Fairie Dust

[The Barbarian]

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)

(Barbarian checks) So far, it does. The wobble in it's movement due to the gravity of other objects in the system is precisely what it should be. You've been lied to, it seems.
The Wobbling Sun

without adding 95% Fairie Dust for everything else.....

Turns out, you can't even show us your fairie dust is exists, much less has anything to do with celestial mechanics.

So what does that do for you

It merely demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about when you made this foolish claim:

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

I see you've since learned that the Sun is made of ionized matter. Good work.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.....

You are aware that sun dogs are an optical phenomenon, right? Nothing to do with your fairie dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are aware that sun dogs are an optical phenomenon, right? Nothing to do with your fairie dust.

Yes I am, just as I am aware those so called gravitational "lensing" affects are optical phenomenon caused by those vast halos of plasma that surround every galaxy, and have nothing to do with "your" Fairie Dust......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

(Barbarian checks) So far, it does. The wobble in it's movement due to the gravity of other objects in the system is precisely what it should be. You've been lied to, it seems.
The Wobbling Sun



Turns out, you can't even show us your fairie dust is exists, much less has anything to do with celestial mechanics.



It merely demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about when you made this foolish claim:



I see you've since learned that the Sun is made of ionized matter. Good work.

I've already agreed that it is 99.8% accurate inside the solar system. that wobble is caused by the planets (non-ionized matter).....

It's when you try to describe its orbit around the galaxy is when the 95% Fairie Dust comes into play. Even though we both already know it is 99.8% accurate in describing non-ionized matter.....

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia

"A significant discrepancy exists between the experimental curves observed, and a curve derived from theory."

Your theory which is 99.8% accurate inside the solar system without your Fairie Dust, suddenly becomes inaccurate when describing a universe 99.9% plasma....

As is plain to anyone with half a brain...

Your theory fails when it comes to predicting anything outside the solar system....

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent theory for .1% of the universe......

 

[The Barbarian]

You've been misled again. Although we can't directly observe the center of the galaxy (and therefore can't directly calculate the expected orbit of the sun) we can, by indirect methods, do this. Turns out it fits the theory nicely.
Distance & Speed Of Sun's Orbit Around Galactic Centre Measured - Universe Today

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Sigh, you really do not comprehend do you......

Let me post that again.....

“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....

Do you understand anything about why light is slowed in a medium? Do you think light magically passes through a medium and doesn't interact with that medium????

And what do electrons with a high energy accelerated by the momentum imparted by a photon do after the time of dt?????

They emit a photon in the "forward" direction....

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.”

Just what do you think we are discussing? What is with the strawman of plasma being the source of the photons???? Are you daft???? or is that your best misdirection because you couldn't think of anything actually scientific?????

We are and have always been talking about light from a distant galaxy being refracted by the plasma. Any light must pass through those plasma halos and interact with that plasma.

it isn't opaque as your strawman tried to show. It doesn't scatter them isotropically as your other strawman tried to show.... None of your claims match observations.

Yet that light MUST interact with that plasma halo as it passes through it.... And it does, it is refracted, with the majority being re-emitted after absorption in the "forward" direction with a very small cross section being angled... Hence your Fairie Dust gravitational "lensing" is in reality nothing but a plasma lensing......

It has everything to do with refraction. EVERY single time a photon is absorbed by an electron the photon imparts momentum to the electron, resulting in bremsstrahlung, too soft to be observed. But the process leads to photons in high energy electrons being emitted in the forward direction, which is why you can even see galaxies through those vast plasma halos.....

Let us repeat again: "can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering .”"

This is also why that dust found to be coming into the solar system that was 30 times greater than predicted, does not lead to isotropic scattering or extinction of the light..... Why the solar wind on it's outward journey interacting with incoming photons does not scatter it or extinct it.....

Get out of your box, it's hampering you so badly you have to ignore 99.9% of the universe.....

 

[The Barbarian]

“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 .”

Explain to us why you think that this changes the fact that the movement of the Sun in the Galaxy is precisely as predicted by gravitational theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You've been misled again. Although we can't directly observe the center of the galaxy (and therefore can't directly calculate the expected orbit of the sun) we can, by indirect methods, do this. Turns out it fits the theory nicely.
Distance & Speed Of Sun's Orbit Around Galactic Centre Measured - Universe Today

Lol, all they did was approximate the suns "VELOCITY" around the center "relative" to other stars and our distance.

No gravitational theory was used at all.......

"But by incorporating data from the Gaia observatory, the UofT team was able to obtain a much more comprehensive data set and narrow the distance to galactic center by a significant amount."

Now pay attention to the Fairie Dust......

"The next step was to combine this information with proper motion calculations of Sagittarius A* – the supermassive black hole believed to be at the center of our galaxy. After correcting for its motion relative to background objects, they were able to effectively triangulate the Earth’s distance from the center of the galaxy."

So you correct for something you can't observe........ nor derive its motion since it's never been observed, else the word "Believed" would have been "known"......

And now more Fairie Dust....

"“Stars with very close to zero angular momentum would have plunged towards the Galactic center where they would be strongly affected by the extreme gravitational forces present there. This would scatter them into chaotic orbits taking them far above the Galactic plane and away from the Solar neighbourhood… By measuring the velocity with which nearby stars rotate around our Galaxy with respect to the Sun, we can observe a lack of stars with a specific negative relative velocity. And because we know this dip corresponds to 0 km/sec, it tells us, in turn, how fast we are moving.”"

So now they can use stars that have chaotic orbits (incalculable) and a misdirection, since then they measured the velocity of nearby stars, not the chaotic ones......

You people will buy anything.....

Relativity says that velocities can only be known relative to something else. You can measure our velocity relative to another star all you like, but you can never know the exact velocity of anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Explain to us why you think that this changes the fact that the movement of the Sun in the Galaxy is precisely as predicted by gravitational theory.

Except it isnt predicted by gravitational theory. Its calculated "RELATIVE" to the velocity of other stars, not using gravitational theory.....

 

[The Barbarian]

Lol, all they did was approximate the suns "VELOCITY" around the center "relative" to other stars and our distance.

Nope. Because we know for certain what the gravitational constant is, (and it doesn't matter whether the mass is ionized or not), we can infer the amount of mass by the motion of a body.

"The next step was to combine this information with proper motion calculations of Sagittarius A* – the supermassive black hole believed to be at the center of our galaxy. After correcting for its motion relative to background objects, they were able to effectively triangulate the Earth’s distance from the center of the galaxy."

So you correct for something you can't observe........

Yep. Because of the gravitational constant, we can determine the mass involved.

Stars with very close to zero angular momentum would have plunged towards the Galactic center where they would be strongly affected by the extreme gravitational forces present there. This would scatter them into chaotic orbits taking them far above the Galactic plane and away from the Solar neighbourhood… By measuring the velocity with which nearby stars rotate around our Galaxy with respect to the Sun, we can observe a lack of stars with a specific negative relative velocity. And because we know this dip corresponds to 0 km/sec, it tells us, in turn, how fast we are moving.”"

So now they can use stars that have chaotic orbits (incalculable) and a misdirection, since then they measured the velocity of nearby stars, not the chaotic ones......

We can determine our speed with respect to the galaxy, yes.

Relativity says that velocities can only be known relative to something else.

Nope. That's not what it says. Newton demonstrated that. Actually, Galileo came close to doing that. If you understood physics a little more, it would help you. But then, you wouldn't be telling us about the fairy dust that opposes gravity, would you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Explain to us why you think that this changes the fact that the movement of the Sun in the Galaxy is precisely as predicted by gravitational theory.

As to light refracting, you didn't understand that one either. You are in over your head...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. Because we know for certain what the gravitational constant is, (and it doesn't matter whether the mass is ionized or not), we can infer the amount of mass by the motion of a body.

You better rethink that ionized or not part.....

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level.""

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Because we know for certain what the gravitational constant is, (and it doesn't matter whether the mass is ionized or not), we can infer the amount of mass by the motion of a body.

You better rethink that ionized or not part.....

Nope. We can observed that the Sun, for example, wobbles precisely as it should from gravitational effects. Would you like me to show you, again?

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level.""

Show us that gravity pulls less (or more, or whatever you think it does differently) on small bits of matter than it does on large ones.

 

[sjastro]

Sigh, you really do not comprehend do you......

Let me post that again.....

“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....

Do you understand anything about why light is slowed in a medium? Do you think light magically passes through a medium and doesn't interact with that medium????

And what do electrons with a high energy accelerated by the momentum imparted by a photon do after the time of dt?????

They emit a photon in the "forward" direction....

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.”

Just what do you think we are discussing? What is with the strawman of plasma being the source of the photons???? Are you daft???? or is that your best misdirection because you couldn't think of anything actually scientific?????

We are and have always been talking about light from a distant galaxy being refracted by the plasma. Any light must pass through those plasma halos and interact with that plasma.

it isn't opaque as your strawman tried to show. It doesn't scatter them isotropically as your other strawman tried to show.... None of your claims match observations.

Yet that light MUST interact with that plasma halo as it passes through it.... And it does, it is refracted, with the majority being re-emitted after absorption in the "forward" direction with a very small cross section being angled... Hence your Fairie Dust gravitational "lensing" is in reality nothing but a plasma lensing......

It has everything to do with refraction. EVERY single time a photon is absorbed by an electron the photon imparts momentum to the electron, resulting in bremsstrahlung, too soft to be observed. But the process leads to photons in high energy electrons being emitted in the forward direction, which is why you can even see galaxies through those vast plasma halos.....

Let us repeat again: "can never be excluded. In fact, this radiation is always present even in the so-called elastic scattering .”"

This is also why that dust found to be coming into the solar system that was 30 times greater than predicted, does not lead to isotropic scattering or extinction of the light..... Why the solar wind on it's outward journey interacting with incoming photons does not scatter it or extinct it.....

Get out of your box, it's hampering you so badly you have to ignore 99.9% of the universe.....

This is pure comedy.
It’s quite amusing for you to give me a lecture on refraction when you clearly don’t even understand its definition.
Refraction is defined where the frequency of the photons does not change.
That alone makes a mockery of your explanation.
If the incident photon imparts momentum then it loses energy and its frequency changes.
Similarly Bremmstrahlung is a continuous spectrum, where photons are emitted over a wide range of frequencies and bears absolutely no resemblance to the discrete photon imparting momentum.
Observations show astrophysical plasmas radiate bremmstrahlung predominately in the radio and X-ray frequency range where the mechanism is not due to colliding photons but relativistic jets of charged particles.
Where does that leave you with the explanation of bremmstrahlung causing refraction in the optical spectrum?
Then there is the very simple explanation galaxies can be seen through the plasma halo because it is optically thin due to the extremely low density.
Simple isn’t without having to go through the complicated nonsense of Bremmsstrahlung.

So another characteristic of magic plasma is where Bremmstrahlung is able to reproduce the refraction of external photons from a background object even though these photons do not exist, as the photons are created by decelerating charges in the plasma.
Priceless……………

The magic plasma table has been updated accordingly.

The connection between Fermat's principle and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Fermat's principle is the main principle of quantum electrodynamics which states that any particle (e.g. a photon or an electron) propagates over all available, unobstructed paths and that the interference, or superposition, of its wavefunction over all those paths at the point of observation gives the probability of detecting the particle at this point. Thus, because the extremal paths (shortest, longest, or stationary) cannot be completely canceled out, they contribute most to this interference.

 

[Astrophile]

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).

Although I have asked you several times, you have not yet explained why binary stars, which consist entirely of plasma, orbit around their common centre of gravity according to Newton's laws, without requiring 'dark matter' or 'Fairie Dust'.

 

[lesliedellow]

There are other people on here, better able to put down unbridled arrogance arising from the Dunning Kruger Effect. So post deleted.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Explain to us why you think that this changes the fact that the movement of the Sun in the Galaxy is precisely as predicted by gravitational theory.

(he has no idea)

As to light refracting, you didn't understand that one either. You are in over your head...

Sorry, no diversions. Explain to us why you think your cut and paste changes the fact that the movement of the Sun in the Galaxy is precisely as predicted by gravitational theory.

Do that, and we'll show you how refraction works, again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I am, just as I am aware those so called gravitational "lensing" affects are optical phenomenon caused by those vast halos of plasma that surround every galaxy, and have nothing to do with "your" Fairie Dust......

Sorry, such lensing was demonstrated in 1919 when, as Einstein predicted, stars behind the sun were seen during an eclipse. On the other hand, you still can't demonstrate that your fairie dust even exists.

And if you realize that sun dogs don't support your case, why even show us them?

 

[The Barbarian]

The magic plasma table has been updated accordingly.

To keep the terminology consistent, shouldn't we call it "fairie dust plasma?"

 

[SelfSim]

There are other people on here, better able to put down unbridled arrogance arising from the Dunning Kruger Effect. So post deleted.

I'm seriously beginning to doubt that we're actually dealing with a humanoid argument here .. (so D-K may actually not be applicable? Ie: can D-K be diagnosed from a non-humanoid argument source?)
There appears to be evidence of random google word-searches and complete and utter disregard of counter responses.
Barbarian sjastro and Astrophile, (IMO), are doing a sterling job of actually managing to piece together the totally unrelated 'dots' being blasted out, whilst rightfully discarding the totally irrelevant diversions. Somewhat unfortunately, this then also tends to confer the illusion of cognitive functions (and thereby bias) upon the source of the argument.