Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

[celeste]

katesisco posted this link http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l#comments in the Net Talk forum, but it should be mentioned here. Scientists find link between galaxies of high redshift (not distant as they think) and large degree of ionization? Thanks katesisco!
I'd like to see MM's reaction on this.

[sjw40364]

So how does a black hole form at the very edge of the universe, i.e. the beginning of time when they are collapsed stars and these are starless galaxies? I have noticed we have gone from the theory of stars creating black holes to just collections of dust. No star needed to form as the cloud condensed into the BH?

[orrery]

Source files that may interest Michael

arXiv:1303.1261v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 6 Mar 2013
Compton Scattering in Plasma: Multiple Scattering Effects and Application to Laser-Plasma Acceleration
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1303.1261.pdf

On the problem of softening of radiation by Multiple Compton Scattering in Stellar Atniospheres containing Free Electrons
http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upl ... 8a_530.pdf

Multiple Compton scattering by thermal electrons in a spherical inflow - The effects of bulk motion
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...326..223C

The effect of Compton scattering by free electrons in a stellar atmosphere
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925MNRAS..85..825D

Pulsar distances and the galactic distribution of free electrons
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...411..674T7

Electron density power spectrum in the local interstellar medium
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...443..209A

A new model for the galactic distribution of free electrons and its fluctuations
http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0207156

Interstellar scattering effects on the detection of narrow-band signals
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...376..123C

A hot intergalactic medium?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 0.000.html

[Michael Mozina]

Source files that may interest Michael

arXiv:1303.1261v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 6 Mar 2013
Compton Scattering in Plasma: Multiple Scattering Effects and Application to Laser-Plasma Acceleration
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1303.1261.pdf

On the problem of softening of radiation by Multiple Compton Scattering in Stellar Atniospheres containing Free Electrons
http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upl ... 8a_530.pdf

Multiple Compton scattering by thermal electrons in a spherical inflow - The effects of bulk motion
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988ApJ...326..223C

The effect of Compton scattering by free electrons in a stellar atmosphere
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925MNRAS..85..825D

Pulsar distances and the galactic distribution of free electrons
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...411..674T7

Electron density power spectrum in the local interstellar medium
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...443..209A

A new model for the galactic distribution of free electrons and its fluctuations
http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0207156

Interstellar scattering effects on the detection of narrow-band signals
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...376..123C

A hot intergalactic medium?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 0.000.html

Much obliged. That's exactly the kind of material I'm looking for.

[orrery]

I have found plenty more

"Bremsstrahlung, Synchrotron Radiation, and Compton Scattering of High-Energy Electrons Traversing Dilute Gases"
http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v42/i2/p237_1

Another important question to ask is to recognize first that a shift is a energy loss or gain and that as such a 'transfer of momentum' would have to occur between the light and emitter.

[celeste]

katesisco posted this link http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... l#comments in the Net Talk forum, but it should be mentioned here. Scientists find link between galaxies of high redshift (not distant as they think) and large degree of ionization? Thanks katesisco!
I'd like to see MM's reaction on this.

I don't usually post just to bump up a thread, but I think the significance of the article here has been missed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time that the mainstream has made the correct association of high redshift galaxies, to high degree of ionization (lots of free electrons)?

I'll state what they are seeing, and leave their interpretations in parentheses. They see the highest redshift galaxies (the most distant they can find), have a lack of 21cm radiation.They see extreme UV radiation (from matter falling into a black hole). They figure the reason they are not seeing hydrogen,is that it's nearly all ionized. On this last point I would agree. While their distance=redshift , and black holes,are wrong, the correlation of lots of ionized matter to high redshift galaxies is what we'd expect from plasma redshift.

[ThickTarget]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time that the mainstream has made the correct association of high redshift galaxies, to high degree of ionization (lots of free electrons)?

I'll state what they are seeing, and leave their interpretations in parentheses. They see the highest redshift galaxies (the most distant they can find), have a lack of 21cm radiation.They see extreme UV radiation (from matter falling into a black hole). They figure the reason they are not seeing hydrogen,is that it's nearly all ionized. On this last point I would agree. While their distance=redshift , and black holes,are wrong, the correlation of lots of ionized matter to high redshift galaxies is what we'd expect from plasma redshift.

This is not what the paper says. The papers shows there is a cutoff with ultraviolet luminosity beyond with 21 cm is not observed but in this study and more recent work by Curran et al. there are observations of high redshift AGN with 21 cm detections. This shows there is no correlation at least in this data.

[celeste]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time that the mainstream has made the correct association of high redshift galaxies, to high degree of ionization (lots of free electrons)?

I'll state what they are seeing, and leave their interpretations in parentheses. They see the highest redshift galaxies (the most distant they can find), have a lack of 21cm radiation.They see extreme UV radiation (from matter falling into a black hole). They figure the reason they are not seeing hydrogen,is that it's nearly all ionized. On this last point I would agree. While their distance=redshift , and black holes,are wrong, the correlation of lots of ionized matter to high redshift galaxies is what we'd expect from plasma redshift.

This is not what the paper says. The papers shows there is a cutoff with ultraviolet luminosity beyond with 21 cm is not observed but in this study and more recent work by Curran et al. there are observations of high redshift AGN with 21 cm detections. This shows there is no correlation at least in this data.

"Unfortunately, these are the only objects we know of at the very limits of the cosmos and within these the radiation from the central black hole is so intense as to heat all the gas to the point where it cannot form stars. We have shown that rather than being a telescope sensitivity issue, all of the billions of suns worth of gas is indeed ionised."
So which part am I translating wrong?
And if it is this ionized material that causes plasma redshift, it does not matter that they ALSO find more matter that is not ionized.
Here is the odd part: The mainstream is saying there is a massive black hole. They know about gravitational segregation of charge. They're giving us "billions of suns worth" of ionized material,and around that massive black hole. By their own reasoning, you'd get this surrounding radial electric field that is beyond anything I've ever seen anyone in EU posit.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2 ... h2649.html I'd like to see an update titled something like,"On the Global Electrostatic Charge of Plasma Falling into Supermassive Blackholes"

[ThickTarget]

"Unfortunately, these are the only objects we know of at the very limits of the cosmos and within these the radiation from the central black hole is so intense as to heat all the gas to the point where it cannot form stars. We have shown that rather than being a telescope sensitivity issue, all of the billions of suns worth of gas is indeed ionised."
So which part am I translating wrong?
And if it is this ionized material that causes plasma redshift, it does not matter that they ALSO find more matter that is not ionized.
Here is the odd part: The mainstream is saying there is a massive black hole. They know about gravitational segregation of charge. They're giving us "billions of suns worth" of ionized material,and around that massive black hole. By their own reasoning, you'd get this surrounding radial electric field that is beyond anything I've ever seen anyone in EU posit.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2 ... h2649.html I'd like to see an update titled something like,"On the Global Electrostatic Charge of Plasma Falling into Supermassive Blackholes"

He's saying the only known ones are totally ionised, this does not indicate there is a trend. Think about this from his perspective, these objects are detected because they are bright, the more distant you go the brighter they have to be. As a result you find at great distance that you have no dim galaxies to look at because you can't detect them, the bright ones are the ones that ionise everything. This is a sampling problem, that is what he's saying. You need to look at the papers not a pop-sci article. If you look at this paper there H I detections out to z~3.5 but there are only 5 galaxies studied at higher redshift than that. 5 is not enough to draw conclusions like this.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2053C

Again not saying this violates your ideas but if you want to prove them you need something else. I don't know what charge segregation is but "billions of suns worth" is the mass of a supermassive black hole, not the ionised material around it. So you won't get gigantic fields.

[celeste]

ThickTarget, You certainly know your physics, but you don't know what charge segregation is? You are not alone,and that was the point of this article http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2 ... h2649.html
"The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works."

You have to realize that this works on larger scales, not just stars. If a galaxy has a gravitational field, and is surrounded by plasma, you MUST end up with a halo of charge segregated plasma around it. If you forget about the gravitational segregation of charge,(which is what these authors claim most scientists are doing), you end up with crazy theories of how some new kind of mass surrounds a galaxy, with a distribution that does not increase in density towards galactic center. You know what cray theory I'm talking about. By the way, if you are going to suggest that we would "see" this plasma (baryonic matter) when looking at distant galaxies, try doing the math. Even if we had 10 times the amount of plasma out there, as we have mass in galaxies, but it is distributed in a more spherical halo (compared to galaxy disks), and it doesn't start showing up heavily until large galactic radius, and extends out in some cases to neighboring galaxies...you get the idea. We have no trouble accepting that we can get clear images (at various wavelengths) of distant galaxies, even looking outwards from our position in the galactic disk. I've had someone suggest that if we had plasma out around our galaxy, in a distribution that matched "dark matter", that we would surely see it. Some people have no conception of the volume of space involved.

[ThickTarget]

You have to realize that this works on larger scales, not just stars. If a galaxy has a gravitational field, and is surrounded by plasma, you MUST end up with a halo of charge segregated plasma around it. If you forget about the gravitational segregation of charge,(which is what these authors claim most scientists are doing), you end up with crazy theories of how some new kind of mass surrounds a galaxy, with a distribution that does not increase in density towards galactic center. You know what cray theory I'm talking about. By the way, if you are going to suggest that we would "see" this plasma (baryonic matter) when looking at distant galaxies, try doing the math. Even if we had 10 times the amount of plasma out there, as we have mass in galaxies, but it is distributed in a more spherical halo (compared to galaxy disks), and it doesn't start showing up heavily until large galactic radius, and extends out in some cases to neighboring galaxies...you get the idea. We have no trouble accepting that we can get clear images (at various wavelengths) of distant galaxies, even looking outwards from our position in the galactic disk. I've had someone suggest that if we had plasma out around our galaxy, in a distribution that matched "dark matter", that we would surely see it. Some people have no conception of the volume of space involved.

I think you're running a little far with this paper. I'd like to take a quote from it:

We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10-36 of the magnitude of gravity.

So this doesn't explain stellar rotation profiles. Replacing DM with plasma is a very different proposal. Plasma isn't completely transparent. It's even refractive at radio wavelengths, I'd like to see your calculation that it wouldn't be detectable if there was 10 times the mass of the galaxy. If it's hot you get black body emission if it's cold you get recombination lines. And then there are issues like the bullet cluster, where the hot plasma of the intracluster medium is striped out and yet the missing mass of the cluster is still present.

[celeste]

ThickTarget, I wasn't implying that we'd get an external electric field from that charge segregation. I realize that the field is only between those layers of segregated charge, not outside. Having extra electrostatic attraction between stars wouldn't help with the rotation curve problem anyways, we'd still get the same shaped curve as we would from gravitational forces. The rotation curve problem is a whole different mistake. They went in with the idea already in their heads, that stars moved in elliptical orbits around galactic center. So then when they went in and got those doppler radial velocities, they had to make the mass distribution match that. In Wal Thornhill's model of a galaxy,stars should spiral (on average)around and along the arms (near the central axis of the galaxy,stars spiral around the center,more as in the mainstream model). The arms of a spiral galaxy, of course,spiral around and then inward. It's the curving around at the ends, that explains why the rotation curves don't fall off as fast as we think they should, if we are assuming some gravitational model.
Yes, I'm still arguing that a galaxy should have a plasma halo around it, but that mass is not what controls star orbits within the galaxy.

[ThickTarget]

The rotation curve problem is a whole different mistake. They went in with the idea already in their heads, that stars moved in elliptical orbits around galactic center. So then when they went in and got those doppler radial velocities, they had to make the mass distribution match that. In Wal Thornhill's model of a galaxy,stars should spiral (on average)around and along the arms (near the central axis of the galaxy,stars spiral around the center,more as in the mainstream model). The arms of a spiral galaxy, of course,spiral around and then inward. It's the curving around at the ends, that explains why the rotation curves don't fall off as fast as we think they should, if we are assuming some gravitational model.
Yes, I'm still arguing that a galaxy should have a plasma halo around it, but that mass is not what controls star orbits within the galaxy.

But to look at this objectively of course Wal's model will explain the rotation profiles, because that's what he set out to do. It's not surprising at all that there is a scenario where dark matter is not needed. Then other questions are raised. Ignoring the obvious ones like where are these stars coming from if they aren't in orbit, I'm sure he has something to say about it. What about gravitational lensing? And what about cluster dynamics?

I'd also like to know how he tries to fit his model to edge on spirals where the radial velocity profile can be directly measured. This would tell you the difference between spiraling out and orbiting.

[celeste]

ThickTarget,as far as gravitational lensing,read Edward Dowdye's work. If he doesn't convince you that there is no gravitational lensing, nothing I say will make much difference. As far as cluster dynamics, Wal would argue for E-M forces there too (and there is some evidence for this). On the other hand, that was where I was going with the plasma halo. I'm sure you agree that IF we have an extended halo of plasma around the galaxy, then we do have mass to account for in cluster dynamics, whether or not it plays a role in galactic rotation.
As far as galactic rotation, that has been nothing but problems for the gravitational model. Consider the following:
Let's say you were the one that originally posited that stars orbited gravitationally, in elliptical orbits around galactic centers. What if that day,someone objected,"Why don't the arms wind up?". Before you could answer that,imagine someone asked,"how can stars "bob"up and down through the galactic plane, and still obey Kepler's Laws?". And..., "How do you explain the streams of stars coming down through the galactic plane?". And, "Why don't galactic rotation curves match the mass we see?". And, "How do you explain objects like Gould's Belt, where we have a ring of stars many light years across, orbiting inclined to, but right through, the galactic plane?". If you were hit with those objections (and there are more)all at once, might you not backpedal, and see if maybe there was another way to explain the doppler shifts you were seeing?
This brings us to a problem with science in general. If a bad theory get's posited,and there are overwhelming objections right out of the gate, the theory gets dumped. If a bad theory gets posited, and only a single objection comes up at first,we try too often to patch the theory. Each following objection and successful patch, gives us more confidence that our theory is correct. We never go back and add up all our patches, it's only after someone stumbles on a better (most often simpler)theory, that we look back and realize what we've done.
The idea of stars orbiting gravitationally around galaxies? Bad. Doesn't matter whether Wal's model is correct or not, the mainstream model is wrong either way.

[ThickTarget]

ThickTarget,as far as gravitational lensing,read Edward Dowdye's work. If he doesn't convince you that there is no gravitational lensing, nothing I say will make much difference. As far as cluster dynamics, Wal would argue for E-M forces there too (and there is some evidence for this). On the other hand, that was where I was going with the plasma halo. I'm sure you agree that IF we have an extended halo of plasma around the galaxy, then we do have mass to account for in cluster dynamics, whether or not it plays a role in galactic rotation.
As far as galactic rotation, that has been nothing but problems for the gravitational model. Consider the following:
Let's say you were the one that originally posited that stars orbited gravitationally, in elliptical orbits around galactic centers. What if that day,someone objected,"Why don't the arms wind up?". Before you could answer that,imagine someone asked,"how can stars "bob"up and down through the galactic plane, and still obey Kepler's Laws?". And..., "How do you explain the streams of stars coming down through the galactic plane?". And, "Why don't galactic rotation curves match the mass we see?". And, "How do you explain objects like Gould's Belt, where we have a ring of stars many light years across, orbiting inclined to, but right through, the galactic plane?". If you were hit with those objections (and there are more)all at once, might you not backpedal, and see if maybe there was another way to explain the doppler shifts you were seeing?
This brings us to a problem with science in general. If a bad theory get's posited,and there are overwhelming objections right out of the gate, the theory gets dumped. If a bad theory gets posited, and only a single objection comes up at first,we try too often to patch the theory. Each following objection and successful patch, gives us more confidence that our theory is correct. We never go back and add up all our patches, it's only after someone stumbles on a better (most often simpler)theory, that we look back and realize what we've done.
The idea of stars orbiting gravitationally around galaxies? Bad. Doesn't matter whether Wal's model is correct or not, the mainstream model is wrong either way.

I looked over two of Dowdye's papers and I don't agree with them at all. He doesn't use general relativity, he applies gauss' law and by doing this he removes (or claims to remove) the constraint in GR that the alignment must be very good. What Dowdye tests is not GR but his own idea's of gravitational lensing. Absolutely nothing in the two papers and what I read of his site refutes lensing as applied in GR. Further more he claims (without citation) that gravitational lensing abound the Sun has never been shown to large radii, this is not the case. This has not been the case since 1922 where the relation was reliably probed to about 5 or 6 radii from the Sun. He claims it was unobserved in microwaves but as he didn't cite it I have no idea what he's talking about. He then claims gravitational arcs are wavelength dependent (beyond what's expected) when observed gain without a citation or evidence. So no, Dowdye doesn't convince me gravitational lenses don't exist, at all. He's testing something but it isn't GR.

What evidence is there for these EM forces? And I'm still wondering what he does about spatially resolved velocity profiles which don't show spiral motion. Or for that matter the lack the huge gaps in understanding surrounding replacing and getting rid of stars moving out. Or what's causing them to accelerate out and why don't H I regions do this? I don't think anyone can say this is an elegant solution.

If those "objections" are explainable, which they all are, then there is no problem whatsoever. They aren't patches, it's a complicated system. Having to consider things to have an explanation is not a criticism of the theory. Any theory has those questions to answer. Claiming to know the standard model is wrong without evidence point to that is what's bad.