Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 273

Thread: 13 Years Later [plasma science]

  1. #151
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Vershurr
    A nitpick for sure, but can you please try to get his name right? Bikerland was funny, but this repeated butchering of a Dutch name hurts my eyes! Thanks.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    No, (the reason)they cannot be detected all the way throught the galaxy as you are expecting is for the reason i given in post 131 .because individual plasma filament do not produce an emission of synchrotron radiation

    OK, so you're assuming plasma that behaves different from the well known plasma we know from our laboratories.

    Please state the quantitative properties of this hypothetical plasma.
    The big difference is that laboratory plasma is confined by solid walls and space plasma is not constrained by solid walls.
    So the residual emission of radiation emitted by a single filament is absorbed by the ISM.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    A nitpick for sure, but can you please try to get his name right? Bikerland was funny, but this repeated butchering of a Dutch name hurts my eyes! Thanks.
    I am sorry if i have mispelled the name Vershuur i hope that all the genealogy of the glorious Vershuur (Ducth) family and all their descendants will forgive me for that.Amen!
    http://www.google.ca/search?q=vershu...ient=firefox-a

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    You did get an answer, I gave you several papers, reference and a name to follow up on. You responded by asking my what the the difference between Cold and Warm Dark Matter was. Try post 121 where you replied to me.

    So, I delivered - your turn.
    I just wanted to verify if you have more than what you have submitted in post 120 before providing my reply.
    From your post
    The slim threads are apparently held together, at least in the centre of our own galaxy, by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components. Electron acceleration (to relativistic energies) in these structures yields and electrodynamic picture of electron currents driven along magnetic field lines and synchrotron emitting linear filaments approximately 1 lt yr wide.
    So if i am getting it right the hypothetical Warm Dark Matter in the papers you provided is playing the role of solid constraining walls ...Right ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Papers:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504097v2.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3367.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.0742.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511365.pdf
    Short but very nice summary of the results from WDW models: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0206346.pdf

    I could go on. Try searching Arxiv for "Structure Filament CDM" and follow the references. Klypin is a name to watch for - seems to run a lot of the code.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The big difference is that laboratory plasma is confined by solid walls and space plasma is not constrained by solid walls.
    So the residual emission of radiation emitted by a single filament is absorbed by the ISM.
    (bold added)

    It is?

    What evidence do you have for that?

    As in, quantitative evidence?

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    (bold added)

    It is?

    What evidence do you have for that?

    As in, quantitative evidence?
    Maybe i have not chosen the right wording.

    Let me rephrase ~

    So the residual emission of radiation emitted by a single filament is possibly absorbed by the ISM who is a weakly ionized plasma.
    Link
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-17 at 03:56 AM. Reason: adding a link

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I just wanted to verify if you have more than what you have submitted in post 120 before providing my reply.
    From your post
    The slim threads are apparently held together, at least in the centre of our own galaxy, by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components. Electron acceleration (to relativistic energies) in these structures yields and electrodynamic picture of electron currents driven along magnetic field lines and synchrotron emitting linear filaments approximately 1 lt yr wide.
    So if i am getting it right the hypothetical Warm Dark Matter in the papers you provided is playing the role of solid constraining walls ...Right ?
    That extract - "The slim threads are apparently held together, at least in the centre of our own galaxy, by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components. Electron acceleration (to relativistic energies) in these structures yields and electrodynamic picture of electron currents driven along magnetic field lines and synchrotron emitting linear filaments approximately 1 lt yr wide" - comes from the 1990 Peter&Peratt paper you (or was it quotation?) cited.

    The source for that is given, in the P&P paper, as three papers, dated 1985, 1987, and 1988.

