Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

But until they separate in the magnetic field they are not a current, correct?

That is not correct in Birkeland's cathode model. The high speed solar wind is *already* the result of the current that is flowing from the sun to the heliosphere. That wind is *already* a "current" that is caused/driven by charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere.

You need to separate the charges before you have a current.

It's not always that simple or that obvious in plasma because the conductor isn't "fixed". It also moves and in some cases has a charge of it's own.

Moving a neutral plasma through space is not a current.

Relative to a stationary Earth it sure is!

What next? Throwing a battery through the air is a current?

Irrelevant as it relates to plasma physics.

Then why is the solar wind neutral, with both sets of charges?

Birkeland predicted both types of particles based upon his experiments, mostly because he *observed* them in his experiments, or at least their effect (soot on the glass). Today we'd call that process 'sputtering'.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not correct in Birkeland's cathode model. The high speed solar wind is *already* the result of the current that is flowing from the sun to the heliosphere. That wind is *already* a "current" that is caused/driven by charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere.

So if I use an eletric motor to hurl a rock that rock is a current?

It's not always that simple or that obvious in plasma because the conductor isn't "fixed". It also moves and in some cases has a charge of it's own.

Plasma IS a conductor.

Relative to a stationary Earth it sure is!

How so?

Irrelevant as it relates to plasma physics.

How so?

Birkeland predicted both types of particles based upon his experiments, mostly because he *observed* them in his experiments, or at least their effect (soot on the glass). Today we'd call that process 'sputtering'.

The sun is made of glass? Are we now going to get your magic solid iron sphere at astronomical temperatures?

 

[davidbilby]

Well, for starters, Elendur seems to be suggesting that the *maximum total deflection* has to be a relatively small number, when it fact the photon can 'bounce around' quite a bit, experience all sorts of various angular deflections, and still end up reaching us on Earth. He doesn't seem to allow for that option (at least as I'm hearing him).

You seem to be doing the same thing as Elendur and not allowing for multiple deflection events over time that all eventually reach Earth anyway! In other words you're ignoring the implications of that video entirely. The redshift caused by the various deflection angles are *cumulative* but the net deflection angle can ultimately work out to nearly zero by the time they actually reach Earth even after *multiple* different scattering events that all exceed his maximum 'possible' deflection angle.

Well, in essence, the maximum total deflection would have to be extraordinarily tiny...as close to zero as makes no difference. We're talking billions and billions of miles, the tiniest fraction off and the photon hits pluto instead of the telescope. If you allow for larger angles along the way, how extraordinary that the results are sharp images of distant galaxies and not morphing blobs in constant flux. Unless of course the divine creator is organizing them back into order just in time...

I don't care about videos with extraordinarily dumbed down physics, by the way. Math, please. It's the only currency that has any value in physics since...well, the 16th century and beyond.

 

[Michael]

Well, in essence, the maximum total deflection would have to be extraordinarily tiny...as close to zero as makes no difference. We're talking billions and billions of miles, the tiniest fraction off and the photon hits pluto instead of the telescope. If you allow for larger angles along the way, how extraordinary that the results are sharp images of distant galaxies and not morphing blobs in constant flux. Unless of course the divine creator is organizing them back into order just in time...

I don't care about videos with extraordinarily dumbed down physics, by the way. Math, please. It's the only currency that has any value in physics since...well, the 16th century and beyond.

I already provided you with "generic math" (which is all I got) when I handed you Holushko's work. I don't recall you pointing out any error in his work.

In terms of how it *actually* works at the level of real physics, I won't accept a "dumbed down" handwave about how scattering can't be responsible for the redshift based on pure misconceptions about what *actually* takes place inside the plasma between the photons, the dust/plasma, the variable EM fields, the variable temperatures etc.

What you're essentially asking for now is a *more advanced* math that differentiates between various types of scattering and predicts various percentages for various inelastic scattering methods. That's beyond the current state of technology!

On the other hand *all* inelastic scattering events show up in the lab, and they all take place in space to some degree or another. Figuring out *exact percentages* is a bit beyond the scope of any model, unless you simply take Brynjolfsson's work as a "complete reason", which seem overly simplistic to me.

