plasma vs. dark matter

[jone dae]

A man online, on a you tube video comment, said that "plasma absorbs light" and that's why it is dark. I replied that it is visible only in "glow mode", the real reason it can't be seen. I pointed out that science accepts the fact that 90+% of the observable universe is plasma, and pointed out that he needn't invent "dark matter" to explain the unseen mass in the universe. He insisted that plasma absorbs light, but then also still insisted that Dark Matter is the unseen mass. ?!?!
Suggestions?

[Sparky]

Suggestions?

Find a different pastime

[nick c]

Jone Dae,

The crux of the matter is the assumption that the only force of big picture cosmic consequence is gravity.

Observation seems to indicate that the plasma state is the most common form for matter in the universe. Of course plasmas can be in dark, glow, or arc mode. But attempting to solve the Dark Matter problem by substituting dark mode plasma for dark matter avoids the real question, that is...can we model the universe with the prevailing assumption that it is dominated by gravity only? The Electric Universe's answer to that question is "No."

The reason for the need for DM is that galactic morphology, motion, and rotation cannot be explained using a gravity only model. So missing mass must be invented and placed where needed.
The EU position is that the missing element is not missing matter, but rather electrical forces are needed to complete the picture.

If there were enough dark mode plasma to account for galactic form and motion then it would organize into stars, nebulae, and galaxies and be detectable. The alternative is that there is no missing matter (DM) and that the assumption of a gravity only powered cosmos is wrong.

We live in an Electric Universe. The present state of Cosmology is not prepared to accept this proposition. That is their problem.

[jone dae]

But which of us? and BTW, a friend Henry Koehler has had similar conversations on you tube, he also understands the electric universe model. So, did the anonymous responder want myself, or the Big Banger to 'find another pastime'?

[jone dae]

@nick c,
Yes, that's where I was going to go with the conversation, but it was just a comment, not a forum or blog. Big Bangers have certain ideas, that you find consistently on their websites. That is, they believe and follow a common myth or religion. And one of their doctrinal phrases is just that, "But plasma absorbs light". It is to answer that question that I started this thread. Although I understand physics and astronomy well, it's useful to remember that it is not one of my fields per se; I'm a mathematician. So, I was looking for someone on this rather large website, who knew about the absorption of light by plasmas in space, especially galactic-scale plasmas, such as the enormous Birkeland currents that are light-years long. Of course, when the telescopes see those in visible light it means they are in glow mode; that much I understand.
So, my question "Suggestions?" meant, do you have any suggestions as to what the behaviour of galactic plasma is? Does it absorb light? when? how much? when is it emitted or re-radiated? -and so on.

Dr. Dae.

[Sparky]

A man online, on a you tube video comment, said that "plasma absorbs light" and that's why it is dark. I replied that it is visible only in "glow mode", the real reason it can't be seen. I pointed out that science accepts the fact that 90+% of the observable universe is plasma, and pointed out that he needn't invent "dark matter" to explain the unseen mass in the universe. He insisted that plasma absorbs light, but then also still insisted that Dark Matter is the unseen mass. ?!?!
Suggestions?

Well, Dr. I thought you were just passing time online and running into a time waster bonehead. If you wanted to know about plasma, TB is the place. You can search google with (site:thunderbolts.info) and find information about light absorbing by plasma.

[jone dae]

Someone replied,
"Well, Dr. I thought you were just passing time online and running into a time waster bonehead. If you wanted to know about plasma, TB is the place. You can search google with (site:thunderbolts.info) and find information about light absorbing by plasma. "

I'm a little too busy, frankly, to be "just passing time" anywhere (or I am everywhere, if you mean that way - ); secondly, the man I spoke with probably didn't think of himself as "a time waster bonehead" and might be, say, a scientist; that's two items. Next, I would have already, of course, tried searches, including the site search; but I used a good non-Google search engine for that. (Don't feed the monster, it only makes it bigger.) Therefore, fourthly, the respondent seemed to miss the point.

Also, I have been on thunderbolts for two years. Jae Kamel and me are the ones who made the research lists, you'll recall, which inspired or otherwise caused similar lists to be made by people here and published on this site; so, while i want to continue learning about plasma, the way the respondent worded it, made it seem as if he was making an inappropriate implication. We - Jae and me - have been studying plasma science since about 2002, along with our other projects and activities, and so are not new to the subject. Furthermore, we do a lot more explaining to the public, and people we know, both online and offline, about the revolution in science that is taking place now, than does the respondent, the moderator, or anyone else on thunderbolts whom we have seen. So, someone had the context of the question, and the questioner, all wrong. Rather, it is like someone who has completed 85 percent of a large collage, and asks, -have you see that clipping about galactic plasma absorption of light? , to add to the collage. We've been making our research lists since 2007, and there are links to them in my previous posts.

For example, I discuss questions about electricity and magnetism on at least 3 different blogs, Jae Kamel does on FB and other social media, and our friend Henry Koehler does also on you tube and VBM. Others on this website are not making any noticeable effort to educate the public, and they aren't teachers, and don't spend the time that I spend, for example, trying to think of ways to translate math and science into simple language that students can understand. So, the moderator and the respondent both should consider these things when they reply to me.

Once more from the top, this thread is to find out if anyone knows about the subject of galactic plasma absorbing light. Evidently, the normal assumptions were missed by the respondent: that one is looking for persons who are articulate enough to express what they know; who can communicate at least basically well in English; and who know about the subject; and who are in thunderbolts; but that last is not necessary. It could be someone, say, from holoscience .com.

So, therefore, I ask once again: does (and the moderator will know about the details, of seeing that others on the site see this question, this thread) anyone on this site know about the absorption of light by plasma? Macro-scale, not micro-scale. A fair, reasonable, and I think important question. - anyone?

[Sparky]

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_redshift

"Abstract: A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics, without any new assumptions. The calculations are only more exact than those usually found in the literature. When photons penetrate a cold and dense electron plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, through Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and through Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But when the plasma is very hot and has low density, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift, which is an interaction with the electron plasma. The energy loss of a photon per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon’s energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron.--------

Brynjolfsson concludes:

"The plasma redshift appears to eliminate five major deficiencies in Einstein’s cosmological model for a static universe:

Plasma redshift can explain the cosmological redshift.
Plasma redshift can explain the cosmological microwave background.
Plasma redshift resolves the Olbers’ paradox. If starlight were not attenuated, as it traveled through intergalactic space, the sky would be bright as the stars in an infinite universe. The attenuation of the light intensity by the plasma redshift of light by intergalactic electrons resolves this problem.
Einstein’s cosmological model has significant instability, which is caused by the tendency of matter to concentrate due to gravitational attraction. Plasma redshift, when compared with solar redshift, leads to reversal of photons gravitational redshifts and to the renewal of matter at the center of galaxies and quasars. The eternal renewal of matter removes this gravitational instability.
In Einstein’s static model of the universe, the stars will run out of energy and will have a finite lifetime. Plasma theory leads to reversal of photons gravitational redshifts. A reasonable extrapolation of that finding is that matter is eternally renewed at the centers of galaxies and quasars. As shown in section 6, the observations support this extrapolation.

Plasma redshift, which is based on basic axioms of physics, leads thus to fundamental changes in our cosmological perspective and to changes in gravitational theory."

[Zyxzevn]

Plasma redshift can explain the cosmological microwave background.

If there really is any..

[nick c]

jone dae,
Apparently I misunderstood your original post. I still am not clear on what you are looking for.
Here are some layman's questions for clarification:
-When you write "absorbs light" do you mean visible light or the entire EM spectrum?

-What is the reason for a distinction between plasmas and other types of matter in regard to the absorption of visible light or other EM radiation? Is it because the visible universe seems to be predominantly matter in the plasma state, or is it for another reason?

-Plasmas like all the other states of matter (gas, liquid, solid) are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. As such they will either absorb, reflect, refract, or diffract light. A plasma could be tenuous and some light from light emitting objects could pass through. I would think that it depends on the composition, temperature, density, and probably many other things....Is it fully ionized? does it contain neutral atoms? if so what elements? etc. etc. So, how can someone generalize and declare that plasmas absorb light?

-Dark Matter (according to the theory) does not absorb, reflect, or interact with any EM radiation hence the name "dark." The only way that cosmologists justify its' existence is by analysis of gravitational anomalies pertaining to known baryonic matter, ie. galaxies, star clusters, nebula, etc. etc. What is the connection between Dark Matter and the absorption of light by plasmas?

[jone dae]

@ Nick C,
...yes, go on....

[jone dae]

Also, since I am a scientist, perhaps "Here are some layman's questions for clarification:" aren't appropriate; but they would be if anyone on the site knew the answers to those questions.

For " What is the connection between Dark Matter and the absorption of light by plasmas?", that's the question we're attempting to answer.
For an example, compare what you know and what Sparky knows with this blog: http://briankoberlein.com/2014/06/08/5th-dimension/ . Very typical of the kind of thing you'll run into.

He's a big-banger, and I'm still surprised to see that the big-bangers don't yet know how silly they sound. Look at his blog, with the usual sort of graphics: to him, it's as if he never saw or heard of the work of Birkeland, Alfven, and Peratt. If you have ideas about what is going on with people like that, I am interested in hearing them.

JD.

[Sparky]

Dark Matter? Well, the data that suggests dark matter is analyzed using a flawed model.
So, any consideration of dark matter is highly suspect, if not completely wrong.

I don't waste much time trying to figure out dark matter, dark energy, or dark "singularities". I just move on to other things with more data to support them.

I am not a scientist. I am a cave man. What do I know?

[celeste]

I think I can help illustrate the problem that Jone is pointing out. If we start with this article http://www.space.com/16412-dark-matter- ... sters.html ,we see that the mainstream wants to build a dark matter bridge between galaxies. While nick is right, that the mainstream is missing the E-M forces involved, we still can't do away with the missing mass problem. If we want to suggest that we are actually seeing galaxies connected on giant plasma filaments, those filaments must have mass.
So this is the problem: The mainstream wants to say the connection is dark matter, which by definition they can not see. Yet we want to make them strings of normal baryonic matter, that we can't see? So again,while nick is right that there are a number of ways we should be able to see this plasma, that only makes Jone's problem worse.
Jone's question is not so much "Can you give me more and more ways to see this plasma?", but "How can all that plasma be out there WITHOUT us seeing it?" That is the mainstream objection she is fighting.

[Sparky]

Magnetic fields.