!

Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter.
Click to expand...
Seems you finally gor it, Sol88

PLASMA is NOT a GAS!!!

If in doubt my friend, please reread my link, I'll highlight the part you are failing to understand!
Plasma is a partially ionized gas.

and yes:
Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter.
and a little lower:
Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter. It is distinct from other lower-energy states of matter; most commonly solid, liquid, and gas. Although it is closely related to the gas phase in that it also has no definite form or volume, it differs in a number of ways, including the following: (read the table yourself).

It also has properties of a gas
 
Sol88 said:
Bubbles of plasma? that's a double layer just ask Tusenfem!

You have plasma beams slamming into the surrounding plasma and "bubbles" form, amazing that.
Click to expand...
No: bubble = lobe of plasma.
A double layer is a not a "lobe of plasma".

And no it is not amazing to any one with a brain. Plasma beams "slamming" into the surrounding plasma in the right conditions obviously create shock waves, slowing of the beam, and diffusion of the beam plasma into the surrounding plasma to form a lobe of plasma.
 
Sol88 said:
Bubbles of plasma? that's a double layer just ask Tusenfem!

You have plasma beams slamming into the surrounding plasma and "bubbles" form, amazing that.
Click to expand...

Don't put your ***** in my mouth, Sol88 I never EVER said that a plasma bubble is a double layer. Please if I did, link the message to your post.

But of course Sol88 you are totally right, every plasma is a double layer, and every double layer is a bennett pinched birkeland current, and the charged sun emits only positive ions and the electrons are gathered together in the core, where the bubble and blob and create the heliosphere.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Cool, what about surface area of the double layer? Lets take the Earths puny little DL how many m2 would that cover?
Click to expand...

dunno, which double layer do you mean? the ones measured by the Viking spacecraft and by Freja? quite small actually

Sol88 said:
or better still lets take the heliosphere how many m2 does that cover?
Click to expand...

The heliosphere is not a double layer, even thinking that it would be is laughable. Now, if you would have said heliopause, well, ....... no also not, that is a bow shock.

Sol88 said:
What happens to all those electron and ions arriving from outside the sun's DL as well as the + & - from inside the DL?
Click to expand...

I ahve no idea about which sun DL you are talking about, if you would be a wee bit clearer maybe I could give you an answer, but as it stands, this is a meaningless question.

Sol88 said:
Can GAS do any of these things, tusenfem?
Click to expand...

If you can show that I ever said that a double layer is one of the gas characteristics of plasma, then I will eat my undies, but you see, I have never said that. I even went all out to try and explain to you that certain things (like the plasma flow) can easily be described by a gas law, but if you want to discuss double layers you need to take into account that the plasma is made up of charged particles. You see, you "commented on my post, but you did not read it otherwise you would have seen that what I write here is also written in post number 2898.

But then, you are not here to learn anything, are you Sol88, you are here to just repeat the same old same old, trying to get onto peoples nerves, and succeeding now and then, and try to disrupt a "discussion" that should have stopped 50 pages or more ago. You are a lucky guy, that JREF lets you do that, I remember you getting banned from BAUT, which was also good for you, the banning, because you could not make yourself rediculous any longer, here on JREF your suffering goes on and on and on, and no respite. It's sad, Sol88, I pity you, but love to hate you baby!
 
Reality Check said:
No: bubble = lobe of plasma.
A double layer is a not a "lobe of plasma".

And no it is not amazing to any one with a brain. Plasma beams "slamming" into the surrounding plasma in the right conditions obviously create shock waves, slowing of the beam, and diffusion of the beam plasma into the surrounding plasma to form a lobe of plasma.
Click to expand...

Dude, where is the DL formation and the instabilities? or are you thinking mainstream with gas causing shocks and and and......
 
tusenfem said:
dunno, which double layer do you mean? the ones measured by the Viking spacecraft and by Freja? quite small actually



The heliosphere is not a double layer, even thinking that it would be is laughable. Now, if you would have said heliopause, well, ....... no also not, that is a bow shock.



I ahve no idea about which sun DL you are talking about, if you would be a wee bit clearer maybe I could give you an answer, but as it stands, this is a meaningless question.



If you can show that I ever said that a double layer is one of the gas characteristics of plasma, then I will eat my undies, but you see, I have never said that. I even went all out to try and explain to you that certain things (like the plasma flow) can easily be described by a gas law, but if you want to discuss double layers you need to take into account that the plasma is made up of charged particles. You see, you "commented on my post, but you did not read it otherwise you would have seen that what I write here is also written in post number 2898.

But then, you are not here to learn anything, are you Sol88, you are here to just repeat the same old same old, trying to get onto peoples nerves, and succeeding now and then, and try to disrupt a "discussion" that should have stopped 50 pages or more ago. You are a lucky guy, that JREF lets you do that, I remember you getting banned from BAUT, which was also good for you, the banning, because you could not make yourself rediculous any longer, here on JREF your suffering goes on and on and on, and no respite. It's sad, Sol88, I pity you, but love to hate you baby!
Click to expand...

So we are finally clear then? Gas and PLASMA are distinct states of matter?

And most of the time when the mainstream talk about GAS they are really talking about PLASMA, are they not? eg stellar winds, multi million degree GAS et cetera
 
But then, you are not here to learn anything, are you Sol88, you are here to just repeat the same old same old, trying to get onto peoples nerves, and succeeding now and then, and try to disrupt a "discussion" that should have stopped 50 pages or more ago. You are a lucky guy, that JREF lets you do that, I remember you getting banned from BAUT, which was also good for you, the banning, because you could not make yourself rediculous any longer, here on JREF your suffering goes on and on and on, and no respite. It's sad, Sol88, I pity you, but love to hate you baby!
Click to expand...

So you tell me Tusenfem, what drugs do you think Alfven was on to propose such an anti scientific crackpot theory such as PLASMA COSMOLOGY?

Dude knows his plasma from his gas!!! :D:p

If the BB is so solid, why did he decide to hang himself out to dry with the whole PC ********?
 
Sol88 said:
Perhaps DD you could point out which bit they are mistaken about

Thunderbolt of the gods

Plasma: The other 99.9%



so which of those 14 points is incorrect?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should learn to respond to what people write? Eh?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071228vercorsplateau.htm

It appears to have been wrenched out of the ground, wrung by incredible forces and then thrown back to Earth approximately 500 miles east of where it was originally located. What could create a titanic pyramid of solid rock, toss it like a pebble and then stand it on its head?
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
So you tell me Tusenfem, what drugs do you think Alfven was on to propose such an anti scientific crackpot theory such as PLASMA COSMOLOGY?

Dude knows his plasma from his gas!!! :D:p

If the BB is so solid, why did he decide to hang himself out to dry with the whole PC ********?
Click to expand...

You're suggesting false dichotomies. Alfven was either on drugs or correct. The BB is either wrong, or Alfven inexplicably decided to 'hang himself out to dry'.

This pedantry about whether plasma is a gas or not is also rather tiresome. The fact that many astrophysicists will describe certain plasmas using the word 'gas' does not mean we are unaware of its state or how it behaves. I think I've mentioned it before, but it's not entirely unlike how we will use the word 'metal' for many non-metallic elements.
 
tusenfem said:
as the DeBye length is a length, how on Earth can it be the surface area?
Click to expand...

yes we get this Tusenfem, but what shape does the DL form, is it not a "bubble"?

Say an anology would be a balloon with the skin being the DeBye length (width) but the skin must close on itself yeah? or no "bubble"!

So whats the surface area of the balloon (bubble) double layer? Say of the Earths?
 
Sol88 said:
yes we get this Tusenfem, but what shape does the DL form, is it not a "bubble"?

Say an anology would be a balloon with the skin being the DeBye length (width) but the skin must close on itself yeah? or no "bubble"!

So whats the surface area of the balloon (bubble) double layer? Say of the Earths?
Click to expand...
Easy - a double layer forms .... a layer with two parts!
The surface area of a spherical balloon is 4*pi*r2.
 
Sol88 said:
So we are finally clear then? Gas and PLASMA are distinct states of matter?

And most of the time when the mainstream talk about GAS they are really talking about PLASMA, are they not? eg stellar winds, multi million degree GAS et cetera
Click to expand...
You are right: GAS and PLASMA (when in uppercase) are considered as distinct states of matter. No one is arguing about this.

But plasma is gas (in lowercase), more specifically partially ionized gas with specific properties.

Gas is a collection of particles bouncing off each other according to one set of equations.
Plasma is a collection of particles bouncing off each other according to another set of equations which includes in certain situations the gas equations.

Astronomers use the word gas because it includes plasma as an almost exclusive subset and often there is no way to tell the difference between an observation of neutral gas and plasma.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Dude, where is the DL formation and the instabilities? or are you thinking mainstream with gas causing shocks and and and......
Click to expand...
Dude.
There may be DL formation within the plasma lobes. We have the right conditions such as constant supply of plasma (similar to the solar wind).

But the lobes themselves are not DLs. That is what you are stating and that is obvious wrong. For a start the lobes are many light years in size(megaparsecs for the largest observed) and ...
One more time for the especially dumb:
  1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
  2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
  3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.
But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.
 
Wrote this reply a while ago, and was going to save it until I had enough spare time to actually defend the arguments therein. But **** it. Might aswell just post it now, but dont expect me to spend much time replying to your comments.

The re-definition of plasma cosmology as I see it and the changes that have been made to it will be following in due course. As this post is about just one tiny aspect of PC. It'll probs be about a month. Probably worthy of a new thread when I get round to it.

In accordance with Edds proclamation that,

"There's no rule like "if you've adjusted your theory 100 times it's clearly wrong"

Which if not true would mean the Big Bang was ruled out years ago. So lets try to apply this to plasma cosmology too.

Cut, Paste:

Ziggurat said:
No, it's not. You're using terms which you obviously don't understand. Scale invariance and translational invariance are not the same, nor does translational invariance require 1/r force laws for line sources.
Click to expand...


Strawman. I never said they were the same thing. Nor that translational invarience requires 1/r force laws. I was just pointing out that the gravitational field is not completely comparable to the EM field, as it lacks a repulsive component and is not made up of two fields. This is where the difference comes in, and why the Biot Savart force law does not need infinitely long filaments, as would be required by gravity.

It's due to the fact that each current element in the line contributes a 1/r2 term, and when integrated over the current line we get a 1/r.
Click to expand...


True. Which we have ample evidence for current filaments obeying, from nanoscales up to solar and terrestrial scales, and so logically due to the scale invarient nature of maxwells equations holds for even larger scales.

So as I already said, all we need is a 1/r2 dependence for point-like sources, and linearity.
Click to expand...


Ah. Heres the crux of the issue. This is where the inherant properties of plasmas to form into filaments come in. And where the exclusively attractive field of gravity can not compare, as it can not create linearities.

Yes, you can integrate over the current line to get a 1/r. And yes, you can also integrate gravity over a mass line and get 1/r. BUT there will never be a line mass big enough in nature due to the exclusively attractive nature of the gravitational field. Plus you need infinitely long straight infinitely fine filaments for it to work perfectly, which is patently obserd.

Which we have for both electromagnetism and for gravity, and both of those aspects ARE well-tested for both theories.
Click to expand...


Well, this is where the **** hits the pan. I'm still waiting for you to produce a paper where a 1/r law is used for gravity. There are hundreds that show that the 1/r force holds over a huge range scale for amperes law (or its equivalent Biot Savart version)


ben m said:
  • Zeuzzz had no reliable resources to turn to. If you ask me a question about any complex field of mainstream science---well, I know where to find the reliable sources. "Why exactly can't we do lattice QCD at high baryon chemical potential?" is not a question I know the answer to, but:
    1. It would not prompt "Don't hound me, I'm only one man!"
    2. It would not prompt a random Google search unrelated lattice papers
    3. It would prompt a quick scan of Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science, because the scientists want you to know what they know and that's how they do it.
Click to expand...



