| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| But we also know light passes where there is no material at all. |
Sorry...how do we know that exactly?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
That's the sort of thing physicists do. The same knowledge base that Electric Universe plasma physicists work on. As well as we know anything at all about atoms and charged particles and stuff, we know light and other EM radiation passes where there is no known material, charged or neutral.
Experiments show you can slow down a beam of light by putting stuff in its way, which is opposite to what would happen if it needed atoms or ions to pass through.
The aether question is whether there has to be something else, some material we don't know about, everywhere, even between atoms, in order for EM to radiate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| "Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars which emit regular radio pulses as they rotate." |
The neutron star, an extremely dense remnant of an exploded star consisting of tightly packed neutrons. The powerful gravity of the neutron star pulls material from the companion star into a so-called accretion disk surrounding it. Through a process that is not fully understood, a jet of material moving at nearly the speed of light is generated. A high percentage of the energy available from material falling toward the neutron star is converted into powering this jet
Not only is the process of neutron stars not understood. No theory has yet been proffered that explains how an accretion disc accretes. When you add to that the fact that neutron stars violate the basic physical law of 'the island of stability' - A nucleus composed of neutrons alone would be completely unstable and immediately decay -- it becomes apparent that this is just another retrospective ad-hoc theory that cannot be falsified by experimentation. Radio waves (x-rays and gamma rays) are produced in space the same way they are produced here on Earth with electricity.
| gravitational waves, which have so far been inferred indirectly. |
Gravitational waves are a fantasy dreamed up by cosmologists to explain away a contradiction of black hole theory (everything gets sucked into a black hole; nothing can escape not even light). This was a neat mathematical explanation that was based on a fraud (see following).
Until ACTUAL OBSERVATION by the latest generation of instruments like the Chandra telescope showed jets of matter being blasted axially out of 'assumed' Black Holes. If gravity is a One Way force how could this happen. It defied all Black Hole dogma (the astronomy community were SHOCKED and SURPRISED yet again.
There was no way to explain this phenomenon within the present accepted standard theory. So they had to retrospectively invent a plausible (to them) reason to explain the evidence. The answer was a rebound shock wave that somehow (as yet unexplained) accelerated matter to relativistic speeds in order to generate radio waves.
The Gravitational Wave HAD to be inferred as there is no mechanism OTHER than gravity they are allowed to use in their paradigm, despite the fact that it violates just about every law of physics.
| I have nothing against the idea of gravitational waves, by the way. |
Well you should.
Black Holes can't exist. The prime theorem on which they are based and accepted is a lie. Einsteinian and Newtonian physics preclude them.
The evidence is base on the Schwarzschild solution supposedly developed by German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in 1916. Schwarzschild's solution does not predict a Black Hole (it precludes them) and the efforts of three other mathematicians, Johannes Droste, Marcel Brillouin and Hermann Weyl, confirm Schwartzschild's original solution.
German mathematician David Hilbert however used incorrect data to obtain a solution that did predict a Black Hole and it is this erroneous solution that has been accepted by physics as a valid solution and definitive proof that Black Holes exist.
Every physics text book lists Schwarzschild as the author of the solution.
He is not. He and his colleagues proved conclusively that there are no Black Holes. Black Hole theory is not based on Schwarzschild's solution, it is based on Hilbert's Error.
The true nature of Black Hole theory has been suppressed.
See 'A Brief History of Black Holes'
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF
The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics -- Stephen Crothers
http://www.geocities.com/theometria/index.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| That's the sort of thing physicists do. The same knowledge base that Electric Universe plasma physicists work on. As well as we know anything at all about atoms and charged particles and stuff, we know light and other EM radiation passes where there is no known material, charged or neutral |
This is not the same knowledge base that plasma physicists work on. Conventional physics deny that electricity has any input and produce purely mathematical models of how the universe is supposed to be with unfalsifiable constructs that have never been reproduced by experimentation or can't be verified. Because they not only defy logic they violate basic physical laws. They are not physicists they are mathematicians.
Plasma physicists on the other hand work within the laws of physics and have been able to reproduce in countless experiments virtually all the phenomena we now see in the universe.
The auroras we see at the poles, the polar torus of the sun and other stars, the million degree temperature of the solar corona, the composition and actions of comets, the spiral nature of galaxies, the cellular nature of the galaxy, the filamentation of galaxies, the x-ray discharges from nebula and galaxy cores, the real cause of Red Shift, and many other laboratory experiments for over a century have successfully predicted virtually all that we see in the visible universe. From Kristian Birkeland's experiments in the late 19th Century on the nature of the solar aurora to Wal Thornhill's predictions in 2004 of what would be found on the Stardust mission to comet Wild 2.
