The Focus Fusion Society Forums Plasma Cosmology and BBNH Physics Nobel to Big Bangers

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2412
    MARK LOFTS
    Participant

    Dear Pluto,

    Welcome Back!

    Yes, I am having a further read of books on galactic structure – and feel I should retract part of the last posting for a partial alteration.

    The question is that of a possible change from elliptical to spiral galaxies. I now realize that is not impossible for ellipticals to ‘change’ into spirals if these ellipticals somehow become involved in larger plasma vortex which breaks up the elliptical galaxy or group of ellipticals – with the addition of further hydrogen plasma. If hydrogen plasma in large vortices was swirling around and breaking up an elliptical galaxy it could lead to the formation of large type 2 stars which would then convert to type 1 stars and seed the next generation of the ‘former elliptical’ population. However the important fuel for this process is the plasma itself since an elliptical galaxy in existence for a very long time e.g. 30,000,000,000 years i.e. about twice what is allowed for the Big Bang, would be using up its hydrogen by then so would need a further boost to its fuel sources, hydrogen-to-carbon/oxygen/calcium/iron conversion probably not being extensive enough in the last type 2 generation in the ellipticals to effect any change in the galaxy. That is, by itself, an old elliptical would just convert into pure He!

    You see that I assign an active role to the plasma – the plasma coming in from outside the galaxy rather than being some mysterious internal product. Nor do I invoke the spontaneous ‘Popping into existence’ (i.e. Karl Popper theory-like) of hydrogen atoms that was first proposed by Fred Hoyle. This means that the total mass of the elliptical galaxy on its breakup will increase because of the addition of the plasma (comprising primarily a hydrogen plasma), the result being the generation of a spiral galaxy with old type 2 relic stars in small galaxies around it – I suppose, but I cannot show you an astronomical demonstration of such a conversion.

    What I am really trying to get to you consider is not so much the conversion-breakup of an elliptical to a spiral – which must be very unusual – but the source of the plasma in the first place. This latter is the basic problem of Lerner’s plasma cosmological model. An attempt at a solution for this was actually undertaken by Alfven, who, though unsuccessful, mentions an early and progressive cosmological conception updated in Sweden in the late 19th/early 20th century – until it was suppressed by the Einstein fraternity. I refer to the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology – it avoids Olbers’ Paradox!

    The website you give in your posting is highly relevant here. When I looked at it it seemed unfamiliar at first but that was only the terminology. What the writer of the “Time Acceleration Hypothesis” really intends to say is that there is no Big Bang in the sense of an ‘Expanding Universe’ but rather it is the obverse of the Big Bang position. That is, the universe is finite and static is size – as Einstein wished to believe – but in order to harmonize with the features interpreted as proving the Big Bang, one claims instead that all the objects in the universe are shrinking – galaxies, stars, planets, people and atoms are all shriking in size. According to this theory, we are not aware of our shrinking relative to space itself so we mistakenly infer that space is expanding!

    Conversely I consider we must reject that theory because it too is based on the finite universe principles established by Einstein – i.e. special and general relativity. I realize of course that the Big Bang was already put forward by that classic Gothic horror writer Edgar Allan Poe, an American as Lerner points out! What is generally not perceived is that Einstein gave such views scientific respectability – so if we don’t achieve focus fusion, there really is gothic horror facing humanity on our planet! I ask you now to consider a non-Einsteinian infinite universe – and again the question as to where the plasma that could break up a ‘tired old He-filled elliptical galaxy’ could come from.

    Yours faithfully

    Mark

    #2413
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello Mark

    Where does plasma come from?

    Mate, in its true definition all is plasma.

    Think about it.

    Now the compacted cores that are found in star bodies is something special. Most of the Milky way mass is found in compacted cores.

    There are varies ways to create this compacted matter.

    By some form of gravity sinks throughout the galaxy being used to make a zone stable enough to hold compacted matter such as Neutrons. Starformation process.