  • Give me such a question about plasma cosmology, and I'll do exactly the same. I wont say your hounding me. It wont produce a random google search. It will produce a scan of plasma cosmology journals and published books and theories. Just as you would do.

    Most would be from the journals I have access to here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/IEEE_Transactions_on_Plasma_Science (note specifically the "Special Issues on Space and Cosmic Plasma", from 1987 to 2009, which is the bulk PC material) And many other relevant plasma physics books.

    [*] PC relies heavily on a small number of very old papers.
    Click to expand...


    So? To quote RC:

    Reality Check said:
    1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.
    Click to expand...
    Ages of theories do not matter unless they have been falsified by experiments or observations. The density wave theory is still valid.
    Click to expand...


    Ages of theories do not matter, unless they have been falsified. If you know of any such refutations of PC published in any journals, then please cite them. The PC material is all there for all to see, critique and review in reputable journals. No-one seems to have found any issues with it (published in peer reviewed journals) from what I can see.

    The entirety of the data on "electric models of loops from the Sun" seems to be this 100-year-old terella thing.
    Click to expand...


    And this has what to do with plasma cosmology?

    Jeez, I can't think of another experiment, in any field, that hasn't been improved in 100 years. Heck, we routinely restage most of the foundational experiments of physics in undergrad labs.
    Click to expand...


    Funny thing is about Terella experiments is that they have pretty much been abandoned now, its really just simulations now that dont tend to show the interesting and erratic real properties of plasma behaviour that Birkeland studied. Sure, a couple of other people have made the odd one here or there, but the experimental method seems to have long since been abandoned in favor of the mathematical models people put their faith in. Plasma cosmology tries to avoid this by directly linking experimentally verified unpredictable and erratic properties of plasma behaviour instead of using mathematically elegant pseudoplasma used by so many.

    Check the wiki page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrella
    A terrella (meaning "little earth") is a small magnetised model ball representing the Earth, that is thought to have been invented by Englishman physician William Gilbert while investigating magnetism, and further developed 300 years later by the Norwegian scientist and explorer Kristian Birkeland, while investigating the aurora.

    Terrellas had been used up until the late 20th century to attempt to simulate the Earth's magnetosphere, but have now been replaced by computer simulation.
    Click to expand...

    The entirety of "E&M models reproduce the flat galactic rotation curve" seems to be based on a single 1992 simulation by Peratt.
    Click to expand...


    Not quite. Numerous simulations, with numerous authors, taking into consideration many factors, and published in very reputable journals. Whether its right or not, is open to debate. Thats what this thread is all about. One things for sure is that there are no peer reviewed refutations or critiques of the model, despite it being published in Journals suich as Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science for anyone to read and comment on. And yes, some published 1992, some in 1986, some in 1995, 1998 ... So what?

    Some of which you may want to take a look at. I suggest starting from the most recent. Here they are in order by date.

    Evolution of Colliding Plasmas, A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980 (248K).

    Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

    Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.

    Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

    The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

    Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990

    Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992

    The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)

    Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

    Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996

    Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997 [not full text, PM me if you want the full paper]

    Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, 1998


    I'm sure if you contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space science or the IEEE and point out any issues they either publish your refutation (considering it passes peer review like all of the above) or they will retract the papers.

    The entirety of the "magnetic reconnection doesn't exist" thing seems to come from random quotes from Alfven. Again, if PC had something like a normal scientific background, Zeuzzz should not have felt besieged with this stuff, he'd have had a library of standard citations.
    Click to expand...


    I started an entire thread on it.

    Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

    Which is full of the problems with magnetic reconnection as a theory, and many questions that no-one answered. Have a bash at all the questions if you feel the need. And that thread is full of publications I got from my "library of standard citations" and recent publications on the exact issue in question. I highly recommend you read that thread in detail for the exact scientific grounds for plasma cosmologies issues with magnetic reconnection, and also check out the meaning of hypostatisation. All the relevant texts can be found in that thread, and you are welcome to revive it.

