Another Plasma Cosmology Prediction confirmed!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Another Plasma Cosmology Prediction confirmed!

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:29 am

https://scitechdaily.com/celestial-grav ... -together/
JANUARY 5, 2023

Astronomers have discovered that planet formation in our young Solar System began far earlier than previously thought, with planet building blocks growing at the same time as their parent star.

According to a study of some of the oldest stars in the Universe, the building blocks of planets like Jupiter and Saturn likely begin to form while a young star is growing. It had been thought that planets only form once a star has reached its final size, but new results, published in the journal Nature Astronomy, suggest that stars and planets ‘grow up’ together.

… snip …

The researchers analyzed spectroscopic observations from the atmospheres of 200 polluted white dwarfs from nearby galaxies. According to their analysis, the mixture of elements seen in the atmospheres of these white dwarfs can only be explained if many of the original asteroids had once melted, which caused heavy iron to sink to the core while the lighter elements floated on the surface. This process, known as differentiation, is what caused the Earth to have an iron-rich core.

“The cause of the melting can only be attributed to very short-lived radioactive elements, which existed in the earliest stages of the planetary system but decay away in just a million years,” said Bonsor. “In other words, if these asteroids were melted by something which only exists for a very brief time at the dawn of the planetary system, then the process of planet formation must kick off very quickly.”
The article then quotes Dr. Amy Bonsor from Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy, the lead author of the study, saying “We have a pretty good idea of how planets form, but one outstanding question we’ve had is when they form: does planet formation start early, when the parent star is still growing, or millions of years later?” Her study concludes the answer is together. Great! But I wonder if she and the other authors are even aware that Hannes Alfven and Gustaf Arrhenius answered this question nearly 50 years ago?

You see, Alfven and Arrhenius wrote a book in 1975 titled “Structure and Evolutionary History of the Solar System” that shows exactly why stars and planets grow together out of a cloud of rotating plasma. Here’s a link to their book: https://books.google.com/books?id=pvrtC ... es&f=false . The answer is on pages 138-143 .

As I’ve noted previously, Alfven and Arrhenius observed that while a slowly rotating cloud may tend to collapse under gravity, there is a point where the outward rotational force will counteract further collapse. They concluded that stars can’t form without doing something with this excess rotational energy (angular momentum).  It must be dissipated to enable the cloud to collapse further. Disposing of this excess angular momentum is a problem that mainstream modelers always seem to just ignore … or hand wave away .... likely because they have no believable way to do it.

But Plasma Cosmologists Alfven and Arrhenius did. They theorized that because the inner part of the charged protostellar plasma cloud would spin faster than the outer part, an electric current would be generated, "flowing out along the solar magnetic field lines, through the cloud and back to the sun at its equator". The interaction of the currents and magnetic fields would cause the inner cloud to slow down, and the outer cloud to speed up, transferring angular momentum outward, and allowing further collapse. They theorized that force free plasma filaments (which all of us here know exist but which the mainstream ignore), called “superprominences”, could transfer the angular momentum from the sun to the plasma from which the planets formed.

And because the filaments pinch the plasmas together in the process, they would also speed up planet condensation. They noted that there would be what they termed “jet streams” forming from the matter in the system along the equatorial axis (in the disk) where atoms in the plasma state would coexist with neutral grains of matter. They said these jet streams would be of decisive importance as an intermediate stage in the accretion of planets and satellites from grains. Inside the jet streams, the grains would accrete to larger bodies and eventually to planets and satellites. And I should note that such behavior does appear to have been witnessed in observations of protostars such as AU Microscopii, as I’ve previously discussed on this forum.

Now here’s the latest scientific paper …

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.07244.pdf “Rapid formation of exoplanetesimals revealed by white dwarfs”.

Notice that the paper does not mention the word plasma.
Notice that the paper does not mention electromagnetism.
Notice that the paper does not mention angular momentum.


The mainstream seems to enjoy wallowing in their ignorance. But I don't want to be too hard on this particular paper. The authors' work does look like good science ... a fine piece of detective work. The problem is they just didn't look to see which model their study actually confirms. Just saying ... ;)

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Another Plasma Cosmology Prediction confirmed!

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Jan 12, 2023 7:05 pm

How timely! This was just published …

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-theory-fo ... black.html
Confirming the theory behind the formation of planets, stars and black holes

The first laboratory realization of the long-standing but never-before confirmed theory of the puzzling formation of planets, stars and supermassive black holes by swirling surrounding matter has been produced at PPPL. This breakthrough confirmation caps more than 20 years of experiments at PPPL, the national laboratory devoted to the study of plasma science and fusion energy.

The puzzle arises because matter orbiting around a central object does not simply fall into it, due to what is called the conservation of angular momentum that keeps planets and the rings of Saturn from tumbling from their orbits. That's because the outward centrifugal force balances out the inward pull of gravity on the orbiting matter. However, the clouds of dust and plasma called accretion disks that swirl around and collapse into celestial bodies do so in defiance of the conservation of angular momentum.
Like I said above.
The solution to this puzzle, a theory known as the Standard Magnetorotational Instability (SMRI), was first proposed in 1991 by then-University of Virginia theorists Steven Balbus and John Hawley. They built on the fact that in a fluid that conducts electricity, whether the fluid be plasma or liquid metal, magnetic fields behave like springs connecting different sections of the fluid.

This allows ubiquitous Alfvén waves, named after Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén, to create a back-and-forth force between the inertia of the swirling fluid and the springiness of the magnetic field, causing angular momentum to be rapidly transferred between different sections of the disk.

This powerful instability shifts the plasma toward a more stable configuration, the SMRI theory says. The shift pushes the orbit-conserving angular momentum outward toward the rim of the disk, freeing inner sections to collapse over millions of years into the encircled celestial bodies, creating the planets and stars that come out at night. The process has been verified numerically, but never demonstrated experimentally or observationally until now.
Sound familiar? Note that the experiment did NOT use plasma. Plasma and liquid metals don’t behave the same. Liquid metal is not going to form itself into force free filaments. And it doesn’t form pinches. But at least these authors seem to admit that the material used must conduct ELECTRICITY for this to work ... something that previous GENERATIONS of astrophysicists have simple ignored.

However, the paper talks about magnetism as if it’s a thing that forms springs. And imply it appears out of nowhere. I sure wish Alfven and Arrhenius were around to critique this. Or that some of the current crop of PC/EU experts would formally do so.
"This is great news," said theory co-developer Steven Balbus. "To now be able to study this in the laboratory is a wonderful development, both for astrophysics and for the field of magnetohydrodynamics more generally.

The MRI device, initially conceived by physicists Hantao Ji of PPPL and Jeremy Goodman of Princeton, both coauthors of these papers, consists of two concentric cylinders that spin at different speeds, creating a flow that mimics a swirling accretion disk. The experiment spun galinstan, a liquid metal alloy enclosed in a magnetic field. The caps that seal the top and bottom of the cylinders rotate at an intermediate speed, contributing to the experimental effect.
Notice that they don't mention electric current flowing though the metal ... it's just spinning in a magnetic field that came out of nowhere. All I think these scientists have really done is confirm that Alfven and Arrhenius were on the right track 50 years ago … and that a lot of time has been wasted because no-one listened to them. And if they were right about this, maybe they were right about other aspects of their PC theories?

Unfortunately, modern astrophysicists are still not really listening. Notice that this latest paper doesn’t mention Alfven and Arrhenius' theory of solar system formation. It doesn't cite their work, even to say why it’s wrong about force free filaments being the agent transferring angular momentum. Perhaps because they'd have to show it wasn't and they can't do that? See for yourself: https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/ ... bf395530f4 . Maybe they want the public (and other scientists) to remain in the dark about the work of these two plasma cosmologists? Just like mainstream scientists appear to want the work of Anthony Peratt to remain hidden. Just sayin ... 8-)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests