Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Higgsy.

But the shape of the Hourglass nebula is not determined by magnetic fields, but by the dynamics of the ejecta where the driving energy was a short burst of carbon fusion and probably earlier envelope outbursts. Some nebulae are strongly magnetic because of a rapidly rotating remnant such as a pulsar, but not are strongly magnetic

Wow. Really?
The dynamics of ejecta and carbon fusion.
Thank God for science, I would never have guessed.

Fortunately, there is another field of science, that tells us how magnetic fields are generated.

Why are the magnetic fields in plasma clouds not uniform and static? It's not obvious to me.

If they were uniform and static we would see strongly defined umbrella shapes.

There are no static "frozen in" magnetic fields, except maybe, artificially created permanent magnets.
Magnetic fields are the B field of an E field.
A magnetic field that persists is the product of a stable electric circuit.

Neither did I. What you said, and what I quoted was that you don't know any physicists.

That's correct.
But you made it sound like I also don't know any physics.

I may not personally know any physicists, but I have read their writings.

I assume you mean gravitational waves?

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

So, when a very massive star uses up its fuel and collapses, then the pressure in the centre is enough to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure, and the entire mass of the star lies within its event horizon.

Stars are fueled by the currents in their galaxy.
They don't run out of fuel.

It's one of those - you don't have to call it a black hole if you don't want to, but the detection of such objects from the dynamics of orbiting mass and the radiation from its associated matter jets is pretty well established.

Since mainstream discounts electricity in space, they have only gravity to explain. And to get enough gravity to explain observation, they need to stack more and more mass in particular locations in space.

It takes a lot of gravity to produce the x rays observed, but very little electricity.

I am utterly puzzled by the apparent universal hostility to the concept and fact of magnetic reconnection in this community. What have you guys got against something that's been observed in the lab and on the sun?

It's the explanation that irks.

The contour lines on our maps are not the cause of earthquakes.
So also, the field lines we draw in our diagrams of magnetic fields are not the cause of the energy releases observed.

The real cause has been properly explained, but the explanation is not received by the mainstream.
Double layers and circuit theory is a bit too hard a concept to grasp, apparently.

I thought you all advocated doing experimental work on plasmas. One of the most prestigious plasma labs in the world, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, has a major experiment exploring the phenomenon. What's the problem?

The problem in physics these days, is they only do experiments for the purpose of verifying their theories.

If they were open minded, experiments might be done to test if alternate theories might be correct.
But when it is forbidden to even question the mainstream theories, even denied that alternate theories exist, they are hardly going to spend money testing them.

Well, field lines aren't really like contour lines in that they show both the direction and strength of the field, but who on earth says that they are causal of anything. Magnetic reconnection is the result of a re-arrangement of the topology of the magnetic field, which would be reflected in a rearrangement of the field lines, but why would you think the field lines themselves cause anything?

What is connecting, in magnetic reconnection? They do say, the field lines.

Besides that, magnetic fields are the by product of electric currents.
When they speak of magnetic reconnection, and magnetic fields in space, the cause of them is rarely if ever mentioned.
Magnetism is invoked as being the cause of the observation.

Sure you can always find people who disagree with any proposition, but the phenomenon has been observed, so why wouldn't it be uncontroversial?

Just like the Sun must be a nuclear explosion.
Everyone can see that.

But we are like a primitive man looking at a 21st century Christmas tree, and thinking that the lights on the tree are self-powered somehow.
They must be glow worms, or fire flies.

To me, a nuclear powered Sun is like have a tiny controlled TNT explosion in the middle of a huge pile of TNT.
It can't happen.
All the fuel would ignite at once.

On the other hand, an electric powered Sun makes perfect sense. Can even be replicated in a lab.
Explains many of the currently unexplained phenomenon observed on the Sun.
But for some reason, most men can't see that.

I also get it that some people on this forum reject all of mainstream physics and reinforce that belief by always giving the voices of dissenting individuals and groups more weight than thousands of professionals. And all I would say to those people is - be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I see the basics of physics are often thrown away, by the mainstream theories.

Big Bang is something from nothing, which breaks the law of conservation of energy.

Black Holes have infinite density of mass in zero volume. That breaks a whole lot of basic physics laws,
and they only came into being by dividing by zero, which is a basic math rule broken.

WIMPs are another oxymoronic theory. They are supposedly weakly interactive massive particles. They don't interact with normal matter, but do interact with normal matter, to change rotational speeds and to fix our problems with our equations. They are massive, which means they should be very interactive with other masses.

They say no spooky action at a distant, then propose virtual messenger particles. Not real but ghost particles, are spooky to me.

Someone even proposed dimensionless spin, in another thread here.
Dimensionless means non existent.

So we see, even the rules of the English language are broken in modern day physics.
When you ask for physical explanations, they tell you words don't mean what they mean, but mean something else.
And if we are not understanding, it is implied that means we are too dumb.

Well, that's a pedagogical problem, and it might become a financial problem, but it's not strictly a physics problem, because the value of theories in physics are not determined democratically, expecially by the wider public who haven't got a proper grounding in the subject.

And this is the crux of the problem, isn't it?

We are spoon fed physics by an authoritative few who are not to be questioned.
If Mr. Galileo from the wider public has a good idea, he is vilified.
He is told he doesn't have a proper grounding in the subject.

Or in other words, he hasn't been brainwashed into believing whatever the authorities say.
Isn't it?
~Paul

[comingfrom]

Higgsy, you need to take this to the topic on magnetic reconnection.

OK - tell me what it is they are observing and how they are misidentifying it? And why are you and others so hostile? I mean, physicists talk about all sorts of ideas all the time, and many ideas are controversial, and argued about vigourously, but they don't generally treat concepts as though they were the spawn of the devil - what's it with EU and magnetic reconnection?

In that topic all is explained,
and if you still have questions, that is the topic to ask them in.

~Paul

[BeAChooser]

Higgsy.

Recently NASA announced discovery of the IBEX Ribbon. When it was announced, David McComas, the principle IBEX investigator, said "This is a shocking new result. We had no idea this ribbon existed–or what has created it. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” And noting that the ribbon runs perpendicular to the direction of the galactic magnetic field, McComas said "That cannot be a coincidence." But he didn't understand what it means. Instead, he remarked "We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy." I'll say. What he and the other investigators were/are missing are the physics that Alfven and the electric universe community have been trying to point out to them for 50 years. They're still thinking in terms of neutral particles, mechanical effects and gravity. They just keep making the same mistake over and over and over.

The filamentation observed at the boundary of our solar system is not what was expected by the mainstream. But it was anticipated by electric universe theorists. Here is a report on the largest computer model the mainstream had built for the universe up till 2007: http://www.physorg.com/news116170410.html . While noting that "much of the gaseous mass of the universe is bound up in a tangled web of cosmic filaments that stretch for hundreds of millions of light-years", the report didn't ONCE refer to the material in the filaments as being "plasma", nor did it recognize that electromagnetic effects naturally tend to organize plasmas into long filaments. The model didn't include any of those effects ... only gravity. And THAT is the problem with the mainstream. They have their head in the sand. There is now so much imagery (I know, you don’t like physics with photos, but it’s all we have to work with) of helically wound filaments and even stars forming along such filaments, that there can be no other explanation for their not seeing the obvious by now.

For example, here's a great image that shows stars forming along filaments ... indeed, helically wound pairs of filaments if you look close:

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/imag ... ky_Way.jpg

Here’s an even better image from the Hershel database of filaments in that star nursery (From http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/plots ):
 
http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png
 
Look at the bottom filament.  If you don’t see the characteristic spiraling double helix structure of Birkeland filaments, you’re downright blind.  If you don’t see the stars forming along those filaments, you’re downright blind.

Here’s another Hershel image (from http://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-born ... weigh.html ):
 
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hir ... orninf.png
 
Again you can clearly see the spiraling helix Birkeland filaments (indicating electric current) and stars forming along them.  But sadly, the source states that “the Herschel Space Observatory has revealed that the star forming sites across the Milky Way are riddled with filaments: tube-like structures of gas and dust that span tens of parsecs [1 parsec = 3.26 light-years] within molecular clouds. Although the existence of such structures has been known for quite a few years, this is the first time that we can resolve them and start exploring their nature and properties, thanks to this ESA satellite. Despite the fact that we do not really understand how filaments are formed their importance in the star forming process is apparent as we observe most of the embryonic stars to be located on such structures.”

Here’s a beautiful picture of the Veil Nebula:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

The mainstream astrophysics community has been unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of the filaments seen in the upper right portion of that image. So why don’t you give it a go. Tell us how the helical structure in the Veil results from shock, winds and/or turbulance, as the mainstream theorists claim? I don’t think you can whereas I, a layman, clearly see the interaction of two current carrying Birkeland filaments in that image.  Such filaments are a fundamental part of the cosmology that you seem to be simply dismissing out of hand.   To me, that image is proof that the EU theorists are right … and not the gnome-loving mainstream.  

Since modern day astronomers have been taught (indoctrinated) in sterile university environments controlled by It’s All Gravity believers, they likely never even heard of Birkeland currents, Bennet pinches, and the theories of Plasma Cosmologists like Hannes Alfven.  So it’s no wonder they don’t understand how filaments are formed (they think it’s by gravity or *wind*) or see their importance in forming stars.  It’s no wonder they are just now even getting around to even taking a close look at filaments.  It’s no wonder they publish garbage like this, http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf , which doesn’t even contain the words plasma or Birkeland.  It’s no wonder they miss the significance of multiple what they call “subcritical” filaments making up what they call “critical” filaments (i.e., the ones that form stars).  It’s no wonder they miss the significance of polarization vectors along the filaments that are perpendicular to filaments 

http://inspirehep.net/record/1273530/fi ... e_fig3.png

(they indicate electric currents are traveling down the filaments and producing magnetic fields).   It’s no wonder they miss the significance of the spiral/helix structure in those filaments (even though it’s been staring them in the face for 30 years). They miss all that because their *education* has the words “gas” and “gravity” bouncing around in their Big Bang brainwashed brains and little else.  That and “dark matter” and “black holes”. (rolling my eyes)

[Michael Mozina]

That's 'no' then.

It's at least as likely that electricity is the heat source as it's likely that anything else is the heat source. The fact it's constant only seems possible if we suspend logic entire and pretend that plasma never cools off over time.

And to your final question, the distribution, luminosity and spectrum of X-ray sources in and in the vicinity of a supernova are diagnostic of the merger of white dwarfs for the generation of Type 1a supernovae, rather than the merger of a white dwarf and an ordinary star.

Maybe it's because I'm fighting the flue, and I'm pretty foggy headed today, but I'm not seeing how this is related to our debate.

I'm not defending the paper, I'm merely pointing out that it is not claiming that there is no need for dark matter, as you suggested. But one suggestion, which is just off the top of my head and which I am not prepared to defend, is that in the collapsing baryon/dark matter cloud which eventually leads to the formation of a galaxy, the relative distribution of dark matter and baryons is common across galaxies.

How convenient. Ya know.....

I just saw a recent astronomy piece from 2017 on 'dark matter'. I can't recall the name of the show off the top of my head at the moment, but it was almost surreal how they *utterly ignored* every falsified "test" of their claims in the lab for the past decade, and how many more "mysteries" they were claiming to solve with magic matter. They talked about "dark light" even. I've seen so many strange denial based arguments related to this issue that I really shouldn't be surprised, but I'm always surprised.

Here's the deal: The layout of the baryonic matter directly determines the rotation pattern. We just found more mass in 2012 than all the mass we knew about previously, and we found that it rotates as a large "halo", just as "dark matter" models require. It's therefore far more likely that ordinary matter is all that we require to explain what we observe in space. Even *without* adding EM field influence into the rotation curves of galaxies, it's obvious that the mainstream's mass estimates are *way* off.

The baryons and DM interact gravitationally. But as I say, I didn't bring this paper up, and I'm not defending its conclusions or their consequences. I'm merely pointing out that its claims are other than you said.

I don't understand how or why you think I misrepresented the paper in the first place. It simply notes that the rotation patterns are directly related to the location of baryonic matter. Furthermore, there's ample evidence that the baryonic mass estimates being used by the mainstream are simply flawed in numerous ways.

Sorry, I am not following. Why is the slow rotation of the halo (whether plasma or DM) required to explain anything to do with rotation curves of visible matter? The distribution of mass affects the rotation curve of visible mass but not the rotation of the halo. The same result obtains whether it's rotating or not. So I'm puzzled as to why you are so excited by the fact that it is rotating slowly.

I'm excited because the features of that plasma match all your dark matter predictions. It's doing everything your dark matter halo was expected to do.

Ok, I think this very interesting, and I need to look at all the sources for all the more recent papers that update various estimates. To do that, I'll probably start a new thread, but it'll take me a little time to get up to speed with your links, as I'll need to read the original papers and possibly others to give them context.

Great.

Well, if there are threads, and you haven't demonstrated that there must be threads yet,

Even the mass layout of "dark matter" is known to be located in "threads". There really isn't much doubt about the threaded nature of plasma. It's not clear what type of evidence that you could expect me to present that I haven't already presented. Even inside our own solar system we see evidence of 'magnetic ropes"" galore. Why would we expect interstellar space to be devoid of such structutres?

but if there are threads, then the majotity of space between the threads is even less than one particle per 7.7 litres and so even slower to cool.

If there's no plasma, there's nothing to cool down, and if there is plasma in threads, it's going to cool down faster.

I need to stop here for the time being, but I'll pick up where I left off when I get a chance.

[Michael Mozina]

So you "know" there's a hell of a lot of current, but you don't know how much?

Not with a lot of mathematical precision just yet. We didn't even know it existed until two years ago, and we didn't know it rotated like your "dark matter halo" until last year.

It's been since 2012, and I'm still waiting for mainstream solar theory to revise it's estimates on the speed of convection. They were off by two whole orders of magnitude, and I've seen no logical explanation as to why they botched those figures so badly. You seem to expect a "speed of change" that isn't common in astronomy or solar physics.

Peratt's work would be your best place to start if you're interested in "helping the cause' (mathematically speaking).

It's not or it shouldn't be a "random" figure.

It's definitely not random, but there are a lot of variables. You and I seem to be having a tough time with the average density vs specific density issue for instance.

It should be a reasonable inference from the theory.

I'd say it's "derivable" from Peratt's work, but I'd hate to kludge it for you and misrepresent his beliefs. I think it would better for you to work that out on your own from Peratt's work if you're interested in deriving those numbers.

I am struggling to get any sort of grip on this as an informed discussion about physics.

Your best bet is Peratt's work IMO. Alfven's models were more "basic' whereas Peratt's were more sophisticated and included computer models.

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

IMO you're being a bit "pig headed" on this specific issue. If we concentrate all the plasma into a small thread by the introduction of a current, we might end up with one thread that is indeed millions of times denser than ISM/IGM plasma, but the *average* density in the vacuum chamber might be exactly the same if our "vacuum' region around the thread is large enough. I can envision an hourglass shaped vacuum for instance where the discharge is between two areas in the shortest distance region, whereas the rest of the hourglass contains virtually no plasma at all.

You're making an *assumption* about the plasma *conditions* that simply doesn't apply to EU/PC theory, and it's only marginally justifiable in mainstream theory.

And it's wrong A complete brain fart. I should have written "a lab plasma will be millions of times denser than an IGM plasma. And that is absolutely not an assumption. It is deduced from facts - the volume of the hot halo, its mass, and the density of lab plasma experiments. It's specifically and definitely not an assumption.

The "mass layout" is definitely an assumption, even if the average density is based upon observation. For the aforementioned reasons, a current carrying plasma is likely to be threaded, and likely to include regions of less dense and more dense plasma.

I'm staring to think that this "average density" deal is where the 'magic" is happening with respect to your detachment from laboratory testing. I think this is where you just give yourself a "free pass" with respect to the cooling question. If you don't have the ability to test the idea, you don't have the ability to falsify it either. That's pretty much standard operating procedure for mainstream theory, but it's the kind of thing we specifically avoid in EU/PC theory.

And yet the upper range of particle energies in the solar wind is 10keV - I wonder why that is?

Solar flare events routinely release much higher energy particles, and the higher energy (cathode ray) electrons are referred to as "strahl" and aren't typically included in solar wind figures. Most of the "solar wind" particles have experienced many collisions along the way to Earth.

But in any case, in this discussion about the hot halo, up to 200,000 light years from the nearest star, what is the source of voltage driving the "hell of a lot of current" .

According to Alfven, galaxies are "wired together", just like suns are wired together. You have power from not only 200 billion stars in our galaxy as power sources, on the outward edge you have the interaction between the galaxy and the "magnetosheath" that it interacts with.

I'll keep nibbling away at your post as I get time tonight.

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi JATS

The problem is Newtons laws of gravity do not need modified in the slightest. The problem is they are attempting to apply gravitational theory to a universe 99.9% plasma. Gravitational theory only applies to non ionized matter, .1% of the universe, planetary systems.

This post is very interesting. Can I ask how you know, or how you arrive at the conclusion that the Universe is 99.9 plasma? But more importantly, will you give me a source for the proposition that gravitational theory only applies to non-ionised matter? I must confess to finding this idea a little strange, as the sun is mostly plasma, and in this hypothesis it wouldn't be affected by or effect gravity, and that would be surprising.

I wonder whether this is one of those cases that I have been warned about where the views are those of the individual only and are not generally supported, or whether this idea is a common EU one. How can I tell?

Here is NASA's own take on the matter of how much of the universe is plasma.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... t07sep99_1

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

As for not behaving gravitationally, in no plasma laboratory that exists do we use any physics but that of particle physics and electrodynamic theory to describe its behavior. Plasma is an electrically conductive medium and is dominated by the electromagnetic forces. When was the last time you had to put your coffee pot below the outlet for it to work?

Ahh, but remember, the sun is one of those stars that don't obey the gravitational laws and is part of that flat rotation curve. It is only the planets themselves that obey the gravitational formulas. If stars being plasma, obeyed the gravitational laws, they would not have a flat rotation curve problem to the point they feel they need to modify those laws. The sun IS plasma, and so is orbiting the galaxy according to electrodynamic laws, not gravitational. They simply are trying to sledgehammer gravitational theory to fit plasma behavior.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

"Plasma and ionised gases have unique properties and display behaviors unlike those of the other states..."

They even know it behaves unlike the other states of matter, and yet..... And yet despite knowing plasma behaves unlike the other states of matter, mainstream insists on treating it just like those other states.

I'll look up Hannes Alfvens and Anthony Peratts take on the matter in a bit. Hannes Alfven, the father of plasma physics called them pseudo scientists that had never stepped foot in a plasma laboratory. Plasma physics is not even required reading for a degree in astrophysics, despite the universe being 99.9% plasma. Imagine that.

Hannes Alfven the father of plasma physics basically called them pseudo scientists during his Nobel Price speech. Said it was too important to be left in the hands of those that didn't understand plasma physics. Warned them that conventional plasma physics could not be used to describe how plasma behaves in space. Turns out he was right on all counts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kanYuBptuZ0

How can you tell? Do the research on plasma behavior. Although remember we are just finding out it behaves differently in space than on earth, but even on earth we don't use gravitational theory in the lab. So yes, we got all new physics for its behavior that needs to be worked out. Untill someone does we will just have to listen to the Fairie Dust mainstream spouts.

[Michael Mozina]

I am utterly puzzled by the apparent universal hostility to the concept and fact of magnetic reconnection in this community. What have you guys got against something that's been observed in the lab and on the sun? I thought you all advocated doing experimental work on plasmas. One of the most prestigious plasma labs in the world, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, has a major experiment exploring the phenomenon. What's the problem?

The "problem' is that for the most part PPPL begins by creating two *current carrying circuits/filaments* in a vacuum, which they then "rewire" during the experiment. That's the "classic" experiment anyway. Instead of calling it "circuit reconnection", they "dumb it down" to magnetism alone using Maxwell's formulas, and label it "magnetic reconnection". Without the *electric* field, it wouldn't work in the first place.

The *only* exception of an experiment that didn't just start with an electric field that I've seen was two *lasers* that were used to create two *currents/filaments*, which then act through a double layer. There are no lasers in the sun or in the Earth's magnetosphere, so that's not even a logical option, and even in that case it's two *current channels* that interact and rewire themselves inside the double layer that forms between them.

Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole "reconnection" claim irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying double layers. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to even introduce that concept in the first place and it erroneously suggests that *magnetism* is doing the work, when it's the whole *circuit* that does the work inside that current sheet.

After watching a mathematical professor at MIT paint himself right into a mathematical corner at JREF/ISF over this topic, it's damn clear why Alfven rejected the whole idea. The term is too confusing, it's incompatible with basic EM field theory, and it's entirely irrelevant in circuit theory. It gives everyone the false impression that magnetism is the driving the parade, when in fact it's an E field that drives the parade. When magnetic field energy is converted into particle kinetic energy in solid state physics, we call it *induction*. That's the only way that magnetic field energy is being converted into particle kinetic energy inside a plasma too. There is no "special" process going on. The only difference is that ions also move in a plasma.

Note also that SDO *destroyed* the mainstream claims about the speed of convection, and they lost their magnetic power supply in that same process. Less convection, less magnetic field energy to work with too.

Birkeland already demonstrated that the sun has an electric charge with respect to "space/heliosphere" over 100 years ago in the lab. The corona wasn't a "mystery" to Birkeland, it popped right out of his experimental results. Those are useful lab results that the mainstream will *never* recreate with "magnetic reconnection".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Get real. Alfven was right. The mainstream is chasing their tail, and they have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The mainstream doesn't have a clue about plasma physics IMO, particularly after that conversation at JREF.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... zina0.html

I'm still waiting for a non-existent rate of reconnection math formula that Clinger still owes me, *five years later*!