I think it's time you point out a serious flaw in Holushko's work for me, or accept the fact I've already given you a "generic" model, which is really all I got with "dark energy" to start with. The difference however is quite tangible at the level of pure physics. All inelastic scattering methods take place in the lab (or at least many), whereas you cannot even name single source of "dark energy" let alone physically demonstrate it has a tangible effect on a photon in controlled experimentation. You don't "win by default" based upon a few frivolous handwaves.

Admittedly it's been a crunch week for me at work and I just haven't had time to focus much on inelastic scattering variations. I will say this much based upon what I have read. Both you and Elendur are *assuming* way too much about scattering processes in real labs. That video far more accurately describes the way photons deflect through a medium and can take various paths, and still end up in the exact same eyeball.

It doesn't take any "re-arrangement" since there is an observed blur, particularly in the most redshifted objects in space.

It seems to me that you are both now emotionally invested in *presuming* that not one single type of inelastic scattering process plays *any* signification role in photon redshift. It would take a *miracle* for photons to traverse light years of dust and plasma, dodging and weaving their way around every single object, to collect themselves again, completely blur free on Earth. Honestly, what are the odds?

 

[Michael]

So if I use an eletric motor to hurl a rock that rock is a current?

What kind of ridiculous comparison is that? Plasmas are composed of charged particles. As the charged particles move, they move current from one location (like the sun) to another (like the Earth). Both electrons and protons come from the sun in 'solar wind'. That solar wind is a form of "current" as well. It's driven by the charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere, the sun acting as a cathode with respect to space.

The solar wind is not "neutral". It's a 'moving current' that happens to contain "mostly" equal (not always, not continuously in every direction every second) amounts of electrons and protons by the time the wind reaches the Earth.

Plasma IS a conductor.

Yes indeed. The plasma can conduct electrons through it, and also move and become a current with respect to any stationary objects.

How so?

As that million mile per hour flow of charged particles slams into the Earth's magnetosphere, the electrons flow in different direction than the protons. The charged particles form into flowing *currents* that flow directly into and through the Earth. The aurora are a perfect visual example of that process in action, particularly in *dense* solar wind activity.

How so?

How is even *remotely* relevant?

The sun is made of glass? Are we now going to get your magic solid iron sphere at astronomical temperatures?

There is nothing "magic" about the fact that the photosphere is "cooler", not hotter than the chromosphere. There is also nothing 'magic' about the fact that the chromosphere is cooler than the corona. It's all related to the flow of electrons and the density of plasma. Likewise there are plasma layers under the neon double layer that you associate with a "photosphere", that are much cooler, more dense, and actually considerably thicker than the neon plasma surface. The silicon plasma layer is many times thicker than the neon layer, much more dense, and much cooler than the hydrogen corona, the helium chromosphere or the neon photosphere.

The actual surface of the sun is composed of the very same elements that we find on Earth, the moon, Venus, Mercury, etc. It's not a "special" surface. The difference is that a sun is a *huge* collection of mass. It compresses that huge amount of mass and generates energy. The Earth does that too, as do all the planets. The sun just does it *more* than any other object since is bigger and more massive than any other object.

The *total* energy released from the sun has very little to do with the surface temperature of the sun, but rather the flow of current through the atmosphere due to the charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere.

 

[Michael]

BBC News - Giant black hole in tiny galaxy confounds astronomers

The surprise finding is hard to reconcile with existing models of black hole growth, which hold that they evolve in tandem with host galaxies.

It's definitely hard to reconcile such observations with current astronomy models, but it's really easy to ignore conflicting data, just watch them.

 

[Elendur]

Well, for starters, Elendur seems to be suggesting that the *maximum total deflection* has to be a relatively small number, when it fact the photon can 'bounce around' quite a bit, experience all sorts of various angular deflections, and still end up reaching us on Earth. He doesn't seem to allow for that option (at least as I'm hearing him).

You seem to be doing the same thing as Elendur and not allowing for multiple deflection events over time that all eventually reach Earth anyway! In other words you're ignoring the implications of that video entirely. The redshift caused by the various deflection angles are *cumulative* but the net deflection angle can ultimately work out to nearly zero by the time they actually reach Earth even after *multiple* different scattering events that all exceed his maximum 'possible' deflection angle.

