Which came first, the galaxy or the black hole?
Every big galaxy we see in the sky has a supermassive black hole at its heart, a dark monster that may be millions or billions of times the mass of the Sun. But did the black hole form first, or the galaxy… or did they grow together?
Astronomers think they may be on to the answer: black holes form first, or at least more quickly, and galaxies grow around them.
|
| A supermassive black hole gobbling down matter at the center of a galaxy. Illustration courtesy NASA/Dana Berry, SkyWorks Digital Inc. |
It’s been known for a decade or two that big galaxies have giant black holes in their cores. It was a surprise at first, but now it’s expected that they all do. The Milky Way certainly does; our black hole is 4 million times the mass of the Sun, and it sits at the geometric center of the galaxy. Every time we look carefully at big galaxies, we see evidence for such a beast.
The second surprise came when the masses of the black holes were compared to the masses of their host galaxies. No matter how big or how small the galaxy, the mass of the black hole it harbored scaled right along with it (or, more accurately, with the bulge of stars, gas, and dust at the galactic center… sortof like the downtown region of a big city). Galaxies with bigger central bulges have bigger black holes, smaller galaxy bulges means more modest black holes.
This shocked astronomers. Mind you, as scary and big as these galactic black holes are, they are still a tiny fraction of the mass of their host galaxy’s bulge, about one-tenth of a percent, in fact. And that’s just for the bulge; the black hole is only about a thousandth of a percent of the total mass of the entire galaxy. So the black hole is downright dinky compared to the galaxy. How could it possibly affect this gigantic structure around it?
This scaling issue means that somehow, the black hole and the galaxy must "know" about each other; either the black hole affected how big the galaxy got, or the galaxy itself somehow shaped the size of the black hole, or some third characteristic shaped them both. But which was it?
One way to figure out which came first, the galaxy or the black hole, is to look at very distant galaxies. When we look at nearby galaxies we see this scaling between the galaxy and its black hole. But in these cases, the galaxies are old compared to the age of the Universe; we’re looking at 10-12 billion year old galaxies in a 13.7 billion year old Universe. By now, most galaxy and black hole-forming processes have settled down and stopped.
But if we look at very distant galaxies, we see them as they were when they were much younger, only a billion or two years old. If black holes grow more quickly or more slowly than their host galaxies, then looking that far back in distance and time may make that easier to see. This is what Chris Carilli, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), and an international team of astronomers did.
 |
| Radio observations of young galaxies find that the black holes form first, or at least grow more quickly than the galaxy. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF, SDSS |
When they looked at distant, young galaxies, they found that the black holes were more massive relative to their host galaxies than they are today! That’s a big result. It implies very strongly that somehow, the black holes grew first, with the galaxies growing more slowly around them.
This is the first big breakthrough in the galaxy/black hole chicken-and-egg problem. It’s a key finding that will allow astronomers to pursue the myriad questions that we still have… like, do the formations of the galaxies and black holes start at the same time, but black holes grow more quickly? Does the black hole reach its adult size and stop while the galaxy is still growing? And the real killer question: what the heck process is going on that relates the final mass of the black hole to the mass of the galaxy?
We still don’t know. But we have ideas… one is that black holes are messy eaters. As matter falls onto the nascent hole, it forms a flattened disk. This channels a vast wind that blows out from the superheated material in the disk that is just above the black hole’s point of no return. This gale of subatomic particles and energy blows out into the galaxy, affecting how stars form and how material from the proto-galactic cloud falls onto the galaxy itself. Eventually, the black hole runs out of material to feed on, the wind shuts off, and the growth stops… but at the same time, that wind has blown away all the material the galaxy was using to grow and form stars.
So this process would link the growth and eventual size of the black hole to the far larger galaxy around it. The thing is, this is just an idea; we don’t know if it’s right or not! But this new work studying distant galaxies has provided a vital piece of evidence to what’s actually going on. Now astronomers can focus their attention on these galaxies and see if they can tease out more details, more clues so that they can solve one of the biggest outstanding cosmic mysteries today: how, specifically, did galaxies form?
Or, if you prefer: how did we get here? After all, almost every question in astronomy boils down to this one. And every day, we get a bit closer to the answer.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I knew it! Now I can collect that bet I had with an old Astronomy professor!
January 7th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Some questions:
1) Do even the dwarf and irregular galaxies, like the Magellanic Clouds, have black holes?
2) What happens to these black holes when galaxies collide, or one galaxy “eats” a smaller one?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Where is the center of the Milky Way? Let’s say I want to point my new telescope (brought by Santa’s nefarious and drunken elf Steve) at the black hole so I can not see it, where would I point? I mean it’s always in the same sidereal direction, right? I realize I could Google this (and I did try a couple sites) but there’s bunches of knowledge here so why not be efficient…
January 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
OT
Phil, this reminds me of some questions that came up last night. We were watching Hubble’s Universe on NatGeo (which had some stuff about black holes, among other things), and the program mentioned some work being done to map out dark matter. They showed this image of what looked like really big clouds.
A couple questions that came up were: what’s between these clouds of dark matter? What keeps them together? Since dark matter can’t be seen, but only its effects, then is it possible that the “empty” spaces between the clouds of dark matter is also filled with dark matter?
The program didn’t go into much detail.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Hi.
If I may,
@ Jeffersonian: The Galactic Center is located in the Constellation Saggitarius. You can have a favorable view of that region of space during the months of July and August. The zone is best viewed with binocular
If you want, check the image in this link:
http://picasaweb.google.com/jvannini/Astronomia#5288624137310957858
@ Ken: I guess that Magellanics clouds have a different story to tell, due the fact they are irregulars. Although our Milky Way have distorted them, there are no evidence of a central black hole inside those tiny satellite galaxies. There are signs of one stellar black hole in one of the Clouds, but not a central one.
Now, galactic black holes were formed in the initial stages of their host galaxies formation… where did the mass come from? Proto-galaxies?
Regards!
January 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The chicken and the egg.
According to “black hole” theory, one has to have mass prior to any “black hole” formation. It seems to this writer, this raises a paradox. According to “black hole” theory, black holes are the result of gravitational collapse of normal stars, big ones sure, but still stars.
This data suggests another re-writing of the “black hole” theory because stars are a product of galaxy formation then the galaxy has to be present for the star to collaspe into a “black hole.” Thus, galaxy formation must come first according to accepted “black hole” theory.
How many re-writes does “black hole” theory get before the overall theory — and it’s just a theory — as all scientific conclusions are — comes into question?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Anaconda, the early universe was a strange place. Assuming that black hole formation started off as just a collapse of a “star” could be a bit off. Direct collapse of A LOT of matter that hadn’t coalesced into a star yet could be another mechanism (WAG). As Dr. Plait observed in a previous blog, there is a lot of weirdness associated with black holes.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
So, if the LHC creates a Black Hole
, it will also create a galaxy?
Sounds like a Star Trek episode.
J/P=?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
And what about those young galactic nucleus (Quasar) does this apply?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Ken: I imagine the central Black Holes would orbit each other until they merged into one larger Black Hole. If I recall correctly, some colliding galaxies do seem to have a “double nucleus”. I know that galaxy collision models do predict this type of behavior.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Larian Lequella:
I appreciate your response to my comment. I tend to be sceptical of ideas about “the beginning, or “early”, anything that goes beyond observation and measurement of the here and now.
But you didn’t answer my base question: “How many re-writes does “black hole” theory get before the overall theory…comes into question?”
Larian Lequella, you state: “Direct collapse of A LOT of matter that hadn’t coalesced into a star yet could be another mechanism (WAG).”
Okay, but that seems like an ad hoc explanation, certainly, not predictive.
Larian Lequella, you state: “As Dr. Plait observed in a previous blog, there is a lot of weirdness associated with black holes.”
From my perspective any “weirdness” that requires setting aside the known physical laws of the Universe, or digging deeper into abstract theory to explain in ad hoc fashion new observations brings into question the validity of the theory.
My perspective is that of reasonable scepticism in the face of anomalous observation and measurement. Endless “tweaking” of theories suggests a complete re-evaluation of the theory is in order.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Yay for Chris and the NRAO! The HST showing us the scaling relation is cool enough, and I certainly didn’t expect to see data coming down on one side of this chicken and egg problem so soon. The high-redshift universe is full of surprises, and we’ve only just begun to skim the surface of what we can see. This is great and wonderful story of our origins.
Did I mention that radio astronomy rocks?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“Endless “tweaking” of theories suggests a complete re-evaluation of the theory is in order.”
Or, that’s called science
January 7th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
And IIRC if several massive holes are involved in a subsequent galaxy merger one may be kicked out. (I assume related to the three body problem instability.)
When I googled it I found that this may also go on to be another test for gravitons AFAIU, as if there is a resulting hole merger it may emit gravitons in one preferred direction and with that kick void the resultant galaxy of massive holes altogether.
Dunno about that added mechanism, but at least the press release describes an observation of a massive hole leaving its galaxy ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080429-black-hole-superkick.html ).
January 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Um, diverse black holes are known singularities of GR. You may object to seeing physical consequences of singularities, but then you have to dump for example quantum field theory as well – or perhaps resonances in any sufficiently simplified model.
Black hole “theory”, in the meaning that it’s an isolated subject (which is a dubious description at best, as per above post), is rather figuring out the consequences of known physical theories and further testing them for correctness. (Or, sure, any need for “complete re-evaluation”.)
January 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Anaconda,
I’m not sure you’ve quite shown a paradox here. You’re assuming that only way to get stars is through a galaxy. That’s assuming there are no other possible ways for stars to form.
Interesting article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070913140318.htm
You’re making the same assumption about black holes too.
You have to concretely show that stars can only be formed in a galaxy and that a galaxy can only be formed with a black hole and a black hole can only be formed by from stars. So your chicken-and-egg scenario is not strong enough to challenge our understand of black holes given the evidence so far.
Also, theories are reevaluated as many times as evidence requires. One can’t stop because of an aesthetic sense. Currently
January 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“Endless “tweaking” of theories suggests a complete re-evaluation of the theory is in order.”
What order of magnitude of “tweaking” are we talking about? Tweaking an internal combustion engine to improve it via fuel injection rather than a carbourator isn’t throwing out all automotive engineering is it? Without “tweaking” are we saying “Mission Accomplished! We know everything about this now.”
I appreciate the skepticism, and find no fault in that; however it doesn’t seem to be applied within the framework of the things we already do know. Maybe I misunderstood your statements though (which is entirely possible), but it seems to me you are actually describing the scientific process as others have pointed out.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
What about simultaneity? Aren’t those young galaxies forming right now?
Sounds like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
[...] recentes, segundo este cara aqui porque eu não entendo dos detalhes da coisa, indicam que nas galáxias mais jovens os buracos [...]
January 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Nicole:
Nicole presents my statement: “Endless “tweaking” of theories suggests a complete re-evaluation of the theory is in order.”
And Niclole responds: “Or, that’s called science.”
No, endless “tweaking” strongly suggests the theory has been falsified (read, fails to describe the physical reality of the phenomenon) and at that point alternative theories need to be considered.
Torbjorn Larsson, OM:
I have to respectfully disagree with your comment because while your comment is well stated it makes assumptions about theories as if they are facts.
There are a number of theorized properties of “black holes” that violate known physical laws. Of course, “black holes” have never been directly observed, they are creatures of mathematical theory based on the idea that gravity is the only “force” operating in the Universe.
Singularities (the correct term of art) are required to have infinite or near infinite gravitational pull because gravity is a “weak” force to begin with.
Torbjorn Larsson, OM states: “You may object to seeing physical consequences of singularities, but then you have to dump for example quantum field theory as well – or perhaps resonances in any sufficiently simplified model.”
No, there is an alternative theory that is well established with recognized physical properties which has been verified in the laboratory by testing and observation with one of it’s pioneers winning the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1970, Hannes Alfven.
I agree “black hole” theory is not isolated, it is part and parcel with “big bang” theory and both are wrapped into an exclusive gravitational model.
ND:
Thanks for the link to the SpaceDaily article which has an excellent picture of a Birkeland current with the picture’s caption reading:
“In the authors’ simulations, a gas filament condenses and then fragments to form the first stars. The gas heats as it gets compressed but then becomes cold in the center. The red shading in this image reflects changes in the gas’temperature.”
I agree, stars form by way of Birkeland currents that form a “Z” pinch which compresses the PLASMA, not gas (plasma being electrically charged positive ions and electrons). This phenomenon has been confirmed in the laboratory by experimental testing — electrical properties are known to be scale independient up to 18 orders of magnitude.
ND, I’m only stating astonomy’s stated theory of “black hole” formation. you (and others) are adding to that theory in ad hoc fashion because condradictory evidence was observed.
ND states: “[T]heories are reevaluated as many times as evidence requires.”
Yes, but sometimes the theory doesn’t need to be “tweaked”, it needs to be abandoned and an alternative theory which matches the observations and measurements and has better predictive value needs to replace it.
Plasma Cosmology does exactly that.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
@Anaconda
This new finding, that black holes appear to come first or at least concurrently formed with galaxies, does not necessitate automatic, complete dismissal of any theories or hypotheses of how black holes form. What it does call for is more investigation and a reexamination of what is currently thought about black holes. For example, does this suggest that there are other mechanisms that could be responsible, such as the idea Larian suggested of matter collapsing into a singularity before it forms into a star.
Now, this particular idea is not an ad hoc explanation, but rather a new hypothesis that requires testing. If more evidence is found to support it, then it can be incorporated into “black hole theory”. If not, then it is set aside, and other ideas investigated.
Put it this way, we know that hitting a skin pulled taught over a frame creates a particular sound. For a long time, only through the process of creating a frame, followed by stretching and fastening the skin, followed by striking it with a stick could we get that sound. It is impossible to get that sound before the drum is created. Then we discover that there exists this electronic device that can produce the exact same sound, without the need of creating a frame, stretching a skin or hitting it with a stick. Does this mean that the idea that drum->skin->strike creates that sound is suddently completely wrong? No. This new evidence just expands on the knowledge of how that sound can be created.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Anaconda,
I’m still not seeing the chicken-egg paradox that was the point of your first post. This has to do with the formation of galaxies and not stars themselves. The monkey wrench in all this that you seem to point to is that you can not have stars without galaxies. And thus the idea of black holes falls apart. Stars could have preceded the formation of black holes and galaxies or blacks holes could have been created by not going through the step of star formation in the early universe.
“because stars are a product of galaxy formation”
Which physical laws are being violated?
Also, what are you scientific qualifications? Why are you so interested in plasma cosmology?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
ND:
On further reading of the SpaceDaily article you linked: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070913140318.htm
I was struck with all the assumptions that were stated as fact in the article.
Even though little is known about their nature [dark matter], evidence for the presence of dark matter is overwhelming, from observations of galaxies, to clusters of galaxies, to the Universe as a whole.”
“[O]verwhelming”???
And:
Also, this quote from the article is highly problematic: “The discovery takes scientists a step further to determining the nature of dark matter, which remains a mystery since it was first discovered more than 70 years ago.”
“[D]iscovered”???
Don’t they mean theorized.
And “dark matter” was only theorized because otherwise the gravitational model couldn’t hold a galaxy together because the observed matter in a galaxy didn’t have the required gravitational pull to hold a galaxy together considering its rotational speed (kinda like why “black holes” were resurrected in the ’60’s after being discarded for 30 years).
In other words, a substance (”dark matter”) was theorized to save a theory that had been clearly falsified by its own terms and constraints.
And:
“After the Big Bang, the universe was mostly ’smooth’, with just small ripples in the matter density. These ripples grew larger due to the gravitational forces acting on the dark matter particles contained in them.” The problem, here, is that theory is being stated as fact.
And:
“For their research, the team from Durham University’s Institute for Computational Cosmology carried out sophisticated computer simulations of the formation of these early stars with accepted scientific models of so-called ‘cold’ as well as ‘warm’ dark matter.”
This is theory pushing the envelope into pure speculation.
Todd W.:
You are sincere and I appreciate your good faith.
But your statement: “Now, this particular idea is not an ad hoc explanation, but rather a new hypothesis that requires testing.”
Why is it not ad hoc?
Ad hoc, in this instance, means coming up with an addendum to a theory because the theory failed to predict or match observation and measurement.
I appreciate Larian’s creativity, but it’s nothing more than “broken field” running in a football game.
Science won’t get closer to a correct understanding of phenomenon until it also considers the possibility it is wrong. This observation directly contradicts “black hole” theory. Acknowledging that reality is the first step to a better understading ot natural phenomenon.
A scientist committed to the empirical scientific method is committed to observation and measurement, not any particular theory, in fact, clinging to a theory falsified by observation and measurement is the tell-tale sign of a discipline in drift and disarray.
Todd W., I have to say your analogy is completely unconvincing because you assume science knows there are “black holes” when it’s just a theory. “Skin”, “frame”, and “sound” are tangible and concrete — “black holes” are theory based on abstract mathematical formula. The two are not comparable so the analogy fails in my opinion.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@BA “This channels a vast wind that blows out from the superheated material in the disk that is just above the black hole’s point of no return. This gale of subatomic particles and energy blows out into the galaxy, affecting how stars form and how material from the proto-galactic cloud falls onto the galaxy itself.”
Is this the same thing as the bidirectional jets that are seen in many quasars and radio galaxies, or is this some type of particle/energy flow within the plane of the disk (i.e., perpendicular to the jets)?
Also, what is the scaling relationship for supermassive blackholes versus their galaxy? mass-bh = f x mass-galaxy
If so what is f and how many galaxies have been used to determine it?
Also, does the axis for the black hole jets have to be the same as the rotational axis of the black hole or are they completely uncorrelated? Does the rotational axis of the Milky Way equal the rotational axis of material in the disk surrounding the central black hole or are they different? So there are many, many questions relating to black holes and how they relate to their galaxy.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Anaconda “Thus, galaxy formation must come first according to accepted “black hole” theory.”
Even according to standard models of stellar evolution and the Big Bang Theory this is not true. A galaxy is a collection of stars – millions to billions of them. But at some point in time in the early universe there were no stars at all. Some place in the universe then, there was a slight increase in density in the hydrogen gas permeating the universe, and the first star collapsed out of the medium. Assuming it was a massive star, greater than 10 solar masses, it would have blown its stack in about 10 million years and the first supernova would have happened in the universe and the first black hole would have formed. This might have happened before the second star formed in the universe. So it’s easy to see how black holes can form before large aggregations of stars (i.e., galaxies) arrive on the scene.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Bear with me and dumb down your explanation appropriately, I studied liberal arts. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around why we can see galaxies that are 10 billion light years away if the universe is only 13 billion years old.
If the light originated when the universe was 3 billion years old doesn’t that mean that something had to travel faster than the speed of light to get so far away in such a short time? Obviously I’m missing something here because traveling faster than light is allegedly impossible, but whenever I try to picture it in my head, I can’t. It’s like a giant nightmare version of the “two trains leave New York at 8am going in opposite directions” problem.
If anyone can offer an “idiot’s explanation” of what I’m not getting here, I’d appreciate it greatly.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Paul, you mean “eat your cake and have it too”.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Wow! So the amount of matter spinning around a black hole is proportional to its mass/gravitational pull. And newer black holes haven’t had time to attract as much matter as older ones. Who would have ever guessed that? What an amazing discovery!
Next you’ll be telling me that larger magnets can pick up heavier metal thingys.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Berry does some absolutely beautiful work.
The disturbance pattern in this reminds me of the polar pattern on Saturn… after watching a certain “science” program last night on a popular cable channel, I’d have to wonder if Saturn has a black hole at its pole!
January 7th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Hmm. . . . The statement that the black hole mass correlates with the mass of the parent galaxy seems to contradict something I recall stated on this blog before – namely that the Milky Way’s black hole was much smaller than that of our neighbouring Andromeda galaxy (was it 4 million vs 20 billion suns?) Yet is was recently posted that the Milky Way and Andromeda have close to the same mass (even before when it was thought that Andromeda was bigger, it was only by about 50% at most). Does this mean that Andromeda’s central bulge is really that many orders of magnitude bigger than the Milky Way’s? (And does this mean that the Milky Way therefore has that much bigger a disk?)
January 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I can see why black holes would come first. Considering the massive gravitational power of a black hole, it would seem logical that it would start pulling gas and stars and planets and once it got big enough, the inner areas would pull objects to make outer areas and slowly there would be enough gas and matter built up that a galaxy would form and gravity would rule supreme.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Am I the only one who wonders why it took so long for the Pierson’s Puppeteers to learn about this? Couldn’t they just read the old archives of this blog from back in the 21st century?
(I wonder how many of your readers get THAT reference without looking it up…?)
January 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
sdrDusty:
History, as has been previously pointed out,is not science,,,it’s the memory and opinions of the winners. Saturn Probably has no black hole at its pole, because if it did, there would be no Saturn,,,just a big darkness.
Black holes(according to Prof Hawking) can also be formed by explosive compaction of matter. The big bang may have produced a lot of micro black holes, which promptly evaporated. The energy curve for any evaporating black hole is identical to every other evaporating black hole. Its just that the bigger they are, the longer they take to evaporate.
An evaporating black hole in a dense gaseous medium would have the same turbulence/compressive effect on that gas as an exploding star, though perhaps somewhat less(ok, probably a LOT less)., but an effect it will have. Possibly evaporating micro black holes had as significant an effect in the early formation of stars as any other mechanism, including hypothetical “electrical space currents”.
GAry 7
January 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
According to another theory of matter creation, black holes in any galaxy created nearly all the matter particles that condensed into stars within that galaxy, therefore black holes necessarily would have to precede the galaxy of stars. Accordingly, in the subject observations they would not be looking at the beginnings of the universe but instead would be looking at an earlier epoch that looks surprisingly similar to our own times. This, according to this alternative theory, would be because the universe is much older than the Big Bang theory would allow, therefore galaxies of those times would be the same as today’s galaxies with its radiation altered by many intervening clouds of matter.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Phil Plait, the English idiomatic proverb “have one’s cake and eat it too” is the usual way of phrasing it, but can also be stated as “eat one’s cake and have it too”.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
ND:
ND states: “[Anaconda] I’m still not seeing the chicken-egg paradox that was the point of your first post. This has to do with the formation of galaxies and not stars themselves.”
According to the gravitational model stars are a product of galaxy formation, and “black holes” are a product of collasped massive stars. In order for “black holes” to be formed independent of stars some other process would have to happen. That is the contradiction, and obviously it’s recognized in the astronomy community because this blog’s author first used the “chicken and the egg” phrase. I simply built on what was already in the post.
ND states: “Stars could have preceded the formation of black holes and galaxies or blacks holes could have been created by not going through the step of star formation in the early universe.”
Exactly my point — conventional astronomical science (gravitational model) doesn’t have a good grip on any of this because it’s too wedded to one theory that has lead astronomers to increasingly react to new observations with the passive tense, “We were surprised by the observation.”
I submitt it’s problematic to justify theories based on what could have happened in the “early universe.”
For a theory that lacks strong observational confirmation, the “we were surprised” comments keep uncomfortably stacking up.
ND asks: “Which physical laws are being violated?”
Well, that’s a reasonable question, infinite or near infinite density of “black holes” seems to exceed any density of observed matter; in atomic physics, it is recognized as the “island of stability” that neutrons can’t stay packed together. But to be reasonable “black hole” theory doesn’t offend physical laws as much it’s theoretical forebear, the “big bang.”
NB asks: “[W]hat are you scientific qualifications? Why are you so interested in plasma cosmology?”
I’m not a scientist, rather a scientfic observer, an “enthusiast” would be a fair characterization. I state the Plasma Cosmology theory because based on my research and study, Plasma Cosmology matches the observations and measurements best. There are too many paradoxes that the gravitational model doesn’t explain and it relies on too many “unobserved” theoretical assumptions.
Larian Lequella:
You would be right if the “tweaking” was analogous to “tuning up” your car’s engine. This post points out a complete contradiction to the “black hole” theory. The ad hoc addendums are pure speculation not based on observation or measurement, but rather a desire to preserve a theory.
LL states: “I appreciate the skepticism, and find no fault in that; however it doesn’t seem to be applied within the framework of the things we already do know.”
What do we already know?
LL states: “…but it seems to me you are actually describing the scientific process as others have pointed out.”
I agree, that is the point of weakness with the gravitational model and all it’s corollary theories, “big bang”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “strange matter” quarks and so on. It’s not based on the empirical scientific method, rather it is based on one Man’s conception of reality and he developed this theory based on ‘thought’ experiments.
Real science is based on observation and measurement. And if those observations and measurements can’t be made then it refrains from speculation, although, it’s always striving to make observations and measurements which then allows it to make hypothesis, and if enough additional observations and measurments are made which confirm the hypothesis then and only then can one call an idea about the physical universe a theory.
It is my contention that conventional astronomy has claimed as theory what really is only hypothesis, and some of it, “dark matter” for example, doesn’t even amount to hypothesis, but rather speculation to preserve a falsified theory.
My interest is in the current best available science. The gravitational model is not the current best available science — Plasma Cosmology is.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I just might have to have Chris C. speak at a CAS meeting! He’s a local hero now!
We had Dr. Tolbert “Kickin’ It Old Skool” tonight at McCormick! Talked about black holes, too!
January 7th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Anaconda,
I’m still not convinced. The original posting talks about galaxies and black holes. What you, as you say, “built on what was already in the post” is that stars could not precede the formation of a galaxy. Unless I’m reading it wrong, and people please correct me, the article I posted talks about how the first stars could have formed, before galaxies came to be.
You seem so sure about your statement on science, gravitation and the plasma cosmology when you yourself do not possess any scientific background. Have you participated in any research? Applied the scientific method?
I’ve seen quite a few people assert that scientists are wrong about this or that based on misunderstandings and overly simplistic views of theories and what they actually say. In other words they do not fully understand the subject they’re talking about. So you will excuse me if I don’t take you seriously simply by your assertions.
To say that the current scientific understanding of galaxy formation, gravitation and black holes is wrong and that the scientific method has not been applied correctly is a bold statement to make, specially against a those who work and breath science. If the current scientific understanding is wrong and plasma cosmology is right, then I would suggest you outline exactly how so on website. You said you’ve researched this and found the evidence against black holes. It would be very interesting to outline your findings on a website and invite professional astronomers and other scientists to debate it’s merits.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:05 am
# Eric TF Bat Says:
Am I the only one who wonders why it took so long for the Pierson’s Puppeteers to learn about this? Couldn’t they just read the old archives of this blog from back in the 21st century?
(I wonder how many of your readers get THAT reference without looking it up…?)
-raises hand-
Just read Fleet Of Worlds, BTW.
J/P=?
January 8th, 2009 at 4:41 am
[...] research which addresses this issue of mutual black hole and galaxy evolution in different ways. A clearer write-up of the new results comes from Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy, and I recommend you check it [...]
January 8th, 2009 at 5:27 am
This is my field, and this area of research is really active, and will be featured in a Symposium of the International Astronomical Union meeting this August in Rio de Janeiro. Some details are at: http://www.stsci.edu/institute/conference/iau267
Evolution of Galaxies and Central Black Holes: Feeding and Feedback
10-14 August 2009
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Research over the last decade has revealed definitively (1) that the fundamental power source in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is gravitational accretion onto supermassive (greater than one million solar masses) black holes at the centers of galaxies, (2) that supermassive black holes lie at the centers of virtually all spheroidal systems, and (3) that there are strong empirical correlations between properties of supermassive black holes and their host galaxies. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that nuclear activity must play an important role in the formation and evolution of galaxies: far from being unusual, exotic anomalies in a relatively quiescent universe, it is now widely recognized that nuclear activity is an important ingredient in the evolution of galaxies. Also over the last decade, the masses of black holes have become measurable through methods such as modeling of stellar and gas dynamics and reverberation mapping, and these anchor scaling relationships that permit estimates of black hole masses from quasar spectroscopic properties alone. With the advent of techniques for accurately estimating AGN black hole masses, even at large redshifts, and the availability of large numbers of quasars at all redshifts from deep surveys with Chandra, XMM-Newton, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the field has undergone transformational change. A major focus in extragalactic astronomy and cosmology has become observational and theoretical investigation of nuclear activity in the larger context of the galactic environment, which we can describe in terms of feeding and feedback.
That’s the start of the description of the symposium, anyway.
Great job making this understandable Phil. We’ve got a lot of jargon and a lot of steps to get across to convey why this is so interesting and important.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:33 am
firemancarl, you may think so, but these supermassive black holes as Phil points out are really tiny compared to the surrounding galaxies. They really only dominate the gravity within the central part of the galaxies, not beyond. It would be like you carrying around your car with you — THAT doesn’t happen. It’s the other way around — you are carried in your car. The black holes are really, really big, but not anywhere close enough to directly pull in the rest of the galaxies that they live within.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@Anaconda
Although I disagree with you in quite a few points, only one thing:
“It’s not based on the empirical scientific method, rather it is based on one Man’s conception of reality and he developed this theory based on ‘thought’ experiments.”
Are you referring to Einstein and GR? If you are, I may tell you that GPS wouldn’t work correctly if we wouldn’t have GR. Mercurys (strange) movements around the sun are described very precisely by GR, as is gravitational redshift. All three are direct proofs that GR works (probably just in a weak gravitational field, but there is some evidence, that it also works in a double-pulsar system which is quite a strong gravitational field – follow the link in my name to a paper about it (Kramer et al. (2006)).
Btw: Even SR was based on “thought experiments” and the assumption that c is a limit to moving objects. And SR is tested even more accurate than GR. So a quite well tested GR is based upon a very precisely tested SR. They are both quite a good explanation about what’s going on!
January 8th, 2009 at 6:42 am
So Fred Hoyle was right in how visible matter was formed in his Steady State Theory?
January 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am
“eat one’s cake and have it too” makes more sense to me. You can have the cake and then eat it but to eat the cake and still have one is the intended meaning of the phrase, so it makes more sense to me to place eating before having. But then again english is not my first language. As victor borge said, it’s your language I’m just trying to use it.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I thought of this very thing for a poem, 2 years ago!
Particle Romance
An emoton is an elementary particle. Once, they were thought not to exist.
An emoton can only be seen indirectly by its effect on other elementary particles
(much like black holes).
String theorists have attempted to make models of the interaction of the emoton
between it and other elementary particles. Again, like black holes,
some models have shown that an emoton’s purpose is to act as a singularity
in which quantum mechanics can build upon the universe.
Evidence seems to prove this model correct. An emoton’s binding force is more
on the order of the weaker gravitational force than the strong nuclear force.
Scientists believe that this is the reason for a broken heart.
The emotons react with other emotons, sharing the emotional load between two lovers.
When the lover is gone, suddenly the emotons have to carry all the load,
making your heart heavy until it collapses like a star.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
It should also be pointed out that a black hole COULD be created by simply accelerating a mass to a velocity high enough that the mass increase formula(M=Mo/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2)), approaches infinity and an event horizon must therefore form around the accelerated mass.
Thus we have a black hole that only exists as long as its velocity is undiminished.
I wonder what we’d see if the “velocity dependent black hole” slowed down,,,would the black hole evaporate instantaneously?(probably not). Now, depending upon the original rest mass, that could result in a BIG bang,,,
Gary 7
January 8th, 2009 at 10:33 am
@Anaconda “According to the gravitational model stars are a product of galaxy formation”
If one defines galaxy as a massive aggregation of stars, and if one asserts that stars require a galaxy in order to form, then of course there is your “chicken and egg” conundrum. How does the first star form? It can’t because there is no galaxy containing other stars. Why then do stars exist? It seems like a paradox.
Of course, the paradox collapses completely if one replaces the word galaxy with proto-galaxy:
A star can only form in a proto-galaxy.
(Assuming the definition of proto-galaxy is something like the following: a large mass of hydrogen gas with a diameter from 10,000 ly to 1,000,000 ly.)
Just curious, how does your Plasma Universe theory resolve this particular alleged paradox?
January 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
@amphiox “The statement that the black hole mass correlates with the mass of the parent galaxy seems to contradict something I recall stated on this blog before – namely that the Milky Way’s black hole was much smaller than that of our neighbouring Andromeda galaxy (was it 4 million vs 20 billion suns?)”
Yes, that bothered me too. Glad someone else noticed it.
So we have M-bh = F * M-gal
where M-bh is the mass of the central galactic black hole, F is the scaling factor, and M-gal is the mass of the entire galaxy.
So for the Milky Way we have M-bh = 4 million solar masses and M-gal = 870 billion solar masses (1.5 times previous estimate of 580 billion solar masses). Therefore F = 4.6E-6.
Andromeda galaxy: M-gal = 710 billion solar masses and M-bh = 140 million solar masses. Therefore F = 2.0E-4.
F-Andromeda = 44 * F-Milky Way
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/26/full
“The STIS observations of Andromeda are so precise that astronomers have eliminated all other possibilities for what the central, dark object could be. They also calculated that the black hole’s mass is 140 million Suns, which is three times more massive than once thought.”
January 8th, 2009 at 11:04 am
For M-33 (i.e., the Triangulum Galaxy) we have M-bh = 1,500 solar masses and M-gal = 30 billion solar masses
F-Triangulum = 5.0E-8 = 0.011 * F-Milky Way
So F varies by 3 orders of magnitude between M-31 (Andromeda galaxy) and M-33 (Triangulum galaxy). There does not appear to be any stable scaling factor.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/19496144.html
Black Holes Shape Spiral Galaxy Arms
June 3, 2008by Paul Deans
The black hole at the core of M33 (the Triangulum Galaxy) is a lightweight, with a mass roughly 1,500 times the mass of the Sun. The galaxy’s spiral arms emerge from its core at a very loose angle of 42°.
Courtesy Travis Rector / M. Hanna / NOAO / AURA / NSF.
For several years astronomers have believed that the more massive a galaxy’s central black hole, the larger and more massive the bulge of stars at the core will always be. But now it turns out that this rule, an excellent fit in most cases, doesn’t apply in all. A recent survey of 32 flat, bulgeless galaxies by the Spitzer Space Telescope showed hefty black holes in seven of them, throwing the theory into question.
Yesterday at the 212th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in St. Louis, a team led by Marc Seigar (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) proposed another method of estimating the mass of black holes at spiral galaxy cores: the larger the central black hole, the tighter the galaxy winds its spiral arms around itself.
Seigar’s group looked at images of 27 nearby spirals for which the mass of each central supermassive black hole is already known by other means. They noted that galaxies with the biggest black holes have tight spiral arms, emerging from the central bulge at angles of about 7°. But galaxies hosting smaller central black holes have looser spiral arms, with angles of up to 43° where the arms and the central bulge meet.
The next step is to expand this study to larger numbers and to look beyond the local region by examining galaxies at cosmological distances. Seigar expects that really remote galaxies, seen when the universe was significantly younger, contain smaller supermassive black holes than what we see in closer locales.
He went on to speculate that the main factor in determining the mass of a supermassive central black hole could well be the amount of dark matter concentrated in the galaxy. But at the moment he’s more interested in ensuring that the simple relationship between spiral arms and black hole mass doesn’t change as he studies galaxies up to 5 billion light-years away.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Marc Seigar (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) proposed another method of estimating the mass of black holes at spiral galaxy cores: the larger the central black hole, the tighter the galaxy winds its spiral arms around itself.