Conventional physics has yet to register a point.
| Experiments show you can slow down a beam of light by putting stuff in its way, which is opposite to what would happen if it needed atoms or ions to pass through. |
Experiments show light can be refracted by various forms of matter; plasma, gas, liquid and solid. As the universe is 99.9% diffuse plasma light waves travelling through it appear constant. Light doesn't slow down it merely changes direction in a denser medium than the one it was initially travelling in.
| The aether question is whether there has to be something else, some material we don't know about, everywhere, even between atoms, in order for EM to radiate |
This is the sort of logic that has led orthodoxy into the futile search for Dark Matter, Dark Energy and other impossible particles like Higg's bosons and the like. You don't have to look for what is already there unless your paradigm can't conceive of anything else but a Gravity-only universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| The neutron star, an extremely dense remnant of an exploded star consisting of tightly packed neutrons. |
I don't get this. The gravitational collapse is supposed to be so strong that the protons and electrons are compressed into neutrons, all that empty space that atoms are full of is eliminated and the density is several orders of magnitude higher than any matter-as-we-know-it.
And yet they get all excited about Hawking coming closer to unifying Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity by speculating on the event horizon... while the neutron star is a well accepted, 'understood' and 'observed' case of gravity playing havoc with the quantum state of atoms.
| The powerful gravity of the neutron star pulls material from the companion star into a so-called accretion disk surrounding it. |
I don't get this. General Relativity is supposed to approximate to Newton's gravitation under 'normal' circumstances. Under normal circumstances, the strength of the gravitational field is determined by the mass and your distance from it. Under normal circumstances, the mass can be considered a single point and you are at a single distance from it. The actual size, the difference in distance between the near side and the far side of the star, is negligible: the star could even shrink and grow but there would still be a given mass at a given distance from you. The strength of the field would not change. If the field was not strong enough to extract material from you before, then the collapse of the star would not increase the strength and start dragging stuff away from you.
What would change as a star shrinks (or grows) is the strength of the field at the surface (or at a given distance from the surface), because the surface is actually getting closer (or farther) from the centre of mass. So something else would have to happen to make you get closer to a shrinking star than you were before in order for you to experience an increase in gravitational field.
So you need to fall in but not crash: keep orbiting. Do they explain why your orbit should decay rapidly?
Unless, of course, none of this happens under normal circumstances: it's all in the abnormal circumstances in which GR departs markedly from Newton. Do they say the curvature at your distance from the centre varies with the size of the star?
| A high percentage of the energy available from material falling toward the neutron star is converted into powering this jet |
So, this stuff is supposed to crash. Got any idea why this is supposed to start?
Are neutron stars the pulsars whose pulses miss us? Is that what they say? Is that what they should say?
| A nucleus composed of neutrons alone would be completely unstable and immediately decay |
But a neutron star is not reckoned to have nuclei at all, in the normal sense.
| I have nothing against the idea of gravitational waves, by the way. |
Well you should. Black Holes can't exist. |
Not the history or the theory of gravitational waves, but the idea of gravitational waves. If there is a field, I have no reason to think it does not propagate and no reason to think it could not oscillate. But I have no commitment to gravitational waves either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| They are not physicists they are mathematicians. |
I said physicists, not astrophysicists.
| Plasma physicists on the other hand work within the laws of physics and have been able to reproduce in countless experiments virtually all the phenomena we now see in the universe. |
Fair enough: physics can be done (is best done?) in laboratories. But doesn't plasma physics work on the principle that electric and magnetic fields cross vacuums? If currents pass by the mechanical interaction of charged particles, then what is the significance of their being charged?
| Light doesn't slow down it merely changes direction in a denser medium than the one it was initially travelling in. |
Why/how does it change direction?
"Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed."
