Fairie Dust

[Justatruthseeker]

I am just curious as to how long we are supposed to wait for mainstream astronomers (and their sycophants) to quit talking about space as if it was an electrically neutral environment and to add the electrical force into their calculations and theories???

Space Charge - NASA Science

1. Conducting surfaces whose electrical potential is highly negative with respect to the plasma undergo arcing. Such arcing not only damages the material but also results in current disruptions, significant electro-magnetic interference, and large discontinuous changes in the array potential. Further, inbound ions, accelerated by the high fields, will cause sputtering from surfaces with which they impact.
2. Solar arrays or other surfaces whose charge is biased positively with respect to the plasma collect electrons from the plasma, resulting in a parasitic loss to the power system...
3. Currents collected by biased surfaces also significantly affect the potentials at which different parts of the spacecraft will "float."

Arcing, Ion sputtering of the negatively charge object, just like you observe on comets.


Even NASA realizes it is no longer wise to pretend space is electrically neutral, regardless of what mainstream astronomers want. Unlike the theorists in their walled boxes, NASA must work in space and deal with the effects on satellites and spacecraft, and the astronauts. They can't afford to ignore it any longer.

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric12.pdf


NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

Magnetism is the key to understanding the Sun. Magnetic fields are produced in the Sun by the flow of electrically charged ions and electrons.

I do beg to differ, the flow of electrically charged ions and electrons (charged particles) which produced the magnetic field is the key to understanding the Sun. The good news is that by at least studying the magnetic fields we will slowly gain knowledge of how those charged particles behave.
How much longer do we have to ignore what 99% of the universe is?

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

So really, just how long must we continue to pretend space is an electrically neutral environment to keep dead theories of Fairie Dust alive?

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. Fairie Dust.

Posted in wrong place. Re-posted in Physical and Life Sciences. This thread will not be answered.

 

[HitchSlap]

Fairy Dust - Glitter, Bath and Beauty Gifts for Girls, Teens and Tweens

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7763886/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, this is definitely not my area of expertise, but I may be able to help you understand what they are talking about.

Exactly what part of astronomy do you disagree with and why?

 

[Lethe]

Even NASA realizes it is no longer wise to pretend space is electrically neutral, regardless of what mainstream astronomers want. Unlike the theorists in their walled boxes, NASA must work in space and deal with the effects on satellites and spacecraft, and the astronauts. They can't afford to ignore it any longer.

Locally the magnetic field of planets (jupiter, earth, etc) and stars causes charge separation in high energy particles. This causes charge separation in the location of the field. From a distance this can be ignored. Cosmological forces governing the future evolution of the universe are therefore free to omit electrical forces.

If you don't understand charge separation in magnetic fields, we're done here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Locally the magnetic field of planets (jupiter, earth, etc) and stars causes charge separation in high energy particles. This causes charge separation in the location of the field. From a distance this can be ignored. Cosmological forces governing the future evolution of the universe are therefore free to omit electrical forces.

If you don't understand charge separation in magnetic fields, we're done here.

It's your ignoring of it and 99% of the universe that already made you invent dark matter, black holes, neutron stars. How much Fairie Dust do you need to make your theory work? Of course you can ignore electrical processes in space. You have done so for 100 years, why stop now. Why give up your imaginary Fairie Dust for forces we have actually observed, not to mention that the electrical force is 10 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity. But hey, why add that force into the equations just because we observe it everywhere.

Yes, let us keep ignoring this force and having to make up Fairie Dust instead.

But then you probably have no idea what causes the magnetism you are trying to reconnect either. Every single place you measure a magnetic field, there are electrical currents. But lets ignore that too shall we. lets ignore 99% of the universe and wonder why we can't unite the micro and macro. Let's continue to ignore it and continue to postulate Fairie Dust instead.

That is so much more scientific isn't it, to ignore 99% of the universe in favor of things never seen at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you call space dust, a predictable and observable physical object, "Fairy Dust"?

If you don't have some sort of evidence to back up your disparagement it looks like you are practicing some sort of bearing false witness to me.

Why don't you like the concept of intergalactic dust? Do you think that when stars go Nova they do so neatly?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why do you call space dust, a predictable and observable physical object, "Fairy Dust"?

If you don't have some sort of evidence to back up your disparagement it looks like you are practicing some sort of bearing false witness to me.

Why don't you like the concept of intergalactic dust? Do you think that when stars go Nova they do so neatly?

I don't have a problem with dust, except that 99% of it isn't dust, it's Plasma. Because you think of Plasma as nothing more than dust, you have to add Fairie Dust (dark matter) to make the equations work. Plasma is not dust, does not behave like dust, and that is why mainstream astronomers have to fudge the equations with 96% Fairie Dust in an attempt to make up for the 99% they pretend in their minds is nothing more than dust.

Until astronomers quit calling Plasma dust, they will always be confused as to how a Plasma behaves. This is why Plasma is a distinct state of matter, because it does not act like the 1% of matter in close confines within our solar system. 99% of the universe is Plasma, and until people understand how Plasma behaves, they will always require Fairie Dust in their cosmology.

One doesn't need dark matter or Fairie Dust. One just needs to accept what 99% of the universe really is and how it really behaves, not the 1% of it we observe in the solar system around us and base our cosmology on of the other 99%. I mean, really?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have a problem with dust, except that 99% of it isn't dust, it's Plasma. Because you think of Plasma as nothing more than dust, you have to add Fairie Dust (dark matter) to make the equations work. Plasma is not dust, does not behave like dust, and that is why mainstream astronomers have to fudge the equations with 96% Fairie Dust in an attempt to make up for the 99% they pretend in their minds is nothing more than dust.

Until astronomers quit calling Plasma dust, they will always be confused as to how a Plasma behaves. This is why Plasma is a distinct state of matter, because it does not act like the 1% of matter in close confines within our solar system. 99% of the universe is Plasma, and until people understand how Plasma behaves, they will always require Fairie Dust in their cosmology.

One doesn't need dark matter or Fairie Dust. One just needs to accept what 99% of the universe really is and how it really behaves, not the 1% of it we observe in the solar system around us and base our cosmology on of the other 99%. I mean, really?

What is your evidence that it is plasma?

Do you know what plasma is? Do you know why your claim sounds rather ridiculous?

And yes, we do need dark matter. Plasma would still have mass, it would still be subject to all of the regular laws of physics. Why do you think otherwise?

Please support your ideas with real science and not nonsense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is your evidence that it is plasma?

Really, you need to ask?
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma. "

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

Do you know what plasma is? Do you know why your claim sounds rather ridiculous?

And yet this is what your own science tells you, but you listen to astronomers.
Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter."

It is apparently you that has claims that sound rather ridiculous, considering my claims are backed by science.

And yes, we do need dark matter. Plasma would still have mass, it would still be subject to all of the regular laws of physics. Why do you think otherwise?

Because plasma is an electrified medium.

"Some common plasmas are found in stars and neon signs. In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter, most of which is in the rarefied intergalactic plasma (particularly intracluster medium) and in stars. Much of the understanding of plasmas has come from the pursuit of controlled nuclear fusion and fusion power, for which plasma physics provides the scientific basis."

How many times have you had to place your coffee pot, fan, toaster, etc. below the outlet to make it work? Plasma obeys the electromagnetic laws, not gravitational.

Please support your ideas with real science and not nonsense.

Maybe you just need to read what your science says, and stop believing in Fairie Dust. The galaxy is 99% Plasma, why would it behave the same way as the 1% of solids, liquids, and gasses we observe around us? Lightning is Plasma, doesn't behave one little bit like liquids, solids or gasses does it.

So why are you following a cosmology that proclaims that 99% of the universe is Plasma, that proclaims Plasma is a distinct state of matter that does not behave like non-plasma, and then tells you it is just dust and that they need dark matter because they treated that plasma like dust, and not the distinct state of matter that it is?

Sure, give those people a few billion more of your tax dollars. Just don't be surprised that when they realize your an easy mark they ask you to give them money because spacetime is expanding, but it is made of nothing, but we got to find that nothing. Oh wait, they already did find nothing, since nothing is what they seek.

Wake up, NASA itself is trying to tell you if you will but listen.

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

 

[Lethe]

I don't have a problem with dust, except that 99% of it isn't dust, it's Plasma

Plasma is not transparent.
The universe is largely transparent (up to the surface of last scattering which is plasma and of course, stars, also largely plasma).

Therefore, once again, you are full crap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor Justaseeker, it seems he does not know the difference between the space of our solar system, interstellar space in our galaxy, and intergalactic space.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Plasma is not transparent.
The universe is largely transparent (up to the surface of last scattering which is plasma and of course, stars, also largely plasma).

Therefore, once again, you are full crap.

Apparently you have never seen a plasma ball, you know, the little novelty play things. Looks pretty transparent to me. Only when it is condensed is it non-transparent. Only when the electrical force binds the free ions and electrons together do atoms form, and solids, liquids and gasses come into existence. Air is full of oxygen atoms, doesn't hardly block your view one little bit does it. Plasma in space is even less dense than the atmosphere.

I mean come on, really?

Personally I think you are a complete idiot and don't know anything at all, just talk to hear yourself talk.

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Poor Justaseeker, it seems he does not know the difference between the space of our solar system, interstellar space in our galaxy, and intergalactic space.

Poor Subduction, seems he doesn't understand one little thing about space at all. It is sad that you have to ignore NASA to keep your religion intact.

Here, if you can read more than 3 sentences maybe you should.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

 

[essentialsaltes]

Air is full of oxygen atoms, doesn't hardly block your view one little bit does it.

That's a curious example to use!

I wonder why astronomers mostly use their telescopes at night?

Oh that's right, because the daytime sky is full of light that has been scattered by the air.

The light originally came from the Sun, but the scattering process makes it appear to come from all directions. Scattering destroys directional information.

So it seems that scattering light can block your view.

And yet we can see distant quasars, and their light is not scattered all over the place, but comes from teeny tiny little individual quasar sources.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's a curious example to use!

I wonder why astronomers mostly use their telescopes at night?

Oh that's right, because the daytime sky is full of light that has been scattered by the air.

The light originally came from the Sun, but the scattering process makes it appear to come from all directions. Scattering destroys directional information.

So it seems that scattering light can block your view.

And yet we can see distant quasars, and their light is not scattered all over the place, but comes from teeny tiny little individual quasar sources.

Not what your astronomers say.

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference


Outer space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outer space

, or simply space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDainton2001132.E2.80.93133-1It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos....

Plasma with a density of less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter and a temperature of millions of kelvin in the space between galaxies accounts for most of the baryonic (ordinary) matter in outer space; local concentrations have condensed into stars and galaxies.

Make up your minds please. You say it doesn't block light, they say it does. You say it is empty, they say it isn't, but is plasma. I say your own science doesn't agree with you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You say it doesn't block light, they say it does.

Where do they say it blocks light?
Surely we see distant galaxies and quasars.

You say it is empty

I didn't.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where do they say it blocks light?
Surely we see distant galaxies and quasars.



I didn't.

Sigh. Can't read?

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

Lead author Dr Simon Driver from the University of St Andrews said, "For nearly two decades we've argued about whether the light that we see from distant galaxies tells the whole story or not. It doesn't; in fact only half the energy produced by stars actually reaches our telescopes directly, the rest is blocked by dust grains."[read plasma here}
​

While astronomers have known for some time that the Universe contains small grains of dust, they had not realised the extent to which this is restricting the amount of light that we can see. The dust absorbs starlight and re-emits it, making it glow. They knew that existing models were flawed, because the energy output from glowing dust appeared to be greater than the total energy produced by the stars!​

"The results demonstrate very clearly that interstellar dust grains have a devastating effect on our measurements of the energy output from even nearby galaxies" says Prof Richard Tuffs, "with the new calibrated model in hand we can now calculate precisely the fraction of starlight blocked by the dust."

Again, read plasma, not dust, since as your own scientists tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, not dust.


But you just keep on ignoring it and keep on adding more Fairie Dust. Keep expanding that nothing.
​

 

[Lethe]

Free electrons in plasmas make them opaque to radiation.
And clearly space is mostly, not opaque.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have yet to see an article where scientists claim "99% of the universe is plasma".

Your article about plasma and the Van Allen Belt does nothing to aid your cause. The Van Allen Belt is only a local concentration of mostly hydrogen nuclei. And this is not even interplanetary space. This is planetary space. It looks like my comments about what Justatruthseeker does not understand stands.

No one has denied the existence of plasma. We are simply pointing out that you are looking like a kook by taking an unsupported position.