Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby rjhuntington » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:37 am

Now I know what has bothered me the most about the BBT. It's the notion that clouds of space gas somehow coalesced such that a gas cloud's own gravity attracted so much gas that it all collapsed into a a star or a galaxy or even a black hole. Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse! As gas molecules collide in the gassy environment, as surely they will, they bounce around. This is Brownian movement, something we all learned about in elementary science class.

It makes no sense at all that a cloud of gas should collapse in on itself. Gravity can't possibly be strong enough to overcome the effects of Brownian collisions. Has this ever been presented as a challenge to the BBT? It seems to directly contradict accretion as an aggregating influence, even making it hard to imagine non-gaseous particles aggregating in space via collision. The collisions would have to be more like kisses when the particles are small enough.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby jjohnson » Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:28 am

Not only collapse together more or less spherically, but to convert their random motion into an ordered disk with rotational velocity and sufficient centripetal force to keep them all in a single plane!

My old physics textbook, in looking at gravity effects inside the Earth, notes that, if there were a spherical hollow inside near the center, that gravity attractions coming from the masses in all directions about the "bubble" cancel out, leaving a net zero gravity field inside. Using this logic and calculus, one can go to a thinner and thinner spherical outer shell intil you have only a thin veneer shell and a huge Earth-sized space inside, where it is zero-g - no gravity acceleration of anything inside (assuming no other external gravity from moon, Sun, etc.

So you have a mass of air or gas inside in zero-g conditions, and all it has is it's own temperature-caused Brownian motions. shrink the exterior shell's thickness to zero and all you have left is a cloud of gas particles in zero g conditions. There is no net gravity vector pointing to the center of mass or anywhere else except for the very random and irregular random brownian motions of atoms nearby. I think you are right. The gravity-only idea doesn't, I have read, even theoretically allow for two relatively motionless objects to begin moving toward one another under the force of gravity. I'm not sure I understand that, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, so I'll let others take that up.

To look at it from the other side for a second, what happens as the cloud of gas cools? Losing energy through radiation (every mass has some temperature above 0 Kelvin, and so radiates continuously, but probably at a declining rate , like the rate of radiation from a radioactive particle. What happens to the Brownian motion then? Do random thermal velocities approach zero? Collisions thus become weaker over time? Momentum has to be conserved, so as the mass of particles cools, where does their momentum go? Out with the radiating photons, is my assumption. Rather than getting hot and closer together, it seems like the laws of thermodynamics should, as you say, decrease the energy and momentum and average particle velocity in a free-floating cloud. Inertia effects between collisions should force particles, on average, to continue in their random directions, so what induces these directions to become ordered toward the center? What about the push of radiation from nearby stars, and its effect on such a cloud?

If every clump of gas wanted to fall in and glob up at the center and then spin up and flatten out into a disk shape and create stars, why are stars not as randomly located in the universe as are atoms of gas in a gas cloud in space? Why galaxies? Are the clumps of gas arranged neatly in a galaxy-shaped pattern of future stars? Do they rotate around this future-galactic center to begin with? How? Why huge 'voids' between galaxies? Gravity do all this by itself? Doesn't withstand the scrutiny of common sense too well, in my book.

I've wondered how pressure varies with depth inside the fluid mass (which may actually be a plasma mass) inside the Sun, since the acceleration of gravity inside a homogenous sphere drops from a maximum at the 'surface' to zero at the center. How does this decreasing centripetal force of gravity cause huge pressure at the center?
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:53 am

Another issue is the ionization of those grains of dust and the "gas" that gathers with them so that they glow...which of course is not heat due to gravity, although they say that.
:lol:

its glow mode of plasma....which come together due to electric currents to form filaments, orbs, hour-glass, spirals, etc. geometry
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby rjhuntington » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:03 am

junglelord, that's a good point. The gas molecules are likely ionized, which means we're really talking about plasma and not "gas". I wonder if there is any non-plasma gas in space.

jjohnson, your gravity comment is priceless! Clearly the standard model is impossible on the face of it.
rjhuntington
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:59 pm

here here... right on. thanks JJ n JL
Reminds me of computer simulations we did in 1st yr thermodynamics, modeling air particles in a confined vacuum. As we cranked up the temperature it was stunning (as a 1st year student) to see the collision processes and the gas molecules vibrating, colliding... "wanting to diffuse". Never got to see/study the same with plasma (ionised gas)... would be a very interesting model indeed...

Meyl regularly poses the same gravity question to his students "How much do you weigh at the center of the earth?"

PS: Wouldn't it be cool to have a website with Peratt's galaxy models in an online flash tool, pick n choose your values to crank out any shaped galaxy you want. Much like those online gravity-galaxy collision models. Surely 2010's distributed computing power can match 1980's super computers.... if only a simplified small scale. BuildYourOwnPerratt.com... heard it here first. ;)
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby jjohnson » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:28 pm

Sorry for the typo in paragraph 3 ("it's" when I meant to type "its", the correct form of the possessive.

Actually, I doubt that there is any really pure "clouds" of non-ionized gas in even the large 'empty' spaces between galaxies and galaxy clusters. Why? There is always some radiation present. How does one know? Ask where you could go where you could not see any light source whatsoever, or, if your eyes or instruments were sensitive to other or all parts of the spectrum, where there was no electromagnetic radiation detectable at all. Even yourself radiates in infrared, and all matter does, too, and a lot of it radiates at other frequencies in the EM spectrum too. So, there is bound to be enough radiation to ionize 1 or 2 or several atoms or molecules over time. Even if a mixture of gases is a tiny fraction charged, it will behave as a plasma, whose behaviour is not largely controlled by gravity, but by the behavior of the individual charged particles whose force interactions are much stronger than those of gravity.

It's all plasma in 'open' space.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby Drethon » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:32 am

This is more a matter of knowing the values of all the variables and I don't know if anyone really knows them.

Ignoring nuclear and electrical effects (which I believe are supposed to be strong over tiny distances...) you have two forces (if I didn't miss anything) acting on the gas particals, gravity and heat energy.

Gas diffuses because the heat energy that causes vibrations leads to things bouncing off of each other and diffusing. The gravity attraction between the particles instead acts to keep them together in a cloud. The question then is what is the difference between the effects of heat energy and gravity on the gas and how does average distance between particles affect this. Is there a point at which the two forces reach equilibrium? Does spinning up the cloud cause that equilibrim point to happen at higher density?

Throw electrical effects of ionization back in and you have a whole new equation to solve...
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:21 am

#1 No one knows what gravity is and there is no proof it is not due to acceleration, which in no way makes it pull things together. So the entire gravity asscertion is a very large theoretical "IF".

Miles Mathis, 101
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby Solar » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 pm

Excellent work as usual people. Some notes:

The thermonuclear model of stars is a product of its time — the early 1900's. That it remains essentially unchanged into the new millennium is a measure of the rigidity of the peer structure and narrow focus within academia. We have since discovered that space is full of charged particles (plasma) and magnetic fields. The Sun is a ball of plasma and its behavior more complex than was dreamt a century ago. Eddington, who gave us the standard solar model, did so using gravity and ideal gas laws. He did not know that space is threaded with magnetic fields and flows of charged particles (electric currents)… Holoscience: “The Sun – Our Variable Star


Early in the Twentieth Century astronomers dismissed the notion of an external power source for stars because they thought a star would swiftly collapse under its own weight unless there was a central source of radiation pressure to prevent it. But this argument fails if charge separation occurs in massive bodies. This possibility of charge separation was considered, but it was discarded by arguing, using the ideal gas laws, that the light electrons would not rise to the top to any significant degree in a hydrogen atmosphere. – Holoscience: “The Dragon Storm


The idea of what goes on inside a star stems from the work of Sir Arthur Eddington in his famous 1926 work, The Internal Constitution of Stars. He made a serious error of judgement when he applied mechanical ideal gas laws to the Sun’s interior. On that basis he calculated that there would be “no appreciable separation of the [electrical] charges.” It was a convenient conclusion because it simplifies the standard solar model so that it is “do-able.” It seems not to have been questioned since. – Holoscience: “Planet Birthing


So for decades they’ve puzzled over some unknown gravitational ‘mechanism’ to account for how this supposed “smooth gas” turned into ‘lumpy structures’. Well, as you’re all too keenly aware, it’s a major misapplication. They didn’t know “that space is threaded with magnetic fields and flows of charged particles (electric currents).” A premier example of why BBT proponents are corpse dragging a failed model.

While the “gas” aspect/model quietly died the BBT has simply mutated and the modern version posits a “quark-gluon plasma” type of “singularity” instead. But don’t ask them what a “singularity is. Despite having created the entity; they don’t even know what it is:

The big bang is believed to have been a singularity in space. That makes you wonder exactly what a singularity is, doesn't it? You are in good company. Astronomers, physicists, and other scientists are all wondering, too. Singularities are zones which defy the current understanding that we have of physics. They are believed to be at the core of black holes. A black hole is an area of intense gravitational pressure. That pressure is theorized to be so intense that finite matter is actually pressed until it has infinite density. This area of infinite density is called a singularity. Our universe is thought to have begun as one of these infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularities. The where and why of it all we still don't have a clue about. – Universe Today: What is The Big Bang


Divide by zero much?

Here is something related that you might find entertaining. Remember Irving Langmuir who coined the term “plasma” owing to its ‘life-like self organizing’ characteristics in the lab. Experience again that most unusual conflagration that result from the psychological inertia that still mistakenly relates to plasma as a “gas” stemming from the inappropriate use of ideal gas laws. Even with their computer sim whilst in the midst of “electrically charged particles”:

Hot gas in Space Mimics Life

I know these people work hard. I know that they are intelligent. I know that they understand electricity flows through space throughout the plasma. But they just can’t shake the flawed “gas” model even though the BBT has morphed to a plasma.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:15 am

* Tom Van Flandern had a coalescence model that made some sense. If you start with a uniform cloud of particles with random motion, when two particles randomly come close together, there will be very little collisional pressure [repulsion] between them, but more from other directions, thus tending to keep them together. And the same applies to other particles that get near the two original particles. So there could be a clumping of particles, and clumping of clumps, until the average density of particles between clumps becomes too low to exert collisional pressure.
* But even in that model, it's hard to imagine an absence of ionization, which should make any clumps more resistant to dispersal of the particles. I don't think his model explained how the particle clouds would form either. His website was http://metaresearch.org.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby earls » Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:26 am

It's your second point that is important Lloyd. It's not so hard to imagine "gases" clumping or increasing in density in certain areas, but STAYING TOGETHER by themselves by their very existence - gravity.

Honestly, if they're going to continue to masturbate this pathetic paradigm, they need to put up or shut up and demonstrate this bullsh-t in the lab. Same goes for the "dynamo theory."

http://www.physorg.com/news188753199.html

"DYNAMO THEORY EXPLAINED!! Except for... All of these problems. But it works... 'Somehow!' *waves hands*"
earls
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:51 pm

I've read Tom's dark matter book, his chapters on orbital dynamics are excellent and compliment EU, in the form of the extreme unlikely hood of impacts. (EU of course includes EDM as a cause for planetary scarring).

From recollection, his (well not his, but in his book) theory on push gravity, and gravity shielding, to my recollection did not take mention electrical effects, it did focus on his work on orbital dynamics and predictions of multiple satellites of asteroids and minor planets. Although he did clearly state that Eric Lerner was writing a "very important book that will explore these plasma concepts" (prior to the release of BB never happened). To me he was very open to the EU ideas, but had the humility to appropriately let those more suitable comment. He was a big voice for exploring these alternatives.

I must also admit, i struggle with the dynamo theories... seems like "something for nothing" sort of a free lunch. You are also still stuck with the problem, where does the initial current or angular momentum come from.

Meyl's recent works on neutrino flux absorption (continuing tesla's work), with an earth plasma core i find interesting, early days of the model as he admits, although he already suggests some compelling evidence. Meyls recent Jan 2010 comments on high pressure plasmas, and Teslas NY Times articles, about planet growth do tie in with Tom's exploding planet hypothesis, of which he dedicates 5 chapters to the orbital dynamics involved, particularly the geographic change in Mars' axis 3,500k years ago, along with Mars' starkly different hemispheres.

Interesting stuff, all complimenting each other in my mind.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby jjohnson » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:16 pm

Jarva, although this link properly belongs on the Planetary page, I'm just offering it to you because you mentioned above the unlikelihood of planetary impactors. Here is a gent outside of mainstream cosmology who has an interest in EU explanations, and whose field of interest is improving the interpretation of observations, particularly in the case of some unique large scale impact phenomena in the northern Mexico ond southwestern US areas. Interesting reading, by someone who uses forensic blast intelligence observation acutely well in observing what may well be high energy plasma-induced pyroclastic flows producing what are c alled ignimbrites. Have fun with this. It's not plasma cosmology, but it's well-interpreted observation, if you ask me.
Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

Unread postby nick c » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:44 pm

I guess the question should not be "can gases coalesce?" but rather can plasmas coalesce?
This would require the "puny force of gravity" (to use Wal's phraseology) to overcome the electrical force.
My money is on the electrical force!

jjohnson wrote:Jarva, although this link properly belongs on the Planetary page, I'm just offering it to you because you mentioned above the unlikelihood of planetary impactors.
Jim: What link is that?

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

gases will coalesce under specific conditions

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:38 pm

To look at a direct example of gases that have evidently coalesced needs no further searching than when looking at terrestrial cyclonic structures such as hurricanes and tornadoes, as well as dust devils on Mars. You can scale this up to the planetary scale and look at Jupiter and Saturn, etc... all are examples of the same phenomenon, that being vortex/cyclonic behavioral structures of gases. You could say that Jupiter itself, the actual planetary structure, is nothing but a giant spherical vortex, a mammoth scale cyclonic event.

However, this furthers the topic for debate because, seemingly in favor of the core accretion theory by showing coalescing gaseous structures, they are actually not supportive of that theory. How did Jupiter coalesce into it's structure? how does it remain this way and not collapse into a rocky planet? Why is it's cryogenically frozen atmosphere dynamic and active as a gas?

Tornadoes and Hurricanes do not attract particles into their spinning structures via their gravitational "collapse." A tornado can spin for centuries, for millions of years, and never collapse into a solid "planet." Jupiter is a demonstration of this. It is a giant tornado.

Traditional theory suggests convection currents and heat differentials result in the spinning structures, yet this has not been proven. This theory cannot apply further to outer space where no such atmospheric convection can exist. Yet structurally and dynamically, the vortices seen at Jupiter and Earth are similar.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron