Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So a plasma is also a liquid and a gas!



WoW! No wonder the maths is hard...

Fluid does not mean liquid. Both liquids and gases are fluids. Plasma is a subset of gas, gas is a subset of fluid.

You keep failing at the most basic levels.

[Sol88]

Anyhoo, plasma is also liquids and gases, right.

Now that plasma now includes gases and liquids, what role do they play in a black hole being thought of as a high voltage electrical power generator feeding current down braided coaxial power cables?

as per

Quote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.

I mean, I'm not saying gas spins BH's up but the EU does mention BH's as a plasmoid/dense plasma focus instead of a division by zero error. :dl

Gas pressure from gravity?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anyhoo, plasma is also liquids and gases, right.

Wrong, a fluid is not inherently a liquid and as far as I know a plasma certainly ain't a liquid (blood plasma not with standing).

Originally Posted by Sol88

Now that plasma now includes gases and liquids,

Nope didn't before and still doesn't "now".

Originally Posted by Sol88

what role do they play in a black hole being thought of as a high voltage electrical power generator feeding current down braided coaxial power cables?

as per



I mean, I'm not saying gas spins BH's up but the EU does mention BH's as a plasmoid/dense plasma focus instead of a division by zero error. :dl

Gas pressure from gravity?

Didn't we go over the membrane paradigm for blackholes last time I was here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_paradigm

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Fluid does not mean liquid. Both liquids and gases are fluids. Plasma is a subset of gas, gas is a subset of fluid.

You keep failing at the most basic levels.

Subsets remind me of grade school mathematics.

Small wonder Sol88 is confused.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anyhoo, plasma is also liquids and gases, right.

Now that plasma now includes gases and liquids, what role do they play in a black hole being thought of as a high voltage electrical power generator feeding current down braided coaxial power cables?

Sorry, but my grade school education did not teach me how to braid plasma.

My memories of that era do include plasma lamps, invented by Nikola Tesla, refined and commercialized by James Falk and Bill Parker.

(I hope readers will forgive the previous paragraph's pop culture example of how plasma can be confined within a container.)

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Subsets remind me of grade school mathematics.

Small wonder Sol88 is confused.


Sorry, but my grade school education did not teach me how to braid plasma.

My memories of that era do include plasma lamps, invented by Nikola Tesla, refined and commercialized by James Falk and Bill Parker.

(I hope readers will forgive the previous paragraph's pop culture example of how plasma can be confined within a container.)

Where do they get the plasma to contain? Say a plasma ball for example.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

Wrong, a fluid is not inherently a liquid and as far as I know a plasma certainly ain't a liquid (blood plasma not with standing).



Nope didn't before and still doesn't "now".



Didn't we go over the membrane paradigm for blackholes last time I was here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_paradigm

All very confusing is it not?

Gases aren't plasma but are but all are fluids but not liquids. but... PLASMA has some extra properties.

These are quite interesting. For instance current driven instabilities in space plasma's

Quote:

[b]

Relativistic jets and current driven instabilities

In the regime of strong magnetizations, in fact, the system can be well described by the force-free approximation.

In this limit, our simulation results are in agreement with the findings of Istomin & Pariev(1994), (1996) who have shown that a jet with a longitudinal electric current remains stable with respect to helical as well as axially symmetric (pinch) modes.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

All very confusing is it not?

You are literally the only person confused by this.

Quote:

Gases aren't plasma

Just like rectangles are not squares.

Quote:

but are but all are fluids but not liquids.

Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram? OK, fine:



Do you get it yet? Or do you not know how to interpret a Venn diagram?

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

All very confusing is it not?

Not at all, it seems to be pretty clear for just about everybody (except yourself).

Quote:

Gases aren't plasma but are

Plasma is a subset of gas, just like cats are a subset of felines.
Thus, all plasmas are gases, but not all gases are plasmas, just like all cats are felines, but not all felines are cats.