But you can’t trust this Marc Seigar guy. All he’s doing is tweaking something to match observations. The only acceptable solution is to abandon all thoughts that there could be a relationship between supermassive black holes and galaxy formation for a new theory that has a cooler name and says nothing on the subject.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Just noticed that Anaconda has been posting to Universe Today at
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/06/with-no-smoke-or-mirrors-spacecraft-hunts-for-active-galaxies-with-central-black-holes/
talking about the same chicken-egg-there-are-no-black-holes assertions.
Someone explained to Anaconda the problems with his/her statements and they’re simply brushed off.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@Jose “All he’s doing is tweaking something to match observations. The only acceptable solution is to abandon all thoughts that there could be a relationship between supermassive black holes and galaxy formation for a new theory that has a cooler name and says nothing on the subject.”
ROFLMAO.
Yes, I’ve got just the name: Cryostatic Radiative Adiabatic Plasma theory. CRAP will solve all these paradoxes generated by this backward “black hole” theory that the BA keeps harping on.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Do irregular galaxies also have black holes at their center? Do they have a center? It seems so plausible that any galaxy that is circular, i.e.spirals, etc., because their centers are vortexes (vortices?), have black holes at their center, but irregulars…?
Can someone answer?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@ Tom Marking:
“Yes, that bothered me too. Glad someone else noticed it.
So we have M-bh = F * M-gal
where M-bh is the mass of the central galactic black hole, F is the scaling factor, and M-gal is the mass of the entire galaxy.”
There is the false point. The BH-mass has nothing to do with the mass of the entire galaxy but with the mass of the BULGE, the center of the galaxy if you will. Just read Phil’s post again, I think he mentioned that!
And although the mass of the MW seems to have grown lately, the mass of the buldge has not necessarily grown. I guess we can “add” that mass to the “dark halo” and wouldn’t do a too big mistake.
@ jeff
I think the answer to your question is not that easy. First we have different kind of irregulars. Those like the Magellanic Clouds that looked always like they do today and hence have ever been irregulars. I must admit that I don’t know if such guys have a SMBH at their “core”. On the other hand we have irregulars like the Antenna galaxy which is actually a merger of two former spirals. Thus there is at least one SMBH at the center (or close to the center) of the new formed galaxy – at least one, because both galaxies actually had one and probably they haven’t merged yet to form an even bigger SMBH.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
ND:
ND states: “I’m still not convinced.”
How come I’m not surprised:-)
ND states: “Unless I’m reading it wrong, and people please correct me, the article I posted talks about how the first stars could have formed, before galaxies came to be.”
ND, the article you cited and linked makes several misstatements which I quoted and pointed out. “Dark matter” was not discovered “70 years ago, it was theorized 70 years ago. Big difference. Strike one against your article. There certainly is NOT “overwhelming” evidence for the existence of “dark matter” that’s why it is still vigorously searched for today. Strike two against your article.
Perhaps, you are not used to people disagreeing with your core assumptions (the existence of “black holes”), because you completely ignore my second set of comments about the linked article.
So, I will restate the relevant part of my comment, again:
“And “dark matter” was only theorized because otherwise the gravitational model couldn’t hold a galaxy together because the observed matter in a galaxy didn’t have the required gravitational pull to hold a galaxy together considering its rotational speed (kinda like why “black holes” were resurrected in the ’60’s after being discarded for 30 years). In other words, a substance (”dark matter”) was theorized to save a theory that had been clearly falsified by its own terms and constraints.”
Here is a quote from the cited and linked article:
“For their research, the team from Durham University’s Institute for Computational Cosmology carried out sophisticated computer simulations of the formation of these early stars with accepted scientific models of so-called ‘cold’ as well as ‘warm’ dark matter.”
An “unseen”, “undetected”, “theorized” object, “dark matter” with unknown properties can’t be fed into a computer program and provide useful data about ANYTHING — it’s nothing but useless speculation cloaked in the psuedo-respectability that a computer program spit it out. Strike three against your article.
So, your defense of “black holes” rests on speculation dressed up in a computer simulation of a particle, “dark matter”, that has never been observed and it’s properties are unknown? If you are, then you really don’t understand what the empirical scientific method is. It’s based on actual observation and measurement, not computer simulations based on speculation fed into the computer program.
NB asks: “Have you participated in any research? Applied the scientific method?”
I have conducted my personal research, and in the course of that research, I have applied the scientific method.
But what I think you’re driving at is this: Have I engaged in the actual observation, measurement, and interpretation of my own data? No, I haven’t, but I can apply reason and be objective about data collected by others — I have no axe to grind or agenda. Matching theory and reality is all I care about.
ND states: “So you will excuse me if I don’t take you seriously simply by your assertions.”
No, I don’t mind at all.
I only request you keep an open-mind, and at the same time apply reasonable scepticism — when theories or predictions don’t match observation and measurement, a scientific observer should cast a wider net than the comfort of accepted theory.
Electric currents, Birkeland currents, have been detected going from the Sun to the Earth, see, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/15dec_solarflaresurprise.htm
The three NASA reports demonstrate electric currents (electrons and positive ions, charged particles) that flow from the Sun to the Earth, and since the Sun is the closet star, it provides the best opportunity for detailed observation and measurement of how stars work.
So far, electromagnetic properties are the predominate interaction between the Sun and the Earth. That seems to be the point where Man starts his observation and measurement of the Cosmos.
ND states: “If the current scientific understanding is wrong and plasma cosmology is right, then I would suggest you outline exactly how so on website.”
I could and I have, but there are plenty of websites for you to explore if you want to investigate Plasma Cosmology. Plasma Cosmology doesn’t rise or fall on what I write or don’t write.
But if you are interested here is a link to an excellent introduction to Plasma Cosmology theory:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
The author is Don Scott an electrical engineer by training and is published in the field of Plasma Cosmology. I should note that IEEE ((Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.) is the world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology and it recognizes the study of Plasma Cosmology.
The resources are available, the choice is yours to decide.
ND states: “You said you’ve researched this and found the evidence against black holes. It would be very interesting to outline your findings on a website and invite professional astronomers and other scientists to debate it’s merits.”
Again, there are plenty of others who have outlined the problems with “black holes”. “Black holes’” reality won’t be effected by my writing or non-writing one iota.
And if you are a committed scientist or scientific observer, you already know the pardoxes or “black holes” or at least you should, you should.
ND, have you investigated the paradoxes of “black holes”?
Have you given serious consideration to falsifying “black hole” theory?
Every scientist or scientific observer if they are committed to the empirical scientific method must attempt to falsify their own theories.
If the theory CAN’T be falsified, then it can’t be proved either.
Good luck.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
@ Anaconda
Interestingly I have read only about the third article you linked to (it was at newscientist.com), the other ones were new to me. And they seem strange. And they are rising questions. Especially one:
If the particles are channeled into the earth atmosphere/magnetosphere right above the equator, shouldn’t we see at least some “polar lights” down there?
And about that third article: First of all I think it is quite understandable by “mainstream” physics. But I have something about it what bothers me:
“(For experts: The team believes the electrons were recaptured by some combination of radiative recombination and charge exchange.) ”
What? Charge exchange? Between electrons and protons, both charged with the unity-charge? I accept radiative recombination – an electron jumps down to the ground state and emits UV-light. But I don’t think that there will be any charge exchange – hence that “for experts”-statement is wrong, or I don’t understand anything.
Btw. I haven’t done any calculations, but in my understanding I don’t need any magnetic flux tubes for charged particles to penetrate the magnetosphere, “just come in and dance around the field lines” if I may say so
. And another way how they actually can come in is quite well understood: via reconnection of magnetic field lines – what happens on the night-side of the earth (yes, I know, those tubes are supposed to be on the day-side).
Oh, but I have another question to you, a bit more general:
I think you have heared about gravitational lenses. With those we can check the mass of a galaxy without measuring the rotation of it. What does Plasma Cosmology say about them?
).
With gravitational lenses it is also possible to see where the center of mass is located. And it has been found that a center of mass is located between two galaxies which had a collision recently – it was suggested that the Dark Matter has been seperated from the galaxys (I guess it was that way – Phil has written about it somewhere on this blog
P.S.: Damn, it’s getting late. Sorry if my writings aren’t as clear as they should be. And who ever finds a mistake, you can keep it
January 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
@DrFlimmer “There is the false point. The BH-mass has nothing to do with the mass of the entire galaxy but with the mass of the BULGE, the center of the galaxy if you will. Just read Phil’s post again, I think he mentioned that!”
How did they measure the mass of the galactic bulge? I’d like to see some data please.
Even assuming that we’re just talking about the bulge and not the entire galaxy I’m still skeptical. Let’s take the ratio of the mass of the central black hole in the Andromeda galaxy versus the Milky Way:
140 million / 4 million = 35
In order for there to be a linear scaling relationship then the mass of the central bulge in Andromeda versus the Milky Way must be 35:1. Let’s assume that the average density of the bulge is roughly the same for the two galaxies. That means the ratio of volumes of the bulges is 35:1 which means the ratio of diameters of the bulges is 3.3:1. That means the diameter of the bulge in the Andromeda galaxy is 3.3 times what it is in the Milky Way.
Now, the Milky Way galaxy has a central bulge roughly 6,000 light-years in radius. The Andromeda bulge would have to be 20,000 light-years in radius, which is 40 percent of the way from the center to the edge of the bright visible disk in most astronomical photos of the galaxy. It’s obvious from looking at any picture of M31 that the bulge doesn’t extend 40 percent of the way to the edge. The only way to preserve this constant scaling factor is to assume that the density of the Andromeda bulge is ~35 times the density of the Milky Way bulge, which doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.
So the constant scaling factor is hosed whether you look at the entire galaxy or just the galactic bulge.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@ Tom Marking
I just checked the NASA-ADS page and searched for “bulge black hole mass” and it showed up quite a lot papers. I linked to one (click on my name) which seems interesting (Häring, Rix (2004)). They found that the scaling is indeed NOT linear (I would have been quite surprised if it had been) but instead a power law which makes some sense to me. The scaling is (relying on that paper):
M_bh~M^{1.12+/-0.06}_bulge
(That’s enaugh for today – I go to sleep
)
January 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@DrFlimmer “M_bh~M^{1.12+/-0.06}_bulge”
Yeah, a power law with an exponent of 1.12 is almost linear. The ratio of M-bulge should be the 0.89th power of the ratio of M-bh. So for Andromeda:Milky Way the M-bulge ratio should be 23.7, bulge diameter ratio is 2.9 instead of 3.3 given earlier.
So central bulge of Andromeda should be ~17,500 ly or 35 percent of the distance from center to edge, instead of 40 percent computed earlier. So sorry, it still doesn’t fly comparing Milky Way to Andromeda. Maybe they are only looking at galaxies of the same spiral classification, say Sa to Sa, Sb to Sb, etc. or something like that? I’m not too convinced of their results. Maybe Andromeda/Milky Way is an anomaly and all the other galaxies in the universe behave correctly but I kind of doubt it.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
No one can help? I guess I was a little unclear about one aspect of my question. Assuming, for example, that the big bang’s singularity was located at the same point in space where earth is now, for us to see 10 billion year old galaxies on both sides of the earth seems to imply that each galaxy had to travel 10 billion light years in 3 billion years. And since the big bang’s singularity was most likely located somewhere else in space, it seems like one of the galaxies in question would have to travel even faster. Like I said, I know I’m missing something, I just can’t figure out what it is…
January 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
@Mr. Matt
If the light originated when the universe was 3 billion years old doesn’t that mean that something had to travel faster than the speed of light to get so far away in such a short time?
Sort of. The speed of light is only the speed limit for traveling through space. It doesn’t apply to the expansion of space itself.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:37 am
@ DrFlimmer:
I appreciate your questions.
DrFlimmer asks: “If the particles are channeled into the earth atmosphere/magnetosphere right above the equator, shouldn’t we see at least some “polar lights” down there?”
According to the NASA report: “He told his colleagues that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth’s equator and then roll over Earth’s winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the north pole; in July they roll over the south pole.”
Taking the report at face value, it seems that while the “portals” form over the equator they roll in toward the winter pole, which possibly means they don’t interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere until reaching the winter polar region. That might explain why aurora tend to start at the winter pole and spread toward the equator depending on the strength of the Birkeland (electric) current (there are pictures from space that capture the occurence of auroras at both poles simultaneously).
DrFlimmer states: “I haven’t done any calculations, but in my understanding I don’t need any magnetic flux tubes for charged particles to penetrate the magnetosphere, “just come in and dance around the field lines” if I may say so.”
I would agree, the general solar wind (electric flow) does penetrate the magnetosphere, the Birkeland currents (what NASA calls ‘flux transfer event’) are more concentrated because of the high electric current which generates a strong magnetic field (electric current is the only known cause of magnetic fields) which compresses the electric current into a concentrated interwined filament. So there is the more diffuse solar wind and also the more focussed Birkeland currents.
DrFlimmer asks: “What does Plasma Cosmology say about them [gravitational lenses]?”
Yes, I have heard about them — Plasma Cosmology doesn’t accept that the phenomena exists, I’m not sure about that question one way or the other. Plasma Cosmology doesn’t accept space-time warping by gravity — Plasma Cosmology maintains time is not warped by gravity. I agree with that theory, but gravity may bend light without any time distortion. Whether light is bent by gravitational attraction, in my opinion needs more observation and measurement. At this time, I can’t rule out gravity bending light.
DrFlimmer, you asked me some general questions about Plasma Cosmology, so I thought it might be worthwhile to link two articles that state and explain Plasma Cosmology’s theory on what is at the center of galaxies (as opposed to “black holes”) and why:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060405plasmoid.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=tyybhrr8
Again, I appreciate your questions and hope my answers were responsive to your questions.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:47 am
@ Mr. Matt
Not only is c an upper limit for matter (and not spacetime) as José mentioned, you also made an assumption that is not accurate:
“Assuming, for example, that the big bang’s singularity was located at the same point in space where earth is now”
What I will try to tell you now is a little hard to understand and probably I will fail to tell it precisly, but let’s give it a shot:
The big bang singularity was no point “somewhere” in space(time). It was the creation of space itself. This sounds crazy, indeed, but “before” the big bang there was literally nothing and after the big bang there was space (and everything in it). Thus the big bang happend “everywhere and nowhere” – there is no “center” of the universe where it all started. If that would be the case we would have a special place in space what would violate the principle of relativity that EVERY point in space is equal – no point is more special than another one.
So. If we look up and see galaxies rushing away from us in every direction you can “transform” yourself in every other galaxy and you would see perfectly the same: every galaxy would be rushing away from you.
This is because you can only compare motions relative to each other. And you can always say that your current speed is zero and everything else is moving (as long as you are sitting in an initial frame). But someone somewhere else can say the same. He can say that he is at rest while you are moving – otherwise you would need a “resting” space where everything can be compared to. But the many and carful checks of SR tell us that this is not the case.
Hopefully this helps a bit
January 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
@ Tom Marking
Well, indeed, something is strange. But if I have to choose which “galaxy” is weird, I choose the Milky Way, because our SMBH is somehow very light-weight compared to others and our galaxy is supposed to be big (and even more massive by now). And if you check the paper I linked to in my previous post you can see that the MW is quite below the line and Andromeda is quite on the line (if I have identified them correctly).
But… I guess it is somehow like with everything in astronomy. Measurements are very difficult. Thus the error bars are quite big. I always make a little joke about astronomers that they will always find a linear relation in a plot of random points
.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@ Anaconda
I know someone directly working on the filed of the atmosphere/magnetosphere and its interactions. It will be interesting what he has to say
But about the gravitational lenses I can tell you that we have found MANY. And they are always in agreement with GR (as is GPS, Mercury, etc).
Just follow the link in my name to a beautiful picture of the Hubble Telescope. All those stretched structures are backgriund galaxys who’s light was distorted by the gravitation of the foreground cluster.
I think you can search this blog for gravitional lenses, too. Phil has mentioned some in the past.
So, they are real and they behave perfectly according to GR.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
@ DrFlimmer:
Halton Arp would disagree with your assessment that General Relativity explains gravitational redshift.
The problem with gravitational lensing is that Arp’s work with quasars contradicts the idea that “redshift” accurately measures distance and this then throws off much, if not all of the gravitational lesning assumptions.
There are too many assumptions in today’s astrophysics that would not be tolerated in any other branch of science.
In regards to gravitational lensing:
“Item: Gravitational lensing is solely a phenomenon of mass, but galaxies are made of plasma. The primary quality of plasma is charge—electricity—and the effects of electricity overshadow the effects of mass 99 to 1. Energetic phenomena that require 96% dark matter, dark energy and black holes to power with mass require only 4% plasma—the quantity actually observed.”
The above quote is from the below linked article:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050909tangleweb.htm
On Earth, electrically neutral bodies predominate: Solid, liquid, neutral gas — this has understandably shaped Man’s frame of reference, but in space, plasma (electrcally charged bodies, electrons and positive ions) is the predominate form of matter.
Electrical currents are an inherent part of plasma dynamics. This is the congenital point of failure for General Relativity, it simply omits any consideration of plasma dynamics in space. Again, at the time General Relativity was formulated, the ubiquitous nature of plasma in space was unknown, so omitting reference to plasma and electrodynamics was understandable, but science knows better, today.
Conventional astrophysics acknowledges magnetic fields in space, but omits the scientifically proven fact that only electric current produces magnetic fields (this has been experimentally tested and demonstrated in the laboratory).
In space, as opposed to Earth, plasma is the fundamental state of nature.
To omit this fact, and the mounting observations and measurements (the series of NASA reports on interaction between the Sun and the Earth as example, but not limited to) leaves astrophysics relying on an essentailly 19th century theory.
The problem with a theory dominated by abstract mathematical equations that omit a fundamental state of nature (plasma) and its inherent dynamics (electric currents) is legion. But one problem is that the mathematician’s assumptions are always plugged into the equations, as I wrote above, there are too many assumptions. Another problem is the tendency to “giggle” the equations to balance them, so, of course, the equations can be balanced out.
The math can always be made to work, even if that fails to match reality.
Observation and measurement is the anchor of science.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Alright, thanks for the help. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t still a little confused by it all, but it seems like the key to my confusion is the fact that the big bang was a singularity different from your average black hole, and that not only the matter of the galaxy in question, but the space itself involved is expending as well.
That should suffice for a music major I suppose, I won’t be kept up at night anymore (I hope).
January 9th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I have something to say about the article you linked to.
First of all: The Hubble picture is all but sharp. The resolution is really bad – I think it was taken from another picture that used to be bigger and was scaled up. If you really want to see nice beautiful arcs: Just take a look at the Hubble pic again that I linked before (and I did it again, just click on my name). But now: The text itself.
“Item: If the mass distribution matches the luminosity distribution in the galaxy (it’s more or less spherical and symmetric), the lens should produce a smeared-out ring, not four sharp images. ”
Well. As we consider the “dots” to be Quasars we need to know what a Quasar is. Quasars are actually very bright DOTS. And you can do with a dot what ever you want to do, it will remain a dot. I wanted to say, just check Wikipedia about Quasars. But I guess you will doubt it. So I just refer to the name itself: Quasar = QUASi-stellAR (radio) source. The “stellar” is important, because every star is a dot or point source, and Quasars are also dots in the sky (very high energetic dots to be precise), hence their name.
But a dot will not “stretch” out to something. A dot will ever be a dot.
“Item: When the z of the quasar is set to the reference frame of the galaxy (1.73 – 0.31 = 1.42), it falls on a “preferred value” of z. (In the Big Bang, “preferred values” of z can only mean that galaxies and quasars are distributed in shells centered on the Earth, something even more unlikely than the coincidental alignment of four quasars and a galaxy.)”
I have never heared of “preferred values”. It sounds like a contradiction the priciple of relativity. Everything in “mainstream” cosmology is based upon that principle. A preferred value wouldn’t be acceptable in GR or BBT, too.
Here comes the bracket: That is the contradiction of said principle again. BBT will never ever claim such shells. The earth is the center of nothing – that is what “mainstream” scientist will tell you.
“Item: The faint ring of luminosity connecting the quasar images is matched by faint spokes of luminosity connecting the quasar images to the galaxy. ”
That spokes look like an aberration to me. Have you seen those lines coming out of the Quasars? But even if they are real… the faint ring – well, that is actually a lens, is it not? I guess this is part of one or more of the Quasars, since Quasars are actually centers of galaxies, I would consider this a faint disk. And btw: In that smeared picture I can see nothing of a connection. If you want to see a crystal clear picture of a gravitational lense – well, as I said, take my name!
“Item: Gravitational lensing is solely a phenomenon of mass, but galaxies are made of plasma. The primary quality of plasma is charge—electricity—and the effects of electricity overshadow the effects of mass 99 to 1. Energetic phenomena that require 96% dark matter, dark energy and black holes to power with mass require only 4% plasma—the quantity actually observed.”
There is much to say about this point. First of all: Coulomb’s law is about two electric charges and the force between them. Very similar is Newton’s law about gravitation. Let’s compare them:
F_coul = 1/(4*pi*epsilon_0)*q1*q2/r^2
F_grav = G*m1*m2/r^2
where m1 and m2 are the masses and q1 and q2 the charges of the objects one and two and r is the norm of the vector between both. Let’s put in the values for protons. A very brief calculation results in
F_coul/F_grav = e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon_0*G*m_p^2) = 8,25*10^25
Hence the repulsive force between the protons is about 26 orders of magnitude greater than the pull between their masses. 99 to 1 is very underestimated in that sense.
But it goes on. In your article the “99 to 1″ leads to another article which says:
“But now we’ve discovered that it makes up 99 percent of the visible
universe. That component is plasma.”
Gee, I am surprised. Since every star is far too hot for atoms to remain intact we have ions and electrons screaming around there – well that’s the definition of a plasma. I am shocked, a star contains plasma.
So. After breathing normal again, let’s think about it. If the repulsive electrostatic forces are that much higher than gravitation why do stars exist at all? Shouldn’t they have flown apart? We have free flowing protons and electrons… hm. Protons and electrons have the same strength when it comes to electrostatic forces. But their sign is different. A Proton is charged +e and an electron -e. And since they all add up equally the netcharge of a star is: ZERO. Well. There is no electrostatic force in or on a star to rip it apart. So the weak gravitation can do the job.
Let’s get back to the cited statement we were originally discussing. The first sentence doesn’t sound logical to me. Does that mean that plasma is massless?
Well, let’s go on. The last sentence. Actually it says nothing to me. “require only 4% plasma – the quantity actually observed”. Well, that says only, that the actual “mainstream” measurements are correct and that a galaxy contains probably 4 % “normal” matter or plasma (which is actually the same in that sense) and 96% dark matter. Nothing else. That sentence sounds really difficult but it is meaningless.
“Halton Arp—a modern Galileo—may be heard to sigh: “There are hundreds of these things in the sky. The quasars and galaxies are connected.” ”
Really? Well, Quasars and galaxies are connected, because quasars actually ARE galaxies. Of course, this isn’t meant. There is supposed to be a physical connection between the Quasars and the galxy in the center of the picture. As I said before: I see just a smeared out picture and nothing like a connection. Just check my picture (my name….) again.
But I am not finished. The article linked to another one (the link “prefered values”).
“This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum “mechanics” applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed.”
Again, what does this mean? QM doesn’t have a physical reality? We wouldn’t be alive without that “reality” – and QM is “proven” many times! The following sentence says exactly that. But the latter is strange. First of all: What convenient nonsense? And QM cannot apply to “the bigger world”. We would trace them on earth if they would. And now they should apply to a galaxy? But not to ours since we don’t feel anything of that “convenient nonsense” on earth!?
Do say something to your post directly? Well. GR is a theory about gravitation and mass. It was never meant to do anything with electrodynamics. But that does not rule out a theory. Just because Maxwell’s laws don’t say something about quantum mechanics, that doesn’t mean that they are wrong or ruled out!
Before I quit, one last thing: I hear “so much” about that currents flying through space and are surrounded and aligned by magnetic fields. But: where are they? The presence of a magnetic field leads to a phenomenon called gyration: Charged particles are flying in circles around a magnetic field line while they are following the path of the line. Well. A curved motion means acceleration. And electrodynamics says something about accelerated charged particles: They emit electromagnetic radiation – light! Those currents should be extreamly bright and quite obvious, but I never saw nor heard of them. Where are they?
Well, that was much! I haven’t read it again, so sorry for the load of mistakes that should be in it.
So long.
DrFlimmer
January 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Argh. I forgot the gravitational constant G in my calculation. With it included the ratio raises to 1,23*10^36 which is even 11 orders of magnitude greater than my first calculation. And still stars exist!
January 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Anaconda
After reading your posts it’s clear that you don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects you’re talking about. According to you:
“I have conducted my personal research, and in the course of that research, I have applied the scientific method.”
If you say so yourself. You appear to be doing this on your own and without the benefit of the experiences and lessons of a mentor and the constructive critical input from others.
“But what I think you’re driving at is this: Have I engaged in the actual observation, measurement, and interpretation of my own data? No, I haven’t, but I can apply reason and be objective about data collected by others — I have no axe to grind or agenda. Matching theory and reality is all I care about.”
In other words you don’t have the scientific background and knowledge and experimental experience to actually understand wether the theories and ideas talked about makes sense or are bogus. This being applied equally to both black holes and plasma cosmology. You’ve applied the scientific method as best as you understand it and tried to understand the theories as best as you can. But you’ve also taken it upon yourself to lecture people about the scientific method. And yet you brush off theories
You have constantly refered to Einstein’s theories of Relativity as nothing more than mathematical theories and thought experiments that can be simply brushed if off. Relativity has so far held up to experimental testing starting from 1919 when stars around the sun, during a solar, were shifted by the amount predicted by Einstein. It also explained the issue with Mercury’s orbit. There have been other tests, one of the latest conducted using the Cassini probe is it swung behind the Sun. It was the highest precision test so far and the results matched the prediction.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18268
GPS is also an everyday appliation of GR. You might also be interested in the following. Experimental results of testing GR in a lab.
luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
“I have no axe to grind or agenda”. Since you brought it up, you seem very passionate about this subject and very quick to lecture about the scientific method. There’s something more to this than you let on. But this is going off in a different direction.
As for the article I posted, it was meant to be a suggestion and not an irrefutable evidence in favor of black holes. It was a suggestion for getting yourself out of the paradox you seem to have gotten into through your simplified understand of complex subjects.
I personally do no have the experience a reals scientist would have. Which is why I’m not in any position, like you, to say to scientists “Science, ur doin it wrongz!” based on some things I read on the web.
I have said all that I can about subject. Thanks for the entertainment.
January 10th, 2009 at 2:43 am
@ DrFlimmer:
I appreciate your response. I will try and and address your responses in the order you presented them.
@ ND:
I also appreciate your response and will address your response after commenting on DrFlimmer’s comments.
DrFlimmer states: “The Hubble picture is all but sharp. The resolution is really bad.” I won’t vouch for the quality of the picture in the link.
DrFlimmer: “A dot will ever be a dot.” Resolution of the images of quasars has increased and I’ve seen a few of them that do indeed show a connection between the quasar and the “parent” galaxy. Halton Arp indeed has studied many of these images where the quasar and the connected “parent” galaxy are connected by inter-galaxtic Birkeland currents, yet have different redshift values, Arp theorizes redshift is more an indication of age than distance, quasars being younger have a higher redshift according to Arp’s work. As I said before that contradicts the conventional assumptions about redshift — Arp has been studying quasars for over 30 years.
DrFlimmer states: “Everything in “mainstream” cosmology is based upon that [General Relativity] principle.”
Exactly my point. And if General Relativity omits consideration of a fundamental aspect of the Cosmos — plasma and its enherent properties of electromagnetism (electric currents) — then there is no way it can be expected to accurately interpret or explain the phenomenon in the Universe. To rely on a theory that does’t account for an observed fundamental dynamic of the Cosmos, yet, itself has to have “objects” (”black holes”), “particles” (”dark matter”), and “energy” (”dark energy”) theorized that have never been observed in order for it to work at all demonstrates the failure of General Relativity theory.
Plasma Cosmology doesn’t rely on any unseen phenomenon. All it’s properties have been accounted for in the laboratory, Plasma physics (electromagnetics) is scale independent up to at least 14 orders of magnitude. The phenomenon observed in the heavens have been created in the plasma laboratory.
DrFlimmer states: “BBT ["big bang" theory] will never ever claim such shells.” “Big bang” theory is worst offender in the set of General Relativity corollary theories. Science can’t speculate or know what happened at the beginning. Certainly, it can’t willfully set aside all the known physical laws of nature and claim it is a scientific theory based on observation and measurement. It’s an idea based on a desire to speculate on “the beginning”, but it’s goes beyond what science can do. Setting aside all the physical laws of nature is called a “miracle” in laymen’s terms, science doesn’t do miracles.
DrFlimmer presents a quote from the article I linked: “The faint ring of luminosity connecting the quasar images is matched by faint spokes of luminosity connecting the quasar images to the galaxy.”
And DrFlimmer responds: “That spokes look like an aberration to me. Have you seen those lines coming out of the Quasars?”
Yes, I have seen several different pictures that show a connecting filament between the quasar and the nearby galaxy.
DrFlimmer states: “…Quasars are actually centers of galaxies…”
Quasars are embryonic galaxies that are ejected from the “parent” galaxy by extremely strong electromagnetic forces and maintain an umbilical cord of sorts in the form of inter-galactic Birkeland currents according to Plasma Cosmology.
DrFlimmer states: “99 to 1 is very underestimated in that sense.”
Thank you for working the calculations. Yes, it’s underestimated electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity (if my memory serves me).
DrFlimmer presents a quote from the article I linked: ““But now we’ve discovered that it makes up 99 percent of the visible
universe. That component is plasma.”
And DrFlimmer responds: “Gee, I am surprised. Since every star is far too hot for atoms to remain intact we have ions and electrons screaming around there – well that’s the definition of a plasma. I am shocked, a star contains plasma.”
Yes, that is true, but it’s also all the “gas” clouds and nebula, too. Just about everything you can see in the telescope and things you can’t see, but give off radio waves and x-rays, too. That is why radio telescopes and x-ray telescopes have opened Man’s perception to the Plasma Cosmos.
DrFlimmer states at the end of a paragraph: “There is no electrostatic force in or on a star to rip it apart. So the weak gravitation can do the job.”
That is not quite correct. There are electric currents (inter-stellar Birkeland currents)flowing into the star, which acts as a positive anode in a larger circuit and as a load in the circuit where heat and light are emitted or radiated. Occasionally, an influx of current will come into a star and overload it electrically causing it to explode, like a blown transformer in a city’s electrical grid.
DrFlimmer states: “Let’s get back to the cited statement we were originally discussing. The first sentence doesn’t sound logical to me. Does that mean that plasma is massless?” I assume you are referring to: “Gravitational lensing is solely a phenomenon of mass, but galaxies are made of plasma.”
No, positive and negative ions have mass (depending on what element it’s an ion of), electrons have whatever mass science assigns them.
What the sentence means is that the concept of gravitational lensing assumes a gravitational model that doesn’t incorporate the presence of plasma.
DrFlimmer states: “The last sentence. Actually it says nothing to me. “require only 4% plasma – the quantity actually observed”. Well, that says only, that the actual “mainstream” measurements are correct and that a galaxy contains probably 4 % “normal” matter or plasma (which is actually the same in that sense) and 96% dark matter. Nothing else. That sentence sounds really difficult but it is meaningless.”
I disagree, it is very significant in a scientfically factual, relevant manner. What it means is this: The gravitational model (with no consideration of plasma dynamics) requires 96% more matter than is actually observed. In other words, for the gravitational model 96% of the “matter” has to be in the form of theorized, but never observed or detected “dark matter”. Whereas, Plasma Cosmology dynamics only need the 4% that is actually observed because electromagnetism is so much more powerful than gravity. Again, in other words, Plasma Cosmology doesn’t require any theorized, unseen “matter” of any kind. Plasma dynamics only needs the matter that can actually be accounted for by observation and measurement, no theorized (invented) “dark matter” required.
DrFlimmer, you raise the issue of Quantum Mechanics. What the offending sentence means is this: Quantum Mechanics applies to the atomic scale; it’s used to locate by probability theory, electrons orbiting a nucleus. But it’s inappropriate to use Quantum Mechanics to estimate galaxy dynamics (it’s also fair to say the author of the offending quote probably doesn’t believe in the validity of Quantum Mechanics).
DrFlimmer states: “Do say something to your post directly? Well. GR is a theory about gravitation and mass. It was never meant to do anything with electrodynamics. But that does not rule out a theory.”
Exactly my point. Yes, it does. You can’t have a general all encompassing theory of space (the Universe) dynamics that leaves out a fundamental dynamic of 99% of the matter in the Cosmos and expect it to be accurate. That explains why “black holes” have to be used (invented) as a corollary of the theory, and “dark matter” has to be theorized, and even “strange matter” has to be theroized because without them General Relativity doesn’t work. In any other field of science having to theorized “unseen” phenomenon to make it work would falsify the theory.
DrFlimmer states: “I hear “so much” about that currents flying through space and are surrounded and aligned by magnetic fields. But: where are they? The presence of a magnetic field leads to a phenomenon called gyration: Charged particles are flying in circles around a magnetic field line while they are following the path of the line. Well. A curved motion means acceleration. And electrodynamics says something about accelerated charged particles: They emit electromagnetic radiation – light! Those currents should be extreamly bright and quite obvious, but I never saw nor heard of them. Where are they?
“They emit electromagnetic radiation – light!” That is the reason you can see the visible Universe. But also electric currents can give off radiation that is not visible to the human eye, such as radio waves and x-rays, not all electric currents emit light, there is such a thing as plasma in dark mode — an energy level that does not cause the emission of visible light, also it can be hard to detect electric currents, unless a probe passes through the current, such is why NASA is only now confirming Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth.
I appreciated the discussion, thanks.
@ND:
ND states: “I personally do no have the experience a reals scientist would have.” So it seems somewhat contradictory to say, “…you don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects you’re talking about.”
My comments speak for themselves.
ND states: “You appear to be doing this on your own and without the benefit of the experiences and lessons of a mentor and the constructive critical input from others.”
Certainly not from you:-)
But to answer your question seriously, yes, I have received constructive critical input from others.”
ND states: “In other words you don’t have the scientific background and knowledge and experimental experience to actually understand whether the theories and ideas talked about makes sense or are bogus.”
Wrong there pardner.
ND states: “And yet you brush off theories.”
No, I don’t brush off theories, I’ve given thought and study to this proposition and to the other theory of the gravitational model.
After comparing the theories, I find that there are too many assumptions that the gravitational theory asks you to accept.
Don’t you get tired of complimenting the emperor’s new clothes all the time when you can’t see them and they cant be observed or measured, but you’re told to trust that “black holes”, “dark matter”, and “strange matter”, or “dark energy”, and don’t forget the “big bang” are really “there”?
It doesn’t add up for me.
ND, have you ever studied Plasma Cosmology?
You see Plasma Cosmology has been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory because plasma dynamics are scale independent up to at least 14 orders of magnitude and observed in the field as it were. NASA has confirmed the plasma dynamics between the Sun and the Earth.
ND states: “You have constantly refered to Einstein’s theories of Relativity as nothing more than mathematical theories and thought experiments that can be simply brushed if off.”
No, I did not brush it off, I gave it serious consideration and found it wanting for the reasons I’ve stated and more that I haven’t stated, here.
ND states: “There’s something more to this than you let on.”
I’m disappointed you seem to be calling my motives into question.
