Fairie Dust

[RealityCheck01]

The Most Important X-Ray Image Ever Taken Proved The Existence Of Dark Matter
Ignore the hype of "proved" in the article title!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Most Important X-Ray Image Ever Taken Proved The Existence Of Dark Matter
Ignore the hype of "proved" in the article title!

Plasma - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

"This may cause the plasma to constrict (or pinch) into filaments, generate particle beams, emit a wide range of radiation (radio waves, light, microwave, x-ray, gamma and synchrotron radiation), and form cellular regions of plasma with similar characteristics (eg. magnetosphere, interplanetary medium)."

Proves nothing but that you got plasma...... and simple refraction in plasma.... no hypothetical dark matter needed.....

Refraction - Wikipedia

"is the change in direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium."

So of course the objects would not appear where they really are......

 

[sjastro]

Plasma - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

"This may cause the plasma to constrict (or pinch) into filaments, generate particle beams, emit a wide range of radiation (radio waves, light, microwave, x-ray, gamma and synchrotron radiation), and form cellular regions of plasma with similar characteristics (eg. magnetosphere, interplanetary medium)."

Proves nothing but that you got plasma...... and simple refraction in plasma.... no hypothetical dark matter needed.....

Refraction - Wikipedia

"is the change in direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium."

So of course the objects would not appear where they really are......

The reason why your lack of basic comprehension skills is legendary is your inability of reading links in their entirety.
In your refraction link the term dispersion is mentioned frequently which states that refraction is also a function of wavelength.
The refractive index of plasma depends on the oscillation frequency of electrons which in turn is a function of temperature and electron number density.

Not only would plasma disperse light but if the frequency of the incident light is less than the electron oscillation frequency then no light passes through the plasma as illustrated in the formula:

n = √(1 - ωₙ²/ ω²)

n is the refractive index of the plasma, ωₙ is the electron oscillation frequency and ω the frequency of light.
If ωₙ > ω then n becomes an imaginary value hence from a physical perspective light cannot pass through the plasma.

Observation completely contradicts that the bending of light is caused by plasma.
One would expect to observe a blurred coloured fringing effect if light bending is caused by plasma.
Furthermore Hipparcos measured the bending of light much greater than 90 degrees away from the Sun well away from the effects of the solar atmosphere.

The observations are explained by gravity bending light not plasma.
Maybe this is another example of your magic plasma as opposed to normal plasma.

 

[SelfSim]

... Maybe this is another example of your magic plasma as opposed to normal plasma.

Yep .. the list grows longer, yet again!
Magic plasma is beginning to look like an outright Miracle!
(.. or a sleight of hand).

 

[sjastro]

Yep .. the list grows longer, yet again!
Magic plasma is beginning to look like an outright Miracle!
(.. or a sleight of hand).

It's giving Fairie dust a run for its money.
I have complied a comparison between normal plasma and magic plasma.

I'm sure the list will grow as we find out more fascinating facts about magic plasma.

 

[SelfSim]

Hilarious!
Mind you, I'd tend to be a little less diplomatic when it comes to the Magic Plasma column ..
Eg: For row #2 Magic Plasma - 'Plasma does not require the presence of itself'.
For row#1: 'Magic Plasma only occasionally reveals itself to science. Mostly it doesn't .. (until its discussed)'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Plasma - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia) ...

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Abysmal ignorance about the Bullet cluster evidence for dark matter.
The Most Important X-Ray Image Ever Taken Proved The Existence Of Dark Matter
This is x-rays showing where the heated matter is with gravitational lensing showing where all the matter is. There is not-visible matter separated from the visible heated matter. We call that dark matter!

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: A gravitational lensing in galactic clusters is "refraction in plasma" delusion.
This is gravitational lensing. This is refraction. The definitions alone make "refraction in plasma" into a fantasy. It would only be a fantasy if this was the first time that I have seen this but a persistent fantasy without evidence makes it into a delusion. He already knows that refraction depends on wavelength and that gravitational lensing does not make "rainbows"!

10 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Idiocy that a description of plasma has anything to do with the evidence for dark matter.
Plasma emits light as he highlights. Dark matter is dark !

 

[The Barbarian]

There's an easy refutation of the "electric universe" foolishness.

NASA engineers precisely navigate space craft over millions of kilometers of solar system space, without considering anything but gravity and inertia.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's an easy refutation of the "electric universe" foolishness.

NASA engineers precisely navigate space craft over millions of kilometers of solar system space, without considering anything but gravity and inertia.