Quote:

but all are fluids but not liquids.

You seem to believe that 'fluid' and 'liquid' are synonymous; they aren't.

Quote:

but... PLASMA has some extra properties.

Yes, so where is that confusing at all?

Quote:

These are quite interesting. For instance current driven instabilities in space plasma's

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

[lauwenmark]

Instead of showing ignorance about vocabulary, why don't you instead answer the pretty basic questions MRC_Hans asked you a few pages ago?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

So far, you failed to provide simple answers to those questions.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

Not at all, it seems to be pretty clear for just about everybody (except yourself).


Plasma is a subset of gas, just like cats are a subset of felines.
Thus, all plasmas are gases, but not all gases are plasmas, just like all cats are felines, but not all felines are cats.


You seem to believe that 'fluid' and 'liquid' are synonymous; they aren't.


Yes, so where is that confusing at all?


This has nothing to do with the discussion.

It has everything to do with the discussion.

Plasma maybe a subset of fluids, but nothing has the same properties as plasma.

Your fluid has led you to use MHD as a rough and incorrect assumptions on space gas.

This has led the mainstream into a dark corner. Plasma is not a gas. You still can’t grasp you can’t put plasma in a container. Show me one example where plasma has been generated and contained with no energy input?

Plasma has very special properties that mathematicians hate.

Astrophysical jets are electric current of plasma thru a plasma.

Edited by sarge:

edited to remove uncivil content

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

Instead of showing ignorance about vocabulary, why don't you instead answer the pretty basic questions MRC_Hans asked you a few pages ago?



So far, you failed to provide simple answers to those questions.

Read the paper and get back to me with a coherent answer.

Quote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.

The’re still a little confused on how gas can do this majic.


Tell them about plasma and charge separation in astrophysical plasma’s.

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Read the paper and get back to me with a coherent answer.

No. Answer first the basics, and then we will all know what you have in mind. Let's remind you what those basics are:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

How can you expect others to read the documents you propose and answer your questions if you never agree to do the same?

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Only simpletons would think plasma is a gas.

"Most cosmic plasma is a gas influenced by the presence of free electrons, charged atoms and dust."

- Wallace Thornhill, "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21th Century"

So, you actually consider Thornhill to be a simpleton? Interesting.

[Sol88]

So gas is a plasma??

Space gas!

.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

No. Answer first the basics, and then we will all know what you have in mind. Let's remind you what those basics are:



How can you expect others to read the documents you propose and answer your questions if you never agree to do the same?

Mainstream now reckon BH are high voltage electrical power generators and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.


From uncle Wal

Quote:

But most damning is that the narrow training of astrophysicists does not allow them to “see” the powerful electric discharge effects at the centers of galaxies. The x-rays, gamma rays, jets and radio lobes cry out for an electrical model. By simply invoking the electrical force, which is a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, we can return to the realm of normal objects, normal physics, and common sense electrical engineering. The gravitational black hole model is fictional and worthless.

HOLOSCIENCE



So mainstream and uncle Wal are unto something with this plasma stuff. Space gas if you’d like.

[Sol88]

Quote:

The PLASMA GUN at Galactic Centers
While astrophysicists have left the real universe for metaphysics, we must turn to practical engineers for some answers. The prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has recognized the subject of plasma cosmology for some years. Plasma cosmology has no problem explaining the ubiquitous spiral shape of galaxies and reproducing it in the plasma laboratory. All that is required to produce the phenomenon is electrical power. Galaxies are threaded like pinwheels on invisible cosmic threads of electric current. Those cosmic threads are fundamental to the web-like appearance of the visible

uncle Wal


Mainstream science...have reviewed their observations and now think...

Quote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.

Space gas....

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

Liquids and gasses are both classified as fluid (the intermolecular forces allow the molecules to more freely move and to flow) and hence are modeled as such.

Thus the H in MHD

ETA: A typical science class lab demonstration on the flow of a gas.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

MHD has failed.