"change in direction of propagation of any wave as a result of its travelling at different speeds at different points along the wave front"
| You don't have to look for what is already there unless your paradigm can't conceive of anything else but a Gravity only universe. |
You've got your KomoriKnickers in a twist. I don't know of anyone who conceives of a gravity-only universe (though apparently there are people who conceive of an EM-only universe). The aether question is still whether EM needs a medium, some kind of stuff to travel in. The accepted answer is "no". You said the answer is "yes: plasma". Does EM pass by charged particle contacting charged particle? Or is there a field between the particles?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| while the neutron star is a well accepted, 'understood' and 'observed' case of gravity playing havoc with the quantum state of atoms. |
It's observed but was never predicted. It became well accepted only after the maths was retrospectively 'fudged' to provide a cause. It is not understood at all because it violates the basic laws of physics. It ejects matter in vast jets along its line of axis, something it cannot do under standard gravitation theory. This has required the invention of 'gravitation wave' that by some unknown force, in direct contradiction of gravity law, to accelerate matter to near light speed.
It also contravenes the island of stability for atoms. Neutron cannot be compacted that densely without becoming highly unstable and flying apart.
The other thing worth mentioning is that Neutron Stars are a Black Hole phenomenon (according to orthodoxy) and as Black Holes can't exist the Neutron Star must be something else.
| I don't get this. General Relativity is supposed.... |
THEY DON'T GET IT EITHER.
The test of any theory is its ability to predict events and phenomena encompassed by a given theory.
You CANNOT divorce CAUSE from EFFECT.
This is exactly what Einstein and those that followed his misguided approach did. They proposed a purely mathematical solution of how the universe works in complete contradiction to what was observable.
They told the Universe how to work and the Universe told them to Fuck Off!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Fair enough: physics can be done (is best done?) in laboratories. But doesn't plasma physics work on the principle that electric and magnetic fields cross vacuums? If currents pass by the mechanical interaction of charged particles, then what is the significance of their being charged? |
It's called PLASMA Physics because they study electricity in plasma not a vacuum. There are no true vacuums not even in your light bulb. Any evacuated chamber can only have the AIR sucked out of it not ALL the molecules. Plasma Physics experiments with partially evacuated chambers (not quite a vacuum). After most of the air is sucked out the small percentage that is left is able to disperse into the area that was formerly full of air. The atoms become more diffuse and the distance between each molecule increases, reproducing the conditions in outer space. The now diffuse molecules are in the PLASMA state of matter.
Passing varying electric charges through the plasma (which can be just air or any gas they choose) can replicate all the features we see in the cosmos. Other experiments include placing objects within the evacuated chamber to see how they react to plasma when it is electrified.
This is how in 1899 Kristian Birkeland (the father of modern plasma science) proved the polar auroras were an electric phenomenon. He suspended a magnetised 'Terrella' (little earth) inside an evacuated chamber and subjected it to electric discharge.
His experiment led to the discovery of 'Field Aligned Currents' or Birkeland Currents which is the core of plasma physics. Birkeland also predicted the origin and properties of the Sun, magnetic storms, the Solar wind, the equatorial torus ring, the properties of comets and the rings of Saturn. Birkeland Currents were confirmed in 1963 by observation when a US Navy satellite detected large magnetic disturbances in the ionosphere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| You've got your KomoriKnickers in a twist. I don't know of anyone who conceives of a gravity-only universe (though apparently there are people who conceive of an EM-only universe). |
Firstly, Dan, you appear to be under the misguided impression no one conceives of a Gravity only Universe. Modern Cosmology is built on a Gravity Only Universe.
Secondly Plasma Cosmology is built on ALL the forces -- Electromagnetism, Gravity and the Strong and Weak forces. They are all interconnected. PC has NEVER denied that Gravity has a part to play it is integral to it. It's just not the driving force that we observe.
| The aether question is still whether EM needs a medium, some kind of stuff to travel in. The accepted answer is "no". You said the answer is "yes: plasma". |
Accepted by whom? If you're talking about orthodoxy, they deny Electromagnetism has any part to play at all. They have denied since Michelson-Morley and Miller that the Aether even exists despite the overwhelming POSITIVE result. But with the advent of space exploration they have been dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. The Aether has now been proved to exist in exactly the form that Birkeland, Langmuir and Alfen said it was. There is no vacuum in space.
Modern Cosmology still doesn't accept Electromagnetism. They say the Earth's magnetic field is generated by an unproven spinning dynamo of liquid nickel-iron sloshing around a solid ball of iron at the planets core. That's where our magnetosphere comes from -- rotation and static magnetism.
There is just one problem with that. Every planet has a magnetosphere even the ones that don't have iron in their composition. And what about the Sun? It's a giant ball of hydrogen and helium yet it has a magnetosphere that encompasses all the planets and then some. And the answer is.
What I couldn't hear that?
Ooh! You're still working on that one.
