Plasma Forms

Thunderbolts.info ^ | Nov 10, 2014 | Stephen Smith

[Swordmaker]

Here’s some more material for open minded people:

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html

Interesting website. However, it is primarily a set or straw man arguments in which the owner of the site sets up few straw men which he claims are the "basic" tenets of the Electric Universe to knock down. He does not present the arguments properly, so he makes it sound absurdly easy to "debunk." Sorry. No banana.

Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

The main things that explained away these discrepencies was the involvement of "dark matter" and "dark energy" into their equations as FUDGE FACTORS to make their equations even work! That is not proving anything when you have to invoke MAGIC to make your solution work. . . things you can't detect, much less find! This enters the estate of "FAITH, Moonman62. They have FAITH that they will find something they have not found, seen, or measured. They just want it to be there so their theory and its math will work.

My challenge to YOU still stands. Please explain what I asked you. Don't use a proxy responding to questions I did not ask.

As for his claim there is no peer reviewed work in this field, he fails to recognize that "Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe" are the same thing under different names. The proponents use them interchangeably. Again, he is one who fails to understand that PLASMA is more than hot gases. Here are some of the papers he failed to find, because he didn't really want to find them:

Hannes Alfvén is the 1970 Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is now called a "renegade physicist" because he was no longer in the "fold" of the consensus politically correct groups who went along to get along and get funded.

• Hannes Alfvén, "On hierarchical cosmology" (1983) Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, January 1983, p. 313-324.
• Anthony L. Peratt (February 1992). "Plasma Cosmology". Sky & Telescope. Retrieved 26 May 2012.

• Alfven, Hannes O. G., "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.
• Helge S. Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, 1996 Princeton University Press, 488 pages, ISBN 0-691-00546-X (pp.482-483)
• Alfvén, O. Klein (1963). "Matter-Antimatter Annihilation and Cosmology". Arkiv Fysik 23: 187–194.
• H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar (1963). Cosmic electrodynamics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• H. Alfvén (1966). Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology. Freeman.
• O. Klein, "Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology," Science 171 (1971), 339
• Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) Trita-EPP, 1988, 07, p. 6.
• Anthony L. Peratt, "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" (1995) Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 3-11: "issues now a hundred years old were debated including plasma cosmology's traditional refusal to claim any knowledge about an 'origin' of the universe (e.g., Alfvén, 1988)" Alfvén, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600
• Alfvén, H. (March 1984). "Cosmology - Myth or science?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5: 79–98. Bibcode:1984JApA....5...79A. doi:10.1007/BF02714974. ISSN 0250-6335.
• Hannes Alfvén, Cosmic plasma. Taylor & Francis US, 1981,IV.10.3.2, p.109. "Double layers may also produce extremely high energies. This is known to take place in solar flares, where they generate solar cosmic rays up to 109 to 1010 eV."
• Alfvén, H., "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "Double Layers in Astrophysics" (1986)
• P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (1993) Princeton University Press, p. 207, ISBN 978-0-691-07428-3
• H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics(2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the [ratio of the magnetic force to the force of gravity] ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)
• Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars"Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. ^ Jump up to: a b Siegel, E. R.; Fry, J. N. (Sep 2006). "Can Electric Charges and Currents Survive in an Inhomogeneous Universe?". arXiv.
• H. Alfvén, Model of the Plasma Universe, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol PS-14, 1986. [1]
• A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology: Part I, Interpretations of a Visible Universe, World & I, vol. 8, pp. 294-301, August 1989. [2]
• A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology:Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles, World & I, vol. 9, pp. 306-317, September 1989 .[3]
• A.L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Sky & Tel. Feb. 1992
• A. L. Peratt, Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995). [4]
• A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets". IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science. PS-14: 639–660. ISSN 0093-3813.
• Bostick, W. H., "What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small" (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 703-717
• AL Peratt, J Green and D Nielson (20 June 1980). "Evolution of Colliding Plasmas". Physical Review Letters 44: 1767–1770. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44.1767P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1767.
• E. J. Lerner (1991). The Big Bang Never Happened. New York and Toronto: Random House. ISBN 0-8129-1853-3.
• AL Peratt and J Green (1983). "On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas". Astrophysics and Space Science 91: 19–33. Bibcode:1983Ap&SS..91...19P. doi:10.1007/BF00650210.
• A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies". IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science. PS-14: 763–778. ISSN 0093-3813.
• E.J. Lerner (1986). "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies". Laser and Particle Beams. 4 part 2: 193‑222. Bibcode:1986LPB.....4..193L. doi:10.1017/S0263034600001750.
• (See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2003, and 2007)
• Colafrancesco, S. and Giordano, F. The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M - T relation Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 454, Issue 3, August II 2006, pp. L131-L134. [5] recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."
• Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [7]) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium", 1983, pp. 71-75 [8] Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.
• Eric Lerner. Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data, Astrophysics and Space Science, 227: 61-81, 1995.
• D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters", Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175.

[Moonman62]

Some people mistakenly think I answer to them. Anyway, here is another excerpt from Wiki for people who want to be informed.

Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[29][30] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[29][30] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

[Swordmaker]

10¹⁸ amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.