Liquids and gasses are both classified as fluid (the intermolecular forces allow the molecules to more freely move and to flow)

Not in a plasma though. Charged particles, including DUST (complex plasma) do not care for your intermolecular forces!

Reason a plasma is a plasma NOT a gas, subset or not.

I think we are calling it space gas to call everyone happy.

[Sol88]

Quote:

No. Answer first the basics, and then we will all know what you have in mind. Let's remind you what those basics are:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

On the first point

Plasma! Not gas.

Quote:

Quote:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.

Tell me more about this mainstream talk of jets as coaxial cables, glowing at that.

Is this an electric current? <rhetorical>

Or a big container of space gas?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by The Man

Didn't we go over the membrane paradigm for blackholes last time I was here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_paradigm

Oh cool! That was my Master's thesis, using the membrane paradigm, a very interesting approach.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

.

My memories of that era do include plasma lamps, invented by Nikola Tesla, refined and commercialized by James Falk and Bill Parker.

Woud that be a subset of Lava Lamps

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Originally Posted by Sol88

On the first point

Plasma! Not gas.

Really? Well, then I have to conclude that either you are not interested in discussing your own subject, or you are a purely constructed bot.

Hans

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Where do they get the plasma to contain? Say a plasma ball for example.

You didn't follow the link I gave you?

Plasma globes contain gas. In operation, some of that gas becomes plasma.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

When voltage is applied, a plasma is formed within the container.

A plasma globe is a bit like lightning in a bottle. With lightning, some air (which is a gas) becomes plasma. That plasma remains contained within the atmosphere by (wait for it)...










...gravity.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma has very special properties that mathematicians hate.

No, I don't hate plasma's very special properties.

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Woud that be a subset of Lava Lamps

Far out, man.

[Sol88]

Quote:

A plasma globe is a bit like lightning in a bottle. With lightning, some air (which is a gas) becomes plasma. That plasma remains contained within the atmosphere by (wait for it)..


...gravity.

Right, ok then. Can’t argue with that.

[Sol88]

Anyhoo,

Quote:

On the first point

Plasma! Not gas.

Quote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.
Tell me more about this mainstream talk of jets as coaxial cables, glowing at that.

Is this an electric current? <rhetorical>

Or a big container of space gas?

So jets are more or less a big plasma globe?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So jets are more or less a big plasma globe?

Stop playing stupid and start to discuss as a grown up.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Stop playing stupid and start to discuss as a grown up.

Ok ok, I’ll play.

Quote:

black holes generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings.

Worth playing with ya reckon tusenfem?

Quote:

Plasma globes contain gas. In operation, some of that gas becomes plasma.

In operation? Like plugged in and turned on? Like electrical power to make the whole shebang go?

Gas can also apparently according to mainstream, generate electrical energy.

Something black holes n membranes or some such drivel.

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

On the first point

Plasma! Not gas.

How is that even the beginning of an answer of the first question asked by Hans ? For the record, here are the four questions he asked:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

How about detailing your answer to the first point?
How about answering the next three ones?

And note that your "answer" ("Plasma! Not gas.") still contradicts what Thornhill wrote - again, as a reminder, since you seem to have failted to notice it:

"Most cosmic plasma is a gas influenced by the presence of free electrons, charged atoms and dust."

- Wallace Thornhill, "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21th Century"

Currently, we can thus conclude from what you wrote about this:
- The theory Thornhill described in his article is not the EU theory you are defending; and
- You believe Thornhill was a simpleton.

But now that you thus confirmed that your theory is not what Thornhill talks about, would you explain us all what it is?

Quote:

Tell me more about this mainstream talk of jets as coaxial cables, glowing at that.

No. We are here to talk about EU theories, not the "mainstream" ones. But maybe you could tell us more about the EU talk of jets as coaxial cables, glowing at that?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Originally Posted by Sol88

On the first point

Plasma! Not gas.

In your stated opinion the mainstream electric universe ideas are "plasma, not gas." That nonsense certainly explains beyond any doubt the balance of your posts in these threads.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

All very confusing is it not?

Nope, not in the least.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Gases aren't plasma but are but all are fluids but not liquids. but... PLASMA has some extra properties.

Similarly, all poodles are dogs, yet not all dogs are poodles

Originally Posted by Sol88

These are quite interesting. For instance current driven instabilities in space plasma's

OK, glad you pursue your interests.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Where do they get the plasma to contain? Say a plasma ball for example.

Where I work plasma is used to etch silicon wafers for IC chips. Radio frequencies are injected into the etching chamber containing gas of the appropriate mixture to produce the plasma for the etching required.


Radiofrequency Plasma Sources for Semiconductor Processing

While this is more expedient and provides particular (pun particularly intended) methods of control to facilitate the intended use (etching of IC chips). Plasma can be produced simply by heating.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

MHD has failed.

Well technically it was modified to the more realistic Resistive Magnetohydrodynamics.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Liquids and gasses are both classified as fluid (the intermolecular forces allow the molecules to more freely move and to flow)

Not in a plasma though. Charged particles, including DUST (complex plasma) do not care for your intermolecular forces!

So by 'not caring' for such, as you put it, those intermolecular forces do allow the molecules to more freely move and to flow. Hence, fluid.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Reason a plasma is a plasma NOT a gas, subset or not.

Nope, your claim of 'not caring for intermolecular forces' explicitly classifies it as fluid and you have made no argument that would preclude its classification as a gas.

Originally Posted by Sol88

I think we are calling it space gas to call everyone happy.

Call it and everyone what you will. It won't change your own assertion above that would explicitly classify it as a fluid or the lack of argument for why it is not a gas.

Certainly poodles have properties other dogs do not. However, that in and of itself doesn't classify them as non-dogs. it is the properties they share with other dogs that classify them all as such. Similarly it is the ineffectiveness of the intermolecular forces, even as you assert above, to prevent the flow of the a given substance that would classify it as a fluid.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Oh cool! That was my Master's thesis, using the membrane paradigm, a very interesting approach.

Yep, that came up the last time as well, glad you not only got good use out of it but even did something considered to be furthering the field. For me it was just a very clear and easy way to make sense of the dynamics involved.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Plasma maybe a subset of fluids,

It is.

Quote:

but nothing has the same properties as plasma.

In the sense that plasmas are a subset and not a synonym, obviously.

Quote:

Your fluid has led you to use MHD as a rough and incorrect assumptions on space gas.

What the hell are you even talking about? Yes, MHD is an approximation. But the actual professionals in the field know when that approximation works and when it doesn't. It's not a mystery, there are known mathematical conditions on when it's accurate and when it's not. You have never once pointed to a case where it's being used inappropriately.

Quote:

Plasma has very special properties that mathematicians hate.

Not really. Plasma, like basically ANY fluid (seriously, look up how hard it is to calculate turbulence in water), can be computationally difficult. But so what? Why do you care how hard the math is? You don't even do math.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Reason a plasma is a plasma NOT a gas, subset or not.

I find it absolutely fascinating that after all these posts you still haven’t grasped the relationship of plasma and gas. It appears that you now try with emotional arguments instead.

I wonder why you think that would be more persuasive.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I find it absolutely fascinating that after all these posts you still haven’t grasped the relationship of plasma and gas. It appears that you now try with emotional arguments instead.

I wonder why you think that would be more persuasive.

Plan B.

The "science" arguments have certainly not been persuasive (or even based on actual science). Got to try something, anything, in a feeble attempt to salvage an untenable position.

[Sol88]

Focus crew, focus.

If you really like to call a plasma a gas with special properties, fine.

Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei a mainstream paper with maths and evidence and observations and theory and all that guff....

