Pulsars Plasma Bridge Discharge Exceeds Speed of Light?

[Bomb20]

Some days ago I found the claim “Geminga and Crab Pulsars: Charge Particle Plasma Bridge; Discharge Exceeds “Speed of Light” by a man with name Clifford Anthony Paiva.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1n0nDwK-so

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140811 ... eader-card

These stellar explosion resulted in angular momentum proportionately remained in the high angular velocity star core and outer rotating hot gas. The Crab Nebula was observed in X-ray light by Chandra (left, blue) and optical light (right, red) from Hubble Space Telescope. This was then correlated using image processing at BSM Research, to LUCKY CAM (Cambridge University) video [optical band-pass (.39 - .78 microns) for confirmation of the discharge bridge.
If published nominal distance values are used (Geminga = 850 lyrs; Crab Nebula resultant spinning core = 6,500 lyrs) the minimum linear distance between the pulsars = 5650 lyrs. This means that the approximate November 2000 -- April 2001 duration of the Chandra video requires the plasma discharge velocity (between Geminga and Crab Nebula core) to be:
(5650 lyr) /(.42 year) = 13452.38 lyr/yr = 36.86 lyr/day = 1.54 lyr/3600 second = 4.28(10)^(-4) lyr/second; or 2.52e^9 miles/second; or 2.52(10)^9 miles/second. Dividing this by 186000 mi/s (light speed): 2.52(10)^9 / 186000 mi/s = 13526.88 times faster the light speed for the Geminga/Crab Nebula Pulsars' plasma discharge.

I noticed Paiva is calling himself a “Christian” and seems to search for Noah’s ark as well. Frankly, I am distrustful if I see that people seem to mix religion and science. However, I have a serious problem with Einstein’s “speed limit” in space and I wonder if his claim is more than just a claim, presented in a non-scientific manner on YouTube.

So, I hope anybody can respond to my following questions:
1) Can anybody tell me more about this man and his background and performances in science (religionist with scientific camouflage or serious scientist with religious quirk)?
2) Is there any other scientific paper out there discussing this topic (Geminga & Crab Pulsars) and/or plasma discharges faster than light?
3) How long is the longest known plasma bridge in space?
4) Are there other examples of forbidden speeds in electric discharges in space? (I think I have seen other examples quoted earlier).

Thank you very much in advance for all answers!

Bomb20

[Aardwolf]

However, I have a serious problem with Einstein’s “speed limit” in space and I wonder if his claim is more than just a claim, presented in a non-scientific manner on YouTube.

The Pioneer anomaly, whereby the crafts appear to be anomalously decelerating, can also be explained by the speed of light increasing as an object moves deeper into space.

[Zyxzevn]

According to Ron Hatch, gravity causes a change in the speed of light.
Here is his thunderbolts video from 2013.
Relativity in the light of GPS

There are other scientists who claim that the speed of light is constant from the (moving) sender,
and not from any observer.

Rupert Sheldrake has also mentioned the changing of physical constants.
http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.nl/201 ... light.html

This area of research is very interesting, but is sadly under pressure due to "sceptic" scientists.

[willendure]

Perhaps the plasma bridge is not as far away as redshift tells us that it is. In which case, the discharge may not be travelling so far in a given time, so not moving as fast as claimed?

[Chickenmales]

If special relativity is wrong, then there might not be any reason for the speed of light limit. It seems to me, although I have no science to back it up, that interstellar scale plasma discharges either have to discharge very slowly, or travel faster than light.

[JHL]

Paiva is calling himself a “Christian” and seems to search for Noah’s ark as well. Frankly, I am distrustful if I see that people seem to mix religion and science. However, I have a serious problem with Einstein’s “speed limit” in space and I wonder if his claim is more than just a claim, presented in a non-scientific manner on YouTube.

So, I hope anybody can respond to my following questions:
1) Can anybody tell me more about this man and his background and performances in science (religionist with scientific camouflage or serious scientist with religious quirk)?

