Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[comingfrom]

Thank you Higgsy.

but I'm curious as to the actual process that they used to arrive at specifically 0.0486. Can you see the distinction?

What I see, mainstream scientists build on the presumption that the theories that came before are 100% correct, and they push the math to fit new observations. If the math won't be pushed, they tack on another theory, with more math, until they derive the numbers required.

So, you agree with Michael that the mainstream was observing x-rays coming from the space 100kp around the Milky Way for years (is there any evidence for that assertion?) but they didn't know it was coming from baryonic matter?

If they already knew it was baryonic matter, they wouldn't have had to announce it as a discovery in 2012.

I am not sure what they were observing that prompted them to investigate further.

Even if the spectrum of the emission contains emission lines of oxygen and carbon?

So do you think they knew the halo consists of baryonic matter before the paper announcing it in 2012?

Well protons are just hydrogen ions, but my main question to this is whether the EU considers that the flow electricity is something that pushes around electrons and ions rather than being the flow of electrons and ions itself? Does the EU consider the current causes electrons to flow rather than being the flow of electrons (and ions)?

I'm not sure of EU's official stance on this.

What I do know is if electrons flow, then it is due to electricity.
Something causes the electrons to flow.

That's pretty radical stuff. I was taught that electrical currrent is streams of electrons (or ions, or holes), and that coherent streams of photons (depending on what you mean by coherent) is a laser beam. When I say that a stone is hot, a perfectly good physics property, how does that relate to the density of photons? And where would these photons be?

Photons are everywhere. Electrons and protons recycle photons. An increased density of photons causes the increased kinetic energy and brownian motion in atoms.

I was taught as you were, but I never could believe electrons and protons actually have pluses and minuses inscribed on them. Neither could I believe in virtual messenger particles that tell the ions which way to travel. I look for real physical solutions. And we know there is charge, the electromagnetic field, and that heat is infrared photons, so I presume that is the motive force. A greater density of photons transfers more kinetic energy to atoms, and we call it heat.

Sure, but aren't the photons detected by Chandra, emitted by the plasma, which cools it ? I was asking about heating.

Actually, it is still a mystery to me, how they can take the temperatures of things at a distance. How they know the temp at the surface of the Sun, and at the corona, and at distant stars and galaxies, and of the CMB. I'm just taking mainstream's word, when they tell us a temperature.

As for x-ray photographs, x-rays are highly spun up photons, so I presume the currents in the halo are interacting with the matter in the halo to generate these x-rays. There is more than enough energy contained in the currents, that a few escaping x-rays aren't going to cool it down it a hurry. Besides that, the halo is obviously being continuously powered, else it would have ceased long ago.

OK, that wasn't really the question but anyway, could you explain why the existence of the hot halo speaks of electricity as a mechanism.

You were asking for a mechanism.

If you could explain how the halo was generated and maintained by gravity, then you wouldn't have been asking for a mechanism.

Now if we have a new mechanism, electricity, the effect of that mechanism must be taken into account in all celestial mechanics, not just in flat rotation curves. And not just in the halo.

Could you describe the mechanism?

I have proposed that electric fields are fields of photons. Otherwise known as charge. In the process of the photons being recycled by all the matter in stars and planets, kinetic energy and angular momentum is transferred to those bodies. The photons going in, and the photons coming out, are the electric currents and fields.

And do you have a quantitative source which shows how the mechanism of electricity can replace the hypothesis of Dark Matter - in other words the calculations which show that the electrical mechanism, whatever it is, gives the same effect as the gravitational effect of a Dark Matter halo?

I do know of one who has done that math.

How does the temperature of the plasma tell us that there are a lot of photons?

What is heat? And if you think, kinetic energy, or brownian motion, then the question becomes, what is causing the kinetic energy and brownian motion?

Heat is infrared range photons. More heat indicates a higher density of these photons.

How many photons are a"lot of photons"?

Photons are not an easy thing to count.

What exactly does it mean for a photon to caught in a current?

Photons get channeled by baryonic matter. That is how, by using particular suitable elements (copper), we can conduct extremely dense streams of photons into everyone's house for them to use.

But a current containing ions can also maintain a tight formation across light years of space.

Earlier on you said that currents are coherent streams of photons (that's a different definition from the EU compared with the mainstream for current, but I'm going with your EU definition here).

Man made electricity is particularly coherent, but electricity takes on many forms in nature. Heat is an example of decoherent electricity. Black body radiation is an electric field. Even non magnetic planets have a plasmasphere. Charge is everywhere.

Now youisay that the photons in the halo are caught in coherent streams of photons. I am really confused now, because it's well known that the photon-photon interaction rate is almost zero - how can photons be caught in streams of photons?

Ions are an atom with a hole in them. One electron is missing, so they are now channeling the photons in a very different way than the neutral atom, and which is what causes ions to be more reactive. Plasma is ions, ions that readily channel photons (they are charged), and in turn the photon streams they channel keep the atoms ionized.

One of the wonderful things about electricity, is that it effects itself. That's why the math shall never been done. There are millions of variables to track, even in a tiny field or space. And like the planets are organised into circular or spiral systems, so electricity does the same to ions, and that's how filamentary currents can form in space like cables. NASA prefers to call them magnetic ropes, or magnetic highways. In EU they are referred to as Birkeland currents, after Kristian Birkeland, the eminent Norwegian scientist who first discovered them.

Great, but that isn't at all what a Faraday disc of a galaxy would look like, which is what Michael suggested. In the Faraday disc (homopolar generator) model, wouldn't the current be from the centre to the outside in the plane of the disc, caused by rotation of the disc in the presence of a uniform magnetic field at right angles to the plane of the disc? So aren't these two models (homopolar generator and cross-section of z-pinch) mutually exclusive?

No. There is a lot happening at the pinch, because there is matter there, and matter redirects the photons as it recycles it.

The galactic current is immense, and of low density. But at the pinch the density is increased dramatically and the current is split into smaller current systems, which power the stars. The stars split the currents again and power the planets. The planets split the currents again and we have lightning.

OK - you're going to have to explain what you mean by a coherently polarised electric field, because I know what each word means, I don't know what they mean in that order. When I understand the difference between a coherent and an incoherently polarised electric field, I'm sure I'll have more questions on the influence of photons on creating a strong or weak magnetic field.

I'm not sure I have my terminology right. In a coherent field all the photons are spinning the same way. There are none or few antiphotons. So an ion that is being propelled by the field will also get a similar sideways kick from every photon that strikes it, due to angular momentum of the spin. Maxwell called this the B field.

In a field that contains a mix of photons and antiphotons, the spins cancel each other out. The electron getting propelled by the field gets as many sideways kicks left as it does to the right, so there is no appreciable magnetic effect when we observe that electron.

Again, can I ask you to explain "quantum wind"? Let's take our sun, as an exampl - what is directly bombarding it to alter its motion in the galaxy? Photons? Electrons?

I believe photons are real particles. Not mediumless waves, nor massless point particles.

As soon as we give the field real particles, real mechanics can happen. If photons are physically real.

I'm not sure about by definition, but halos are a common standard feature of electric systems.
Halos are not a feature of gravity theory.

No questions, but I am surprised by that statement.

How would you explain halo formation?

The halo around the galaxy could be the outer rim of the current that powers the galaxy.
But I'm guessing there are more halos even further out, which we haven't detected yet.
The halo is more likely to be just a layer of a complex double layer.

OK - well what is the EU explanation for the gas-stellar displacement in the Bullet Cluster cluster and sub-cluster?

EU says that the gas is plasma, and plasma physics says that plasma is cellular. Regions of like charge form double layers around them. Such cells are capable of displacing each other.

Not sure if that is the official line, but that's the logical explanation that comes to my mind, after reading what I have about plasma cosmology.

OK - with regard to the orbits of planets, is it EU's position that we should dispense with Newtonian mechanics as an explanation for orbital dynamics? - it seemed to be working so well.

Newtonian mechanics works well in only in the simplest of situations.

Just introduce a third body into the situation and you already run into the n-body problem.

Introduce large distance, and the speed of light becomes a problem.
(Which Einstein tries to solve with his theory of relativity.)

Again, I am not sure what the official EU line is on this.
Wal Thornhill has proposed a theory of gravity, but I don't think that is the official EU theory.

I don't deny Newton or gravity, but I don't deny there are electric fields also.
And if the fields are composite, that could be one reason why the anomalies exist in Newtonian mechanics, and why it hasn't been straightforward coming up with the all encompassing theory.

Even here on Earth, gravity is greater than we measure it to be, because of Earth's electric field, which is in vector opposition. And here is where Newton heuristically derived his equations. Electricity wasn't even known about yet, in Newton's day, yet his equations still stand as dogmatic truths today, and are the foundation of all our physical sciences.

Let's not dispense Newton, but let's work out the equations again, with what we know now.
Unfortunately, the culture of science today doesn't allow for questioning of the standing dogmas.
If there is an error in F = GMm/R^2, their whole career will need to be done over again.
Relativity would need to rewritten.
All quantum mechanics and astrophysics too.
It is easier to stay on black holes and virtual particles, if that's where you have been all this time.

Thanks for your questions.
It challenges me, and causes me to think, when I have to explain it.
~Paul

[Higgsy]

So, help me understand how they arrive at the number? After Planck, if I'm not wrong, the baryon density parameter is 0.0486. Why does the mainstream need it to be precisely this value. Why not 0.06? Or 0.12? Or 1.0?

You really don't know? You seem to be knowledgeable about other areas of mainstream theory. I'm surprised you don't know why all the matter cannot be ordinary baryonic matter in mainstream theory.

No -I undersand now that I'm asking the wrong person - I should ask the mainstream. Again my question wasn't about the principle which I know, but about the actual calculation that ends up with a baryon density parameter 0.0486.

I am a little obsessed about quantifying things - physics is primarily about quantifying phenomena, which is why maths is the language of science. Galileo didn't just say balls roll down slopes - he quantified how they behaved and built overarching expressions to describe the phenomena quantitatively. Ditto, Newton and gravity and Maxwell and electromagnetism and so on. So when someone says something is big or small, I'll always want to know just how big or small it is. So when someone says the baryon density parameter is 0.0486 I want to know how they arrive at that number.

They knew they had a problem with their baryonic mass estimates. They had no idea where it was located, that it formed a halo around the galaxy, or that it moved just as their 'dark matter' models predicted it would. I'm sure they went looking for it to some degree. Unfortunately they've never once modified their baryonic mass estimates based upon *any* matter they have found, regardless of whether its the stellar miscounts we're discussing, or the "plasma halo" they found in 2012.

What do you mean exactly by baryonic mass estimates? Do you mean the quantity of ordinary matter in the universe, or in specific galaxies? Or its distribution? I'm not sure what you are expecting here.

So remembering that the plasma in this case is very diffuse (you can see in my post above an average number density of one ion in 7.7 litres, ) what would the physical mechanism for the heating be, and what electron flow (ie current) would be needed for that physical mechanism? Is there any empirical evidence based on the Chandra observations for the heating mechaism?

I don't really care about the "average density" since current carrying plasma doesn't spread out all nice and even to begin with. It forms "dense threads" of current carrying plasma which are pinched together by the magnetic fields that surround the current. That might be an accurate average density alright, but it's just an "average".

OK many more questions: do we have any empirical evidence that the plasma in the Milky Way hot halo is in dense threads, or is that your hypothesis? Do we have any evidence that it is carrying a substantial current? The existence of a hot plasma does not demand that it is carrying a current - of course it can carry a current, if something induces the current, but the ion, electron and therefore charge flow can be zero. When you say dense threads, how dense? If the mean number density is one per 7.7 litres, what would be the typical diameter and density of a "dense thread" in your scheme? But you didn't really answer the questions above: what would the physical mechanism for the heating be, and what electron flow (ie current) would be needed for that physical mechanism? Is there any empirical evidence based on the Chandra observations for the heating mechanism?

When it comes to looking at a galaxy, isn't it the distribution of visible mass that leads to the rotation curve problem?

Not if those stars are all embedded in a massive plasma halo. In fact recent studies show that the rotation speed can be determined by the baryonic mass layout alone.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917

I don't think that paper says what you think it says - it is claiming that in galaxies there is a fixed relationship bewteen the baryonic matter and the amount of exotic matter, so that the rotation curves can be predicted from the baryonic matter alone without knowing the distribution of exotic matter - it is not claiming that exotic matter is not needed to get the observed rotation curves - see for example the top panels in figure 2 and the fact that gobs - gbar is non zero (lower panel of figure 2)

Yes and no. If you read that paper, you'll see that we can predict the rotation pattern strictly from the baryonic mass layout we can observe. Why would that be the case in every galaxy if exotic matter dictates the rotation pattern?

Well their hypothesis is that there is a fixed relationship between the distribution of dark matter and ordinary matter across a range of galaxies. They are not saying that dark matter is not needed to explain the rotation curves.

Could you explain how the movement of the hot plasma halo helps explain the flat rotation curves?

The way the mainstream distributes their 'dark matter' is directly related to the rotation curves which specifically necessitates a "halo" that has all the same features we observe in that million degree plasma. It's not "dark" matter in that halo, it's a halo containing *plasma*.

Yes , but how does the rotation of the hot plasma halo affect the rotation curves of the visible matter? How is its influence different from a non-rotating halo?

So does the mainstream claim that discoveries about mass distribution round galaxies should be ignored? That would be interesting to read.

There have been at *least* five major observations that blew big holes in the baryonic mass calculations used in that 2006 paper. When did they update their claim about their so called "proof" of dark matter that turned out to be "proof" that their baryonic mass estimates were a joke, or did they just ignore all those problems? Did anyone retract that 2006 claim as a result of any of the mass they've found since 2006, or not?

So you are saying that the additional ordinary matter found since 2006 is about ten to fifteen times what was was used in the 2006 analysis for the stellar components of the clusters? - because that's the quantity of mass there according the lensing analysis. While the mass of the plasma components don't need to be updated?

So why does the bare fact of the existence of a hot plasma imply a hell of a lot of current?

Because electricity is the *simplest* way to explain such high temperatures and the sustaining of those high plasma temperatures.