Quote:

Abstract
The nuclei of most normal galaxies contain supermassive black holes, which can accrete gas through a disk and become active. These Active Galactic Nuclei, AGN, can form jets which are observed on scales from AU to Mpc and from meter wavelengths to TeV gamma energies. High resolution radio imaging and multi-wavelength/messenger campaigns are elucidating the conditions under which this happens.
Evidence is presented that:

Gas? Normal neutral matter where intermolecular forces dominate and it will fill the volume of it container ? Or gas with free electrons and ions, (Collisionlessness: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is much larger than the electron–neutral collision frequency. When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics. Such plasmas are called collisionless.[29])? As per Uncle a Wal’s definition of gas?

What’s your fascination with gas? To many beans?

We are talking plasma, time to take your hand off, ‘ol mate.

[Sol88]

Or straight to the point...

Do you believe astrophysical jets are massive electric currents?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Focus crew, focus.

If you really like to call a plasma a gas with special properties, fine.

Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei a mainstream paper with maths and evidence and observations and theory and all that guff....



Gas? Normal neutral matter where intermolecular forces dominate and it will fill the volume of it container ? Or gas with free electrons and ions, (Collisionlessness: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is much larger than the electron–neutral collision frequency. When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics. Such plasmas are called collisionless.[29])? As per Uncle a Wal’s definition of gas?

What’s your fascination with gas? To many beans?

We are talking plasma, time to take your hand off, ‘ol mate.

High light added. I a gas "intermolecular forces" don't "dominate" that's exactly why in can "fill the volume of it container" unlike say a lesser volume of a liquid. There intermolecular forces still allow a liquid to flow but not to freely expand to fill a container.

Hope that helps.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Or straight to the point...

Do you believe astrophysical jets are massive electric currents?

It is my, admittedly rather limited understanding that the jets are electrically neutral (contain the same number of positive as well as negative charges overall). Since there is no net charge through a point, plane volume or whatever over time it wouldn't classify as a current. Perhaps within some very specific and limited constraints of time and space but only for that as the charge imbalance is not maintained.

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

As per Uncle a Wal’s definition of gas?

Where did "Uncle Wal" give a new definition of the term "gas"? This is nowhere to be found in his article I quoted.

Quote:

We are talking plasma, time to take your hand off, ‘ol mate.

No, we are talking about EU theories, as the topic title says.

And none of what you wrote so far answers any of the questions Hans asked you:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Does this mean you are actually unable to provide an answer to any of those?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

It is my, admittedly rather limited understanding that the jets are electrically neutral (contain the same number of positive as well as negative charges overall). Since there is no net charge through a point, plane volume or whatever over time it wouldn't classify as a current. Perhaps within some very specific and limited constraints of time and space but only for that as the charge imbalance is not maintained.

Not just your limited understanding, my friend. Mainstream seem to struggle with two things regarding “space gas”.

Charge seperation and current flow (a curcuit is required).

BH’s, with one assumes is molecular GAS, thru varies means produces, according to Roger Blandford1, David Meier2, and Anthony Readhead3 . (mainstream) a high voltage.

Jets appear from their observations to be glowing, lossy coaxial “power cables”.

Charge seperation always gets the thread going...

Quote:

(contain the same number of positive as well as negative charges overall)

Story of basically the key difference from bigbangers (gravity centric) mob and the electromagnetic (plasma(not GAS)) mob.

We say it’s all about charge seperation and the flow of currents, you say NO.

Did you even read the paper?

Quote:

They were once seen as ex- hausts that, like their automotive counterparts, remove excess heat from powerful machines. However, the observations that we have reviewed suggest a rather different metaphor. Black holes are turbines that are spun up by orbiting gas to generate high voltage electrical power and AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. This change of viewpoint is one that is supported by observations of selected local AGN, from which we tentatively generalize to AGN in general.

Blandford seems to have changed their viewpoint, maybe you mob should.

Or are you incapable of a discussion of a mainstream peer reviewed scientific paper?