    Theoretical opinion.
    The other is by black holes ejecting compacted matter, this type of matter is very special, a soccer ball size has the same mass as our sun. Elliptical galaxies are formed and structures by these active neucleons ejecting these gravity sinks. Imagine a few would make a cluster of stars.
    Now imagine what this jet can form, like a wild hose ejecting matter thousands of light years into space. This is against main stream thought. So I’m uptream. Smile

    #2416
    MARK LOFTS
    Participant

    Dear Pluto,

    Yes I agree, most of the mass in our galaxy is plasma though most of it is not the tenuous plasma primarily the subject of plasma cosmology. Rather it is a dense plasma, the material of stars, that for the most part is gravitationally confined. Not all matter is plasma however. If positive and negative charges are bound together in atoms – or exchange only in highly ordered circumstances e.g. electrolytic dissociation – these materials are not plasmas by definition.

    Your comment on neutrons in the interior or stars is very important. What we call degenerate matter inside stars is difficult to comprehend because of our lack of ability to mimic it in the laboratory. What I would have to take exception to is the Einstein-dependent theorizing – the idea that black holes or other such imaginary beasties lie in stars or elsewhere in the universe. Hence too John Gribbin’s idea of ‘white holes’ the spontaneous Popping-into-existence of matter in a localized area – a reciprocal relativity-based fantasy to make up for black holes. Rather, the high-energy plasma that we see in the universe is condensing from a more tenuous form widely distributed everywhere. What I am asking is that you consider the dynamics of galactic recession coupled to plasma condensing into new stars and galaxies.

    What we actually see in telescopes is far more exciting than black hole speculation. Consider the Hubble picture of a Wolf-Rayet star whose surface temperature is about 70,000K! The image of the star’s surface did not reveal a circle i.e. a spherical object but rather a spiral object. This implies massive electromagnetic forces within the star that dominate even its shape! There is much interesting new physics that could be found here – if we could monitor such stars more closely. This is why I support lunar telescopes rather than another floating-in-space telescope.

    I also wonder, Pluto, if, judging by your slang, you are a dinki-di Australian like me?

    Yours faithfully

    Mark

    #2419
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello Mark

    I have been in ozzzzzzzzzzzz for 51 years from an Island called Cyprus the centre of the universe.

    Galactic recession,,,,,,,,,,,,I need info so that I can prove it, who knows I could be wrong.

    Ultra dense plasma matter is my pet subject.

    I have this intereting link from Prof Olover Manuel

    http://www.omatumr.com/index.html

    Cutting edge info.

    also read this on Neutron Stars
    http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/

    http://books.google.com/books?id=mVdoYyT7LqIC&dq=neutron+stars&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=MkTM_KmaXT&sig=nGwL1IEnCrtsQGbnmKneBOAMY0E#PPA3,M1

    http://snns.in2p3.fr/nstar/0609meeting.html

    http://www.milkyweb.de/astrolinks/neutronenstern.htm
    http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19461296/
    http://focus.aps.org/story/v4/st22

    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/neutrones/home.html

    Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,have fun with it

    Maybe you know all the above and if so,,,,,,,,,,,,thats great

    #2420
    AaronB
    Participant

    I’m enjoying this discussion and have learned a lot. A thought came to me as I studied up on Olbers’ paradox. We’ll call this Aaron’s Paradox. Instead of assuming that I will see a star in any direction that I look, let’s assume that I’ll see a dust cloud in any direction that I look. In the same line of reasoning, wouldn’t we be able to conclude that the universe would be dark? It seems to me that if the universe was infinite, with relatively uniform distribution of both stars AND dust clouds, and that they were in a relatively uniform ratio, then you could use a cluster of galaxies and surrounding space as a representation of the whole universe. In Olbers’ paradox, it is claimed that the dust cloud would eventually heat up from all of the light coming in and re-radiate it at stellar temperatures. It seems to me that the temperature of the dust cloud would be proportional to the number of active stars and intensity of light divided by the volume of space and mass of the dust clouds and non-shining matter. I suppose that eventually the large dust clouds and interspacial gases would heat up, but only a small bit, like maybe 3 degrees K. Oh wait, that’s the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Never mind.

    #2421
    Lerner
    Participant

    Olber’s paradox does not hold as long as we admit that, observationally, there is a correlation between distance and redshift. It does not matter if the redshift is caused by expansion, or by the loss of energy of the light. The redshift will be very high before you are likely to hit a stars surface, so the brightness observed will be very low.

    It also does not hold in any evolving universe, whether Big Bang or one infinitely old. In either case there will be some time before which no stars or galaxies exist. Again, you will probably go past the distance corresponding to that time long before your average sight line hits a stellar surface.

    Aaron is on track that we can account for the energy inthe CMB. Jsut calculate the nergy released in creating the helium we observe and you get the right energy density and thus temperature for the CMB.

    #2425
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello Mark

    I have read your posts.

    Have you considered, what actaully happens to EMR when it comes and goes from an ultra dense matter such as a Neutron star.

    As for the source of the plasma.

    Have you look at the formation of neutron cores.

    Do you understand where the neutrons come from? Do you understand what triggers the process?

    #2426
    MARK LOFTS
    Participant

    Dear AaronB

    Thank you very much for your ingenious insight into presenting a static uniform Newtonian-like universe

    #2427
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello AaronB

    This link is for you

    http://woodall.ncsa.uiuc.edu/dbock/Vis/NeutronStar/Summary.html

    Smile and others.

    #2428
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello Mark

    You said

    I imagine you are well aware that BBNH is essentially one protracted argument against lowering the star/dust ratio

    #2429
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello All

    Olbers Paradox.

    http://aeolist.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/the-modern-day-olbers-paradox/

    Some say its not a paradox

    It becomes a paradox because man is in conflict over the paradox.

    Based on

    Is the universe endless or finite.

    #2430
    pluto
    Participant
    #2431
    AaronB
    Participant

    Mark,

    You have obviously given this a lot more thought than I have. It was not my intention to promote an infinite universe of infinite age with infinite matter. Those are just the assumptions of Olbers’ paradox. Personally, I think we are just beginning to understand the universe we are living in. 100 years ago, we were just beginning to build telescopes that allowed us to see the closest galaxies with any clarity. A lot has changed since then. I suspect that in another 100 years, cosmology will have many new telescopes and observations at its disposal, so the theories will be very different. I’m not claiming to know the answer. I just like to point out that when people make theories or claim paradoxes, they need to take into account all of the observed or logical information before making that claim. IMHO, it is best to avoid using imaginary, unobserved phenomen as a basis for conclusions and decisions. Let the theory fit the observation, and not the other way around. Work from what you know, not what you don’t know.

    Here’s a wild thought on redshift. What if the “fabric” of the universe is pulled tighter by the creation of matter (bunching and knotting), so that in an area thick with matter, the fabric is pulled tighter? That would explain gravitational attraction between all particles, but it would also create a situation where the fabric in the center of the known (populated) universe would be slightly tighter than the fabric out by the most distant galaxies on the edge of the populated area. Light created in these most distant galaxies would have to speed up as it entered the tighter fabric where we reside, and so the wavelength would drop in proportion to the tightness of the fabric where it was created (redshift). I guess magnetism would then be the direction of twist in the creation of the particles, and photons would be the “plinking” of the fabric strings. Antimatter fusion would be the counter-twisted particles unwinding themselves back into the fabric, sending off high “plinking” energy. Matter/energy conversion? I suppose that would explain GR effects too as knotted particles approached the speed of wave propogation in the fabric. They would get squished in the direction of travel. Hmmm, unified theory + redshift explanation all before my morning shower? Can’t be. I should go back to bed.

    #2432
    pluto
    Participant

    Hello Aaron

    I agree with you.

    The clusters formed within the known universe have a similarity from the basic atomic structure.

    The seed produces the tree and the tree produces the seed.

    The cyclic universe, endless and timeless in space and matter.

    #2433
    MARK LOFTS
    Participant

    Dear Eric Lerner,

    In view of your statement:

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.