    Perhaps a more relevant paper might be this 2003 one, by F. Yusef-Zadeh, one of the co-authors of the 1985 and 1987 papers*: The Origin of the Galactic Center Nonthermal Radio Filaments: Young Stellar Clusters. Here's the abstract:
    Quote Originally Posted by Yusef-Zadeh
    The unusual class of magnetized nonthermal radio filaments (NTF), threads and streaks with their unique physical characteristics are found only within the inner couple of degrees of the Galactic center. Also, a number of young, mass-losing and rare stellar clusters are recognized to lie in the Galactic center region. The latter characteristic of the Galactic center region is used to explain the origin of the nonthermal radio filaments. We consider a mechanism in which the collective winds of massive WR and OB stars within a dense stellar environment produce shock waves that can accelerate particles to relativistic energies. This mechanism is an extension of a model originally proposed by Rosner and Bodo (1996), who suggested that energetic nonthermal particles are produced in a terminal shock of mass-losing stars. The large-scale distribution of the magnetic field in the context of this model is argued to have neither poloidal geometry nor pervasive throughout the Galactic center region.
    Or this 2006 one, by Belmont and Tagger: A Viscous Heating Mechanism for the Hot Plasma in the Galactic Center Region. Here's the abstract:
    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont and Tagger
    In addition to lines originating in a soft phase at ~0.8 keV and to cold molecular clouds, the X-ray spectra from the Galactic center region also exhibit properties similar to those of a diffuse, thin, very hot plasma at 8 keV on a scale of hundreds of parsecs. This phase is surprising for more than one reason. First, such a hot plasma should not be bound to the Galactic plane and the power needed to sustain the escaping matter would be higher then any known source. Second, there is no known mechanism able to heat the plasma to more than a few keV. Recently we have suggested that, hydrogen having escaped, the hot plasma could be a helium plasma, heavy enough to be gravitationally confined. In this case, the required power is much more reasonable. We present here a possible heating mechanism which taps the gravitational energy of the molecular clouds. We note that the 8 keV plasma is highly viscous and we show how viscous friction of molecular clouds flowing within the hot phase can dissipate energy in the gas and heat it. We detail the MHD wake of a spherical cloud by considering the different MHD waves the cloud can excite. We find that most of the energy is dissipated by the damping of Alfvenic perturbations in two possible manners, namely by non-linear effects and by a large scale curvature of the field lines. Depending on the field strength, this heating can balance the radiative cooling. We note that the plasma parameters may be optimal to make the dissipation most efficient, suggesting a self-regulation mechanism. The loss of kinetic and gravitational energy also causes accretion of the clouds and may have significant action on the gas dynamics in this region between the large scale, bar dominated flow and the central accretion to the massive black hole.
    Note that these filaments are completely different from the giant, ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) that the rest of the P&P 1990 paper is about.

    They are also different from the Verschuur filaments (as far as I can tell).

    As far as I know, neither Peratt nor Verschuur (nor Peter) has claimed that the Pelican, the Snake, and other galactic centre filaments (yes, some filaments have names!) are Birkeland currents.

    * the other co-author - M. Morris - also has some more recent, highly relevant, papers

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    The quote came from Peratt paper.
    ------------------------
    The slim threads are apparently held together, at least in the centre of our own galaxy, by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components. Electron acceleration (to relativistic energies) in these structures yields and electrodynamic picture of electron currents driven along magnetic field lines and synchrotron emitting linear filaments approximately 1 lt yr wide.
    ----------------------
    I was sure this sounded familiar..
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Note that these filaments are completely different from the giant, ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) that the rest of the P&P 1990 paper is about.
    As far as I know, neither Peratt nor Verschuur (nor Peter) has claimed that the Pelican, the Snake, and other galactic centre filaments (yes, some filaments have names!) are Birkeland currents.
    They were probably not know by their name(s) when Peratt wrote his paper.
    They are all explainable by the Benneth pinch effect provided by Peratt.
    No need for dark matter acting as a solid constraining walls,

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I was sure this sounded familiar..
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    As far as I know, neither Peratt nor Verschuur (nor Peter) has claimed that the Pelican, the Snake, and other galactic centre filaments (yes, some filaments have names!) are Birkeland currents.
    They were probaly not know by their name when Peratt wrote his paper.
    They are all explainable by the Benneth pinch effect provided by Peratt.
    That may, or may not, be so.

    As far as I know, no one - not Peratt, not Peter, not Verschuur, no one - has attempted to explain the Snake, the Pelican, and the other galactic centre filaments in terms of a "Benneth pinch"*.

    If you know of any such attempts - as in, papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals (or relevant conference papers) - by all means please post the details.

    No need for dark matter acting as a solid constraining walls,
    Indeed.

    These are galactic centre filaments, and as the two papers I cited demonstrate, the astronomical observations can be explained quite well by means of physical processes other than Bennett pinches or CDM (and those were only two papers; I quickly found well over a hundred relevant papers).

    * I think you meant to write "Bennett pinch"

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Indeed.

    These are galactic centre filaments, and as the two papers I cited demonstrate, the astronomical observations can be explained quite well by means of physical processes other than Bennett pinches or CDM (and those were only two papers; I quickly found well over a hundred relevant papers).

    * I think you meant to write "Bennett pinch"
    Ok, thanks for these two papers i will read them and return later about that ....

    I will also try to find if Peratt have something about that .
    ETA
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    I quickly found well over a hundred relevant papers
    Do you mean hundred of relevant papers about "the Pelican, the Snake, and other galactic centre filaments"?
    If so why so much papers about them ...is it because no one in the mainstream is in agreement about a physical mechanism explaining these filaments ?

