plasma vs. dark matter

[D_Archer]

I think I can help illustrate the problem that Jone is pointing out. If we start with this article http://www.space.com/16412-dark-matter- ... sters.html ,we see that the mainstream wants to build a dark matter bridge between galaxies. While nick is right, that the mainstream is missing the E-M forces involved, we still can't do away with the missing mass problem. If we want to suggest that we are actually seeing galaxies connected on giant plasma filaments, those filaments must have mass.
So this is the problem: The mainstream wants to say the connection is dark matter, which by definition they can not see. Yet we want to make them strings of normal baryonic matter, that we can't see? So again,while nick is right that there are a number of ways we should be able to see this plasma, that only makes Jone's problem worse.
Jone's question is not so much "Can you give me more and more ways to see this plasma?", but "How can all that plasma be out there WITHOUT us seeing it?" That is the mainstream objection she is fighting.

Light absorption by plasma comes too close to a tired light theory and in EU the emitted light is already shifted at origin. (ie plasma redshift in the lab).

So if Jone would say that light IS absorbed by plasma that would not be conductive to any meaningful discussion.

And the answer is NO anyway, light passes through tenous plasma without any problems. And dense plasma can only refract light not absorb it.

How come we do not see the plasma? I would think that we DO see it, we just need to look better, Sparky sees magnetic fields, radio telescopes see filaments etc.

Regards,
Daniel

[celeste]

dense plasma can only refract light not absorb it.

How come we do not see the plasma? I would think that we DO see it, we just need to look better

Regards,
Daniel

Daniel, Yes, we have some of the matter visible here http://www.space.com/5331-piece-missing ... atter.html
This is the portion that works as Nick describes. And we know we have refraction of light here too. That is the "gravitational lensing" they see from the "dark matter".
If you look at Edward Dowdye's model of bending of light, you see that while it is plasma bending the light, it is still gravitational forces acting on that plasma, that is required. I believe this is what is happening along the filament too. Instead of having light bent at the surface of a sphere (as Dowdye models), we would have light bending at the surface of a cylinder. What this would imply, is that there is in fact a lot of gravitational mass in that filament.
If we look at this (smaller scale filament), http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/apn6/PROCEE ... -Clyne.pdf
we see that the central star is not at the center of the filament. This is why they are looking for (but not finding) a binary companion for the star. What the mainstream understands, is that we can not have a massive star star spiraling around some low mass wispy filament. Either there is some companion star hidden there,or that filament is more massive than we realize. We also see our sun "skimming" the surface of the local cloud, and no star across the cloud from us.
What I'm trying to say is this: While the mainstream is wrong about needing "dark matter" (it is just plasma behaving in a way they don't understand), they are right that most of the mass is in fact not tied up in stars or galaxies. These filaments that we don't (or barely) see, must be truly massive.

[jone dae]

I think I can help illustrate the problem that Jone is pointing out. If we start with this article http://www.space.com/16412-dark-matter- ... sters.html ,we see that the mainstream wants to build a dark matter bridge between galaxies. While nick is right, that the mainstream is missing the E-M forces involved, we still can't do away with the missing mass problem. If we want to suggest that we are actually seeing galaxies connected on giant plasma filaments, those filaments must have mass.
So this is the problem: The mainstream wants to say the connection is dark matter, which by definition they can not see. Yet we want to make them strings of normal baryonic matter, that we can't see? So again,while nick is right that there are a number of ways we should be able to see this plasma, that only makes Jone's problem worse.
Jone's question is not so much "Can you give me more and more ways to see this plasma?", but "How can all that plasma be out there WITHOUT us seeing it?" That is the mainstream objection she is fighting.

I would like to add to Celeste's comment, that some of the mainstream are saying, "I don't care if 98% of the observable universe is plasma, or not; there is still Dark Matter, and lots of it. " To them, all that charged space, and all those charged bodies travelling through it, are irrelevant. This makes it much more difficult to talk to them. I pointed out to one man, that it isn't necessary to invent dark matter in the first place, it isn't necessary at all to explain the observable universe; and implied in my statements, that plasma is so necessary.

[jone dae]

Light absorption by plasma comes too close to a tired light theory and in EU the emitted light is already shifted at origin. (ie plasma redshift in the lab).

So if Jone would say that light IS absorbed by plasma that would not be conductive to any meaningful discussion.

And the answer is NO anyway, light passes through tenuous plasma without any problems. And dense plasma can only refract light not absorb it.

How come we do not see the plasma? I would think that we DO see it, we just need to look better, Sparky sees magnetic fields, radio telescopes see filaments etc.

Regards,
Daniel

I have told people, that you can see plasma when it is in, what they call, the Glow Mode. It is my understanding that it doesn't emit visible light otherwise.

One more thing, Daniel, ... their "Tired Light Theory" is just another tired light theory, from the big bangers, if you see what I mean.

[Sparky]

that you can see plasma when it is in, what they call, the Glow Mode. It is my understanding that it doesn't emit visible light otherwise.

Or look for it using different eyes....I like arc mode..!

[Zyxzevn]

Light absorption by plasma comes too close to a tired light theory and in EU the emitted light is already shifted at origin. (ie plasma redshift in the lab).

So if Jone would say that light IS absorbed by plasma that would not be conductive to any meaningful discussion.

And the answer is NO anyway, light passes through tenous plasma without any problems. And dense plasma can only refract light not absorb it.

How come we do not see the plasma? I would think that we DO see it, we just need to look better, Sparky sees magnetic fields, radio telescopes see filaments etc.

Regards,
Daniel

Maybe it would help to refer to Thomson scattering?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering

Plasma can cause Thomson scattering of light, causing it to change frequencies.
In sparse plasma this effect can be very subtile, and could be responsible for a gradual Redshift.

Presence and influence of plasma would give a huge difference in the model of the universe.

Within a academic environment I would suggest
that this Thomson scattering might have changed redshifts of quasars and some other objects, and we would need to study such influences to correct our distance observations.

I would like to add to Celeste's comment, that some of the mainstream are saying, "I don't care if 98% of the observable universe is plasma, or not; there is still Dark Matter, and lots of it. " To them, all that charged space, and all those charged bodies travelling through it, are irrelevant...

About dark matter, I would try to use normal matter rules for dark matter. But add electrical and magnetic forces to them, because they might just behave like normal matter.
Just suggest that dark matter might be more polarized, and has some kind of relativity related forces.
This is the only way to explain the spiraling structures and other effects.
Next step: make the dark matter weightless, but connected with matter.
Then dark matter will be the carriers of electromagnetic forces. That is practically the electric universe.

This way the EU can be used as a model for "dark matter", because it describes its behavior
very clearly. Let themselves find out that we don't need dark matter anyway.

[jone dae]

@Zyxzven,

That's a good workaround. I'm not concerned to prove anything, online or offline. I'm satisfied as a scientist that the models, experiments, predictions, and corresponding results, for the EU are adequate, and growing almost daily. So, I partly agree with the "let them find out for themselves" response. But I would like for some kind of dialog to take place, beyond separate scientists publishing papers that disagree with each other, with the scientists staying several steps away from each other. Laymen throw websites at each other to support their views; everyone there validates their opinions using the opinions of others; but none states her own view, without quoting others. (Present company excepted.) Similarly we and the big-bangers are throwing papers and videos at each other. We should each of us be able to discuss, how and why the gravity-only models have failed and the EU models have succeeded. And I don't lack communication skills; one of my B.A.s is in Communication Studies. That was a DIY degree through a private college which grants degrees for people who have designed their own degree programs and successfully completed them, and mine was a mix of "hard" and "soft" communication studies. "Soft" being, as you might guess, linguistics, psycholinguistics, semiotics, body-language, and so on; and the "hard" studies were technical, communication theory and technology, based on the works of Claude Shannon, Wiener, Von Neumann, and so on. I used a study of radio astronomy, for example, completed as part of a regular college course in Astronomy, in that degree. I include this aside since it is relevant.
What I lack is time. As my profile/bio shows, I work at two jobs within one company, and maintain blogs and so on as well; and then I have a personal life, as well. And the ideas I've seen so far here are helpful. Thanks.
If I were tutoring a student, I could, using resources from this website, and others, make a course of study for them, which would show them how and why the gravity model failed, and the EU model succeeded; and charge a fee for it, too. This is more about, conversations sometimes with scientists and sometimes with laymen, online and offline. For instance, I told a friend that plasma didn't absorb light in the way that a man on you tube had claimed that it does; and the friend made that point to the man on you tube, a big-banger.
Those are all very small activities, but if they were multiplied by a million, say, then we could bring about the success of this revolution in science which we all have started. My regular research partner is Jae Kamel, and he has been telling people online, on social media and so on, as well as offline, that we are in the midst of a revolution in science; and I agree with him, but also think he may be seeing into the future a little. Most mainstream especially astronomers are still continuing as they always have, and have no idea of what's going on, literally. For example, NASA has launched at least a dozen satellites in recent decades, which are specifically designed to gather data on EU-type phenomena: the sun, the solar wind, the toroidal energy fields around the earth and the other planets and their satellites, and so on; see what I mean? All of you reading this know about the great interest which NASA has in electrical and magnetic phenomena in space and in/around planets, but the big-bangers do not. It troubles me.

[jone dae]

What I'm trying to say is this: While the mainstream is wrong about needing "dark matter" (it is just plasma behaving in a way they don't understand), they are right that most of the mass is in fact not tied up in stars or galaxies. These filaments that we don't (or barely) see, must be truly massive.

Someone is missing the fact that the charged plasmas have more mass than "inert" gases" do. The big-bangers seems to forget that an increased electrical charge corresponds to an increased mass.

JD.

[jone dae]

@Sparky, thanks for that post about the plasma red-shift by Brynjolfsson, that's really answering a lot of questions; and questioning a few answers, as well. I didn't see the post last time I looked here.
JD

[jone dae]

@Celeste, In your reply to Daniel, your first link went to a webpage which ended with this quote, ""So far we could only see the clusters, the dense knots of the web. Now we are starting to see the connecting wires of the immense cosmic spider web," said MPE study team member Aurora Simionescu of the discovery of this missing baryonic matter. "; apparently they are seeing the vast filaments in space, after all.

Your other insights seem sound to me as well, for example, that the light-bending modeling should be done as a the surface of a cylinder rather than the surface of a sphere. Thanks for that post.
JD

[Steve Smith]

@Jone Dae, Hannes Alfvén estimated that galactic magnetic fields could be as great as 10^19 amperes. Plasma physicist, Dr. Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratories estimated that the Birkeland current filaments powering galaxies start at 300,000 light years apart and carry 10^18 amps of current, with a length of 350 megaparsecs. No matter how you look at it, that's a lot of matter in the form of charged particles and a tremendous amount of attractive force -- far greater than gravity can account for.

Heres a wealth of resources all "from the horses mouths":

http://plasmauniverse.info/papers.html#COSMOLOGY

Rather then hearing information piecemeal and from we secondary (or tertiary) sources, this will provide you with some satisfactory reading. Then you can use the information in the adversarial camps. To be honest, though, it's not easy to present information to those who aren't willing to listen.

[celeste]

Heres a wealth of resources all "from the horses mouths":

http://plasmauniverse.info/papers.html#COSMOLOGY

Rather then hearing information piecemeal and from we secondary (or tertiary) sources, this will provide you with some satisfactory reading.

Steve, I'm absolutely a fan of going to source material. But of course, that is where the real "piecemeal" material lies.
Look at Donald Scott's filament model as explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKG7HFM21Qk
and then look at Wal Thornhill's galaxy model here: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... -galaxies/

Don't get me wrong, Scott and Thornhill are both geniuses in my book, but they can't both be right in their depictions of magnetic field directions. Either magnetic fields around a current filament vary from axial to azimuthal (Scott's model), or they show up as azimuthal fields as around galactic arms (Thornhill's depiction of the field around spiral arms). Knowing how closely Scott and Thornhill are working together, you can realize what kind of fodder this is for the mainstream.

I'll state emphatically: Always seek out source material when available,and become quite familiar with what it is saying. Do not, however, underestimate the abilities of the forum members here ("we secondary sources"),to put the "piecemeal" into a coherent picture.

On that note, I'd like to add a quick thank you to forum members here. I don't know where the brainpower comes from, or what on earth keeps you all so driven to find answers, but I've learned more in discussions here, than I did in all my years in college. When you realize the mainstream (or even the big names in EU),are not listening, don't get discouraged. I see big things brewing here.

[Steve Smith]

Wal Thornhill's diagram is based on that described by Hannes Alfvén, and the posting on his (Thornhill's) site dates from 1999. As the title of Professor Scott's presentation indicates, it is a "new" model for Birkeland currents. It's unfair to both of them for you to compare the two and then assume that one or both of them are wrong. Professor Scott's model has changed the understanding of Birkeland currents for everyone, regardless of their associations. Realizing that the attractive force is an order of magnitude greater then previously thought ought to make everyone re-think some things. It's making me re-think how I approach my Picture of the Day articles, and it is causing Wal Thornhill to re-think his galaxy evolution model. Professor Scott's information was not known to any of us until March of this year, so give it time to be absorbed. If Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland were alive today, they would also be edified by his analysis.

I continue to stand by my assertion that the Thunderbolts forum is a mish-mash of half-truths and outright confusion that is rarely illuminated. Sometimes, I'm struck by an insight that makes me sit up and think, but that doesn't often happen. It's no criticism on anyone in particlular, it's simply because there are large numbers of participants who know little or nothing about the tenets of Electric Universe theory. I believe what Paul Feyerabend said: in science anything goes, so I don't concern myself with that too much. For someone like Jone Dae, however, who wants solid foundations on which to present data to mainstream opponents, nothing can beat Nobel-laureate Hannes Alfvén and his protégé, Dr. Anthony Peratt. I prefer to base my recommendations on the work of those who are acknowledged masters: Cosmic Plasma is a masterwork. Sorry if that offends you.

[celeste]

It's unfair to both of them for you to compare the two and then assume that one or both of them are wrong.

I'm not "assuming" one or both are wrong. I'm showing that Scott's model shows quite explicitly WHERE Thornhill's galaxy model is still wrong. I don't disagree that Thornhill is still examining Scott's idea,and will probably "fix" his galactic model accordingly. I'm just stating that when that happens, you may note that already in this forum,the idea of applying Scott's filament model to Thornhill's galaxy model, has already been discussed, and implications to the flow of stellar streams according to that "new" model,will have already been established.

[celeste]

Professor Scott's information was not known to any of us until March of this year, so give it time to be absorbed.

Yet that did not stop us from discussing Scott's ideas in this forum, back in October of LAST year. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=14672
I would like to point out too, that while I started that thread being quite skeptical, by mid November, I and other forum members were quite "on board" (see comments by Solar,Jim Johnson,etc). Again, I think you are seriously underestimating the research abilities of forum members. At the very least, we were AWARE of Scott's theory before March of this year.