Plasma Cosmology

[Bishadi]

What is the proper foundation?

the energy upon mass is light or electromagnetic energy

think of electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes, then look at the electromegnetic spectrum

http://images.google.com/images?hl=...&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

and realize, that energy upon mass can associate and the increased potential is greater combined than the addidtion of the 2 isolated


or simply; 2 people can lift a greater amount than either single person when adding the values of the separate potentials


that is what to observe energy as................ light

the little script that is like an E=mc2 to Einstein's work, entails the prime three;

mass, energy, time

but that will not leave this site until people are ready

and at this point; the globe is not ready and unlike the Big E, there is more responsibility to knowledge, then trying to appease the intellectual community

as far as i am concerned; for al gore to get a nobel is as stupid as suggesting edison was the father of energy and the light bulb (irresponsible publishing)

people buy what sounds good rather than remain responsible for what they represent...

tell your pop, there is a new sheriff in town and unlike before, this beast is one arrogant sob .....

the knowledge is for the future, not the community of business.

not even one weapon will ever be built by what i bring

 

[Vkothii]

Aha, this is all part of your master-plan for world domination?

Unfortunately, I already control the minds of everyone at this forum, and my plans are well-advanced.
Sorry, you'll have to find another world to dominate, me old chin.

 

[RussT]

could be but below seems you have me mixed up with someone else

Not me

mass is energy affixed in time

Particles are not fixed point of mass. There are no particles

Protons are simply a portion of an event; not building blocks.



no butts.... we all have them and most (if not all ) stink

Then you believe entropy is not a law of equilibrium? (single direction)



not bad

plancks constant is wrong

and if you assist these kids on understanding this, then maybe we could start up them first principles for these puppy's and let them run with a proper foundation.


Russ T, here as well in BAUT..... i am not in this for me

all i care about is that the evolution of knowledge continues and since the kids are who will run this taco stand after we are gone

so to give them an opportunity well ahead of the ignorance of today's paradigm

they can torchure their teachers with material, questions and understanding that cannot be denied

the only reason i hate this plasma garbage is that it is much of just the same; garbage


we can learn the lessons from Alfven but please; that frame is incorrect

you an i both know; existence only opperates in one fashion

could be but below seems you have me mixed up with someone else

Not me

Uh NOOOOO,,,

http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=1059433

 

[RussT]

Link is Broke.
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/



“ Originally Posted by RussT
SN 2008gy is outshining approximately 100 galaxies, and is being touted as 'The Brightest SN ever................SO, how can a single Star, 10+ billion light years distant, Outshine the entire universe including ALL Quasars.........I got just one word for ya all.........Impossible!!! ”

Outshining as in currently happening? Do you have a link?

Outshining is always at "Maximum Brightness".



“ Originally Posted by RussT
I used to agrue that they were NOt 'Beamed', and that they were Isotropic. BUT, the "Jets"/Beams from GRB's are the "First time the "Jets" of a SMBH come on....the "Second Time" those "Jets" come on is when enough baryonic matter has accumulated in the accretion disc, when the become Seyfert Galaxies, when the "Bulge" has become big enough, and those jets become bigger and stronger, as they progress to the Elliptical Galaxy stage, where they stay on as Quasars and Blasars, where the Quasars are not pointed directly at us, and the Blasars are pointed directly at us! ”

So instead of elliptical->spiral, your saying spiral->elliptical. Which is the way it should have been if galaxy morphology was done by the age of the stars instead of how it looked. No wonder they cant figure out why ellipticals have older stars in them.

Actually it goes like this.,.

GRB goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...that is a massive black hole forming to create the High Energy Gamma Radiation...that is creating the electrons/protons,...takes weeks for the afterglow to fade for the shorter 3 second to say 40 second ones and 1 month to say 4 months for the 50 to 100 second ones, and I know of 1 270 second one that took 9 months to fade. ALL of those fade into darkness/cool, and that is when the hydrogen/helium is forming, which could take anywhere from 100,000 to 3-400,000 years to be able to form....just like the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis says it took,,,accept, the whole universe is NOT HOT, so it probably the lower number is more accurate. But, that is just a guestimate on my part, because it has never been studied corectly..

BUT, there are many many of those Dark Matter HI galaxies out there.

Then comes First light, just like I showed for the Ghost Galaxy.

There are many many BCD's (Blue Compact Dwarf) galaxies out there, that are NOT really dwarfs....are they? NO!

SO, those cores get bigger and bigger...you can see where the core in the Ghost Galaxy will get to the "Bar Stage"...look and see where the Bar is going to be.
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/

Anyway, that core will outshine the stars that start to form in those two main arms for quite a while, until those arm stars finally get bright enough to see, and then that galaxy turns into a LSB (Low Surface Bright) Galaxy.

Now, look at M51...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool_Galaxy

Now you see those arms have been 'spun' and the Bar has been 'spun' and those LSB's become HSB's (High Surgace Bright) Galaxies, and then the core grows more and the other arms get their star formation, and you get M31's.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy

Now, in addition to the star formation that happens in a galaxy, over time, dwarf galaxies are flying through these galaxies, and each time they do, some of their stars/globulars are captured, which adds stars and helps further star formation perturbations.

Then the HSB's become Seyfert galaxies where their Bulges have finally grown and the SMBH's Jets start to come on, accelerating matter from the accretion discs.

When the whole process of all ten of its' dwarfs have been merged into a spiral galaxies clutches, and the Bulge has fully formed, we wind up with an Elliptical Galaxy with those Jets always on like M87...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_Galaxy_M87

ALL of the Quasars, Biilions of light years away, are Elliptical galaxies with their Jets ON!!!

Those pointing directly at us are Blasars.

They are NOT new galaxies in the distant and so called earlly universe.

There was NO Early Universe!!!

If an Elliptical Galaxy takes 20 billion years to become fully formed, then if we see one 10 billion light years away, it MUST be at least 30 billion years old!

Until it is studied correctly, it is very hard to say, BUT I am guessing that the Milky Way is ~ 10-13 billion years old and the M87 is at least 25 billion years old.


Originally Posted by RussT
Yes, defintely! BUT, here "extra-Galactic" doesn't just mean outside the Milky Way, BUT outside of ANY galaxy what-so-ever. Actually, they (Long GRB's 3 to 500 seconds) are "Exploding", creating the SMBH and the High Energy Gamma Radiation, at the edge of Voids. Then those "New Galaxies", that are made one at a time, are "Falling" into their particular clusters. ”

This is new information to me. Ive always been told these events are happening outside our galaxy, but always inside OTHER galaxies. Kind of makes you a little angry.

Yep..And I have shown paper after paper on BAUT, that says "Putative Galaxy"....which means "Assumed"....then they take the redshift of that galaxy and say the GRB is in it...But they just ignore it and brush it aside. I aslo have a paper that shows that the redshift of GRB';s is highly suspect and shouldn't even be considered valid!



“ Originally Posted by RussT
I am the first one that has shown as "Cause/Effect" that Long GRB's 3 to 500 seconds, are caused by the forming of Massive Black Holes, to form a New Galaxy...Something that Hoyle was looking for his entire life! ”

Is there somewhere I can read about this?

Just register on BAUT, click on RussT....it's all there.


Originally Posted by RussT
Yes, when the Long 3 to 500 second GRB Afterglows "Fade" to darkness, that is the same process that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis for Hydrogen/Helium to cool and form. ”

So its sorta a mini big bang. Whats the initial cause?

Read what I wrote to Alpha in the "Cause of the Big Bang Thread'

The article was saying the dark galaxy is only about half the diameter. So your also suggesting that galaxies grow as they evolve eventually becoming ellipticals?

Half the diameter of what?

If you are referring to the Milchin "First Dark Galaxy Found", that is most likely a Dwarf galaxy.

Also, be careful here that you do Not get dark galaxy and Dark Matter galaxy mixed up.

The dark galaxy means No Stars yet for a rotating like a galaxy HI cloud of hydrogen gas.

And they will also talk of the DM in this galaxy, which is the Non-baryonic 'Extra Gravity' DM, needed to explain the 'too fast' rotation curves of the stars in spiral galaxies.

 

[Bishadi]

could be but below seems you have me mixed up with someone else

Not me

Uh NOOOOO,,,

http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=1059433

your link does not hook up

but the claim that you made is that ZPE is my game....

and i say......... NO it ain't

you bet i was on BAUT as well probably picked on any fool in Plasma cosmology


yet for the few who really want to learn about PC if i am not mistaken on Kurzweil.net, they also had a PC monkey but with a little brain power to cover most every item under the sun

where as this forum as well baut, do not have quite the depth

in fact for the thinking folk, kurzweil has more in depth material and even if you look a portion of the math, that for a thinker, they could figure out the missing pieces and basically know exactly what is being suggested about the trinity of mass, energy, time.

but if yu can share a post that suggested i endorse or support ZPE as the correct, then maybe you could back up your words....

otherwise russt..... you like most who wish to argue just for arguments sake (bored i guess) and really cannot back up what they say, but quote someone else as if law

 

[Reiku]

Is this a hobby.. i mean, cosmology, and physical sciences?

 

[Bishadi]

Link is Broke.

what?

between your integrity and reality?

Actually it goes like this.,.

GRB goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...that is a massive black hole forming to create the High Energy Gamma Radiation...that is creating the electrons/protons,...

smoking dope

takes weeks for the afterglow to fade for the shorter 3 second to say 40 second ones and 1 month to say 4 months for the 50 to 100 second ones, and I know of 1 270 second one that took 9 months to fade.

this is what fibbing does; it rolls thru

ALL of those fade into darkness/cool, and that is when the hydrogen/helium is forming,

sorry they make helium in lab now... took over the PC job

Observation of nuclear fusion driven
by a pyroelectric crystal


B. Naranjo1, J.K. Gimzewski2,3 & S. Putterman1,3
1Physics Department, 2Chemistry Department, 3CNSI, University of California
Los Angeles, California 90095, USA
............................................................................................................................................................................
While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic1 and
inertial2 confinement, alternative approaches—such as Coulomb
explosions of deuterium clusters3 and ultrafast laser–plasma
interactions4—also provide insight into basic processes and
technological applications. However, attempts to produce fusion
in a room temperature solid-state setting, including ‘cold’ fusion5
and ‘bubble’ fusion6, have met with deep scepticism7. Here we
report that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated
atmosphere can generate fusion under desktop conditions. The
electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate
a deuteron beam (>100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a
deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the
background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction
D 1 D ! 3He (820 keV) 1 n (2.45 MeV)

http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

best to offer real data on how things occur rather than talk about a universal model about BB and nucleosynthesis

which could take anywhere from 100,000 to 3-400,000 years to be able to form....just like the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis says it took,,,accept, the whole universe is NOT HOT, so it probably the lower number is more accurate. But, that is just a guestimate on my part, because it has never been studied corectly..

same o same o

BUT, there are many many of those Dark Matter HI galaxies out there.

and now you talking about galaxies of dark matter that has never even been found to exist

sorry but the rest of the post is simply delusional

 

[EndLightEnd]

Bishadi, you say all this is wrong yet make no assertions of your own.

What do YOU think about galaxy formation then, how are the spiral arms formed? Im all ears.

 

[Vkothii]

...they make helium in lab now... took over the PC job

Do they?
Who are they, and what miraculous technology are they using?
Or did they ask Xenu or something?

 

[RussT]

best to offer real data on how things occur rather than talk about a universal model about BB and nucleosynthesis

Are you smelling what I am putting down...

GRB goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...that is a massive black hole forming to create the High Energy Gamma Radiation...that is creating the electrons/protons,...


Orinally posted by RussT
“ BUT, there are many many of those Dark Matter HI galaxies out there. ”

and now you talking about galaxies of dark matter that has never even been found to exist

And you did not even take the time to understand the warning I showed ELE about mixing up...Dark Galaxy...which is HI/HydrogenI...And the Non-baryonic DM part of that galaxy!!!

Originally Posted by ELE
The article was saying the dark galaxy is only about half the diameter. So your also suggesting that galaxies grow as they evolve eventually becoming ellipticals? ”

Half the diameter of what?

If you are referring to the Milchin "First Dark Galaxy Found", that is most likely a Dwarf galaxy.

Also, be careful here that you do Not get dark galaxy and Dark Matter galaxy mixed up.

The dark galaxy means No Stars yet for a rotating like a galaxy HI cloud of hydrogen gas.

And they will also talk of the DM in this galaxy, which is the Non-baryonic 'Extra Gravity' DM, needed to explain the 'too fast' rotation curves of the stars in spiral galaxies.

And, I am not going to look through all your posts here or on BAUT to find where you are showing how Baryonic Matter is created.....

SO, why don't you just show/tell us in a quick paragraph...

 

[RussT]

I've always wondered about black holes that rotate, or rather have angular momentum.
What is actually rotating, in the case of a rotating black hole?

We can't see a thing except for an event horizon, and below that there isn't anything we can describe as matter, instead time and distance are inverted, or alternately the rotation occurs in time but not distance (the EH appears "frozen" and looks like a stationary area, over any time-integrated part of its surface). So what happens if you integrate over distance, in terms of "time area"?

Vkothii, I have been meaning to get back to this, But it is a very long and complicated answer.

Here is the easy part, and then all I can do is link a thread on BAUT, where I have covered this (Partiallly, there is more to the story... ) sorta step by step.

First, SMBH's are real (Only Rotating ones Period...NO Schwarzschild non-rotating black holes exist in our universe! All Schwarzschild maths are meaningless Period))...that is... Rotating SMBH's physically exist, with the mainstream definition that the Event Horizon is a "Boundary Condition" where once anything, including light, goes below the event horizon it can never come back up through our event horizons and back into our universe.

That being said....ALL of the mainstream Maths to show that Event Horizon as valid are wrong........Major problem... But, I have never believed them to be "Real" because of the maths mainstream is using anyway!

Time is Not "Frozen" at the Event Horizon, even for a far away observer!
Neither Light Nor a Spaceship, can travel 'instantaneously' any distance going the speed of light "c"!!! That is the First "Spaghetti Monster" of the current cosmology. The Second is the "Naked Singularity: expanding...)
Mainstream has 'time and space' flipped inside the event horizon...That is absolutely wrong! SR is wrong!
Mainstream has the 'repeling' "-" sign, at the singularity. That is absolutely wrong!
There is NO "Point Singularity" because there are NO non-rotating black holes in our universe....SO, that ONLY leaves the Ring Singularity as "Real"...Physically existing connected to the rotating Event Horizon.

Now, because I am the First to come up with...SMBH's in the universe level above ours, are E-R Bridges to Our Voids, then the CMB, is coming "Straight Through" those Ring Singualrities....No mainstream "Infinity Density" singularities, where all the Matter/density just keeps backing up, and getting what....more infinitiely dense......dumb...
NO mainstream 'side doors' for the 'worm hole' 'white hole'....

Neutrinos are coming Straight through, and those neutrinos are going in straight line motion at "c" and is the Aether that makes up our whole universe.
Those Neutrinos 'carry' the CMB lowest energy level 2.73k.

That Background Neutrino energy is what is isotropic and homogenous, and goes right through ALL baryonic matter.

That is the Strings of String/"M" Theory, and the only way that String/"M" Theory can be shown to be testable.

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/62807-how-material-came-before-big-bang.html

Just read my posts.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, you say all this is wrong yet make no assertions of your own.

What do YOU think about galaxy formation then, how are the spiral arms formed? Im all ears.

how does a hurricane work? tornado?

if the galaxies formed like they say them they would all be like a a four sided or all sided vortex; meaning the gravitational pull should be from all sides, like a sphere rather than in a flat disk, in which the mass is entangled to each other, and like in the observed data (mass curve) you can see how the mass that associates in close and high energy exchanges is in fact entangled with greater strengths......

there is no dark matter/energy either

go back to that hurricane/tornado item or even a little dust devil, that is energy associating to cause the 'mass' to begin the occilations in momentum

 

[Vkothii]

ALL of the mainstream Maths to show that Event Horizon as valid are wrong........Major problem...Mainstream has 'time and space' flipped inside the event horizon...That is absolutely wrong! SR is wrong!
Mainstream has the 'repeling' "-" sign, at the singularity. That is absolutely wrong!

Einstein snd Schwarzchild's math is wrong? Fermi and Chandrasekhars' too?

Well, I'm having a crack at the gravitational collapse thing (at some stage) in the Phys&Math thread I started about cosmology (or about students of that subject).
Haven't dug too big a hole yet, so you're welcome to stand at the edge and try to yell at me to dig the other way, or whatever.

So far, I've only got to the start of their seminal co-authored paper, about gravitational limits; the beast itself is fairly math-heavy, but that's just a philosophical issue, really.

I'd like to get past their "virial theory" though, and on into degenerate states, so as to look somehow at what matter does when it gets squeezed together past the Planck limit, or whatever it 'tis that happens.

 

[Trippy]

I have yet to see Plasma Cosmology account for the observed mass distribution in the Bullet cluster.
I have yet to see a plasma cosmologist produce Ambiplasma in a lab, or produce any evidence of its existence.
I have yet to see a plasma cosmologist produce any evidence of electric currents flowing between sol and rigel kent, or the milky way and andromeda.
The plasma cosmology models appear to predict that spiral arms are 'fixed' structures, where as 'paradigm' suggests they are density waves (like waves in traffic).
Plasma cosmology appears to rely on alternative physics (for example, MOND).
MOND does not predict gravitational lensing - I have seen one plasma cosmologist suggest (after Halton Arp's model) that what we call cravitaional lensing is 'sparks' being thrown off by the quasars in question, rather then examples of gravitational lensing - in spite of the fact that one of the most often cited examples has been demonstrated to be actually significantly seperated in space (this goes back to the intrinsic v's cosmological red shift).

Should I continue?

 

[EndLightEnd]

I have yet to see Plasma Cosmology account for the observed mass distribution in the Bullet cluster.
I have yet to see a plasma cosmologist produce Ambiplasma in a lab, or produce any evidence of its existence.
I have yet to see a plasma cosmologist produce any evidence of electric currents flowing between sol and rigel kent, or the milky way and andromeda.

Well I seriously doubt weve observed EVERYTHING in the universe in 3000 years of civilization.
Observations come with time, be patient and open minded.

The plasma cosmology models appear to predict that spiral arms are 'fixed' structures, where as 'paradigm' suggests they are density waves (like waves in traffic).

Who says they arent fixed? They could be, we dont have the life timescales to actually observe this.

I have seen one plasma cosmologist suggest (after Halton Arp's model) that what we call cravitaional lensing is 'sparks' being thrown off by the quasars in question

Well thats not what were saying is it.

Should I continue?

Please.

 

[Trippy]

Well I seriously doubt weve observed EVERYTHING in the universe in 3000 years of civilization.
Observations come with time, be patient and open minded.

Strawman - I didn't claim we had observed everything, I stated that there were predictions made by Plasma Cosmology that had yet to be verified - even in a laboratory, not to mention predictions which could reasonably be expected to be detectable to modern insruments, but simply aren't.

Meanwhile, the 'big bang' is predicted by relativity, which has been experimentally tested down to parts per million, and has so far been found to be accurate. There is even indirect evidence suporting gravitational waves, something not predicted by MOND, the only thing that's lacking is their direct observations.

Who says they arent fixed? They could be, we dont have the life timescales to actually observe this.

Incorrect. There is direct obersvational evidence that demonstrates they are not fixed.

Well thats not what were saying is it.

But it is what Halton Arp claimed as part of his contribution to plasma cosmology, and is related to claims made by Hans Alfven (IIRC).