ND states: “As for the article I posted, it was meant to be a suggestion and not an irrefutable evidence in favor of black holes. It was a suggestion for getting yourself out of the paradox you seem to have gotten into through your simplified understand of complex subjects.”
Yes, a suggestion it was, a suggestion to engage in speculation as a way to avoid the paradox that this post brought up about the theory of “black holes”.
Yes, I understand — that’s why I don’t subscribe to the gravitational model. But I will say this, it’s simple enough, Plasma Cosmology better explains the observations, measurements, and images from space and it doesn’t ask me to believe in things that have never been observed and that violate known physical laws of nature.
Thanks again for the discussion.
January 10th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Anaconda,
You’re completely avoiding the experimental evidence supporting GR. This is ridiculous. There is nothing more to say.
January 10th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I am not yet sure how much I will comment. I just start.
“Arp theorizes redshift is more an indication of age than distance”
That would mean, if we take some atoms and look at them on earth for quite a while the emitted lines should shift to red. Indeed our timescales are nothing comapred to the Universe, but our instruments are very precise by now. I think they should measure such an effect. But as long as I am interested in Physics (I am studying it right now for about 3.5 years) I have never heared about such things. And I think such an experiment would have been done.
Oh. To add: If it really depends on age than ALL lines must be different for any atom since they have different ages OR if we assume their age is all the same EVERY atom in the entire universe must have the same lines, hence no redshift! That’s a paradox, is it not?
You will certainly not claim that the Milky Way is much younger than those other galaxies – that would have been quite a fast building of an entire galaxy…
“And DrFlimmer responds: “Gee, I am surprised. [...]
That is why radio telescopes and x-ray telescopes have opened Man’s perception to the Plasma Cosmos.”
I hope you know that my statement was meant to be ironic!
” “They emit electromagnetic radiation – light!” That is the reason you can see the visible Universe. [...] also it can be hard to detect electric currents, unless a probe passes through the current, such is why NASA is only now confirming Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth.”
Well, I’ve been too easy on that point. Of course with light I meant the whole spectrum and not just the small visible part. The emitted light is called synchrotron radiation, btw. It is the same that is reaching us from Quasars (beside the thermal radiation from the accretion disk). And synchrotron radiation is easily visible in the radio part of the spectrum, although it can even be as powerful as gamma rays. So. Whatever the light is those currents should emit: We would’ve detected it by now since we observe the whole spectrum from the lowest radio frequencys up to most energetic gamma frequencys.
And we can I say that? Have you ever seen a picture of M87 (click on my name if you like)? It’s an active galaxy, somehow similar to a Quasar. Do you see that narrow ray coming right out of the center? This is called a jet. It’s a very narrow beam of particles (indeed, plasma) focused by a magnetic field reaching out nearly 5000 ly. And it is tremendously bright even though it is not directly aimed at us. This is synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons on a curved trajectory around those field lines (gyration).
This is the exact way “your” currents should behave. Hence thay MUST be detectable but I don’t see them on any picture (hopefully you don’t claim that it’s all a big conspiracy and they are always removed – that would be ridiculous and with all due respect, you canNOT be that dumb). If such a current flows from the sun to the earth it must be detectable even if a spacecraft is not passing through it.
Another thing to that current connecting the sun and the earth. If it is indeed changing with a time of 8min it should induce highly variable magnetic fields into the earth’s. That would have a very detectable effect on the strength of the earth’s magnetic field even on the ground, we are not measuring anything like that. And our satallites circling the earth once every 90 minuits, or so, should be influenced by such a rapid change. Since a rapidly changing magnetic field in turn induces currents (and/or electric fields) our satallites should be penetrated by a massive stream of particles or again highly variable electric fields. I guess this would be a “death” scenario for every satallite since all their internal currents should react as well and should run mad.
Back to you:
“There are electric currents (inter-stellar Birkeland currents)flowing into the star, which acts as a positive anode in a larger circuit and as a load in the circuit where heat and light are emitted or radiated. Occasionally, an influx of current will come into a star and overload it electrically causing it to explode, like a blown transformer in a city’s electrical grid.”
Apart from the non-detection of those currents, let’s think about it. A star is supposed to act as a positive anode which means it has to be charged positvely, hence it should have more protons than electrons, right? Hence it would attract electrons and repel protons from the current. Probably the protons are energetic enaugh to reach the star it would gain an even more posive charge unless it collects as many electrons as protons – but it attracts electrons as long as it is charged. And it will attract every electron coming nearby and not just the same amount as those energetic protons. Thus the star will loose its charge. It will collect so many electrons until its netcharge is zero. Just like a battery is discharged almost immediately when you short-circuit it.
But just assume the sun is charged positvely. It would have a direct impact on the solar wind. The protons would be repeled, hence their velocity away from the sun should be much greater than the electrons because the elctrons are attracted. But as far as I know the stream of particles is moving very smoothly, not showing any sign of much different velocities. Hence the sun has to be an overall neutral body.
Let’s go on. You state that a current into a star will overload it, leading to its explosion – I guess you are referring to a supernova explosion. I assume this is indeed the case and I will discuss it a little bit. I mentioned in my previous post the involved forces and their ratio. Since the electrostatic force is much more powerful than the gravitational force a charged star would probably rip itself apart, probably leaving nothing behind but moving particles. Probably it would induce that much energy that some nuclei could fuse to heavier elements but nothing strange would happen. No other elementary particles would be created, especially no neutrinos (probably due to the mentioned fusion processes at least some were created but not many).
But that is exactly what happens. During the explosion of SN 1987A the neutrino detectors around the world measured extreamly high flows of neutrinos. These were the first extra-solar neutrinos ever observed and they came in in vast numbers – indeed according to the “mainstream” theory about a supernova explosion.
And even if a supernove explosion would be induced by currents, how does it come that such explosions tend to leave behind very dense bodys – degenerated neutron stars to be precise. They can ONLY exist due to, say, extream gravitational influences. Only gravity (although weak) is capable of creating such conditions that only degenaracy will keep the body stable (we are talking about objects with masses of two suns and a radius of about a few kilometers!). And we are observing them directly, neutron stars do exist.
Well, this is indeed very much again, although I admit that I like this debate as well, somehow. I just want to conclude with the term “falsify a theory”: It doesn’t mean that a theory must preict it’s own failiure. It is meant that a theory must give predictions that can be tested (that is a difference).
And GR is tested: GPS would not work without GR! Since the satallites are in a different potential state than we earthbound folks their clocks are behaving differently to ours. GR says that clocks in a lower gravitational state (high up from the earth) are going faster than those in a higher state (on the ground). And indeed the atomic clocks onboard the satallites are faster compared to our clocks – even that they are moving (time delay via SR) doesn’t cancel out that effect. GPS works because of GR. Satallite navigation works because of GR. Mercury behaves according to GR. Light bended around the sun from distant stars behaves accordings to GR. GR is working! Even probably in the strong field of a double pulsar.
Gee. I haven’t finished yet. And since I am talking about principles of relativity I want to clarify something:
“DrFlimmer states: “Everything in “mainstream” cosmology is based upon that [General Relativity] principle.”
Exactly my point. And if General Relativity omits consideration of a fundamental aspect of the Cosmos — plasma and its enherent properties of electromagnetism (electric currents) — then there is no way it can be expected to accurately interpret or explain the phenomenon in the Universe.”
You misunderstand me. I was talking about the “principle of relativity” which Einstein used 1905 to calculate SR. It was modified only a little since GR ist not only about initial frames. The general principle of relativity says:
“All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.”
That means there is no prefered frame. Every frames (initial or not) are equal. And what is working here is working there as well. It says nothing about the content – just about physical laws and theorys; every theory works in every system, even plasma physics and gravitation.
So just because GR doesn’t mention plasmas, this principle doesn’t contradict itself as you claimed. It’s talking about general physics – not about plasmas, gravitation, electromagnetism, etc etc.
Ok. This is it for now. I wait for your answer!
January 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Gee. I apologize for the many mistakes in my spelling! Hopefully it is clear enaugh what I wanted to say
January 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
@ND:
Rather than respond to my comments or answer my questions in a substantive fashion (like, whether you have studied Plasma Cosmology?), you have chosen to offer an excuse for not doing so. Fine. The tone of your last substantive comment was dismissive and derogatory of my abiltity to apply reason and analyze the competing theories. At least I have compared both theories which you apparently have not done so. Now, there is nothing wrong with that per se, you may not of even heard of Plasma Cosmology prior to this discussion, such is the state of astronomy, today.
But now that you have heard of Plasma Cosmology, it’s up to you to decide whether or not to investigate an alternative theory. I can only partially lead a horse to water and I certainly can’t make him drink a drop.
As to your dismissive and derogatory tone, as expressed by this comment: “After reading your posts it’s clear that you don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects you’re talking about…This being applied equally to both black holes and plasma cosmology.”
First, how would you know whether my understanding of Plasma Cosmology was correct or not, since you haven’t studied it or the paradoxes and failures of General Relativity, judging by your lack of response to my questions asking if you had looked into either GR paradoxes or Plasma Cosmology?
Second, judging by the SpaceDaily article you linked to which in bald fashion falsely stated that dark matter was “discovered” 70 years ago, when, in fact, it was merely hypothesized 70 years ago, and the article’s going on to falsely state that there was “overwhelming” evidence for “dark matter” when in reality astrophysics is still chasing the elusive “dark matter” like it’s on a “snipe hunt,” the situation would seem to be it’s YOU who don’t have a strong grasp of the subject matter.
Throw in your seeming lack of comprehension that to claim a computer simulation relying on a theorized “particle” (”dark matter”), which is unobserved and undetected with unknown properties is anything more than pure speculation, and then offer that as a defense against my assertion this theory (”black holes” create galaxies) contradicts prior “black hole” theory, is also evidence that YOU don’t have a strong grasp of the subject matter or what the empirical scientific method entails (computer simulations don’t rise to observation and measurement in the above outlined context). [As demonstrated by your repeated injunction of the article even after I had pointed out its weaknesses once.]
So, please, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
As to the experiments you cite. As I said in response to DrFlimmer, gravity may bend light, although, I don’t subscribe to the geometric concept of the cause of gravity, gravity is a function of physical properties inherent in matter, not spatial (geometric) properties, nor do I subscribe to any space-time distortion, that is a metaphysical idea. Gravity doesn’t operate on space (nothing) to distort time, which in turn doesn’t act as a “force” against anything.
GPS (geo-positioning system) doesn’t rely on time distortion — I either misunderstand what you and DrFlimmer mean, or you are parroting a myth designed to reinforce General Relativity theory that has no basis in fact.
As for the other tests you refer to: I’m sure there are tests that General Relativity theory does pass or it wouldn’t be such a widely held belief to this day.
ND, the only “ridiculous[ness]” here, is your thinking that your comments have helped you cause — which is to defend “big bang”, black hole” theory at all costs, as opposed to having an open-mind and being objective about the scientific evidence.
All you have exposed is your defensiveness and closed minded approach to scientific evidence. Balancing an open-mind and reasonable scepticism is not easy, but is required for the proper exercise of the empirical scientific method.
Thanks again for the discussion.
January 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Sorry, Anaconda. But even though I have to admit that Bad Astronomy was the first place in the world I heard about Plasma Cosmology and the relating things (in the comments to be precise) you leave me no other choice: You haven’t studied the “mainstream” side very well. I do not need as much words as I used before. Here we go:
“GPS (geo-positioning system) doesn’t rely on time distortion — I either misunderstand what you and DrFlimmer mean, or you are parroting a myth designed to reinforce General Relativity theory that has no basis in fact.”
GPS only works if you consider GR. Please, you must take that as a fact. I linked (my name…) to the wikipedia article which seems quite informative although I have just overflown it since it is very long (if you follow the link it will direct you automatically to the information you need). That is NO myth, it is REAL.
I am not making this up but I don’t see a way to convince you.
But a general question: What don’t you like about gravity? Do you just denie GR or Newton’s gravitational law, too? Since you are standing on the surface of the earth I think you will agree that there is an effect that keeps you from flying away – we call that gravity. What do you call it then?
Well. I think you still won’t believe me, even though this has nothing to do with believing. The GR effect on GPS is a matter of fact!
January 10th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
DrFlimmer:
I appreciate the information. A field experiment as it were. I can’t refute it and I won’t try. I respect experimental results, that is one reason I subscribe to Plasma Cosmology — it has the plasma experiments in the lab to back it up.
I’m surprised that you have been studying astronomy for over three years and none of your instructors or the books assigned brought up plasma Cosmology.
I’ll will up on your longer comment.
Thanks again for the discussion.
January 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am
DrFlimmer:
Sorry, I watch pro football and this is Divisional weekend.
DrFlimmer, I’ve been impressed with your ability to have an open-mind. Especially considering you have been studying astronomy for over three years. This whole discussion must be a shock to what you were told to believe. So, the fact that you were able to follow the discussion is a testiment to your curiosity and desire to know the Universe.
To that end I link the following article which has CLEAR images and explains better than I can in a series of posts:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
Again, you rightly noted the poor photographic image a link. This article has excellent imagas.
Tell me what you think.
January 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
1) Thanks. But I wasn’t told to believe anything in my studies. To be a student means to ASK questions, and professors want the students to ask questions. You always need those young guys to ask questions – that drives the progress of science.
2) Believe it or not, I am not a fan of “dark matter” and “dark energy”. This sounds a little bit like the ether 100yrs ago. But don’t celebrate to early; I have to discuss some points of your link. I will give a statement at the end.
3) I don’t know if I am in the mood to answer the whole story (I thought about calling it a tale) that you linked to. It is after midnight local time (CET) right now. But let’s see.
I probably start with some basics about plasmas: As the link states correctly a plasma is a gas where the electrons are ripped apart from the nuclei. This is due to heat. So we need high temperatures (a few thousand Kelvin) to create plasmas. That means the particles (electrons and nuclei) are moving due to their heat. Such a movement is RANDOM. To gain a current we must ALIGN the movements of the electrons. Heat won’t give us such conditions. We need external fields to do that – probably electric fields since they are able to accelerate charged particles. While we are not having such external fields the movements of the particles will remain random and we gain no current. Probably there will be a part where by chance a few more electrons were gathered. Well, we get a little charge seperation. Thus (internal) electric fields will appear trying to pull back the electrons. But this is internal and on a very small scale (Debye-length). Since the electrons accelerate a bit they will pass the proton and the game reverses. Probably we have a little oscillation inside the system (plasma-frequency). But over time it will settle down. Still we have no (overall) currents.
So. All we need for electric currents to occure and reveal their power are external electric fields – where do they come from? Let’s turn to your link:
“Even in a plasma comprising just one charged particle in 10,000 – which would be typical of the interstellar clouds of dust and gas from which stars are formed –”
Well. Why should there be such a particle? Everything we observe is that we always have equal amounts of charge – everywhere! And everything that is charged tends to discharge itself by collecting the apropreate amount of the other one. Many experiements show us that the “conservation of charge” is a fundamental thing. I.e. pair production (an electron-positron-pair emerging from a gamma ray in the vicinity of a nuclei). So I consider that the odds that the netcharge of a gascloud is not zero is essentially zero.
“And today’s reigning cosmological model, founded on general relativity, is essentially a theory of geometry manifesting itself as gravity.”
This sentence clearifys the author’s non-understanding of the matter he thinks he is talking about. He has never studied physics, never studied GR, he just heard and read about it, but I don’t think that he never ever tried to understand what it is. Btw, I am sitting in a course about GR right now. It is hard and probably strange. But the “geometry” has its rights. And since its predictions are tested (GPS, Mercury, light bending around the sun) and showed to be very precise it is neither fair nor right to say it is all nonsense!
“Pulsars – rapidly varying stellar objects conventionally interpreted as spinning neutron stars – have now been measured to fluctuate at rates that call into question even the power of postulated neutron matter to hold together.”
What fluctuations? Postulated neutron matter? The first thing I don’t have a clue what he means. The second…. neutron matter – yes: neutrons to be precise! They are not postulated. We have even neutron BOMBS on earth (it doesn’t mean I like that we have those) if he questions their existence. And neutron stars do exist. That is shown many times (please allow me not to search for papers now, to write this text will take a great amount of time, searching papers will at least double that time – probably if you urge me I will do it tomorrow).
“Quasars, if accepted in accordance with the customary reading of red-shift as being the most distant objects known, radiate energy with intensities that defy explanation by any process involving conventional matter”
THAT is not true! First of all, I talked about red-shift before, please read it again if you like.
We have a very good idea where the radiation is coming from. If we take the “mainstream” idea than the accretion disk tends to be VERY hot, millions of Kelvins to be precise (oh, Kelvin is a unit of temeperature, just like Celius and Fahrenheit; it starts with the zero-point at -273.14°C). So they shine tremendously bright, especially in X-rays just due to their heat (blackbody radiation and something like that). And we have synchrotron radiation. I talked about that in my previous posts, too – just look it up. So it is all with conventional matter, nothing strange.
“Around the turn of the nineteenth century, the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland studied the northern auroras and concluded that they are caused by charged particles from the Sun being directed to the polar regions by the Earth’s magnetic field, where they excite atoms of the upper atmosphere to light-emission energies.”
Well, THIS is the exact term you will hear from every physicist!
“there is still an entrenched reluctance to accept them as parts of electrical circuitry that not only connects the Earth to the Sun, but spans the entire Solar System.”
THAT is the problem. A galactic wide electrical circuit – meaning electric fields. To gain currents you need electric fields. Every cable works that way. So, what we need is a galactic electric field. How can we gain that? Well, we need charged bodys to produce it. But we do not have those. As I previously said, every charged body will be discharged almost directly (I also talked about that earlier). So we have no sources for the fields, hence I don’t expect any.
And as fas as I know our satallites never detected electric fields. They detected the solar wind, made out of electrons and protons, but no electric fields (yes the movement of the solar wind is aligned, but since it is composed of equal amounts of positve and negative charges flying at the same velocity, there is no current detectable).
“Electric currents create magnetic fields, which induce secondary currents, which in turn produce their own fields.”
First of all: A CHANGING current induces magnetic fields and a CHANGING magnetic field induces electric currents. Second: Due to Lenz’s law an induced magnetic field always tries to oppose its cause. What I mean is, the reinduced current by the changing of the field goes into the opposite direction of the first current, in an attempt to cancel it out. This is how induction works. But the main point is: It ONLY works with a CHANGE in fields/currents/fluxes. If you have just a current where elctrons are just moving along equally, nothing will happen, no magnetic field will appear, no secondary current will be created. Nothing!
“For a start, simulations and calculation indicate that peripheral matter in such a disk would disperse rather than coalesce into planetary clumps.”
Haven’t heard about that!
“Then there’s the question of how the angular momentum – the property that makes a flywheel want to keep turning – comes to be concentrated in the planets – 98 percent of it in the case of our Solar System. A contracting disk should deliver most of its angular momentum to the central part, giving the Sun a rotation period of something like 13 hours instead of the 28 days that it has.”
Indeed, this is true. And in this case magnetic fields coupled with the intergalactic field (and probably with the solar wind, but I’m not sure about that) cause a drag on the sun. And 4 billion years are quite a time to slow the sun!
“And further, where did it all came from to begin with? Dispersed matter initially moving randomly should contain very little net angular momentum.”
Turbulences. They are quite common in space as they are on earth! A hurricane for example is also created in an atmosphere that is moving randomly and results a tremendous aligned movement – it’s probably similar to the gain of angular momentum of a star. And: The cloud a star collapses from is VERY hugh! Lightyears across. Only a very small amount of angular momentum will do, since the resulting star is much smaller than the gas cloud and angular momentum depends on the size of the thing. And because it is conserved the little a-m of the gascloud adds up to a very high rotation of the star.
“Finally, for a star the size of the Sun, gravitational contraction won’t produce a high enough density at the core to generate the temperature necessary for igniting the fusion reactions generally believed to be the power source. To make it work, various quantum mechanical improbabilities are wheeled in to allow things to happen that all the odds say shouldn’t.”
Oh yes, the density in the star’s core is extreamly high. The overall density of the sun is around 1.4 gr/ccm (if I remember the number correctly). This is not much indeed (a little more than water). But the sun is much thinner on it’s surface hence it is MUCH denser in the core. And there are no “quantum mechanical improbabilities” involved. The physics are working just fine. And since we can describe the suns behaviour and its energy output (altogether with the output of neutrinos) extreamly well I say that our model is really good!
“Stars are concentrated along the spiral arms of galaxies, which is also where new stars come into existence.”
While the last part is true, the first part is not. If you take a look at infrared pictures of galaxies the spral arms will almost completly disappear. And why is that? Brighter stars are also bluer, thus they aren’t bright in the infrared, tey are almost invisible. But since they are bright in the visible part of the spectrum they outshine the darker stars of the disk. But why are bright stars just located in the spiral arms? Here we must take the last part of the quote into account. Stars are born where the interstellar medium is thick and compressed, exactly the conditions in spiral arms. Thus bright stars (along with darker stars) are born in the arms. Why don’t they get out of there? Since they are bright they tend to be massive. And massive stars are burning up much faster than low-mass stars, only a few million years (indeed most of the low-mass stars are not yet stars when the massive ones blow up!). So they don’t have a chance of leaving the arm since a revolution around the galaxies needs about 100million years. That is the reason why spiral galaxies have those arms – they are brighter than the rest of the disk.
“galaxies are active components in enormous cosmic power circuits. They’re not flywheels, but motors, driven by forces easily able to hold them together without need of invisible glue. Inventing unobservables to hold up failed predictions is usually the sign of a theory in trouble.”
I ask my question again: Where are those currents? As I said before: Thay should be tremendously bright!
“According to the standard theory, structures of that size shouldn’t have had time to form in the 14 billion years since everything was supposed to have started with the Big Bang.”
Just because it started with a bang doesn’t mean it can’t settle down, does it? 14billion years is quite a time!
“the creation of jets through unclear processes involving acceleration and mechanical collisions in accretion disks of matter spiraling into them.”
They are not unclear, indeed we have a good idea, and probably you’re glad to hear that magnetic fields play an important role. But I already talked about jets and quasars (previous posts probably…).
):
But here comes one of my favourite parts (presented in parts
“Despite widely repeated claims to the contrary, black holes have never been observed.”
Since they are black by definition it is hard, indeed! But we HAVE. Just check Wikipedia for “Cygnus X-1″. Also black holes do something that guys like you tend to refuse: the bending of light around massive objects (we talked about the lenses before and I told you many times that the effect has been observed around the sun as wel!!). So a black hole does reveal itself if it passes in front of a star (or other shiny objects). The light of the star gets distorted by the black hole and the effect is mesurable and it has been observed (I am not searching for refernces tonight, it’s almost 2am).
“The way engineers and researchers produce x-rays is by accelerating charged particles with electric fields. Your dentist doesn’t do it by banging rocks together.”
And neither do we! The way black holes / quasars produce their X-rays and gamma rays is mentioned above: Thermal radiation (heat…) and synchrotron radiation! Engeneers, researchers and dentists are doing it with bremsstrahlung (I always like german words in an english text
). So we have three very well understood ways to produce them! And we are still not throwing rocks together (and rocks would be smashed to smithereens due to the enormous tidal forces of the black hole -> spaghettification).
“So what are we seeing? Gravity, which produces formless coagulations of matter like clots in cream? Or electricity?”
Indeed, no electricity. Electricity needs currents, currents need charged bodies. Since we don’t have charged bodies we don’t have currents. Even though I am not a fan of dark matter I prefer this explanation – since the only problem is their existence. Electric Universe needs charged bodies that do not exist (and that do I take as proven).
So. Finally. 2 hours have gone by. Good night! I’d love to see your answer!
January 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I want to add something (I don’t know if it will ever be noticed, but what the heck).
First of all a simple question: Anaconda, do you accept that GR is a theory that works and makes good predictions? You must say Yes since there are several tests mentioned above (GPS, Mercury, light bending around the sun,…).
So, we consider GR to work and to be able to make predictions. One prediction of GR are gravitational lenses. They were predicted long before we had any obersevation of them. Their appearence depends on two things: The mass of the foreground galaxy (the lense) and the angle of view. Since these are two free parameters a random galactic lense would certainly proof anything. But there is a special case to consider: If the background galaxy, the lense and the earth are well aligned (line-of-sight) then we gain a picture of the background galaxy that warps itself completly around the foreground galaxy; we call this an Einstein Ring.
So, if we detect an Einstein Ring we can be sure that the galaxies are aligned hence the appearence only depends of the mass of the lense. We get an independent value of the mass of the lense and can compare it to the mass we gain through the rotation of the galaxy. And the point is that both DO agree. We got the same value for the mass of the galaxy with two completly independent methods. This is a strong argument pro dark matter.
Of course, this doesn’t say that they are real. So we have to compare it to different theories, like “electric universe”. The problem with the latter is that it more or less denies the existence of such lenses (I understood it that way, is that correct?). It makes other claims like interstellar or intergallactic currents to which I always have the same question: Where are they (they MUST be clearly detectable as I pointed out several times). EU/PC also claims that redshift is rather a matter of age than of distance. If the former would be the case we gain some inconsistencies (as I also pointed out in a previous post). GR (a theory that has prooven its validity (we know the examples…)) says its the latter case.
So. I prefer a theory that has shown its validity; that is GR.
EU/PC has many weaknesses as I have shown several times, because I was able to disprove almost every claim you and your links made.
As I said. I still have some feelings of unease about DM, but it’s the best explanation we have so far about what is going on in the universe.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@DrFlimmer:
I’m disappointed, though not terribly surprised by your response to the article. This comment section is the first time you have heard of this theory and in the span of two days time you have studied the idea and made a sweeping rejection of it? That seems awfully quick, but then again it must relieve the cognitive dissonance this theory must cause you.
DrFlimmer, have you studied plasma physics or electrical engineering? I doubt it based on your statements, here, in these comments.
Let me make a few general responses and then treat your Jan. 10th, 8:00 am comment then this last Jan. 11th, 6:07 pm comment.
DrFlimmer, your major objection to this theory seems to be that electric currents in space are nearly, if not impossible (because there are no charged bodies).
But the scientific fact is this: The only known cause that produces magnetic fields, whether in space or in the laboratory, is electric currents (other causes have been searched for by the best minds in science and never found). You have repeatedly acknowleged the presence of magnetic fields in space. I’ll repeat, science knows of only one way to create magnetic fields: Electric currents.
And since the Cosmos is full of magnetic fields it stands to reason there has to be electric currents (unless you want to engage in pure speculation to support your position).
Also, an inherent property of plasma, which you fully admit is 99% of the Cosmos, is electromagnetic dynamics. In other words, the ebb and flow of charged particles — of course, the movement of charged particles is electric current. Charged particles as studied in plasma physics, self-organize into electric currents — that is how plasma got the name, “plasma” because of the self-organizing characteristic which were observed from the start of its study.
Somebody who had studied plasma physics would know that; you don’t.
Also, you make much of images (pictures) from space and rightfully so, but strangely you fall silent in regards to the pictures in the Lew Rockwell article. Those pictures confirm the predictions of Plasma Cosmology. Which is interesting because it was the pictures I encouraged you to look at and comment on, yet you failed to address even one of the pictures.
Let’s take the first picture presented in the article: The Double Helix nebula, located near our own galactic center. This picture shows the braided effect predicted by Plasma Cosmology as has been demonstrated in the laboratory, which the article, thus, describes:
“The braid can interact with similar braids to form “ropes” on a larger scale, which might then repeat the process. Such braided structures are the signature of electric currents in plasmas. They have been shown to scale up through an astonishing fourteen orders of magnitude. Effects produced on a microscopic scale in laboratories can be observed unfolding at cosmological dimensions.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
DrFlimmer, for someone who is studying physics, you also fail to address even one time, all the laboratory experiments with plasma that replicate observations and pictures of phenomenon observed in space. For a physics major to ignore laboratory experiments for the comfort of general theories seems most in inconsistent and unexpected.
The heart and soul of physics is experiment, observation, and measurement — your comments ignore that idea entirely.
I might also add that your “thought” experiments that rule out the presence of ‘charged bodies’ in space are faulty and ignore the evidence and known properties of physics demonstrated in the laboratory. Again, what kind of ’scientist’ ignores laboratory experiments, observations and measurements, and clings to theories like “dark matter” for which there is no scientific proof at all?
That is only a question you can answer, but I’d be curious to know your reasoning.
Finally, in my general comments, I note that you ignore all the “surprises” that conventional astronomy (gravity only) has admitted to in recent months if not years, while Plasma Cosmology has succesfully predicted what was subsequently observed in space and that when actually observed left conventional astronomers, “surprised.” Being “surprised” because your theory didn’t inticipate a phenomenon suggests the theory is inadequate, does it not?
Successful prediction is a hallmark of successful theories, is it not?
I will now proceed to your January 10th, 8:00 am comment.
DrFlimmer presents my comment: ““Arp theorizes redshift is more an indication of age than distance”
And DrFlimmer responds: “That would mean, if we take some atoms and look at them on earth for quite a while the emitted lines should shift to red. Indeed our timescales are nothing comapred to the Universe, but our instruments are very precise by now. I think they should measure such an effect.”
DrFlimmer, your best bet would be to study Halton Arp’s work directly, but since you have ruled out Arp’s conclusions two days after first reading of them, while Arp has been working 30 years to develop his body of work, I guess I can’t expect you to take the time to research it. Arp theorizes that the redshift is the reult of overall energy levels in the quasars — younger galactic bodies have higher redshift, older bodies have lower redshift.
DrFlimmer states: “But as long as I am interested in Physics (I am studying it right now for about 3.5 years) I have never heared about such things. And I think such an experiment would have been done.”
Sadly, it seems there are a lot of things you have never heard about — of course, that is not your fault, but your teachers…
DrFlimmer states: “If it really depends on age than ALL lines must be different for any atom since they have different ages OR if we assume their age is all the same EVERY atom in the entire universe must have the same lines, hence no redshift! That’s a paradox, is it not?”
This statement suggests you don’t understand the concept. It’s not an atom by atom phenomenon, as I understand it, but rather a function of the energy level of the galactic body that is why the ‘parent’ galaxy has a lower redhift value that the quasar, the ‘parent’ is less energetic than the expelled quasar.
The “big bang” is speculation based on setting aside known physical laws. As I stated before, science doesn’t do miracles — of course, you never responded to my assertion that science “doesn’t do miracles” because that’s exactly what the “big bang” theory is — invoking “miracle” theory.
Apparently, you have no problem invoking “miracles” (since you believe in the “big bang”). It’s problomatic for science to subscribe to miracles, is it not, DrFlimmer?
DrFlimmer states: “I hope you know that my statement was meant to be ironic!”
Frankly, I didn’t think it was intended to be ironic then and I still don’t — It was a statement that simply overlooked the radio and x-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and “overlooking things” seems to be a habit with you. What does physics know Radio waves? Radio waves need BOTH magnetic and electric fields in order to exist. Magnetic fields need electric currents in order to exist. So, we can conclude that electric currents and electric fields exist in deep space.
This is a specific set of known physical relationships understood by science, DrFlimmer, unless you have a specific counter-argument to this set of scientific understandings, your whole argument against Plasma Cosmology falls apart (you seem to have a habit of ignoring my strongest arguments).
Radio waves are proof of electric currents in space, again, your lack of knowledge is not your fault, it’s simply a result of your teachers’ failing to explain these known scientific properties. Ah, but now you have some ‘real’ questions to ask your teachers — I’d be interested in knowing how they answer these “inconvenient scientific facts.”
DrFlimmer states: ” The emitted light is called synchrotron radiation…And synchrotron radiation is easily visible in the radio part of the spectrum, although it can even be as powerful as gamma rays. So. Whatever the light is those currents should emit: We would’ve detected it by now since we observe the whole spectrum from the lowest radio frequencys up to most energetic gamma frequencys.”
Again, this comment demonstrates you have alot to learn about the physics of space and the observations that have been recorded. Synchotron radiation is a hallmark of electric curents. It is the result of spiral movements of electrical currents. As you state, it is a form of radio wave that it produced as the result of the specific movements and energy levels porduced by the specific shapes and movements of electric currents in space. In the laboratory, synchotron radiation is only produced by electric currents and magnetic fields.
Science has detected synchotron radiation from space (the hallmark signature of electric current).
DrFlimmer states: “Have you ever seen a picture of M87? It’s an active galaxy, somehow similar to a Quasar. Do you see that narrow ray coming right out of the center? This is called a jet. It’s a very narrow beam of particles (indeed, plasma) focused by a magnetic field reaching out nearly 5000 ly. And it is tremendously bright even though it is not directly aimed at us. This is synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons on a curved trajectory around those field lines. This is the exact way “your” currents should behave. Hence thay MUST be detectable…”
Yes, I have seen the picture of M87. In fact, it’s one of the strongest pieces of scientific evidence supporting plasma Cosmology.
What’s interesting is that you aren’t even conscious of the fact that you are actually presenting the evidence for Plasma Cosmology yourself. Thanks, I appreciate it, DrFlimmer.
DrFlimmer states “It’s [the jet] a very narrow beam of particles (indeed, plasma) focused by a magnetic field reaching out nearly 5000 ly. And it is tremendously bright even though it is not directly aimed at us. This is synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons on a curved trajectory around those field lines.”
Of course, this repeats your ignorance of the scientfic fact that magnetic fields are only known to be caused by electric currents. The “synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons on a curved trajectory around those field lines.” DrFlimmer your proceeding quote describes electric current. But you are so unfamililiar with the concepts involved that you don’t even realize that what you are describing is the phenomenon you state doesn’t exist.
I think you need to ask your teachers why they would provide a description to you, but fail to tell you that the only known phenomenon that generates what it describes is electric current.
And, again, the snchrotron radiation is proof of electric currents in space and science has detected them as you have explained.
Or maybe I should ask: Are you speculating that there is someother cause of all of the above besides electric currents?
Please, I’d like to know what you would speculate it (the jet) is attributed to.
Interesting that you fail to comment on this picture of M87 asit was presented in the LewRockwell article.
DrFlimmer states: “This is the exact way “your” currents should behave. Hence thay MUST be detectable…”
Yes, that is exactly Plasma Cosmology’s point. Electrons are not visble, here, on Earth or anywhere else, the electromagnetic energy they release from an excited energy state is what is “visible” or detectable. So the fact that synchrotron radiation is released by the “jet” is evidence that an electric current is flowing out the jet.
DrFlimmer, I don’t write the NASA news releases. Here is another: NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights,December 11, 2007.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
Per the news release:
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”
“Geomagnetic” means ‘electric’ storms because as priviously mentioned only electric currents are known to cause magnetic fields.
In addition the news release states:
“A ‘magnetic rope’ is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS’s five satellites were able to perform the feat.”
DrFlimmer, note NASA’s desription: “a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope.”
This is almost an exact description of a Birleland current, an electric plasma current.
This structure has been created in the plasma laboratory using electrical current, in deed one can go to a novelty store and buy a “plasma ball” and note the structure of the electrical arcs coming from the central point.
DrFlimmer, you make much that these electrical currents should cause distubances detectable on the ground. DrFlimmer states: “That would have a very detectable effect on the strength of the earth’s magnetic field even on the ground, we are not measuring anything like that.”
Wrong.
The NASA news release states: “Right away the substorm surprised investigators: “The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute,” says Angelopoulos. The storm had traversed an entire polar time zone in 60 seconds flat!
