Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[Higgsy]

Hi Michael

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/399

However, we didn't explain *how* the gas got to be so hot and we obtained a number of questions from people about this.

I'll bet. Nothing like a million+ degree enigma on your hands thanks to your 'discovery'.

I'm continuing on my quest to really understand EU and plasma universe. I can see why you and the rest of the EU folk are frustrated with the mainstream, and I understand why you have to express that frustration vigourously occasionally, but this time I have to say that your post leaves me flummoxed. I am interested in the EU because I refuse to take things on faith and I insist on thinking for myself, but I have to apply that to EU too, and this is an area that I have researched.

Smita Mathur, one of the co-authors, explained to me that there could be several different energy sources for heating the gas. One leading candidate is a galactic wind driven by supernova explosions. Another is that material from well outside the galaxy fell inwards and was heated by shock waves in the process.

What a bunch of pure nonsense. Here on Earth we heat and sustain plasma at high temperatures with *electricity*! The single most logical explanation for a high temp halo is not a spherically identical bunch of supernova events, or from an external galaxy colliding with our galaxy, and hitting everything at once. That's just pure nonsense on a stick! Who even wrote this crap?

OK, so is the EU position that because we create plasmas with electricity in the lab that plasmas on a cosmic scale can only be created electrically? (Although even that is not strictly the only way we create plasmas on earth - for example, any flame is at least a partially ionised plasma)

It's important to appreciate that there does not need to be a continuous heating source for the gas.

Bull! A shock wave isn't going to heat everything evenly or maintain it at high temperatures. Space is *cold* in their model, particularly away from all the stars. Any excess heat would be dissipated rapidly in the form of photons like they one's they're observing in the first place.

A couple of questions: First, I didn't see any mention in the paper that the plasma is heated evenly. Did I just miss it? Second, how fast do you think the temperature of a plasma such as this one will fall?

Because the gas is extremely diffuse it loses energy by radiation very slowly,

Pure horse pucky. A high temperature ion is going to release it's energy *faster* in a diffuse and cold environment because nothing close by is radiating heat back into the ion and heating it back up again! That's a completely absurd statement. They have physics standing on it's head. They live inside of a universe of "alternative facts" apparently.

How does the plasma lose energy? It seems to me that you are right - the only way it can do so is radiatively (obviously conduction and convection don't play a part). Ok, so what does this actually mean? A hot gas means that the individual atoms, ions and electrons are moving rapidly. This is the definition of temperature - the higher the temperature, the greater the kinetic energy of the atoms,ions and electrons. By what mechanism do they lose energy and thus reduce the temperature of the gas? I think you are right again - they do so by emitting photons - the very photons detected by Chandra. Now the key question, how are those photons emitted? The answer is that the photons are mainly emitted when atoms (not ions) collide, which results in excitation of the atomic state, which then relaxes to a lower state emitting a photon. Since this mechanism requires atoms, it is mainly forbidden transitions in metals which are responsible for the cooling, although some energy is lost by inelastic scattering of protons (hydrogen ions) or by recombination of electrons with ions. In any case, the rate of cooling depends on the frequency of collisions, which is obviously less in a less dense medium. The less dense the gas the lower the rate of cooling, and it can be shown that the rate of cooling goes as the square of the number density (particles per unit volume) of the plasma.

implying that it also cools down very slowly, over a timescale of ten billion years or more.

More horse manure. There's no sunlight way out there to keep anything heated up. If we tossed *anything* at millions of degrees into deep space, it's going to cool off in short order (days), even if it's a *dense* and massive object. Tiny ions and individual particles will emit heat and cool off *instantly* (seconds/hours) by emitting photons. Do they actually think that the ion can emit photons for millions of years and not lose energy? Really?

That claim is utterly irrational and it's complete and utter nonsense.

There *must* be a continuous source of energy that maintains the plasma at such hot temperatures, and the only logical choice is *electricity*, but that's the "forbidden term" in astronomy.

Michael, I'm all for berating the mainstream when they screw up, but in this case, electricity is not required to keep a low density plasma at a high temperature for a very long time.

So, once the gas is heated it stays hot for a very long time.

The only thing that stays heated continuously is the hot air coming out of their mouths.

This has to be the single *lamest* and most pitiful "explanation" for anything that I've ever seen. Their "explanation" defies the laws of physics. There's nothing true or even logical about their so called "explanation", it's a complete pile of horse manure.

So shall we do some sums? Sums which I have just done, having just read the Chandra paper

The radius of the halo is 300,000 light years which gives a volume of 9.5e64 m3. Let us take the mass of the plasma as 10 billion solar masses or 2e40 kg. The density is therefore 2e40/9.5e64 = 2.1e-25 kg/m3 = 2.1e-28 g/cm3. The mass of a proton is 1.6e-24 g, so we should expect, on average, 0.00013 ions per cm3, which is, as you can see a very low density with a very low cooling rate.

A well accepted cooling function for plasma at a ten million degrees is n2 x 10-30 J cm-3 s-1 where n is the number density per cm3 (see https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sep ... escu2.html). That gives a rate of cooling for this halo at 1.7e-38 J cm-3 s-1 or, over 10 billion years, 5.4e-21 J cm-3. The kinetic energy of a proton is given by 3/2(kT) where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant - at ten million degrees that is 4.1e-16J. So in 10 billion years, taking into account that an average ion occupies 7,700 cm3, a plasma at this temperature and density will lose only ten percent of its energy through radiative cooling. It ain't seconds or hours.

[Michael Mozina]

MM.

Aren't the calculations for the amount of DM to ordinary matter a ratio?

You mean as claimed In mainstream "theory"? Yep. It literally has to be a ratio, lest their entire supernatural house of cards come tumbling to the ground. Essentially their nucleosynthesis numbers as well as their CMB claims go up in smoke if they changed the ratio even a little.

so that, if there is more ordinary matter than estimated, then there is also more Dark Matter than estimated.

Well, unfortunately that logic simply doesn't work with respect to all those stellar miscounts they made in 2006. It's just ordinary matter that they missed and every bit of missing matter they've found has been *ordinary* matter. The more ordinary matter they found reduces the amount of exotic matter required to explain that lensing pattern. They're in pure denial of that reality which is why they refuse to budge with respect to any ratios, even after *massively* underestimating the number of stars in those galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the type of galaxy and the size of the star.

Of course, I don't believe there is such a thing as non interactive Dark Matter interacting with ordinary matter.

They simply haven't fixed the hundreds of years old equations that underpin all the math they are using.
Not much was known about electricity in Sir Isaac Newton's day, and yet his equations are still the foundation of gravity theory, relativity, and all the Dark theories. If they are going to modify Newtonian dynamics, they really need to figure out how Newton was wrong in the first place. Instead, they are forever tacking on fixes. Adding a new theory and math for each new scenario that the old equations can't solve.

~Paul

You're absolutely right. They have it in their head that only gravity matters with respect to galaxy rotation patterns, and that's a major part of their problem. We've also been pretty much oblivious to the location of most of the mass of our very own galaxy until 2012, and we didn't figure out it was also rotating with the galaxy until just last year.

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, the paper referenced above is quite clear about that: "We have known for a while that the baryonic mass of galaxies, including that of our own Milky way, falls short of what is expected for their total mass...

This brings up an interesting issue. The "magic number" that the mainstream "picked out of thin air" with respect to the amount of baryonic matter present is really nothing more than a *necessary* mythological pillar of their theory. It can't be altered even *slightly*. Therefore they really didn't pick a number for ordinary matter that was actually based upon specific galaxy cluster brightness calculations. They picked a number that is *necessary*, lest the whole thing crumble and fall. They not only needed more ordinary matter, they also needed magic matter too in exact ratios. Why? Just to satisfy come creation mythos that otherwise falls apart?

Their mass calculations in 2006 were never worth the paper they were printed on, and our knowledge of the location and movement patterns of most of the mass of our own galaxy wasn't known until last year.

OK - a couple of questions:
If they didn't think that there might be missing mass in million to ten million degree gas, then why probe the IGM specifically to detect it?

Probably because they've been observing the x-ray output from it for years? If they knew it was there all along, why wasn't it counted in any rotation patterns? I'll give them credit for being a bit "curious", but they didn't account for the location of that particular mass anywhere in galaxy rotation maths, at least not any that were based upon exact location and rotation patterns.

Isn't the very fact that the gas is at > million degrees enough to mean that it will be at least partly ionised and so a plasma?

It means that electrical current has most likely heated it to millions of degrees, just like electrical discharges in the lab heat plasma to millions of degrees.

I thought that you were indicating that the hot plasma could be regarded as the mass the mainstream thinks is in Dark Matter, but it appears from the paper, and from what you say above, that it is more likely to be baryonic matter that the mainstream models predicted to be there but hadn't been detected as yet. Is that a correct interpretation?

Yes and no. Since 2006 we've seen that they underestimated the brightness of those colliding clusters by a factor of 2, they've underestimated the number of entire stars by up to a factor of 20, *and* we've now figured out that even all that extra mass *pales* in comparison to the amount of *additional* mass that they've never known about until now.

If you *only* tried to look at that *one* screw up, sure, you could make that case. *If* however we embrace reality a bit, no, that argument doesn't come close to explaining how they rationalize away all the stellar miscounts *plus* the extra plasma.

The mainstream papers *always* skew the argument in their own favor by ignoring every previous problem that's been found. It's absurd to ignore all the stellar miscounts before it, and then claim it somehow explains the "missing baryon" problem. No. They were *way* over budget even *before* we double the mass.

Furthermore, the *movement* of that mass, and the *location* of that mass was never factored into their galaxy rotation models. It it *were* to be factored in, it again *minimizes* any need for exotic forms of matter.

If that's the case, how does this discovery poke holes in MOND? (My original question)

Because you'd have to use the same denial based argument they use to support MOND. You'd have to claim that none of those galaxy underestimates prior to 2012 should be considered *and* neither the location or rotation pattern of that mass we found in 2012 minimizes the need for changes to gravity theory. Furthermore we're right back to *assuming* with MOND theory that *only* gravity matters with respect to galaxy rotation patterns! Why? If you've got million degree plasma around every galaxy, the odds are that a hell of a lot of current is running through that plasma. It *must* also have some effect on the rotation patterns of galaxies,and Peratt's work demonstrates that it *does*. Keep in mind that we've found something in like 40 satellite galaxies around the Milky way since 2006, *plus* all that million degree plasma!

You say that the existence of this halo falls out of EU/PC theory by definition. This is precisely the sort of thing I am hoping to learn about. Could you explain how this discovery falls out of EU/PC theory by definition?

I'd suggest that you start with Peratt's work related to galaxy rotation patterns, and Alfven's work on galaxy formation. Every galaxy is a "homopolar generator" in Alfven's model. They all have *current* flowing through the plasma, and that current contributes to the movement patterns. That current also has to be at least part of the heat source of that million degree plasma.

You also say that it was found to be rotating with the galaxy, but that's not in this press release or paper (unless I'm missing it). Could you give me a reference to the discovery of the rotation?

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-rev ... milky-way/

It was the second link in the OP.

I'm sorry, you've lost me there. My question was about the displacement of the hot gas/plasma halo from the stars in both galaxy clusters involved in the Bullet cluster collision. Isn't this displacement (the fact that the hot plasma halo is at a different location from the stars) a key finding of the Bullet cluster investigation?

Not from my perspective, but maybe from yours. Some amount of gas collisions is almost certainly to occur, but it's not necessarily going to be a significant portion of the mass of either galaxy. I'd expect that some plasma might be left behind at the point of collision, but I have no evidence it would be much in terms of the overall mass of the clusters.

Great. I agree absolutely that EM field influences should be included in any model that involves plasmas, and strong galactic or cluster scale magnetic fields. So, what magnitude of magnetic field should the models include? What magnitude of current should be included?

Those are great questions. I'd suggest you start with Peratt's work.

When it comes to dense neutral (or near-neutral) objects like stars, to what extent can their dynamics be influenced elctromagnetically?

It seems to me that if you move the majority of the mass in the million degree "halo" with EM fields, the rest of the mass in those stars will follow along in it's wake.

So, just so I understand the EU position unambiguously, you are saying that the mass of the hot plasma halo, its rotation and the current that flows through the galaxy together are sufficient to explain all the obdservations without calling on any additional non-interacting mass? That would be a wonderful solution, and we could immediately dispense with all the searches for Dark Matter.

I really do suggest that you start with Peratt's galaxy models. If we're going to study all the behaviors of plasma, we can't just ignore the EM influences on plasma in a current carrying plasma universe. That's just an illogical premise because plasma is an almost *perfect* conductor of electrical energy and its *current* that generates all those "magnetic fields" in a plasma universe.

FYI, I may not get to your other post till after work. If you get a chance to respond to this post before I get to your next one, can you tell me if your heat dissipation figures are related to *actual lab results* with real million degree plasma in a vacuum or are they just based upon mainstream cosmology theory?

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael

I'm continuing on my quest to really understand EU and plasma universe. I can see why you and the rest of the EU folk are frustrated with the mainstream, and I understand why you have to express that frustration vigourously occasionally, but this time I have to say that your post leaves me flummoxed. I am interested in the EU because I refuse to take things on faith and I insist on thinking for myself, but I have to apply that to EU too, and this is an area that I have researched.

I'll try to tone it down. I just get frustrated at the incredible lengths that the maintream goes to in an attempt to avoid acknowledging the role of electricity in space.

OK, so is the EU position that because we create plasmas with electricity in the lab that plasmas on a cosmic scale can only be created electrically?

I wouldn't use the term "only", but I would use the term "most likely". The "natural" way that gamma rays and x-rays occur on Earth is from "electrical discharges" which also heats plasmas to very high temperatures. It's certainly the "most likely" scenario when you're talking about interestellar plasma.

(Although even that is not strictly the only way we create plasmas on earth - for example, any flame is at least a partially ionised plasma)

Flames on Earth don't produce million degree plasma.

A couple of questions: First, I didn't see any mention in the paper that the plasma is heated evenly. Did I just miss it? Second, how fast do you think the temperature of a plasma such as this one will fall?

It didn't say specifically that it was entirely evenly heated, but they're talking about a very large area, not just small regions. With respect to your second qurestion, frankly I'm finding *lab* numbers to be extremely difficult to come by. Can you cite some lab tests where million degree plasma in a vacuum sustained those temperatures for even a few hours or days? I'm not finding much on Google scholar to go by with espect to *lab tests*.

How does the plasma lose energy?

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

It seems to me that you are right - the only way it can do so is radiatively (obviously conduction and convection don't play a part).

I'll grant you there's unlikely to be any convection going on but conducton is certainly possible. There's no "guarantee" that the plasma isn't arranged into more dense filaments, and space between filaments, rather then being evenly spread apart in empty space. In a threaded plasma scenario conduction might play a role.

Ok, so what does this actually mean? A hot gas means that the individual atoms, ions and electrons are moving rapidly. This is the definition of temperature - the higher the temperature, the greater the kinetic energy of the atoms,ions and electrons. By what mechanism do they lose energy and thus reduce the temperature of the gas? I think you are right again - they do so by emitting photons - the very photons detected by Chandra. Now the key question, how are those photons emitted? The answer is that the photons are mainly emitted when atoms (not ions) collide, which results in excitation of the atomic state, which then relaxes to a lower state emitting a photon. Since this mechanism requires atoms, it is mainly forbidden transitions in metals which are responsible for the cooling, although some energy is lost by inelastic scattering of protons (hydrogen ions) or by recombination of electrons with ions. In any case, the rate of cooling depends on the frequency of collisions, which is obviously less in a less dense medium. The less dense the gas the lower the rate of cooling, and it can be shown that the rate of cooling goes as the square of the number density (particles per unit volume) of the plasma.

Do you have some lab tests of hot plasma in a vacuum to back up that idea, or is that just a "hypothesis" you have? I'll grant you that the kinetic energy aspect of "temperature" makes this a bit tricky. Every object has an intrinsic "temperature" as well as external kinetic energy. Ions, or at least collections of ions would have such an internal temperture as well. Once they ions start emiiting gamma rays and x-rays, they will start to cool off.

Michael, I'm all for berating the mainstream when they screw up, but in this case, electricity is not required to keep a low density plasma at a high temperature for a very long time.

Well, you'll need to help me out then because I'm not finding material related to any lab results that would suggest that you're right. I'm open to be shown to be wrong, but I'd expect to see that claim demonstrated *empirically* in some way.

For instance, if we shut off BIrkeland's power source, I guarantee you that the glowing particles in the chamber will cool off and stop emitting high energy light in short order.

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

How long do you think that blue glow will continue to surround the spheres when we turn off the power? Care to show how this works in the lab and care to make a wager that the blue glow will continue for "days" or years once we turn off the electricity?

So shall we do some sums? Sums which I have just done, having just read the Chandra paper

Hmmm. The problem with some mathematical models (like dark matter) is that they often look good on paper, while failng miserably in the lab. I'd rather we stick with empirical experiments that demonstrate your claim. I'll be honest, I'm not finding any published material that would suggest that plasma in a vacuum stays at millions of degrees for days on end without electricty.

The radius of the halo is 300,000 light years which gives a volume of 9.5e64 m3. Let us take the mass of the plasma as 10 billion solar masses or 2e40 kg. The density is therefore 2e40/9.5e64 = 2.1e-25 kg/m3 = 2.1e-28 g/cm3. The mass of a proton is 1.6e-24 g, so we should expect, on average, 0.00013 ions per cm3, which is, as you can see a very low density with a very low cooling rate.

Why do you think that the density of the material is necssarily directly related to the number (and energy state) of the photons being emitted from all the ions? They'd all tend to cool off at the same time if they're spread that far appart. The odds are however that they not evenly spread appart like that. It's more likely to be a threaded environment with low densities and higher densities in different locations.

A well accepted cooling function for plasma at a ten million degrees is n2 x 10-30 J cm-3 s-1 where n is the number density per cm3 (see https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sep ... escu2.html). That gives a rate of cooling for this halo at 1.7e-38 J cm-3 s-1 or, over 10 billion years, 5.4e-21 J cm-3. The kinetic energy of a proton is given by 3/2(kT) where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant - at ten million degrees that is 4.1e-16J. So in 10 billion years, taking into account that an average ion occupies 7,700 cm3, a plasma at this temperature and density will lose only ten percent of its energy through radiative cooling. It ain't seconds or hours.

When you say this is a "well accepted cooling function", do you mean you can demonstrate it in the lab, or do you mean it's "standard mainstream dogma"?

Like I said earlier, I'm looking for some empirical lab tests of your claims, and I'm simply not finding them. Could you cite a few? Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know. It's not like you can use a larger volume and assume that only *some* of it will start coolling, and some of it will not. If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'.

[Zyxzevn]

What is exactly the Halo around a Galaxy? What is it made of, and where does it come from?

From the "accretion disk" model, one would argue that it is a remains of gas that did
not collide into the accretion disk.
So it would be sparse hydrogen gas that is not rotating. Its edge would relate to
how far gravity could still hold hydrogen gas/plasma.
We can see that this halo probably has not enough weight to support any dark matter halo.

In an electric galaxy, I think it would be charged plasma.
It can rotate with the galaxy. Maybe it is even produced by the galaxy.
The centre of the galaxy would be opposite polarity, and the stars in the galaxy
would gradually be of different charge. This would can allow the stars to rotate a lot
faster and in more linear distribution as we see in the "dark matter" velocity distribution.

Then we can go into other aspects.
What is the actual movement of the stars in a galaxy?
They do not just rotate around the centre, they also orbit around each other.
In gravity only, should not only see objects move one way, but also move other ways.
The complexity of movement is enormous, and we see this reflected in the galaxy spiral arms.
Yet in the dark matter myth and the accretion disk model, it is all presented as very simple.

In the "accretion disk" model, a galaxy has somehow formed a single plane of orbit
on the largest level. How can such a galaxy have an initial idea of direction.
This is not a problem with an Electric galaxy.
In an Electric galaxy it is easily possible to form chains of objects that rotate around each other,
like lightning forms chains of currents.

In the accretion disk model, the centre will contain the oldest stars, because those parts have been
compressed for the longest time.
But in an electric galaxy, the oldest stars can be on the outside, as we can actually observe,
because the electric activity can be strongest on the edges of the galaxy and in the spiral arms.
(As we also observe).

So a galaxy can have many different observed features:
1) disk shape
2) spirals
3) old stars outside and in galaxy arms
4) chains of orbits
5) "dark matter" velocity distribution
6) halo
7) strong magnetic fields

All of them are miraculous in a gravity accretion disk model,
but can form easily in an electric galaxy.

[Higgsy]

Yes, the paper referenced above is quite clear about that: "We have known for a while that the baryonic mass of galaxies, including that of our own Milky way, falls short of what is expected for their total mass...

This brings up an interesting issue. The "magic number" that the mainstream "picked out of thin air" with respect to the amount of baryonic matter present is really nothing more than a *necessary* mythological pillar of their theory. It can't be altered even *slightly*. Therefore they really didn't pick a number for ordinary matter that was actually based upon specific galaxy cluster brightness calculations. They picked a number that is *necessary*, lest the whole thing crumble and fall. They not only needed more ordinary matter, they also needed magic matter too in exact ratios. Why? Just to satisfy come creation mythos that otherwise falls apart?

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

OK - a couple of questions:
If they didn't think that there might be missing mass in million to ten million degree gas, then why probe the IGM specifically to detect it?

Probably because they've been observing the x-ray output from it for years? If they knew it was there all along, why wasn't it counted in any rotation patterns?

You've lost me there. The paper in 2012 describes the discovery using the Chandra X-ray telescope. So if they were observing the output from it for years, then why suddenly publish a paper in 2012 announcing the discovery? And if they were detecting it for years, then my question stands, why look unless you are looking to find mass that you think is missing?

It means that electrical current has most likely heated it to millions of degrees, just like electrical discharges in the lab heat plasma to millions of degrees.

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

The mainstream papers *always* skew the argument in their own favor by ignoring every previous problem that's been found. It's absurd to ignore all the stellar miscounts before it, and then claim it somehow explains the "missing baryon" problem. No. They were *way* over budget even *before* we double the mass.

When it comes to looking at a galaxy, isn't it the distribution of visible mass that leads to the rotation curve problem? After all, the total mass in a galaxy is arbitrary, it is the distribution of visible matter that does not comport with the observed rotation curves, no?

Furthermore, the *movement* of that mass, and the *location* of that mass was never factored into their galaxy rotation models. It it *were* to be factored in, it again *minimizes* any need for exotic forms of matter.

Could you explain how the movement of the hot plasma halo helps explain the flat rotation curves? Can you post, or do you have a source for a quantitative calculation that shows how adding in the halo minimises the nedd for Dark Matter?

If that's the case, how does this discovery poke holes in MOND? (My original question)

Because you'd have to use the same denial based argument they use to support MOND. You'd have to claim that none of those galaxy underestimates prior to 2012 should be considered

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

If you've got million degree plasma around every galaxy, the odds are that a hell of a lot of current is running through that plasma. It *must* also have some effect on the rotation patterns of galaxies,and Peratt's work demonstrates that it *does*.

So why does the bare fact of the existence of a hot plasma imply a hell of a lot of current? What sort of current densities does a hell of a lot mean? I absolutely agree that the existence of a plasma with two to three times the mass of visible matter outside the visible matter will affect the rotation pattern - has the EU (or you) calculated how much?

You say that the existence of this halo falls out of EU/PC theory by definition. This is precisely the sort of thing I am hoping to learn about. Could you explain how this discovery falls out of EU/PC theory by definition?

I'd suggest that you start with Peratt's work related to galaxy rotation patterns, and Alfven's work on galaxy formation.

Oh - I thought it was a by-definition thing - I was looking for a one-liner.

Every galaxy is a "homopolar generator" in Alfven's model.

Oh right, that's interesting. What generates the uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the galactic disc, and what closes the electrical circuit?

They all have *current* flowing through the plasma, and that current contributes to the movement patterns.

How does the current contribute to the movement patterns?

That current also has to be at least part of the heat source of that million degree plasma.

But how does the existence of the halo fall out of the hypothesis that all galaxies are Faraday discs "be definition"?

I'm sorry, you've lost me there. My question was about the displacement of the hot gas/plasma halo from the stars in both galaxy clusters involved in the Bullet cluster collision. Isn't this displacement (the fact that the hot plasma halo is at a different location from the stars) a key finding of the Bullet cluster investigation?

Not from my perspective, but maybe from yours.

That's strange - all of the key papers that traced the plasma halos of the Bullet cluster with X-rays and its mass with gravitational lensing focus on the physical displacement that is measured between the two. Without this displacement, there isn't a story, is there? And the mass of the ram-pressure stripped halos lagging the stellar component is actually quite large as I read it.

When it comes to dense neutral (or near-neutral) objects like stars, to what extent can their dynamics be influenced elctromagnetically?

It seems to me that if you move the majority of the mass in the million degree "halo" with EM fields, the rest of the mass in those stars will follow along in it's wake.

Can you help me with the physical mechanism for that?

[comingfrom]

Questions, questions, questions. I love questions. Can I have a go?

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

You asked this question directly after receiving the answer.
MM wrote: Why? Just to satisfy come creation mythos that otherwise falls apart?

And they arrived at all their numbers by their math.

You've lost me there. The paper in 2012 describes the discovery using the Chandra X-ray telescope. So if they were observing the output from it for years, then why suddenly publish a paper in 2012 announcing the discovery? And if they were detecting it for years, then my question stands, why look unless you are looking to find mass that you think is missing?

They were observing something, without really understanding what it was. Therefore they investigated further, and discovered baryonic mass. They weren't expecting that.

When you say electrical current, I suppose you mean a flow of electrons (maybe a contraflow of ions?)?

Plasma comprises electrons and protons and ions.
When there is a flow of electricity, the electrons and ions get pushed around by the flow.

We normally can only detect electric flow when it is pushing electrons and ions, because we can detect the electrons and ions.

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

Heat, and electricity, is photonic.
Electric currents are coherant streams of photons, whereas heat is the density of photons.

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

Chandra observes x-rays, which are highly energized photons. The electromagnetic spectrum is empirical evidence of the existence of photons.

When it comes to looking at a galaxy, isn't it the distribution of visible mass that leads to the rotation curve problem? After all, the total mass in a galaxy is arbitrary, it is the distribution of visible matter that does not comport with the observed rotation curves, no?

I believe the problem is with the velocity distribution of the rotation. The matter (star systems) travelling at different speeds than predicted by the math of gravity theory.

Could you explain how the movement of the hot plasma halo helps explain the flat rotation curves? Can you post, or do you have a source for a quantitative calculation that shows how adding in the halo minimises the nedd for Dark Matter?

The existence of a hot plasma halo speaks of a whole other mechanism altogether, namely electricity. If there is another mechanism, there is no need for any Dark Matter, since that was just a fill in for the fact that left out the mechanism of electricity in their theories.

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

We don't deny mainstream discoveries, but some of their explanations for those discoveries. For the reason that they always leave out the important mechanism of electricity in their explanations, and depend upon things like black holes and dark matter, which have yet to be proven.

So why does the bare fact of the existence of a hot plasma imply a hell of a lot of current? What sort of current densities does a hell of a lot mean? I absolutely agree that the existence of a plasma with two to three times the mass of visible matter outside the visible matter will affect the rotation pattern - has the EU (or you) calculated how much?

The million degree temperature of the plasma, way out in deep cold space, is telling us there is a lot of photons there. That the heat hasn't dissipated, and that the plasma is rotating, indicates the photons are caught in currents there.

Oh - I thought it was a by-definition thing - I was looking for a one-liner.

I'm trying to give you one-liners. If the one-liners still leave you with questions, fire away.

Oh right, that's interesting. What generates the uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the galactic disc, and what closes the electrical circuit?

A galaxy is a cross section of an intergalactic current, at a z pinch. The current diameter is greater than the galaxy diameters. The currents run through galaxies across the Universe. A complete mapping of these circuits hasn't been done yet.

Magnetism is a by product field of an electric field.
If the electric field is coherently polarised, the sum spins on the photons create forces orthogonal to the electric field.
If an electric field is not coherent, the various spins cancel each other out, and the magnetic field will be weak or non existent.

How does the current contribute to the movement patterns?

The currents are like quantum wind, and move matter by direct bombardment.

But how does the existence of the halo fall out of the hypothesis that all galaxies are Faraday discs "be definition"?

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

That's strange - all of the key papers that traced the plasma halos of the Bullet cluster with X-rays and its mass with gravitational lensing focus on the physical displacement that is measured between the two. Without this displacement, there isn't a story, is there? And the mass of the ram-pressure stripped halos lagging the stellar component is actually quite large as I read it.

Again, they attempting to explain with gravity and gas fluid theory. Although it is admitted there are vast electric currents in space, electricity never features in their explanations for the formation of things.

Can you help me with the physical mechanism for that?

I believe, whatever is pushing the plasma, is also pushing the stars, is also keep the planets spinning in their orbits.

I'm still learning electric theory, and my answers are just my current understanding [pun intended].
If anyone noted any error in anything I said, feel free to criticize and correct me.

~Paul

[Higgsy]

How does the plasma lose energy?

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

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

Let's start with:

Every object has an intrinsic "temperature" as well as external kinetic energy. Ions, or at least collections of ions would have such an internal temperture as well. Once they ions start emiiting gamma rays and x-rays, they will start to cool off...If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'.

I am little surprised that you don't know the definition of temperature of a gas - this is freshman undergraduate thermodynamics, but we all missed lectures as freshmen (too much beer the night before?) and have some holes in our education. OK - so the temperarature of a gas (whether ionised or not) is proprtional to the average kinetic energy of the particles and is given by T=2/3k(0.5mv2)=(2/3k)KEave, where m is mass, v is velocity and k is Boltzmann's constant. The internal energy of the ions (for example binding energy of species with z>1) contributes to the energy but not the temperature of the gas, and in this case is not important anyway, because the ions are all stable nuclei of low atomic number. They don't have internal energy that can dissipate. Why would a proton or an alpha particle (the most common species of ion) spontaneously emit a high energy photon?

So let's think about what we have in an extremely diffuse intergalactic neutral plasma at high temperature. We have very rarefied ions (mainly protons - hydrogen nuclei, and alpha particles - helium nuclei, but also a some low atomic mass metal ions such as lithium, beryllium, boron, oxygen and carbon etc), and a number of free electrons equal to the total proton count (so somewhat more electrons than ions). These ions and electrons are very rarefied - we worked out above one ion and ~one electron per 7.7 litres as the average number density in the Milky Way hot plama halo. They are moving rapidly in random directions and their average kinetic energy gives the temperature of the plasma. Since the ions are unconditionally stable to fission, the binding energy (internal energy if you like) of particles above bare protons does not contribute to the temperature and cannot be radiated. Note that your intuition that individual ions will just spontaneously emit photons and cool down is wrong. There is no mechanism for that.

Now, the question arises, how does the plasma cool, how does it lose energy so that the temperature falls. You have ions and electrons whizzing around, and the ion or electron will just keep going indefinitely, unless it suffers an interaction or collision. That collisional interaction can lead to a number of possible outcomes: for example if an ion captures an electron then the process emits a photon which can propagate away. Inelastic collisons between ions will also dissipate energy in the form of photons. Most importantly, some of the metals, oxygen for example, are not fully ionised and the bound atomic electrons will be collisionally excited to a higher state, and will then relax to a lower energy emitting a photon with an energy which corresponds to the particular transition. These transitions can be detected in the emission spectrum of the plasma. (Also, enough is known about atomic physics to accurately predict the relative rates of these different cooling mechanisms).

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

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

[Higgsy]

Hi Coming,

Questions, questions, questions. I love questions. Can I have a go?

I would be delighted.

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

You asked this question directly after receiving the answer.
MM wrote: Why? Just to satisfy come creation mythos that otherwise falls apart?

And they arrived at all their numbers by their math.

Right - but you misunderstand my question - I wasn't asking about whether the theory needs a precise value - I accept that a precise valueis demanded by the theory, by the maths if you like - but I'm curious as to the actual process that they used to arrive at specifically 0.0486. Can you see the distinction?

You've lost me there. The paper in 2012 describes the discovery using the Chandra X-ray telescope. So if they were observing the output from it for years, then why suddenly publish a paper in 2012 announcing the discovery? And if they were detecting it for years, then my question stands, why look unless you are looking to find mass that you think is missing?

They were observing something, without really understanding what it was. Therefore they investigated further, and discovered baryonic mass. They weren't expecting that.

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

When you say electrical current, I suppose you mean a flow of electrons (maybe a contraflow of ions?)?

Plasma comprises electrons and protons and ions.
When there is a flow of electricity, the electrons and ions get pushed around by the flow. We normally can only detect electric flow when it is pushing electrons and ions, because we can detect the electrons and ions.

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

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

Heat, and electricity, is photonic.
Electric currents are coherant streams of photons, whereas heat is the density of photons.

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

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

Chandra observes x-rays, which are highly energized photons. The electromagnetic spectrum is empirical evidence of the existence of photons.

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

Could you explain how the movement of the hot plasma halo helps explain the flat rotation curves? Can you post, or do you have a source for a quantitative calculation that shows how adding in the halo minimises the nedd for Dark Matter?

The existence of a hot plasma halo speaks of a whole other mechanism altogether, namely electricity. If there is another mechanism, there is no need for any Dark Matter, since that was just a fill in for the fact that left out the mechanism of electricity in their theories.

OK, that wasn't really the question but anyway, could you explain why the existence of the hot halo speaks of electricity as a mechanism. Could you describe the mechanism? And do you have a quantitative source which shows how the mechanism of electricity can replace the hypothesis of Dark Matter - in other words the calculations which show that the electrical mechanism, whatever it is, gives the same effect as the gravitational effect of a Dark Matter halo?

So why does the bare fact of the existence of a hot plasma imply a hell of a lot of current? What sort of current densities does a hell of a lot mean? I absolutely agree that the existence of a plasma with two to three times the mass of visible matter outside the visible matter will affect the rotation pattern - has the EU (or you) calculated how much?

The million degree temperature of the plasma, way out in deep cold space, is telling us there is a lot of photons there. That the heat hasn't dissipated, and that the plasma is rotating, indicates the photons are caught in currents there.

How does the temperature of the plasma tell us that there are a lot of photons? How many photons are a"lot of photons"? What exactly does it mean for a photon to caught in a current? Earlier on you said that currents are coherent streams of photons (that's a different definition from the EU compared with the mainstream for current, but I'm going with your EU definition here). Now youisay that the photons in the halo are caught in coherent streams of photons. I am really confused now, because it's well known that the photon-photon interaction rate is almost zero - how can photons be caught in streams of photons?

Oh right, that's interesting. What generates the uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the galactic disc, and what closes the electrical circuit?

A galaxy is a cross section of an intergalactic current, at a z pinch. The current diameter is greater than the galaxy diameters. The currents run through galaxies across the Universe. A complete mapping of these circuits hasn't been done yet.

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

Magnetism is a by product field of an electric field.
If the electric field is coherently polarised, the sum spins on the photons create forces orthogonal to the electric field.
If an electric field is not coherent, the various spins cancel each other out, and the magnetic field will be weak or non existent.

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

How does the current contribute to the movement patterns?

The currents are like quantum wind, and move matter by direct bombardment.

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

But how does the existence of the halo fall out of the hypothesis that all galaxies are Faraday discs "be definition"?

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

No questions, but I am surprised by that statement.

That's strange - all of the key papers that traced the plasma halos of the Bullet cluster with X-rays and its mass with gravitational lensing focus on the physical displacement that is measured between the two. Without this displacement, there isn't a story, is there? And the mass of the ram-pressure stripped halos lagging the stellar component is actually quite large as I read it.

Again, they attempting to explain with gravity and gas fluid theory. Although it is admitted there are vast electric currents in space, electricity never features in their explanations for the formation of things.

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

Can you help me with the physical mechanism for that?

I believe, whatever is pushing the plasma, is also pushing the stars, is also keep the planets spinning in their orbits.

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

[willendure]

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

Please don't lump us all in one basket.

There are those who say there is no gravity, it is an electrical phenomenon, and that the planets are charged and it is electrical repulsion that keeps them in their orbits. I think this claim is very speculative and does not do EU many favors in terms of being taken seriously.

There are those who are into EU ideas but much more aligned conventionally accepted physics. I would count myself one of those. I do believe in gravity, but don't rule out some kind of as yet undiscovered connection to electromagnetism. I am also happy to accept that gravity and electricity can operate side by side. I still feel that electrical phenomena are greatly under-represented in astrophysics, and provide possible explanations for many strange phenomena that we are increasingly becoming aware of. Like iron balls scattered on the surface of Mars, or hex craters, or how the Suns corona gets so hot, and so on.

[Michael Mozina]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matt ... nic_matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Basically their nucleosynthesis claims go up in smoke if all the matter is ordinary baryons. It would also tend to make the universe more "clumpy".

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts the observed abundance of the chemical elements. If there are more baryons, then there should also be more helium, lithium and heavier elements synthesized during the Big Bang.[72][73] Agreement with observed abundances requires that baryonic matter makes up between 4–5% of the universe's critical density. In contrast, large-scale structure and other observations indicate that the total matter density is about 30% of the critical density.[66]

If one assumes that all of the universe consists of protons and neutrons, the density of the universe is such that much of the currently observed deuterium would have been burned into helium-4.[citation needed] The standard explanation now used for the abundance of deuterium is that the universe does not consist mostly of baryons, but that non-baryonic matter (also known as dark matter) makes up most of the mass of the universe.[citation needed] This explanation is also consistent with calculations that show that a universe made mostly of protons and neutrons would be far more clumpy than is observed.[12]

You've lost me there. The paper in 2012 describes the discovery using the Chandra X-ray telescope. So if they were observing the output from it for years, then why suddenly publish a paper in 2012 announcing the discovery? And if they were detecting it for years, then my question stands, why look unless you are looking to find mass that you think is missing?

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

When you say electrical current, I suppose you mean a flow of electrons (maybe a contraflow of ions?)?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917

After all, the total mass in a galaxy is arbitrary, it is the distribution of visible matter that does not comport with the observed rotation curves, no?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not by me personally.

Oh - I thought it was a by-definition thing - I was looking for a one-liner.

I thought you were looking for a mathematical model.

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

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

and what closes the electrical circuit?

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

But how does the existence of the halo fall out of the hypothesis that all galaxies are Faraday discs "be definition"?

Because it's the current and the plasma that defines the halo and the disk layout. I really suggest you read Peratt's galaxy formation models. They rely upon current to direct the mass layouts of galaxies.

That's strange - all of the key papers that traced the plasma halos of the Bullet cluster with X-rays and its mass with gravitational lensing focus on the physical displacement that is measured between the two. Without this displacement, there isn't a story, is there? And the mass of the ram-pressure stripped halos lagging the stellar component is actually quite large as I read it.

The separation process is directly related to the fact that most of the stellar mass of a given galaxy will simply "pass on through" the so called "collision" due to the massive distances between stars. All that study demonstrates is that their stellar mass estimates in 2006 were *way* off, which at least five later studies *verified* after 2006. They botched the stellar "guestimates' by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

Did you read any of those links I posted in the Confirmation Bias thread?

Can you help me with the physical mechanism for that?

[/quote][/quote]

Sure, read Peratt's galaxy formation papers.

[Michael Mozina]

Right - but you misunderstand my question - I wasn't asking about whether the theory needs a precise value - I accept that a precise valueis demanded by the theory, by the maths if you like - but I'm curious as to the actual process that they used to arrive at specifically 0.0486. Can you see the distinction?

It's directly related to the fact that their nucleosynthesis numbers do not work out right if we try to replace their exotic gap filler with ordinary matter.

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

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... as#p117377

Why is the mainstream still trying to tie x-ray emission lines from Potassium, Chlorine and Carbon back to "dark matter" (axions) if they actually believe that all x-rays and/or gamma rays come exclusively from baryonic matter? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. The mainstream makes all kinds of random claims about x-rays being related to non-baryonic matter, not *just* baryonic matter. How do we know they were looking for only one possible type of matter?

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

Er no. EU/PC theory works just fine with Newton's definition of gravity or Einstein's definition of gravity. We just don't assume it's the *only* influence as it relates to the galaxy rotation patterns.

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

In every single plasma laboratory that exists particle physics and electromagnetic theory is used to describe the behavior of plasma. Yet once the confines of the laboratory are left behind, so is the proper physics. They are applying the wrong physics to 99.9% of the universe which requires them to add 96%+ ad hoc theory to make the numbers add up from using the wrong physics to begin with.

Gravitational theory works just fine as long as it is confined to the states of matter it applies to and they stop trying to sledgehammer it to fit plasma behavior. It would be no different than if I tried using particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe planetary systems. I would need that same 96% ad hoc theory to make the numbers fit.

It is not a question of whether gravitational theory needs corrected, but that it simply be used where it applies. Just as GR is 98% accurate in describing planetary motions, but as soon as one goes beyond the solar system it needs correction after correction after correction, because it also does not apply to the plasma state.

In reality SR is the general theory and GR is the special theory since 99.9% of the universe is plasma, not non ionized matter. When gravitational theory was formulated, it was believed 99% of the universe was non ionized matter and only 1% plasma. We now know it is the exact opposite, but they continue trying to sledgehammer it to fit a state of matter it was not made for to begin with. This leads to all the epicycles in modern cosmology and their need to MOND.

[Higgsy]

Hi Will,

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

Please don't lump us all in one basket.

Understood. I'll try to ascribe views to individuals rather than the community as a whole. That, of course, makes my project here much harder, because now I don't know who is an accurate guide to what EU and plasma universe theories claim. If everyone has their independently developed views, then which is the correct one? Van I ask, how do you adjudicate between competing views within the EU community?

[Higgsy]

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?