    [*]We've got three anti-mainstream people "contributing" to the discussion (Sol88, Mozina, and Z.) and exactly zero constructive consensus among them---odd, no?---and also no disagreement. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Z. ever posting something like "MM and Sol88, please shut up, you've got the physics wrong." (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
    Click to expand...


    I dont see why you insist on using the term anti-mainstream. Plasma physics is a mainstream physics discipline. And I have said to other posters when they have made mistakes, I pointed out one or two mistakes BeAChooser said (likewise he did me), I told Mozina that his material was not relevant to this thread and to start another one. see Here. I haven't really replied to anything Sol88 has said as I dont want this thread to meander into unpublished electric universe nonsense, which seems to be his main area. He's free to do what he likes, he has made some valid points, just as everyone else has (not all EU is totally bunk, depends on how you define EU!). I would say that over 80% of this thread is nothing to do with cosmology or plasma cosmology. As usual, the most speculative and far out theories often attract much more attention.

    Just stick to the peer reviewed material in journals with the maths and the data you should be fine. Random unpublished webpages should never be taken as representative of anything to do with PC.
 
sol invictus said:
Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.
Click to expand...


Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.

One of them should suffice.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So? To quote RC:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.
Click to expand...

Ages of theories do not matter unless they have been falsified by experiments or observations. The density wave theory is still valid.
Click to expand...
Ages of theories do not matter, unless they have been falsified. If you know of any such refutations of PC published in any journals, then please cite them. The PC material is all there for all to see, critique and review in reputable journals. No-one seems to have found any issues with it (published in peer reviewed journals) from what I can see.
Click to expand...
No one has found any issues with PC because it is has never been actually published.
What has been published are the many theories that are in the collection of incompatable theories that make up PC (by your definition).
Many of these papers have been refuted by observations and experiments, e.g. WMAP data, actual observation of dark matter, the Lanbda-CDM model, etc.
Some of these papers may have been addressed specifically by other published papers. However given the scientific woo-ness of PC (as shown by this thread), I do not expect many scientists would waste their time doing this.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1
Click to expand...
I am very much looking forward to you making this case, Z.

Especially as you will need to account for not only the overall Li abundance, but also for the relative abundance of 6Li and 7Li (or something equivalent), and how this has changed over time, by environment, etc.

Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.
Click to expand...
If you do do this, and do so satisfactorily, you will earn a medal for bravery (not to mention being able to publish in ApJ pretty much whenever you want).

Mind you, I suspect that you have close to zero understanding of just how daunting a task you've set for yourself ... not least because you also have to show - quantitatively - why high-z objects are 'visible' in the wavebands where the CMB is strongest (HINT: the “cosmic fog” that gives rise to the CMB, in the PC idea, would completely obscure high-z objects, in this waveband, just as SgrA* is completely obscured in the optical waveband), account for the SZE, ...

One of them should suffice.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Zeuzzz said:
sol invictus said:
Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.
Click to expand...
Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1
Click to expand...
You are just repeating what is well known:
BBN predictions of Li abundance are not very good (a factor of 2 off the measured values).
Cosmic ray spallation can convert heavier nuclei to Li.

What we need from you is the "specific, quantitative, and falsifiable" part of scientific theories, e.g. a link to the paper that calculates (not "explains") the Li abundance from the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy.

From what I understand PC predicts that the Li abundance should fall in older stars (you need stars to create cosmic rays and so create Li). And the first generation of stars will have no Li at all (I wonder how much Li the oldest white dwarf stars have?)

The problem is that your definition of PC includes an eternal universe. So we are back to the usual problems with an eternal universe - an infinite time allows processes to build up infinite output. Why is there not an infinite amount of Li?

Zeuzzz said:
Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.

One of them should suffice.
Click to expand...
Just remember the "specific, quantitative, and falsifiable" part of scientific theories when you cite the papers that calculate the PC correlation of galaxies in the local universe with CMB anisotropies and the non-Gaussian nature of the CMB anisotropies.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Some of which you may want to take a look at. I suggest starting from the most recent. Here they are in order by date.

Evolution of Colliding Plasmas, A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980 (248K).

Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990

Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992

The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)

Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997 [not full text, PM me if you want the full paper]

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, 1998

I'm sure if you contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space science or the IEEE and point out any issues they either publish your refutation (considering it passes peer review like all of the above) or they will retract the papers.
Click to expand...
That is a good point:

Hey - any lurkers that are an undergraduate or post-graduate astronomy student with spare time (there must be lots of you :D).
If you want easy credit or an easy paper to publish then you should follow Zeuzzz's advice. Have a look at the Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation for some ideas.

P.S. Zeuzzz - Journals rarely retract published papers, especially ones that are 20 years old, and only if they contain falsified or fraudulent content.
 
I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

As if I lived in one big plasma "bubble" and there is no way it can communicate over any distance greater than the DeBye length.

Is this how you interpret my understanding of the Plasma universe we live in, RC, Tusenfem, DRD, DD et cetera?

And it seems we can finally agree on the difference between plasma and gas, and since I'm not all that interested in space "gas" we can return to our normal programing on plasma (or indeed any ionized gas) the fundamental state of matter and all it's really funky behavior.
 
Reality Ckeck wrote:
This is a lie.

1. Only 3.99% of the Universe is plasma.
2. Only 20% of the matter in the universe is plasma.
3. By their weird logic 100% of the matter in the universe has mass and therefore HOW come we focus on the puny force of EM?

The proper answer is the one that all competent scientists know - EM forces dominate at small scales in plasma. Quasi-neutrality means that on cosmological scales EM forces in plasma are dominated by gravity.
Click to expand...


Can we lock this in RC? You don't want to phone a friend? Ask the audience? 50/50?
 
Sol88 said:
I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.
Click to expand...
It is not my "insistence on the Debye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale".

It is the physical fact that EM interactions in plasmas do not extend over scales bigger than tens of Debye lengths - with the possible exception of when there are external energy sources. For example super massive black holes power galactic jets that can be 100,000s of light years long and some light years wide. These are thought to be collimated by massive twisting of magnetic fields at the black hole accretion disk.
Of course galactic jets have little to do with plasma cosmology and are not even at a cosmological scale.

Debye length (emphasis added)
In plasma physics, the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields in plasmas and other conductors. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur.
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
So we are finally clear then? Gas and PLASMA are distinct states of matter?

And most of the time when the mainstream talk about GAS they are really talking about PLASMA, are they not? eg stellar winds, multi million degree GAS et cetera
Click to expand...

So that is all you get out of my message?
You still do not understand plasma physics.
I would think that most times when mainstream is talking about gases they are really talking about gases.
 
Sol88 said:
So you tell me Tusenfem, what drugs do you think Alfven was on to propose such an anti scientific crackpot theory such as PLASMA COSMOLOGY?
Click to expand...

Well Alfven was crackpot enough to lose all his money in a kind of pyramid scam.

However sad that is.

However, Alfven's ideas have nothing in common with anything in your mind. You, Sol88 do not understand plasma physics.
 
Sol88 said:
yes we get this Tusenfem, but what shape does the DL form, is it not a "bubble"?

Say an anology would be a balloon with the skin being the DeBye length (width) but the skin must close on itself yeah? or no "bubble"!

So whats the surface area of the balloon (bubble) double layer? Say of the Earths?
Click to expand...

No you do not get it, because you do not understand plasma physics, and apparently neither normal physics and mathematics.

The idea of the skin of a balloon being a DeBye length is preposterous.

For the rest, the surface area of a double layer is totally unimportant, however, I cannot explain that to you as you do not understand plasma physics.
 
Zeuzzz said:
The PC material is all there for all to see, critique and review in reputable journals. No-one seems to have found any issues with it (published in peer reviewed journals) from what I can see.

[snip]

despite it being published in Journals suich as Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science for anyone to read and comment on. And yes, some published 1992, some in 1986, some in 1995, 1998 ... So what?

[snip]

I'm sure if you contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space science or the IEEE and point out any issues they either publish your refutation (considering it passes peer review like all of the above) or they will retract the papers.
Click to expand...

Looking at the quality of the papers in IEEE and also Adv. Space Sci. one quickly finds out that the referee system is not very thorough for these two journals.

Sorry to say, most of the time you hear "oh it's for Astrophys. Space Sci. (or Planet. Space Sci.) so it is not so important." They have a very low impact factor and are usually used for publication of conference proceedings. Interesting that in the whole list there is only ONE publication in a good journal and that is from 1980 in Phys. Rev. Lett., but then these were in the time that numerical modeling just started up, and as shown later, that model for making galaxies does not comply with reality.

But I am glad you say:

Zeuzzz said:
Might aswell just post it now, but dont expect me to spend much time replying to your comments.
Click to expand...

So, we can forget about all this. TaDah!
 
Sol88 said:
I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.
Click to expand...

Again, you do not understand plasma physics.
The DeBye length deals with screening off charge imbalances in plasmas and only when driven can this imbalance be pumped up to about 10 DeBye lengths like in a double layer.

This does not mean that e.g. there is no drag on the ionosphere of Jupiter, because of the plasma pick up happening around Europa.

Again, plasma physics is too difficult for you, you don't understand the finesses.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Not quite. Numerous simulations, with numerous authors, taking into consideration many factors, and published in very reputable journals. Whether its right or not, is open to debate. Thats what this thread is all about. One things for sure is that there are no peer reviewed refutations or critiques of the model, despite it being published in Journals suich as Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science for anyone to read and comment on.
Click to expand...

How many times Zeuzzz? The lack of refutations to a non-mainstream paper does not mean nobody can refute it. It means nobody can be bothered to refute it specifically because nobody cares. Specific refutations only ever come about for models/theories people actually use.
 
tusenfem said:
No you do not get it, because you do not understand plasma physics, and apparently neither normal physics and mathematics.

The idea of the skin of a balloon being a DeBye length is preposterous.

For the rest, the surface area of a double layer is totally unimportant, however, I cannot explain that to you as you do not understand plasma physics.
Click to expand...

Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?
 
Sol88 said:
Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?
Click to expand...

Why, isn't Alfvén's book enough? Or Peratt's?
You probably don't even have those books.

Simplest view for a DL:

a plasma column of certain diameter
a voltage drop over the axis of the plasma
a current along the axis through the plasma
at one location along the axis a region where there is charge separation
a positive layer and a negative layer separated say 10 DeBye lengths along the axis
the size of the DL perpendicular to the axis is usually as large as the current channel is

An analogy (but very loosly) is when you look at a flowing river.
Sometimes you will see in the surface waves standing structures that do not move with respect to you.
These consist of a "valley" and a "mountain", which would be analogous to a positive and negative charge layer.

This you should already know as a DL is the holy grail of EU.
So, basically, once more, you don't understand plasma physics, or physics or math.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

As if I lived in one big plasma "bubble" and there is no way it can communicate over any distance greater than the DeBye length.

Is this how you interpret my understanding of the Plasma universe we live in, RC, Tusenfem, DRD, DD et cetera?

And it seems we can finally agree on the difference between plasma and gas, and since I'm not all that interested in space "gas" we can return to our normal programing on plasma (or indeed any ionized gas) the fundamental state of matter and all it's really funky behavior.
Click to expand...

If you have to ask about the Debye length, really, okay, I mean that is sort of important, now isn't it?
 
Sol88 said:
Reality Ckeck wrote:


Can we lock this in RC? You don't want to phone a friend? Ask the audience? 50/50?
Click to expand...


Now Sol88 before you get lost, stop, are you talking about 'matter' that produces EM radiation and effects EM radiation?

Do you really pay attention?


And please stop quoting Dunderbolts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom