Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[Higgsy]

Hi Coming

Higgsy wrote.

Just give me some numbers to work with - this is fundamental EU/PC stuff that is surely well known - what are the thread dimensions and number densities and currents and magnetic fields in one of the simplest scenarios in the entire cosmos - the IGM?

Whether one is an EU advocate or not, we all get the same numbers to work with. The measurements given to us by NASA and telescopes and so forth.

But we are talking about different cosmological theories - if someone (Michael in this case) tells me my calculations about the cooling rate and heating/cooling equilibrium in the hot halo are wrong because the density is not uniform owing to elecrical and magnetic threading (arising from field aligned currents?), but can't give me anything even vaguely quantitative from the EU theory about the dimensions, density of the threads and currents in the thread, then what is EU good for? Is it just some sort of vague belief that it's all down to electricity and magnetism, but you can't estimate the quantities involved? That's not physics - it's story telling.

Mainstream never tells you how dense their dark matter halos are, nor give any numbers that you can use to calculate Dark Matter's gravitic effects.

Galactic dark matter distributions are absolutely based on detailed estimates of density and location of dark matter halos which quantitatively explain the dynamics of the galaxies. You can disagree with the existence of dark matter for whatever reason, but you can't fairly say that it's not a fully quantified theory.

EU and mainstream are on equal footing when it comes to numbers supplied, but EU is way in front, if you just look at photos of the cosmos.

Naively looking at photos is not physics.

Look at Hubble pictures of nebulae, to see filaments and currents in space plasma.

Are you suggesting that incredibly strong magnetic fields are not part of the mainstream's explanation of nebulae with pulsars at their core? Where we see powerful synchotron radiation from nebulae, everyone agrees that there are huge currents trapped in the powerful magnetic fields generated by the pulsar,- you're pushing at an open door here.

And look at pictures of Black Holes, to see how black they are not.

And what's the conventional explanation for black hole jets?

And look at pictures of galaxies to see the shapes of magnetic fields.

Hmm, not sure about that one - I'd need some numbers in support of that.

You know, this is so disappointing, I'm just going to stop here for a while, as I don't see where we go from here. It takes two to tango, and we can't discuss physics if one of us refuses to quantify anything. I'll get back to the rest of your post at some point, but for now I'm dispirited and off to do something else.

It's disappointing getting straightforward answers, when you are used to hearing exotic misdirection.

No - it's disappointing not being able to get any quantification. I mean, aren't there any physicists on this forum? Because, as I say, these are the sort of questions any physicist I know would immediately ask.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Higgsy.

But we are talking about different cosmological theories - if someone (Michael in this case) tells me my calculations about the cooling rate and heating/cooling equilibrium in the hot halo are wrong because the density is not uniform owing to elecrical and magnetic threading (arising from field aligned currents?), but can't give me anything even vaguely quantitative from the EU theory about the dimensions, density of the threads and currents in the thread, then what is EU good for? Is it just some sort of vague belief that it's all down to electricity and magnetism, but you can't estimate the quantities involved? That's not physics - it's story telling.

Actually, Michael's ideas are based on plasma physics, where they experiment with plasmas in the lab. And he has been trying to tell you that.

Nobody has accurate density readings of different regions in the halo. The halo hasn't long since been discovered, nobody has a comprehensive map yet.

Galactic dark matter distributions are absolutely based on detailed estimates of density and location of dark matter halos which quantitatively explain the dynamics of the galaxies. You can disagree with the existence of dark matter for whatever reason, but you can't fairly say that it's not a fully quantified theory.

And now we know there are baryons in the halo too, did that effect the Dark Matter quantities, having all this new found mass at that radius?

Naively looking at photos is not physics.

I know.
One is supposed to just believe NASA's explanations that comes with the picture, and believe the artist's impression, which inevitably comes with the report too.

But seriously, if analyzing photos is not physics, why do they do it?

Are you suggesting that incredibly strong magnetic fields are not part of the mainstream's explanation of nebulae with pulsars at their core? Where we see powerful synchotron radiation from nebulae, everyone agrees that there are huge currents trapped in the powerful magnetic fields generated by the pulsar,- you're pushing at an open door here.

I'm not suggesting that. I know they bring in magnetism whenever observation definitely cannot be explained by gravity. They may even admit to currents in space.

I wonder why they struggle to accept EU concepts.

And what's the conventional explanation for black hole jets?

I know. Matter (stars and their planets, or a companion star) is getting sucked in and as it gets spagettified, some of the material doesn't get sucked in, but swirls up to the poles and gets ejected in a stream.

And bright x rays, supposedly, are emitted by matter when it reaches the event horizon, so now, any source of bright x rays is considered to be a black hole. The x rays couldn't possibly be generated electrically, just ask a dentist (he has an x ray machine).

Hmm, not sure about that one - I'd need some numbers in support of that.

You don't need numbers to see shapes. Hourglass galaxies, for example.

No - it's disappointing not being able to get any quantification. I mean, aren't there any physicists on this forum?

No, we're mostly all lay people here. I'm learning physics again, because I was disappointed in the mainstream explanations.

Because, as I say, these are the sort of questions any physicist I know would immediately ask.

Well I don't know any physicists, but I sometimes read their papers.

Seems to me, they don't question their own theories.
At least, not like they question alternate theories.

Actually, the tactic is to say there is no viable alternate theory,
or point to a shaky alternate theory like MOND, as if that means their theory must be true.
~Paul

[Michael Mozina]

Again, that doesn't answer my question - but, I see that it isn't a question for you.

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

The short answer is that if they used a different percentage of baryonic matter, they would not get a match in terms of their claims about the nucleosynthesis of elements. Ordinary matter produces different results, results that don't jive with observation.

Sure, but isn't that a molecular or atomic cloud, quite localised in interstellar space, and not at all representative of the IGM?

Where do you believe that the current comes from to create that filament in the first place?

The question was whether there is empirical evidence that there are dense threads in the hot halo. The answer seems to be no.

The answer is overwhelmingly *yes* unless you simply *ignore* all the "predictions" of EU/PC theory that have shown to match observation! Those current carrying "jets"/magnetic slinkies at the core of various galaxies were originally a direct "prediction" of EU/PC theory in the early 1950's by Hannes Alfven, not LCDM. Why doesn't that successful prediction count as "evidence" to you? I've shown you evidence of Birkeland currents in interetellar space, and from the cores of galaxies too. Why doesn't that count as evidence to support the existence of current in the galaxy? Why doesn't the million degree temperature count of "evidence" of
continuous current to you?

I'm a little mystified as to why you simply ignored my question about spontaneous emissions. What makes you think that plasma in space is not going to emit photons "normally", through typical QM processes?

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

Care to address this issue this time rather than ignore my question entirely?

I can demonstrate that the galaxy contains Birkeland currents, and "magnetic ropes" galore.

Brilliant - that's just why I'm here. Could you do that?

I already did, but let's recap:

We see magnetic ropes in the solar atmosphere, and we observe them connecting our electric sun to the planets, including our own planet:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/15/ ... ar-storms/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-phys ... netic-rope
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... gneti.html

These are all current carrying devices which demonstrate the existence of such features inside our own solar system.

We see them *outside* of our solar system in interstellar space too:

http://www.space.com/1940-space-slinky- ... twist.html
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/2 ... ic-Tornado

We see the same features in other galaxies too:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ble-movie/

Every single one of these observations is consistent with EU/PC theory, and consistent with current carrying plasma in space.

Sorry - it doesn't point me in that direction, as whatever the high temperature was initially caused by I know that it doesn't need a current to sustain it, owing to to the very low number density and low cooling rate.

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

How do you know that? You're simply *assuming* that to be true. All you can give me is an *average* at best case. You can't know if it's filmanetary or not.

The movement of the plasma round the galactic centre has been measured, as you pointed out, and there is no evidence in that for any substantial difference between ionic or electron velocities which woukd be required for a substantial current.

And yet Peratt's models of galaxies just happened to produce the same shapes, and rotation processes *without* exotic matter. You're just going to ignore that?

Really! You don't need quantification? Aren't we discussing physics?

You're correct that we are discussing *physics*, not *just* math. I personally prefer a *working* physical model over a math formula:

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

Look at all the mathematical models of 'dark matter" that got falsified at LHC, LUX, etc. Math alone doesn't *necessarily* describe reality, but reality does have rules to which it adheres.

I have to say I am very disappointed. I came here hoping to learn something about EU/PC theory, and I understood you are one of the most knowledgeable and vocal proponents of the theory, and that you have very strong ideas about physics.

I never claimed to be *the* most knowledgeable person on this topic (or any topic), but I have cited people and works that can and have answered your questions if you wish to read them. I can't force you to do that of course. If you're truly interested in learning about EU/PC theory, wouldn't you want to learn it from the folks that wrote it? What's wrong with Alfven's work, or Peratt's work? Why wouldn't you be excited to find the answers you're looking for?

And now you say that you don't care about quantification - frankly, that shocks me. If you don't care about quantification, it really isn't physics - it's just pretty stories, but unless you run the numbers, you can never know whether the pretty stories have any relationship to reality.

Pretty stories can come with math or not with math. You saw some pretty stories (with math) about 'dark matter", but not one of those pretty stories jived with reality at LHC. Now what? What good is the math if you won't use it to falsify your own beliefs?

I didn't tell you that no math exists in EU/PC theory, or that math doesn't matter within the EU/PC community. I simply said it doesn't matter as much to *me personally* as much as *working physical models*. I'd rather see a working lab demonstration than to hear you claim that you have "evidence" for dark matter based on a math formula that is later falsified. I was told in 2006 for instance that the "math" used in that lensing study somehow demonstrated the existence of exotic forms of matter. I later found out that they botched the baryonic mass estimates by a whopping amount, and they never fixed it! So much for your "math proof". Mathematics alone doesn't tell us what's physically real or not real. Typically one lab test is worth a thousand expert opinions, maybe 10,000 as it related to dark matter claims.

I know there must be more than this,

I've told you where to find it too.

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-U ... 8/ref=oosr

That is by *far* the best book in terms of mathematical models if you're interested in reading it.

There's also Alfven's book on this topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-As ... g=UTF8&me=

Why wouldn't you go to the best sources available if you're interested in this topic, and your interest in primarily quantification in nature? Peratt's book and his published papers are definitely your best resources.

but at the moment all I'm getting from you and others on the forum is that space is filled with current and magnetism and that explains everything.

It explains features that gravity alone struggles to explain:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/ ... t-possible

As soon as you start to acknowledge the role of electricity in space, some things that are believed to be "impossible" are quite possible.

You object to my use of a mean density for the hot halo, although my figure is factually correct,

Nobody doubted that your number was factually correct, but it only gives us an *average*, it doesn't tells us how it's distributed.

because you say that the plasma will be threaded, but you don't have any idea what the dimensions and density of the thread are, so we have no idea whether it would substantially affect my conclusions and, if so, by how much.

I don't even have to know that number to shoot holes in your claim about particles remaining at million degree temperatures indefinitely. You don't even seem responsive to my questions about spontaneous emissions and you seem intent on *not* looking at the layout issue from the perspective of EU/PC theory.

You say current heats the plasma, but you won't say how much current

Did you bother to read the materials that I suggested, or did you expect me to personally answer every question you can think of?

or what is driving the current,

I handed you *billions* of Birkeland's solar model generators to explain what's driving the current. Did you miss that explanation?

and if the source is a magnetic field, what is the cause of that magnetic field. These are questions that any physicist would immediately ask, but you are not interested in them, and I am dsappointed.

Your disappointment doesn't seem to be related to a lack of quantification in EU, it seems to be related to your false assumption that I'm somehow beholden to answer every single question that you might pose to me *personally* rather than just citing the appropriated materials for you. If you're interested in learning about this topic *in earnest*, you're going to have to do some reading beyond what I can hand you between tech calls at work on a random message board.

What's your aversion to Peratt's work anyway, particularly if you're mostly interested in *quantification* not just qualification?

What environment?

Every environment in space. You've yet to demonstrate that any plasma will never experience spontaneous emissions.

What current?

The current in all those "magnetic ropes"!

What creates the current?

That would be those several billion solar generators per galaxy according to Alfven, Peratt and Birkeland.

What creates the thing that creates the current?

Ultimately it's fusion I suppose.

Given a current, what is the heating mechanism?

Resistance. Plasma is an excellent conductor, but it's not "perfect". That's why we see million degree coronal loops in the solar atmosphere too.

How much heating does that provide?

All of it.

Is that in equilibrium with the cooling rate?

Presumably so.

What is the cooling rate?

How can I know for sure when you refuse to address the spontaneous emission problem in your own model?

If it's threaded and the cooling/heating is greater in the denser regions than the average for the plasma, isn't the cooling rate less than the average outside the threads. What does that mean for the overall rates?

It probably means you're going to have to look at *averages*, and talk about *averages*.

Sure, if I get anything that indicates that EU/PC makes claims that are ignored by the mainstream that also have legs. But I'm not getting that at the moment.

You got that in many forms, but you don't seem to really want to work at anything. You seem to expect me to be your personal math mommy rather than take it upon yourself to avail yourself to the materials that answer your questions.

Resistance of what?

Huh? Really?

Since temperature is, as we have agreed, determined by the kinetic energy of the ions and electrons,

Yet you're *assuming* they are necessarily the same thing when in fact in real life plasma the ion and electron temperatures can vary by an whole order of magnitude or more.

When did you show me that the "temperature" (in kinetic energy) matches the rotation speeds again?

how would a large flow of electrons and ions in opposite directions (the definition of current here) cause an increase in mean kinetic energy?

I feel like a broken record referring you to Peratt's work on galaxy formations processes. He even created computer models Higsy.

Just give me some numbers to work with

Because you can't be bothered to read the information for yourself?

I'll get back to the rest of your post at some point, but for now I'm dispirited and off to do something else.

You're coming across as rather whiny IMO. If you can't be bothered to study the appropriate materials, why should I be responsible for your personal happiness?

[Michael Mozina]

Here are some published references on galaxy formation theory in EU/PC theory Higgsy. Peratt's book is far more complete of course, but plenty of his work exists in published paper format.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ..91...19P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ..14..639P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... b02f208845
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... .140..143P
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/431 ... eload=true
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... .227..167S

Please don't tell me it's just "story telling" only because you won't bother to read the mathematical modeling.

[Zyxzevn]

Sure, if I get anything that indicates that EU/PC makes claims that are ignored by the mainstream that also have legs. But I'm not getting that at the moment.

Almost everything presented by the mainstream astronomy is missing feet.
All talk and math, but no actual solid ground.

To see that you can start with (mainstream) Magnetic reconnection.
Total bullshit from a mainstream EM perspective.

The sad thing is that the scientists actually believe that this is real.
Just like so many scientists are hunting for dark matter and such,
how many time and money and people's lives will be spend on hunting a phantom?

The reason is that some scientists create a new model with new physics,
because they did not understand the phenomenon.
And that is often, because they do not understand basic Electromagnetism.
When a new model and new physics seems to work, they expand on that model,
even when it is totally wrong.
In normal physics, this would break, because laboratory would not be able to repeat these
experiments. People would start complaining.
But outside near the unreachable sun (or the unreachable stars) this wrong model stays unchallenged.
And even if they get "surprising results" they hold on to their wrong model,
just change a few parameters here and there.
These scientists use their specialism to claim authority over other scientists.
That causes them not only to deny any criticism from other scientists,
but also to insult them and attack their career if they go any further.
This is a bad situation for all of science.
Someone with an EM background usually is not interested in astronomy anyway,
because they want something that is less theoretical. That makes the amount of people
that are specialist in both areas very small. Especially because they can not swallow
the bullshit that is in astronomy. Their career in astronomy will be short.
Can you be specialist in something that you know is wrong?
- No, you can only be specialist if you believe in bullshit.
So criticism can never reach the areas that need it.

This process causes a divide between the theoretical physics, including most of the astronomy,
and the practical physics that actually works. The authority claims separate the people, and
both stay on different sides. It can be stopped when the theoretical physics (and astronomy) remove
their authority mask, and start to work with the people that do real practical physics.

If anyone believes that Magnetic reconnection is real, please learn some basic electromagnetism.
It is like believing that shadows can bump into each other.

[Higgsy]

OK - carrying on in the hope of getting some physics conversation going.

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

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that current heats plasma in the lab, and in nature (here on Earth), that's for sure. Why would you expect to necessarily be able to figure out the heating mechanism based on an uncontrolled observation? How would you support/justify a 'supernova' heating mechanism from the same Chandra observations?

That's 'no' then. And to your final question, the distribution, luminosity and spectrum of X-ray sources in and in the vicinity of a supernova are diagnostic of the merger of white dwarfs for the generation of Type 1a supernovae, rather than the merger of a white dwarf and an ordinary star.

I don't think that paper says what you think it says - it is claiming that in galaxies there is a fixed relationship bewteen the baryonic matter and the amount of exotic matter, so that the rotation curves can be predicted from the baryonic matter alone without knowing the distribution of exotic matter - it is not claiming that exotic matter is not needed to get the observed rotation curves - see for example the top panels in figure 2 and the fact that gobs - gbar is non zero (lower panel of figure 2)

Why would the baryonic mass layout dictate the rotation curves *every single time* if it represents only a *fraction* of the mass of a galaxy? You've basically got *zero* evidence from those rotation patterns that exotic matter is necessary or required to explain what we observe, and you've got zero laboratory support for exotic matter after spending *billions* of dollars trying to find some evidence. What now?

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

Well their hypothesis is that there is a fixed relationship between the distribution of dark matter and ordinary matter across a range of galaxies. They are not saying that dark matter is not needed to explain the rotation curves.

So miraculously, even though ordinary matter and "dark matter" presumably have completely different properties with respect to photon interaction and EM influences, they all stay mixed together in exactly the same proportions regardless of the age of the galaxy, or it's rotation characteristics? How does that rationalization work? Why would they occupy the very same space in exactly the same proportions every single time in every single circumstance?

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

Yes , but how does the rotation of the hot plasma halo affect the rotation curves of the visible matter? How is its influence different from a non-rotating halo?

The movement of the outer mass helps to explain the movements of the inner mass. How would a non rotation "dark matter halo" work differently than a rotating "dark matter halo"? Why does the plasma halo have all the same characteristics in terms of location, movement and 'halo' characteristics that are associated with "dark matter"?

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

Easily! First they botched the brightness factor by at least a factor of two, SNIP

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

After all a very diffuse plasma doesn't have many electrons to create this hell of a current, we haven't identified a source for inducing the current, and we don't know yet (because you haven't explained it yet) what the mechanism is for this current, if it exists, to heat the plasma.

Oy Vey. You keep *assuming* it's "diffuse", but current carrying plasma doesn't work like that in the lab, or in space. It's *threaded* and more dense in some areas and less dense in other areas. The current, and the resulting *pinch* effect drive a process that creates dense threads, and less dense regions between threads.

Well, if there are threads, and you haven't demonstrated that there must be threads yet, but if there are threads, then the majotity of space between the threads is even less than one particle per 7.7 litres and so even slower to cool.

I have no idea - you tell me, it's your idea that there is a hell of a lot of current in the halo - I'd like to know how much the EU theory suggests and as an expert proponent of the EU I thought you'd know.

I pointed you the best galaxy modeling that I'm aware of. IMO, it's silly for me to simply pick random numbers for you.

So you "know" there's a hell of a lot of current, but you don't know how much? It's not or it shouldn't be a "random" figure. It should be a reasonable inference from the theory. I am struggling to get any sort of grip on this as an informed discussion about physics.

Suffice to say you can find that information from *lab tests* if you're interested in the numbers. Look up the Z-machine figures and temperatures and I'm sure that you could figure it out if you wanted to.

Plasmas in the lab are at least a billion times denser than IGM plasmas. And I explained why that was.

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

That's another "assumption" you made.

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

and in the lab you put a whopping great voltage across the plasma which accelerates the particles increasing their kinetic energy and temperature.

Birkeland showed that it's a whopping great voltage (600 million volts was his estimate) that accelerates the particles of the solar wind and increases their kinetic energy and temperature too.

And yet the upper range of particle energies in the solar wind is 10keV - I wonder why that is? But in any case, in this discussion about the hot halo, up to 200,000 light years from the nearest star, what is the source of voltage driving the "hell of a lot of current" .

But in any case, because of the hugely denser plasma and because the plasma is contained the situations are not comparable.

But you don't really know that, you *assume* that. You can only "assume" such a thing if you "assume" it's not carrying any current. You have no evidence that it's not carrying current, and it's high stable temperature suggests just the opposite is true.

Its high temperature doesn't suggest any such thing, since the cooling rate of diffuse plasmas goes as the square of the number density of particles for reasons that I have explained in some detail and that you seem to be failing to understand. You don't seem to understand the difference between an assumption and an inference and a deduction. You have absolutely no evidence that it is carrying an current, other than your assumption, but I am perfectly willing to discuss the implications of your assumptions about current provided you tell me what they are. But it's not satisfactory to invoke current as though it's some minor god.

Are you suggesting that the plasma threads are a billion to ten billion times denser than the surrounding plasma so that they match the density of lab plasmas? If so, and provided there is some rationale for that suggestion, we can work with that and see what the implications are. Just give the word. But there's nothing you can do about containment. The fact is that lab plasmas are contained and the IGM is not.

OK, that's interesting, so, in this model, the Faraday disc which generates currents flowing radially from the centre of the galaxy to its edge also requires a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to the disc plane. According to the theory, this magnetic field is itself generated by currents. That's all good. So what is the distribution of currents to create the uniform magnetic field, and how are those currents induced? Typically, what kind of current density (for both magentic field inducing and radial induced currents) and what kind of magnetic field strength are we looking at?

I actually think you might want to consult Birkeland's work to get those numbers. One of the things that Birkeland observed in his lab during his experiments is a "disk" around his terella that contained both positive ions and electrons. I think his work would be applicable at any scale.

Reference?

In plasma even a moving ion is a form of current and it will leave a magnetic field in it's wake.

In its wake??!! What do you mean? Current doesn't leave magnetic field in its wake.

The disk itself is a feature of the current flow patterns, and the magnetic field influences of the central body. It formed a flat "disk" like feature around Birkeland's terella which he wrote about extensively. The one thing about plasma physics is that it scales very nicely.

I'd be interested in your evidence for that hypothesis of "scaling nicely"

[Morphix]

Links to Pavel Kroupa's pages and papers on the Dark Matter Crisiss:

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/
https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_SciLogs.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546

[Higgsy]

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

I'm curious how you expect this hot plasma to not experience normal emissions.

You seem to be focusing on this question a lot recently, and although I have fallen behind in my replies, I'm bringing this forward so it doesn' de-rail the conversation. And the answer is - of course spontaneous emission is one of the mechanisms for cooling the plasma. In the scenario of the IGM, the only place spontaneous emission features is where a neutral or partly ionised atom is excited and relaxes spontaneously to a lower state with a characteristic energy associated with that transition, an enission line. Since most of the plasma is fully ionised this doesn't happen very readily and its rate depends on the square of the number density (depending on a collision causing the initial excitation). Despite the paucity of partly ionised atoms in the plasma, line cooling, mainly from metal atoms, is a very significant contribution to the cooling rate of the diffuse IGM plasma.

I don't know any other process in which spontaneous emission is significant in this scenario. Do you?

[Higgsy]

You don't need numbers to see shapes. Hourglass galaxies, for example.

It's not a galaxy, it's a planetary nebula, a recent supernova remnant and most of the energy comes from the fusion of carbon.

Because, as I say, these are the sort of questions any physicist I know would immediately ask.

Well I don't know any physicists, but I sometimes read their papers.

Seems to me, they don't question their own theories.

Really? Really!Well you did say yu don't know any physicists.

[Higgsy]

To see that you can start with (mainstream) Magnetic reconnection.
Total bullshit from a mainstream EM perspective.

The sad thing is that the scientists actually believe that this is real.
Just like so many scientists are hunting for dark matter and such,
how many time and money and people's lives will be spend on hunting a phantom?

SNIP

If anyone believes that Magnetic reconnection is real, please learn some basic electromagnetism.
It is like believing that shadows can bump into each other.

I am totally puzzled. I think I have a good grasp of basic electromagnertism. At least, I know and understand Maxwell's equations and what they mean. I have no idea why you seem to think that the concept of magnetic reconnection is absurd on its face. As far as I know, it's an entirely uncontroversial phenomenon. The phenomenon has been observed on the Sun, and there is a major experiment at the Princeton Plasma physics Lab to explore it. Yep, I'm puzzled.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Higgsy.

It's not a galaxy, it's a planetary nebula, a recent supernova remnant and most of the energy comes from the fusion of carbon.

That was my answer to "looking at photos isn't physics", and to seeing the shapes of magnetic fields in space.

Obviously, in plasma clouds, the magnetic fields are not uniform and static.

Seems to me, they don't question their own theories.

Really? Really!Well you did say yu don't know any physicists.

I didn't say I don't know any physics.

But take the latest discovery of gravity waves, just for an example.
Do they question the existence of Black Holes? No.
So now they have gravity waves, created by colliding Black Holes, when Black Holes are yet unproven theory.
In fact, their supposed high sigma discovery is based on if three or four unproven theories are correct, yet they rate their certainty so high.

Do they question magnetic reconnection. No.
You say so yourself, it is totally and uncontroversially accepted.
To one who learned at school that the field lines are merely a contour map of the field, it's incredible to see eminent scientists now uncontoversially attributing causality to their contour lines.

Well, we got news for you. It isn't totally and uncontroversially accepted.
None of the mainstream theories are, though they are taught as if they are.
Discoveries hanging on the barest of evidence and dubious theory get announced as if they are solid fact.

So much so, much of the public is off side now.
Lots of people don't believe in Black Holes and Dark Matter and virtual particles and curved space/time, and multiverses, and whatever physicists come up with these days, because the misdirection is become so obvious.

The last person to become aware of his nakedness will be the emperor himself.
~Paul

[kell1990]

You don't need numbers to see shapes. Hourglass galaxies, for example.

"It's not a galaxy, it's a planetary nebula, a recent supernova remnant and most of the energy comes from the fusion of carbon."

ME: You strike me as a very insecure person. These ARE galaxies, shaped like hourglasses. Why this threatens you, and it obviously does, is a question you should ask yourself.

ME: Is it because the very existence of these objects causes you to doubt all that you've ever learned, from physicists?

quote]

Because, as I say, these are the sort of questions any physicist I know would immediately ask.

Well I don't know any physicists, but I sometimes read their papers.

Seems to me, they don't question their own theories.

Really? Really!Well you did say yu don't know any physicists.[/quote]

ME: It is an established fact that anyone who gets outside the norms of science will get the "Halton Arp" treatment. And now you want to be snide with your comments here. I don't think you really want to get into a pissing contest with a 300 pound skunk. But if you do, then, brother bring it on.

[Zyxzevn]

As far as I know, it's an entirely uncontroversial phenomenon.

They say that it is magnetic field lines bumping into each other.
Like radio-waves bumping into each other.
That is what they use in their images, and equations: flux lines.
Total bullshit.

They observe something completely different, but they are so bad with the EM to even be
critical about themselves. It is a good example of a complete misidentification.

What they observe are currents caused by changing magnetic fields. Simple EM.
grad E= - dB/dt. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%2 ... _induction)

So that means that things that seem to align to magnetic field lines, are actually something else.
And if we identify them better we can see that these lines behave like electric currents.
So this means that all magnetic reconnection observations are just made up.

(Like many other things in astronomy).

[Higgsy]

Hi Coming

T

It's not a galaxy, it's a planetary nebula, a recent supernova remnant and most of the energy comes from the fusion of carbon.

That was my answer to "looking at photos isn't physics", and to seeing the shapes of magnetic fields in space.

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

Obviously, in plasma clouds, the magnetic fields are not uniform and static.

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

Seems to me, they don't question their own theories.

Really? Really!Well you did say yu don't know any physicists.

I didn't say I don't know any physics.

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

But take the latest discovery of gravity waves, just for an example.

I assume you mean gravitational waves?

Do they question the existence of Black Holes? No.

So, when a very massive star uses up its fuel and collapses, then the pressure in the centre is enough to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure, and the entire mass of the star lies within its event horizon. It's one of those - you don't have to call it a black hole if you don't want to, but the detection of such objects from the dynamics of orbiting mass and the radiation from its associated matter jets is pretty well established.

Do they question magnetic reconnection. No.
You say so yourself, it is totally and uncontroversially accepted.

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

To one who learned at school that the field lines are merely a contour map of the field, it's incredible to see eminent scientists now uncontoversially attributing causality to their contour lines.

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

Well, we got news for you. It isn't totally and uncontroversially accepted.

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

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

So much so, much of the public is off side now.
Lots of people don't believe in Black Holes and Dark Matter and virtual particles and curved space/time, and multiverses, and whatever physicists come up with these days, because the misdirection is become so obvious.

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

[Higgsy]

As far as I know, it's an entirely uncontroversial phenomenon.

They say that it is magnetic field lines bumping into each other.
Like radio-waves bumping into each other.
That is what they use in their images, and equations: flux lines.
Total bullshit.

You see - same hostility to the phenomenon again. I really don't understand it.

They observe something completely different, but they are so bad with the EM to even be
critical about themselves. It is a good example of a complete misidentification.

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

Also, several times since I have been here people have claimed that astrophysicists don't understand electromagnetism. That puzzles me too - I can only believe that it's only because people don't actually know any physicists.

What they observe are currents caused by changing magnetic fields. Simple EM.

I don't have a particular problem with that description - the topology of the magnetic field suddenly changes causing the acceleration of charged particles and releasing energy from the the magnetic field into kinetic energy. Why is this almost an existential issue for you guys?

grad E= - dB/dt. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%2 ... _induction)

That's not Faraday's law of induction. Faraday's law generalised by Maxwell is: curl E = ∆ x E = -∂B/∂t. It means the curl of the electric field is equal to the time rate of change of the magnetic field. It's absolutely not grad E. Since E is a vector field, it doesn't have a gradient - it's the wrong vector operator. I can't help thinking that's a bit ironic for someone who has just criticised physicists for their lack of knowledge of electromagnetism.

So that means that things that seem to align to magnetic field lines, are actually something else.

I am sorry, but I have no idea what that sentence means.

And if we identify them better we can see that these lines behave like electric currents.
So this means that all magnetic reconnection observations are just made up.

Nope, not following that either...