Plasma or Gravity?
Helen: First, the word is ‘paid,’ not ‘payed.’ Not a big deal, but interesting. His phrasing is also interesting. He is not in space, so he cannot possibly be paid to do plasma physics in space. What he is actually doing is mathematics and, by choosing your parameters, mathematics can, literally, prove anything. He is presuming black holes are real. That’s the standard he has been taught. But, seriously, if he was actually concerned with plasma physics itself, he would have some serious doubts, at least, about their reality.
Barry: if he was seriously involved in plasma physics, he would have read Peratt’s book, because it is a classic in this field.
Helen: As an editor myself, I find this comment interesting. Editors of the peer-reviewed journals (of any stripe) choose peer reviewers who they know agree with their stance on the issues at stake. I worked with writers getting their materials ready for submission to peer-review processes as a ‘pre-editor.’ I worked with quite a few of them, on both sides of the creation/evolution fence. With only one exception, ALL of them went theory first and cherry-picked the data which would support the theory. I married the one who was honest enough and humble enough to not be afraid of the data – all of it. His work is data-based, not theory-based, and yes, a number of his articles have been published in peer-reviewed venues. Always, interestingly, in non-creationist venues, however.
The best science is done by examining the data and following where it leads, not in playing ‘follow the leader’ via peer-reviewed processes.
Helen: No evil is necessary. Nor is it ‘my word against yours.’ Data really do have a place for some folk. It is also not a matter of something ‘making sense,’ actually. It is a matter, first of all, of seeing what IS. Mathematically you can ‘prove’ that gravity does not exist. Then you drop the glass you were carrying…. One must look at the data first and then form the theories that ‘make sense’ of it. And that data is there for any other observer to see; it does not need to be ‘vetted.’ One’s theories about the data should be up for discussion, but the data should never be ignored in favor of theory.
Barry: the problem is that earlier, Birkeland had been following data and then come to his conclusions. Chapman, however, on his entirely theoretical approach was able to block any development in plasma physics until his death because of his standing. As it is now, Birkeland is not only recognized for his work but the currents in plasma have been named after him – they are Birkeland currents. Just because something is the accepted theory at any particular time does not make it correct. Galileo found this out, as we know.
There’s one other thing, before I forget. I was not trying to talk down to him. I was trying to present known facts about the action of plasma in space which was contradicting some of what he was saying.
Helen: It has still not been found. And even if it were, what property causes it to ‘glue’ subatomic particles together. It is because of a faulty model that they ‘need’ the Higgs.
Barry: two teams working on the same premise might be expected to come to the same conclusions. In addition, what has been found is not what they were expecting. So why is it being called the Higgs?
Helen: That was a matter of observation, not ‘vetting.’
Helen: Nonsense. If I say all dogs are white and you show me a black dog, that does not trivialize me or my efforts to define dogs. I do have a choice at that point, however. I can deny the evidence or I can say that is not a dog. OR, I can revise my definition of ‘dog.’ In the meantime, I KNOW most scientists do NOT put data first. That is because they want peer respect, publishing rights, money, tenure, etc. A good strong look at the data in many cases would separate the scientist from all of that.
Helen: Not necessary. Data is not a matter of one person’s word against another’s. Data stands regardless of who looks at it.
Barry: What he is talking about is a different form on ZPE than what is usually considered. There is much confusion on this issue. The ZPE which he is considering comes as a result of the action of the cosmological constant. As yet there is no evidence that it exists, but it is needed to get the universe to expand, or inflate. There is a tremendous mismatch between the theoretical expectations compared with what we actually observe. This mismatch is of the order of 10^120 power in terms of what they want to see in terms of the cosmological constant and what they actually do see. However, on the model being considered by SED physicists, and which follows the lead of Planck’s second paper in 1912, there is a real Zero Point Energy, which is measureable by, among other ways, the Casimir Effect. This ZPE originates with the initial inflation of the cosmos. In the same way that inflating a balloon or stretching a rubber band invests energy into their fabric, this cosmological expansion invested enormous potential energy into the fabric of space, which ultimately appears in its kinetic form as the real Zero Point Energy. It is this which gives rise to quantum effects in the way outlined by SED physics. This is entirely different from the ZPE assumed by the action of the cosmological constant.
(Note: SED physics is simply classical physics which recognizes the reality of the Zero Point Energy. Quantum Electrodynamics – QED physics – treats the ZPE as simply a theoretical entity, which they often attempt to link to the cosmological constant, whose existence is also called into question by the observations.)
Helen: Dark energy is an invention necessary for the mathematics of a gravity model.
Barry: Several things here. First of all, the SED model of the ZPE and the resulting gravitational effects also account for the behavior of the GPS system. It gives exactly the same results as Einstein’s relativity, as discussed by Haisch, Rueda, Putoff, and others. I discuss this in my PEER-REVIEWED book, Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy. What you need to be aware of is that Einsteinian gravity is not universally accepted. There are over 800 scientists in the Natural Philosophy Alliance alone which seriously question the validity of Einstein’s theory of gravity. There have been a number of viable alternatives discussed, quite independently of the work done by SED physicists on the Zero Point Energy. I personally believe that the ZPE approach to gravity can be shown to answer a multitude of problems, and this approach has the advantage that Einstein’s restrictive postulates are avoided entirely.
Helen: The reason so many think it is expanding is because the red shift is considered to be the result of a Doppler effect. Even Hubble had serious doubts about that.
Barry: They have also tried to invoke the observations of the brightness of distant supernovae at high red shifts to back up the accelerating expansion argument. But the whole necessity for this depends on the form of the red shift equation. It can be shown that this equation is only one of a general set of equations that result from ZPE behavior. And when these other options are considered, no accelerating universe is required to account for the observations. In fact, the hydrogen cloud distribution throughout space argues against a continuing expansion. They hydrogen cloud distribution shows that expansion did, indeed, occur from the moment of the Big Bang down to a red shift of z=2 (about). From the red shift of 1.6 down to the present, the evidence from the hydrogen clouds suggests that the universe has been essentially static. Furthermore, in case that possibility of that is questioned, Narliker and Arp showed in 1993 that a static universe with matter in it would be stable against collapse provided small scale oscillations occurred.
Helen: Yeah, and Obama won a Nobel Prize for peace, too. This ‘observational discovery’ is predicated upon a very precarious presupposition that the red shift is caused by either motion or the expansion of space. This becomes, then, a circular argument.
Helen: Since the universe initiated in a rapid expansion, and the ZPE is evident soon after, the fact that it is still present in a static universe is moot.
Barry: He is arguing that the ZPE is the result of the cosmological constant. This is the current confused thinking which results from QED physics and Einsteinian physics. The SED approach has an entirely different way of looking at it, which is dependent upon data rather than theory. As SED physicists have pointed out, the ZPE cannot and does not act in any way related to the cosmological constant to cause expansion.
Helen: You are confusing technical advances with quantum theory. Standard physics was all that was necessary for those advances.
Barry: The results that we see in the atom which are being explained by QED can be equally explained by the action of the ZPE on atoms, using classical concepts. Classical physics plus a real ZPE explains the quantum results we see in atoms and atomic phenomena, intuitively, and with simple mathematics, as distinct from QED physics which has counter-intuitive concepts and esoteric mathematics involving zeros and infinities.
Barry: It is not the only explanation for what we see in particle physics. The SED explanation also answers the same questions and gives the same results, as mentioned above. What Jonah needs to do is look at the developments of science: Planck’s two papers, for instance. QED followed the first and SED the second. Planck was dissatisfied with his first theory because it was simply elegant mathematics, there was no physical reality behind it. His second paper had a real physical cause for what has become known as Planck’s quantum constant. It turned out to be a measure of the strength of the Zero Point Energy. There were four papers published in the mid-1920’s on the basis of Planck’s first paper which set the scene for QED physics. SED physics was then sidelined until 1962 when Louis de Broglie (who had been one of the authors of the four papers in the 1920’s) pointed out that science had missed a great opportunity in examining the results from Planck’s second paper. He suggested that physics may have taken a wrong turn as a result. SED physics has been developing strongly since then. Again, all the details are outlined in my book, Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy.
Helen: This would appear to me to be a key issue regarding the impossibility of current galactic expansion, especially in terms of the speeds proclaimed when the red shift is interpreted to be a matter of a Doppler effect.
Barry: If what he says is correct, if matter is diluted away, this means that all the matter we started with in the universe would be diluted away so that for stars and galaxies to form we need a whole second bout of matter generation.
Barry: This came from Alan Guth, who was trying to resolve some scientific problems by inflationary theory, which, since then, has had a life of its own. It has become accepted as standard. To achieve the results required by observation the universe has to have expanded at that rate. However, the question is, is inflation the only answer to these problems? There are other ways of overcoming the horizon and flatness and similar problems. These problems can be resolved if the speed of light was higher initially. This initial high speed of light has been seriously considered by Albrecht, Magueijo, Barrow, and others in Physics journals (peer-reviewed) as early as 1999 and continuing. The higher speed of light is the inevitable consequence of an initially lower ZPE. Unfortunately, Albrecht and the others have adopted what is referred to as a ‘minimalist position’ with regard to the behavior of other atomic constants. What needs to be looked at is the way the ZPE has affected a number of associated atomic constants, which is what I have tried to do with my research. It is because of the failure to consider other associated constants that no change, or very little change, in the speed of light has been detected by Lineweaver and others. We need to explain what is happening: for example, with the fine structure constant – this is made up of four associated constants (speed of light, "c," Planck’s constant, "h," permittivity of space and electronic charge). Leaving the permittivity and electronic charge out for the moment, we have already noted that Planck determined that ‘h’ was the measure of the strength of the ZPE, which built up with time. It can be shown that the speed of light is inversely proportional to ‘h.’ Thus, as ‘h’ increased, it necessarily meant ‘c’ was decreasing as ‘hc’ is a true constant. It is for this reason very little change in the fine structure constant has been detected. As a result, a change in the speed of light is not considered to be a viable option. However, if one considers something like the simple example of 1x12= 12, 2 6 = 12, and 3x 4 = 12, the fact that the 12 (hc) remains constant says nothing about the components.
Helen: If gravity could, there would be no need to invent dark matter. In the meantime, it seems that there are reports of the universe expanding at near the speed of light at its ‘edges,’ which would make it quite impossible for gravity to hold anything together.
Barry: In addition, an analysis of the forces involved in expansion and in holding either a galaxy or clusters of galaxies together can be shown to be insufficient against cosmological expansion. Galaxies and clusters should disrupt as the fabric of space expands, especially that quickly (since the thing is meant to be accelerating). I cannot consider expanding at near the speed of light near the frontiers of the cosmos to be ‘very slowly.’ In fact Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in their book on gravitation point to this as one of the big problems with this type of theory.
Barry: This ‘reheating’ generating matter leaves the formation of galaxies and stars until so late that it is acknowledged that there is insufficient time for their formation. Indeed, articles in a variety space news and journals based on the research of a team from the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, has pointed out that mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. The abstract to the original article states that the average age of stars in these galaxies is 0.8 billion years after the initiation of the universe (or 12.8 billion years ago). This does not leave time from the initial Big Bang, the cooling of the universe and the reheating to form galaxies and stars this early. “The galaxies we discovered must have formed very rapidly in a relatively short time with explosive rates of star formation.” (from the research at Swinburne dated March 10, 2014). This rate of galaxy and star formation is expected in the plasma model and can happen much earlier while the universe is still plasma and not neutral atoms.
The Bennett pinches in the plasma filaments form the stars, which is why they appear like beads on a string along plasma filaments in the spiral galaxies. You can see the star formed by the pinch quite clearly in the Ant, Bug and Butterfly Nebulae.
From Barry: see below
Helen: This is demonstrably false. Plasma in dark mode is quite transparent. Each of the planets is surrounded by a plasma sphere/ionosphere, which we can’t see and is transparent.
Helen: He’s avoiding the point. Plasma makes up almost everything in space that is associated with matter. It can be in arc mode, like lightning, glow mode like the auroras, or dark mode like the ionospheres. There is quite a bit in dark mode if our solar system is any indication! That has nothing to do with being ‘thin.’
Barry: In our upper atmosphere we don’t see the plasma up there until it goes into glow mode with currents from the sun. The amount of matter in the universe may be considered tiny compared to the universe itself, but of that matter, about 99.9% is plasma, which is not a tiny percentage.
Helen: The sun is a plasma ball. It is not reflective. Lightning and the auroras are not reflective.
Barry: Electrons move independently in metals, however it has been shown that plasmas conduct electricity far better than any copper wire or any other metal. So his metal analogy is not really relevant. Plasma is opaque only when it is in glow or arc mode, but you can even see stars shining through the auroras, so that even glow mode is not truly opaque. He is probably thinking about the opaque-ness of the initial plasma at the inception of the cosmos, and he is correct about that. It wasn’t until the filaments started separating and decoupling occurred that the light started shining through.
Helen: Yes, we know. It is also what gives Einstein’s relativity idea a problem, since we have something we can measure speed against. No one is arguing the reality of the CMBR
Barry: and it should be noted that the CMBR represents the moment that the initial plasma became transparent to light as plasma filaments and voids started forming. Here is a plot of galaxy positions at intermediate distances. The red dots are galaxy clusters. The blue lines are galaxy filaments. This is from the European Observatory in Estonia.
Below is an artist's rendition of the initial plasma separating into filaments so the light can shine thrrough:
Barry: Plasma exists if there are positive and negative charges freely moving, as with ionized atoms. “For some time after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that all matter existed as plasma.” (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2009). No ‘reheating’ was necessary for this plasma to exist. Any movement in this plasma would produce electric currents, and every electric current is surrounded by a circling magnetic field. This circling magnetic field constraints the plasma to form filaments. Before the filaments formed, light could not escape. But once plasma filaments started to form, the CMBR emerged as light got out between the filaments. The CMBR carries the imprint of those incipient filaments. Plasma physics operated throughout this period. In contrast, the Big Bang theory has to wait until neutral atoms have formed and gravitational processes act before any star, planet or galaxy can begin to form. There is a problem here: James Trefil, Professor of Physics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, states, “It comes down to this: can the gravitational forces act quickly enough after decoupling occurs to gather matter into galaxy-sized clumps before the Hubble expansion carries everything out of range? … The answer to this question is a resounding No! …. There is a narrow window of time between decoupling and the point where matter is too thinly spread, and any galaxy formation we can accept has to work quickly enough to fit into this window.”
Helen: No one said inflation was a plasma. Do not confuse a noun with a verb. Inflation refers to an action; plasma is ‘stuff.’ And plasma has been present since the very beginning. It did not require ‘reheating’ – in fact, it was, as you yourself said, the point at which decoupling occurred which allowed light to escape from the plasma itself.
Barry: Inflation is considered an expansion force, not substance in itself. He seems to be saying that the energy from inflation became matter at an appropriate time. What we are saying is that his model, based on gravitational physics, does not allow enough time for stars and galaxies to form. However we agree that the potential energy of the inflation, or expansion, did manifest as the kinetic energy of the Zero Point Energy, but this does not automatically translate into matter.
Barry: the fact that it has not been observed is my point exactly. It is also controversial, however, because to obtain the results they need, it has to be much greater than observational data indicate. He has gone theory first instead of data first.
Helen: Research it yourself. Plasma filaments operate the same way regardless of scale. Mathematics is a poor substitute for observation on any scale. We can see plasma filaments in space doing exactly what they do in the lab.
Barry: All Peratt did was to observe the behavior of two to twelve plasma filaments with parallel currents in the lab. As they approached each other, at their point of closest approached, closest galaxies formed.
Helen: Not if we are dealing with plasma instead of gravity.
Barry: plasma filaments and interactions form galaxies and stars before they need the ‘reheating’ event. So the universe could form much more quickly under plasma interactions than gravitational forces. Gravity HAS to wait until neutral atoms form, plasma does not.
from Barry, original response: The current BB approach has a problem which cannot be resolved. Plasma physics, in contrast, supplies an answer. It first needs to be noted that plasma physics has nothing to do with creation. Most of the men involved are atheists. Plasma physics in astronomy was set on a firm basis by Anthony Peratt in 1992, in his book Physics of the Plasma Universe. He has a complete discussion in that book about plasma physics and the origin of galaxies, stars, and planets. He was able to show that laboratory experiments with plasma filaments can form miniature galaxies of all types. Because plasma interactions are the same regardless of size, his work can be upscaled to universal proportions and it ends up describing exactly what we see ‘out there.’ Peratt points out in his book that in the universe the effects of electricity and magnetism are 1039 times stronger than gravity. As the photograph below demonstrates, plasma filaments can extend over enormous distances in space. Peratt lists examples of plasma filaments in the Veil, Orion, and Crab Nebulas.
However this is not all. He points out that if a gas is only 1% ionized, experiments nevertheless show that it will behave in the same way as a fully ionized plasma. This is relevant because, at the 1999 Internation Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey, California, radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur announced that, after high resolution processing of data, from about 2000 clouds of so-called ‘neutral hydrogen’ in our galaxy, he found they were actually made up of plasma filaments which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances. He estimated that the interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes. (Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 227; 1995, pp 187-198) In this context, it should be noted that on the 12th of January, 2006, astronomers announced the discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion. “You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud,” said Timothy Robishaw (graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley). The magnetic field lines are stretched like rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape.” The picture below is of this structure in Orion.
Every magnetic field is produced by an electric current.
Barry: It’s a matter of current flowing and interactions. I am not trying to say the plasma is space is only 1% ionized. My point was simply that if a gas is only 1% ionized it will behave in the same way as a fully ionized plasma. This has been seen in the laboratory. The amount of ionization is not the point here, it is the fact of a current flowing which happens with even a 1% ionized gas. This also means a strong magnetic field is present.
Barry: I don’t think it is misleading. I think it is stating something which is an observational fact. You may diminish it or enhance it as you wish, but the fact remains – an enormous current is flowing. Plasma physicists have analyzed these data and showed that there is a galactic circuit where the current flows in along the spiral arms and exits at the poles of the nucleus of the galaxy. This is why there are polar jets at galactic nuclei. In addition, it has been shown that galaxies’ spin axes line up along plasma filaments so that the current is flowing between galaxies as well along these filaments. This means there are absolutely enormous currents.
Barry: that has just been shown to be false. This person needs to keep up with what is going on not just in plasma physics but in astronomy in general.
Helen: The data disagrees with this. This man evidently does not know a lot about plasma physics. And that has nothing to do with creation science. As far as the cancelling out effect between positive and negative charges on a galactic scale, perhaps you would like to explain why the solar wind increases in speed as it distances itself from the sun.
Barry: That is an OK example, but not enough. Plasma sheets and filaments often separate their positive and negative charges by what is referred to as ‘double layering.’ Several mechanismsexist whereby a double layer can be formed. One such mechanism occurs if plasma is divided into two regions having temperature or density differences, and a surface plane or interface will separate them. If we consider temperature differences, we find that electrons from the hot side of the plasma will travel at a higher velocity than those on the cooler side. Although electrons may stream freely in either direction, the flux of electrons from the hot area to the cooler area will be greater than the flux of electrons in the other direction. This occurs because the electrons from the hot side have a greater average speed. Since more electrons enter the cool plasma than exit it, part of the cool region becomes negatively charged as the number of electrons there increases. The hot region will then become positively charged. This results in a potential difference between the two regions causing an electric field to build. In the end, the electric field increases until the fluxes of electrons in either direction are equal, preventing further charge buildup. The double layer which has then formed has a drop in electric potential that is exactly balanced by the difference in thermal potential between the two regions. This has been observed in both laboratory conditions and in space.
What this man needs to understand is that plasma physics is giving not only an alternative explanation for what we see in space, but one we can test in the lab and one which does not require inventing dark matter, energy, or anything else. This field is rapidly expanding. Nearly everyone in the IEEE holds to plasma astronomy at this point.
Here is a good starting point for him from Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Helen: Mathematics is no substitute for real data.
Barry: you have just admitted you have not studied the realm of plasma astronomy, so he is not up to speed in this area.
Barry: let me say quite plainly: EVERY magnetic field we observe in our universe requires an electric current to form it. There are NO known examples where magnetic fields exist without a current.
Barry: What he is ignoring is the attractive effects of parallel electric currents which form those magnetic fields, and that these magnetic fields can pinch and form objects such as stars and planets. Parallel currents flowing in the same direction attract each other. If they are flowing in the opposite directions, the repel each other. This works in plasma in the same way it does in copper wire. This means there is a strong attractive force from the electric currents which form the magnetic fields. The magnetic field may confine the electric current, but it does not shield the resulting interactions. This we see in the lab as well as in space. It’s a matter of observational data.
Helen: The simple fact is that this is simply an example of widespread magnetic fields in space and that indicates some very strong electric currents.
Barry: The point I would make here is that plasma behaves on the same scale on earth as it does in our solar system as it does in our galaxy as it does in intergalactic space. Plasma phenomena are completely scaleable, which is why laboratory experiments are so important.
Helen: Oh, come on! Even if that were true, the expanding area of the expansion would cause the solar wind to slow. It’s a physics thing.
Barry: the fact that the solar wind is actually accelerating the further out it does in our solar system shows there is a strong negative potential in the outer solar system which is attracting the positively charged protons of the solar wind.
Barry: You really do need to read Anthony Peratt’s book, The Plasma Universe, and articles in the IEEE journal on plasma physics discussing this. It is quite observable in space. If you are going to discuss plasma physics, you really do need to come up to speed on it.
Barry: I’m not trying to put him down. There is an area of expertise he needs to appraise himself of; he is missing a giant piece of the jigsaw puzzle. If he wants to get to the truth of what’s happening out there, this piece needs to be considered.