Also, “the display was surprisingly bursty.” Photographs taken by ground cameras and NASA’s Polar satellite (also supporting the THEMIS mission) revealed a series of staccato outbursts each lasting 10 minutes or so. “Some of the bursts died out while others reinforced each other and went on to become major events.”
…
“Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.”
This would seem to be confirmation that there is an “effect” on Earth’s magnetic field. But again, this goes against the conventional paradigm that there is no electric current in space taught by your teachers and you parrot so willingly.
Your next paragraph opens with: “Apart from the non-detection of those [electric] currents…”
I hope by now you have been disabused of the notion that electric currents don’t exist in space. Some “back of the napkin” ‘thought’ experiments don’t stand up to the scientific evidence that radio waves, sychrotron radiation and even x-rays are the “light” that the electrons in electric currents emit.
A star is analogous to a electrical capacitor (the idea of electrical capacitors are taught in electrical engineering). The Sun absorbs electrical current from galactic Birkeland currents and electric charge builds up. In partial summary, Don Scott, states:
“The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out – many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses. The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it – probably in the order of 10 billion volts. Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun’s positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode).”
Please review the site from where the above quote is taken:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
DrFlimmer states: “Hence the sun has to be an overall neutral body.”
No, you are wrong. But don’t take my word for it, read the entire explanation of Don Scott that I provided the link for (it’s difficult to summarize, better to read his entire hypothesis.
You mention “neutrinos”.
Please read Don Scott’s comments: “Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report
an Analysis”:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
DrFlimmer, “neutron” stars have NOT been directly observed. That is scientific fact. Neutron stars are a theorized body that violates the known nuclear physics law called the “Island of stability” that states neutrons can’t stay packed together. This is another instance where astronomy has had to ignore known laws of physics to invoke their THEORIES of the Universe.
DrFlimmer states: “I just want to conclude with the term “falsify a theory”: It doesn’t mean that a theory must preict it’s own failiure. It is meant that a theory must give predictions that can be tested (that is a difference).”
Yes, agree with your statement. The problem is that science can’t falsify “black holes” because they can’t be observed and you can’t falsify the “big bang” because, well nobody was there at the time and by “big bang” proponents own theory, the physical laws of the Universe have somehow miracuously changed since then, when the “big bang” popped into existence.
Okay, lets be specific: The gravitation only model can’t be expected to be accurate because it doesn’t take into account plasma and electric currents that as previously stated as 10^39 power stronger than gravity.
I will stop here before continuing on to your last comment.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Holy crap Anaconda, why are you so upset about this? Are you in any of the technical fields that touches upon the astronomy, physics or plasma? According to everything you’ve said so far you don’t have the scientific and technical background and experience on these topics. What’s in this for you?
You’ve shown up on other blogs in the past few days in what appears to be an effort to evangelize plasma cosmology. You come here looking for an argument and when you’ve reeled someone in you bash them for being ignorant, close-minded, parroting faulty science, ignore experimental evidence, pre-judge them as fanatical black-hole proponents and outright insult them. Frankly I think you’re projecting. You’re quite often parroting stuff from the sites you site and frankly display the same disdain for astrophysics I’ve read on them. DrFlimmer has been very civil and detail in his responses to you.
But why? Has the astrophysical community done you wrong somehow? There are a whole bunch of other world issues that actually affect you in your daily life an worth getting upset over. I’m sorry but after reading your last post it does appears that you do have an axe to grind.
Lighten up. This is science, we’re fallible humans and we will be faced with surprises for a long time to come. That’s the nature of the universe.
DrFlimmer, I would have to say that your studies are much more important than dealing with Anaconda and better served as a scientist. But it’s your time and it’s a very deep rabbit hole.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
(Thanks, ND
But I will stay for a while longer since I have a clear and “easy” task for Anaconda. He doesn’t need to respond to everything I say, just to my very last question and task)
I wanted to start differently, but what the heck. I just visited the link about neutrinos. First of all, we have found all three flavours by now. We are not missing anything. But:
“The electron-nuetrinos that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).”
The sun is an almost perfect blackbody with a maximum at about 500nm what means it has a surface temeprature of about 6500Kelvin (more or less). Hydrogen and helium are the nuclei with the lowest amount of protons, thus their electric charge is the lowest for nuclei (+1e and +2e). Tu fuse them the eclectric repel must be overcome, that need MUCH energy, a gas of 6500Kelvin cannot provide these energies. Therefore even heavier nuclei with an even greater electric charge cannot be fused anywhere near the solar surface. That is IMPOSSIBLE!
But just wait some times, in a few years we WILL be knwoing more since experiments about the flavourchange of neutrinos are underway right now at CERN.
I must admit that I haven’t read the article about the sun entirely. This 10*10^9 Volts just …,well. Have you ever tried to imagine what this number means? No? Good. This enormous amount of charge would disrupt the earth, since we are supposed to be connected to that tremendous potential. That would short-circuit everything on this planet, I guess. I cannot believe someone claims THIS number. 10^10 volts, connected to the earth. Good bye.
Ok, return to physics. And while I was reading your post I was thinking if you ever thought about what is happening in a wire. There we got a metal. That means we have atoms. This also means that we have a conduction band and a valence band which is somehow overloaded and some electrons are in the conduction band and are able to flow around if they are forced to do. How can we force them to move? That tells us the “Lorentz-force”:
F=q(E + v x B)
where q is the charge, E the electrical field, v the velocity, B the magnetic field and since F, E, v and B are vectors, x represents the cross product (probably you have heard of those terms).
A magnetic field doesn’t help much since it only works if the electrons are already moving and then it just forces them on a circular trajectory, so we need an electrical field, in other words a potential difference. Then all electrons start moving in the same direction and the nuclei (positive charges) stay where they are. We gain a current, but why? Because the electrons are moving with respect to the positive charges. This is the only way a current works: Seperation of charges.
In a plasma a current will only flow if create an external electrical field that forces the charges to seperate! If protons and electrons move with the same velocity there is no charge seperation, therefore no current.
We may return to the problem at hand, now.
First: We consider the solar wind. It is claimed by you and your references that the solar wind is transporting protons away from the sun while electrons get attracted. Well, since the sun is supposed to be charge this would be correct and would discharge the sun over time (since it is positvely charged). The problem is that the observed solar wind transports protons and electrons the same way: Away from the sun! Well that’s contradictory to the claim, is it?
Let’s face the sun directly. How can a body of almost freely moving particles be kept together when there is a a potential of 10^10 volts inside of it? Of course, if its distributed all over the sun’s surface we would come up with a potential “density” of about roughly 10^-6 volts/m^2 or about 1 volt/km^2. But: The sun is no solid body as is metal. The surplus protons would repel each other and every one of those would drift away radialy from the sun. How are they kept on it?
Well, let’s get back to the interstellar or intergalactic currents. You stated gladly:
“Yes, I have seen the picture of M87. In fact, it’s one of the strongest pieces of scientific evidence supporting plasma Cosmology.
What’s interesting is that you aren’t even conscious of the fact that you are actually presenting the evidence for Plasma Cosmology yourself. Thanks, I appreciate it, DrFlimmer. ”
No. It’s the perfect counter example. And do you know why? I always tried to tell you that those jets are tremendously bright as is M87. So if there are any of such “currents” (I come back to that term later, again) in interstellar space, probably forming the galactic structures (spiral arms…), they MUST be detectable. You even claim that the sun is connected almost directly with a current from where ever it may come. And again, I ask: Where is it? It should be detectable, probably not as bright as M87 but detectable. But we are not seeing them!
Now, the currents. The jet of M87 contains a plasma rushing through it and revolving around the field lines (producing synchrotron radiation). But the jet is overall neutral! It consists probably of electrons and positrons or electrons and protons. And as I explained above, since they are moving the same way, there is movement with respect to each other – yielding no current! And even if we assume for a moment that there were only electrons. They would create a tremendous electric field to their place of origin, and although protons are about 2000 times more massive than electrons they will get accelerated sooner or later by the electric field. The protons will rush after the electrons trying to catch up to cancel out the electric field. So we gain again an overall neutral flux of particles. No current.
So, of course you state quite correctly: We need the magnetic fields and where do they come from?
You must know, electrodynamics are VERY complex. The basis are Maxwell’s equations, you prabably have seen them. A plasma will behave according to them. But that’s not the point.
The problem is, that you and your references are oversimlifying the “mainstream” models. Electromagnetic forces are taken into account but they are VERY hard to handle since to solve those equations is almost impossible to be done precisly. A computer will help but he also needs quite some time.
The sun is a body of hot gas, say, plasma. In its core the energy is created. That energy is brought up to the surface by radiation and convection. The latter is the reason for the granules, very similar to boiling water, indeed. So convection produces movements of the plasma in a radial direction (up and down) (we can actually see that: the warmer center of the granule is blueshifted while the colder edge is redshifted – no, no cosmological redshift, just the plain old Doppler effect – the the warmer center comes up while the colder edges go down. And take this as a fact, I have made an experiment on that myself!). Then there is the solar rotation. And the solar rotation is not that one of a solid body. The equatorial regions are faster than the polar regions (28 days to 32 days if I remember the numbers correctly). So we have a differential rotation. And that indeed leads to currents, but they are inside the sun, not forced from the outside. We see the effects of that differential and almost chaotic (but not random, since we have an overall movement due to the rotation) movements in the magnetic field lines that pop up out of the surface and get twisted. And sometimes they get twisted so hard that they can actually reconnect – snap, a CME is the result.
This is really a complicated behaviour and not easy to treat even in a computer model. But they work. And probably you have of the new field of “solar seismology” or “helio seismology”. They are detecting sound waves that go through the sun leading to oscillations of the sun’s surface. They are an independent test of the sun’s interior and indeed they recreat our model and have increased our knowledge about the sun. They can almost taken as a proof that the sun has a radiative zone inside and higher up the convective zone, just as we thought it should be.
Let’s go back to your post:
“Charged particles as studied in plasma physics, self-organize into electric currents — that is how plasma got the name, “plasma” because of the self-organizing characteristic which were observed from the start of its study.”
Well. I don’t think that it is possible on earth just to take a ball of gas, make it hot enaugh and watch what happens. Gravity has something to say as well. And also the surroundings of your experiment, your laboratory, your equipment. The plasma could do some damage to that if you don’t take care. You must keep it away from the walls of your box in which you creat your plasma. And how can you do it? First of all, keep it thin, since then it is not able to do much damage and can be heated more easily. Second: You must enclose it. And how can you do it? With electromagnetic fields (in a big way this is about to be done in France with the ITER experiment). So you have external fields and I told you already what that means. I am not surprised that you get some nice “self-organizing” effects.
“DrFlimmer states: “If it really depends on age than ALL lines must be different for any atom since they have different ages OR if we assume their age is all the same EVERY atom in the entire universe must have the same lines, hence no redshift! That’s a paradox, is it not?”
This statement suggests you don’t understand the concept. It’s not an atom by atom phenomenon, as I understand it, but rather a function of the energy level of the galactic body that is why the ‘parent’ galaxy has a lower redhift value that the quasar, the ‘parent’ is less energetic than the expelled quasar.”
Sorry, but I referred to what YOU were telling me, that it would be an effect of age and not of distance. And now you come up with energy levels of galaxies. Is this the strange quantum mechanical effect that is supposed to rule the galaxies what we had earlier in this discussion? Since, indeed, I have no clue what this could possibly be about I stop commenting on this point. But it sounds really strange…
“Yes, that is exactly Plasma Cosmology’s point. Electrons are not visble, here, on Earth or anywhere else, the electromagnetic energy they release from an excited energy state is what is “visible” or detectable. So the fact that synchrotron radiation is released by the “jet” is evidence that an electric current is flowing out the jet.”
Yes, we had that. And I said almost exactly that. But since we can clearly detect jets, I ask once more: WHERE ARE THE OTHER CURRENTS YOU CLAIM TO EXIST? Since we almost agree on the behaviour of jets that they shine because of electrons moving around field lines, the other claimed currents (to/from the sun, through interstellar space) must be detectable. Jet’s like the on of M87 are proove of nothing since it just aims out of the galaxy not giving a shape to anything. But your claimed currents are supposed to give a shape to an entire galaxy and the creation of stars: WHERE ARE THEY? Since there must be many we should have seen them already in many pictures, shouldn’t we?
You are accusing me not to answer on everything. Well. I have just one question for you, you can answer me: Where are those currents, shaping an entire galaxy? Show me a picture that clearly shows a current forming a spiral arm, or something like that – a jet is no proove of that claims since the “mainstream” standard model of quasars includes them in exactly the same way.
So. To clearify something. Probably you make a jump that I say that there currents. Inside the sun for example (not to or from the sun, since the solar wind plasma is not really behaving as a current. The magnetic fields it takes with it are “frozen” lines from the sun, a quite understood mechanism). But again: Where are the BIG ones I mentioned above. THEY are the basis of your model since are supposed to give the shape to everything. Where are THEY? Again, don’t show me any jet – I won’t take this as a proove that currents are shaping a spiral arm. Whar you must give me for example, is a picture of a galaxy where I can clearly identify the currents (since they must be powerful and bright) and that those currents are actually “aligned” with the spiral arms. I will wait and see.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@ DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer asks: “[D]o you accept that GR is a theory that works and makes good predictions? You must say Yes since there are several tests mentioned above.
Your class on General Relativity has made you forget the scientfic method — theories are only theories, they are not reality itself.
There are several observations which are consistent with General Relativity. And there are several observations which contradict General Relativity (remember, it only takes one falsification to invalidate a theory).
I’ll not dispute the GPS “proof” at this point.
DrFlimmer states: “One prediction of GR are gravitational lenses. They were predicted long before we had any observation of them.”
Have you ever considered the possibility that because they were predicted long before, there was a ‘confirmational bias’ to find them?
Einstein Ring or Einstein Cross, it seems to be a wide net you are casting to convince yourself of the gravitational lensing theory.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. It seems that you must be studying them at present as part of your GR course because you seem fixated on that issue. I’ve offered evidence and reasoning and you can research Halton Arp’s work and the images and reasoning which are the basis of his conclusions.
It seems your course on GR has made you rather fervent about that issue. The “faith” of a true believer — problem with a “true believer” is that no amount of contradictory evidence will dissuade them.
I was going to hold this comment back to the end but it seems appropriate to go ahead and make it now.
You clearly have made statements and expressed ideas that demonstrate you don’t understand plasma physics or electrical phenomenon or the underlying theories for each. I would advise you to suspend judgment regarding a theory you hadn’t even heard about until three days ago.
What the above comment boils down to in my opinion is this: “I believe in General Relativity theory (fervently), so, any theory that knocks or contradicts General Relativity is suspect in my book. “Big bang”, “black hole” theory has problems like requiring “dark matter” to keep it from being falsified. But that’s what everybody, here, at school, including my teachers subscribe to. I may have some uncomfort with “dark matter”, but the alternative is to discard all I’ve been taught about astronomy. If the teachers in astronomy believe in “dark matter” that’s good enough for me.
DrFlimmer states: “EU/PC has many weaknesses as I have shown several times, because I was able to disprove almost every claim you and your links made.”
DrFlimmer, you are way too self-congradulatory in your pronouncements.
Actually, what you have demonstrated is that your grasp of the concepts are weak. What’s amusing is that in one passage you “proved” the existence of electric current (the passage where you cite galaxy M87) by describing synchrotron radiation and you didn’t even know it — that’s how little grasp of the subject matter you have.
So, again, I would advise you to keep an open-mind and have reasonable scepticism toward all theories.
Now to your January 11th, 6:07 pm comment:
DrFlimmer states: “But I wasn’t told to believe anything in my studies.” You’re naive. Students generally only ask questions about the material the teacher provides and the material itself and the teacher’s lecture and discussion is what frames the students’ questions — it’s the rare student who challenges the teacher about material that the teacher isn’t covering or discussing.
DrFlimmer are you one of those rare students who challenges a ‘prof’ on material not covered in the class syllabus?
It’s possible, but I doubt it.
DrFlimmer states: “Believe it or not, I am not a fan of “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
But at the end of the day, you “suck” it up anyway because to reject “dark matter” or “dark energy” is to falsify the gravitational model, or should I say, General Relativity theory, and we can’t have that can we? Oh, no, we just can’t have that…so you’ll keep applauding the emperor’s new clothes just the same as if he wasn’t actually buck naked.
(This may reqire some repetition from my earlier comment, but you made a number of serious errors which can’t slip past unremarked.)
DrFlimmer states: “I probably start with some basics about plasmas: As the link states correctly a plasma is a gas where the electrons are ripped apart from the nuclei. This is due to heat. So we need high temperatures (a few thousand Kelvin) to create plasmas. That means the particles (electrons and nuclei) are moving due to their heat. Such a movement is RANDOM.”
“…plasma is a gas where the electrons are ripped apart from the nuclei.”
This is a gross overstatement. Atomic nuclei will readily give up electrons. Have you ever rubbed cat fur onto a glass rod in physics class? If so, then you would know that the fur readily gives up electrons onto the smooth glass rod.
There are numerous ways for electrons to be removed from atomic nuclei with out “ripping”. As a physics major you should know better. So why use the word “ripped”? To falsely leave the implied impression that electrons are difficult to remove from atomic nuclei — actually, electrons can be removed quite easily from nuclei depending what element it’s to be removed from, and what technique is used to remove the electrons. Of course, electric current removes electrons very easily.
DrFlimmer states: “This is due to heat.” There are other methods as well that don’t require heat.
DrFlimmer states: ” So we need high temperatures (a few thousand Kelvin) to create plasmas.”
Sorry, completely false. Your statement would only be true if you were creating pure plasma in an Earth environment where high heat can be required, but as you stated, ionized charged particles can be considered such if as little as 1% of the matter is ionized into charged particles. Simple low temperature friction can create ionization into charged particles. Your statement I quoted above is misleading, as any kid who has rubbed a balloon on a carpet knows (electrostatic particles are inonized, charged particles).
DrFlimmer states: “To gain a current we must ALIGN the movements of the electrons.”
But that’s where your ignorance of the subject of plasma physics prevents you from understanding that plasma is self-oranizing into electric currents because plasma undergoes charge-seperation as demonstrated in the laboratory. The charges tend to line up as a natural consequence of plasma dynamics. Again, a physics student that had a basic understanding of plasma physics would know that — you don’t.
DrFlimmer states: “Heat won’t give us such conditions.” True. It’s not the heat per se, but the charge-speration that self-organizes into electric currents.
DrFlimmer states: “Still we have no (overall) currents.”
Of course, the discussion proceeding this conclusion ignores all the pictures and images in the Lew Rockwell article: Review the pictures see how they are all consistent with electric currents and plasma dynamics and have been all demonstrated in the plasma laboratory:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
In deed, take note of the two pictures one directly over the top of one another, captioned: “Sub-millimeter-size tornadoes of current produced by the Plasma Focus, a fusion research device, compared to a Hubble image of the planetary nebula NGC 6751″
How is this possible that both pictures can be so similar, yet on completely different scales? Because electric phenomenon is scale independent. Plasma phenomenon is scale independent to at least 14 orders of magnitude.
DrFlimmer, you have to deal with those pictures in the article and their demonstrated electrical characteristics. To ignore the pictures as you did after being so image conscious earlier (when they were “your” pictures) is telling that you have no explanation why these galactic phenomenon can be so easily explained by electric principles. You silence in the face of evidence (the pictures) is as damning as any weak explanation you might make.
DrFlimmer states: “So. All we need for electric currents to occure and reveal their power are external electric fields – where do they come from? Let’s turn to your link:
“Even in a plasma comprising just one charged particle in 10,000 – which would be typical of the interstellar clouds of dust and gas from which stars are formed –”
Well. Why should there be such a particle? Everything we observe is that we always have equal amounts of charge – everywhere!”
DrFlimmer, you have already admitted there is plasma all over the Universe. The above sentence sugesting there is no plasma (no charged particles) is silly and self-contradicting — you are doing intellectual “backflips” to avoid the observations and measurements that are consistent with electric currents in space.
DrFlimmer: “So I consider that the odds that the netcharge of a gascloud if not zero is essentially zero.”
Again, stick you head in the sand and ignore the pictures and images of phenomenon across the Universe that are consistent with charge particles and electric currents in space:
Let’s go over your worst errors:
Electrons can’t be “seen” directly, but from controlled laboratory experiments, science knows that electrons in an electric current will give off radio waves, x-rays and synchrotron radiation is specifically given off by electric currents. We know that magnetic fields are only known to be created by electric currents and you have admitted magnetic fields are observed all over the Cosmos.
Hot neutral gas does not give off x-rays or radio waves only plasma in an electric current does.
Here is a report: Hubble Views Galactic Core In Unprecedented New Detail
ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2009)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090106135601.htm
The report states in part:
“The new NICMOS data show the glow from ionized hydrogen gas as well as a multitude of stars. Hubble reveals an important population of stars with strong stellar winds, signified by excess emission from ionized gas at one infrared wavelength (1.87 microns) compared to another slightly different wavelength (1.90 microns).”
“The new NICMOS data show the glow from ionized hydrogen gas…”
“…signified by excess emission from ionized gas at one infrared wavelength…”
DrFlimmer, still trying to pass iof the false idea that there isn’t any any ionized particles in space or as you stated it: “Why should there be such a [ionized] particle?” And, “Everything we observe is that we always have equal amounts of charge – everywhere!”
These statements are specifically contradicted by the ScienceDaily article — nobody seriously disputes the presence of ionized, charged particles in space. What they deny is electric currents, but as has been already pointed out, magnetic fields only known cause is electric currents.
DrFlimmer presents this quote from the Lew Rockwell article: “And today’s reigning cosmological model, founded on general relativity, is essentially a theory of geometry manifesting itself as gravity.”
And responds: “This sentence clearifys the author’s non-understanding of the matter he thinks he is talking about.”
Sorry,DrFlimmer, but he is quite right — that’s how the theory justifies space-time distortion. Better keep going to class — you’ll get to that chapter in the textbook eventually.
DrFlimmer presents this quote from the Lew Rockwell article: “Pulsars – rapidly varying stellar objects conventionally interpreted as spinning neutron stars – have now been measured to fluctuate at rates that call into question even the power of postulated neutron matter to hold together.”
And then responds: “What fluctuations? Postulated neutron matter? The first thing I don’t have a clue what he means. The second…. neutron matter – yes: neutrons to be precise! They are not postulated. We have even neutron BOMBS on earth (it doesn’t mean I like that we have those) if he questions their existence. And neutron stars do exist.”
The fluctuations are the ocillations of the x-ray pulse, or speed of the x-ray flash. Yes, “postulated” or theorized neutron matter. As stated before, neutron stars are denser than any known object and neutrons won’t stay packed because of the nuclear physics law, known as the “Island of stability.”
Your fervent faith is coming through loud and clear, DrFlimmer.
DrFlimmer states: “THAT is not true! First of all, I talked about red-shift before, please read it again if you like.”
I found your argument most unconvincing in the face of Halton Arp’s contradicotry findings.
DrFlimmer states: “[Quasars give off] X-rays just due to their heat…”
No, there is no scientific evidence for that statement. X-rays are given off due to intense electric currents accelerating the electrons.
DrFlimmer states: “And we have synchrotron radiation. I talked about that in my previous posts, too – just look it up.”
You discussion of synchrotron radiation was embarrassing for you because it demonstrated that you didn’t know that synchrotron radiation is most closely identified with electric currents in space for the reasons YOU described!
DrFlimmer states “Well, THIS is the exact term you will hear from every physicist!” as the mechanism for Birkeland currents — Yes, now that it has been proven , but for decades astronomers thought the auroras where Earth self-generated. Know your astonomical history, DrFlimmer.
This NASA news release needs to be look at again:
NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights
12.11.2007:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.”
A “magnetic rope” is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS’s five satellites were able to perform the feat.”
Magnetic fields which only exist in the presence of electric currents, which these bundled filaments that are ubiquitous in the Cosmos.
DrFlimmer states: “And neither do we! The way black holes / quasars produce their X-rays and gamma rays is mentioned above: Thermal radiation (heat…) and synchrotron radiation!”
Sorry, DrFlimmer, you have no scintfic evidence it happens that way at all. All you have is a theory that isn’t supported by any observations.
DrFlimmer, do you believe everything you read in Wikipedia?
I don’t, and I’ve reseached the question. “Black holes have NEVER been directly observed. At best, there is indirect evidence to support their existence, at worst it’s a theoretical “cover your rear end” because without “black holes” the gravitational model is falsified.
DrFlimmer states: “That is the reason why spiral galaxies have those arms – they are brighter than the rest of the disk.”
That is the kookiest speculation I’ve heard out of you yet. No where do they hypothesize that the arms are noting but brighter mass and that galaxies are really evenly spread out disks, but that we can only “see” the arms — your breaking down guy.
See, Astrophysicists Map Milky Way’s Four Spiral Arms
ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2009) — “A research team that has developed the first complete map of the Milky Way galaxy’s spiral arms. The map shows the inner part of the Milky Way has two prominent, symmetric spiral arms, which extend into the outer galaxy where they branch into four spiral arms.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090105090844.htm
There is nothing in the story to suggest that the spiral arms are just “brighter material”.
To conclude, keep and open-mind and research.
I didn’t come to my conclusions about either theory based on two days of comments and research. It was an organic process of many months.
After all, I believed like you, at one time, in the “big bang” and “black holes”, but after researching both sides of the scientific controversy, I rejected my old outdated beliefs, that were based on old outdated ideas.
I looked at all the scientific evidence with due reasonable scepticism, but also an open-mind. Again, after many months of research and thinking, I was forced by the weight of the evidence to change my views that had been held for many years.
I am convinced of Plasma Cosmology’s validity, not because I wanted to be, but because I was compelled by the scientfic evidence.
So another theory may come along that is better and matches the theory and the observations and measurements better, but until that time, I am compelled by my devotion to the empirical scientific method to support Plasma Cosmology and reject the gravitational model, a theory that is based on too many assumptions and invented objects and particles.
It’s been falsified too many times.
It’s a 19th century theory.
Plasma Cosmology is a cutting edge, 21st century theory, as cutting edge as the electricity that runs the supercomputers in our civilization.
DrFlimmer, keep an open-mind, it won’t hurt and it may do you a lot of good:-)
January 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
DrFlimmer, I would like to draw your attention to this extract from Wikipedia:
Common Characteristics of Cranks:
Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering “the truth”, but actively harmful because they believe it “poisons” the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.
P.S.
(N.B. Click on the blue lettering for the link to the article.)
January 12th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
spelling error:
5. A total lack of sense of humour — they take themselves TOO seriously!
there, much better
January 12th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@ ND,
Thanks! It’s getting late here in the UK — 05:04 am!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@ DrFlimmer:
I pause before responding because there are obviously folks that would rather not see any comments from this direction at all (the Plasma Cosmology perspective). But if I clammed up, that would be exactly what they want.
DrFlimmer, you raise a serious obstacle to Plasma Cosmology, where or how do the inter-stellar or intra-galactic Birleland currents supply energy to the Sun. And, frankly, I haven’t seen a good answer to that question, yet.
That needs to be addressed — and it’s good you pointed it out.
That’s what good science is about — making reasonable and thoughtful objections — or should I say, questions that need to be answered.
Now, yourself, or likely folks in the peanut gallery are thinking, aha! gotcha! Hardley. How many years has astronomy been looking for “dark matter”? A long time. How long has science had radio telescopes and x-ray telescopes? About 20 years or so of high resolution technology in both Earth based telescopes and satellite based telescopes has been available. And only in the last year were Birkeland currents confimed, and DrFlimmer, you didn’t even know about the discovery.
Obviously, there are unanswered questions about space — I agree, both sides or perspectives should acknowledge there are unanswered questions.
DrFlimmer states: “Therefore even heavier nuclei with an even greater electric charge cannot be fused anywhere near the solar surface. That is IMPOSSIBLE!”
The surface temperature of the Sun is 6500 Kelvin or there abouts, but the corona is a couple of million degrees and the particles and electrons are being accelerated away from the Sun at vast speeds. A couple of million degrees is hot enough for fusion. Throw in the electromagnetic “bottle” of the z-pinch mechanism which self-constricts the matter together and there is a possible overall physical process for fusion, as evinced by the acceleration of the charged partcles from the Sun.
To your further discussion of the Sun, DrFlimmer states: “The surplus protons would repel each other and every one of those would drift away radialy from the sun. How are they kept on it?
Are you familiar with the electrical engineering concept and reality of a capacitor? Stored electrical energy. Also, are you familiar with “double layers”?
Electrical currents form “double layers” that set up a capacitor like formation of electrical energy and currents.
Electrical energy does not have to discharge immediately. There is such a thing as stored electrical capacity.
(The peanut gallery has a point — the discussion has pretty much run its course.)
So let’s close, DrFlimmer, on your final point: Where is the current?
As I tried to explain before, the electrical current, itself, is hard to detect, but there are indirect ways to determine if it’s present. Magnetic fields are only known to occur in the presence of electric currents.
You never addressed the above statement. (I take that back, you stated magnetic field lines are “frozen”. See below — what’s the mechanism for being “frozen”?)
If you can’t refute the above assertion — then you have little choice, but to accept the presence of electric currents.
DrFlimmer states: “The magnetic fields it takes with it are “frozen” lines from the sun, a quite understood mechanism).”
“Frozen” magnetic fields are a well understood mechanism. Care to explain that mechanism.
How do you account for the NASA reports of the ‘magnetic flux events’ (Birkeland currents)? The “ropes” and their magnetic field lines jump and move all around. They are not “frozen” in any sense of the word.
Hannes Alfven, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics — for his work in laboratory plasma physics (and was a pioneer of Plasma Cosmology), developed the field of magnetohydrodynamics, this is where the idea of “frozen” magnetic lines comes from. But Alfven saw that the concept of “frozen” magnetic lines was faulty, so repudiated his earlier idea and warned repeatedly against this interpretation of his theory. (Sadly, astronomers ignored the man who developed the idea; they had their story and they were sticking to it.)
Which makes sense: How do magnetic field lines get “frozen”? What constitutes “frozen”? In reality, it was an interpretation that avoided dealing with electric currents.
But getting back to your question: Where are the currents?
Many electric currents are in dark mode. What is dark mode? Simple enough, there is electric current, but it’s diffuse enough or at such low amperes that it gives no or little radiation at all.
But most of the time, the electrons in an electric current gives off radio waves. Electrons can also give off x-rays if the energy of the electric current is high enough — again, x-rays are only known to be caused by electric current, there is no scientific evidence I’m aware of (enlighten me) that says, “heat alone, if hot enough, will cause x-rays, or radio waves.”
Electric current gives off visible light (in the visible part of the electromagnetic wave spectrum) only in arc mode (lightning is an example).
That should be a hint to sceptics — energy is released from electrons via electromagnetic waves.
Electromagnetic energies are the predominate way that energy interacts in the Universe — not gravity and not heat. Why not gravity? Because gravity is such a weak force in comparison to electromagnetic force. Electromagnetism is 10^39 power stronger than gravity. Gravity by its very nature is static or isometric, gravity could almost be considered “passive,” not dynamic like electromagnetism. Why not heat? Because heat is the lowest level of energy — random atomic vibration. Energy in the lowest state of structure or organization. Electromagnetic energy is a “higher” form of enegy, as opposed to heat, when taking into consideration the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Random atomic vibration (heat) is at the end of the line in terms of types of energy — think about it.
This goes back to my question that you failed to answer: Have you taken a course in plasma physics or electrical engineering?
Professor Don Scott has an analysis of the underlying issue posed by x-ray and radio emissions in space:
1. Radio telescopes see radio waves throughout the cosmos.
2. Radio waves need BOTH magnetic and electric fields in order to exist.
3. Magnetic fields need electric currents in order to exist.
4. We can conclude that electric currents and electric fields exist in deep space.
5. Cosmic rays are accelerated ions.
6. What is the easiest way to accelerate an ion?
7. Answer: By letting it fall through a voltage drop (an electric field) or pump it magnetically.
8. Strong electric fields exist in DLs (double layers) in plasma and magnetic pumping can occur in moving (varying) magnetic fields.
9. Grasping at “bow shocks” as a reason for ion acceleration is an evasive refusal to consider anything electrical.
Radio waves are a product of electromagnetic forces.
Synchrotron radiation is scientfic evidence of electric currents in space.
Anyway, it’s up to you, DrFlimmer, you can put this discussion in the closet of your mind and forget it or you can research with an open-mind AND reasonable scepticism.
It’s up to you.
There are unanswered questions on both sides of the debate.
(That’s the great thing about science — there are always unanswered questions. And as opposed to what the peanut gallery says, I don’t claim to have all the answers.)
As I stated before, I was like you. I believed in the Big Bang and Black Holes, and accepted the idea that Dark Matter and Dark Energy existed, but science hadn’t detected them, yet.
I didn’t hatch out of an egg fully formed, spouting Plasma Cosmology.
My being convinced came about over many months, in an organic process, and, no, nobody twisted my arm, the scientific evidence lead me to be convinced of the theory on my own free will.
I took my own “path”.
Everybody has to take their own “path”.
If the “path” leads to a failed theory — that will be clear enough over time, of that I am certain. Reality will win out, although, we might take a longer time than is necessary to understand reality.
Nobody has a monopoly on reality.
Good luck and may the force be with you.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’ve been going through the crank checklist and going check, check, oh definitely a check, check…
Absolutely amazing. He could not talk about the hard evidence in favor of GR because his play book (PC websites) had nothing on it (otherwise he would be showing us how “wrong” the GPS system and Cassini probe results are). He has no concept that he does not have the background and knowledge to understand the concepts he’s spouting.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“there is no scientific evidence I’m aware of (enlighten me) that says, “heat alone, if hot enough, will cause x-rays, or radio waves.” ”
I will enlighten you. I would have already done, but, I don’t know why, this page sucked in my post I wrote this midday being at my university awaiting my course about stellar birth (a well understood thing, btw, of course there are open questions, but it works quite well, even with gravity, but that’s not what I want to address).
) the idea that light is not only a continous wave but instead is transferred in little amounts or packages of energy, he called it a quantum. Indeed that was the start of quantum mechanics, a revelotion to physics by that time. Why did he need it? He created a formula to explain and to describe the light spectrum of a blackbody. A blackbody is a perfect absorber and hence also a perfect emitter (that sounds strange, indeed, but it’s true). There were some difficulities to describe the spectrum with classical thermodynamics and Planck’s mathematical trick solved the problem.
So, why can I say that heat is the cause of X- or radio waves?
Have you ever heard of the guy named Planck? He “invented” (he really thought it was a mathematical trick, an invention
He got a formula that perfectly describes the spectrum of a blackbody. And he found that this spectrum ONLY depend on the temperature of the blackbody. The higher the temperature the more energetic is the maximum of the spectrum. Probably you heard about Wien’s displacement law. That is exactly that.
What it states is: If an object is very cold the transmitted energy is low (actually the body will shine in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum). If an object is very hot it gives up tremendous amounts of energy in the high end parts of the spectrum (X-rays). The sun shines in the visible part. Your body gives up radiation in the infrared part. So anything in this universe gives up energy – electromagnetic light – due to its temperature. We call that thermal radiation. And the emitted spectra are very characteristic! Just look up “Planck curves” or something like that.
AND we can distinguish these spectra from spectra of other processes like synchrotron radiation. It’s very easy, since synchrotron radiation follows a power law with a power of about -0.6. That is very specific and, indeed, looks very different to a Planck curve.
So. There you have the process how heat generates energy! And we can distinguish them as I said. So let’s take a look at a Quasar. What we see is a thermal spectrum with a maximum that goes up into X-rays. And we detect a spectrum that follows a power-law. That is the synchrotron radiation, which comes from the jet. But how can we creat such tremendous temperatures? That is a very good question. And the only answer to this question is (since it is thermal radiation for what currents and magnetic fields play no role!) an accretion disk around a black hole. Nothing else is known to me.
And btw: This flaws the second point of Don Scott. I guess you know what that means!
“Have you taken a course in plasma physics or electrical engineering?”
The course was named “Introduction to plasma physics”. But I admit that I didn’t take care a lot on that course since my schedule was very full and I just took the Credit Points and went by. A mistake and when I have time I will go deeplier in the subject. But I still have studied it a bit. The counterquestion would be if you ever studied physics at all or if it has “just” been some kind of a home work
.
But btw: I talked with my prof today. And he had some nice assumptions
.
If I understand you correctly, you say that the sun has a positive netcharge, right? What about the other stars? Do they have a positive charge, too? Wouldn’t they repel each other, destroying the galaxy? There must be some negative charges somewhere to balance that!
“Many electric currents are in dark mode. What is dark mode? Simple enough, there is electric current, but it’s diffuse enough or at such low amperes that it gives no or little radiation at all.”
I cannot resist, but this sounds to me somehow like “dark matter”. Such currents would be far too weak to hold entire galaxies together since every current (save jets) must be in dark mode, otherwise we would have seen them by now (our telescopes are VERY good/sensitive in these days). And one of your claims was that currents build up the spiral arms – those currents must be in dark mode, too. I would think that they are very weak then, probably too weak to account for the rotation of the galxies.
But, apropos telescopes. My prof also told me something about Halton Arp. He was quite famous some years ago and his theorys have been debated in the scientific community. But there is a reason why they are not debated anymore:
). The problem is that he had “very” old databases compared with today. With new and more precise measurments we were able to find that those “oscillations” are actually not true. They were a matter of bad statistics – he had too few and too less precise measurments that are, say, outdated today.
Yes, there are those galaxies with different red shifts that seem to be interacting. But: Isn’t it possible that this is just coincidence and it is a matter of projection? We are looking at a 2-dim sphere. But what we are looking at is 3-dim space. We are missing the third dimension! Isn’t that a possibility?
Another thing is that Arp thought he found some “oscillations” in red shift (or something like that, sorry, I do not remember perfectly what my prof said – but since you are familiar with Arp’s theory you probably know what I mean
January 13th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@ DrFlimmer:
Your bottom line is that there are NO electric currents in space. Your position is clear and absolute.
If there are no electric currents in space — obviously, my position is untenable.
If there are electric currents in space, then the ediface of the gravitation (only) model begins to crumble.
Is this a fair test?
So, it seems that the best place to examine whether there is electric currents in space is where Man’s science can make the the most detailed and sensitive observations and measurements.
This would be near space around the Earth.
Is this a fair test?
If there are “no electric currents in space” it should make no difference whether near or far — the dynamics of space should be the same everywhere.
Is this a fair statement?
Assuming that the above is a fair characterization of your position and, I might add, conventional astronomy, allow me to make a short offer of proof that there are electric currents in space.
The following article sheds light on the subject.
Hazards Of Severe Space Weather Revealed
ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2009) — “A NASA-funded study describes how extreme solar eruptions could have severe consequences for communications, power grids and other technology on Earth.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090111141246.htm
The article states further:
“Besides emitting a continuous stream of plasma called the solar wind, the sun periodically releases billions of tons of matter called coronal mass ejections. These immense clouds of material, when directed toward Earth, can cause large magnetic storms in the magnetosphere and upper atmosphere. Such space weather can affect the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems.”
“Space weather can produce solar storm electromagnetic fields that induce extreme currents in wires, disrupting power lines, causing wide-spread blackouts and affecting communication cables that support the Internet. Severe space weather also produces solar energetic particles and the dislocation of the Earth’s radiation belts, which can damage satellites used for commercial communications, global positioning and weather forecasting. Space weather has been recognized as causing problems with new technology since the invention of the telegraph in the 19th century.”
This article is clear and unambiguous: The Sun emits “plasma” and “electromagnetic fields”. These are not “frozen,” but are dynamic and changing.
DrFlimmer, in a previous comment on this post you stated that the magnetosphere should be disturbed by the Birkeland currents emitted from the Sun and received by the Earth and that they should be able to be observed and measured.
This article from SpaceDaily shows that, in deed, the Earth’s magnetosphere is disturbed by Birkeland currents.
More important, you stated that this “solar wind” would be neutral, not electrically charged — NASA and mainstream science disagree with you.
In deed, the flow of particles from the Sun to the Earth are chargede particles.
That is why the flow causes electromagnetic disturbances in the Earth’s electromagnetosphere.
That is why it disrupts the electrical functions of Man’s technology that rely on electricity and electrical currents.
A neutral flow of particles would not have this effect.
Yet, apparently the threat is catastrophic.
The above linked article states:
“A catastrophic failure of commercial and government infrastructure in space and on the ground can be mitigated through raising public awareness, improving vulnerable infrastructure and developing advanced forecasting capabilities. Without preventive actions or plans, the trend of increased dependency on modern space-weather sensitive assets could make society more vulnerable in the future.”
But let me offer a couple more observations:
Science acknowledges electrical phenomenon in near space:
“Plasmas in the lab form cellular structures separated by thin layers of opposite charge called double layers. Does the same thing happen in nebulas? That’s a tough question to answer, because the only known way detect a double layer is to send a probe through it, and nebulas are far beyond the reach of our spacecraft. But everywhere we’ve sent probes in our solar system, we’ve found cellular structures separated by double layers, just as we found in the plasma lab. We call these structures magnetospheres, magnetotails, bow shocks, comet heads and tails.”
Hannes Alfvén says, “… it is unpleasant to base far-reaching conclusions on the existence of a structure which we cannot detect directly. But the alternative is to draw far-reaching conclusions from the assumption that in distant regions, the plasmas have properties which are drastically different from what they are in our own neighborhood. This is obviously far more unpleasant … ”
The above quotes come from this article:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040707nebula.htm
But I understand the above is somehow suspect in your eyes.
So I submit a NASA document for your further consideration.
Please study the following linked diagrams and charts provided by NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
There is no doubt that the currents from the Sun to the Earth are electrical in nature as are the “double layers” known as the magnetosphere and magnetotail.
The near space has an abundance of scientific evidence of electrical current phenomenon.
I’ll answer your specific questions later.
But for now, your claim that there are no “electric currrents” in space is tenuous.
Near space has a clear verdict.
Can you face up to the evidence, or are you in denial?
January 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
@Anaconda
You started your post with a misinterpretation of DrFlimmer’s comments. What I got from his posts was not that there are not any electric currents anywhere in space, but that there are not interstellar or intergalactic electric currents. Big difference.
Also, I’m curious. You said earlier:
What training do you have in science in general, and physics, plasma physics, cosmology, astrophysics and electricity in particular? Have you completed any courses of study?
January 14th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Todd W,
You’re not getting it. It’s a very insulting and derogatory question. He’s been using reason and the scientific method (and his hubris) to make up for his lack of scientific background
January 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am
@ND
Heh. Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I actually am curious about his academic background and asked with quite honest intent. As an outside reader of the exchanges, I think it is only fair to know the respective training of both sides. DrFlimmer has already stated his background.
Whatever personal feelings or ideas I may have, I’m just trying to keep a civil tone.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I know, but he’s been rather arrogant from the get go and I let that get to me and shouldn’t have. It’s been hard to take him seriously.
In one of his exchanges he said:
“ND states: “In other words you don’t have the scientific background and knowledge and experimental experience to actually understand whether the theories and ideas talked about makes sense or are bogus.”
Wrong there pardner.”
But did not clarify how I’m wrong about this. He has said he is not a scientist but does not clarify how he has scientific experience by this comment.
Oddly I’m still curious who this person is myself. High schooler? College student? Senior citizen with too much time on his hand (assuming a ‘he’ here).
January 14th, 2009 at 9:32 am
What I find disturbing is people like “Anaconda” doing jury service!
January 14th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Anaconda, you are misreading my post and you refer to post that are, say, long gone.
I have admitted recently that my statement that there are “no” currents is probably not accurate. Since the sun does have a magnetic field. And if you consider the sun to be “in space” than you are right. And the interplanetary magnetic field is powerd by the sun. The interstellar field is powered elsewhere. All right, all right!
But here comes the important point: WHERE ARE THE OTHER CURRENTS?
You stated:
“DrFlimmer, you raise a serious obstacle to Plasma Cosmology, where or how do the inter-stellar or intra-galactic Birleland currents supply energy to the Sun. And, frankly, I haven’t seen a good answer to that question, yet.
That needs to be addressed — and it’s good you pointed it out.”
Well, nothing more to say on this point, so why are up to it, again, since we debated it?
BUT. One last questions, since after I told you how X-rays and radio-waves can, INDEED, be produced by heat, you fell back to the currents and charges:
Do you know what the little word “OVERALL” means?
Almost everything in this univerese is OVERALL neutral!!!! The sun, the solar wind, you, a jet, a plasma. THEY ARE [b]>>OVERALL<<[/b] NEUTRAL.
Let’s see how long this will go on!
January 15th, 2009 at 1:54 am
@ DrFlimmer:
I appreciate you comments.
I don’t think I’m misreading your comments, in fact, after you grudgingly admitted that electrical currents “probably” exist in space (between the Sun and the Earth), you go on about the Universe being “OVERALL neutral!!!!.” Did I get the number of exclamation marks right?:-)
DrFlimmer states: “And if you consider the sun to be “in space” than you are right.”
DrFlimmer, where do you consider the Sun to be? Timbuktu?:-)
You seem to be having a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
The NASA reports make patently clear that electric currents exist between the Sun and the Earth. What do you consider the 93 million mile distance between the Sun and the Earth to be other than, well…space?
Care to explain.
DrFlimmer states: “But here comes the important point: WHERE ARE THE OTHER CURRENTS?”
And I acknowledged that is a good question (I’ll get to that in a latter part of this comment).
I guess I could retort: “WHERE IS THE DARK MATTER?”
But I won’t.
I guess somehow the space between the Sun and the Earth is “special space” (it has a nice ring to it) and is unique and nowhere else in the Universe are there circumstances like the space between the Sun and the Earth?
Again, Care to explain?
DrFlimmer states: “BUT. One last question, since after I told you how X-rays and radio-waves can, INDEED, be produced by heat, you fell back to the currents and charges:”
Man has the ability in our science laboratories to generate tremendously high temperatures, but temperature (heat) by itself hasn’t been demonstrated to generate x-rays or radio waves in the laboratory.
Only electromagnetic currents have been demonstrated in the laboratory to generate x-rays and radio waves. Or should I say wave/particles?
Your stated theory is one possibility that has never been proven in the laboratory (although, I do appreciate your stating the theory) by experimental testing that I’m aware of. The other theory that I present, on the other hand, has been demonstrated by experimental testing in the laboratory: Electric current does generate x-rays and radio waves.
So, we have two alternative possibilities: One is a theory that has never been demonstrated in the laboratory and one is a theory that HAS BEEN demonstrated in the laboratory.
Which theory is more likely?
The dismissal of the possibility of electric currents in space hardly seems like a proper scientific conclusion where the proven theory is dismissed and the unproven theory is accepted.
That’s the antithesis of the empirical scientific method of observation and measurement.
So, DrFlimmer, you are stating a theory as fact — that’s a no, no in science (I’ll gladly stand corrected if you can link me a scientific paper reporting that your theory has been actually demonstrated in the laboratory by experimental testing).
And, again, synchrotron radiation is given off by electrons excited in an electromagnetic current (electric current) which has been demonstrated in the laboratory by experimental testing and synchrotron radiation has been observed and measured in space.
Is it a logical and reasonable conclusion that electric currents are causing the synchrotron radiation in space?
Yet, you seem to be saying: “Ignore the man behind the curtin.”
I won’t do that and neither will others exercising reasonable scepticism.
You have written “OVERALL” and “NEUTRAL” in your last comment as if that is a substitute for logical, reasoned argument…by experimental observation and measurement.
Capital letters are no substitute.
And you offer no scientific evidence, while I have offered several examples of scientific evidence of electric currents in space by way of observation and measurement: The NASA reports, the photographic pictures consistent the known behavior of electric currents as demonstrated in the plasma laboratory, and the detection of synchrotron radiation and radio waves in space.
Plasma by definition is not neutral; it is made up of charged particles, as it the solar wind and jets. As I stated in my directly previous comment the magnetosphere and the magnetotail are structures made up of charged particles in a state of charge seperation in the form of double layers.
Scientific evidence supports my position.
But I promised you I would take up your question about where the other electric currents are? I take that to mean the electric currents that power the Sun (according to Electric Universe theory) comming into the Sun from the rest of the galaxy. I have given it some thought — so, I appreciate your question. You don’t mind a ‘thought’ experiment do you?
It’s a matter of where the observations and measurements are taken from.
Science had a difficult time collecting evidence of the electrical nature of the interaction between the Sun and the Earth until science had satellites that circled the Earth. That is why the conventional gravitation (only) model theorized that the Earth’s auroras were self-generated by the Earth with no electrical interaction between the Sun and the Earth; we now know that to be a wrong theory.
May I suggest a hypothesis? Are you familiar with the concept of the heliopause? That is the extend of the plasma flow of the solar wind and extends well beyond Pluto. Beyond that are plasma flows from other stars and the galactic “electrical” winds. While the Sun is a positive anode according to Electric Universe, the Galactic wind has more positive charge than the Sun. At the heliopause/galactic wind boundary there is another double layer much more powerful than the double layer of the Earth’s magnetosphere. Just as it is difficult to detect electric current flowing into the Earth inside the Earth’s magnetosphere, it is difficult to detect electric currents coming into the Sun much larger magnetosphere. The Sun has an equator and it has poles. I suggest the Sun works much the same way in relation to the galactic Birkeland currents as does the Earth in relation to the Sun’s Birkeland currents.
Electric charge capacity builds up at the Sun’s double layer magnetosphere (the heliopause), then Electrical energy (electric current) discharges through the “leaky capacitor” and flows to the poles of the Sun much like the Birkeland currents flow to the poles of the Earth causing auroras.
To detect this current, if it exists, yes, it’s only a hypothesis, Man would need satellite detection technology on the galactic side of the heliopause boundary much like Man needed satellites outside the Earth’s magnetosphere to detect the electrical currents flowing from the Sun to the Earth.
That would require a technological leap on the order of several magnitudes to be able to send a satellite that far out which could still send observation and measurement back to Earth.
Also, I’ll add this thought: Has science been looking for signs of electrical currents flowing in towards the Sun? It’s harder to detect something you’re not actively looking for.
Admittedly it’s a hypothesis, but in science that’s where you start.
Enough for now.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:40 am
[...] The third bit of galactic news I wish to share is some recent research on the formation of galaxies. [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@ DrFlimmer:
I want to say, I appreciate your intellectual curiousity — that is important to science in general — and you are to be commended personally. It’s not always easy, particularly when the new information goes against previously held beliefs or scientific convictions.
But if scientific convictions were never challeneged then science wouldn’t advance.
I know I was uncompromising about the presence of electric currents in the “near space” around the Earth and between the Earth and the Sun, to your exasperation, and that was because the scientific evidence is overwhelming in support of that proposition.
Your admission of electric currents in space was carefully limited to our solar system.
But isn’t it true that science works on the assumption of the universal applicability of the physical laws of nature?
That brings up the concept of “limitation?”
What do I mean?
It’s the idea that once a process or mechanism of the natural world has been acknowledged and understood as happening, then it is assumed to happen elsewhere in the natural world, unless a specific limitation can be identified that restricts that process or mechanism to a specific region or is limited to a specific extent.
So, since electric currents have been observed, identified, and measured in “near space” around the Earth and in the space between the Sun and the Earth, according to established scientific principles, your contention that electric currents don’t exist anywhere else needs to be supported by specifically spelled out limitations.
Or your position is untenable.
The dynamic relationship between the Sun and the Earth is a model for the dynamic relationships between other celestial bodies.
At this point, I refer back to the pictures of cosmic phenomenon I linked which presented characteristics consistent with electrical, plasma dynamics as demonstrated in plasma physics laboratories. For the most part you failed to discuss (M87 is the exception) these pictures. The “size” of these phenomenon are much larger than individual star systems, indeed, some are literally hundreds of light years in scope and size. And these phenomenon have been observed to emit electromagnetic wave/partics consistent with the presence of electric currents.
So, I ask you, what is the specific limitation that limits electric currents to Earth’s “near space” and the space between the Sun and the Earth?
Why should our solar system be considered an anomaly?
January 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@Anaconda
Maybe I missed it, but again I’ll ask:
January 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Anaconda,
Plasma by definition *is* neutral. The *overall* positive and negative charges balance out. You can have ions and electrons floating around and still have an overall neutral charge.
er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/p.html#plasma
Now granted you can make non-neutral plasma in the lab
physics.indiana.edu/~pollock/nnpphysics.html
But, if you heat a neutral gas until it turns into plasma it will still be neutral overall.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@ ND:
I appreciate the the links. The dictionary you link to has this caveat, “Source edition 1965.” There has been a lot of advances in understanding plasma in since 1965 (1970 is when Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize in physics, for his work in laboratory plasma physics). It’s not clear if the entry you cited is updated, but I’ll take it that it has been updated.
And I’ll take the entry as being accurate as far as it goes.
Plasma is subject to many different forces and circumstances that set up charge seperation which is necessary to generate electric currents. Please refer to this additional Wikipedia entry for “double layers (plasma)”.
You’ll note upon reading the first link the words ‘charge seperation’, it is a basic definition, but it makes these statements:
“Double layers may be found anywhere that plasmas are found…”
“[Double layers can have] Large potential drops and layer separation may accelerate electrons to relativistic velocities (ie close to the speed of light), and produce synchrotron radiation.”
“And although plasmas are highly electrically conductive, a property that tends to neutralised charges, double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact.”
It is the latter phrase that is important for this discussion: “double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact.”
This concept that when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact cause a self-generation of double layers, therefore, electric currents are formed, is the point I was raising in the discussion.
As the Wikipedia entry on double layers (plasma) points out, there are numerous ways for plasma to form double layers with electric charge potential (I count over ten different ways for plasma to form double layers).
So, the second citation, ND, you provide on plasma simply doesn’t fully delineate all the ways plasma can form double layers, i.e., electric current.
But, I will acknowledge that at “some” level plasma is neutral, however, to generally characterize plasma as neutral is misleading in any discussion about dynamic environments on Earth and in space.
Let’s put it this way: Theoretically plasma can be an “isolated body” and be neutral. But practically speaking that is rarely the case, so, in practicable terms, I would submit it’s fair to say plasma is inherently a body of matter that is electrically charged and is capable of producing electric currents.
ND, do you see the subtle distinction I am trying to make? (actually, it’s not subtle at all.)
@ Todd W.:
As this type question has been put to me several times in various fashions, I will attempt to give an accounting of myself in this regard.
As I previously responded to a question of this type: “I’m not a scientist, rather a scientfic observer, an “enthusiast” would be a fair characterization.”
More specifically, I haven’t taken university courses in the fields you mention, but I do have advanced training and experience in a field of logic and reason (although not in mathematics). I combine this training and experience with an interest or as I, myself, stated, “enthusiasm” for scientific questions.
I adhere to the empirical scientific method to the best of my ability and apply the knoweldge I have attained through my personal research to the best of my ability. I try to be objective and exercise an open-mind and resonable scepticism to the best of my ability.
I engage in discussion to learn from others and express my opinions.
And, yes, I engage in discussion to challenge opinions of others when I disagree with those opinions based on my knowledge of the circumstances and facts involved in that particlular discussion. I do my best to remain objective and civil, but I’m human with human frailties and weaknesses, so occasionally I’ll lapse, but I’m conscious that to be persuasive is not to be perpetrually derisive with an interlocuter (again, sometimes to make a point, one does have to “break eggs to make an omelet.”)
I’m happy to have interlocuters breakdown my reasoning and positions if the circumstances merit, because that is how we (I) learn and advance in our understanding of ideas and principles and facts and evidence. Obviously, I’m like everbody else, I don’t like it when I’m unfairly attacked, but then again, I have a pretty thick skin.
I hope this gives you some insight into where I’m coming from.
Logic, reason, and “commom sense” are all valuable skills in the scientific endeavor.
The principles of the empirical scientific method are not hard to understand, but the application of these principles can be difficult due to the frailties of the human condition.
Those that are interested in scientific questions strive put aside the human characteristics that cloud our ability to be objective when assessing scientific observations and measurements.
But it’s not easy.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
ND, good to know that at least one out there understands me
Anaconda, if you consider me to be stack with my views (what is fair from your point of view) I blame you to do the same with your views (resulting in a never ending debate
).
To say that heat is not able to produce X-rays is, say, provocative. The sun is an almost perfect blackbody, we measured its spectrum in very high detail. The sun gives of X-rays and radio waves due to heat (though the output is not high since in the high-energy part of the Planck curve is very steep and the way out to the radio waves is quite long). But take a look at the Corona. The Corona is incredibly hot! And it gives of X-rays. And as I pointed out: We can distinguish between thermal radiation and synchrotron radiation (and bremsstrahlung). And the Corona emits thermal radiation!
To your “thought experiment” (interesting that you made one since you object it in connection with GR). You must know we sent a probe around the poles of the sun (Ulyssis – hopefully the spelling is correct). The poor thing is freezing to death by now, but it gives us some insights, because it measured the flux of particles. And as far as I know it never ever detected any significant incoming flux.
You are right with your statement that there is neither a direct proove of dark matter nor of those currents. The problem is, since those currents should behave very similar to any known currents, they should have revealed themselves already but they didn’t. They probably hide in a “dark mode” but I must say that this is unlikely since they are supposed to hold an entire galaxy together which means (even with probably 39 orders of magnitude more “power”) they must be quite strong. And diffuse currents (you said something like that) are neither powerful nor would I consider them to be very long-lasting (they should be consumed by the interstellar medium I guess).
Dark matter has the “advantage” that we have no other idea how to detect it aside from gravity – so it can hide from detection (probably for ever, who knows). This is not very encouraging, of course. The future will tell.
I wanted to add something to GR: You deny it for some reasons but one is that it is only a “geometric” thing that is considered as a force. First of all, all we know from SR is that we live in a four-dimensional space-time. MANY quantum mechanical effects are not explainable without SR (i.e., the spin of an electron is a direct consequence of SR!). So, if SR is wrong more or less all of quantum mechanics would be wrong! But quantum mechanics is the youngest (big) physical theory but it is the best tested theory we ever had! Since QM works we can consider SR to work!
GR is a generalization of SR (hence the name, duh). It is quite too complicated to go into the details but the resoning for a geometric interpretation of gravity is not so bad. Probably you should read a good book about it (”Spacetime and Geometry” by Sean Carroll is quite good!).
And thought experiments are VERY good reasoning. Even Galileo (I think it was him) used it to show that ALL things on earth fall towards the earth with the same velocity/acceleration.
And one more thing about the sun (and stars in general). The “mainstream” opinion about how stars work include every one of the four fundamental forces: Gravity to suck in all the material (10^30 kg and more is quite a bit). Electromagnetic forces to provide the pressure that the star doesn’t become a black hole in the first place. If the heat is high enaugh to accelerate the particles to high speeds in the core to overcome the Coulomb wall we need the strong force to stick the combined protons together. Then we need the weak force to change some protons into neutrons in order to get helium. In this process we release positrons and an electron neutrino AND a little bit of energy since two combined particles are a little less massive than both being seperated (and as we know E=mc^2).
Then we can calculate how the energy is transferred to the star’s surface and that it was transformed on the way from gamma rays down to visible light (and fractions of other wavelength in order to gain the Planck spectrum).
How a star works is a very good theory since everything is well understood and can be measured. And the measurments say: It works! I think it is a VERY tough task to present a theory that is equally precise in discibing the light and particle fluxes.
You urged me to comment on the pictures of this website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
All right, I try.
The first one is very blurry since the stars are “too” big. Stars are dots in every picture we make, so I conclude the picture is quite enhanced. This tells me that the seen structures are not necessarily as big as they appear. It is possible that it is a jet that is not perfectly aligned with the rotational axis. It could be a neutron star or a T Tauri star that is located quite below the picture’s edge.
NGC 6751 is rather circular, not very common for planetary nebulae. But only because it looks like something it doesn’t mean it is the same. So, since stars give off a lot of particles through their stellar wind (we debated the sun’s quite long) the particles should be accumulated next to the border to interstellar space (like the region of the heliopause). In the late years close to its doom a star gives off much larger quantities of material and they can be very different in size and density, thus their velocity differs. As Phil recently posted again, a doomed star gives off large amounts of UV photons (due to heat btw) that are able to ionise the particles and during recombination they radiate in very special frequencies, so we can distinguish between different elements. Since the distribution of elemts can vary due to the density variations I mentioned the planetary nebulae come by in very different looks. It is really possible that a planetary nebula looks exactly that way just by coincidence. And since there is just presented ONE planetary nebula to look like the plasma machine I would consider it to BE coincidence. (It is rather possible, btw, that magnetic fields played a role in shaping it, but I do not take it as a proof of currents (to emerge FROM the star; inside of it – of course, we need the magnetic fields). Since other planetary nebulae can look very differently from this one this is another statement against the theory of the plasma machine, bacause if currents would be a key component planetary nebulae should look alike in some ways (not completly but in some ways!)).
The butterfly nebula is quite similar. I would consider that torus to be something like a planetary disk since it seems very dusty and is located probably perpendicular to the rotational axis of the star that I guess is aligned with the glowing structures that are presented as currents. Indeed they appear like a z-pinch and the structure near the star looks like a fault in it. Yes it does. But it doesn’t convince me. Since a current in a z pinch always moves in the same direction (it cannot start from the inside; it is impressed from an external electric field). So if the “currents” in the butterfly nebula are moving in opposite directions it would be a hint that it is not a z-pinch structure. As I said previously planetary nebulae come in quite odd shapes and looks.
I just wanted to admit that I don’t have a reason why this nebula is shaped that way. But I have an idea: You see that torus surrounding the star? Dust is VERY effective in absorbing high energy radiation from the the visible part up to X-rays (look at the torus in infrared light, I promise you, it will disappear!!). Since the torus is actually absorbing light in the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis no ionising light can reach the atoms in that plane. And since the torus is thicker than the star it blocks the light in a very broad angle. Thus atoms in the region inside of this angle will absorb NO ionising light and will give off no radiation, so they are invisible. (And btw: extinction is a very well understood mechanism in space. This is the reason we must take infrared telescopes to look at the galactic center. The dust absorbs all the visible light coming from there!).
The simulation is not convincing in any way. What are the details? AND: If galaxies emerge from two currents, again the question: where are they since they must be pretty strong. And: How strong were those currents in the simulation? What other parameters have been considered? Have been made other simulations with other paramters? Have other galactic shapes emerged from those simulations (since galaxies vary very much in ther appearence (just like planetary nebulae
))?
And the Cat’s eye is just the same as above (just look at Phil’s post he made today, too).
I just read the story that plasma physicists always must reveal that they are NOT dealing with blood – that is the only link I know between plasma physics and biology. But I am not familiar with the history of the word – I just know that it was Langmuir in 1927 who named it plasma.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hopefully, Phil will allow my longer comment since it “awaits moderation” but we will see.
Btw:
“but I do have advanced training and experience in a field of logic and reason (although not in mathematics)”
Can you please be a bit more specific on the thraining and experience part? I’d like to know where you got that (I am just curious).
The latter one, well, I must say, that is a big problem for you. Mathematics are the most important part in physics next to “physical reasoning”. So how can you say that a geometric interpretation of a force (GR) is not a good thing since you know nothing of that very special field of mathematics – the geometry involved in GR has not much to do with geometry you learn in school! It contains many mathematical tools and theorems about Manyfolds, topology and curvature. They are very complicated and with no (higher) mathematical experience you claim that it is not appropriate? Really?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Sorry, that this is my third post in order, but I have to say something more:
Anaconda, you once stated that heat is the “lowest” form of energy. I think you say this because if something transforms to heat on the planet we cannot use it anymore for “good things”, it is considered lost. I have never used such a term in physics. Never. Because energy always transforms into another form of energy – there is no higher or lower, just a transformation. And if you say, “well, we cannot do anything with heat”, that is just wrong, too. Steam trains work with heat. A more modern aspect are solar power plants – they use the heat (the thermal radiation) of the sun to gain electrical power, so the heat of the sun is all but lost!
This is it for today (hopefully), it’s getting late in Germany. Good night, everyone!
January 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@Anaconda
Thanks for answering my question. I would suggest that you think about enrolling in a course or three on advanced mathematics, physics and chemistry, not to mention astronomy. Relying on self-teaching along is rather dodgy, as you may interpret something incorrectly, leading to incorrect assumptions about how things work.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:44 am
@ DrFlimmer:
Sure, heat can be concentrated, but by and large, as you stated, heat is “random vibration,” and as you stated, energy can not be destroyed, but it can be diffused into a randomness that has no power to do work, from the mundane level of steam rising from a grate up to heat radiating off into empty space.
Organized energy as opposed to diffuse energy has the most potential to work, or in other words, to act as a force in organizing other larger structures. Electrical energy can readily act as a force that turns into less organized types of energy such as heat.
When electric energy encounters a load in a circuit heat and light are produced. Heat does not have the same capability to transform into electrical energy. Why? Because electrical energy is a more “organized” form of energy. Sure, heat energy can be “pumped” into a system to generate electricity, but left to it’s own device heat doesn’t turn into electricity. But left to its own device electricity will turn into heat.
Actually, DrFlimmer, that is why politics is a never ending debate: It is subjective, while science with observation and measurement can be objective and driven by compulsion, i.e., if A equals X and B equals Y, then C must equal Z.
The problem with today’s theoretical sciences, as opposed to applied material sciences (where “wonders” are truly being achieved) and where experimental testing in a laboratory leaves no room for subjective analysis, is that there are so many assumptions in the theoretical sciences that can’t be tested that it leaves “airplane hangars” of room for subjective analysis. Science then becomes just like politics — count the noses to settle questions because one scientific conclusion can’t be distinguished from another in regards to its objective validity.
And whoever has more political sway decides what is scientific “truth” and what is not. That is the death knell for science. It is to be avoided at all costs because that leaves Science where it can go horribly wrong — crowds aren’t always right, even if they are highly intelligent crowds.
Conventional astrophysics uses mathematics as a cover for the fact that it is highly subjective. Any “science” that relies on so many “theoretical” assumptions (objects, forces, and processes that can’t be observed) is subjective.
Plasma Cosmology relies on the strongest force in the Universe, not the weakest force. And it’s basic premises are based on strict empiricism — observation and measurement gained from laboratory experiment.
I used the term ‘thought experiment’ more as an irony than a serious characterization of my proposed hypothesis.
Here is a piece of physical reasoning: Why would the Universe be organized based on the weakest force (gravity) as opposed to the strongest force (electromagnetism) when both are equally available?
Time after time, science has observed that Nature uses an economy of energy to achieve its outcomes. Using the strongest force allows Nature to achieve it’s outcomes with the most economy of force.
Does Nature ever act with “one hand tied behind its back?”
Stating Nature uses the weakest force as the predominate organizing force is saying that Nature is acting with “one hand tied behind its back.”
I don’t believe that for a second.
At the turn of 20th century, it was reasonable to think of gravity as the strongest force in Nature, therefore, it was reasonable to believe gravity was the predominate organizing force of the Universe.
Man now knows that electromagnetism is the strongest force in nature.
In fact, life itself is organized and functions because of electrical energy, not gravitational energy.
The force that animates life on Earth (think of all the processes in biology that have been discovered that rely on electrical processes and “communications”), also animates the structure of the Universe.
In fact, life would be impossible without electricity.
Life, itself, is the surest “proof” that electrical energy is the “prime” organizing energy in the Universe.
I rest assured that the efficacy of the Plasma Model will only become more evident with time and conventional astronomy will be eventually dragged from its cave of flickering shadows into the bright light of Nature’s true relationships and organizing principles.
To be close-minded to the objective evidence, so as to favor “theories” is the gravest betrayal to the scientific spirit ever perpetrated.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:28 am
@Anaconda
Here is a piece of physical reasoning: Why would the Universe be organized based on the weakest force (gravity) as opposed to the strongest force (electromagnetism) when both are equally available?
That’s not scientific reasoning. It’s meaningless philosophical reasoning. Besides, the universe isn’t organized by a single force. It’s organized by the Strong Nuclear, Electromagnetic, Weak Nuclear and Gravitational forces working in concert. That’s also the order of their strength.
In fact, life would be impossible without electricity.
It would also be impossible without the other forces.
Life, itself, is the surest “proof” that electrical energy is the “prime” organizing energy in the Universe.
I could counter with “The earth itself, is the surest “proof” that gravity is the “prime” organizing force in the Universe.” Or how about “Beer is the surest “proof” that God is the “prime” organizing force in the Universe.”
To be close-minded to the objective evidence, so as to favor “theories” is the gravest betrayal to the scientific spirit ever perpetrated.
Nobody has a problem with you attacking widely accepted scientific theories. The problem is that you’re doing so without first understanding those theories. Regardless of whether of plasma theory is correct or not, you continue to draw conclusions based on some very basic misunderstandings. I’m guessing this is hard for you to accept, but I ask you to trust us on this. We’re not just saying this to be mean or belittle you. If you’re going to attack a theory, you must first understand what you’re attacking. Until then, you’re a crank.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:13 am
“The problem with today’s theoretical sciences, as opposed to applied material sciences (where “wonders” are truly being achieved) and where experimental testing in a laboratory leaves no room for subjective analysis, is that there are so many assumptions in the theoretical sciences that can’t be tested that it leaves “airplane hangars” of room for subjective analysis.”
I think you have NO idea what theoretical physics are all about! Many “wonders” have been found because of theoretical works. Many “wonders” that are found are later explained by theoretical physics!
To say that the electromagnetic force is the strongest in the world is just wrong, as José already stated. Without the combination of the four fundamental forces the Universe as it looks like (and you, too!) would not exist. The strong force is necessary for elemets to exist at all (even for a proton, since it binds the quarks together). No helium is possible without the strong force because the electromagnetic force would repel them (this is, why fusion is such a hard thing to achieve and why stars are SO hot). The weak force is also necessary… ah, why do I write again, what I already wrote. Just read my last long post again.
Btw: I can think of NO reason why the “island of stability” (indeed, a theoretical assumption, that states that some VERY heavy elemts will be stable again in certain compositions – but we haven’t reached that island yet) accounts for a non-stable pack of neutrons. The electromagnetic force is zero since the neutrons are neutral (although they consists of charged quarks). Probably you don’t know what stabalises a neutron star (the degeneracy of neutrons). This theory doesn’t violate any rule in nuclear physics I know about.
If you don’t trust me about my physical knowledge (that isn’t complete, of course) just ask any professor or PhD – and ask many since everyone has a different field he works on (Phil works/worked on Astronomy, I will go to Astrophysics, others are at plasma physics, nuclear physics and solid-state physics – there is much to learn and much to understand!).
“Conventional astrophysics uses mathematics as a cover for the fact that it is highly subjective. Any “science” that relies on so many “theoretical” assumptions (objects, forces, and processes that can’t be observed) is subjective.”
Every physicist, theoretical or not, relys on mathematics. Physics are based on mathematics. That is no cover. Mathematics are the language physics are written in if you will. And how many “theoretical assumptions” do you count? 2 I guess – dark matter and energy. I count at least 2 for the EU, too – charged stars and those currents (not to mention the denial of known forces…).
Btw: I am waiting for your rejection of my comments about the pictures….
January 16th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Anaconda,
You still need to do more work in understand astronomy, physics and electrical engineering, subjects you talk about. I would recommend reading up on the history of positron and neutrino. These were postulated particles which were later found to exist.
From the onset you have shown deep misunderstand about the people you’ve been talking to and about. Not to mention contempt. You have been very trigger happy with lecturing to everyone about the scientific process. Most of us here as well as the Astronomical community take the spirit of science and the scientific method to heart and fully understand that theories can be turned upside down by evidence. Theorizing and postulating is perfectly acceptable and has a history of actually leading to discoveries.
I also recommend you read up on the experimental evidence that has been gathered *so far* in support of GR. Yes if a theory makes predictions A, B, C and D, and evidence supports A, B and C but with reproducable evidence against prediction D, then that theory needs to be revised. *But*, you still have to take into account the evidence for A, B and C into account. You can’t ignore them. In your previous comments you appeared to be biased against GR based on your impressions of the the wording of the theory. As a result I think you’ve found it hard to digest that a strongly gravitational body can have an affect on light, despite the fact that physicists have accepted this phenomenon as real.
You also forgot to mention that as the experiments are done to a higher and higher level of precision, the theory’s prediction can start to diverge from the evidence. Such was the case with Newton’s law and Mercury. This may yet happen with GR. That was the purpose of the experiement of using Cassini as a known radio source as it swung behind the Sun on it’s way to Saturn.
Last time I checked, electrical engineers used math too
(I know what you’re trying to say about theorists using math as apposed to EEs. Just wanted to make some humor).
January 16th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Definition of a Sophist, according to Wikipedia:
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.
A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.
Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.
N.B. In modern usage, sophist, sophism, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).
Who does that remind you of here?
January 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
A LOT TO RESPOND TO ( I may jump around a bit)
@ IVAN3MAN:
You flatter me by implying that I’m some deceitful sophist, attempting to intimidate others to go along with my view of the world. Hardly. I point out the paradoxes of conventional astronomy and the scientific evidence that supports the Plasma Model. To the extent that you feel uncomfortable is not my doing, it is the scientific evidence that makes you uncomfortable, both against the gravitational model and for Plasma Model.
Without the scientific evidence based on observation and measurement my comments would be nothing but smoke on the wind (which I’m sure you would like to think anyhow, but the undeniable scientifc evidence keeps tugging at your sleeve [Birkeland currents connecting the Sun and the Earth]).
@ José:
Speaking of sophism, the straw man argument is one type of sophism (assigning an argument or position to an opponent [it's sad you would view me as an opponent or a threat, as opposed to another person acting in good faith to move theory closer to matching reality, but such seems to be the tenor of this last batch of responses, I specifically exclude DrFlimmer, he's discussing the science in goodfaith, as best I can tell], in which the opponent’s position is subtly changed to make it easier to knockdown and discredit without having to respond to the opponent’s actual argument).
My position is that the electrical force is not the ONLY force, but the predominate force. The Strong Nuclear force obviously has a role, as does the Weak Nuclear force, and Gravity. The nuclear forces act at the sub-atomic level and distances, and Gravity has a role when not eclipsed by Electromagnetic force, but the predominate LONG-RANGE force that transfers and carries energy throughout the Universe is Electromgnetism – this long range force is the predominant force shapping the MACRO structures of the Universe like galaxies.
The argument that the Plasma Model denies gravity has a role in shaping or governing the Universe is a clasic straw man argument gravitation model proponents cast at the Plasma model.
I was pleasantly impressed that sophist, straw man argument hadn’t been used prior in this discussion, but apparently that old shibboleth has raised it’s old and ugly head.
Notice José doesn’t ever respond to the heart of my point: “Why would the Universe be organized based on the weakest force (gravity) as opposed to the strongest force (electromagnetism) when both are equally available?”
Rather his rejoinder misstates my position and attempts to invalidate the question without effectively explaining why the weakest force would be the “architect” of the Universe when Electromagnetism is 10^39 times more powerful than gravity. Here is an analogy: Steel and concrete are both necessary for building materials for constructing modern office highrises, but it is the steel that is the predominate material that allows office towers to be built over a hundred stories tall. Why? because it is the stronger and lighter material over distance (can support more weight).
Again, I ask why the Universe would use the weakest force for the architectual cornerstone of the Universe, as opposed to the strongest force (over distances exceeding the sub-atmomic level)?
@ DrFlimmer, speaking of not responding to arguments: You never did respond to my statements regarding the “big bang” theory which sets aside physical laws, in laymen’s terms is called a “miracle,” and that science doesn’t do miracles, yet that is exactly what “big bang” theory explicitly states is necessary and happened.
(And “big bang” theory” is part and parcel of the gravitation model at this point.)
What about that DrFlimmer?
@ ND: You never did respond to my answer regarding the “neutral” state of plasma (You, too, DrFlimmer). I’ll take it that the silence in response to my argument (especially one DrFlimmer made such a big deal about) is tacit admission of the efficacy of the argument (no effective response could be made).
So, please, I’ll respond (in due course), but the “track record” of gravity model proponents of answering objections and arguments of the Plasma Model position is nothing to write home about (frankly, it’s that inability to answer effectively to the objections and criticisms posed by the Plasma Model that makes gravity model supporters so touchy. (How do you answer when somebody points out the emperor has no clothes on? Answer: You ignore it and hope everybody marches lock-step on by without applying critical thinking.)
José presents my statement: “Life, itself, is the surest “proof” that electrical energy is the “prime” organizing energy in the Universe.”
And then responds by attempting to mock or ridicule the statement (oh, that José with his sophist attempts to discredit my statements and by extension, the Plasma Model).
But I say back to José, look at everything that is energized by electricity: LONG-DISTANCE communication, computers and all they can do, the very power that runs most of mandkind’s inventions and technology, the most ‘organized’ substance on planet Earth, the human brain, which is a mass of electrical impulses, transfers, and signals. Sure, gravity has it’s role and life couldn’t be had without it, but the force that provides and allows for the most complex organization and structure on the surface of the planet is electricity. You could have a planet with elemental substances on it (according to the gravitation model) with gravity only — but for electricity, no higher life can evolve — in fact, the double helix, the basic structure of life’s communication and structure is similar to the toroidal structure that is a natural state of electric current. A mere coincidence — I thin not.
(José, on a side note, as an olive branch, a token of peace — to show a desire to work with in collaboration and cooperation and not in opposition to conventional astronomy, I do hypothesize (I’m not the first to do so by any means) that all the forces you mention are related — different manifestations of some “unknown” unifying principle — gravity has its place, but to inflame the passions once again, for Man to gain an understanding of the Unifying Force, other ideas have to be discarded because they retard Man’s ability to gain further insight. You can guess where that leads to. Oh, the pain that modern astronomy has inflicted on itself by heading up a cul-de-sac and mulishly pretending otherwise by insisting on the infallibility of it’s theories that rest on unseen “forces” and its insisting on “miracles” that require transmuting physical laws.
José states: “Nobody has a problem with you attacking widely accepted scientific theories. The problem is that you’re doing so without first understanding those theories.”
I beg to differ, on the contrary, I understand them too, well, that is why I oppose them. It is those that don’t understand the full implications necessities required by the gravitation model that follow along in the heard of political opinion.
If the Plasma model was taught side-by-side in the leading universities with equally competent instructors, soon, the gravitation model classrooms would be empty — my point, most people have never heard of Plasma Cosmology, many have nagging doubts about various aspects of the theory, but they are told there is no other alternative theory, so they go on following the so-called leading lights, not ever knowing there is, not only a viable alternative, but one that is based on a stronger footing of empirical science resting on observation and measurement by experimental testing in the laboratory.
José leaves on a departing thought and gesture: “you’re a crank.”
Nice one, José, such a show of class and graciousness…
@ DrFlimmer:
It’s not that theoretical sciences haven’t achieved anything, but that they overstate their hypothesis as theory and theory as fact.
“Big bang”? What else do you call that idea other than speculative when it requires setting aside all the known physical laws? I tell you what that is called: Subjective speculation. “Black holes”, never been observed — a required crutch for the gravitational model or it’s falsified.
Face up to the fact, DrFlimmer, that the gravitation model is falsified without the crutches of “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, and “strange matter”. A whole menagerie of ghosts and goblins necessary to support the gravitation model. If that isn’t room for subjective analysis, I don’t know what is.
The first step, DrFlimmer, is to be intellectually honest with yourself.
DrFlimmer states: “Without the combination of the four fundamental forces the Universe as it looks like would not exist.”
I agree completely, and as I stated above in this comment, I was pleasantly impressed that you didn’t use that straw man argument before, too bad you decide to parrot it now.
As I said above it is the relative importance of each that matters, and unlike the gravitaional model that continues to deny electric currents exist in space (except in grudging fashion after they have been beat over the head with the evidence), while the Plasma Model acknowledges gravity has a role, just not the role currently assigned to it by conventional astronomers as the architectual cornerstone or structural steel of the Universe — I would call gravity — without being to exact — the concrete to electricity’s structural steel and transport mechanism for the Universe’s energy requirements. You see electricity is the most efficient transporter of energy over distance, not gravity and not nuclear forces, over distances.
This is known to science, yet DrFlimmer, you and the rest of your crew continue to close your eyes to that reality.
DrFlimmer states: “[A]lthough they consists of charged quarks.” Another theoretical particle, see, there are so many assumptions, that you aren’t even consciously aware of all of them.
(And saying, “You wait and see, we’ll find quarks in the super-collider.” Frankly, I hope so, becuase otherwise science is going to have all kinds of egg on its face.)
DrFlimmer presents my comment: “Conventional astrophysics uses mathematics as a cover for the fact that it is highly subjective. Any “science” that relies on so many “theoretical” assumptions (objects, forces, and processes that can’t be observed) is subjective.”
And responds: “Every physicist, theoretical or not, relys on mathematics. Physics are based on mathematics.”
Yes, I agree, mathematics is the language of Nature as Galileo stated some 400 years ago.
But as any valuable tool it can be misused.
Mathematics must always be the servant of observation and measurement, not the master. Mathematics interprets and quantifies the relationsihips observed and measured. Observation and measurement stand on the top rung of science, not mathematical equations extrapolated from all encompassing general theories.
Yet, mathematics is only a tool — it doesn’t abuse anymore than guns killing people — people kill people. The same is true with mathematics, it’s the mathematicians that step over the proper boundaries, not the mathematics, itself.
DrFlimmer states: “I am waiting for your rejection of my comments about the pictures….”
All in due course…Grasshopper:-)
ND states: “From the onset you have shown deep misunderstand about the people you’ve been talking to and about. Not to mention contempt. You have been very trigger happy with lecturing to everyone about the scientific process.”
Talk about projecting.
ND states: “Most of us here as well as the Astronomical community take the spirit of science and the scientific method to heart and fully understand that theories can be turned upside down by evidence.”
Then prove it. Stop relying on objects, forces, and processes that have nver been observed, yet the “community” has been searching for as long as 70 years (”dark matter”).
That’s called being in denial.
ND states: “…you’ve found it hard to digest that a strongly gravitational body can have an affect on light…”
Actually, if you read my comments closely, you would read that my problem wasn’t so much with the concept of gravity bending light (that may well be entirely possible), but with the concept that gravity distorts time.
Anyway, DrFlimmer, I’ll get back to the discussion of the plama cosmology article and your analysis, interpretation, and criticisms.
Boy, what an intellectual work out…:-)
January 16th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Anaconda:
So, then, why does an object, such as highrise buildings that you refer to, have weight?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Not that I have much desire to joing this particular, um, debate, but…
Electromagnetism is 10^39 times more powerful than gravity.
Isn’t that just at the extremely small scale? Gravity may be “weaker,” but its effects are felt over huge distances. Hence it’s dominance in the (rather large) universe.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
@Anaconda
Speaking of sophism, the straw man argument is one type of sophism (assigning an argument or position to an opponent [it’s sad you would view me as an opponent or a threat, as opposed to another person acting in good faith to move theory closer to matching reality, but such seems to be the tenor of this last batch of responses, I specifically exclude DrFlimmer, he’s discussing the science in goodfaith, as best I can tell], in which the opponent’s position is subtly changed to make it easier to knockdown and discredit without having to respond to the opponent’s actual argument).
Hmm… I thought I was arguing in good faith. I don’t view you as a threat or opponent. You’re just someone who attacking something he doesn’t understand. My motivation is to make you realize that.
My position is that the electrical force is not the ONLY force, but the predominate force.
I pointed out that electromagnetism is not the strongest force, as you stated. That’s not a straw man argument.
Notice José doesn’t ever respond to the heart of my point: “Why would the Universe be organized based on the weakest force (gravity) as opposed to the strongest force (electromagnetism) when both are equally available?”
I did respond. My first sentence was “That’s not scientific reasoning. It’s meaningless philosophical reasoning.” That’s all it is. What else is there to say?
José presents my statement: “Life, itself, is the surest “proof” that electrical energy is the “prime” organizing energy in the Universe.” And then responds by attempting to mock or ridicule the statement (oh, that José with his sophist attempts to discredit my statements and by extension, the Plasma Model).
I made statements using the same type of reasoning you used in an attempt to show you the error in your thinking. I thought you might find the last example amusing.
Sure, gravity has it’s role and life couldn’t be had without it, but the force that provides and allows for the most complex organization and structure on the surface of the planet is electricity.
And the force that brings the planet together in the first place is gravity. How can you argue that one force is more important to life than the other?
José leaves on a departing thought and gesture: “you’re a crank.” Nice one, José, such a show of class and graciousness…
This was the full paragraph.
I thought I was pretty honest and polite. I know you think you understand accepted theories well enough to attack them, but it’s apparent to most people here that you don’t. Until you realize this limitation, it’s pointless to argue with you. Once again, I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just telling you what you need to do if you want to be taken seriously.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:32 am
I’ll be short (aren’t you guys happy for that:-)
@ kuhnigget states: “Isn’t that just at the extremely small scale?”
That contention has been brought to my attention before, but when I asked for a citation to an authority to back up the claim none was ever provided even after repeated requests (these requests were made to an interlocuter that seemed knowledgable).
@ IVAN3MAN:
Of course weight is caused by gravity, but the point of the analogy was that the most effective force for creating structure in the Universe is electromagnetism because it is the most effective at transporting energy — which is the first building block of creating structure. Mass is the clay, electricity is the molding force.
@ José:
When your comments are boiled down, it amounts to, “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
First, my comments speak for themselves.
Second, there are many physicists that see the scientific evidence the same way I do.
Anthony Peratt of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is published and takes the same position I do. In fact, there are many published scientists that support the Plasma Cosmology theory.
What has been consistent in this discussion is the general refusal to acknowledge even indisputable scientific points if they happen to support Plasma Cosmology theory (or conversely contradict the gravitional [only] model.
That speaks volumes about the open-minded approach of the interlocutors in this discussion.
Defensiveness doesn’t breed confidence that people are interested in exploring the issues objectively, rather it comes off sounding like people more interested in defending their turf.
“Truth for its own sake,” is the highest value in science. Defending “turf” in not.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Why am I not able to comment?
January 17th, 2009 at 3:38 am
“DrFlimmer states: “[A]lthough they consists of charged quarks.” Another theoretical particle, see, there are so many assumptions, that you aren’t even consciously aware of all of them.
(And saying, “You wait and see, we’ll find quarks in the super-collider.” Frankly, I hope so, becuase otherwise science is going to have all kinds of egg on its face.)”
I don’t need to say that. Inform yourself. All six postulated quarks have been found!!! The standard model of particle physics is complete. It is not the ultimate answer and LHC will probably show us some “new” physics beyond the standard model. That is another fact that you are NOT informed about. That’s too bad.
“Actually, if you read my comments closely, you would read that my problem wasn’t so much with the concept of gravity bending light (that may well be entirely possible), but with the concept that gravity distorts time.”
It is not “may well entirely possible” – it is a fact! And that gravity distorts time is proven through GPS (because that proves that GR works!). And only because you can’t imagine something it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Physics on the extream scales are not for human imagination. Noone can imagine Quantum Physics and its consequences. But it is real. Electrons in an atom are no particles, they are more or less a probability to “be somewhere” and even to say “somewhere” is wrong – that is unimaginable but it is real!
Human beings are bound to the earth and evolution has given us the ability to deal with the earth and all the food that lives on it – our brain is not made to imagine the weird things of physics, like quantum physics or time distortion.
“Mathematics must always be the servant of observation and measurement, not the master. Mathematics interprets and quantifies the relationsihips observed and measured. Observation and measurement stand on the top rung of science, not mathematical equations extrapolated from all encompassing general theories.”
Your ignorance about theoretical physics “screams to heaven” (as we say in Germany). Every observation needs its theoretical background and every theory needs its observations. Theoretical and experimental physics are not two different things living side by side. They are connected and bonded. They cannot exist without each other. Once there will be a great discovery in an experiment and the theoretical physicist must explain it (or check if it fits with theories) – and once a theoretical work points to something that is later confirmed by experiments (like neutrinos and positrons, i.e.).
And btw: You should check out the differences between a “scientific theory” and the common word “theory”. There is some difference between both.
““Big bang”? What else do you call that idea other than speculative when it requires setting aside all the known physical laws?”
I didn’t know that BB puts all known physical laws aside. As far as I know it really combines ALL our knowledge! Every force is put in to make it work. Some details are maybe a “mystery” (inflation), but everything in physics has its mysterys. Otherwise physics would be boring and we could close it up (it was suggested to be almost complete about 110 years ago – and then came Planck and Einstein and noone ever since claimed that we know all there is to know). But the BB makes predictions. And one WAS the microwave background (btw: this microwave radiation is the best blackbody radiation ever detected!) – and it was confirmed later. Now we have very precise measurments of it and still the model fits (it even seems to confirm that we need dark energy in our models – everything works out without any physical inconsistencies, aside from DM and DE itself). The new Planck probe that is due to launch this summer will measure the spectrum of the microwave background in even greater detail (with a precision of 10^-6 of a degree (Celsius-scale), I think). That will give us some new insights. How does PC explain the microwave background?
January 17th, 2009 at 4:24 am
“yet the “community” has been searching for as long as 70 years (”dark matter”)”
Since dark matter is only detectable through its gravitational interaction we cannot detect it otherwise. That is a problem, indeed. But maybe the LHC can give us some insights.
“You see electricity is the most efficient transporter of energy over distance, not gravity and not nuclear forces, over distances.”
But confirm them! I don’t count the ONE current that is only mentioned on a NASA site. Give me a paper that is published in a reliable magazine (like Astrophysical Journal, or Astronomy & Astrophysics).
As long as we don’t confirm those currents in “outer space” (jets do not count, too, since they are very well understood! – and not with “gravity only”) they are as “dark” as dark matter. And as I said, the currents to the sun are more or less rejected since Ulyssis didn’t see them. A big slap in the face of the idea that the sun is powered by external currents, I think.
And btw: Why are so few to none plasma physicists arguing pro PC? Since they should really know what they are doing they are in the best position to attack BB – but usually they don’t. Why?
January 17th, 2009 at 4:33 am
That is strange. There seems to be one part of my answer that the server doesn’t like. I submit it, but it doesn’t appear. That is why I cut my answer in three parts, but the second part is not allowed by the system (and if I hit the button another time, it says “it was already submitted – please no double posts” (or something like that)). Strange. Probably I used some *bad* words? But I don’t know which one that could be.
Well, the most important part was:
We observe “proto-stars” (they are on their way to be born and are not burning hydrogen in their core yet) in dark molecular clouds. They are dark because they neither emit nor let pass visible light – but infrared light can be detected. And those clouds are not ionised! But stars are born inside of them. That can only happen due to gravity!
“Anyway, DrFlimmer, I’ll get back to the discussion of the plama cosmology article and your analysis, interpretation, and criticisms.”
I am waiting for it.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:42 am
@Anaconda
When your comments are boiled down, it amounts to, “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
First, my comments speak for themselves.
Correct.
What has been consistent in this discussion is the general refusal to acknowledge even indisputable scientific points if they happen to support Plasma Cosmology theory (or conversely contradict the gravitional [only] model.
All I ever see are plasma cosmologists making bold proclamations based on half truths and old data. They make wild leaps using faulty logic. When data surfaces that contradicts plasma cosmology, it’s ignored. When they’re criticized, they act indignant.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am
First, my comments speak for themselves.
You got that right.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:09 am
@ kuhnigget states: “Isn’t that just at the extremely small scale?”
That contention has been brought to my attention before, but when I asked for a citation to an authority to back up the claim none was ever provided even after repeated requests (these requests were made to an interlocuter that seemed knowledgable).
That “contention” has pretty much been the foundation for all experimental particle physics for the last hundred years. You want a citation? Read a physics textbook. Any physics textbook. I’m sure you can find one or two in the library. You might want to bring them to your attention.
I love it the way you guys so cavalierly toss out any fact that doesn’t fit in with your esoteric wisdom. And when I call you a crank, just take comfort in the “fact” that you are indeed one of the chosen ones, persecuted by dem bad ol’ scientists. You’ll be vindicated in the end, of course. They’ll see! Except…you won’t. You know? Honestly, you won’t. You’re just silly, and everyone is being as polite as can be, but…you’re just silly.
Now add me to your list of oppressors that I’m sure you keep in your alchemist’s lab.
Nutter.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
DrFlimmer: “That is strange. There seems to be one part of my answer that the server doesn’t like. I submit it, but it doesn’t appear…”
I had a similar problem last night on the “Vatican’t” thread, when I tried to submit a cartoon. Bloody stupid anti-spam filter!
January 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@ kuhnigget:
I have no oppressors, I do disagree with scientific theories currently held by the majority of astrophysicists.
Although, I point out there is a body of astrophysicists that support the Plasma model.
Pardon me if I don’t accept “textbooks” as authority when I request a citation for a scientific proposition (textbooks are the last place you’re going to find cutting edge science, actually texbooks tend to present the current dogma).
Calling somebody a crank says more about you than it does about them.
Look at you reaction when I politely disagree with you and offer an explanation. (You come late to the discussion, and that’s okay, but you missed out on the scientific evidence reported by NASA supporting the existence of Birkeland (electric) currents between the Sun and the Earth, a distance of 93 million miles.)
Your response is snide and condesending, which is the response of somebody who doesn’t have a substantive rejoinder. Interlocuters who have the authority simply provide it, but those who don’t have authority for their position make comments like yours to distract from the fact that they don’t.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@ Anaconda,
Extract from Wikipedia:
Nowhere does it state that ‘electric currents’ flow between the Sun and the Earth. Any electric current must flow in a closed circuit. The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the Sun, in all directions, both at the same speed.
You, Anaconda, are making the mistake of using syllogistic reasoning to support your pet “Plasma Cosmology” hypothesis.
For instance, from the premises some A are B, and some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that, therefore, some A are C. However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are bloody televisions (C)!
January 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Ivan… didn’t you get it? A NASA-satallite has detected the current from the sun to the earth. And Anaconda has even given us the link to the NASA-site. And since the sun is positively charged it is on a different potential than the earth – thus a current will occur.
That’s Anaconda’s answer
But you are right, Ivan. I was wondering about closed circuits, too.
Wait and see 
But Anaconda has to answer some other things to me that I am still waiting for
January 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Calling somebody a crank says more about you than it does about them.
You’re right. “crank” doesn’t really carry enough depth. How about, megalomaniacal, paranoid, sophist, too dumb to pass a real science course so he has to become an apostle of junk crank?
Honestly, you dismiss every particle physics experiment in the past 75 years, you claim every textbook that doesn’t summarize your pet theory is part of the plot to suppress it, you ignore evidence counter to your statements presented by other posters (still haven’t heard any response to the GPS deal…), you make broad generalizations about things you don’t seem to know much about, and you don’t see just a wee bit of trouble with that?
Okay.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
DrFlimmer, it’s Saturday night and maybe I’ve missed something because I’ve had too much Stella Artois, but from what I understand of that NASA article (which I was aware of since I got the NASA e-mail newsletter in December 2007 and March 2008) is that “[the THERMIS] satellites have detected magnetic ‘ropes’ connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun” and “that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras”, which I interpret to mean that protons and electrons flow in the same direction: away from the Sun and towards the Earth; it does not state that there is a return electrical path to the Sun, just that it drives the “Birkeland currents” around the Earth.
I’ll study the subject more this Sunday after I’ve sobered up!
January 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
@ kuhnigget:
Show a citation to a scientific paper (is that so hard) supporting your position because with your little whiny hissy fit, I’m not inclined to take your word for anything — now go back to kindergarten, wipe your nose, and be a good little boy.
My remarks about textbooks reflect that the NASA reports are from this last year. The NASA reports are the best current science available, not a homogenized textbook published five years ago.
You’ll have to do a lot better than that.
In regards to the GPS: “Hafele [a Special Relativity supporter] admitted that moving clocks do not run slow by the amount proposed by the Lorentz transformation (the gamma factor). Contrary to SR, the slowing of clocks is a function of their velocity relative to the earth’s centre of rotation. This is also demonstrated by the clocks carried on satellites forming part of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Obviously, clock slowing and the fact that the rate of radioactive decay of mesons slows down when they move at high speed do not prove that time itself ‘dilates’ or slows down; it is more logical to suppose that motion affects the internal processes of particles and atoms. All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths.”
Now chew on that for a while.
kuhnigget states: “[Y]ou ignore evidence counter to your statements presented by other posters…”
It would be good of you to provide examples instead of making a broad generalization.
@ IVAN3MAN:
If you had actually studied the NASA reports and other relevant scientific papers regarding the scientific observations and measurements you would know that the Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth are made up of positive ions and electrons, but that the Earth also gives off electrons and according to the Plasma cosmology is part of a larger circuit. Exactly how that larger circuit is generated is unknown, but if there wasn’t a larger circuit that the Earth was a part of the Earth would soon be neutral in relationship to the Sun and no Birkeland currents would flow from the Sun to the Earth.
But since you seem unaware let me set out the relevant reports from NASA again:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
From the above link:
“A ‘magnetic rope’ is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS’s five satellites were able to perform the feat.”
Let me just say this description is entirely consistent with the scientifically recognized properties of electrical plasma currents that have been observed and measured in the laboratory.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
From the above link:
“(Fig.) 10. Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere!: THEMIS discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.”
“Flux Ropes Power the magnetosphere!”
“30 kilovolt battery in space”
I suggest, IVAN3MAN, you review the links before you make any more rash statements, and DrFlimmer, you should have known better, but instead you leaped on IVAN3MAN’s bandwagon like a thirsty man dying for water.
As I said above, “[I]f there wasn’t a larger circuit that the Earth was a part of the Earth would soon be neutral in relationship to the Sun and no Birkeland currents would flow from the Sun to the Earth.”
But these electric currents do indeed keep flowing from the Sun to the Earth.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
From the above link:
“It’s called a flux transfer event or ‘FTE [Birkeland current],’” says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn’t exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
From the above link:
“At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/giantbreach/breachmodel.jpg
The above link shows a Birkeland current in the left hand image where NASA has the legend, “Dense solar wind”, notice that it is a focussed beam.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/15dec_solarflaresurprise.htm
From the above link:
“We’ve detected a stream of perfectly intact hydrogen atoms shooting out of an X-class solar flare,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “What a surprise! These atoms could be telling us something new about what happens inside flares.”
“These were the “broken atoms” that flares are supposed to produce—protons and heavier ions such as helium, oxygen and iron.”
Again, IVAN3MAN, you need to keep up on the best current available science or you end up looking foolish.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
ERRATUM: That should be THEMIS, not “THERMIS”.
Bloody typos!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:02 am
@ IVAN3MAN:
I overlooked your last comment, my mistake and my apology. No, there is no return current to the Sun because that is not the circuit. The circuit is bigger. The circuit as I hypothesized comes into the Sun from the heliopause (I’m aware of DrFlimmer’s objection that no electric current has been detected coming into the Sun over it’s pole) and would be diffused but coming into it’s axis line and as DrFlimmer suggested possibly in dark mode (and, no, it’s not equivalent to “dark matter” because ‘dark mode’ plasma currents have been observed, measured, and studied in the laboratory) then the current flows out on the equitorial plane. Some plasma current originating from the heliopause possibly goes directly to the planets as well.
Let me offer scientfic evidence that electrons do flow out to space from the Earth: “What are we to think about giant lightning bolts to space? Can we think of space as neutral or empty in the face of these spectacular discharges?”
Further:
“Right away they found images on archived satellite pictures, and they recorded hundreds of flashes above distant storms. Giant neon-light-like haloes would appear 85 kilometers above storms. The glows would propagate downward to form red balloons of interlaced filaments. The currents would squeeze into 30-meter-wide channels scattered over areas of a hundred square kilometers and disappear into the clouds. The glows were so diffuse that they seemed hardly a danger to airplanes. The investigators named them “sprites”. The investigators soon discovered another form of lightning above the clouds. “Blue jets” would spout upwards from storms as much as 15 kilometers toward space. Several giant jets shot up to 80 kilometers. The jets were more compact than the sprites.”
…
“And under the clouds the investigators documented extraordinary strikes of “positive” lightning. These bolts were six times as powerful as ordinary “negative” lightning, and they lasted ten times as long.”
…
“Investigators finally were able to correlate their observations. They realized that every time there was a sprite above the clouds there was a bolt of positive lightning below the clouds. The sprite and the positive bolt were parts of a single discharge that stretched from space to the Earth’s surface.”
“Sprites and jets and positive bolts are common. Now that scientists have stopped believing that such phenomena are impossible, they find them in old photographs.”
I apologize for the series of quoted passages, but it seems necessary to insure readers are aware that electrons do, indeed, go into space which would be necessary to continue the circuit. Circuits are necessary for electricity to flow. The link is interesting reading (it’s framed as a hypothesis) about a phenomenon discovered in the last decade or so.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060322sprite.htm
@ DrFlimmer:
Okay, I’ve have the time to lay out my response to your criticisms regarding the plasma article I linked to earier (my apology for the delay):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
Caption for first picture:
“Electric currents in space. The Double Helix nebula, located near our own galactic center”
DrFlimmer’s response (partial): “The first one is very blurry since the stars are “too” big. Stars are dots in every picture we make, so I conclude the picture is quite enhanced.”
I would use the qualifier, “enlarged”. But the structure in the center of the photograph is clear enough: Filaments intertwined which is consistent with the structure of Birkeland currents. Sorry, but much to your dismay, “neutron” stars have not been proved, they are a hypothesis, not even a theory, and “jets” are indicative of electrical plasma currents. Without the electrical component, neutral gas would disperse and could not hold a focussed beam over many light years of distance.
Next picture caption:
“Sub-millimeter-size tornadoes of current produced by the Plasma Focus, a fusion research device, compared to a Hubble image of the planetary nebula NGC 6751″
DrFlimmer’s response: “But only because it looks like something it doesn’t mean it is the same.”
Agreed, that is true.
DrFlimmer goes on (partial): “It is really possible that a planetary nebula looks exactly that way just by coincidence. And since there is just presented ONE planetary nebula to look like the plasma machine I would consider it to BE coincidence.”
That is a possibility, granted, but this may be “uncommon” because of several considerations: The angle has to be just right to “look down the throat” of a nebula, that would limit the number of nebula that look like this one; also, elctromagnetism is hard to mathematically model (being very dynamic and variable), as I believe you noted earier in the discussion, that suggests that while there are structures that tend to be repeated, the shapes and sizes of electrical phenomenon can vary dramatically because the different interactions that cause charge seperated plasma will result in different shapes and sizes.
One picture is no “proof” I would agree, it’s the cummulative body of evidence.
DrFlimmer states: “Since other planetary nebulae can look very differently from this one this is another statement against the theory of the plasma machine, bacause if currents would be a key component planetary nebulae should look alike in some ways (not completly but in some ways!)).”
As I stated above, there are valid reasons for why not all nebula look alike in the Plasma Cosmology model. But there are similar patterns that are consistent with principles of electromagnetism’s that are repeated in different nebula.
Next picture is the butterfly nebula: This picture shows longitudinal angle as opposed to a “down the throat” angle of a nebula.
DrFlimmer states: ” But it doesn’t convince me. Since a current in a z pinch always moves in the same direction (it cannot start from the inside; it is impressed from an external electric field). So if the “currents” in the butterfly nebula are moving in opposite directions it would be a hint that it is not a z-pinch structure.”
You have no evidence that the currents “are moving in opposite directions.” In fact, Plasma Cosmology doesn’t suggest the currents do move in “opposite directions” and since the gravity model doesn’t admit to electromagnetic currents in deep space at all, my response that is are proposing conjecture that neither the gravity model or Plasma Model supports.
In other words, you objection is simply speculative “mud” thrown up against the wall. The picture is consistent with plasma dynamics ( I appreciate your comments to that end), and I respectfully submit you objection is conjecture that has no reasonable basis. It as if you admit to electrical currents in space, but then say since the electrical currents don’t work the way they are supposed to, then there are no electrical plasma currents in space.
I find your explanation unconvincing.
DrFlimmer states: “The simulation is not convincing in any way. What are the details?
Dr. Anthony Peratt at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (U.S.A.) did the work on this supercomputer simulation based in known laboratory properties of plasma. Below is a link that provides more details.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
DrFlimmer states: “[W]here are they [electric currents] since they must be pretty strong?”
This is a question you have repeated several times. And as I answered it before, I will again: The electrons in an electrical current can’t be seen directly, but they can be detected by the electromagnetic energy they emit like synchrotron radiation, radio waves, and x-rays.
This has all been proven in the laboratory by experimental testing.
Considering your slavish devotion to the “big bang” and all the problems with that concept, I’m surprised that you have problems with computer simulations based on known properies and characteristis of plasma demonstrated in the laboratory. But, again, the link above will allow you to review the perameters of the simulation.
Next picture caption:
“Radio Galaxy 1313-192. Jets emitted by the visible galaxy power the x-ray emitting lobes. Such lobes were predicted by Hannes Alfvén long before radio sources were discovered.”
DrFlimmer, you failed to address the above picture.
The article states: “The term “plasma” was co-opted from biology in recognition of the eerily lifelike forms and changes observed in electrical discharge experiments with ionized gases. Besides forming filaments, braids, sheets, and isolating layers, plasmas will organize into cellular structures bounding regions possessing different properties such as temperature, density, and chemistry. The Cat’s Eye nebula shows the kind of complexity that can result.”
The above passage suggests why Plasma Cosmology is so dynamic.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Since I am not having much time, just one thing:
“In regards to the GPS: “Hafele [a Special Relativity supporter] admitted that moving clocks do not run slow by the amount proposed by the Lorentz transformation (the gamma factor). [...] All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths.””
The earth’s center of rotation? Well, that tells us all we need. SR only works in initial frames – and the earth is none! And I didn’t know that the earth’s center of rotation is something different than the earth’s center at all….
And GPS is running too fast and not too slow. This is the GR effect. And why does it match the theory so precisly? If the theory is wrong than GPS would do anything but work. And everyday life shows that it works. Or did your GPS ever told you to stand in the seas while you are on a mountain?
Probably I will comment more later….
January 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” — Euripides.
Anaconda:
Good. That was my point from the start. I’m glad we’ve got that straightened out.
January 18th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Anaconda,
Since you did not include a reference as to where you got the Hafele/SR passage, I did a google search. I found a single page and the author of that article from which you quote also has many other articles. One being that HIV does *not* cause AIDS. I think you might want to try and find another reference regarding time dilation.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I apologize for the series of quoted passages
Quoted, I couldn’t help but notice, from a website that listed no citations backing up its claims. The names of the “investigators” are not listed, nor are the specific sources of the data and photographs supposedly examined. I guess they were afraid their studies might end up in a textbook.
I also love this quote from the same website: “Without a theory with which to understand an observation, we tend not even to perceive it.”
Major huhhhhhh? See, that in a nutshell is what is wrong with “plasma cosmology” and other crank theories. Rather than find observable phenomena, study them, come up with a theory that might explain them, test that theory, modify it, retest it, etc., they come up with their theory first then “perceive” the phenomena that supports it, mining mountains of data for the occasional nugget they can say proves them right, while ignoring all the rest of the slag pile gathered around them.
Sorry, that’s bad science.
Dr. Anthony Peratt at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (U.S.A.) did the work on this supercomputer simulation based in known laboratory properties of plasma
Looking outside the field for a moment, I couldn’t help but find this reference to Peratt’s simulation:
Rather interesting, is it not, that the “simulation” left out the one force that figures so prominently in the model of the universe generally accepted by the vast amount of real cosmologists and astrophysicists? I can do similar “simulations” in my teacup when I pour the cream in. Ooooo! There’s a spiral! Hey! There’s an irregular dwarf! Oh! Look at that barred galaxy!
This is typical of pseudoscience, even when presented by people you’d expect to know better (whose credentials usually lie in fields other than the one they are challenging). Mine the data to find chance similarities (like your nebula photos) and ignore the rest.
This is junk, Anaconda. There is a reason why the vast majority of astronomers and physicists do no accept it, and it has nothing to do with bad textbook publishers, entrenched dogmatists, or crusty ol’ scientists who refuse to change their mind. It’s just junk science.
You seem like an otherwise intelligent person. If you would spend even a remotely comparable amount of your time “researching” something other than the information regurgitated at the crackpot plasma websites, and actually understanding it, you might even come to that conclusion yourself.
But I doubt it.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@ kuhnigget:
Do you assert that these lightning phenomenon don’t exist?
If so, you are sadly mistaken, which given the tenor of your comments is not surprising at all.
Dr. Anthony Peratt is a recognized expert in plasma physics with many published scientfic papers in peer reviewed publications.
Your effort to attack his work and by extention all plasma physicists’ work that extends this field into observation and measurement of space phenomenon is misguided and makes you come off as less than knowledgable.
The NASA reports I linked to support Plasma Cosmology theory.
Are they a bunch of crackpots?
According to your reasoning they are (anybody who supports the concept of Plasma Cosmology, electric currents in space).
Your broad brush strokes of indignation and dismissal are designed to tar a whole field of science, but all your brush strokes are doing is painting a picture of yourself as an uninformed individual given to calling names when you are disagreed with as a substitute for reasoned argument.
Sad…
January 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
My time is still limited, because I am actually learning for an oral exam about GR in the next few weeks. And some other exams are waiting, too. That is the disadvantage of actually studying phyics. But it doesn’t counterbalance the advantage: To understand what’s going on!
But, as I said, my time is limited. So I am not able to search the whole web for sources. If you want some papers, I give you two links where can search all scientific papers that have ever been published (at least about astrophysics!) – some are not available, because you must pay for them, but their abstracts are – and they are quite informative, too.
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/
http://arxiv.org/
(hopefully the spam-filter allows them!)
“Next picture caption:
“Radio Galaxy 1313-192. Jets emitted by the visible galaxy power the x-ray emitting lobes. Such lobes were predicted by Hannes Alfvén long before radio sources were discovered.”
DrFlimmer, you failed to address the above picture.”
Yes I skiped it, because I thought we went over jets in previous posts. But you want it: You get it!
First of all the caption bothers me: What are we seeing? X-rays or radio waves? I guess it is radio waves and say that the author just made a typing error – and he meant radio waves when he wrote X-rays.
But he could have choosen a much better picture than that one. Centaurus A is much nicer!
Now the picture – and I have to say it again: Jets (and lobes) are very well understood! A jet contains a plasma with equal amounts of positive and negative charges. It is possible that there are electrons and positrons in a jet. We cannot distinguish them since their only difference is the direction of the gyro-motion around the magnetic field lines. The light they emit is the same. They are not rushing in opposite directions because we can tell that from Doppler shifts (that has nothing to do with cosmological red-shift!). It can also contain protons, of course, but they are behaving differently to electrons due to their mass. It is still a debate to which part of the spectrum of a jet each particle is contributing. The consensus abut the low-energy part (meaning “soft” gamma-rays and X-rays) is that it is made by electrons/positrons and the high-energy part is probably due to proton involvements (Pion-decay, etc).
The lobes are part of the standard model I am talking about. They are created by the very fast jet particeles crashing into the diffuse intergalactic matter. The interactions between both will lead to a strong emission of radio waves (and probably other photons up to X-rays).
This is very well understood, as I said. The existence of jets and radio lobes do not need “EU/PC”. For a electric current that is NOT closed (do you see any connections from the lobe to somewhere else?) you need at least a potential difference. But the lobes are on no electric potential because otherwise they would take enaugh electrons or protons (depending on the potential) to equal out again – and they would get those particles from everywhere they could; not through a narrow beam.
About the butterfly nebula. You failed to comment on my suggestion about the structure, that the dusty ring has made it! Btw:
. But I can tell you what will tell us: A measurment of Doppler-shifts! If they are both red- or blus-shifted it would be a point for you. Otherwise I score!
“You have no evidence that the currents “are moving in opposite directions.””
You have no evidence that they are moving in one direction
“DrFlimmer states: “[W]here are they [electric currents] since they must be pretty strong?”
This is a question you have repeated several times. And as I answered it before, I will again: The electrons in an electrical current can’t be seen directly, but they can be detected by the electromagnetic energy they emit like synchrotron radiation, radio waves, and x-rays.”
And I will ask this question ever and ever again! Of course we cannot detect an electron by seeing it! Don’t be pedantic! Of course it is only detectable by the radiation you mentioned. But we only see jets and nothing else. That is everything we detect of such “currents” – and jets are no current since they do not equal out a potential nor are they closed. Not to mention charges: Jets are a current of BOTH positive and negative charges – that is NO current in the normal meaning.
Btw: It is interesting that you reject Wikipedia as a scource and you guid me to a wikipedia-like page. And it is interesting that there are no newer reference than 1995 and most are even before 1990. Most interesting is that this “very precise” simulation is from the early 1980’s! Why is there no new one?
Very critical discoverys have been made later than that! Especially the HST has given us many insights. And it is active since 1991 or 1992. Why is nobody working on it any more? Why are there no new simulations? I guess every laptop is equally good than a Super-Computer from the early 1980’s.
Oh. And 10^18 amperes. GEEE. That is much! Here is the chicken and egg problem again: Those galaxies are supposed to emerge from 2 plasma bulbs trapped by these (fantastically) strong currents and their magnetic fields. Where do the currents and their magnetic field come from in the first place?
The Microwave Background (you didn’t comment on that – as you didn’t on quarks, either!) tells us that the universe was a VERY homogenous place! Where do such currents come from?
And a simulation is a great tool, indeed – but it doesn’t necessarily have to represent the reality. We can do the same with “gravity (not only)” and find the same – but you will doubt that, won’t you?
January 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Anaconda,
“Your broad brush strokes of indignation and dismissal are designed to tar a whole field of science, but all your brush strokes are doing is painting a picture of yourself as an uninformed individual given to calling names when you are disagreed with as a substitute for reasoned argument.”
That’s what you’ve been doing!
January 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
@ ND:
I considered that could be turned around and directed at myself. And after considering that possibility, I went ahead and wrote the passage you quoted because kuhnigget statement was exactly as quoted.
In terms, of turning that around at myself.
Consider this: Most of this discussion except where the evidence was so overwhelming that to deny it looked stupid, the track has been to deny electrical plasma currents have any role in space.
I on the other hand have explicitly stated that gravity does have a role, but not the predominate role assigned to it that the gravity model does.
What would be fruitful scientific inquiriy is to determine the relative relationships between the two forces in space, instead of being in denial about electromagnetisms having a role at all.
The scientific evidence and common sense, reasoning and logic all suggest electromagnetism and gravity have a role in the architecture of the Universe.
To be Cont.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
@ Anaconda:
Do you assert that these lightning phenomenon don’t exist?
I am asserting the pages you linked to do not list WHO the investigators are, nor any other citation. Not a very “scientific” way of doing business, is it? And not the best way to win converts when you use the pages in question as “evidence.”
Nice dodge, though. Continue to ignore it, why don’t you.
Dr. Anthony Peratt is a recognized expert in plasma physics with many published scientfic papers in peer reviewed publications.
Again, nice dodge, snakeman. I made no comment on Peratt personally, I just pointed out that the simulation YOU brought up did not take into account gravity, a rather big oversight, wouldn’t you say? Furthermore, others noted that it was strictly a visual comparison between his plasma whirligigs and spiral galaxies. I also pointed out that such visual comparisons, while interesting, prove nothing. You can find similar patterns in whirlpools, cloud vortexes, and…cups of coffee.
The NASA reports I linked to support Plasma Cosmology theory. Are they a bunch of crackpots?
They do no such thing. They identify a very specific phenomenon occurring in a very specific place, the interaction of the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields. From there it is a huge, unwarranted leap to say that plasma physics rules the universe. Sorry, but you are being the crackpot, yet again.
The scientific evidence and common sense, reasoning and logic all suggest electromagnetism and gravity have a role in the architecture of the Universe.
They do. Electromagnetism rules the subatomic universe, until you get into the realm of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity rules the macroscopic universe. Hundreds of years of study and thousands upon thousands of verifiable experiments confirm this, and no amount of quackery is going to seriously change it. Will the theories continue to evolve? Of course. Will the entire field of physics go out the window? No, it won’t, no matter how many martyrs to the cause clog up the intertoob with their silliness.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I made no comment on Peratt personally
I can’t resist any longer, but I’ll keep it short.
Peratt’s petroglyph pareidolia.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
It’s kind of like banging your head against a wall, José, only it never ends so there’s no relief once it stops.
Eventually, the snake will tire of his Truths™ not being accepted and he’ll go somewhere else where his wisdom is better appreciated. I’d introduce him to MUFON, but I think that would be cruel.
What would really be nice would be if he took a trip to the nearest library and “studied” something other than the sacred texts of plasma physics. That would be heresy, of course, so I wouldn’t place any bets on it.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Anaconda,
Here is my response on the first link I posted in this discussion regarding the computer sims of the first stars involving dark matter. Rather late but here it is.
1) The phenomenon dubbed as “dark matter” was indeed discovered 70 years ago. It’s very nature is still mostly unknown but there is overwhelming evidence that the phenomenon exists. The following sentence from the article makes a distinction on this:
“Even though little is known about their nature, evidence for the presence of dark matter is overwhelming, from observations of galaxies, to clusters of galaxies, to the Universe as a whole.”
You contested that dark matter was not discovered but theorized 70 years ago and that there was not overwhelming evidence for the phenomenon.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
“The first to provide evidence and infer the existence of a phenomenon that has come to be called “dark matter” was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[5] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster’s total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge.”
This matter was taken up again about 40 years later by the work of Vera Rubin in the late 1960s and early 1970. By this time it was possible to accurately determine the rotational speeds in galaxies. According to her work there was indeed the gravitational influence of some unseen matter in addition to the expected gravitational influence of visible matter in galaxies. She announced this in 1975 and was met with skepticism. However evidence soon piled up that this phenomenon was indeed real. It’s very nature is still a mystery but the phenomenon is real.
Given this history it appears that a concerted effort in investigating dark matter started in the 70s and not 7 years ago. But even then, making statements that astronomers have been looking for dark matter for years and not finding it is a very subjective argument against dark matter. It completely ignores the technical realities and difficulties of the search for dark matter.
2) You belittled and dismissed the computer simulation. Computer simulations are very valuable tools but they are not the final step. Actual observations still need to be made in order verify any hypothesis from the sims. The article makes it clear that observational research will need to be done. You point to Dr. Peratt’s simulation but as kuhnigget pointed out, there is a very large caveat regarding the application of the simulation results to actual galaxies. It would be interesting how they, compare. It would be interesting to use some of the most powerful supercomputers to simulate a galaxy formation given all we know so far of the composition and the forces acting in a galaxy. A simulation more comprehensive than what’s come before. And yes, a simulation is only good as the data that goes into it and the completeness of the model used in the simulation. That said, simulations are amazingly successful and essential tools. Dr. Peratt thought so apparently.
3) You pointed to the image in the article of the simulation and said that it was a Birkeland current. This is not mentioned in the article at all. The article talks about gravitational influence and we have no idea what sort of calculations they did in the simulation. We don’t know if they used plasma physics in the sims. So your declaration that this is a Birkeland current or z-pinch is premature.
It’s also worth noting whatever article gets thrown about in this discussion cannot be fully trusted as the complete picture of the topic it’s covering. The articles are written by a third party trying to present the news in sensible but abridged manner.
January 18th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Minor correction to my previous post:
dark matter started in the 70s and not 7 years
should be
dark matter started in the 70s and not *70* years.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
kuhnigget:
You mean like this:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Darn it. I had meant to say “Peratt’s plasma petroglyph pareidolia.” I totally blew that one.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:37 am
@IVAN3MAN
I don’t think that works. That little guy actually smiles when his face hits the wall.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@ José,
Actually, if you zoom in by 150%, you can see that the little guy is grimacing.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
From continued:
(I note parenthetically that in the comments since I left-off none of my fellow commenters has addressed the issue I brought up that both electromagnetism and gravity play a role in the architecture of the Universe [other than kuhnigget's head in the sand response that ignores the evidence of electrical currents between the Sun and the Earth] and the proper role of science is to determine and quantify what electromagnetism and gravity’s repective roles are — this speaks volumes about these commenters’ commitment is to advancing scientfic understanding.)
Take a deep breath and realize what a bunch of bullies you look like. Is this how conventional astronomy really works?
Is this how you discuss issues with people you disagree with?
[K]uhnigget picks up right where he left-off ignoring scientfic evdience. Why am I not surprised.
I didn’t use a broad brush stroke — I dealt with each theory in turn. With “black holes”, I pointed out that the theory presented in the post contradicted the orginal “black hole” theory that “black holes” formed from the gravitational collapse of super-massive stars which arise from galaxy formation. “Dark matter” which has never been detected, but which was theorized 70 years ago, sorry ND, if “dark matter” was discovered 70 years ago, why are they still looking for it.
ND states: “He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster’s total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge.”
In other words, Zwicky applied one hypothesis to suggest another hypothesis to keep from falsifying another theory (the gravitational model).
No, Zwicky concluded that “dark matter” existed because unless there was “dark matter” the gravitational model was falsified.
This kind of conclusion is tenuous at best.
Then I raised the hypothesis of the “big bang” which explicitly sets aside all the physical laws known to Man. Something from nothing is not physical science, but rank speculation. As early as Edwin Powell Hubble scientists were disputing the “big bang” theory, that’s inconvenient as heck, but it’s the truth. But there is more. The miraculous creation story of the Big Bang originated from the Belgian Roman Catholic priest and scientist Monsignor Georges LeMaître and was quickly taken up by the Pope. The Pope could work with a theory that required a miracle…”In the beginning…”
Then I pointed out that “dark energy” was required to shore up “black holes” and “strange matter” was required to shore up the “neutron” star hypothesis.
And “quarks” which haven’t been observed, rather are hypothesized by quantum mechanics, that was one stated reason to built the super-collider, to verify whether “quarks” actually exist — it find to hypothsize a particlular process, force, or phenomenon, it is entirely another thing to then overstate the hypothesis into a theory and worse to overstate a theory into a fact.
I’ll acknowledge this much: when you get done going down the list of all the unseen and never detected enities that the gravitational model requires to sustain itself, it doesn’t leave much left. But that’s not the result of broad brush stokes on my part, that’s the result of astonomy relying on all these hypothesized enities to sustain the gravitational model.
Conventional astronomy has brought this predicament on itself by overstating hypothesis into fact, instead of questioning the underlying general theory.
ND states: “By this time it was possible to accurately determine the rotational speeds in galaxies. According to her work there was indeed the gravitational influence of some unseen matter in addition to the expected gravitational influence of visible matter in galaxies.”
Or it could be that it’s electromagnetism that explains the rotational speed of the galaxies, and interestingly enough, when one uses the known force of electromagnetism you don’t need to invent “dark matter”.
ND states: “However evidence soon piled up that this phenomenon was indeed real. It’s very nature is still a mystery but the phenomenon is real.”
Sorry, again, ND, your deluding yourself, the truth of the matter is that the evidence piled up that without “dark matter” the gravitational model was falsified. The choice was simple: Either “dark matter” existed or the gravitational model was falsified.
And the establishment wasn’t about to admit the falsification of the core principle in astronomy the last 70 years: “Dark matter” was decreed to exist.
ND states: “But even then, making statements that astronomers have been looking for dark matter for years and not finding it is a very subjective argument against dark matter.”
No, that’s a basic tenent of science — something is a hypothesis until solid scientific evidence exists to confirm the hypothesis. That hasn’t happened for “dark matter”.
ND states: ” It completely ignores the technical realities and difficulties of the search for dark matter.”
Please, the easy answer and required answer if you follow the scientific method is that it doesn’t exist. Conventional astronomy doesn’t even know what it’s looking for that’s how big the problem is with “dark matter”.
If the properties of “dark matter” where understood, then you would know what to look for and where. But you don’t, you’re literally “groping” in the dark.
That’s why this kind of discussion is so uncomfortable for astronomers: Even causual observers understand just how “out of control” conventional astronomy is when it’s explained in laymen’s terms.
ND states: “You belittled and dismissed the computer simulation (that used hypothesized values for “dark matter”. The difference between the two simulations is that Dr. Peratt used KNOWN values of plasma and electromagnetism recognized by plasma physicists, not hypothsized values of undetected varients of “dark matter”. The fact that you are still trying to justify the article you linked to shows how “out of control” atronomy is. You don’t understand or appreciate the difference between computer simulations with known values and “guessed at” values — it’s the difference between night and day.
[K]uhnigget, again, fails to understand the significance of the Dr. Peratt’s simulation: It didn’t use gravity, that’s the point! Using known principles of electromagnetism alone generated galaxy like formation.
This is because in the presence of the force of electromagnetism, the force of gravity is eclipsed.
Please, you guys are an embarrassment to yourselves.
Although I’ll acknowldege ND’s final point.
ND states: “It’s also worth noting whatever article gets thrown about in this discussion cannot be fully trusted as the complete picture of the topic it’s covering. The articles are written by a third party trying to present the news in sensible but abridged manner.”
Agreed, the article is meant to introduce average folks to the POSSIBILITY of electrical plasma currents in space, it’s not designed to be definitive.
The article is also designed to encourage further investigation by the readers that are intriqued by the limited amount of information provided.
Which was my intent as well.
@ kuhnigget:
Sorry, the desired implication of your comment was clear, “I don’t want other readers to believe it.” But since you spend so much time dismissing it without disputing the essential elements of the story — your bottom line is obvious — “I don’t dispute it, but I’ll trash it because I don’t like what it is saying.”
[K]uhnigget states: “I am asserting the pages you linked to do not list WHO the investigators are, nor any other citation. Not a very “scientific” way of doing business, is it? And not the best way to win converts when you use the pages in question as “evidence.”
For a guy who won’t point to a single specific source for his contention that electromgnetism’s strength is limited to the atomic level, but just whines, “textbooks say” you have no room to talk. Of all my fellow commenters, here, in this discussion, you’re the one who comes across most oblivious of how hypocritical you sound.
I offered the article because it lays out evidence consistent with Earth being part of a larger electrical circuit, perhaps, that is why you’re trying so hard to discredit the article.
You don’t help your cause — your comments make you come across like some conventional astronomy “goon” with about as much smarts, too.
As example, kuhnigget states: “This is typical of pseudoscience, even when presented by people you’d expect to know better (whose credentials usually lie in fields other than the one they are challenging). Mine the data to find chance similarities (like your nebula photos) and ignore the rest.”
You call the work of Dr. Peratt, “pseudoscience” and implicitly challenge his credentials, “whose credentials usually lie in fields other than the one they are challenging…” (Which Dr.Peratt’s credentials are in the area of astrophysics and plasma physics.)
Then kuhigget states: “I made no comment on Peratt personally…”
Please, do you think all the readers of this discussion are that stupid that you can pass off your last statement. No, it clear you’re an ignorant “goon” that doesn’t appreciate that other people can read.
I may disagree with my other fellow commenters, here, in this discussion, but you’re the only one that comes off as a complete “goon”.
[K]uhigget states: “It’s just junk science.”
Welcome to the conversation, kuhigget, remind me to bring my rubber hose next time, would ya.
I’ll lay off at this point and try and recover my good graces and deal with the other comments at a higher level than, “my mother says to stay away from boys like you because your daddy sells ‘junk science’.
To be cont.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Anaconda.
one of your basic statements was something like: “A plasma organises itself into some structures.”
That means: If you have a plasma “somewhere” and you don’t do anything, it can behave at its will, than it will organise itself into shapes and sheaths and layers and so on.
That is your statement, more or less. Is that correct?
What I ask myself is: Why should it do that? Why should a plasma behave like this?
All we know is that everything tries to be in the lowest possible state. And electric and magnetic fields are nothing like that. If there is an interior electric field the plasma will always try to cancel it out! And the particles are able to move, they are not bound to something like in a solid. So they will move and they will cancel the electrostatic field out.
Where can we have such a clump of plasma that can behave on its own?
It must be a big clump, indeed. Probably with a mass about 10^30kg and more. Of course, I mean the sun. This is a big ball of plasma and is probably able to behave as it wants to.
If it does there is no reason that there is an electric field that extends the suns surface (and we haven’t measured one). Since there is none, the sun is neither charged nor is it on any potential. That means that it is not bound to any interstellar current and moves through the galaxy on its own. But if that is true for the sun it is true for every star. So the stars are not bound to the galaxy by electrostic/electromagnetic forces/currents. Thus there is no need for those currents at all.
Why can I proudly say there is no current from or to the sun? A current is a displacement of differently charges particles with respect to each other. I mean: You get a current if you can devide electrons and protons. But the solar wind contains equal amounts of electrons and protons and they are moving with the same velocity! That is no electric current! It cannot even make a magnetic field on its own (as a “normal” current does) since the magnetic field of an electron and a proton will cancel out.
And there is none to the sun, either. When I told you that we haven’t measured an incoming flux of particles you claimed that this current is in “dark mode”. But a current is always the flux of particles, dark or not. And there was no flux into the sun (cosmic rays come in in so little numbers and from random spots that this cannot be called a considerable flux at all – especially not if it is blamed to account for the sun’s motion around the galactic center). So your current does not exist.
But why are we observing plasma filaments on earth, “self-organising”? We have not the ability of the sun to hold our plasmas together due to gravity. We need to hold them together or they will disperse rapidly. Our only chance is an electromagnetic field – an external one. That’s it.
(Oh, and where is the current that is leaving the earth? If their is, indeed, a CURRENT flowing between the sun und the earth it needs to be closed somewhere)
2 short comments:
Have you ever heard of the LEP-Collider that used to be at CERN? It has shown for several years with extraordinarily good data that the standard model of particle physics is correct! Quarks exist! There is nothing more to say!
You cannot imagine a day that had no yesterday? But can you imgine a universe that comes from “minus infinity”?
Btw: Have you heard about Olber’s paradoxon? It can only be solved if the universe has a “finite” past!
But now, I will wait for your “higher level” comment that hopefully includes responses to my last post (there are quite a few things you can deal with!).
January 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@ Snakeman:
Did your mother tell you not to be a crank, too?
Please, do you think all the readers of this discussion are that stupid that you can pass off your last statement. No, it clear you’re an ignorant “goon” that doesn’t appreciate that other people can read.
Why? because I challenge the conclusion of one of your gods? I guess plasma physicists are above reproach, eh? It’s not allowed to challenge their conclusions? Do you get crank demerit points if you do?
I love the way you dote on Peratt’s data yet you continue to conveniently ignore the fact that thousands of experimental physicists have done thousands of experiments that point rather conclusively to the fact that electromagnetic forces only rule the microscopic world, while thousands of astronomical observations show that gravity rules the macro universe. Oh, but of course, those findings can be read about in textbooks, and all textbooks are wrong, because they are organs of the gravity mafia.
I also love the way you continue to overlook the fact that Peratt’s simulation did not include gravity. Sounds to me like he already had a conclusion and was manufacturing some data to back it up..
Wait…I’m getting an elliptical galaxy in my teacup…. DARJEELING PHYSICS RULES THE UNIVERSE!!
Crank.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
[K]uhnigget, again, fails to understand the significance of the Dr. Peratt’s simulation: It didn’t use gravity, that’s the point! Using known principles of electromagnetism alone generated galaxy like formation.
This is because in the presence of the force of electromagnetism, the force of gravity is eclipsed.
“Eclipsing” gravity? Good grief.
I guess that’s why NASA builds woo woo plasma collectors on all its spacecraft. God knows, gravity wouldn’t have anything to do with being able to land a spacecraft on Mars.
Crank.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
One more thing, crank. I couldn’t pass this one up:
With “black holes”, I pointed out that the theory presented in the post contradicted the orginal “black hole” theory that “black holes” formed from the gravitational collapse of super-massive stars which arise from galaxy formation.
You are aware, are you not, that scientific theories continue to evolve and grow as more and more data emerge and more scientists study both the data and the theoretical consequences of it?
Please name one valid theory — besides your precious plasma cosmology, of course — that has not evolved, changed, grown stronger…or weaker…as time goes on?
I can see, however, how someone whose “science” is so bassackwards as yours, might have trouble with that concept.
Crank.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@ DrFlimmer:
You ask: “One of your basic statements was something like: “A plasma organises itself into some structures.”
That means: If you have a plasma “somewhere” and you don’t do anything, it can behave at its will, than it will organise itself into shapes and sheaths and layers and so on.”
As I stated before at my January 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm comment: “Plasma is subject to many different forces and circumstances that set up (See original comment links) charge seperation which is necessary to generate electric currents. Please refer to this additional Wikipedia entry for “double layers (plasma)”.
You’ll note upon reading the first link the words ‘charge seperation’, it is a basic definition, but it makes these statements:
“Double layers may be found anywhere that plasmas are found…”
“[Double layers can have] Large potential drops and layer separation may accelerate electrons to relativistic velocities (ie close to the speed of light), and produce synchrotron radiation.”
“And although plasmas are highly electrically conductive, a property that tends to neutralised charges, double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact.”
It is the latter phrase that is important for this discussion: “double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact.”
This concept that when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact cause a self-generation of double layers, therefore, electric currents are formed, is the point I was raising in the discussion.
As the Wikipedia entry on double layers (plasma) points out, there are numerous ways for plasma to form double layers with electric charge potential (I count over ten different ways for plasma to form double layers).
So, the second citation, ND, you provide on plasma simply doesn’t fully delineate all the ways plasma can form double layers, i.e., electric current.
But, I will acknowledge that at “some” level plasma is neutral, however, to generally characterize plasma as neutral is misleading in any discussion about dynamic environments on Earth and in space.
Let’s put it this way: Theoretically plasma can be an “isolated body” and be neutral. But practically speaking that is rarely the case, so, in practicable terms, I would submit it’s fair to say plasma is inherently a body of matter that is electrically charged and is capable of producing electric currents.
ND, do you see the subtle distinction I am trying to make? (actually, it’s not subtle at all.)”
DrFlimmer asks himself: “What I ask myself is: Why should it do that? Why should a plasma behave like this?
DrFlimmer it is a scientific fact that it does: All the behaviors listed in my above comment have been observed, measured, and recorded in plasma physics laboratories. Proved as much as ANY theory can be.
So you may have a problem with understanding the concept, but this is how plasma behaves.
It’s at the same level of certainty, as theories go, as the fact that there are electrons.
I can’t help you if you’d rather disbelieve proven scientific principles.
DrFlimmer states: “If there is an interior electric field the plasma will always try to cancel it out!” No, not always.
You approach suggests you don’t believe in electric currents in nature. As if only Man can create electric currents — that is mistaken.
DrFlimmer, I appreciate your discussion, you have kept rancor out of you comments, which is a big plus in your favor.
But it seems appropriate that if you are interested in plasma behavior you give it study on your own.
You seem determined to disagree with anything that might challenge the gravitational model. I will not change you mind — only you can do that.
But that is not a scientific approach, but rather an approach of one who has “faith” in something, and if anything challenges that “faith” it is to be struck down. “Faith” must be perserved at all costs.
DrFlimmer states: “If it does there is no reason that there is an electric field that extends the suns surface (and we haven’t measured one). Since there is none, the sun is neither charged nor is it on any potential.”
False, as I already stated in my January 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm comment: “If you had actually studied the NASA reports and other relevant scientific papers regarding the scientific observations and measurements you would know that the Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth are made up of positive ions and electrons, but that the Earth also gives off electrons and according to the Plasma cosmology is part of a larger circuit. Exactly how that larger circuit is generated is unknown, but if there wasn’t a larger circuit that the Earth was a part of the Earth would soon be neutral in relationship to the Sun and no Birkeland currents would flow from the Sun to the Earth.
But since you seem unaware let me set out the relevant reports from NASA again:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
From the above link:
“A ‘magnetic rope’ is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS’s five satellites were able to perform the feat.”
Let me just say this description is entirely consistent with the scientifically recognized properties of electrical plasma currents that have been observed and measured in the laboratory.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
From the above link:
“(Fig.) 10. Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere!: THEMIS discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.”
“Flux Ropes Power the magnetosphere!”
“30 kilovolt battery in space”
I suggest, IVAN3MAN, you review the links before you make any more rash statements, and DrFlimmer, you should have known better, but instead you leaped on IVAN3MAN’s bandwagon like a thirsty man dying for water.
As I said above, “[I]f there wasn’t a larger circuit that the Earth was a part of the Earth would soon be neutral in relationship to the Sun and no Birkeland currents would flow from the Sun to the Earth.”
But these electric currents do indeed keep flowing from the Sun to the Earth.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
From the above link:
“It’s called a flux transfer event or ‘FTE [Birkeland current],’” says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn’t exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
From the above link:
“At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/giantbreach/breachmodel.jpg
The above link shows a Birkeland current in the left hand image where NASA has the legend, “Dense solar wind”, notice that it is a focussed beam.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/15dec_solarflaresurprise.htm
From the above link:
“We’ve detected a stream of perfectly intact hydrogen atoms shooting out of an X-class solar flare,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “What a surprise! These atoms could be telling us something new about what happens inside flares.”
“These were the “broken atoms” that flares are supposed to produce—protons and heavier ions such as helium, oxygen and iron.”
DrFlimmer, please review the NASA documents they are quite explicit and clear electric current from the Sun energizes the Earth’s magnetosphere.
It has been measure by NASA. What else is the ‘flux transfer event’?
DrFlimmer asks: “But can you imagine a universe that comes from ‘minus infinity’?”
No, what I can do is be humble and say, “Science doesn’t know.” There simply isn’t the data to come to a conclusion or even venture a speculation and then dress it up as a theory.
Science can’t determine how or if the Universe started — it may well have, but it is beyond the scientfic method to offer a theory.
You want to speculate how the Universe started, then by all means go ahead, but don’t call it a theory and whatever you do don’t act as if it’s a scientific certainty.
DrFlimmer, for a person who believes in the “big bang”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, and “strange matter” you really have no room to say science has eliminated the possibility that energy doesn’t come into the Sun from intra-galactic electrical plasma currents. Science hasn’t even looked for them.
How do you know something isn’t there if you haven’t looked for it? And your discounting of dark mode currents as a possibility is unconvincing. But it can’t be ruled out.
But again, it’s important to say it’s (incoming energy to the Sun) a theory, it could be wrong — I’ll entertain that possibility because ANY theory could be wrong and at this point science hasn’t detected energy coming into the Sun which would need to happen.
Only if gravitational model proponents would be humble in the face of all the undetected “things” they say exist. The difference is that conventional astronomy has been looking for these “things” for a long time. Conventional astronomy hasn’t been looking for electrical plasma currents, yet, scientific evidence has been observed and measured supporting the proposition they exist.
Also, there is substantial other pieces of scientific evidence which supports the existence of electrical plasma currents which weren’t discussed, here, in this exchange.
Think about that.
Please notice this comment has repeated two seperate and substantial passages. It doesn’t advance the discussion to keep repeating scientific evidence. When that point in the discussion has been reached it’s time to conclude. Hopefully each side will take something from the discussion of the issues.
If you or any of your cohorts want to have the last word, be my guest.
DrFlimmer, Thank you for the discussion and interchange. It is my fixed and firm conviction that only by discussing differences of interpretation of scientific evidence will Man move closer to matching theory and reality.
I’d also like to thank Phil Plait for hosting this discussion.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
POST SCRIPT:
I’ve already concluded my comments, but I thought this question is important to ask to end this type of discussion:
Has science ever made a mistake? Or come to a wrong conclusion?
If your answer is “no,” then you need to re-evaluate.
If your answer is “yes,” then you need to keep an open-mind.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:56 am
I will be responding to your anuary 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm post. I just don’t have the time right now because of a deadline at work.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:02 am
@Anaconda
A couple questions for you:
Is the Earth’s electromagnetic field responsible for keeping the moon in orbit around us, or is that due to gravity?
How powerful is the electromagnetic force when acting on small, but still macroscopic bodies? when acting on large bodies?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Todd W
I have been wondering about that first question you asked. He kept mentioning that the gravitational model has been falsified, but talked mostly about the black holes and large scale structures. He did mention that the birkeland currents between the sun and earth were the predominant interaction between the two bodies. This did make me wonder what he thought about earth’s orbit around the sun. He’s quite hung up on the 10^39 power difference between gravity and EM.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I have to also add that Anaconda has been taking black holes and dark matter much seriously than I have. Even if he’s completely opposed to these phenomenon. It’s bewildering how upset he is about the the scientific state of astronomy and astrophysics as he sees it. You’d think we were discussing the joys of clubbing baby seals.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:20 am
It’s bewildering how upset he is about the the scientific state of astronomy and astrophysics as he sees
Some science teacher must have given Anaconda a bad grade at one time or another. Rather than study harder, he rejected the whole lot in exchange for Instant Truth.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Since he thinks everything is debated there is no need for me to comment further – although I have some.
He is confusing currents with particle fluxes – that is his problem. A flux of electrons AND protons is NO current. He didn’t understand that.
But his rejection of quarks was the bullet in his own head. To claim to know how the universe works and to be unaware of fundamental particle physics – well, I have nothing more to say on that!
I am just wondering why Anaconda never ever mentioned the “Jupiter-Io-System”. Probably it’s too well understood to be a prove for him (it is not, of course, because there is a closed circuit).
It was fun.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I still want to followup on the simulations discussion I was in, when I get home from work. In case he’s still around just reading.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I thought about this long and hard because I try and follow through with my stated intentions.
But DrFlimmer’s comment is symtomatic of the larger problem with current astronomy.
First, I stand corrected on the existence of “quarks”.
DrFlimmer states: “He is confusing currents with particle fluxes – that is his problem. A flux of electrons AND protons is NO current. He didn’t understand that.”
No, DrFlimmer, you demonstrate your ignorance of plasma physics and near space. Willful ignorance I will add and that is symptomatic of the problems of astronomy.
I outlined the statements of NASA more than once.
A Birkeland current is a focussed part of the solar wind which is defined: “The solar wind is a stream of charged particles—a plasma—ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV.” [keV is a measure of electrical energy](Per Wikipedia link below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
DrFlimmer, there are both electrons and ions which don’t recombine, but stay as seperated charged particles in the solar wind and Birkeland currents.
“A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines. They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted “rope-like” magnetic structure. They are sometimes referred to as field-aligned currents. Originally Birkeland currents referred to electric currents that contribute to the aurora, caused by the interaction of the plasma in the Solar Wind with the Earth’s magnetosphere. The current flows earthwards down the morning side of the Earth’s ionosphere, around the polar regions, and spacewards up the evening side of the ionosphere…” (Per plasma dictionary link below)
http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/terms.lasso?-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=9&-SortField=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&-Op=bw&ABC=B&page=detail
Now compare the above definition with the following quote from the December 11, 2007 NASA report:
“A ‘magnetic rope’ is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner’s rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft is insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS’s five satellites were able to perform the feat.”
I hope you have enough comprehension to see these statements are similar.
Also note that this statement from NASA: “Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere!: THEMIS discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.” (Per NASA linked below)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html
Amperes is a measure of ELECTRIC CURRENT. So, these Flux Transfer Events are pumping 650,000 Amps of electric current into the Earth from the Sun.
That is why NASA was willing to state: ““Flux Ropes Power the magnetosphere!” And, “30 kilovolt battery in space”
These consists of swirling streams of electrons and ions flowing in filaments along megnetic field lines, exactly as described by NASA.
Now if it was like you described and there was NO current then 650,000 Amps would not be flowing into the artic, now would it?
A flux of electrons AND protons in a state of charge seperation is an electric current.
DrFlimmer it is YOU who don’t understand.
And you admitted as much when you stated that you didn’t take your plasma physics class seriously.
You should have taken the hint when the commenter who followed up on your “neutrality” issue didn’t respond after my answer and another commenter tried to limit it to the space between the Sun and the Earth.
But you are so blinded by “faith” and the need to strike down anything that challenges your belief that you ignore scientifically recognized definitions of the solar wind, plasma, Birkeland currents, and even NASA reports to keep from having to recognize anything that causes cognitive dissonance and is scientific evidence in favor of electric currents in space.
That is what you call willfully having a closed-mind.
It’s sad, and troubling that your fellow commenters didn’t attempt to take you aside and explain it (of course, they had no obligation), but your stupid persistence in the face of the undeniable scientfic facts makes my point about the current posture of many in conventional astronomy:
“They are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.”
Thank you for making my point so poignantly clear and obvious.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
DrFlimmer:
That’s the point that I tried to make above — any electric current must flow in a closed circuit!
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” — Euripides.
Anyway, I did some digging around the Internet and I have come up with the following counter-arguments against the “Electric Sun/Universe” hypothesis, to which I have provided links below, and these articles speak conclusively:
Cosmological Fads and Fallacies;
Errors in “The Big Bang Never Happened”;
On the “Electric Sun” Hypothesis;
Black Hole Paradox Solved By NASA’s Chandra;
The Black Hole in Cygnus X-1;
A Very Massive Stellar Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy;
Dramatic Outburst Reveals Nearest Black Hole;
Hubble Sees a Neutron Star Alone in Space;
Discovery of the Top Quark, [PDF].
January 21st, 2009 at 12:41 am
Anaconda,
We’re not going to get anywhere with dark matter and black holes between you and me. You’re willing to dismiss research and observations without really understanding the science behind them and I’m willing to let Astronomers go down whatever path they deem fit and I don’t care which hypotheses or theories are more reinforced or thrown out. That said I think that doing the simulation in the first article I posted is perfectly acceptable, regardless of the outcome from observations to follow.
You also mentioned Monsignor Georges LeMaître and the Pope. The Pope’s opinions and beliefs have nothing to do with science and astronomy in this case. I think you’re trying to poison the well by insinuating religious overtones.
“You don’t understand or appreciate the difference between computer simulations with known values and “guessed at” values — it’s the difference between night and day.”
Actually I do. I work with computers. I made my take and understanding of simulations clear in the section you partly quoted. It’s only good as the data fed in and the mathematical model used. Yes Peratt used our current understanding of plasma physics in his simulation, but this does not automatically mean the simulation will give accurate results. How close was the simulation to what’s actually observed? Just because you end up with a result looking like a spiral-armed galaxy does not automatically imply that was the method that created the galaxy.
There have been many simulations done of galaxy collisions using gravitational models. The results look strikingly similar to galaxies in collision from observation. There is even a java applet you can use to run simulations yourself. On Linux operating systems, there is a screen saver that does simplistic galaxy collision that still produce results remarkably similar to what’s observed. Here are some links that should be interesting regardless of your take on how galaxies are formed.
http://burro.cwru.edu/JavaLab/GalCrashWeb/
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/SSAnims/index.html
Now whether the models used in generating the videos and the demo applet are accurate or complete to what is observed is of course important. Ditto for Perett’s sim.
Googling “galaxy collision simulation” gives more results including videos. Which are cool to watch (which is why someone made a screensaver out of it
I take it that you no longer think that the dark matter/first stars simulation actually shows Birkeland currents after stating how inadequate a simulation it is.
Also, why are you still putting quarks in quotes?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:25 am
I was discussing with two colleagues (and I even ask an instructor who is actually working on solar physics (and all the related things)) about electric currents. And we agreed on the following:
Ampere is defined as Coulomb/s, or charge per unit time (through a cross sectional area). The charge is the sum of the elementary charges passing through the area. Protons/ions count with a positive sign and electrons with a negatve sign. That means, if we have equal amounts of electrons and protons, the sum of the charge in the flux tube is zero. This gives the result that the current is zero (but not the flux of particles!).
What I did now, I have overlooked the latest NASA-links you gave us. The texts never explicitly say that we have a current. They say that the magnetic tubes are guiding particles into the magnetosphere. And the particles are mostly protons and electrons. Their netcharge is zero – the flowing plasma is quasi-neutral, just as every plasma is. It loads the magnetosphere with plasma and if they are finally accelerated (probably by reconnection events) towards the poles to show us bright and beautiful auroras. This is just an “addition” to the acceptet model (probably how and when the magnetosphere is opened is new) and not an entire earth quake on solar physics.
The only thing that says something about a battery and a current of 650kA is that strange (not to say stupid) illustration. I say strange, because the picture isn’t saying anything else. Probably they wanted to illustrate that there is a flux (of particles) and used the familiar unit Ampere instead. And what is that battery? It is explained or discribed nowhere. I cannot count that as evidence for anything.
The NASA articles are quite clear. Particles are moving through the flux tubes into the magnetosphere and those particles are probably mostly protons and electrons which result in no electric current. As my instructer told me it is possible that the electrons and protons are accelerated differently in the tubes. But that would lead to electrostatic fields inside the tubes that would decelerate the electrons and accelerate the protons that we finally get a flux where electrons and protons are moving with the same speed through the tube again.
This also means that we do not need the sun on a potantial difference to the earth. This is not necessary. That is what the NASA articles are saying. Don’t give me that strange and not explained illustration again!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 am
@Anaconda
If you have time, please answer the questions I asked earlier:
Is the Earth’s electromagnetic field responsible for keeping the moon in orbit around us, or is that due to gravity?
How powerful is the electromagnetic force when acting on small, but still macroscopic bodies? when acting on large bodies?
I’m still curious about your answers.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
DrFlimmer:
Again, that is basically what I had stated in my comment (click on my name) above, which proves that I can maintain critical thinking even when intoxicated with Stella Artois. I would suggest that you, DrFlimmer, should drink a bottle or two of some of that nice German lager that you have over there in Germany, to help you relax and not let those “Electric Universe” nutcases get to you!
January 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
LOL, but probably you are right, Ivan!
I was sitting at my university this morning and went almost crazy. I even checked the big Tipler for the definition of “Ampere”. Then I discussed it with two other students and with the mentioned instructur and was quite happy afterwards, because they all agreed with me. My instructor made a good comment:
“At first it is quite funny to discuss with those guys [like Anaconda], but later it starts getting on the nerves!”
But I would prefer Pils to Lager. But the German wheat beer is even better (there is nothing to a nice, cold “Erdinger Weißbier” (öhm, ß equals something like a “long-s” – it’s a special german letter; oh, and ö is another special letter
)).
January 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
And, yes, I know that my spelling is terrible. I am quite happy to be able to communicate
My apologies.
(And sometimes my fingers aren’t doing what I want them to do
)
January 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
In a weak attempt at adding humor to this discussion, I have to say that we don’t have to worry about debating whether the LHC will produce black holes or not
January 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
DrFlimmer,
As long as your math is better than your spelling, you’ll be good.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
DrFlimmer, thanks for the beer tip — I must try some of that “Erdinger Weißbier”!
As for your spelling, may I suggest that you type out your comments on Microsoft Works [English] Word Processor — that’s where I got the “ß” from, which also has other special characters such as the German Umlaut (my English keyboard does not have them) — or OpenOffice 2.4, both of which will automatically underline in red any (probable) spelling errors, and then you simply “copy & paste” the completed article into the comment box.
This practice will also save you the frustration of having to type out your comment again, if the server at Discover “spams” your comment (D’oh!) for some inexplicable reason.
Alternatively, install Google Spell-Check in your web-browser toolbar.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
[...] When a galaxy is just a baby, forming out of a ginormous gas cloud a million light years across, two things happen. One is that the cloud collapses into stars. The other is that at the core of the galaxy a black hole forms and grows. It’s unclear if it forms from the core of a supermassive exploding star (or from several that merge), or from some other mechanism. But every big galaxy has one at its heart, and it’s big, and the mass of the black hole in many ways is related to the size of the galaxy itself. So we know that the formation of the galaxy itself and the black hole at its core are somehow linked. [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
@ IVAN3MAN:
I appreciate the links, interesting reading.
@ ND:
ND states: “You’re willing to dismiss research and observations without really understanding the science behind them and I’m willing to let Astronomers go down whatever path they deem fit and I don’t care which hypotheses or theories are more reinforced or thrown out.”
Wrong. I consider the research, but I don’t uncritically accept the results.
ND states: “I’m willing to let Astronomers go down whatever path they deem fit and I don’t care which hypotheses or theories are more reinforced or thrown out.”
That seems fine at first blush, but upon closer examination, what in means in practice is that you don’t apply critical reasoning and scepticism. You acccept whatever they say. I asked rhetorically in a prior comment: “Has science ever made a mistake? Or come to a wrong conclusion?” My answer is yes. And yes, I’m sceptical when the evidenciary foundation is so lacking as it is in astronomy.
What is surprising is that you’re so blind to that reality.
ND states: “You also mentioned Monsignor Georges LeMaître and the Pope.”
Yes, I did. If you think that a man’s personal life experiences and, indeed, his most personal beliefs don’t have an impact on his opinions, world view, and even work, you don’t have a strong grasp of human nature.
ND states: “I take it that you no longer think that the dark matter/first stars simulation actually shows Birkeland currents after stating how inadequate a simulation it is.”
I don’t know what to make of that simulation, it’s interesting when given a “blank check” that they came up with a “Birkeland current” like formation. I tend to think, as I commented at the time, it goes to their mind set more than anything else.
@ DrFlimmer:
It seems there is a difference of definition. I have seen statements in the above linked works that suggest your definition is accepted by some in the scientific community, but there are others that accept the definition I use.
In my opinion, the definition I use is more accurate at the practical level because electrical energy is transfered and charge seperation is maintained.
Electrical energy is available to do work upon arrival at the Earth.
Say what you want, but ampere is a measure of electric current.
Also, if the Sun and the Earth where charge neutral and “isolated bodies” from each other. The Birkeland currents, ‘Flux Transfer Events’ would only randomly contact the Earth, but in fact they contact the Earth with surprising consistency, once every eight minutes.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
Also, you assume that equal numbers of electrons and positive ions come through the Birkeland currents. Science doesn’t know that. It would be interesting if it did know what was the count of each.
As far as ampere was concerned, all you needed was a dictionary.
I wouldn’t take too much comfort from two fellow students and an instructor. Do you really think an instructor is going to stand up and say, “Ya, that blogger, Anaconda, was right.” Please.
ND states: “As long as your math is better than your spelling, you’ll be good.”
What he really meant is, “As long as you swill the astronomy Kool-Aid, your’ll be good.” And, “You have demonstrated your ability to ‘keep the faith’ in the face of contradictory evidence — good job.”
And I wouldn’t expect anything different from a budding astronomer: “Drink the Kool-aid and join the club.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Anaconda,
“Has science ever made a mistake? Or come to a wrong conclusion?”
Nobody here has contradicted this. Just because we may not buy everything you’re saying does not mean we’re stupid, closed-minded, uncritical and take theories as gospel. The history of science is full of theories and ideas that have been overturned or rethought.
And please don’t put your interpretations in my mouth! You’re putting down DrFlimmer and insulting him as brainwashed fool without even understanding the science that he’s studying.
As for the religious implications, that’s a cheap game you’re playing. BB has been evaluated on the science and evidence and not some sense of religious drive. In fact I’ve heard of at least one astronomer from the Vatican, who is also a priest, doing research along side other astronomers. And his papers and research is evaluated on scientific merit. Nothing else.
As for the simulation, you clearly said it was a Birkeland current. There can be more than one natural phenomenon that can generate similar looking phenomenon. Look at spiral galaxies and hurricanes as a quick and easy example. Look at the gravitational models of galaxy collisions. Their results look remarkably like what we see. Including the simulation that tries to explain the pinwheel style galaxy. I know you don’t believe that gravity is the cause of the shape and form of galaxis, you can’t ignore the fact that they look remarkably like what we observe. As a practitioner of the scientific method (should be “practitioner”) you have to take into account, that looking the same does not mean the same.
That said I would like to put forth another point which I hope we can agree on, as you did with my point regarding articles on science news. The strength of a scientist’s credentials and scientific background and experience can not be taking into account on how correct a theory or idea, that they support, is. That is not factored in with the scientific method. It all comes down to the strength of the evidence and observations that support them. A scientist can work for 30 years on an idea and still have it turn out wrong. They could be Nobel laureates but their next great idea could completely flop. This applies to any scientist that is a human being. I think you understand this, but still emphasized the scientific credentials of the proponents of plasma cosmology.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
@Anaconda
Still no response to my questions? Please don’t keep me waiting too long.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Anaconda,
Are YOU really going to say that you know MORE than an instructor, a researcher on the field we are actually discussing??? YOU? Who has NEVER seen a physics departmend from the inside? Do you really want to say this? REALLY?
Probably you should think about this again!
“Electrical energy is available to do work upon arrival at the Earth.”
No, it’s not the electrical energy! It is the kinetic energy of the particles. But I think you have never heard of that term, didn’t you?
The solar wind consists of protons and electrons of EQUAL amounts. That is FACT. It is measured and observed ALL the time by SOHO and other satallites! Now, will you shut up, please?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
DrFlimmer, I would like to buy you an Imperial pint of bier!
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@ ND:
You state: “Nobody here has contradicted this.” Please, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position, or should I say faith, you bend over backwards to ignore evidence that contradicts your position or supports Plasma Cosmology.
If fact, you, ND, are still defending that stupid link that falsely stated “dark” matter was “discovered” 70 years ago. And the evidence wasn’t overwhelming then and it still isn’t today, yet you go running around spreading pap that says “dark matter” has been proved. All that has been proved is that the gravitational model has been falsified — read that falsified — without “dark matter” hence, your overwhelming desire to evangelize “dark matter”.
ND, you have mentioned galaxy collisions, in fact, there was predicted “gravity waves”, but in 2007, LIGO had the opportunity to detect “gravity waves”, but failed to do so.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24501
The article is quoted, thus: “During the intense blast of gamma rays, known as GRB070201, the 4-km and 2-km gravitational-wave interferometers at the Hanford facility were in science mode and collecting data. They did not, however, measure any gravitational waves in the aftermath of the burst.”
ND states: “[Y]ou have to take into account, that looking the same does not mean the same.” Yes, I already stated as such.
ND states: “You’re putting down DrFlimmer and insulting him as brainwashed fool without even understanding the science that he’s studying.”
Those are your words, not mine.
ND, your last paragraph is a good summary. Although, my mention of Hannes Alfen didn’t seem excessive.
@ Todd W.:
Gravity. To the second question you would need to give me an example.
DrFlimmer, don’t have a cow. I didn’t say I knew more, I implied that I wasn’t surprised by his agreeing with you, even in the face of the fact that Birkeland currents carry electric currents. Although, as I stated in my previous comment, there is a definition you can latch onto, but the definition I used is more accurate.
Electrical energy is reaching the Earth from the Sun.
DrFlimmer, judging by your answers, you need to be objective.
Your answers are those of somebody who drinks the Kool-Aid.
You are being lead astray by your instructors or somebody. Amps is not a measurement of kinetic energy — no matter how hard you try and spin — facts are stubborn things.
Yes, I have heard of kinetic energy, it is the energy of inertia, or motion.
But get this through your thick head, kinetic energy and electric energy are not the same. Science doesn’t use amperes to measure kinetic energy.
We have a great American philosopher, his name is Forest Gump. He said of people like you, “stupid is, as stupid does.”
Anybody, who insists that NASA is wrong or that amps measures kinetic energy as opposed to electrical energy, doesn’t understand science very well, no matter how long they have been studying it.
Anybody, who insists plasma currents which have charge seperation don’t have electrical potential, simply doesn’t understand the basics of science very well.
Math is good, but it’s no substitute for commonsense.
Amps is a meaurement of ONE thing, ELELCTRIC CURRENT.
FIGURE THAT OUT — DrFlimmer.
The fact that you proceed to attempt to spin something that can’t be spun, tells me you have little understanding of basic scientific principles, and no feel for scientific reasoning.
Sorry. DrFlimmer, Science doesn’t know the count of electrons and positive ions in Birkeland currents.
If you got a link for that evidence please provide it, I’m all ears, but if you don’t have authority for your point, you need to back off.
Face up to it, the NASA reports utterly contradict your infantile understanding. NASA is quite clear: Electrical potential is reaching the Earth. Let’s be more direct: Electric currents are reaching the Earth from the Sun. why? Because there is charge seperation in the Birkeland currents that NASA is reporting on.
Do you understand the concept of charge seperation? Apparently not.
DrFliimer won’t face up to the fact that charge seperation exists in plasma and in Birkeland currents. It wouldn’t be plasma if there wasn’t charge seperation.
And when electrons and positive ions flow together in a state of charge seperation there is electric potential, as well as kinetic potential.
Sorry, why would I stand down in the face of your childishness?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Anaconda,
And your point regarding LIGO is, what, gravity waves don’t exist? Here’s a quote from the same article.
“The absence of a gravitational-wave signal meant GRB070201 could not have originated in this way in Andromeda. Other causes for the event, such as a soft gamma-ray repeater or a binary merger from a much further distance, are now the most likely contenders.”
According to this and other articles, it wasn’t clear that the GRB originated in M31 to begin with. They expected to detect gravitational waves *if* it was in M31. The GRB was detected along the line of sight with one of Andromeda’s arms. What’s significant about this event is that LIGO is in a position to help in determining the distance to such very short GRBs by combining it with other GRB detectors.
This does not in any way disprove gravitational waves since the source of potential gravitational waves was not a completely known quantity. Specifically it’s distance. If it was know for sure that the GRB was in M31 and no GWs were detected, then it would be more significant.
Now, if LIGO or LISA definitively show that there are no gravitational waves, a very important prediction of GR, then GR will need to be rethought. A positive or negative result will be significant either way.
There is a very important *indirect* evidence for gravitational waves:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse-Taylor_binary
Since this isn’t a direct measurement of GWs, we await for further results from LIGO and other GW detectors in the works.
I had forgot about LIGO. Thanks for reminding me.
“ND states: “You’re putting down DrFlimmer and insulting him as brainwashed fool without even understanding the science that he’s studying.”
Those are your words, not mine.”
You’re right. You used the term Kool-Aid instead.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Gee. The only place where I ever saw “Amps” in the NASA articles was this stupid illustration. I don’t know who the guy is who made it, but it is defenetly not a proove or evidence of anything.
I damn know what “Ampere” is. I told you in one of my lasts posts. Its defined as charge per second (through an area). And the area is abitrary, btw. But the charges are counted. Electrons count with a negative sign and protons with a positive sign. And it doesn’t matter how they are going through the area. They can be seperated or not. It just doesn’t matter. It’s only the plain number that counts. And if we have equal amounts of electrons and protons coming through our area (probably we choose the magnetic flux tube’s cross section) we have NO current, we have ZERO Amps! That is the definition!
Now.
“DrFlimmer, Science doesn’t know the count of electrons and positive ions in Birkeland currents”
oh. So why are you screaming at me? I don’t know and you don’t know, either. BUT I have something else: That is the observation that (almost) every plasma is quasi-neutral, that the solar wind contains equal amounts of particles (SOHO is measuring it all the time) – why should a flux tube that’s just connecting the solar and the earth’s magnetic field contain other numbers?
You mentioned potentials. You know what the difference is between gravity and charges? The potentials of masses will always ADD. If you have some mass and put some other mass to it the potential will increas and masses will always attract each other.
For charges this is different! First: If you have some positive charges and put in some negative charges the potentials will equal out and you have no potential any more. Also charges tend to equal out potentials, “they don’t like them” so to speak. That means: Charges with an opposite sign (and an opposite potential) attract eacht other (contrary to gravity) and charges with the same sighn repel each other.
That means, if we have equal amounts of charges in a flux tube, their potentials (and electric fields btw, because the electric field is just the gradient of the potential) equal out. Just a few steps away the potential will drop to zero!
And believe it or not, I know that the unit of the kinetic enegry is Joule. I think you are not actually thinking about what I wrote – you just went over it and respond to it, but didn’t give it at least one thought!
Since I rejected that stupid illustration there was no more mention of Amps (that I could remember). The articles never mentioned Amps! And if we take them as the basis for this little discussion then you cannot claim that it is “electrical energy” that is dumped in the magnetosphere. My mention of kinetic energy was just a consideration of the term “energy”. The particles do have energy that can be dumped into the magnetosphere. And I think that kinetic energy is quite something they can spend.
Oh. You are so meticulously in your definition. Then I want to tell you that there is nothing like a “kinetic potential”. It’s kinetic energy, it does not have a potential.
You say, we have no measurments what is coming through the flux tubes. Ok. That means that you will not believe a word I said – and I have no reason to believe you. And since you even do not believe a researcher that is actually working on that field (why should he “lie” to me? There is no reason for him! I will accept every answer he gives me (but not without thinking about it, of course!), because he knows!) all my arguments are talked in vain.
One more thing:
“plasma currents which have charge seperation don’t have electrical potential”
As I said: charges with an opposite sign tend to cancel out the potential. They don’t need to recombine, in fact. They will just be very close to each other, so that the potential is as low as possible. Between two opposite charges that are seperated there is a potential, of course. But it’s only between the particles. If you do the calculations (basic calculations for undergraduated students in a course about electrodynamics!) you will find that the potential a little bit away from the particles will drop to zero. The divergence of the electric field is zero! That means that there is neither a source nor a drain (hopefully these are the correct terms
) of an electric field (that would normally be an electric charge – but it is zero inside a sphere that contains both particles).
“If you got a link for that evidence please provide it, I’m all ears, but if you don’t have authority for your point, you need to back off.”
Same applies to you! And I don’t count that ridiculous illustration!
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Sorry but the following gave me a chuckle:
““DrFlimmer, Science doesn’t know the count of electrons and positive ions in Birkeland currents”
oh. So why are you screaming at me? I don’t know and you don’t know, either. “
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Oh, and even in an atom the charges are separated! The protons are in the nucleus and the electrons are “flying” around it. So very close to the core you have a positve potential. But outside the atom the potential is zero because the electrons (although separated from the nucleus) are canceling out the potential.
So charge seperation is “everywhere” – and yet most things on earth are neutral and you don’t feel any potential at all. That is strange, is it not? (oh, that last one was ironic, of course!)
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
@ND:
There hasn’t been any gravity wave detected, ever. So, the fact that there was a “prime candidate” and it came up empty is significant.
But there you go again. Even when it’s “your guys” that report no gravitation waves were detected, your immediate impulse is to blow it off and minimize the results. But I’ll take your follow up at face value and note that you do allow for the possibility that gravity waves won’t be detected which would impact the theory. Or gravity waves might be detected and then the champaign will flow.
(I give credit to the scientists for reporting the failure to make an observation and measurement — and, yes, not detecting something can be as significant as detecting something — it provides scientific evidence that falsifies a theory.)
You pay lip service to the idea that science makes mistakes, but in practice, your words are to the contrary.
@ DrFlimmer:
Please, you’re getting ridiculous.
DrFlimmer states: “The only place where I ever saw “Amps” in the NASA articles was this stupid illustration.”
And I suppose NASA allowed some rogue cartoonist to “hijack” their article and news release?
DrFlimmer states: “And if we have equal amounts of electrons and protons coming through our area (probably we choose the magnetic flux tube’s cross section) we have NO current, we have ZERO Amps!”
DrFlimmer, your intellectual backflips don’t make you look good. Your own statement contradicts yourself. The report and schematics are clear, 650,000 amps came through (oh, I forgot the 650,000 amps was inserted by a rogue cartoonist!).
DrFlimmer states: “That is the definition!” And the NASA report contradicts it. You seem to overlook that I have presented definitions, too. But, of course, anything that contradicts your world view is to be dismissed out of hand. (Even official documents!)
(Yes, I know, nothing is allowed that threatens the conventional astronomy view that electric currents don’t exist in space.)
But your contortions, you only look, as I stated above, ridiculous.
“[Q]uasi-neutral” nice wiggle word. I’ll give you a point just for that.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/15dec_solarflaresurprise.htm
The above link lays out the observations and measurement of a solar flare. Note the particles didn’t come in an equal mix, rather in sequencial order, which surprised the scientists — imagine that. Now, I’ll grant you that this isn’t conclusive of anything, but it does suggest your assertion that an equal amount of electrons and positive ions always happens, doesn’t always happen.
DrFlimmer states: “So why are you screaming at me?” I don’t accept your assumption that electrons and ions are equal, frankly it wouldn’t matter if they were equal. The key is charge seperation. And it’s apparent you did miss out on your plasma physics because you completely fail to grasp the concept of ‘double layers’.
Here, I’ll lay it out so even a child can read it:
Term: Double layer
Definition:
A double layer is an electric charge separation region that forms in a plasma. It consists of two oppositely charged parallel layers, resulting in a voltage drop and electric field across the layer, which accelerates the plasma’s electrons and positive ions in opposite directions, producing an electric current. Large potential drops and layer separation may accelerate electrons to relativistic velocities (ie close to the speed of light), and produce synchrotron radiation. Double layers may be found anywhere that plasmas are found, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora. And although plasmas are highly electrically conductive, a property that tends to neutralised charges, double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact. The physics of double layers are also utilised to produce ion thrusters, such as the Helicon Double Layer Thruster. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer. See also Nicholson, Dwight R. _Introduction to Plasma Theory_, Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL, 1992.
http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/terms.lasso?-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=16&-SortField=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&-Op=bw&ABC=D&page=detail
“Double layers may be found anywhere that plasmas are found, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora.”
It brutally apparent, you simply have no clue about the concept of charge seperation.
But I understand why you refuse to understand: You are an aspiring acolyte in the “priesthood” of astrophysics. It wouldn’t do to adopt a heresy:
“One of the basic assumptions of astrophysics today is that electrical forces play no part in cosmology because “you can’t get charge separation in space”. But x-ray images of space objects tell a different story.”
“Standard phrases show up in astronomical lectures and debates, from elementary documentaries to the most advanced texts: “You can’t get charge separation in space;” “The solar wind consists of ions [protons] flowing from the sun (with enough electrons to ensure neutrality;)” “… with the need for electrical neutrality paramount …;” “The necessity for electrical neutrality then forces the details of the decays to be …;” or even “Of course there’s electricity in space, but it doesn’t DO anything.”
Boy, have we heard this a bunch:
“You can’t get charge separation in space;” “The solar wind consists of ions [protons] flowing from the sun (with enough electrons to ensure neutrality;)”
“The above spectrum was obtained by the Chandra orbiting x-ray camera in December of 1999. The subject is a tiny point-source of x-rays (a small, coherent cloud or the top of a coherent stream) embedded in the nucleus of an active spiral galaxy named NGC 4458 (upper image.)
The elements in the x-ray spectrum are identified by their chemical symbols: O = oxygen, Mg = magnesium, etc. The roman numerals refer to the number of electrons that have been stripped from these elements. By consulting a periodic table of elements, you can calculate how many electrons are left. In this very active region of space, we see:
Mg XII — Magnesium with all 12 of its electrons missing
Ne X — Neon with all 10 electrons missing
Ne IX — Neon with all but 1 electron missing
O VIII — Oxygen with all 8 of its electrons missing
O VII — Oxygen with all but 1 electron missing
N VII — Nitrogen with all 7 of its electrons missing
C VI — Carbon with all 6 of its electrons missing
‘Double layers’ in turn generate electric currents, as a result of charge seperation, as has been demonstrated in the laboratory by experiment and then observed and measured.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040803charge-space.htm
Obviously, you can discount the source, but the observations and measurements where made by the Chandra orbiting x-ray camera.
DrFlimmer states: “Since I rejected that stupid illustration there was no more mention of Amps.”
Again, do you think NASA is a bunch of bozos who let a rogue cartoonist place that the amps measurement surreptitiously?
Seriously, are you that desperate to disallow the concept that you accuse NASA of intentional deception?
I think it is you who are engaged in self-deception.
DrFlimmer states: “‘kinetic potential’. It’s kinetic energy, it does not have a potential.”
Yes, there is such a thing, as a side note. Kinetic potential energy happens when an object is held above the ground. The potential is derived from the kinetic energy that would be generated if it drops. Water behind a dam has kinetic potential energy (water flowing down through the generators).
An object held out a 20th story window has kinetic potential energy, until it is dropped then it has kinetic energy.
Can you point to authority. That’s the best way on the internet. Right?
DrFlimmer states: “ridiculous illustration!”
So now an official NASA schematic put out for scientific and public consumption is ridiculous.
No, you are ridiculous.
Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they?
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
@Anaconda
Thank you for your answer that you believe that gravity is what is operating to keep the moon in its orbit around Earth. A followup to this. You stated that the EM force overpowers gravity (or something to that effect). At what point does this happen? Is there a certain distance? Is it dependent on the size of the EM source?
As to my second set of quesitons:
Let’s just give a range of sizes of objects: something the size of a penny, something the size of a person, an elephant, a skyscraper, an asteroid, a moon, an Earth-like planet, a gas giant, a star. Does the strength of the EM force change depending on the size of the object? E.g., a penny on Earth vs. a penny on Jupiter. What about between a penny-size EM source and a human-sized EM source?
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 am
@Anaconda
Btw, keep the name-calling an insults out of your posts, please. Be civil. None of the calling people stupid. Remember Phil’s posting guidelines: don’t be a jerk. That should apply to everyone. Argue the points, the ideas, but keep the personal insults out.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Anaconda,
Yes but you missed on why it was significant. The distance to the source of potential GWs was not known. It *looked* like it may have come from M31. This important variable in the observation was critical and was not controlled for. “My guys” have not concluded that there are no gravity waves yet. They’re not satisfied and will be continuing their research. LIGO and the other upcoming GW experiments are set up to validate one of GRs important predictions. This needs to be done to validate GR even further. I understand the importance of positive and negative results from such endeavors. But GR has held up to experiements *so far* better then you realize or understand. That’s my stance on it, no matter how you try to twist it into mindless, blind devotion to today’s astrophysics.
From the very beginning you have shown very strong prejudices against whoever has looked at you or your claims skeptically. You have lumped them into one group and berated them. I am not doing research. I am not one of the scientists. I am in the sidelines like you and have no choice but to sit back and watch others do one of the highest intellectual endeavors humans can take part in. That said, I don’t have enough time to look at every exciting science news critically. You have come to believe that you can somehow think at the same level as scientists in the field without the deep knowledge of the field they’re in. I’m sorry but since you have not studied (not the same thing as believing) the science you’re discussing, there will always be a deep skepticism about the depth of your understanding. And you need this to see if what you’re reading makes sense or not.
You’re not going to change the views on plasma cosmology in a blog talking to us (with all do respect to Dr Plait’s efforts with Bad Astronomy). Maybe you should consider setting up a web site, like I suggested very early on, and invite professionals to scientific discussion on plasma physics. That might accomplish more and you seem to have the time and energy for it.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
It is hopeless.
Sorry, Anaconda, but I am not able to take you seriously. You make it impossible for me. The energy that an object has that is holded above the ground is called potential energy (unless there is another name in the US or in the english speaking nations or somewhere else in the world – in Germany it is just called “potential energy”). And that energy is converted to kinetic energy if you drop it. And btw: Although energy and “potential” (NOT potential energy) have the same unit they are not the same in defintion. There are quite some differences. But since you know much better than I do, I won’t even try to explain it to you.
And you know everything better than I, than every other stundent, than every other physicist do, because obviously you understand the definition of Amps much better than anybody else does!
I=\Delta q / t
where I is the current (in Amps), Delta q is the charge that flows through an area (in Coulomb) and t is the time (in seconds).
“Quasi-neutral” is not a wiggle word. It is the definition or the nature of a plasma as every plasma-physicist will tell you – but you know better, of course.
As I said, all I ever said here is talked in vain (since he refered to arguments that have long been cleared) – why am I still talking?
Anaconda: Why aren’t you actually working in plasma-physics on PC and EU since you know everything and you know everything MUCH MUCH MUCH better than anybody who has ever studied the thing at an university? The Nobel prize is waiting for you! You will be the hero of the 21. century. They will call you the new Einstein or the new Planck, the new Feynman, the new Schrödinger, the new Heisenberg. You will just top everybody.
So, just go ahead! Leave us kiddies here alone and do some good for the world!
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@ Todd W.:
I agree with your comment about name calling — that started about when kuhnegget got into the act and I didn’t roll over on his first assertion, but rather requested authority and his response was to state, “textbooks say,” and you and your theory are &*%^$$%^%!!, too.
I won’t sit back and be pilloried. But again your comment is right.
To the substance:
“You stated that the EM force overpowers gravity (or something to that effect). At what point does this happen?”
Good question. I can’t say with certainty. But at some level (admittedly unknown to me) electromagnetic forces do become predominate according to Plasma Cosmolgy theory.
Todd W. states: “Is there a certain distance? Is it dependent on the size of the EM source?”
I would suggest that distance plays a part, but also the strength of the EM source, or perhaps I should say the strength of the electromagnetic plasma currents. At present, the solar system is relatively neutral, yes, there are electromagnetic forces, not withstanding DrFlimmer comments, but gravity is controlling the orbits of the plan