Well sustaining the temperature isn't an issue as we are seeing in a parallel discussion, but why do you think a high current is the simplest way to explain the heating? After all a very diffuse plasma doesn't have many electrons to create this hell of a current, we haven't identified a source for inducing the current, and we don't know yet (because you haven't explained it yet) what the mechanism is for this current, if it exists, to heat the plasma.

What sort of current densities does a hell of a lot mean?

What does it take to get plasma to reach those temperatures in the lab?

I have no idea - you tell me, it's your idea that there is a hell of a lot of current in the halo - I'd like to know how much the EU theory suggests and as an expert proponent of the EU I thought you'd know.

Don't forget that a lab plasma will be millions of orders of magnitude denser than an IGM plasma, and in the lab you put a whopping great voltage across the plasma which accelerates the particles increasing their kinetic energy and temperature. But in any case, because of the hugely denser plasma and because the plasma is contained the situations are not comparable.

I absolutely agree that the existence of a plasma with two to three times the mass of visible matter outside the visible matter will affect the rotation pattern - has the EU (or you) calculated how much?

Not by me personally.

By anyone you know?

Oh right, that's interesting. What generates the uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the galactic disc,

The same thing that creates magnetic fields in *all* plasma, namely *current*.

OK, that's interesting, so, in this model, the Faraday disc which generates currents flowing radially from the centre of the galaxy to its edge also requires a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to the disc plane. According to the theory, this magnetic field is itself generated by currents. That's all good. So what is the distribution of currents to create the uniform magnetic field, and how are those currents induced? Typically, what kind of current density (for both magentic field inducing and radial induced currents) and what kind of magnetic field strength are we looking at?

and what closes the electrical circuit?

Have you read any of Alfven's work? I'd suggest you begin with his circuit model and note the fact that a single "magnetic rope" can carry both positive and negative current. Such ropes connect our own planet to the sun, and well as connect the sun to Saturn.

Thanks - when you say positive and negative current, do you mean curent in both directions or do you mean current being carried by both ions and electrons (ie current which is all one way)? I assume you mean the former? If so, how does this tie in with the fact that the Faraday disc generates a potential so current flows from centre to periphery or vice versa but not both. In the lab the circuit is closed by a conductor going from the periphery to the centre, not back through the disc. So do you think we'd need a similar thing here?

[Michael Mozina]

How does the plasma lose energy?

The same way everything loses energy. In EU theory the million degree plasma can be/would be part of a circut, so it doesn't have to cool off over time. Without current to sustain those temps however, the paticles will emit photons and the material will cool, particularly if it's all spread out like that.

OK, you are wrong about the cooling mechanism for diffuse plasmas, but there's nothing shameful about that. I am here to learn from you and others about EU theory so there's no reason that you shouldn't learn from me about something that I know about. That way, we both benefit. In this post I am going to concentrate on the principle, amd once you understand that we can talk about the numbers.

How could I possibly know that I'm "wrong" when you've provided no laboratory evidence to demonstrate that claim?

I am little surprised that you don't know the definition of temperature of a gas - this is freshman undergraduate thermodynamics, but we all missed lectures as freshmen (too much beer the night before?) and have some holes in our education.

Ad-homs? Alright, I'll buy your conversion to pure kinetic energy.

OK - so the temperarature of a gas (whether ionised or not) is proprtional to the average kinetic energy of the particles and is given by T=2/3k(0.5mv2)=(2/3k)KEave, where m is mass, v is velocity and k is Boltzmann's constant. The internal energy of the ions (for example binding energy of species with z>1) contributes to the energy but not the temperature of the gas, and in this case is not important anyway, because the ions are all stable nuclei of low atomic number. They don't have internal energy that can dissipate.

But they do have a presumably high ionization state that will change the moment that they attract an electron.

Why would a proton or an alpha particle (the most common species of ion) spontaneously emit a high energy photon?

for starters.

So let's think about what we have in an extremely diffuse intergalactic neutral plasma at high temperature. We have very rarefied ions (mainly protons - hydrogen nuclei, and alpha particles - helium nuclei, but also a some low atomic mass metal ions such as lithium, beryllium, boron, oxygen and carbon etc), and a number of free electrons equal to the total proton count (so somewhat more electrons than ions). These ions and electrons are very rarefied - we worked out above one ion and ~one electron per 7.7 litres as the average number density in the Milky Way hot plama halo.

I'm not buying the notion that all the particles are evenly distributed as you're trying to insist. They're moving and they're interacting with all sorts of other EM fields.

They are moving rapidly in random directions and their average kinetic energy gives the temperature of the plasma. Since the ions are unconditionally stable to fission, the binding energy (internal energy if you like) of particles above bare protons does not contribute to the temperature and cannot be radiated. Note that your intuition that individual ions will just spontaneously emit photons and cool down is wrong. There is no mechanism for that.

There are *plenty* of mechanisms for particle attraction, collisions, and EM field influences that will in fact cause the ions to cool off.

Now, the question arises, how does the plasma cool, how does it lose energy so that the temperature falls.

Same answer. Bremsstrahlung, including synchrotron radiation and cyclotron radiation.

You have ions and electrons whizzing around, and the ion or electron will just keep going indefinitely, unless it suffers an interaction or collision. That collisional interaction can lead to a number of possible outcomes: for example if an ion captures an electron then the process emits a photon which can propagate away.

The fact it's highly ionized means it's going to attract electrons.

Inelastic collisons between ions will also dissipate energy in the form of photons.

It's going to be bombarded by all sorts of photons, and all sorts of QM influences in general too.

Most importantly, some of the metals, oxygen for example, are not fully ionised and the bound atomic electrons will be collisionally excited to a higher state, and will then relax to a lower energy emitting a photon with an energy which corresponds to the particular transition. These transitions can be detected in the emission spectrum of the plasma. (Also, enough is known about atomic physics to accurately predict the relative rates of these different cooling mechanisms).

Assuming that's true you should be able to show me some lab results that support your claims. As it stands, you keep avoiding that request.

Now, since the cooling of the plasma depends on collisions, the cooling rate will be proportional to some power of the density of particles - the denser the plasma, the more collisions the more cooling. Conversely the less dense the plasma, the fewer collisions, the lower the rate of cooling. Since the rate of collisions goes as the square of the number density of particles (if you have twice the number of particles per unit volume, you'll have four times the number of collisions), so does the cooling rate with everything else held constant.

Why are you *assuming* that the plasma is evenly distributed in the first place? Any current carrying plasma will contain *threads* which are more dense than the surrounding regions.

That's as far as I want to take it with this post. It's important that we agree on the definition of temperature and the cooling mechanism for a diffuse unbounded plasma or gas. Let's see what you say about it, and then we can continue.

I'm rather leery frankly of any claim that is devoid of lab support of any type, and thus far I've not seen anything from you to suggest that plasma behaves in the lab as you seem to imagine.

[Zyxzevn]

Since this post is about MOND theory, I found this interesting link (via SuspiciousObserver).

Dark Matter Less Influential in Galaxies in Early Universe



It appears that distant galaxies do not have the fast rotation on the outside of the galaxies.
This means, depending on what model you use:

Dark Matter:
Dark matter did not exist in the old days.
This seems in contradiction with the LDMC, that needs DM to "explain" the formation of galaxies.

MOND:
MOND is variable in time.

Electric galaxy:
Electric charge builds up as the galaxy grows older, due to nuclear activity.
Which seems logical, but not necessary.

Plasma redshift / tired light:
The spread of redshifts of the stars in the galaxies are depending on distance somehow.
This means that the galaxies are similar, but that the interstellar plasma causes the redshifts to be more uniform
and/or that the time-correction that the scientists used is wrong.

[Michael Mozina]

No -I undersand now that I'm asking the wrong person - I should ask the mainstream. Again my question wasn't about the principle which I know, but about the actual calculation that ends up with a baryon density parameter 0.0486.

Suffice to say it's a *required* number that cannot be modified by a large factor without destroying the rest of their model. That's exactly why the mainstream is in pure denial of all the flaws in the baryonic mass calculations in that 2006 lensing study and that denial process is why they keep insisting on a percentage based number where *none* is warranted! The only reason they *have* to have a "consistent ratio" rather than a floating number is directly related to the falsification aspects as it relates to the rest of their theory. If they tripled the baryonic mass, the whole model comes crashing to the ground.

I am a little obsessed about quantifying things - physics is primarily about quantifying phenomena, which is why maths is the language of science.

Ya, except the mainstream pretty much ignores their math when it comes to dark matter. They made all kinds of mathematical predictions, none of which produced a single tangible result in any lab on Earth. What's the point of math if you won't use it to falsify your own claims?

Galileo didn't just say balls roll down slopes - he quantified how they behaved and built overarching expressions to describe the phenomena quantitatively. Ditto, Newton and gravity and Maxwell and electromagnetism and so on. So when someone says something is big or small, I'll always want to know just how big or small it is. So when someone says the baryon density parameter is 0.0486 I want to know how they arrive at that number.

Fair enough, but they're basically limited to a range of between 4 and 5 percent and it's a postdicted ratio from *dogma*, not from direct observation.

What do you mean exactly by baryonic mass estimates? Do you mean the quantity of ordinary matter in the universe, or in specific galaxies? Or its distribution? I'm not sure what you are expecting here.

I mean that they knew that their baryonic mass estimates based on brightness were so flawed that they returned a number that was too small to even fit their own model properly. The mainstream has *never* been able to properly estimate the amount of ordinary matter present in any study because our technologies *and* our models are limited and messed up and they've always been limited and messed up. They've always had to "guestimate" the amount of ordinary matter in various galaxies, including our own. They've even found 40 additional satellite galaxies around our own galaxy since that 2006 lensing study, and the botched the stellar estimates in that study by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times!

So remembering that the plasma in this case is very diffuse (you can see in my post above an average number density of one ion in 7.7 litres, ) what would the physical mechanism for the heating be, and what electron flow (ie current) would be needed for that physical mechanism? Is there any empirical evidence based on the Chandra observations for the heating mechaism?

OK many more questions: do we have any empirical evidence that the plasma in the Milky Way hot halo is in dense threads, or is that your hypothesis?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10825806/ns/t ... MrZ2KJlA2w
I can demonstrate that the galaxy contains Birkeland currents, and "magnetic ropes" galore. They even connect our own sun to it's planets. Where *isn't* the universe carrying current?

Do we have any evidence that it is carrying a substantial current?

Yes, the *high temperature* and the *consistency* of that high temperature both point us in that direction. That "slinky* is also a normal feature of *current carrying* plasma.

The existence of a hot plasma does not demand that it is carrying a current - of course it can carry a current, if something induces the current, but the ion, electron and therefore charge flow can be zero.

There is as much evidence that it's carrying current as there is for any other 'interpretation' of those high temperatures. There's definitely more *lab* evidence to favor electricity as the heat source.

When you say dense threads, how dense?

I don't really know frankly. I'd be "guessing" like anyone else.

If the mean number density is one per 7.7 litres, what would be the typical diameter and density of a "dense thread" in your scheme?

Ya know.....

I understand and appreciate your need for quantification, but it's really not something I personally "need". Maybe you should research Peratt's work on galaxy formation processes in EU/PC theory a bit and see if you can't answer some of your own questions.

I can see for myself from lab tests electricity is a possibility as it relates to the heat source of that plasma, and EU/PC theory *requires* that every galaxy is a current carrying environment, just as every solar system is a current carrying environment. I would *expect* that the plasma won't ever completely 'cool off' in such an environment. All of these observations are entirely consistent with EU/PC theory.

You're actually the kind of individual that EU/PC theory needs to better "quantify" various aspects of the theory. Care to leave the "dark" ages of physics behind?

But you didn't really answer the questions above: what would the physical mechanism for the heating be,

Resistance to current.

and what electron flow (ie current) would be needed for that physical mechanism?

As I said, I'd personally start with Peratt's work, but I'm not going to reproduce it here in this forum for you between tech calls at work.

Is there any empirical evidence based on the Chandra observations for the heating mechanism?

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that current heats plasma in the lab, and in nature (here on Earth), that's for sure. Why would you expect to necessarily be able to figure out the heating mechanism based on an uncontrolled observation? How would you support/justify a 'supernova' heating mechanism from the same Chandra observations?

I don't think that paper says what you think it says - it is claiming that in galaxies there is a fixed relationship bewteen the baryonic matter and the amount of exotic matter, so that the rotation curves can be predicted from the baryonic matter alone without knowing the distribution of exotic matter - it is not claiming that exotic matter is not needed to get the observed rotation curves - see for example the top panels in figure 2 and the fact that gobs - gbar is non zero (lower panel of figure 2)

Why would the baryonic mass layout dictate the rotation curves *every single time* if it represents only a *fraction* of the mass of a galaxy? You've basically got *zero* evidence from those rotation patterns that exotic matter is necessary or required to explain what we observe, and you've got zero laboratory support for exotic matter after spending *billions* of dollars trying to find some evidence. What now?

Well their hypothesis is that there is a fixed relationship between the distribution of dark matter and ordinary matter across a range of galaxies. They are not saying that dark matter is not needed to explain the rotation curves.

So miraculously, even though ordinary matter and "dark matter" presumably have completely different properties with respect to photon interaction and EM influences, they all stay mixed together in exactly the same proportions regardless of the age of the galaxy, or it's rotation characteristics? How does that rationalization work? Why would they occupy the very same space in exactly the same proportions every single time in every single circumstance?

Yes , but how does the rotation of the hot plasma halo affect the rotation curves of the visible matter? How is its influence different from a non-rotating halo?

The movement of the outer mass helps to explain the movements of the inner mass. How would a non rotation "dark matter halo" work differently than a rotating "dark matter halo"? Why does the plasma halo have all the same characteristics in terms of location, movement and 'halo' characteristics that are associated with "dark matter"?

So you are saying that the additional ordinary matter found since 2006 is about ten to fifteen times what was was used in the 2006 analysis for the stellar components of the clusters? - because that's the quantity of mass there according the lensing analysis.