I see. Deep Thought hasn't spat out 42 yet?
(I shouldn't be so cynical -- in the twisted irony of Modern Cosmology the supercomputer at MIT probably IS called Deep Thought)
| Does EM pass by charged particle contacting charged particle? Or is there a field between the particles? |
EM fields work like all EM fields -- electrons are accelerated in a magnetic field. It's how electricity gets from the power station to your electric light. Current Flows the same everywhere -- in a copper wire or a Birkeland current in space.
The reason copper wires are twisted in a spiral is because that is the way current PREFERS to flow. Twisted copper wires are a visible form of Birkeland Currents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| I don't know of anyone who conceives of a gravity-only universe. |
WOW! Dan.
You've never watched Carl Sagan?
You betta sit down for a minute.
This is gonna come as a bit of a shock.
____________________________________
This is actually what orthodox cosmologist believe.
Go figure.
-- Galaxies created and held together by gravity
-- Stars formed by gravity
-- Planets; more gravity
-- Primordial black holes; really really ancient gravity
-- Massive black hole; lots and lots of gravity
-- Medium black holes; a little less gravity
-- Small black holes; not quite so much gravity
-- Detonating black holes; exploding gravity
-- Companion black holes; binary gravity
-- Pulsars, light emitting gravity
-- Neutron stars; supersized gravity
-- Sunspots; twisted gravity
-- Galaxy clusters; massive amounts of warped gravity
-- Bow shocks; waves of gravity
-- Wormholes; tubular gravity
-- Oblate proto-stars; squishy gravity
-- Distorted starlight; lensing gravity
-- Nebula Ejecta: anti-gravity gravity
-- Solar Flares; more anti-gravity gravity
____________________________________
Maybe you should have a nice cuppa tea and a lay down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Hey I've just discovered a new scientific explanation to describe the myriad phenomena orthodox cosmology cannot currently explain.
They are wildly energetic directionally oscillating non terrestrial kinetically neutral objects or waveforms or
WE DON'T KNOW
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| But doesn't plasma physics work on the principle that electric and magnetic fields cross vacuums? If currents pass by the mechanical interaction of charged particles, then what is the significance of their being charged? |
There are no true vacuums.
Plasma Physics study the behaviour of electricity and magnetism in 'Partially Evacuated Chambers'. Once almost all the air is removed from the chamber the remaining molecules within the chamber diffuse just as they do in space. The matter now within the chamber is called Plasma (just another state of matter). It is neither solid, liquid nor gas. It is the state of matter that exists in 99.9% of the universe (diffuse particles in a near vacuum). Because there are particles within the chamber/universe it cannot be a vacuum.
The vast majority of this diffuse matter is electrically neutral except where Birkeland currents flow. Where current is intense, like around the corona of the Sun it forms a denser area of particles that glows. Starlight which spends most of its time travelling in the diffuse particles is refracted by the denser area of particles surrounding the corona just as it is refracted by the denser molecular structure of air or water. It is not warped by gravity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| There are no true vacuums... Once almost all the air is removed from the chamber the remaining molecules within the chamber diffuse just as they do in space. |
KomoriMate, you've got to stop contradicting yourself. If you accept, as plasma physicists do, the standard, particulate theory of matter, then you accept that there is a true vacuum between particles.
"There are no true vacuums" is only true in a sense like "there are no significant volumes in space that are completely empty", but significance is a matter of scale. The model says space itself is entirely empty and particles are discrete objects free to occupy and move around in it in such-and-such ways. (The concept you use yourself of a 'near vacuum' presupposes there is such a thing as a 'total vacuum', however difficult it may be to achieve.)
If there is one particle in every cubic centimetre, on average {It's reckoned to be something of that order, isn't it?}, then "there is no vacuum even in the deep space between the planets" makes perfect sense. But when the question is about how EM fields propagate between charged particles, over tiny fractions of a millimetre, then complete and perfect vacuum is exactly what we are talking about.
EM may well be the unsung hero of the cosmos, but pointing out the ubiquity of plasma says nothing whatsoever about the luminiferous aether.
| The matter now within the chamber is called Plasma (just another state of matter). It is neither solid, liquid nor gas. |
No, it's a gas. It's plasma when the particles are charged. (Of course, plasma physics is also concerned with how neutral particles can become charged.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| KomoriMate, you've got to stop contradicting yourself. If you accept, as plasma physicists do, the standard, particulate theory of matter, then you accept that there is a true vacuum between particles. |
Plasma Physics recognise 4 states of matter. Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma. The one particle per cubic metre in space is what plasma is. Diffuse particles in a partial vacuum. If it has particles in it, it's not a total vacuum.
What lies between the particles of a gas? All particles are spheres. You can't stack spheres together with out there being some space between them; even in a dense gas there are spaces that aren't filled with atoms. No matter how tightly you pack spheres together there is always unoccupied space. That's why ice floats. No matter how tightly you pack water molecules the tiny spaces between the molecules of ice form a vacuum that gives ice negative buoyancy.
There are true vacuum between all forms of matter it's just degrees of space. Plasma is no different it just has larger spaces.
| The model says space itself is entirely empty and particles are discrete objects free to occupy and move around in it in such-and-such ways. (The concept you use yourself of a 'near vacuum' presupposes there is such a thing as a 'total vacuum', however difficult it may be to achieve.) |
Whose model are you talking about? Plasma physics does not recognise space is entirely empty. The very fact that there are particles in it discrete or otherwise means it is not empty.
Discrete objects in space means it is not completely empty no matter how they move or how close they are to one another. Charged particles are in equilibrium with their surrounding environment. They only become active in the presence of electric or magnet fields.
| EM may well be the unsung hero of the cosmos, but pointing out the ubiquity of plasma says nothing whatsoever about the luminiferous aether. |
What is the luminiferous aether? A medium that propagates light.
What is plasma in space? A medium that propagates light.
| No, it's a gas. It's plasma when the particles are charged. (Of course, plasma physics is also concerned with how neutral particles can become charged.) |
No, Dan, it is Plasma because all particles carry charges, positive, negative or neutral. Plasma Physics is concerned with what happens to charged particles in the presence of electric or magnetic fields.
The particles in a fluorescent tube are charged particles. When there is no current they are in equilibrium with their surrounding environment. When electricity flows they glow. You don't even need the tube to be connected to electricity. If you hold a fluorescent tube close to a cable carrying a high voltage the magnetic field surrounding the cable will cause the tube to glow as well with no electric input.
I know this because one of my friends is an electrical engineer who works for an AM Radio Station. He used to do it as a party trick with the power cable that fed their radio antenna.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Get a grip on the matter scale, Komori!
| Plasma is no different it just has larger spaces. |
In general, that is not true: plasma is a gas of charged particles, of whatever density. If one of the findings is that plasma can not exist at such-n-such densities, temperatures and wotnot, because the ions recombine into atoms: fine. But what you mean by "plasma has big spaces" is that interplanetary/stellar/galactic space appears to filled with plasma with big spaces, like a metre.
| Plasma physics does not recognise space is entirely empty. |
On the large scale, in outer space, it may well be that there is never more than a meter between one particle and the next: throughout the observable universe, for all I know. And for all I know, the fact that these particles can be charged may be the single most important fact for explaining the cosmos.
But that is not what we were talking about.
How does an EM field or wave, light say, cross that 1 metre "inner" space?
a) The luminiferous aether fills the space, regardless of how many atoms or ions there are, and EM travels in that.
b) EM doesn't need any medium to travel, apart from space itself. (And the Coulomb force acts across the empty spaces between charged particles, too: an inverse-square law.)
c) EM and the Coulomb (electrostatic) force are only mediated by electrons/protons/neutrinos closing the gaps and coming into contact with each other, in the same manner as sound waves.
d) Other. Please specify.
Answers on a post(card), please.
| Discrete objects in space means it is not completely empty no matter how they move or how close they are to one another. |
If they are discreet then there are spaces between them. That is the space we're talking about where the aether is concerned.
| Charged particles are in equilibrium with their surrounding environment. They only become active in the presence of electric or magnet fields. |
What does that mean? And how can there be two or more charged particles that are not in an electric field? Where do electric fields come from if not from charged particles?
| What is plasma in space? A medium that propagates light. |
As above, please tell us how. (You are keen to stress that plasma is ordinary matter: which is particulate. If EM can only travel via these particles and there can be large spaces between them, then EM can only travel by the gaps being closed and there being contact between particles. You can only answer "c)" above, I think.)
| When there is no current they are in equilibrium with their surrounding environment. When electricity flows they glow. |
Does "in equilibrium with their surrounding environment" mean the charges neutralise each other? For current to flow, you need un-neutralised charges. Where do they come from? At rest, isn't a fluorescent tube full of atoms, rather than ions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