Just because someone has asserted that they do not exist is NOT proof they do not. It is a claim by a orthodox cosmologist who has not even bothered to look at the evidence, one who believes that plasmas are merely "hot gases" without understanding they are electrically charged by flowing currents.

This is is the quote that supposedly claimed there are no charges sufficient to do it. . . at least according to your Wikipedia citation.

Colafrancesco, S. and Giordano, F. The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M - T relation Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 454, Issue 3, August II 2006, pp. L131-L134. [5] recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."

They merely looked at the magnetic fields of clusters without even considering the flow of electricity through plasmas. They show absolutely no awareness that magnetism comes about by the FLOW of electricity. . . it is not a static function. . . but they treated it as if it were. . . by making assumptions about an 5 - 10% variation from an "unmagnetized value," as if there could be such a condition. They show absolutely now awareness of how these magnetic fields come to exist at all. They are talking about changes in mass and temperature. . . not electrical potentials. They know nothing about what happens to matter in a Z-Pinch electrical field. They are clueless.

You go on believing that a force 39 orders of magnitude WEAKER than electromagnetism can be more powerful and drive the Universe despite all evidence to the contrary, even when it takes the invocation of invisible, unfound magical tweaks to make your theories work. Fine. You go on being surprised at every turn at things you cannot explain. You do that.

We'll go on making predictions that are accurate every time. . . and not being surprised at all at what is being found, because it is fully expected and predicted by plasma physics and demonstrable in plasma simulations and in electrical laboratories merely by applying those theories in practice without invoking any magical crap.

[Swordmaker]

You still need to answer the question of what the photo is that heads this thread, in GRAVITY TERMS, instead of obfuscating the discussion by posting links to straw man references. Until you do, you are merely blowing smoke. and AVOIDING THE QUESTION, as you have every other question put to you in this thread. ANSWER THE QUESTION. How can GRAVITY EXPLAIN THAT OBJECT?

Quit dancing.

[Boogieman]

“a plasma does not at all act like a gas”

Well, there are some similarities, but yes, a plasma is not a gas, ionized or otherwise. It is a different state of matter entirely. This is a good example of why wikipedia is not a very good source to learn about science :)

[Boogieman]

Ah, “jets”, haha.

I wonder how mainstream cosmologists explain how polar jets, ejecting material at high enough velocity to escape the star’s gravitational field, end up creating a cloud that reaches back to the equator of the star?

The only possibly explanation I can think of is if the jet encounters resistance from colliding with slower moving ejecta ahead of it. However, that introduces other problems. First, since there is no friction in space, the earlier ejecta could not slow down on its own (conservation of momentum), so the velocity of the material ejected must be accelerating. Rate of ejection accelerating at the beginning is feasible, and the rate slowing down is also feasible, but a continuously accelerating rate? What mechanism could exlain that?

More damning, if the ejecta were being slowed by slower moving prior ejecta, then we would see a bow shock, forming a visible curve in the exact pposite direction of the curves that we see.

[Boogieman]

“Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe;...”

Wiki has it a bit backwards. Plasma cosmologists did not dispute those things because mainstream cosmologists had found that the plasma model doesn’t work in their theoretical early universe models. On the contrary, the mainstream cosmologists have created the Big Bang, expanding universe model in order to explain phenomena that it turns out can be easily explained by a plasma cosmology.

Wiki’s argument is something like “Newtonian physicists found that Einstein’s relativity did not produce the results predicted by Newton’s model, therefore relativists disputed the Newtonian model”. They are two entirely different, independent cosmologies. Of course you can’t shoehorn one cosmology into the models of another and expect sensible results. If you did get sensible results by that approach, it would probably indicate that both models were in need of revision!

[Boogieman]

“1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.

Just because someone has asserted that they do not exist is NOT proof they do not.”

Look carefully at what is asserted too. It’s not even asserted that the currents don’t exist. They’re only asserting that, in their theoretical early universe models (the big bang, expanding universe models), those currents don’t exist. Well, duh, who created the models? Gravitational cosmologists who don’t see any need to account for electrical phenomena at such scales! So why would such phenomena work in the theoretical models they have constructed to exclude them?

[Boogieman]

“They show absolutely no awareness that magnetism comes about by the FLOW of electricity. . . it is not a static function. . . but they treated it as if it were. . . by making assumptions about an 5 - 10% variation from an “unmagnetized value,” as if there could be such a condition. They show absolutely now awareness of how these magnetic fields come to exist at all.”

Good catch. It’s as if, only reluctantly, to account for observable magnetic fields that they cannot deny, they imagine that the galactic cluster has a giant ferromagnet at the center, and that is all they need to think in order to explain away the pesky magnetism.

[Swordmaker]

Everyone of your replies 25 through 29 are cogent and to the point. . . which Moonman62’s are not. Thank you.

[Swordmaker]

Good catch. It’s as if, only reluctantly, to account for observable magnetic fields that they cannot deny, they imagine that the galactic cluster has a giant ferromagnet at the center, and that is all they need to think in order to explain away the pesky magnetism.

I have this image in my mind of a huge horseshoe magnet at the core of a galaxy... LOL! The other image I have is one of a huge WOOFER Speaker with a huge core magnet.

I wonder what Moonman62 would say about the fact that 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko — Rosetta's singing comet is releasing radio frequency tones. . . in other words radiating electromagnetic energy on its own as it moves through the electric atmosphere of our sun?

Oh, my, objective evidence.

[Swordmaker]

The sound of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko — Rosetta's singing comet

[Moonman62]

...without invoking any magical crap.

...

Like I said, you’re very convincing.

[Boogieman]

I had not seen that, and it is very interesting.

“The sounds are thought to be oscillations in the magnetic field around the comet. They were picked up by the Rosetta Plasma Consortium — a suite of five instruments on the spacecraft that is orbiting the comet.”

So, what would cause the magnetic field of a comet to oscillate? Will scientists propose mini-dynamos at the center of comets now?

[Boogieman]

“...in other words radiating electromagnetic energy on its own as it moves through the electric atmosphere of our sun?”

Well, now that we know that comets are rocky and not “dirty snowballs”, we can posit that they are probably ferrous to some degree, like most asteroids. Now, what happens when a ferrous object (a conductor) moves through the solar wind (a magnetic field)?

10 points to the gravitational cosmologist who can swallow his pride and apply high school level physics principles to correctly answer that question.

[Moonman62]

More reading material for those who want to be informed.

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

[Moonman62]

More information about comet 67P. It isn’t an asteroid. It has much less density.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28881015

“If you could put the object in an ocean, it would float”

[Swordmaker]

Every book on how to write applications & interpret the signals from GPS satellites emphasizes the importance of relativity in converting these signals into a high-precision receiver position (see Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity). Yet EU supporters deny the importance of relativity in this application. Has any EU supporter designed and built a working high-precision (< 1 meter accuracy) GPS receiver that can be certified as free of relativistic corrections?

What gave you the idea that the Electric Universe had anything to do with "Creationism" as this guy seems to think, which is what his entire site is dedicated to debunking?

I have been reading and studying the Electric/Plasma Universe Cosmology for many more years than this guy, and NOT ONCE have I seen one of their physicists bring up anything about ignoring relativity in GPS. Not once. Nor, do I think are relativistic aberrations that much of an issue at the polar GPS satellite distances which would be used, considering that to measure such aberrations a stable platform is required. That is an assumption HE is making. This is another straw man site.

This guy has seemed to latched onto a few anonymous replies in reference about an early Hannes Alfvén's disagreement about the 1919 eclipse observations proving of the bending of light as being a "tenet" of Electric Universe. It is not.

Rosseland and Pannekoek's work is still cited today since gravitational stratification is one of the easiest ways to generate and sustain an electric field in space.

Uh, no. Gravity does not separate charges like that. Please demonstrate that ever occurring. Or even demonstrate "gravitational stratification," which if found, could be considered as evidence of gravity waves.

Hannes Alfven received his Nobel prize (Nobelprize.org) for the accomplishment of making certain types of plasmas mathematically tractable. Langmuir (1913PhRv....2..450L, 1924PhRv...24...49L) and others developed other mathematical models of discharge plasmas, predating Alfven. REAL plasma physicists continue to revise the mathematical models and these models have improved significantly. Even the classic discharge graphic in Cobine's “Gaseous Conductors” (pg 213, figure 8.4) has been modeled with Particle-In-Cell (PIC) plasma modeling software (see Studies of Electrical Plasma Discharges, figure 10.1). Plasma models, some sold as commercial software, are also used to understand the plasma environment in a number of research, space, and industrial environments (see VORPAL). See also: Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models, Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!, Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma' Why do Electric Universe supporters consistently dismiss the use of mathematical modeling of plasmas?

Uh, because they don't? The Electric Universe is full of mathematical modeling of plasmas and modeling of the same thing in the Universe in general that matches what has been modeled in the laboratory. It is the Orthodox Cosmologists who are dismissing the modeling of plasma modeling, not the plasma cosmologists.

Plasma models easily forming galaxy spirals, in fact, every type of galaxy is a plasma form.

A lot of the rest of this site is this guy proposing things he assumes and then shooting them down. Straw Man arguments. He has five articles on the Electric Universe taken from popular press he critiques as thought they were scientific articles challenging them for not including math and original data. . . as though they were for peer review. Absurd.

We are still waiting for your gravitational explanation of that photo of that nebula. . .

[Swordmaker]

More information about comet 67P. It isn’t an asteroid. It has much less density.

"At this stage, it simply constrains what we believe it is made from, and as we get better measurements (closer up), there will be a lot of work to interpret whether the comet is heterogeneous or more 'bitty'. But not yet; this is the first measurement."

[Swordmaker]

The sound of 67P

Where is the electronic emission coming from Moonman62? What causes it? Or have you even bothered to listen to it? Why does a 2 mile x 1 mile comet even HAVE a magnetosphere or electric atmosphere in the first place? Oh, that's right. . . you are so hide bound you don't ask or answer questions. . . because the science is settled, isn't it? Remember, the scientists of the Rosetta mission were BAFFLED by the sounds. . . and they cannot explain them.