Easily! First they botched the brightness factor by at least a factor of two, and they used brightness to determine mass. They could already be off by a factor of 2. Then they botched the stellar mass ratios somewhere between 3 and 20 times depending on the mass of the star and the type of galaxy. Let's pick a round number like 5, and we're already at 10 times the amount of mass they "estimated". They also underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies in those clusters. Add all that up, and now *double it* based on what we found in 2012, and I'm sure it's going to have a *major* impact. Even if it's not 20 times as much, it will many times higher than they estimated. Can you cite any paper where the mainstream modified their estimates based upon the various revelations since 2006, or did they just bury their heads in the sand and repeat the same ratio because it kills their theory if they change it?

While the mass of the plasma components don't need to be updated?

All the components of their baryonic mass calculations were shown to be flawed, so they all need to be fixed. Nobody want's to do that however because the moment they do that, the ratio is greater than 5 percent, and the rest of their model starts to fall apart. Denial is therefore their only possible self defense mechanism.

Well sustaining the temperature isn't an issue as we are seeing in a parallel discussion,

You keep saying that, but you've shown no evidence to support it.

but why do you think a high current is the simplest way to explain the heating?

It's the *natural* way that planets heat plasma in their atmospheres to millions of degrees and causes that plasma to emit high energy photons. Why wouldn't I use an obvious example from nature as my guide?

After all a very diffuse plasma doesn't have many electrons to create this hell of a current, we haven't identified a source for inducing the current, and we don't know yet (because you haven't explained it yet) what the mechanism is for this current, if it exists, to heat the plasma.

Oy Vey. You keep *assuming* it's "diffuse", but current carrying plasma doesn't work like that in the lab, or in space. It's *threaded* and more dense in some areas and less dense in other areas. The current, and the resulting *pinch* effect drive a process that creates dense threads, and less dense regions between threads.

I have no idea - you tell me, it's your idea that there is a hell of a lot of current in the halo - I'd like to know how much the EU theory suggests and as an expert proponent of the EU I thought you'd know.

I pointed you the best galaxy modeling that I'm aware of. IMO, it's silly for me to simply pick random numbers for you. Suffice to say you can find that information from *lab tests* if you're interested in the numbers. Look up the Z-machine figures and temperatures and I'm sure that you could figure it out if you wanted to.

Don't forget that a lab plasma will be millions of orders of magnitude denser than an IGM plasma,

That's another "assumption" you made.

and in the lab you put a whopping great voltage across the plasma which accelerates the particles increasing their kinetic energy and temperature.

Birkeland showed that it's a whopping great voltage (600 million volts was his estimate) that accelerates the particles of the solar wind and increases their kinetic energy and temperature too. It's a whopping great voltage in the Earth's atmosphere that creates discharges taht accelerate particles and increase their kinetic energy too. Nature has no problem creating whopping great voltages.

But in any case, because of the hugely denser plasma and because the plasma is contained the situations are not comparable.

But you don't really know that, you *assume* that. You can only "assume" such a thing if you "assume" it's not carrying any current. You have no evidence that it's not carrying current, and it's high stable temperature suggests just the opposite is true.

By anyone you know?

Not really. Why would I even bother in fact? I'm not making any claims about needing exotic forms of matter to explain galaxy rotation patterns. There have also been plenty of papers demonstrating *major* baryonic mass estimate problems with the mainstream theory. I haven't made any extraordinary claims.

OK, that's interesting, so, in this model, the Faraday disc which generates currents flowing radially from the centre of the galaxy to its edge also requires a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to the disc plane. According to the theory, this magnetic field is itself generated by currents. That's all good. So what is the distribution of currents to create the uniform magnetic field, and how are those currents induced? Typically, what kind of current density (for both magentic field inducing and radial induced currents) and what kind of magnetic field strength are we looking at?

I actually think you might want to consult Birkeland's work to get those numbers. One of the things that Birkeland observed in his lab during his experiments is a "disk" around his terella that contained both positive ions and electrons. I think his work would be applicable at any scale.

Thanks - when you say positive and negative current, do you mean curent in both directions or do you mean current being carried by both ions and electrons (ie current which is all one way)? I assume you mean the former?

In plasma even a moving ion is a form of current and it will leave a magnetic field in it's wake.

If so, how does this tie in with the fact that the Faraday disc generates a potential so current flows from centre to periphery or vice versa but not both. In the lab the circuit is closed by a conductor going from the periphery to the centre, not back through the disc. So do you think we'd need a similar thing here?

The disk itself is a feature of the current flow patterns, and the magnetic field influences of the central body. It formed a flat "disk" like feature around Birkeland's terella which he wrote about extensively. The one thing about plasma physics is that it scales very nicely. I'm sure the same features could apply to galaxy formation processes.

[Michael Mozina]

Why would a proton or an alpha particle (the most common species of ion) spontaneously emit a high energy photon?

My response should have read:

Bremsstrahlung which includes synchrotron radiation, cyclotron radiation for starters.

I didn't have time to reread and edit the post quickly enough be able to fix it in the original post.

[willendure]

Why would a proton or an alpha particle (the most common species of ion) spontaneously emit a high energy photon?

My response should have read:

Bremsstrahlung which includes synchrotron radiation, cyclotron radiation for starters.

I didn't have time to reread and edit the post quickly enough be able to fix it in the original post.

If you had a million degree cloud of very diffuse hot gas made of neutral atoms and compared it with this million degree cloud of diffuse hot plasma, would you expect the plasma to radiate heat more than the neutral gas? That is to say that with the neutral gas we are expecting that it requires a collision to release photons, but the particles that make up the plasma can also accelerate each other through electromagetism.

"Literature often cites the plasma coupling parameter Γ=Z^2.e^2/(kb.T.a) where a is proportional to (number density)^−1/3, T is the temperature, and Z is the charge number. This can roughly be though of as the ratio of kinetic to potential energy of the particles in the plasma. Γ < 1 is generally thought of as a "classical plasma", but for Γ > 1 you begin to see some "fluid like" behavior ( meaning correlations ), and for very large coupling parameters γ>~175 the ions form the coulomb crystals, while the electrons behave classically."

In this case I think we are talking about plasma with Γ << 1.

[Higgsy]

Hi Michael,

I am little surprised that you don't know the definition of temperature of a gas - this is freshman undergraduate thermodynamics, but we all missed lectures as freshmen (too much beer the night before?) and have some holes in our education.

Ad-homs? Alright, I'll buy your conversion to pure kinetic energy.

Well lt was meant to be light-hearted and I did say 'we' including myself. But I apologise if it upset you. And now I don't know what you mean by 'conversion'.

Let's deal with this lab thing now because it's obviously distracting from the reasoning. There are no lab experiments on the cooling of plasmas such as those we find in the IGM because we can't make diffuse plasmas like that. We can only make strongly collisional plasmas. Consider that the density of the plasma we are talking about is a million times less than the best ultra-hard vacuum we can make on earth. For practical plasma experiments, we are talking about densities that are are at least a million times higher and more commonly a billion times higher than that (see, just as an example, the Large Plasma Device). So the density of plasma that we make on earth is typically at least 15 orders of magnitude higher than the IGM plasma. What's more, the plasma in the IGM is unbounded and uncontained. On earth we either have a boundary wall or we contain the plasma with a strong external magnetic field from permanent or electro-magnets.

So not only are the experiments you are asking about not been done, but they can't be done, at least with current technology. So what do we do? We can throw our hands up and say that nothing can be known about IGM plasmas; or we can observe them and putting our observations together with what we know about electromagnetism and particle physics, we can infer their behaviour. What sort of observations can we make? We can make spectral measurements, we can measure luminosity, and absorption and so forth. We can make models using all the known physics which applies and which has been validated by laboratory exeriment, and test those models against further observations. That's the only way to do physics of IGM plasmas.

But perhaps you have a better idea of how to do it?

OK - so the temperarature of a gas (whether ionised or not) is proprtional to the average kinetic energy of the particles and is given by T=2/3k(0.5mv2)=(2/3k)KEave, where m is mass, v is velocity and k is Boltzmann's constant. The internal energy of the ions (for example binding energy of species with z>1) contributes to the energy but not the temperature of the gas, and in this case is not important anyway, because the ions are all stable nuclei of low atomic number. They don't have internal energy that can dissipate.

But they do have a presumably high ionization state that will change the moment that they attract an electron.

Sure, and recombination cooling is one mechanism that contributes, but electrons and ions are far apart, the mean free paths are very long, the temperature is high so the recombination rate is low.

Why would a proton or an alpha particle (the most common species of ion) spontaneously emit a high energy photon?

for starters.

Eh?

So let's think about what we have in an extremely diffuse intergalactic neutral plasma at high temperature. We have very rarefied ions (mainly protons - hydrogen nuclei, and alpha particles - helium nuclei, but also a some low atomic mass metal ions such as lithium, beryllium, boron, oxygen and carbon etc), and a number of free electrons equal to the total proton count (so somewhat more electrons than ions). These ions and electrons are very rarefied - we worked out above one ion and ~one electron per 7.7 litres as the average number density in the Milky Way hot plama halo.

I'm not buying the notion that all the particles are evenly distributed as you're trying to insist. They're moving and they're interacting with all sorts of other EM fields.

Well, that's possible, but we'll need to identify the source of any electrical or magnetic fields that act on the particles in such a way as to create regions of higher and lower density, and I suppose we'd need some evidence that the plasma does indeed have structure like that.

They are moving rapidly in random directions and their average kinetic energy gives the temperature of the plasma. Since the ions are unconditionally stable to fission, the binding energy (internal energy if you like) of particles above bare protons does not contribute to the temperature and cannot be radiated. Note that your intuition that individual ions will just spontaneously emit photons and cool down is wrong. There is no mechanism for that.

There are *plenty* of mechanisms for particle attraction, collisions, and EM field influences that will in fact cause the ions to cool off.

Sure, and the physics is based on calculating the rates of these various influences for the kind of plasma we are looking at. But the strength of all of these mechanisms depend on the number density of particles because they all depend on interaction with another particle or group of particles. And that is the point I'm making - the cooling rate is a strong function of number density - the internal energy of the ions doesn't contribute to temperature and cannot be lost.

Now, the question arises, how does the plasma cool, how does it lose energy so that the temperature falls.

Same answer. Bremsstrahlung, including synchrotron radiation and cyclotron radiation.

Exactly, free-free cooling is an important element but it depends very much on number density of ions and electrons. There's also recombination cooling and line cooling (the excitation of a bound electron which then relaxes emitting a photon).

When it comes to synchotron and cyclotron radiation, that's also possible but only in the presence of a strong magnetic field. So we'd need to think about whether a) synchotron and cyclotron radiation have been detected, b)whether there is any evidence for a strong magnetic field and c) what the source of that magnetic field would be.

You have ions and electrons whizzing around, and the ion or electron will just keep going indefinitely, unless it suffers an interaction or collision. That collisional interaction can lead to a number of possible outcomes: for example if an ion captures an electron then the process emits a photon which can propagate away.

The fact it's highly ionized means it's going to attract electrons.

Sure, but the particles are typically separated by 150 - 200mm. What's the Coulomb force between an electron and a proton at that range?

Inelastic collisons between ions will also dissipate energy in the form of photons.

It's going to be bombarded by all sorts of photons, and all sorts of QM influences in general too.

What photons and what QM influences are you referring to?

Most importantly, some of the metals, oxygen for example, are not fully ionised and the bound atomic electrons will be collisionally excited to a higher state, and will then relax to a lower energy emitting a photon with an energy which corresponds to the particular transition. These transitions can be detected in the emission spectrum of the plasma. (Also, enough is known about atomic physics to accurately predict the relative rates of these different cooling mechanisms).

Assuming that's true you should be able to show me some lab results that support your claims. As it stands, you keep avoiding that request.

See above about the impossibility of doing lab experiments on the cooling of these sorts of plasma. But here's one or two examples of the kind of analysis that can be done: http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/PH ... /Part3.pdf
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/14/aa0365.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.5204.pdf

Now, since the cooling of the plasma depends on collisions, the cooling rate will be proportional to some power of the density of particles - the denser the plasma, the more collisions the more cooling. Conversely the less dense the plasma, the fewer collisions, the lower the rate of cooling. Since the rate of collisions goes as the square of the number density of particles (if you have twice the number of particles per unit volume, you'll have four times the number of collisions), so does the cooling rate with everything else held constant.

Why are you *assuming* that the plasma is evenly distributed in the first place? Any current carrying plasma will contain *threads* which are more dense than the surrounding regions.

I'm assuming uniformity because until there is evidence for non-uniformity and a source for the elecrical or magnetic field that causes it, it's the default. Plasma can carry current but that doesn't mean that it must be carrying substantial currents, any more than a copper wire must have a large current flowing in it.

[comingfrom]

Willendure

If you had a million degree cloud of very diffuse hot gas made of neutral atoms and compared it with this million degree cloud of diffuse hot plasma, would you expect the plasma to radiate heat more than the neutral gas?

If you heated cloud of diffuse gas of neutral atoms to a million degrees, would it even still be neutral?

Seems to me. that much kinetic energy would ionize the atoms.

That is to say that with the neutral gas we are expecting that it requires a collision to release photons, but the particles that make up the plasma can also accelerate each other through electromagetism.

Think about how you would heat your diffuse gas of neutral atoms.

Would you apply a flame?
Does the galaxy apply a flame to it's halo?...or, is the gas in the halo heated by the radiation from the stars in the galaxy?

Just contemplating the possible methods how such a volume of gas could be heated to such temperature, and the heat maintained, we are not left with a lot of choices.

"Literature often cites the plasma coupling parameter Γ=Z^2.e^2/(kb.T.a) where a is proportional to (number density)^−1/3, T is the temperature, and Z is the charge number. This can roughly be though of as the ratio of kinetic to potential energy of the particles in the plasma. Γ < 1 is generally thought of as a "classical plasma", but for Γ > 1 you begin to see some "fluid like" behavior ( meaning correlations ), and for very large coupling parameters γ>~175 the ions form the coulomb crystals, while the electrons behave classically."

In this case I think we are talking about plasma with Γ << 1.

In the case of the halo, Z will be very large.

~Paul

[Michael Mozina]

Well lt was meant to be light-hearted and I did say 'we' including myself.

No problem. I was trying to interject humor with the smileys but alas it's hard to convey subtleties in cyberspace.

Let's deal with this lab thing now because it's obviously distracting from the reasoning.

It seems more distracting to your reasoning than to mine apparently. I think a lot of that has to do with your insistence on conditions that are actually not common at all in plasma, particularly plasma in such high temperature states as we find them in nature.

There are no lab experiments on the cooling of plasmas such as those we find in the IGM because we can't make diffuse plasmas like that.

We can take it to as low density as we can make it, but I'm not convinced that the plasma particles are so evenly spaced as you seem to imagine.

We can only make strongly collisional plasmas. Consider that the density of the plasma we are talking about is a million times less than the best ultra-hard vacuum we can make on earth. For practical plasma experiments, we are talking about densities that are are at least a million times higher and more commonly a billion times higher than that (see, just as an example, the Large Plasma Device). So the density of plasma that we make on earth is typically at least 15 orders of magnitude higher than the IGM plasma. What's more, the plasma in the IGM is unbounded and uncontained. On earth we either have a boundary wall or we contain the plasma with a strong external magnetic field from permanent or electro-magnets.

Here's where the mainstream seems to prefer to 'make excuses" as to why lab tests cannot or do not apply to their beliefs. I find that annoying frankly. Admittedly it *could* be that they particles are as thin as you claim, as consistently as you claim, but I don't have any direct evidence of that. It's just an *average* density, which doesn't necessarily mean it's all "spread out".

So not only are the experiments you are asking about not been done, but they can't be done, at least with current technology.

Where have I heard all this before? Oh ya, in almost every claim related to LCDM theory with the exception of "dark matter" which has been an absolute disaster in the lab for proponents of exotic matter.

So what do we do? We can throw our hands up and say that nothing can be known about IGM plasmas; or we can observe them and putting our observations together with what we know about electromagnetism and particle physics, we can infer their behaviour.

What we know about electromagnetism is that it's a great way to heat plasma on Earth. In fact we find *natural* examples of it all throughout our atmosphere. Why wouldn't I look to a perfectly "natural" explanation for high temperature plasma?

What sort of observations can we make? We can make spectral measurements, we can measure luminosity, and absorption and so forth. We can make models using all the known physics which applies and which has been validated by laboratory exeriment, and test those models against further observations. That's the only way to do physics of IGM plasmas.

I personally think that's a cop out that begs your own biases. You have to "assume" that the particles are all spread out, and *not* carrying current to make that claim in the first place.

But perhaps you have a better idea of how to do it?

Sure. I'd suggest we start *in the lab* with the fewest other possible assumptions. If we have to scale things, fine, but at least lets begin in the lab with real plasma.

Sure, and recombination cooling is one mechanism that contributes, but electrons and ions are far apart,

Another assumption on your part.

the mean free paths are very long,

The attraction level however might get quite large, particularly as it relates to *highly* ionized plasma.

the temperature is high so the recombination rate is low.

Only if you make a whole bunch of assumptions which you haven't actually demonstrated.

]So let's think about what we have in an extremely diffuse intergalactic neutral plasma at high temperature. We have very rarefied ions (mainly protons - hydrogen nuclei, and alpha particles - helium nuclei, but also a some low atomic mass metal ions such as lithium, beryllium, boron, oxygen and carbon etc), and a number of free electrons equal to the total proton count (so somewhat more electrons than ions). These ions and electrons are very rarefied - we worked out above one ion and ~one electron per 7.7 litres as the average number density in the Milky Way hot plama halo.

This has become your assumption "mantra" at this point. It's just an *average*. It could be arranged in a variety of ways however, not necessarily all spread out evenly as you keep "assuming" by constantly citing an *average*.

Well, that's possible, but we'll need to identify the source of any electrical or magnetic fields that act on the particles in such a way as to create regions of higher and lower density, and I suppose we'd need some evidence that the plasma does indeed have structure like that.

In Birkeland's 'electric sun" model and Aflven's electric sun model, every sun acts as a generator of electrical energy. You have hundreds of billions of 'sources" per galaxy to work with. In terms of "evidence", we see all sorts of evidence of filamentary and high temperature characteristics that are entirely consistent with current carrying environments.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10825806/ns/t ... ce-theory/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ble-movie/

These are very common "Birkeland currents" that form in current carrying plasma, not a "magnetic slinky".

What other 'evidence" do you personally require?

Sure, and the physics is based on calculating the rates of these various influences for the kind of plasma we are looking at. But the strength of all of these mechanisms depend on the number density of particles because they all depend on interaction with another particle or group of particles. And that is the point I'm making - the cooling rate is a strong function of number density - the internal energy of the ions doesn't contribute to temperature and cannot be lost.

It would be more accurate to state that this is the *primary assumption* that you are making because you are *assuming* that current does not play a role in the *actual* mass layout. You're making unfounded *assumptions* which relate only to your beliefs, and you seem unwilling to consider those same observations from the perspective of EU/PC theory.

Exactly, free-free cooling is an important element but it depends very much on number density of ions and electrons. There's also recombination cooling and line cooling (the excitation of a bound electron which then relaxes emitting a photon).

So the density aspect becomes the whole debate. In a current carrying environment, the plasma is threaded, and pinched together in current carrying filaments, whereas you assume that every particle somehow remains unaffected by any EM fields in space.

When it comes to synchotron and cyclotron radiation, that's also possible but only in the presence of a strong magnetic field. So we'd need to think about whether a) synchotron and cyclotron radiation have been detected, b)whether there is any evidence for a strong magnetic field and c) what the source of that magnetic field would be.

The source of any and all magnetic fields in plasma is *current*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotr ... _detection

Synchroton radiation was first predicted by Hannes Alfven using EU/PC theory in 1950, and it's been see around those "space slinkies" near the core of various galaxies. What more evidence do you require that *current* is involved?

Sure, but the particles are typically separated by 150 - 200mm. What's the Coulomb force between an electron and a proton at that range?

More assumptions. Every one of your beliefs requires plasma to somehow separate itself all nice and evenly at high temperatures without really having an actually explanation for the movement patterns being associated with galaxy rotation speeds that are in line with the rest of the galaxy.

What photons and what QM influences are you referring to?

Photons, neutrinos, VP's etc.

See above about the impossibility of doing lab experiments on the cooling of these sorts of plasma. But here's one or two examples of the kind of analysis that can be done: http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/PH ... /Part3.pdf
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/14/aa0365.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.5204.pdf

I'll try to take a look at your links this weekend. It's a bit telling IMO that astronomers shun the lab and any limitation imposed by the lab.

I'm assuming uniformity because until there is evidence for non-uniformity and a source for the elecrical or magnetic field that causes it, it's the default.

The "default"? I thought we were trying to understand how nature works. That's not how nature works in the lab, so why would it work that way in space?

Plasma can carry current but that doesn't mean that it must be carrying substantial currents, any more than a copper wire must have a large current flowing in it.