....

Actually I address that in point 3, 3a and 3b. #71

 

[Elendur]

...
It seems to me that you are both now emotionally invested in *presuming* that not one single type of inelastic scattering process plays *any* signification role in photon redshift. It would take a *miracle* for photons to traverse light years of dust and plasma, dodging and weaving their way around every single object, to collect themselves again, completely blur free on Earth. Honestly, what are the odds?

Would you stop that? I've repeatedly stated that I have no attachment to any of this. If you want to call me a liar, do so, don't go sneaking around like that.

I have not presumed that none of the inelastic scattering processes plays a significant part. That is my conclusion (since you haven't provided with an example of inelastic scatterings producing redshift without deviation).
It would take a 'miracle', statistically speaking, for the photons to re-align themselves with their original course, which is the main reason I have reached that conclusion.
As for the odds of them 'dodging' everything, I have no idea of the odds for that, but I've stated repeatedly that I find it highly unlikely (near impossible) that all photons avoid collision with particles or similar.

 

[Davian]

Do you know what entropy is, Michael?

Sure, but I'm not absolutely certain how (or if) it would it apply to an infinite and eternal universe. I'm not even sure how it applies to *any* universe that recycles material into stars. I'm not sure how it would apply to even a static but finite universe that has access to *external* energy from a much *larger* source. I have no idea how it all works, I only know how it works in the areas *I can actually observe*, which isn't the whole universe.

Then it would appear that you have some rather large holes in your cosmological model that need to be filled in.

How does inflation get a free pass on this entropy thing? Dark energy gets a free pass too? All this energy just goes *poof* of out *nothing* according to Guth, and you think *that* idea is "more acceptable"?

Your asking of these questions makes me wonder what you know of the mainstream cosmological model. No, inflation does not get a free pass, according to Guth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

BBC News - Giant black hole in tiny galaxy confounds astronomers
It's definitely hard to reconcile such observations with current astronomy models, but it's really easy to ignore conflicting data, just watch them.

Just watch your random assertion be blown away as stated in the article !

But NGC 1277 is stranger still, and could help advance our theories of how black holes evolve in the first place.
"This galaxy seems to be very old," Dr Van den Bosch said. "So somehow this black hole grew very quickly a long time ago, but since then that galaxy has been sitting there not forming any new stars or anything else.
"We're trying to figure out how this happens, and we don't have an answer for that yet. But that's why it's cool."

The Bad Astronomer has a good explanation: A Swollen Monster in the Middle of a Galaxy

Galaxies form from huge collapsing clouds of gas. Looking at the early Universe, we see most galaxies are small and shapeless, but nowadays many are big, like the Milky Way. We think that they grow by eating each other! Yes, galactic cannibalism. Usually they collide and merge over time, and the two black holes from the two galaxies also merge, forming one bigger black hole. If that’s the case, then the mass of the black hole and the mass of the galaxy itself should grow at roughly the same rate, and be pretty much the same for every galaxy.

For some reason that didn’t happen with NGC 1277. The astronomers were conducting a survey of galaxies, looking at many of them and figuring out the galaxy bulge to black hole ratio. After examining 700 galaxies, they found five others with abnormally high ratios, though none as beefy as NGC 1277. This means there are exceptions to the rule; not many, but they exist. Interestingly, all of them appear to be compact galaxies, smaller than you might expect given their mass. That may be another useful clue… but what that might mean is still unknown.


Still, that’s OK! We’re seeing the tip of the iceberg here, so to speak, showing us that something is going on, and teasing us with what it might be. Scientists love a puzzle.

And sometimes, it’s the exceptions that force us to examine the rules. We have several hypotheses about why the black holes and galaxies would have correlated masses, but we’re not sure which one is correct. We need outliers like NGC 1277 to shows us which ideas won’t work so that we can either modify them or throw them away and find ones that work better

(my emphasis added)
FYI, Michael, the highlighted section is a failed prediction of tired light theories that have an eternal universe. Galaxies change as above. In an eternal universe you end up with one gigantic galaxy. That is not our universe.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, and the sun dumps a net movement of charge into our atmosphere every single day. ...

The solar wind is electrically neutral and so is not an electrical current.
The fact that protons and electrons from the solar wind interact with the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere is irrelevant.
Michael,

Cite your scientific source for "dumps a net movement of charge into our atmosphere every single day".
​

You are also incapable of acknowledging a moving particle as a form of current, so what's the point?

The point is that just saying that a moving charge is a "form of current" is stupid since there is no such thing as a "form of current". There is either an electrical current or not an electrical current. A moving particle by itself is an electrical current.

A single proton going from point A to point B is an electrical current because point A loses charge and point B gains charge.

A single electron going from point A to point B is an electrical current because point A loses charge and point B gains charge.

An electron and proton going from point A to point B is not a current because point A does not gain charge and point B does not gain charge.

 

[RealityCheck01]

greater than zero, yet it is *completely* ignored in Lambda-CDM.

Compton scattering is ignored in Lambda-CDM because it is incapable of causing cosmological redshift.From: Tired lght theories do not work + outstanding questions for Michael!
Compton scattering = cosmological redshift will blue-shift visible lght!
This is the point that davidbilby also makes.

Thus it would be stupid to insist in including Compton scattering in Lambda-CDM.

Compton scattering is not ignored in astronomy. SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) has ~12,000 results for 'Compton scattering'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That is not correct in Birkeland's cathode model. The high speed solar wind is *already* the result of the current that is flowing from the sun to the heliosphere. That wind is *already* a "current" that is caused/driven by charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere.
...
Birkeland predicted both types of particles based upon his experiments, mostly because he *observed* them in his experiments, or at least their effect (soot on the glass). Today we'd call that process 'sputtering'.

Birkeland never had a " cathode model". That seems to be your fantasy that you have attached his name to.
Errors in Micheal's site IX (No Birkeland electrical model of the sun)!

Birkeland was the first person to think that the solar wind was made of electrons and ions. He never "observed" them (as in the real solar wind) in his lab - no H, no He, etc.

The continuous stream of particles flowing outward from the Sun was first suggested by British astronomer Richard C. Carrington. In 1859, Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently made the first observation of what would later be called a solar flare. This is a sudden outburst of energy from the Sun's atmosphere. On the following day, a geomagnetic storm was observed, and Carrington suspected that there might be a connection. George Fitzgerald later suggested that matter was being regularly accelerated away from the Sun and was reaching the Earth after several days.[1]

In 1910 British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington essentially suggested the existence of the solar wind, without naming it, in a footnote to an article on Comet Morehouse.[2] The idea never fully caught on even though Eddington had also made a similar suggestion at a Royal Institution address the previous year. In the latter case, he postulated that the ejected material consisted of electrons while in his study of Comet Morehouse he supposed them to be ions.[2] The first person to suggest that they were both was Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland. His geomagnetic surveys showed that auroral activity was nearly uninterrupted. As these displays and other geomagnetic activity were being produced by particles from the Sun, he concluded that the Earth was being continually bombarded by "rays of electric corpuscles emitted by the Sun".[1] In 1916, Birkeland proposed that, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds". In other words, the solar wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions.[3] Three years later in 1919, Frederick Lindemann also suggested that particles of both polarities, protons as well as electrons, come from the Sun.[4]

As for spluttering that was nothing new: Grove, W. R. 1852 On the electro-chemical polarity of gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 142,
87–101. !
The generation of the solar wind has nothing to do with spluttering. The Sun is not a brass ball!

 

[Michael]

The solar wind is electrically neutral and so is not an electrical current.

If you had read and understood Alfven's explanation for aurora, you'd understand that is a false statement. The magnetic fields of Earth separate that current into a usable form called the aurora.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf

Shall I believe the Nobel Prize winning author of plasma physics theory, or some IT guy that's never read a book on plasma physics?

The fact that protons and electrons from the solar wind interact with the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere is irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant to a hater like yourself RC. To other real scientists like Alfven and Birkeland it is relevant. Who cares what some ignorant IT guy thinks?

Your hater mentality is absurd RC. You don't know anything about this topic because you don't study it, and you do not even *wish* to understand it. Your entire purpose for being at Christianforums is to stalk and harass one specific individual around the internet. You have no desire to learn anything about this topic or you would have read a textbook on plasma physics *years* ago.

 

[Michael]

Birkeland never had a " cathode model".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

There's no point at all in discussing this topic with someone who is incapable of telling the truth on this topic, and who refuses to educate themselves on this topic. You might as well be claiming that Darwin never had a theory of evolution, or Einstein never had a theory about gravity.

 

[Michael]

Would you stop that? I've repeatedly stated that I have no attachment to any of this. If you want to call me a liar, do so, don't go sneaking around like that.

Woah. I'm not calling you any names and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm rather enjoying a non hostile conversation between us, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. The fact of the matter however is that every single photon will interact with various EM field changes, various temperature gradients, and interact with the medium as it traverses spacetime. It's not like photons can weave and dodge their way around the plasmas of spacetime.

Last week was a ridiculously busy week at work, but hopefully things will settle down a bit and I'll have time to put into studying the scattering angle issues in earnest.

That video I cited does demonstrate the "effect" I'm trying to describe. Your small maximum possible deflection angle isn't the least bit indicative of to total amount of scattering angles that a photon might experience over time. It might *average out* to a small deflection angle, yet experience much *more* deflection than it's *averaged* defection.

I have not presumed that none of the inelastic scattering processes plays a significant part.

Well, that is exactly what would be required for "dark energy" to be responsible for *any* redshift at all. Any amount of inelastic scattering is going to first eliminate the need for dark energy. If there is *enough* scattering involved we can also do away with inflation. Either way, dark energy theory *assumes* that no other process is responsible for that redshift.

That is my conclusion (since you haven't provided with an example of inelastic scatterings producing redshift without deviation).

The point of that video and link I provided is to demonstrate that deviation is acceptable. It's not as though it cannot deviate and still reach us on Earth.

It would take a 'miracle', statistically speaking, for the photons to re-align themselves with their original course, which is the main reason I have reached that conclusion.

No, it's simply physics. With enough photons, some "luck few" follow a path that leads to Earth, even if many paths do not! It's an issue of *quantify*, not a miracle.

 

[Loudmouth]

What kind of ridiculous comparison is that? Plasmas are composed of charged particles.

Rocks are comprised of charged particles as well (electrons and protons).

So if I use an electric motor to hurl a rock, does that make the rock a current?

 

[Michael]

Rocks are comprised of charged particles as well (electrons and protons).

So if I use an electric motor to hurl a rock, does that make the rock a current?

 

[Loudmouth]

I already provided you with "generic math" (which is all I got) when I handed you Holushko's work.

Holushko's math has nothing to do with inelastic scattering. He uses an aether model that does not change the path of light. Nowhere in his model does he calculate the number of photons that will be put back on the same trajectory that they left on.

All it is a Gaussian distribution applied to the speed of light. What he is doing is giving different photons a different speed for propogation, and then showing how this broadens the light peak. Nowhere does he deal with image quality or opacity caused by inelastic scattering. His model just pretends as if the photons are never put on any other trajectory, they are just randomly slowed without changing trajectory. We already know that this can not happen in plasma redshifts.

Both you and Elendur are *assuming* way too much about scattering processes in real labs. That video far more accurately describes the way photons deflect through a medium and can take various paths, and still end up in the exact same eyeball.

Except for the photons that don't make it, not to mention the non-parallel paths that the photons are following as they reach the eyeball which will cause bluriness.

It doesn't take any "re-arrangement" since there is an observed blur, particularly in the most redshifted objects in space.

Still trying this handwave I see.

It seems to me that you are both now emotionally invested in *presuming* that not one single type of inelastic scattering process plays *any* signification role in photon redshift. It would take a *miracle* for photons to traverse light years of dust and plasma, dodging and weaving their way around every single object, to collect themselves again, completely blur free on Earth. Honestly, what are the odds?

It would seem that RC did calculate the odds, and for galaxies less than 10 billion light years away a lot of the photons make it through the plasma without hitting the plasma. This would result in double bands, one for the photons that do not hit a particle and those who do. We do not observe double bands. We observe one band, and it is not wavelength dependent as plasma redshifts are. All of the bands are shifted by the same amount.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not the one claiming that moving mass is a current. That would be you.