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    ETA
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    I quickly found well over a hundred relevant papers
    Do you mean hundred of relevant papers about "the Pelican, the Snake, and other galactic centre filaments"?
    If so why so much papers about them ...is it because no one is in agreement about a physical mechanism ?
    Some are on just one filament, others are on several; some are reports of observations, others contain models; some concern just our own, the Milky Way's, galactic nucleus, others are about galactic nuclei in general; some ...

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Some are on just one filament, others are on several; some are reports of observations, others contain models; some concern just our own, the Milky Way's, galactic nucleus, others are about galactic nuclei in general; some ...
    Ok i see. However as i said before they are all explainable by the Bennett pinch effect .... BTW is there any quantitative evidence
    provided in your two papers in term of prediction , behaviour ,magnetic power spectrum , energy and shape of these filaments predicted before they were observed ?

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Ok i see. However as i said before they are all explainable by the Bennett pinch effect
    Yes, you did.

    However, as of now, it seems you have provided no evidence to support your claim.

    Evidence, as is quantitative, objective, independently verifiable evidence.

    .... BTW is there any quantitative evidence
    provided in your two papers in term of prediction , behaviour ,magnetic power spectrum , energy and shape of these filaments predicted before they were observed ?
    I take it, from this, that you have not, yet, read the two papers?

    Nor have you read the ones each cites?

    More generally, I infer that you may have a, um, strange idea of the nature of astrophysics ...

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Yes, you did.

    I take it, from this, that you have not, yet, read the two papers?
    Right, because I was occupied to reply to your posts at the time.

    Remember than I was asking for prediction and calculation made before the observation of these filaments .Something like "we have predicted
    that the super massive black hole at the center of the galaxie will produce the formation of these filaments here the year of that prediction"

    I am beginning to read the first paper now I am at page 4
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308008
    English is not my first language so it will take me some time to go through it. (back later with some comments when i will have some free time to continue my reading)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Nor have you read the ones each cites?
    ETA
    You mean the papers provided by Shaula...
    Very summarely.... because of the reference to Cold Dark Matter i knew what it was about.However I did not know there was also a Warm Dark Matter... What is the difference betwen them ? I hope that the answer is not because Dark Matter is Cold in winter and WARM in summer!!!

    More generally, I infer that you may have a, um, strange idea of the nature of astrophysics ...
    I will let this un-commented ....for the moment!
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-17 at 01:52 AM.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Some comments....
    at 7 from page 4
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308008
    I was right to assume (post 160) that there is no concencus in the mainstream about the origin or about a mechanism explaining the formation of these filaments .....

    I just checked quicly your second paper to verify what is their proposal ....hmm! which one have the right solution ?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603499

    I will continue my reading of your first paper later when i have some free time....stay tuned !
    ETA
    Maybe not finally, until you tell me which one of your two Mainstream papers have the right solution or that you can find a mainstream paper to which there is a consensus among the mainstream crowd.
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-17 at 04:04 AM. Reason: Typos

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Some comments....
    at 7 from page 4
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308008
    I was right to assume (post 160) that there is no concencus in the mainstream about the origin or about a mechanism explaining the formation of these filaments .....

    I just checked quicly your second paper to verify what is their proposal ....hmm! which one have the right solution ?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603499

    I will continue my reading of your first paper later when i have some free time....stay tuned !
    ETA
    Maybe not finally, until you tell me which one of your two Mainstream papers have the right solution ?
    Ya know, if you actually fully read both papers, you may notice they describe two different things, with possibly two different types of emission. One explains the observed mostly thermal emission of the galactic ridge, the other explains the observed mostly non-thermal emissions of the various non-thermal filaments. Which means they could both be the right solution as they describe two different observations.

    Now, maybe the plasma universe describes the two observations with just one model. I'd be more than happy to hear or read how the plasma universe can exactly explain the the two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge (Belmont and Tagger), while still explaining the individual non-thermal filaments(F. Yusef-Zadeh). Since these papers go back three and a half to nine years, certainly, the plasma universe people have been able to provide the quantitative explanations to at least the levels in both papers. Can you point me to those?

    I'd really be interested in you pointing to some plasma universe paper showing how the molecular clouds, identified in the Belmont and Tagger paper, would affect those ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) or even the Verschuur filaments. Or what value, exactly, either the Birkeland Currents or the Verschuur Fillaments get for either a magnetic field or current with the cloud velocities found in the paper? Can you point to something in the plasma universe papers? For that matter, can you point to something in the plasma universe papers that even acknowledges the clouds and their velocities? How about the expected global geometry of the Birkeland Currents or Verschuur Fillaments?