Apparently you didn't read anything.....

We are not discussing Relativities 99.8% accuracy within the solar system (non-ionized matter) but your excuse for ignoring that accuracy and thinking you need 95% Fairie Dust outside the solar system (99.9% plasma).

Why don't you accept that astonishingly accurate theory and what it is trying to tell you????

And yet it can't describe a single thing once you leave the confines of the solar system without adding 95% Fairie Dust to a theory that is 99.8% accurate without it when applied to non-ionized matter.

Pay attention if you are going to but in....

"Sure, GR in a very limited context describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies where matter is in close confines. But lets face it, it fails utterly to describe the other 99% of the universe. It is strictly limited in its application. And because of this limit astronomers had to postulate Fairie Dust to prop up the theory. Even though E told you it was the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, you failed to listen. That E=mc^2, of which you have ignored the energy content of matter since it was first discovered."

"Just like none of you on here have any scientific answers. let's see, your entire defense is to ignore the universe is 99.9% plasma. Then propose instead of using the physics for plasma like we do in every single laboratory for over 200 years, you instead postulate 95% stuff you can't even explain, have never detected, and don't even have a clue about what it is as your only defense.

That about sum it up????"


waiting.....waiting.....waiting......

Still waiting on that plasma laboratory experiment that shows you can ignore particle physics and electromagnetic theory.....

And still waiting.....

Without even knowing it you supported my claim.... You apparently realize how accurate it is in the solar system, so why won’t you accept what it tells you when it doesn’t work when applied to a universe 99.8% plasma?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The reason why your lack of basic comprehension skills is legendary is your inability of reading links in their entirety.
In your refraction link the term dispersion is mentioned frequently which states that refraction is also a function of wavelength.
The refractive index of plasma depends on the oscillation frequency of electrons which in turn is a function of temperature and electron number density.

Not only would plasma disperse light but if the frequency of the incident light is less than the electron oscillation frequency then no light passes through the plasma as illustrated in the formula:

n = √(1 - ωₙ²/ ω²)

n is the refractive index of the plasma, ωₙ is the electron oscillation frequency and ω the frequency of light.
If ωₙ > ω then n becomes an imaginary value hence from a physical perspective light cannot pass through the plasma.

Observation completely contradicts that the bending of light is caused by plasma.
One would expect to observe a blurred coloured fringing effect if light bending is caused by plasma.
Furthermore Hipparcos measured the bending of light much greater than 90 degrees away from the Sun well away from the effects of the solar atmosphere.

The observations are explained by gravity bending light not plasma.
Maybe this is another example of your magic plasma as opposed to normal plasma.

Yes, your comprehension is atrocious......

Let’s look at how a charged particle disperses light......

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia

“An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically.”

We are not discussing your small energy atmospheric dust, but electrons with such high energy that they have a thermal equivalency of 2 million k.

But there you go, showing your ignorance of plasma by trying to treat those electrons as low energy matter......

Observations disprove your claims. Light passes through those halos of plasma that have the mass of twice that of the galaxy. Not only of every galaxy, but through ours as well. Your belief would have them reflecting the light isotropically, not observed, or as opaque, not observed.

But then you didn’t pay attention to that plasma space experiment which is changing the way the experts are thinking of plasma, did you......

No, instead you spouted nonsense, none of the actual observations support, despite light passing through those plasma halos, right in direct opposition to your frivolous claims.....

Not that you’ll understand, but....

“Maxwell’s equations predict that radiation is emitted as a consequence of the change of velocity (acceleration) of the electron impinged on, due to momentum transfer. That point has been taken into account in quantum electrodynamics as explained by Jauch and Rohrlich who show that such a phenomenon always exists, as seen in their statement:
"This bremsstrahlung or deceleration radiation with the emission of a single photon is a well defined process only within certain limits: The simultaneous emission of very soft photons – too soft to be observed within the accuracy of the energy determination of the incident outgoing electron – can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering .”

I realize you won’t understand, being you are confined in a box, but closed minds never learn....

Also you apparently learned nothing about MHD that the inventor of it warned you about trying to apply it to space plasma.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

Born out by actual experiments in space where it doesn’t act like a fluid, but a crystalline lattice....

But don’t let reality get in the way of your Fairie Dust beliefs....

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently you didn't read anything.....

12 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Definitely did not read the post he replied to about "electric universe" foolishness

There's an easy refutation of the "electric universe" foolishness.

NASA engineers precisely navigate space craft over millions of kilometers of solar system space, without considering anything but gravity and inertia.

(my emphasis added)

Foolishness is in fact an extremely charitable description of the "electric universe". Thunderbolts are a major "electric universe" web site and some of their ideas edge close to insanity. The obvious one is their "electric comet" which I have addressed elsewhere:
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Electric comets still do not exist!
The electric comet delusion has at least 45 years without a scientific electric comet model or observations to support it!

A summary of the electric comet delusion: there are electric discharges between planets as the planets bounce around the solar system (the Thunderbolts cranks are neo-Velikovskians); comets are blasted off rocky planets (e.g. Earth!) in recent times to be recorded in myth by those discharges; comets are made of rock; comets are charged up by an imaginary solar electric field; comet jets are electric discharges.

The rest of the "electric universe" foolishness reflects some of what Justatruthseeker is writing. A delusion that plasma does whatever they want it to do. A fantasy that they can force the universe to have directly detected dark matter. A delusion that dark matter is light emitting plasma. Insanity of having stars externally powered which makes them collapse (the Sun becomes a white dwarf). Delusions about GR to the point of denying that gravitational waves have been detected. Electric discharges creating massive canyons, e.g. the Grand Canyon. Electric discharges creating craters on rocky planets, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently you didn't read anything.....

We are not discussing Relativities 99.8% accuracy within the solar system (non-ionized matter)

The vast majority of the mass of the solar system is ionized matter. I thought you knew. Your belief that it's all due to fairie dust is unwarranted.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, your comprehension is atrocious......

12 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: The reason why his lack of basic comprehension skills is legendary is also his inability to read the posts he replies to.

sjastro's The reason why your lack of basic comprehension skills is legendary is your inability of reading links in their entirety post is about refraction in plasma .

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia is the radiation emitted by deaccelerated electrons.

12 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: Definitely did not read the post he replied to about "electric universe" foolishness

 

[RealityCheck01]

Also you apparently learned nothing about MHD that the inventor of it warned you about trying to apply it to space plasma.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

12 October 2018 Justatruthseeker: A lie that Hannes Alfvén warned against the application of MHD to space plasma.
This is a 1987 workshop (Double Layers in Astrophysics) where Hannes Alfvén made the keynote speech. He stated what everyone already knew - the frozen-in approximation used to treat magnetic reconnection in ideal MHD should be appropriately applied to space plasmas. He obviously emphasis the application of double layers in space plasmas. We know he got some things understandably wrong since we have an enormous amount of more information about astrophysics. For example the frozen-in approximation is not used much used because we now have a developed theory of resistive MHD.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, your comprehension is atrocious......

Let’s look at how a charged particle disperses light......

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia

“An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically.”

We are not discussing your small energy atmospheric dust, but electrons with such high energy that they have a thermal equivalency of 2 million k.

But there you go, showing your ignorance of plasma by trying to treat those electrons as low energy matter......

Observations disprove your claims. Light passes through those halos of plasma that have the mass of twice that of the galaxy. Not only of every galaxy, but through ours as well. Your belief would have them reflecting the light isotropically, not observed, or as opaque, not observed.

But then you didn’t pay attention to that plasma space experiment which is changing the way the experts are thinking of plasma, did you......

No, instead you spouted nonsense, none of the actual observations support, despite light passing through those plasma halos, right in direct opposition to your frivolous claims.....

Not that you’ll understand, but....

“Maxwell’s equations predict that radiation is emitted as a consequence of the change of velocity (acceleration) of the electron impinged on, due to momentum transfer. That point has been taken into account in quantum electrodynamics as explained by Jauch and Rohrlich who show that such a phenomenon always exists, as seen in their statement:
"This bremsstrahlung or deceleration radiation with the emission of a single photon is a well defined process only within certain limits: The simultaneous emission of very soft photons – too soft to be observed within the accuracy of the energy determination of the incident outgoing electron – can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering .”

I realize you won’t understand, being you are confined in a box, but closed minds never learn....

Also you apparently learned nothing about MHD that the inventor of it warned you about trying to apply it to space plasma.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

Born out by actual experiments in space where it doesn’t act like a fluid, but a crystalline lattice....

But don’t let reality get in the way of your Fairie Dust beliefs....

This is totally ridiculous.
What has Bremsstrahlung got to do with the refraction of light?
The refraction of light is either explained classically as external photons causing electric dipoles in the medium to oscillate or the much more complicated modern treatment using Quantum Electrodynamics.

To keep it at your intellectual level the key word here is external.
External photons are refracted by the medium.
In your Bremsstrahlung example the medium itself is the source of the photons.
You have completely confused yourself; with Bremsstrahlung it is the charges themselves that undergo deflection and deceleration with photons being emitted at various angles along the charged particle trajectory.
This has absolutely nothing to do with refraction.

You have succeeded in providing yet another example of your lack of comprehension skills while at the same time insulting posters for their supposed lack of knowledge and understanding; blissfully unaware of the subsequent foot in mouth disorder.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, your comprehension is atrocious......

Let’s look at how a charged particle disperses light......

Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia

“An analysis of the doubly differential cross section above shows that electrons whose kinetic energy is larger than the rest energy (511 keV) emit photons in forward direction while electrons with a small energy emit photons isotropically.”

We are not discussing your small energy atmospheric dust, but electrons with such high energy that they have a thermal equivalency of 2 million k.

But there you go, showing your ignorance of plasma by trying to treat those electrons as low energy matter......

Observations disprove your claims. Light passes through those halos of plasma that have the mass of twice that of the galaxy. Not only of every galaxy, but through ours as well. Your belief would have them reflecting the light isotropically, not observed, or as opaque, not observed.

But then you didn’t pay attention to that plasma space experiment which is changing the way the experts are thinking of plasma, did you......

No, instead you spouted nonsense, none of the actual observations support, despite light passing through those plasma halos, right in direct opposition to your frivolous claims.....

Not that you’ll understand, but....

“Maxwell’s equations predict that radiation is emitted as a consequence of the change of velocity (acceleration) of the electron impinged on, due to momentum transfer. That point has been taken into account in quantum electrodynamics as explained by Jauch and Rohrlich who show that such a phenomenon always exists, as seen in their statement:
"This bremsstrahlung or deceleration radiation with the emission of a single photon is a well defined process only within certain limits: The simultaneous emission of very soft photons – too soft to be observed within the accuracy of the energy determination of the incident outgoing electron – can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering .”

I realize you won’t understand, being you are confined in a box, but closed minds never learn....

Also you apparently learned nothing about MHD that the inventor of it warned you about trying to apply it to space plasma.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

Born out by actual experiments in space where it doesn’t act like a fluid, but a crystalline lattice....

But don’t let reality get in the way of your Fairie Dust beliefs....

What a pile of confused gobbledygook!

Your gibberish is very unbecoming y'know ...

 

[lesliedellow]

Apparently you didn't read anything.....

We are not discussing Relativities 99.8% accuracy within the solar system (non-ionized matter) but your excuse for ignoring that accuracy and thinking you need 95% Fairie Dust outside the solar system (99.9% plasma).

Why don't you accept that astonishingly accurate theory and what it is trying to tell you????

And yet it can't describe a single thing once you leave the confines of the solar system without adding 95% Fairie Dust to a theory that is 99.8% accurate without it when applied to non-ionized matter.

Pay attention if you are going to but in....

"Sure, GR in a very limited context describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies where matter is in close confines

It takes somebody who couldn’t pass a high school physics exam
to think that sub atomic particles are not subject to gravity, no matter where they occur - plasma or not, solar system or not.

After 99 years, Einstein’s general relativity confirmed at | Cosmos

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The vast majority of the mass of the solar system is ionized matter. I thought you knew. Your belief that it's all due to fairie dust is unwarranted.

And I thought you were aware that the sun is one of those plasma objects that refuse to orbit according to the calaculations of that theory we both understand is 99.8% correct (with planetary orbits) without adding 95% Fairie Dust for everything else.....

So what does that do for you except prove my point and disprove yours?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It takes somebody who couldn’t pass a high school physics exam
to think that sub atomic particles are not subject to gravity, no matter where they occur - plasma or not, solar system or not.

After 99 years, Einstein’s general relativity confirmed at | Cosmos

Sigh, still confusing planets (non-ionized matter) with plasma.

I’d say you wouldn’t recognize reality through all the Fairie Dust if you saw it right in front of you.

Your next post will confirm this prediction.....

 

[lesliedellow]

Sigh, still confusing planets (non-ionized matter) with plasma.

View attachment 243139

I’d say you wouldn’t recognize reality through all the Fairie Dust if you saw it right in front of you.

Your next post will confirm this prediction.....

It matters not one jot whether atoms are ionised or not, all matter is subject to gravity. End of story.