The differences between the LCDM model and GR theory.

[comingfrom]

Bob_Ham asked.

Can you tell me a place where electric/magnetic fields are prevalent but not accounted for and how you know this to be the case?

Planetary magnetic fields.
And I know this to the case because they say they can't account for them.
They say they are guessing [that some planets have internal dynamos], and they say it is still a mystery to them.
('They' being the spokespeople for mainstream science.)
Paul

[comingfrom]

Not during the formation of the solar system, when there was LOTS of plasma hanging around

How much plasma was there? We can calculate the electromagnetic effects from the plasma you propose and see whether it is negligible or not.

And contrary to what you appear to think, electromagnetic effects on plasma are FAR from "negligible".

That is not contrary to what I think. I clearly explained that there are cases in which electromagnetic effects are negligible. I never said that a plasma in general was one of these cases.

Please tell me how much plasma you think there was during the formation of the solar system and why you think that.

If you are using the accretion model for solar system formation, then the amount of plasma was roughly equal the amount of mass currently in the solar system.
~Paul

[flyingcloud]

That sounds like conservation of mass.

edited to add, I think this is where I am supposed to say anyone with a degree would know that. or something to that degree,

how tiresome...

[BeAChooser]

How much plasma was there?

You claim to be the *expert* *degreed* *physicist*.

You give us a number.

Surely one must be on the tip of your tongue after so much indoctrina … err, I mean … education.

Then we’ll see if you really know your stuff.

Eh?

[Bob_Ham]

You give us a number.

The reason I'm asking you is because:

1. You made the claim that there was "LOTS of plasma hanging around" that was unaccounted for. I would like to know how much you think that was, and why you think that.

2. I'm not going to do the calculation with numbers you don't agree with right from the start. You tell me what number you agree with and we'll go ahead with the calculation from there.

[BeAChooser]

The reason I'm asking you is because:

1. You made the claim that there was "LOTS of plasma hanging around" that was unaccounted for. I would like to know how much you think that was, and why you think that.

More than 99%?

After all, that's what you mainstream *degreed* physicists have claimed for the visible universe.

Why should the early solar system have been any different?

So you're my source, Bob.

Unless you want to challenge that number.

In which case, I'll ask you again, what you're number?

[BeAChooser]

The reason I'm asking you is because:

1. You made the claim that there was "LOTS of plasma hanging around" that was unaccounted for. I would like to know how much you think that was, and why you think that.

More than 99%?

After all, that's what you mainstream *degreed* physicists have claimed for the visible universe.

Why should the early solar system have been any different?

So you're my source, Bob.

Unless you want to challenge that number.

In which case, I'll ask you again, what you're number?

Now don't wimp out this time.

[Bob_Ham]

Now don't wimp out this time.

Don't wimp out? You made the claim that electromagnetic effects are non-negligible in the formation of the solar system. Why would it even be my job to investigate your claims? I was honestly willing to go through the calculation with you, one step at a time, but not if you're going to be a dick about it.

Here's what you need to do:

1. Determine the temperature of the collapsing cloud based on the total initial energy of the system.
2. From that temperature, use the Boltzmann distribution and Saha equation to determine how many particles stay in excited or ionized states at this temperature.
3. Determine the evolution of (and distribution of) the temperature of the particles, considering the flux from the sun, but also the thermal emission, bremsstrahlung emission, cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, inverse Compton scattering, etc.
4. Taking all of this into account, determine the characteristic timescale for the disk to collapse down and start to fragment. To do this, you will have to estimate collision rates and consider angular momentum conservation.
5. Do the calculation again, considering only gravitation.
6. Compare the timescales.

[BeAChooser]

LOL!

I see that Bob did indeed wimp out. No number forthcoming from him.

He doesn't want to commit himself to anything, it seems. Or supply ANY sources.

I think it's because he's nothing but hot air.

Because he's smart enough to realize by now that I will use any answer he gives to make him look bad.

He's even afraid to support what the mainstream clearly believes from their own papers.

Never mind trying to get him to explain the angular momentum distribution in the solar system.



By the way, who is the real "dick" here, Bob?

Perhaps the guy who indicated he was only going to respond to the posts of *degreed* physicists.

Because everyone else was beneath him?

Just saying ...

[Zyxzevn]

Here's what you need to do:

1. Determine the temperature of the collapsing cloud based on the total initial energy of the system.
2. From that temperature, use the Boltzmann distribution and Saha equation to determine how many particles stay in excited or ionized states at this temperature.
3. Determine the evolution of (and distribution of) the temperature of the particles, considering the flux from the sun, but also the thermal emission, bremsstrahlung emission, cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, inverse Compton scattering, etc.
4. Taking all of this into account, determine the characteristic timescale for the disk to collapse down and start to fragment. To do this, you will have to estimate collision rates and consider angular momentum conservation.
5. Do the calculation again, considering only gravitation.
6. Compare the timescales.

Haha...

Rolling over the floor
and laughing..

Ok..
Coming back from the floor.

It seems that Bob is not realizing the major problem with the
"science" that is being done in universities.
In these institutes 100 people are each working on a different aspect of the
model, without looking at the interaction with the other aspects.
This causes that each part of the calculation of the model is done separately
with a huge simplification in each part of the model.
Without the simplification the students (!) can not do the calculations that
are necessary to do the part. Often there is data missing, and the students
have to fill in the gaps with assumptions specific to those calculations.
These assumptions can (and will) conflict with the assumptions that other people made
for other calculations.

The over simplification is what created the problem in the first place.
The plasma interacts much more complex as a whole system, and not
as separate independent systems.

This happens when you combine the mainstream models together:

It does not work.

This is generally a problem with science, not just with astronomy.
But in astronomy there is often not a direct link between laboratory experiments and
the models, and this causes the model to move away from reality much faster.

To determine whether a model is good or not, we can see problems that appear in wrong models:
1) The models becomes more and more complex if we go deeper into details.
2) A model uses invisible, undetectable stuff (like dark matter)
3) Strange interactions are necessary that happen nowhere else (magnetic reconnection).
4) Reality gives totally different outcomes or stays unexplained. (Surprises)
5) Huge differences between real measurements and model (Corona).

The fact that you list so many elements, shows that the model that you are using is (1) overly complex
already.
Depending on what the heck you want to model, more of the above problems are also present.

Related to the sun:
Currently the problem with mainstream models of plasma is that they think that magnetic fields
create lines in plasma that bump into each other (3), that also contain and create huge amounts of energy (5).
The magnetic fields related to those lines do not even have any real sources (2),
so these theories are actually based on nothing.

The electric universe, based on experimental evidence, models many of these lines
in plasma as plasma currents. These are layered currents of ions and electrons.
And indeed do we see layers of currents on the sun, and can ALL structures be
modelled that way much easier.

[Michael Mozina]

Speaking of serious problems with their solar model....

Besides their complete lack of an empirical (physical) demonstration of something as simple to produce in the lab as a common electrical corona, they also have a *huge* (two order of magnitude) problem with their convection speed predictions. SDO measured them to be about walking speed, whereas the mainstream model predicts *jet* speed convection that is supposed to generate those powerful magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere where those magnetic fields are supposed to be converted to particle motion in "magnetic reconnection" events. Their "magnetic" power source is *broken* by two whole orders of magnitude! They won't touch that topic with a ten foot pole.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/

[nick c]

Bob Ham,
Your posts containing foul language and ad hom attacks have been removed. Also removed were several responses which have no context without the offending posts.
I do not want to see you banned as lively debate is welcome here, but any further violations of the forum rules will leave me with no choice.

[Bob_Ham]

I do not want to see you banned as lively debate is welcome here

Hahahaha! Give me a break. This forum is an echo chamber and anytime someone brings real physics to the table, they are labeled as some kind of religious fanatic who just blindly believes something. It's pretty ironic too, because it is pretty apparent that none of the EU proponents here understand physics well enough to do anything other than just accept or deny things without being able to actually investigate them for themselves.

[Michael Mozina]

I do not want to see you banned as lively debate is welcome here

Hahahaha! Give me a break. This forum is an echo chamber and anytime someone brings real physics to the table, they are labeled as some kind of religious fanatic who just blindly believes something.

Well, so far Bob you've avoided pretty much every direct question that I've put to you, so it's hard to draw any other conclusion from our interactions to date. You sure seem to be "preaching". Maybe you'd like to address a few of the problem in mainstream solar theory, like your lack of a *working* model to demonstrate a full sphere corona, those problems you have with the speed of convection and how it affects you're "reconnection" models, etc? A two way dialog might make me feel very differently about your interactions with this board.

It's pretty ironic too, because it is pretty apparent that none of the EU proponents here understand physics well enough to do anything other than just accept or deny things without being able to actually investigate them for themselves.

That's called "projection". If we didn't "investigate" things for ourselves, we wouldn't all be here in the first place. What I often find is that most self appointed "skeptics" don't know the first thing about EU/PC theory to start with, and they really haven't investigated it for themselves. They tend to expect *us* to spoon feed the whole theory to them *personally*, math and all, like any single person has *ever* developed a full cosmology theory all by themselves in cyberspace on demand. Come on Bob. Get real. Your expectations aren't even reasonable.

Have you even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven for yourself? Have you actually read Birkeland's full body of work from a place of *pure scientific curiosity*, or are you just here at Thunderbolts looking for a fight?

Your beliefs and claims do *not* work in the lab, whereas *our models do*. You're welcome to be skeptical of our beliefs, and I welcome your input as long as it's directed at a *topic* rather than an individual.

Yes, we're guilty of being "harsh" on "gun-slinging newbies", and admittedly I used an unfair strawman, but since you refuse to answer any of my direct questions, how did you expect me to get your attention if not through humor?

If you could walk even a mile in my shoes, you could understand my frustration with your beliefs in "dark" invisible stuff and inflation, and space expansion and all the beliefs which you cannot demonstrate in the lab.

Where's your sense of curiosity and humility Bob? How about your sense of humor? So far you seem to be in "attack" mode, and seem to be avoiding all the tough questions related to *your* beliefs, while expecting everyone here to mathematically bark for you on command. That hardly seems like a two way discourse. You sure seem to be 'preaching' rather than engaging yourself in a friendly discussion on this topic. What's up with that behavior?

Chill out. Kick back. Ask nicely, and answer questions asked of you fairly, and I'm sure we'll *eventually* get along famously. If you keep playing the role of 'gunslinger' you're likely to get yourself shot up and you'll end up banned here. IMO that would be a pity. We could use some *honest* skepticism around here, but that requires a two way dialog, not "preaching from on high".

[BeAChooser]

This forum is an echo chamber and anytime someone brings real physics to the table, they are labeled as some kind of religious fanatic who just blindly believes something.

LOL! You haven't learned a thing, have you, Bob? You haven't brought any "real" physics to the table. All you've brought are a bunch of magical GNOMES, not one of which has been proven to be real. And any time we've asked you to explain how those gnomes actually produce various observations ... like the angular momentum distribution in the solar system or like helical filaments, you've wimped out. You're run. You've provided no explanation. You've offered no sources to answer the questions. You steadfastly refuse to even look at the work of physicists (like Alfven and Peratt) who published peer reviewed papers that showed how those observations could be reproduced without resorting to gnomes ... using physics that can actually be observed in laboratories. You just keep insisting that only *degreed* physicists are qualified to question the mainstream priesthood. And now, it seems, you're down to whining.