The lightspeed limit makes little sense to me either. Imagine a backward-facing camera on a ship leaving the sun at the tremendous speed of 186,000 miles a second. A blisteringly fast and completely unapproachable speed, we're conditioned to believe, and yet It will take us eight full minutes of the Sun receding into the distance before the Earth passes by our shoulder. And this in the infinitesimally tiny Solar System, an all but invisible speck in the universe.

I can't take that as the fastest velocity when actions occur at vast distances virtually instantaneously. Lightspeed is a turgid, molasses-slow velocity.

I have another point, however. No offense, but I'm always skeptical when science is wielded as The Hard Noun of Truth. Science is not an object or a destination; it's not a metric or a truth. It's a procedure that for want of scope of vision, objective clarity, and institutional or personal bias is very commonly applied wrongly. It's frequently not scientific.

Naturally, there is no valid division, per se, between our establishmentarian view of "science" and the equally miss-applied label "religion", when the latter is perpetually associated with fancy and the former with fact. Neither are true assertions.

The greatest resonance of the EU to me, for one, is in the tremendous natural association between our contemporary findings of, and the ancient mind's wonder about, nature. The original EU documentaries are themselves so wonderful because in part they lend such validity to legend, scripture, and artifact, all of which are observations by a different kind of thought than this "science" of ours, but certainly no less informative because of it.

There is no hard and fast dividing line between modes or methods of thought, or at least there shouldn't be. Therefore there is no natural division between "science" and "religion" except the one we put there by our own biases.

Paiva is what he is. We shouldn't pre-condition our views of any thinker with notions that their work must necessarily fall into a particular categories after which we'll ascribe or prevent it validity.

[Bomb20]

Thank you all for your responses!

The Pioneer anomaly, whereby the crafts appear to be anomalously decelerating, can also be explained by the speed of light increasing as an object moves deeper into space.

Interesting, but it makes we wonder because I have always only seen comments about the possibility of a decreasing speed of light and nothing the other way around. Is there any article or link with an explanation available?

There are other scientists who claim that the speed of light is constant from the (moving) sender,
and not from any observer.

I could imagine a changing speed of light but I also think that one of Einstein’s major mistakes is that he mixed or rather equated the real world with the world seen by any observer. And if scientists claim that the world is only existing if any observer looks at it then I think, “what a nonsense.”

Perhaps the plasma bridge is not as far away as redshift tells us that it is. In which case, the discharge may not be travelling so far in a given time, so not moving as fast as claimed?

Possible. It is strange that astronomers have great difficulties with the distance of Geminga in spite of the fact that they can use the parallax technique. If I understand Paiva correct then his video is aiming mainly at the wrong results caused by distance measurements with redshift (compare Arp’s criticism). If the resulting error would be in the range of 10^3 then the discharge would still be 13 times faster than the speed of light. So, both is possible at the same time: a significant mistake because of the use of redshift and a discharge faster than speed of light.

... that interstellar scale plasma discharges either have to discharge very slowly, or travel faster than light.

Lightning on Earth is indeed rather slow. So we need a striking example or even experiments to prove a speed faster than light in electric discharges. I wonder if our technical opportunities are developed enough to tackle this task. Sounds like further research of plasmoids to me.

@JHL
By the way I am not believing that science, especially current state of science (Astronomy, Astrophysics and some others) is anyhow an absolute truth. I would not be here if I would believe this. However, I am indeed thinking that there is a strict separating line existing between science and religion. However, this line is not always easy to see. Sometimes it is, for example I would not waste my time with people who think that our Earth is only 6000 years old. (I am not going to expand this topic and will not adress this again in this thread.)

IMHO Paiva has chosen a strange way to point people to a great discovery (huge plasmabridge and faster than light speed discharge) and/or rather mistake (distance measurements with redshift) and related observations. If he really wants to change anything then he must present his findings in serious scientific style. A kind of “movie trailer” is not enough. At first it causes appetite and then disappointment if he is not “delivering” after some time.

I am still interested in my original questions. So, please keep posting.

[Aardwolf]

The Pioneer anomaly, whereby the crafts appear to be anomalously decelerating, can also be explained by the speed of light increasing as an object moves deeper into space.

Interesting, but it makes we wonder because I have always only seen comments about the possibility of a decreasing speed of light and nothing the other way around. Is there any article or link with an explanation available?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009RMxAC..35...23G

[nick c]

Wal Thornhill has offered a simple electrical explanation for the Pioneer anomaly which does not require a rewriting of Physics.
A Mystery Solved – Welcome to the Electric Universe!

After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…

[Aardwolf]

Wal Thornhill has offered a simple electrical explanation for the Pioneer anomaly which does not require a rewriting of Physics.
A Mystery Solved – Welcome to the Electric Universe!

After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…

The problem with this is that the acceleration towards the Sun inceased during the first 5-10 years and was not constant throughout. Also, this explantion, along with every other explanation, does not account for the daily and yearly oscilations in the anomaly signal. Explained away as modelling errors but entirely consistent with the local speed of light affected by Earths rotation and orbit. The rotation oscillation is due to NASA's Deep Space Network receiving the signal from points throughout the day that would require the signal to traverse different distances through our gravitational field, and the yearly oscillaition is due to the differing distance travelled by the signal during the year while Earth orbits the Sun.

[Bomb20]

Thanks to all for the answers and related links!

I am already pretty convinced that the speed of light is not a constant. Light travels through plasma, in fact it travels through many different types of dusty plasmas. So, we are not talking about one homogeneous medium (plasma), we are talking about many different mediums or plasmas with different degrees of ionisation, different densities, different dust contents, different temperatures, different modes of discharges, different layers etc pp. Therefore we can expect a changing speed of light at the boundaries of different plasma clouds or formations. Therefore the speed of light is not a constant in cosmos over long distances, I think. However, this is not outruling other influences, maybe even gravitational effects.

Frankly, I am not so familiar with the different interpretations of the Pioneer anomaly and I am also not sure if an electric explanation is really requiring a constant acceleration towards the sun. The main goal of this thread is the clarification of the first four questions (if possible) because I think that plasma bridges and plasma discharges over huge distances and the speed of discharges are vital for future research.

[pirogronian]

Hello everyone. I found the same observation of pulsar in Crab Nebula at http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/un_o ... abe_uk.htm, where French amateur astronomer, Bernard Lempel, analyzed probably the same photo material as Paiva. His analyzus is simple enough, I think, that may be checked by yourself.

The key proof are a two snapshots from sequence of images, made by photon counting camera. On the one snapshot pulsar is off, while on the second - on. Here is compilation this two snapshot as one GIF:


Estimated distance between stars - pulsar and Geminga - is about 0.13 ly. So, we clearly see, that discharge, visible above, exceeds "ordinary" speed of light by many, many times. Of cource, we suppose, that estimated distance is correct. But Lempel himself claims, that there is powerful lens effect, caused by expanding gas bubbles (http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/refr ... abe_uk.htm). To me, both cases sounds interestng and both may be true.

It's very interesting, tht Bernard Lempel, being probably unawared of EU, admit, that it resembles "systematic electric shocks"...

[Maol]

Apologies if improper semantics are applied here, but I think the essence is evident.

Perhaps this phenomenon is analogous to a strobe light, such as used in flash photography and automotive timing lights.

If an electrical potential exists between the two stars, one acting as anode and the other cathode, such that the gas streamer is ionized to a condition slightly below its light emitting state, the triggering event could be an electromagnetic wave (or some other – gravity wave?), the arrival of such wave perpendicular to the axis of the ionized streamer could result in simultaneous illumination of the entire length.

As the solar wind and heliospheric current sheet has alternating sections of north and south polarity, the galactic wind has equivalent behavior.

The light emitting streamer could be switched “on” by one polarity and “off” by the other.