Of course if it's radiating photons indicative of high temperatures in a relatively low temp environment, we might suspect it's carrying current.

[Michael Mozina]

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

I'm curious how you expect this hot plasma to not experience normal emissions.

[Higgsy]

Hi Michael

No -I undersand now that I'm asking the wrong person - I should ask the mainstream. Again my question wasn't about the principle which I know, but about the actual calculation that ends up with a baryon density parameter 0.0486.

Suffice to say it's a *required* number that cannot be modified by a large factor without destroying the rest of their model.

Again, that doesn't answer my question - but, I see that it isn't a question for you.

OK many more questions: do we have any empirical evidence that the plasma in the Milky Way hot halo is in dense threads, or is that your hypothesis?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10825806/ns/t ... MrZ2KJlA2w

Sure, but isn't that a molecular or atomic cloud, quite localised in interstellar space, and not at all representative of the IGM? The question was whether there is empirical evidence that there are dense threads in the hot halo. The answer seems to be no.

I can demonstrate that the galaxy contains Birkeland currents, and "magnetic ropes" galore.

Brilliant - that's just why I'm here. Could you do that?

Do we have any evidence that it is carrying a substantial current?

Yes, the *high temperature* and the *consistency* of that high temperature both point us in that direction.

Sorry - it doesn't point me in that direction, as whatever the high temperature was initially caused by I know that it doesn't need a current to sustain it, owing to to the very low number density and low cooling rate. The movement of the plasma round the galactic centre has been measured, as you pointed out, and there is no evidence in that for any substantial difference between ionic or electron velocities which woukd be required for a substantial current.

When you say dense threads, how dense?

I don't really know frankly. I'd be "guessing" like anyone else.

If the mean number density is one per 7.7 litres, what would be the typical diameter and density of a "dense thread" in your scheme?

Ya know.....

I understand and appreciate your need for quantification, but it's really not something I personally "need".

Really! You don't need quantification? Aren't we discussing physics? I have to say I am very disappointed. I came here hoping to learn something about EU/PC theory, and I understood you are one of the most knowledgeable and vocal proponents of the theory, and that you have very strong ideas about physics. And now you say that you don't care about quantification - frankly, that shocks me. If you don't care about quantification, it really isn't physics - it's just pretty stories, but unless you run the numbers, you can never know whether the pretty stories have any relationship to reality. I know there must be more than this, but at the moment all I'm getting from you and others on the forum is that space is filled with current and magnetism and that explains everything. You object to my use of a mean density for the hot halo, although my figure is factually correct, because you say that the plasma will be threaded, but you don't have any idea what the dimensions and density of the thread are, so we have no idea whether it would substantially affect my conclusions and, if so, by how much. You say current heats the plasma, but you won't say how much current or what is driving the current, and if the source is a magnetic field, what is the cause of that magnetic field. These are questions that any physicist would immediately ask, but you are not interested in them, and I am dsappointed.

I can see for myself from lab tests electricity is a possibility as it relates to the heat source of that plasma, and EU/PC theory *requires* that every galaxy is a current carrying environment, just as every solar system is a current carrying environment. I would *expect* that the plasma won't ever completely 'cool off' in such an environment. All of these observations are entirely consistent with EU/PC theory.

What environment? What current? What creates the current? What creates the thing that creates the current? Given a current, what is the heating mechanism? How much heating does that provide? Is that in equilibrium with the cooling rate? What is the cooling rate? If it's threaded and the cooling/heating is greater in the denser regions than the average for the plasma, isn't the cooling rate less than the average outside the threads. What does that mean for the overall rates?

You're actually the kind of individual that EU/PC theory needs to better "quantify" various aspects of the theory. Care to leave the "dark" ages of physics behind?

Sure, if I get anything that indicates that EU/PC makes claims that are ignored by the mainstream that also have legs. But I'm not getting that at the moment.

But you didn't really answer the questions above: what would the physical mechanism for the heating be,

Resistance to current.

Resistance of what? Since temperature is, as we have agreed, determined by the kinetic energy of the ions and electrons, how would a large flow of electrons and ions in opposite directions (the definition of current here) cause an increase in mean kinetic energy?

and what electron flow (ie current) would be needed for that physical mechanism?

As I said, I'd personally start with Peratt's work, but I'm not going to reproduce it here in this forum for you between tech calls at work.

Just give me some numbers to work with - this is fundamental EU/PC stuff that is surely well known - what are the thread dimensions and number densities and currents and magnetic fields in one of the simplest scenarios in the entire cosmos - the IGM? You know, this is so disappointing, I'm just going to stop here for a while, as I don't see where we go from here. It takes two to tango, and we can't discuss physics if one of us refuses to quantify anything. I'll get back to the rest of your post at some point, but for now I'm dispirited and off to do something else.

[Morphix]

I posted about the work of Pavel Kroupa back in 2014: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... upa#p96119

Especially recomend the presentation on youtube where Kroupa tears apart dark matter cosmology. This is not to say that MOND makes ultimate sense, but Kroupa and associates in any case are onto some of what's wrong with standard theory. Perhaps Kroupa and other somewhat skeptical scientists like him are candidates for eventually taking a look at EU concepts.

[comingfrom]

Higgsy wrote.

Just give me some numbers to work with - this is fundamental EU/PC stuff that is surely well known - what are the thread dimensions and number densities and currents and magnetic fields in one of the simplest scenarios in the entire cosmos - the IGM?

Whether one is an EU advocate or not, we all get the same numbers to work with. The measurements given to us by NASA and telescopes and so forth.

Mainstream never tells you how dense their dark matter halos are, nor give any numbers that you can use to calculate Dark Matter's gravitic effects. EU and mainstream are on equal footing when it comes to numbers supplied, but EU is way in front, if you just look at photos of the cosmos.

Look at Hubble pictures of nebulae, to see filaments and currents in space plasma. And look at pictures of Black Holes, to see how black they are not. And look at pictures of galaxies to see the shapes of magnetic fields.

You know, this is so disappointing, I'm just going to stop here for a while, as I don't see where we go from here. It takes two to tango, and we can't discuss physics if one of us refuses to quantify anything. I'll get back to the rest of your post at some point, but for now I'm dispirited and off to do something else.

It's disappointing getting straightforward answers, when you are used to hearing exotic misdirection.

Or as a famous man once said, No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

We are all just offering what we know or suppose. Drink of it what you will, and leave what you will. There is no need to get disappointed.

Rejoice only
~Paul

[Higgsy]

Hi Morphix

I posted about the work of Pavel Kroupa back in 2014: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... upa#p96119

Especially recomend the presentation on youtube where Kroupa tears apart dark matter cosmology. This is not to say that MOND makes ultimate sense, but Kroupa and associates in any case are onto some of what's wrong with standard theory. Perhaps Kroupa and other somewhat skeptical scientists like him are candidates for eventually taking a look at EU concepts.

This looks interesting. Could you give me a link to the journal papers where Dr Kroupa presents this demolition? I'm afraid I don't do you-tube, and I am very skeptical of popular journalism, so would much rather review the actual scientific literature. From where I'm sitting the debate about various flavours of MOND has intensified in the last two or three years.