[BeAChooser]

remember, the sun is one of those stars that don't obey the gravitational laws and is part of that flat rotation curve. It is only the planets themselves that obey the gravitational formulas. If stars being plasma, obeyed the gravitational laws, they would not have a flat rotation curve problem to the point they feel they need to modify those laws. The sun IS plasma, and so is orbiting the galaxy according to electrodynamic laws, not gravitational. They simply are trying to sledgehammer gravitational theory to fit plasma behavior.

Here is another excellent point for Higgsy to consider regarding our own solar system. How did the solar system form by gravity alone? As a cloud of rotating plasma begins to coalesce into a star and planets (and that is the mainstream model ), there is a problem that the mainstream's gravity-only astrophysicists simply ignore.  A slowly rotating cloud may tend to collapse under gravity but there is a point where the outward rotational force will counteract further collapse. Stars can’t form without doing something with this excess rotational energy (angular momentum).  It must be dissipated to enable the cloud to collapse further … but the mainstream model has no believable way to do this. So it just ignores it.

Then there is a second problem … that the star, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest (like a pirouetting dancer pulling in her arms). But if you observe our own solar system, the Sun spins slowly. Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system (99%) is to be found in the orbiting planets. This appears to be typical of star systems. And again, the mainstream's approach to this difficulty is to ignore it. To this day they still don’t have a good model for how star systems actually form based on gravity alone. They just gloss over any problems they can’t explain.

But plasma universe people do have a model. One based on ordinary physics (isn't that nice) that overcomes both of the above obstacles, and more.  It's a VERY detailed one that was proposed by our hero, Hannes Alfven, and his colleague Gustaf Arrhenius, back in the 70s (see https://books.google.com/books?id=pvrtC ... es&f=false ; pages 138-143, in particular).  Now sadly, their model has been essentially ignored by mainstream *scientists* ever since. But that's par for the course when dealing with the current crop of *scientists*/priests.   But there it is, for all to acquire and read.

They theorized that the because inner part of the charged protostellar plasma cloud would spin faster than the outer part, an electric current would be generated, "flowing out along the solar magnetic field lines, through the cloud and back to the sun at its equator" . The interaction of the currents and magnetic fields would cause the inner cloud to slow down, and the outer cloud to speed up, transferring angular momentum outward, and allowing further collapse. They theorized that force free plasma filaments, they called “superprominences”, could transfer the angular momentum from the sun to the plasma from which the planets formed ... and because the filaments pinch the plasmas together in the process, they would also help speed up planet condensation. Here’s a graphic of this process:

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/pp0/superprom.jpg

They noted that there would be what they termed “jet streams” forming from the matter in the system along the equatorial axis (in the disk) where atoms in the plasma state would coexist with neutral grains of matter. They said these jet streams would be of decisive importance as an intermediate stage in the accretion of planets and satellites from grains. Inside the jet streams, the grains would accrete to larger bodies and eventually to planets and satellites.

I think what we may be seeing in the AU Microscopii observations (http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1521/ ), for example, are these grain/plasma jet streams and their interaction with the large electromagnetic fields and currents in the star system. Fields and currents not unlike those we are finding in our own solar system everywhere we look. Just saying …

[Justatruthseeker]

Higgsy you said:

but if there are threads, then the majotity of space between the threads is even less than one particle per 7.7 litres and so even slower to cool.

Data returned by the Ultsses spacecraft show that the density of space beyond the heliosphere is on the order of 30 times what you hear from mainstream theorists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)

"Data provided by Ulysses led to the discovery that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected."

This is just what is entering our solar system right next door in comological terms. Now if they can't get an estimate closer than 30 times off right next door, what makes you believe their estimate of the density of interstellar space, which is not right next door, is any more correct?

If you will pay attention to the discoveries made you will find they have been wrong on almost everything discovered since the space age began. They still have the mindset of Sydney Chapman who believed currents could not exist in space. The same man that ridiculed Kristian Birkeland for 40 years, until he found out he was wrong. Then he adopted Birkelands theory as his own and started adding Fairie Dust into it. Had he really understood the theory he would not have spent 40 years ridiculing it, which just goes to show that like mainstream, they still just don't get it.

Every place we have actually sent probes and looked, we have found that electric currents are prevalent.

Do you also realize that since they treat that plasma in space like ordinary dust and gas, it destroys their claim of being able to see 13+ billion light years without scattering being its 30 times denser at the minimum? Of course if one treats it like plasma this does not become a problem.

But I'll ask again, what makes you believe their estimates of the density of interstellar space is anywhere near correct when they were off by a minimum of 30 times right next door? Not trying to put you on the hot seat, just showing you that mainstream theorists haven't gotten anything correct in over 100 years. Every discovery comes as a surprise, which shows the predictive power of their theories. Zilch.

[Higgsy]

Data returned by the Ultsses spacecraft show that the density of space beyond the heliosphere is on the order of 30 times what you hear from mainstream theorists.

No that is not so. The density of dust does not equal the density of the ISM. Not even close.

SNIP for space.

Do you also realize that since they treat that plasma in space like ordinary dust and gas, it destroys their claim of being able to see 13+ billion light years without scattering being its 30 times denser at the minimum?

And yet, galaxies at very high z are imaged without blurring - how does that work if the scattering is so high? And again you are confusing gravitationally bound sparse dust in the galaxy with the density of the inter-galactic medium.

SNIP for space

But I'll ask again, what makes you believe their estimates of the density of interstellar space is anywhere near correct when they were off by a minimum of 30 times right next door? Not trying to put you on the hot seat, just showing you that mainstream theorists haven't gotten anything correct in over 100 years. Every discovery comes as a surprise, which shows the predictive power of their theories. Zilch.

You are mixing up the sparse dust (agglomerates of metals) in the ISM with the vast reservoir of hot plasma surrounding the galaxy. It seems that you haven't read the actual papers associated with these discoveries. Do most people on this forum get all their science from popular articles rather than refereed papers?

So to answer your question "But I'll ask again, what makes you believe their estimates of the density of interstellar space is anywhere near correct" (which I assume referes to the hot galactic halo), you will find a very detailed answer to your question in Gupta et al, A Huge Reservoir of Ionized Gas around the Milky Way: Accounting for the Missing Mass? The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 756, Issue 1, article id. L8, 6 pp. (2012).

I am taking a few days break from the forum as I'll be too busy to post. I'll think about all the open conversations I'm having with people and come back to them in a week or two.

[comingfrom]

It is good to see Higgsy (and LaSuisse1, in Planetary Science forum) here asking questions.

It reminds of how we were once,
and how it is for others, when they first encounter the EU concepts.
How much trust we had in the mainstream sciences, before our eyes were opened.

Seems to me there are two ways Higgsy can go from here.
If his faith in mainstream is unshakable, he will judge us here to be deceived, and will go his merry way when he tires of questioning us,
or he goes on the wonderful journey of discovery and revelation we who are trying answer his questions all went on.
Are still on.

EU theory is a 2x revelatory journey.
One revelation is learning all the alternate theories that do exist, which we are continuously told do not exist.
The second revelation is learning how much mainstream science is fudged, and how much the fudges are worshiped.

The rare times when EU theory is mentioned by the mainstream, it is only to disapprove it, deny it, and to call the advocates crackpots.
So it is hidden from us.
To know what is going on, in EU and mainstream, one has to actively seek it out, and read.
And talk to those who already have.

And you find that EU people are open minded, friendly, and willing to help.
Look how many tried to help Higgsy with his questions.


~Paul

[AltClut]

It is good to see Higgsy (and LaSuisse1, in Planetary Science forum) here asking questions.

It reminds of how we were once,
and how it is for others, when they first encounter the EU concepts.
How much trust we had in the mainstream sciences, before our eyes were opened.

Seems to me there are two ways Higgsy can go from here.
If his faith in mainstream is unshakable, he will judge us here to be deceived, and will go his merry way when he tires of questioning us,
or he goes on the wonderful journey of discovery and revelation we who are trying answer his questions all went on.
Are still on.

EU theory is a 2x revelatory journey.
One revelation is learning all the alternate theories that do exist, which we are continuously told do not exist.
The second revelation is learning how much mainstream science is fudged, and how much the fudges are worshiped.

The rare times when EU theory is mentioned by the mainstream, it is only to disapprove it, deny it, and to call the advocates crackpots.
So it is hidden from us.
To know what is going on, in EU and mainstream, one has to actively seek it out, and read.
And talk to those who already have.

And you find that EU people are open minded, friendly, and willing to help.
Look how many tried to help Higgsy with his questions.


~Paul

I have never wanted a 'like' button more than i do now

[Michael Mozina]

By the way, the "halo" around galaxies isn't just limited to hot plasma. There's much more mass in the form of dust and various gases than the mainstream first imagined too.

http://almaobservatory.org/en/press-roo ... uper-halos

"ALMA has solved a decades-old question on galaxy formation," said Chris Carilli, an astronomer with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, N.M., and co-author on the paper. "We now know that at least some very early galaxies have halos that are much more extended than previously considered, which may represent the future material for galaxy growth."

Astronomers are constantly "surprised" by the amount of ordinary matter that is surrounding galaxies. This problem has been going on since the days of Zwicky, up through today. The mainstream has continuously underestimated the amount of very ordinary mass that is present in various galaxies. There's no need for exotic matter, or modifications to gravity theory. There's simply a need for the mainstream to remove themselves from their denial-go-round as it relates to their pitifully flawed baryonic mass estimation techniques.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Michael.

After the surprise discovery that the ISM is 30 times more dense than IPM, we might now speculate that the IGM is denser again.
There may be more baryonic matter between the galaxies than in them in.

Maybe, only around solid matter, stars and planets, and galaxies, do [relative] vacuums form.
Two fields are emitted and created by mass, electric and gravity.
Around massive bodies the gravity pulls in larger matter, and the electric field repels light matter, forming spheres of [relatively] vacuum of baryons.

Naturally, the density of photonic matter will be higher around massive bodies.
~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

Data returned by the Ultsses spacecraft show that the density of space beyond the heliosphere is on the order of 30 times what you hear from mainstream theorists.

No that is not so. The density of dust does not equal the density of the ISM. Not even close.

Says who, the same people that were wrong by 30 times the amount right next door cosmological speaking? I find there estimates of the ISM just as lacking in credibility since they were wrong by a minimum of 30 times and that's right next door. If they can't correctly measure that density, I ask again, what makes you think they got it right hundreds of light years away? Besides your wanting to believe it of course.

And yet, galaxies at very high z are imaged without blurring - how does that work if the scattering is so high? And again you are confusing gravitationally bound sparse dust in the galaxy with the density of the inter-galactic medium.

I told you this was only a problem for you and mainstream. Quantum mechanics shows that electrons with a high energy transmit light in the "forward" direction. But you want to think of it as "dust" and not the reality of what it is "plasma" ionized particles, highly charged material. As does mainstream you confuse 99.9% of the universe which is plasma with the .1% you see in the solar system (planets).

You are mixing up the sparse dust (agglomerates of metals) in the ISM with the vast reservoir of hot plasma surrounding the galaxy. It seems that you haven't read the actual papers associated with these discoveries. Do most people on this forum get all their science from popular articles rather than refereed papers?

No, you are mixing up what you see in the solar system (.1%) with the other 99.9% of the universe which is plasma.

So to answer your question "But I'll ask again, what makes you believe their estimates of the density of interstellar space is anywhere near correct" (which I assume referes to the hot galactic halo), you will find a very detailed answer to your question in Gupta et al, A Huge Reservoir of Ionized Gas around the Milky Way: Accounting for the Missing Mass? The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 756, Issue 1, article id. L8, 6 pp. (2012).

Exactly, they just discovered this 2 million degree plus "gas" at least call it plasma, about 10 years ago. This is plasma at 2 million plus degrees. Do you honestly expect me to believe there is not more out there down to the temperatures of the surface of the sun at 5,000 kelvin? They couldn't even detect that "dust" entering the solar system until they got a probe out there.

Why would I be referring to the hot galactic halo since we were discussing the density of the ISM? That's a seperate issue raised only to show that just a few years ago they couldn't even measure it, even if it's radiating at 2 million degrees. And yet you believe, despite not getting the "dust" entering our solar system correct, nor knowing about a 2 million degree plasma for years, that they got what us even further away correctly calculated? I think the odds of them being correct about the density of the interstellar medium is about the same as their prediction of the amount of "dust" entering the solar system before a probe was sent. At the minimum 30 times off.

They also couldn't even see that ribbon of fluorescing "neutral" hydrogen that's the brightest thing in the sky by their own words. No, they got the estimate of the ISM totally messed up just like they messed up every other prediction they made. And they got the nerve to call it "neutral" when it's radiating so intensely it outshines everything in the sky. But what can we expect from those that call plasma "dust and gas" because they are too scared to call it by its correct name. If they called it plasma people might think of charged particles, and we wouldn't want that thought to enter their brainwashed heads, now would we?