Speed of light

[Chris Peterson]

This is most interesting
Eric Lerner: [garbage snipped]

Note that Eric Lerner is a pseudoscientist, and author of a very silly book about the nature of the Universe. He advocates a long since discredited theory called plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is now widely recognized as pseudoscience, and as such, is off-limits for discussion in this forum.

[harry]

G'day Aris

I know,,,,,,,,,,,,,just joking

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz


Chris said

Note that Eric Lerner is a pseudoscientist, and author of a very silly book about the nature of the Universe. He advocates a long since discredited theory called plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is now widely recognized as pseudoscience, and as such, is off-limits for discussion in this forum.

Mate attack the science and not the man.

He also wrote this paper.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487
Titre du document / Document title
Two world systems revisited: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
LERNER Eric J. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a radio fog of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

What are your comments to the science?

Or are you just limited to abusing others.

This must be a BBT way of putting down people so that the BBT looks good on weak foundations.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

This paper is quite interesting it combines the observations of now and fits them to the BBT.

Although I do not agree with it. It does not make it wrong.

I agree with the Bose-Einstein condensate, regardless it is interesting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0173
Stagflation -- Bose-Einstein condensation in the early universe

Authors: Fukuyama Takeshi, Morikawa Masahiro
(Submitted on 2 May 2009)

Abstract: Our universe experienced the accelerated expansion at least twice; an extreme inflationary acceleration in the early universe and the recent mild acceleration. By introducing the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) phase of a boson field, we have been developing a unified model of dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) for the later mild acceleration. In this scenario, two phases of BEC (=DE) and normal gas (=DM) transform with each other through BEC phase transition. This unified model has successfully explained the mild acceleration as an attractor. We extend this BEC cosmology to the early universe without introducing new ingredients. In this scenario, the inflation is naturally initiated by the condensation of the bosons in the huge vacuum energy. This inflation and even the cosmic expansion eventually terminates exactly at zero energy density. We call this stage as stagflation. At this stagflation era, particle production and the decay of BEC take place. The former makes the universe turn into the standard hot big bang stage and the latter makes the cosmological constant vanishingly small after the inflation. Furthermore, we calculate the density fluctuations produced in this model, which turns out to be in the range allowed by the present observational data. We also show that the stagflation is quite robust and easily appears when one allows negative region of the potential. Further, we comment on the possibility that BEC generation/decay series might have continued all the time in the cosmic history from the inflation to present.

[Chris Peterson]

Mate attack the science and not the man.

Plasma cosmology is not science, so there is nothing to attack. Calling a pseudoscientist a pseudoscientist is no more an attack than calling a scientist a scientist.

[aristarchusinexile]

Mate attack the science and not the man.

Plasma cosmology is not science, so there is nothing to attack. Calling a pseudoscientist a pseudoscientist is no more an attack than calling a scientist a scientist.

For 3500 years almost every scientist except Aristarchus of Samos declared the earth to be the centre of the universe .. so calling a scientist a scientist may be one way to heap abuse unbeknownst to the heaped-upon. Oh for the days when Astrophysics was declared unscientific. Hear, ye Scientists!

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day Aris

I know,,,,,,,,,,,,,just joking

I knewest that thou knowedst, Harry; either that or I knowedst that thou knewedst .. I was just imaging.

[The Code]

My farther once told me. There are more stars in the heavens than grains of sand on earth... Add 40% matter, for dark matter.. Then explain to me how i can see a GRB at 13 billion light years? If the hole universe is obscured by dark matter?

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

My farther once told me. There are more stars in the heavens than grains of sand on earth... Add 40% matter, for dark matter.. Then explain to me how i can see a GRB at 13 billion light years? If the hole universe is obscured by dark matter?

The Universe isn't obscured by dark matter. By its definition, dark matter doesn't interact (or interacts very weakly) with electromagnetic radiation. We detected the GRB by its initial gamma ray output, and the APOD image shows the afterglow in visible light (or near IR). In both cases, we're detecting photons, which don't interact with dark matter.

BTW, matter constitutes about 26% of the Universe's energy budget, and that is split into 4% normal matter and 22% dark matter. So there's about 5 times more dark matter than normal matter. As far as can be seen, dark matter and normal matter stay together- that is, there don't seem to be large concentrations of dark matter without normal matter alongside. So even if dark matter did interact with light, it's unlikely that it would obscure the Universe. It would just make galaxies look dimmer by attenuating the light coming from inside the dark matter halo.

[The Code]

thx Chris,,

So is dark matter transparent? like ice? and that,s why Haley,s Commit comes back every 72 years with a new coat of ice? same reason why the twin Pioneer spacecraft mysteriously drift off course?

mark

[Chris Peterson]

So is dark matter transparent? like ice? and that,s why Haley,s Commit comes back every 72 years with a new coat of ice? same reason why the twin Pioneer spacecraft mysteriously drift off course?

Transparent isn't really the right word. The most transparent materials still interact with EM, and all are opaque over most of the EM wavelength range. For instance, very clean ice still absorbs a lot of visible light- just try looking thorough a meter of it! And it doesn't let hardly any radio through, or x-rays, or most anything else outside a narrow visible light range. Dark matter simply doesn't interact with photons at all. It doesn't matter whether they are super short wavelength cosmic rays, or super long wavelength radio. You could be standing in front of a piece of it one light year thick, and you'd not know it. You could see through it, you could walk through it. Of course, it would influence you gravitationally.

Not sure what you're getting at with Comet Halley. The only possible way it can interact with dark matter is gravitationally, and there's no evidence that's happening. Also, it doesn't come back with new surface material each orbit.

It has been suggested that dark matter in the Solar System might contribute to the Pioneer anomaly, but most researchers consider that unlikely.

[The Code]

Thanks Chris,,

I now have to search dark matter,,,,after what you just told me.. that has just blew me away... Cheers..

Mark..

[harry]

G'dayfrom the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris your comments on Plasma Cosmology is not founded and I would advice you to read up on Plasma Astrophysics


SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Plasma Astrophysics
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1

Plasma Cosmology has a wide variety of meanings.

Not to discuss Plasma in this forum is like leaving out the universe from the discussion.

Not only that, you avoid giving any evidence towards the BBT.

The question is:

Do you know what evidence is?


As for Dark Matter and dark energy. Read up some modern scientific papers. Your completely off track.

[harry]

G'day Aris

I like your attitude.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Sometimes I get off the topic.

I just read this link

Stability of relativistic jets from rotating, accreting black holes via fully three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations
Mar-09

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394L.126M

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=AST

Rotating magnetized compact objects and their accretion discs can generate strong toroidal magnetic fields driving highly magnetized plasmas into relativistic jets. Of significant concern, however, has been that a strong toroidal field in the jet should be highly unstable to the non-axisymmetric helical kink (screw) m = 1 mode leading to rapid disruption. In addition, a recent concern has been that the jet formation process itself may be unstable due to the accretion of non-dipolar magnetic fields. We describe large-scale fully three-dimensional global general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of rapidly rotating, accreting black holes producing jets. We study both the stability of the jet as it propagates and the stability of the jet formation process during accretion of dipolar and quadrupolar fields. For our dipolar model, despite strong non-axisymmetric disc turbulence, the jet reaches Lorentz factors of Γ ~ 10 with opening half-angle θj ~ 5° at 103 gravitational radii without significant disruption or dissipation with only mild substructure dominated by the m = 1 mode. On the contrary, our quadrupolar model does not produce a steady relativistic (Γ >~ 3) jet due to mass loading of the polar regions caused by unstable polar fields. Thus, if produced, relativistic jets are roughly stable structures and may reach up to external shocks with strong magnetic fields. We discuss the astrophysical implications of the accreted magnetic geometry playing such a significant role in relativistic jet formation, and outline avenues for future work.

It seems as though plasma gets into everywhere.

In the last two years the science of jet formation has improved.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Understanding plasma is the key to many issues and workings of stars and galaxy evolution.

Plasma Astrophysics Problems in Star and Planet Formation
Feb-09

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0902.3617Z
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

The major questions relevant to star and planet formation are: What controls the rate, efficiency, spatial clustering, multiplicity, and initial mass function of star formation, now and in the past? What are the major feedback mechanisms through which star formation affects its environment? What controls the formation and orbital parameters of planets, especially terrestrial planets? These questions cannot be fully addressed without understanding key magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and plasma physics processes. Although some of these basic problems have long been considered intractable, attacking them through a combination of laboratory experiment, theory, and numerical simulation is now feasible, and would be fruitful. Achieving a better understanding of these processes is critical to interpreting observations, and will form an important component of astrophysical models. These models in turn will serve as inputs to other areas of astrophysics, e.g. cosmology and galaxy formation.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris your comments on Plasma Cosmology is not founded and I would advice you to read up on Plasma Astrophysics

Plasma cosmology has a very specific meaning, and it is totally unrelated to the meanings of plasma physics and plasma astrophysics. The first is debunked pseudoscience, the others are perfectly respectable and valuable areas of study.

[bystander]

Understanding plasma is the key to many issues and workings of stars and galaxy evolution.

Plasma Astrophysics Problems in Star and Planet Formation - Feb-09

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0902.3617Z
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

If you had actually read the paper you would see that it actually says very little at all. It just references a lot of other papers. Sometimes, Harry, I wonder if you read any of these papers. I often think you simply have your search engine set for certain key words, glance at the abstract, and post.

As moderator, I am formally requesting you stop your promotion of plasma cosmology in this forum. You have been sent PM's, privately warned, and now publicly admonished. Cease and desist. If you need a reminder why, see:

http://asterisk.apod.com/sea ... hor=Nereid

[The Code]

Thanks to Chris Peterson..

I went looking for Dark Matter And in doing so, I found something i never new about..

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2005/darkgalaxy/

If the universe is full of these, X 5 of visible matter, explains a lot... But how does a galaxy become a Dark Galaxy? How old is our milky way before it becomes a Dark Galaxy?

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

I went looking for Dark Matter And in doing so, I found something i never new about..
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2005/darkgalaxy/

If the universe is full of these, X 5 of visible matter, explains a lot... But how does a galaxy become a Dark Galaxy? How old is our milky way before it becomes a Dark Galaxy?

It sounds like they are exploring the idea that dark galaxies form from the beginning as such, depending on their initial conditions, and that dark galaxies aren't the product of a normal galaxy's evolution. If so, our galaxy won't become a dark galaxy as such, although what becomes of ordinary matter given enough time might produce a different kind of dark galaxy (look up "heat death").

[bystander]

I went looking for Dark Matter And in doing so, I found something i never new about..

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2005/darkgalaxy/

If the universe is full of these, X 5 of visible matter, explains a lot... But how does a galaxy become a Dark Galaxy? How old is our milky way before it becomes a Dark Galaxy?

Interesting, but I think you may be in error about the evolution of dark galaxies. I doubt that normal (bright) galaxies such as the Milky Way can become dark. I think dark galaxies are galaxy sized clouds that never turned on. No stars were born. The reason for this, who knows. Maybe it's because of the over abundance of dark matter, preventing stars from forming. As I read it, the concentration of dark matter in VIRGOHI21 is much higher than normal. As sort of an intermediate form, there are LSB (low surface brightness) Galaxies. These galaxies have few stars, lots of gaseous hydrogen, and a high percentage of dark matter.

[The Code]

Yeah, I know what your saying bystander.
That last bit was my mind thinking out loud, trying to work out whats going on...invisible Dark Galaxy has had plenty of time to attract visible stars.. Why has this not happened? How do you separate them? If all galaxies where very close at one point, they still did not merge.. Maybe our own Jupiter has the answer? I heard it has a very unusual gravity.. do these Dark Galaxies have reverse gravity? Is there anything else it could be?

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

Yeah, I know what your saying bystander.
That last bit was my mind thinking out loud, trying to work out whats going on...invisible Dark Galaxy has had plenty of time to attract visible stars.. Why has this not happened? How do you separate them? If all galaxies where very close at one point, they still did not merge.. Maybe our own Jupiter has the answer? I heard it has a very unusual gravity.. do these Dark Galaxies have reverse gravity? Is there anything else it could be?

Galaxies don't attract stars. They started as gravitationally bound gases, which condensed into stars. The suggestion is that dark galaxies didn't have enough normal matter to get much star formation started, so all that's found is a mix of dark matter and uncondensed normal matter (hydrogen, which is detectable at radio wavelengths). It's a bit of a misnomer to call them "dark", because they are clearly radiating EMR, or we wouldn't see them with radio telescopes. A truly dark galaxy would consist only of dark matter, and wouldn't be detectable at all, unless it was close enough to a normal galaxy that we could detect its gravitational influence.

There's nothing unusual about Jupiter, and there's no such thing as "reverse gravity". A dark galaxy behaves like any other, and is held together by self-gravity. As far as can be determined, normal matter and dark matter both obey the same gravitational laws.

When galaxies first formed they were closer together than today, but not necessarily close in any absolute sense. Gravity is not a very strong force, and the expansion of the Universe is easily able to cause galaxies to move away from each other, so you wouldn't have expected all those galaxies to merge early on.

[orin stepanek]

Isn't it amazing how a post can change direction? From rotating universe to BBT to dark mater and dark energy? It really makes this discussion interesting. 8)

Orin

[Doum]

by harry on Wed May 06, 2009 12:55 pm
Stability of relativistic jets from rotating, accreting black holes via fully three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations
Mar-09

In the last two years the science of jet formation has improved.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1060
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/081 ... 1060v2.pdf

Indeed Harry it has improve. These link mean that the accretion disc of a black hole is responsible for the jet formation. So these jets formations are not coming from inside a black hole as you always say. Also the presence of those jets in itself are good evidence of the reality of black hole.

I extract this from those 2 link. Enjoy

This might explain various observations, such as the dichotomy of FRI and FRII systems. FRI’s are found
in rich clusters, are two-sided so weakly relativistic, and have dissipative emission near the core. FRII’s are found in poor groups or isolated, are one-sided so more relativistic, are more powerful, and dissipate little till the radio lobe. The FRI/FRII dichotomy may then be due to the complexity of the environment controlling the field multipole structure. Then, FRII systems are primarily BH-driven able to pierce through an ambient medium, while FRI systems are those mostly driven by the broader, dissipative, magneticallydisordered disc wind with that one expects to be more easily entrained, slowed, and disrupted, as consistent with observations .Radial structure could be due to accretion switching between dipolar and higher-order multipoles. For M87, there could be a dark or boosted relativistic spine
with the slower, dissipative disc wind producing emission on scales within several parsecs. For SrgA*, no jet may
emerge because of accretion from various stellar clusters generating a dominant non-dipolar field. For xray binaries, jets in the low-hard states could be driven by dipolar fields that could even accumulate to the point of lowering accretion
rates, intermediate to soft states could involve higher-order multipole moments, and transient jets from the
hard-to-soft transitions could occur due to dissipation of the dipolar component. For GRBs, the BH-disc system may be required to be highly symmetric to maintain a strong dipolar field to produce an ultrarelativistic jet. That ordered poloidal field must be accreted assumes no dynamo exists for generating a baryon-pure, large-scale poloidal field from disorganized field.