Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Plasma Cosmology & the Electric Universe
Options
Comments
-
-
ok, thanks for something specific. galaxy formation; sorry i didn't catch that from the beginning.This thread started as a discussion of the 'Plasma Cosmology' theory, that the formation of the universe after the big bang - ie the formation of galaxies - was due to the effect of charged matter spread throughout space.
"this theory" is called what? which paper are you citing?This theory was around in the 60s, as an alternate explanation to CMBR fluctuations to explain the formation of galaxies. Since then CMBR fluctuations and the contents of space have been measured, making the PC theory defunct.
The basis of the theory is that EM forces are equal in importance to Gravity on an intergalactic scale - i.e that Einstein was way off on a tangent and had got it all wrong.
an "alternate explanation of the cmbr fluctuations"? what was it competing with at that time?
whatever that was, i take it that it claims that only gravity is responsible for galaxy formation? (and the fluctuations?)
to what degree would this argument (between the 2 sides) be considered "rhetorical"? ie. if it turns out that gravity is 60% and em 40%, would you consider it a "win", or a "loss"? how about g = 30%, em = 30%, and "something else" = 40%? only "something else" gets to say they're right?
the part about mr einstein is quite uncalled for. can you show the paper that said he was "off on a tangent" (or any such thing)? there's no reason for anyone to mention him, because he did not put forth any model of the big bang, or galaxy formation. just because some people used his gravitational law in their theories does not make them correct, no could it have anything to do with someone else pointing out flaws in that model being equivalent to saying einstein (relativity) is wrong.Anyhow, there are some pseudo scientists who claim that PC is actually correct, based on the fact that open space is full of plasma. Technically this is true, but that plasma is plasma in the sense that its matter which isn't formed into molecules. When we think of plasma, we think of dense matter which is super-heated to the point that the electrons separate from the nuclei. This high-energy plasma has loads of EM properties.
i don't know everything, of course, i am just trying to learn about science. i don’t follow the pseudo-anything on tv or internet. we need to use peer reviewed sources.
“we think of plasma, we think of dense matter which is super-heated.. has loads of em properties” – ok, so where does this energy go? how would it cool down, as it spreads out in these “open spaces”?This is not the case in space, the matter is present so sparsely that the effect of its charge is negligible.
100 charged particles per cubic meter will give rise to an EM field, but one so weak that it has essentially no effect - the dominant force on a passing photon will be due to gravity, even in intergalactic space.
Those charged particles are individual protons, aka hydrogen nuclei.
if we started a model to explain a galaxy formation, how would we go about it? let’s put 2 mass sources (other galaxies) at some distance apart. then we’ll fill this space with the 100 p/m^3 you mentioned. we want to get something started between these particles, so that they can come together. we have gravity vs. charge.
F = G * m_1 – m_2 / r^2
F = k_e * q_1*q_2 / r^2
[font="]When measured in units that people commonly use (such as SI—see International System of Units), the electrostatic force constant (ke) is numerically much much larger than the universal gravitational constant (G).[4] This means that for objects with charge that is of the order of a unit charge (C) and mass of the order of a unit mass (kg), the electrostatic forces will be so much larger than the gravitational forces that the latter force can be ignored. This is not the case when Planck units are used and both charge and mass are of the order of the unit charge and unit mass. However, charged elementary particles have mass that is far less than the Planck mass while their charge is about the Planck charge so that, again, gravitational forces can be ignored. For example, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton, which constitute a hydrogen atom, is almost 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force between them.[9][/font]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
i can't agree with your claim that "charge is negligible.. the dominant force on a passing photon will be due to gravity..".
what is my reason to agree? (aren't we talking about the force on the 2 particles, rather than on a photon?)
0 -
-
just to dive in here.
this was how I came across the concept.
there are other vids on there, under plasma cosmology.
That was merely a starting point that piqued my interest. I searched around the net then for other stuff on the topic. There are some interesting claims, but I'm afraid I don't have the level of expertise to really understand a lot of it.
One thing, though, and I'm not sure if this has changed from the '60s but one of the proponents in the vids says that PC isn't about the distribution of matter after the big bang, but rather the formation of galaxies, with no assumption of the big bang.
With regard to the CMBR, it is claimed by the PC proponents that CMBR was predicted by "big bangers" but was incorrect to a degree of twenty, while PC proponents got it almost spot on.0 -
Plasma Cosmology, as per the thread title.
At the time (the 60s), the big bang theory had been all figured and measurements of galaxies, their distances and speeds all supported it.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was theoretically predicted in the 40s as something we could expect to detect if the big bang had happened.
first, you didn't bother responding to my points; here they are again.
1. coulombs law says we ignore gravity. you need to explain (or point to the explanation) of why we shouldn't, in order to make any claims, as you have.
When measured in units that people commonly use (such as SI—see International System of Units), the electrostatic force constant (ke) is numerically much much larger than the universal gravitational constant (G).[4] This means that for objects with charge that is of the order of a unit charge (C) and mass of the order of a unit mass (kg), the electrostatic forces will be so much larger than the gravitational forces that the latter force can be ignored. This is not the case when Planck units are used and both charge and mass are of the order of the unit charge and unit mass. However, charged elementary particles have mass that is far less than the Planck mass while their charge is about the Planck charge so that, again, gravitational forces can be ignored. For example, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton, which constitute a hydrogen atom, is almost 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force between them.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
second, if you are going to mention specific predictions, as you are, then you need to provide the author and title of the peer reviewed paper that presented it. these theories (PC, BB) are not 'single paper/single author' ideas, so you must be more specific.
if you don't have the time, or knowledge, that's fine. but your saying "the case is closed" is ridiculous. you haven't even opened it yet.
please, less hand waving, and more details.
back to some of the first points you missed: you need to calculate the entire volume of 'space', not the 'per meter' rate. then you can begin to understand how space is conductive. these charged particles are moving, and interacting. the spaces that you described are billions and billions of cubic meters, just to get started. there is more at the same link above, if you want to see how.
galaxy formation (or most any of cosmology) is not completely understood yet. note the glaring errors of 'big bang' when it came to 'predicting' dark matter/dark energy. that evidence says that bb is wrong, yet of course, they cling to the hope that they will be able to patch it up (again), and continue receiving funding. this is normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolutionIt is one of the most active research areas in astrophysics.
Despite its many successes this picture is not sufficient to explain the variety of structure we see in galaxies.
The Lambda-CDM model of galaxy formation under predicts the number of thin disk galaxies in the universe.[5]
.. While this remains an unsolved problem for astronomers, it does not necessarily mean that the Lambda-CDM model is completely wrong, but rather that it requires further refinement to accurately reproduce the population of galaxies in the universe.
Astronomers do not currently know what process stops the contraction. In fact, theories of disk galaxy formation are not successful at producing the rotation speed and size of disk galaxies.
While we have learned a great deal about ours and other galaxies, the most fundamental questions about formation and evolution remain only tentatively answered.
case far from closed.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE
Advertisement