    I fully understand that the plasma universe may make different predictions or have different interpretations of the observations, than appear in these papers. So, can you point out, in some plasma universe publication or paper, how they explain, say, the non-thermal spectrum, or if they accept it, how they explain how it's produced, numerically? Or, if they don't accept those observations as molecular clouds, what they think those observations indicate. Or, again, if they don't accept the observations as molecular clouds, what exactly is the observation indicating velocity for those clouds.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    Don, you claim no consensus? All of the papers use the same basic model. The differences are in the parameters used. The models are compared against observation and refined. They all use the same basic forces but vary the dark matter mixes. You are quoting ONE person over and over again. Are you surprised that there seems to be more 'consensus' on your side of the fence? And this sudden change to ask for papers written before filaments were observed? Why so? I'd go with the models and theory that best match what we see rather than the oldest ones. And PU does not match up to observations.

    WDM acts like glass tube walls? No, and I have no idea where you would get this idea from. It acts more like a gas on huge scales.

    If the radiation from these filaments is absorbed by the ISM why do we see it from other structures? We see synchrotron emission from loads of sources, ans cyclotron from plenty too. But not these magic filaments. So in your quest to get rid of dark matter you now need this magic plasma to emit magic photons which vanish en route to us.

    The papers I gave were the result of a quick search for some reading material for you. Not exhaustive. The point of them was that the mainstream explains what we see quite nicely. Filaments are one part of it but not the be all and end all of it. The models we have use the same basic forces but differ in the mix of dark matter and approximations used for computational efficiency. They aim to reproduce, to a fairly high accuracy, ALL of what we see. Plasma universe ideas don't even come close. The few predictions they have made? Galactic morphology - Fail. Origin of the CMBR - Fail. Large scale distribution of gas - Fail. In fact the only near success they have had is "Plasma often ends up in filaments and there are filaments in the universe - look there is one!" I am not falling off my chair in amazement.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Ya know, if you actually fully read both papers, you may notice they describe two different things, with possibly two different types of emission. One explains the observed mostly thermal emission of the galactic ridge, the other explains the observed mostly non-thermal emissions of the various non-thermal filaments. Which means they could both be the right solution as they describe two different observations.

    Now, maybe the plasma universe describes the two observations with just one model. I'd be more than happy to hear or read how the plasma universe can exactly explain the the two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge (Belmont and Tagger),
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603499
    I notice that in their paper there is a full chapter using Alfven calculus applied to viscous plasma does that sound a bell ?
    The 2 two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge are produced by 2 energetic plasma source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    while still explaining the individual non-thermal filaments(F. Yusef-Zadeh).
    The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Since these papers go back three and a half to nine years, certainly, the plasma universe people have been able to provide the quantitative explanations to at least the levels in both papers. Can you point me to those?
    Probably because than contrary to mainstream theoricians they were working on low budget research if any that explain why Peratt have stopped many years ago .
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    I'd really be interested in you pointing to some plasma universe paper showing how the molecular clouds, identified in the Belmont and Tagger paper, would affect those ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) or even the Verschuur filaments. Or what value, exactly, either the Birkeland Currents or the Verschuur Fillaments get for either a magnetic field or current with the cloud velocities found in the paper? Can you point to something in the plasma universe papers? For that matter, can you point to something in the plasma universe papers that even acknowledges the clouds and their velocities? How about the expected global geometry of the Birkeland Currents or Verschuur Fillaments?

    I fully understand that the plasma universe may make different predictions or have different interpretations of the observations, than appear in these papers. So, can you point out, in some plasma universe publication or paper, how they explain, say, the non-thermal spectrum, or if they accept it, how they explain how it's produced, numerically? Or, if they don't accept those observations as molecular clouds, what they think those observations indicate. Or, again, if they don't accept the observations as molecular clouds, what exactly is the observation indicating velocity for those clouds.
    You must understand that Peratt do not have budget for doing fine analysis like the other guys from the mainstream.That is why astrophysical research is the paradise for theorician physicists ...they get a full time job from that.
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-17 at 07:33 AM. Reason: typos

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Don, you claim no consensus? All of the papers use the same basic model. The differences are in the parameters used. The models are compared against observation and refined. They all use the same basic forces but vary the dark matter mixes.
    They all use the same basic forces but vary the dark matter mixes.

    You are demonstrating how it it easy to create a model when you have free parameters .You have just to play with the dark matter mixes.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Why do I get the feeling this has more in common with Velikovsky than Janet Davidson or Heinrich Schliemann?
    lol...I wouldn't focus on the conclusions so much as the creation of one of the largest, most comprehensive collections of glyph images ever cataloged. To be charitable, as the orginator of such a collection, perhaps he's entitled to more speculative conclusions. Not too shabby for a hard-headed old man with nothing left to contribute though (IMO).

    On another note, what are "random walks" as expressed below (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511365.pdf: An excursion set model of the cosmic web: The abundance of sheets, filaments and halos)?
    To embed this collapse model in the excursion set approach requires study of three-dimensional random walks crossing a barrier...

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    They all use the same basic forces but vary the dark matter mixes.

    You are demonstrating how it it easy to create a model when you have free parameters .You have just to play with the dark matter mixes.
    What I am doing is demonstrating that scientists tune their models to fit observations, rather than tune their observations to fit their model.

    Is that your rebuttal BTW? "You have tunable parameters"? Because I have seen no evidence that things like plasma density, current density and so on were predicted from scratch in any of the papers you have presented. Please do link to the paper where he derives the plasma parameters without reference to any observations, then validates them against observations.

    Plasma universe stuff is not mainstream because it fails the tests applied to it. It requires layer after layer of convoluted reasoning to do something the standard models do far more accurately and easily with maybe two parameters to tune - dark matter amounts and energy distributions.

    This is not turning out to be a very productive debate. You are now trying to fling mud at the mainstream, presumably to imply that it has as many flaws as the plasma universe idea. Well, sorry but it does not. It does a fairly good job at describing what we see. PU does not. It solves a wide range of observational puzzles with one mechanism, PU does not. It has been modelled and tested over and over to refine its accuracy. PU has not. It has attracted lots of researchers to work on it by virtue of its predictive and explicative power. PU has not.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603499
    I notice that in their paper there is a full chapter using Alfven calculus applied to viscous plasma does that sound a bell ?
    The 2 two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge are produced by 2 energetic plasma source.
    Yep, as describe by MAINSTREAM astrophysicists. Contrary to what the plasma/electric universe people claim, the mainstream does acknowledge and use MHD in their calculations. How do the plasma universe guys (Peratt, Verschuur, etc) explain the specific thermal emissions. Please point out the pertinent papers containing the calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect.
    And the plasma universe people's quantitative calculations are, where? For instance, the model and calculations in the Yusef-Zadeh paper explains why thermal gas doesn't affect the spectral index away from the galactic plane. What you gave is nothing more than a qualitative explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Probably because than contrary to mainstream theoricians they were working on low budget research if any that explain why Peratt have stopped many years ago .
    The old, woe is me, I have no money excuse. Where did he get all the time to publish his first papers? The great thing about the internet is that you have access to many papers that weren't available earlier. So that kind of argument doesn't work. And your evidence mainstream theoreticians aren't working on low budgets? Or is that an assumption on your part?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    You must understand that Peratt do not have budget for doing fine analysis like the other guys from the mainstream.
    That is not the problem of mainstream physics. Either the idea of Peratt's that you're trying to get across works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't complaining about Peratt's budget isn't going to magically make his idea any better. Besides, if there is anything to Peratt et al's ideas, someone, somewhere would work on it. After all, something like that would probably earn someone a trip to Sweden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    That is why astrophysical research is the paradise for theorician physicists ...they get a full time job from that.
    Actually, most of them have many other duties to perform. Teaching, advising, running budgets, overseeing departments, etc. I can't count the times tusenfem has mentioned he's been out of the office on other duties.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    They all use the same basic forces but vary the dark matter mixes.

    You are demonstrating how it it easy to create a model when you have free parameters .You have just to play with the dark matter mixes.
    Is this like the plasma universe people explaining you just have to have a dense plasma and a dense magnetic field or a not dense plasma or not strong magnetic field. You know, tuning the free parameters.


    Quote Originally Posted by Don J at 15-April-2012, 08:59 PM
    The reason they are observed so clearly in the galactic center is because they are massively produced and visible where there is an extremely dense source of active and dense plasma and strong magnetic field as it is the case in the center of our galaxie.In other case at lower regime they are not visually visible but the emission of synchrotron radiation is detected via the use of radio telescope only when at least two plasma filaments interact with each other.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    In reply to Tensor and Shaula....
    The thing you forget is that experiments and observations made with plasma were able to explain the cause of electromagnetic phenomena in space -at a time to which the mainstream astronony have not even a clue about them- which were later proven to be right...and recuperated by the mainstream .
    See that little history about the establishment astronomy dispute against Birkeland the pionner of plasma cosmology who was later proven to be right....
    Birkeland and the electromagnetic cosmology.
    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...dCosmology.pdf

    Followed by Alfven who at a time when mainstream astronomie was only at the visual stage of observation.Alfven predicted that when the Universe will be scanned at the electromagnetic level the picture and comprehension of it will be far different that what the mainstream thing it is based only with visual observation. In other word Alfven have contributed to the understanding of the Universe based on his work with plasma.Again this was recuperated by the Mainstream .
    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...U_Alfv%8En.pdf

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    So you have no evidence and not arguments beyond a vague appeal to an imagined precedent?

    Both scientists were right about some things and wrong about others. Thing is where they were right was generally in areas where there was no strong evidence available at the time - but also no contradictory evidence. Peratt is nowhere near this. He has some ideas which are falsified by observations. There is simply no way around this. Either his ideas are wrong of else everything else we know about the way electrons interact with magnetic fields is wrong. I am not going to argue that the scientific community of perfect, filled with little angels. It is not. But this is not an issue here because the ideas as presented are not right. It is not the case that there is no evidence for, it is the case that there is evidence against. Astronomy has come a long way and is far more than just visual analysis now.

    I am not reading those links. I refuse to drive more traffic to the site. I have already waded through two badly written papers filled with lookey-likey, awful misleading analogies and hand waving. No more. You are not countering any points made, you are just repeating non-scientific arguments and plastering up links. This is Science and Technology, not Vague Appeals To Emotion and Argument By Obfuscation

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    In reply to Tensor and Shaula....
    The thing you forget is that experiments and observations made with plasma were able to explain the cause of electromagnetic phenomena in space -at a time to which the mainstream astronony have not even a clue about them- which were later proven to be right...and recuperated by the mainstream .
    And that makes the PU/EU ideas that don't match observations now, correct how? Einstein was able to explain the photoelectric effect in 1905. His ideas concerning quantum physics in 1930 were wrong and disagreed with the mainstream ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    See that little history about the establishment astronomy dispute against Birkeland the pionner of plasma cosmology who was later proven to be right....
    And that has was to do with observations that don't match the current claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Birkeland and the electromagnetic cosmology.
    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...dCosmology.pdf
    As written by one of his disciples who has an interest in trying to paint as rosy as picture as possible. You want me to find a rebuttal from someone who won't even give Birkeland the credit he deserves? Either of those proves, what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Followed by Alfven who at a time when mainstream astronomie was only at the visual stage of observation.Alfven predicted that when the Universe will be scanned at the electromagnetic level the picture and comprehension of it will be far different that what the mainstream thing it is based only with visual observation. In other word Alfven have contributed to the understanding of the Universe based on his work with plasma.Again this was recuperated by the Mainstream .
    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...U_Alfv%8En.pdf
    Which, again, doesn't automatically make Alfven's later ideas correct. Look, mainstream physics is well aware of plasma, currents, magnetic fields etc in the universe. Ask tusenfem, that is the field he works in. He's worked at Alfven's (or is it The Alfven) institute. We asked for some kind of quantitative evidence from current EU/PU ideas. What we've got from you is:

    Various links, that don't have quantitative support.
    Complaints about mainstream theory.
    Claims that mainstream theory has free parameters, when EU/PU also has free parameters.
    Whining that various EU/PU researchers didn't or don't have adequate funding.
    Complaints that the mainstream has some sort of funding that addresses all of the researchers financial concerns, in addition claiming that these researchers have no other concerns except to do theoretical astrophysics.
    And links to a website that promotes EU/PU ideas.

    Yeah, that will convince a lot of people.

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    So you have no evidence and not arguments beyond a vague appeal to an imagined precedent?

    Both scientists were right about some things and wrong about others. Thing is where they were right was generally in areas where there was no strong evidence available at the time - but also no contradictory evidence. Peratt is nowhere near this. He has some ideas which are falsified by observations. There is simply no way around this.
    Can you provide specific examples about that including the citations made by Peratt.

    As a remember the prediction of the CMB was put forward by Fred Hoyle a steady state theorician with a value betwen 7K or 10 K....That idea was recuperated by the mainstream but not for the same reasons with a prediction of 20K to 50K.The final result was 2,7K . Hmm!
    Another surprise for the mainstream was when they discovered than 90 % of matter was missing in the Universe for matching their gravitational model ...
    Oh! and what about the expansion of the Universe which also came as a surprise for the mainstream model...
    Thus the need for patches added to the model like Dark Matter which came in flavor Cold and Warm to which you can play with the mixes at will and the need for a new kind of energy called Dark Energy.....


    And returning to the subject about the filaments ....How do you explain that even with an army of mainstream theorician physisists there is still no agreement betwen them about their existence or a physical mechanism ?
    Some comments....
    There is at least 17 attempts by the mainstream to try to find an explanation and no consencus (1)....If i was to apply Occam Razor law the simpler explanation is the better and when the observation math experiment made with plasma for the formation of filaments aka Bennett Pinch
    as mechanism ...plasma cosmology prediction and physical mechanism match observation.

    (1)no consencus in the mainstream ...
    at 7 from page 4
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308008
    Proof that there is no concencus in the mainstream about the origin or about a mechanism explaining the formation of these filaments ....

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    As I said, you are genuinely surprised that there is apparent consensus when all your citations are from one man?

    I am not wading back through Peratt's papers. This thread is filled with counter points to his ideas (lack of cyclotron, CMB polarisation, galactic morphology, CMB spectrum......).

    Incidentally - the non consensus bit is about the source of the filaments, not their formation mechanism. The formation physics is broadly agreed upon. What they are looking for is the strength of the field and the source of the electrons.

    And frankly when did this become a thread about how united the mainstream was? Even if there were a million variants of the mainstream model it would not make the plasma universe ideas any more right or attractive.

    You have switched to several classic ATM stances as Tensor has pointed out:
    1) There are these perceived problems with the mainstream as a whole so my idea must be right
    2) They are all ganging up on the idea - vote Underdog today!
    3) Hah, but here is one line in one paper that kind of supports what I think so I must be right
    4) Your detailed models have problems replicating the fine details of observations, whereas my handwaving doesn't

    Still waiting for your Plasma universe model with NO tunable parameters.

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Can you provide specific examples about that including the citations made by Peratt.

    As a remember the prediction of the CMB was put forward by Fred Hoyle a steady state theorician with a value betwen 7K or 10 K....That idea was recuperated by the mainstream but not for the same reasons with a prediction of 20K to 50K.The final result was 2,7K . Hmm!
    Ahhhhh, Don, spoken like a true EU/PU proponent. How about we actually look at the history, instead of the fantasies the Big Bang opponents keep regurgitating, as you do here. I notice you didn't even mention Andrew McKellar, who in 1940 measured the rotational temperature of the cyanogen (CN) molecule to be 2.3 K. We now know that the the CN is excited by the CMB to the CMB temperature. Which, considering the systematics in his experimental set up got to within ~ 0.4 of the value. Or, you didn't mention Robert Dicke, who measured the temperature to be < 20K, in 1946, with greater systematics in his equipment. Interesting sidelight, Gamow's first paper dealing with the big bang was in the same volume of Physical Review as Dicke's paper, in 1946.

    Let's get back to Hoyle, in his review of Gamow's book, Hoyle notes that "...[the Big Bang model] would lead to a temperature of the radiation at present maintained throughout the whole of space much greater than McKellar's determination for some regions within the Galaxy." So, Hoyle knew of Mckellar's measurement. Oh, the that value of 7-10K, Hoyle calculated that ((actually, it was 11K) as many others did) from data in the appendix of Gamow's book. Gamow used slightly different values than those published values, which gave him the value of 50k. I also notice you didn't bother mentioning Alpher and Herman's 1949 paper, which got values of 1K and 5K, depending on the parameters used. And, before you jump up yelling about free parameters, what they are talking about here are the various error bars on the parameters in 1949, which in some cases were larger than they are today.

    So, lets see, Hoyle didn't make a independent prediction, he used Gamow's values, Gamow tweaked his own values prior to Hoyle and got the 50K. Alpher and Herman got 1-5K, depending on parameters, and two different observers (Mckellar and Dicke) had observations that pretty much match (again, within error bars of parameters used) the current value. Wow, you haven't got any of it right!

    Now, Alpher and Herman re-estimated their calculations to 28K, but Gamow dropped his to 7K in the early 50s. Why would that happen, several reasons. The calculations depend on several things. One, the (as it was then called) Hubble Constant, and the assumption of where the Earth's location was(this would either make the CMB isotropic, or not). Alpher and Herman re-did their calculations using a new Hubble constant, this was found to be wrong later in the 1950s, and Gamow made a different assumption as to the location of the Earth. Either way, the changing numbers are understandable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Another surprise for the mainstream was when they discovered than 90 % of matter was missing in the Universe for matching their gravitational model ...
    90%? I would love to see a reference for that. Let's see, Baryon Density is 0.046 and Dark Matter Density is 0.227. That makes regular matter 17% of the universe. Where do you get 90% was missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Oh! and what about the expansion of the Universe which also came as a surprise for the mainstream model...
    And EU/PU predicted the expansion in 1928? You have a reference for that? Oh, and it wasn't a surprise for the mainstream model. General Relativity's prediction was that the universe was either expanding or contracting, it couldn't be static. It was a surprise for Einstein, who added lambda, to keep the universe static, not the model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Thus the need for patches added to the model like Dark Matter which came in flavor Cold and Warm to which you can play with the mixes at will
    No, you can't. You see, different models of Dark Matter have to fit into several different theories, to match observations. If you put in a value for one observation, you can't change it to account for another observation. You do understand about constraints, right? For instance, if you add dark matter to galaxies to account for the rotation, you can't change the amount to account for lensing or galactic cluster movements.

    Gee, I notice you missed this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Is this like the plasma universe people explaining you just have to have a dense plasma and a dense magnetic field or a not dense plasma or not strong magnetic field. You know, tuning the free parameters.
    Originally Posted by Don J at 15-April-2012, 08:59 PM
    The reason they are observed so clearly in the galactic center is because they are massively produced and visible where there is an extremely dense source of active and dense plasma and strong magnetic field as it is the case in the center of our galaxie.In other case at lower regime they are not visually visible but the emission of synchrotron radiation is detected via the use of radio telescope only when at least two plasma filaments interact with each other.
    Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about the mainstream playing with mixes, when the EU/PU people do the same thing with the density of plasma and the strength of the magnetic fields, to explain filaments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    and the need for a new kind of energy called Dark Energy.....
    Which somehow, if a value is used to match theory to one observation, makes different theoretical calculations match different observations, with the same value. Constraints again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    And returning to the subject about the filaments ....How do you explain that even with an army of mainstream theorician physisists there is still no agreement betwen them about their existence or a physical mechanism ?
    Yeah, returning to that, again, something you missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect.
    And the plasma universe people's quantitative calculations are, where? For instance, the model and calculations in the Yusef-Zadeh paper explains why thermal gas doesn't affect the spectral index away from the galactic plane. What you gave is nothing more than a qualitative explanation
    Why do you keep avoiding the answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Some comments....
    There is at least 17 attempts by the mainstream to try to find an explanation and no consencus (1)....If i was to apply Occam Razor law the simpler explanation is the better and when the observation math experiment made with plasma for the formation of filaments aka Bennett Pinch as mechanism ...plasma cosmology prediction and physical mechanism match observation.
    What spectral index does the Bennett Pinch predict? Show how, using calculations, that the Bennett pinch produces the two Galactic Ridge temperatures. I've been asking for that, and I've yet to see it. You just keep claiming that the Bennett Pinch works as a mechanism. Yet, I've provided you several different papers, for several different observations, with specific numerical predictions and estimates, along with the calculations, that are consistent with observations. When are you going to present specific numerical predictions and estimates, along with the calculations, that are consistent with observations? Why exactly should we think you understand Mainstream theory enough to be a critic of it anyway? You can't get the history of the CMB calculation and observation right, You seemingly don't know enough to know dark matter isn't 90% of matter or think that finding something out after getting all the information should be a surprise. Not to mention how you don't seem to understand how models put constraints on other models.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    (1)no consencus in the mainstream ...
    at 7 from page 4
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308008
    Proof that there is no concencus in the mainstream about the origin or about a mechanism explaining the formation of these filaments ....
    There may not be, but there are various models, that have the calculations to back them up, that are consistent with observations. Are all of them going to be right, no. Those models and calculations are based on assumptions, which are based on previous observations. And each paper, describing each model, details their assumptions and the calculations. Why can't the EU/PU people do that? Why can't the EU/PU people show the calculations they are using, for specific observations? Why don't they provide us with the comparison between their calculations and the observations? And why do you keep avoiding answering the questions Don? Afraid the answers are going to weaken your claims?

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post

    I am not wading back through Peratt's papers. This thread is filled with counter points to his ideas (lack of cyclotron, CMB polarisation, galactic morphology, CMB spectrum......).
    So you are admitting that you cannot find any precise citations made by Peratt himself which have been falsified from an official mainstream source using peer reviewed papers . Right?

Similar Threads

  1. Neutrinos/Plasma in space, charged plasma exchange between bodies.
    By utenzil in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-06, 02:04 PM
  2. 7 Years of Opportunity on Mars and a Science Bonanza
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Jan-25, 03:40 AM
  3. Mars Science Laboratory Mission Delayed Two Years
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-04, 07:20 PM
  4. Science in 10, 20 and 50 years?
    By The_Radiation_Specialist in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-03, 05:47 PM
  5. Common Sense Science and Plasma Cosmology
    By SeanU in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-May-03, 09:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: