Well I would agree that the object is "micro" compared to traditional interpretations - but it has a redshift of z=2.11

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0409215

Microquasars should have the same redshift as the galaxy they reside in ... right?

Arp et al's theory (variable mass hypothesis of Narlikar&Arp specifically) is probably a poor attempt at explaining the observations. But observations such as a z=2.11 quasar in a heavily obscured portion of a spiral galaxy is something that is not "made up" and can be verified by additional observations.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

As a follow up Marti et al: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0401518 noted that two of the objects they identified in our galaxy had cosmological redshifts and therefore were not interpreted as microquasars in the Milky Way. So the quasar in NGC 7319 - which has a redshift of z=2.11 - is clearly not a microquasar. This bring the discussion back to the whole point about the opacity of the galaxy at the location of the quasar.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Hi DGR,

It took several readings, but if the redshift is the determining factor in assigning objects the status of micro-quasar versus quasar, it begs the question which characteristics (besides theoretical models) are a test that micro-quasars are local and quasars are not. Are there any differences, other than redshift?

Cheers.

Dark Matter is a problem, no denying it. There isn't a shred of evidence that there is any unseen (and unseeable) matter keeping galaxies together. It shows us that there are more forces active on large scales than gravitational theory tells us. Some of it will undoubtedly be accounted for by (difficult to detect) normal matter, but Dark Matter actually is a spectacular failure of the theory of gravity. There is something more which acts as an attractive force on matter. And since we are talking about the Plasma/EU model you can guess what I think that force probably is. That could mean that Dark Matter is not a failure of the theory of gravity, only a discounting of the importance of electro-magnetic forces.

Cheers.

I'd have to do more reading on that one. Microquasars are not an area I have expertise in. My point was just that if the object was a microquasar, then it would have the same redshift as NGC 7319. Good question though! If I find the time I'll do more reading on that.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Dark Matter is a problem, no denying it. There isn't a shred of evidence that there is any unseen (and unseeable) matter keeping galaxies together. It shows us that there are more forces active on large scales than gravitational theory tells us.

More forces? Would you care to describe these new forces?

And while you're at it, please let us know why you think it a problem that General Relativity predicts exactly where dark matter should be?

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

No new forces, more like one old force, the electro-magnetic force, is also capable of moving matter around.

Well, where is it then, and what is it. They don't call it dark matter for nothing, they can't find it.

Cheers.

No new forces, more like one old force, the electro-magnetic force, is also capable of moving matter around.

Aside from a solar sail, I'd like to hear how this is possible and why this has never been observed? What properties of electromagnetic radiation are responsible for moving matter? Please show the math.

Well, where is it then, and what is it. They don't call it dark matter for nothing, they can't find it.

It is matter that does not emit or emits very low electromagnetic radiation, therefore it can not be detected in that manner, however, its gravitational effect can be detected. There are plenty of examples of dark matter - brown dwarfs, for example.

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

That's not the dark matter I was referring to, there is lots of unobserved matter, but that won't help keeping the rotation curves of galaxies conform to theory. Maybe molecular hydrogen is a good candidate as well (very hard to detect), but baryonic dark matter candidates can only get you so far.

Electric/magnetic fields can very effectively move matter around as well, ionised as well as neutral. Take a look at Alfvén's Plasma model, modelthis is a good place to start.

You might have noticed this is the Electric Universe thread, so the focus is on the EU/Plasma explanations.

Btw, predicting where dark matter should be (e. g. haloes) and then being unable to detect anything is an indication that other explanations also need to be considered.

Cheers.

That's not the dark matter I was referring to, there is lots of unobserved matter, but that won't help keeping the rotation curves of galaxies conform to theory.

Actually, it does and is predicted correctly by General Relativity.

Maybe molecular hydrogen is a good candidate as well (very hard to detect), but baryonic dark matter candidates can only get you so far.

It gets you far enough to agree with predictions based on GR.

Electric/magnetic fields can very effectively move matter around as well, ionised as well as neutral.

Perhaps, but certainly not at the magnitude required to explain anything.

If so, the Solar System or the Sun would have never formed - electromagnetic radiation would have overwhelmed gravity.

Btw, predicting where dark matter should be (e. g. haloes) and then being unable to detect anything is an indication that other explanations also need to be considered.

Generaly Relativity does predict where dark matter should be - the gravitational fields pulling on the galaxies IS the detection.

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

Than what is doing the pulling, you're not seriously suggesting big invisible swarms of brown dwarves in haloes around spiral galaxies, are you?

Cheers.

Now how can you be sure that is true, did you try to look at the Plasma Universe site?
This Peratt paper shows diagrams how Birkeland currents in space are thought to shape galaxies. If you look at the model you'll see that EM can overwhelm gravity to produce much faster accretion of matter.

Cheers.

Than what is doing the pulling, you're not seriously suggesting big invisible swarms of brown dwarves in haloes around spiral galaxies, are you?

Matter is doing the pulling - matter that exhibits gravity. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why would you think matter is invisible?

Now how can you be sure that is true, did you try to look at the Plasma Universe site?

Plasma is merely a gas of electrically charged particles. Plasma cosmology couldn't possibly be right - the universe is dominated by H2. That stuff is pure fantasy.

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

No, plasma can have as little as 1 charged in 100,000 uncharged particles (maybe even less). It is a lot more than merely a gas, and approximately 99.99% of the Universe is in the plasma state (not counting the "dark" part, because nobody but you knows what it is).

Cheers.

If you consider the firework universe made of oscillating 3D-spiral swirls of basic matter, then the math that describes the atomic interactions is same as the math that works at cosmic scales – inverse square laws of attraction and repulsion, as it is shown in Savov’s theory of interaction. If at smaller scales the interaction is termed electromagnetic at larger scales the same interaction occurs with the role of “electric” charges taken by the much lager 3D-spiral swirls seen as stars, planets, galactic nuclei, etc.

Hi Paul21,

I've seen you refer to Savov's model many times, I even looked at his website, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Could you explain where Savov's model is different from current models and what tests are available (or possible) that would verify this model?

Maybe open a new thread?

Cheers.

I thought plasma was the dominant constituent of the universe, estimated at 99.9% of it? Only on Earth is it found in small amounts (fire, lightning), but elsewhere it is found in:

• The Earth's ionopshere
• The Earth's magnetosphere
• Auroras
• In the magnetopsheres of the planets
• In comet 'magnetospheres'; the cometosheath of Halley's comet extended about 1.1 x 10^6km,
• In the plasma tori around Jupiter and Saturn
• It is thought that the Sun's core is a plasma
• The Sun's photosphere (weakly ionized)
• The Sun's corona which entends some 10^5 km above the photosphere
• The Sun's heliosphere
• The Solar 'wind'
• The interplanetary medium
• The Galactic plasma, (ours in 35kpc or 10^21m), although double radio galaxies are much larger
• Plus nebulae, dust clouds, jets, etc.

As for plasma being 'merely' an ionized gas, this description somewhat underestimates its diverse properties, including:

• Highly conductive; the interplantary medium has a conductivity approaching that of aluminium metal
• When plasma streams of charged particles interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, unlike gravity which varies inversely as the square. And electromagnetic forces are intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity.
• Radically scaleable in size over at least 10^12 orders of magnitude, existing in densities (in space) from 10x10^-10 to 10x10^30 particles per cubic metre, and temperatures from near absolute zero to 10^9K.
• Formation of filaments; one of the manifestations of the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents, is the 'pinch effect' (Z-pinch of Bennett pinch), that leads to bunching of currents and magnetic fields (magnetic ropes), that may be accompanied by the accumulation of matter.
• Allows the flow of electricity in Birkeland current
• Forms electric double layers: "The simplest space charge distribution that give a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer.
• Plasma cables (filaments) that carry an electric current parallel to the magnetic field, that are very efficient at transmitting power from one region to another; the are 'insulated' from their surroundings by an electrostatic sheath (double layer)
• Z-pinches can emit electromagnet radiation that range from radio waves to x-rays, and accelerate electrons to gamma ray energies.
• Plasma pinches can be shown to mimic the evolution of the shape of galaxies (ie. demonstated in the laboratory)

Not bad for an ionized gas, and certainly not insignificant.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Not Ian Tresman, of the THOTH newsletter by chance?

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Indeed, pro-Velikovskian (gasp!), pro-Electric Universe (ah!), pro-plasma Cosmology, anti-Big Bang (!), pro-non-Doppler Galactic redshift.

But don't tell everyone else, it might cloud their impartiality.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.catastrophism.com

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

and pray tell me what in the wormhole filled washing machines is the Thoth newsletter?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

No, plasma can have as little as 1 charged in 100,000 uncharged particles (maybe even less). It is a lot more than merely a gas, and approximately 99.99% of the Universe is in the plasma state (not counting the "dark" part, because nobody but you knows what it is).

Plasma is a gas of electrically charged particles, plain and simple. This is high school physics.

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

Correct, but that doesn't mean that all particles in a plasma have to be ionised, just a little is enough to make the gas act as a plasma.

Cheers.

I used to read that newsletter, but I think
this TPOD gallery replaced the newsletter.

Cheers.

Details at www.kronia.com

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Hi Ian,

Welcome to the forum. I don't know how much of this thread, and of the other alternative theory threads in this forum you've previously read. I personally am not familiar with your postings and writings elsewhere, but apparently you've got some body of work that precedes you.

Generally, I take the main-stream science side of these arguments [not your side apparently], but I will sometimes try to bring the discourse under control if it starts to get rancorous. In this role, I may frequently be on your side, since some people get angry when you tell them the science they know is wrong. This often happens here.

One of the things that I hope to get from you over the next few weeks to months is an idea of what your theories explain, and what observed phenomena seem to contradict your theories [or require them to have some yet-undetermined aspects], and what areas are not relevent to your theories.

For the sake of clarity, can you tell us how well you understand main-stream science? Some of our alternative theorists are well versed in quantum physics, and general relativity, while others can't tell it from gibberish. Knowing where you fit in will help us pose questions at your level, and not waste time with things that are outside your domain.

If you can lay these things out right away, that will be a help, otherwise we will try to extract it in a haphazard uncoordinated effort. Thanks in advance.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Well, I can't quite keep up with the furious pace of things around here. So maybe I can just make a few observations of my own.

First, the object in front of NGC 7319 is obviously a microquasar, like I said. The fact that Marti et al. found something else that isn't a microquasar certainly has little to do with our object. There are only 2 distinguishing characteristics of a quasar that seem relevant here, redshift & spectrum. The redshift is a primary indicator of relative velocity, not distance. Anything moving fast will show a large redshift, even if it is next door. So you can't use the redshift as the defining characteristic of a quasar. The spectrum is a better choice, but that will be controversial too. If a cosmological quasar is a black hole surrounded by an accretion disk, it will display the same kind of spectrum as a smaller, closer object, with the same kind of central engine. You can see this in fig 5, the smooth spectrum, in the original paper (I left everything home so I can't remember the citation). In any case, that spectrum shows a very broad Lyman-alpha emission feature, which is doppler broadened by rapid rotation. But the other emission lines are very narrow, which indicates that they are not from the same source as the Lyman-alpha. The narrow lines are likely from a fast moving jet, which explains both the high redshift and the lack of line broadening. In short, there is nothing about this source which requires that it be a cosmological quasar. It has all of the characteristics of a "local" microquasar.

The idea that dark matter is any kind of failure is rubbish. For one thing, all other explanations are more complicated, and harder to believe than dark matter, which is by far the simplist way to explain galaxy rotation curves, galactic motion in clusters, and the acoustic spectrum of the CMB, all at once. Furthermore, it is absurd to insist that all matter must interact with electromagnetic photons. People who are busy complaining that "non-baryonic dark matter" is too strange to be acceptable, should recall that neutrinos are non-baryonic dark matter, and we already know about them. So, if we appeal to cosmological non-baryonic dark matter, we are simply assuming the existence of more of the same stuff we already know about. What's so weird about that?

Ah, and weclome Ian. Deja-Vu all over again. I still think that the electric universe is a brain-dead idea, and Velikovsky should have had a good shrink. Some things never change. The old story about the universe being 99% plasma is not quite right. The interstellar medium inside the galaxy is about 50% ionized (by mass), at most. It was once thought, for instance, that the interstellar medium near the sun would be ionized by solar ultraviolet, but we now know that the sun moves too fast. There isn't time to ionize most of it. So there's quite a share of neutral HI & H2 floating around. A large chunk of the interstellar mass is cold molecular clouds, but their volume is very small compared to the warmer medium. Of course, most of the mass of the galaxy is in the form of stars, which are mostly hot plasma. But they have little to do with filamentes & galaxy spirals. And the electric star theory is too funny to talk about without laughing so hard it hurts (I'm getting old you know).

But this thread, like so many others, gets too broad, there are too many things to talk about all at once. I'm lucky if I can stick my nose in now and then just to rouse the rabble.

Hi Tim,

Normally I'll take anything you post as the next best thing to a fact, but in this case I have some doubts. How could that object be a microquasar with a redshift of >2? It would have to be moving at some pretty extreme velocity away from us.

Do you believe that this object cannot be a genuine quasar behind the galaxy?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

G'day Folks,

I've been reaidng along with this thread since it began and find it at once interesting and annoying. I have some questions. It's been mentioned (and rightly so) that a lot of what the EU expounds goes against fundamental physics as we know it. Can you electric sun/universe advocates please set out either: how it doesn't go against fundamental physics, what fundamental physical theories you might think are right or wrong, which back you up?

In an Earlier quote...

to which the reply was...
Don't you think that comments like that require and warrant some sort of explanation? You acknowledge that the EU does things all backwards in terms of the physics but don't explain how it still works in the light of that.

andother quote ...
Could one of you EU folk kindly rebut this if there is one to be made? Tim (and others) has time and again shown through both theory and observation (more importantly) how the EU doesn't measure up to facts but there has been little in the way of the EU people offering any refutation to these assertions. IF the theory is to be taken seriously on any level then it should at least explain how fundamental phyics works in conjunction with it.

There's no point in talking about particulars if the general can't be explained.

VanderL, a while back you said that you thought perhaps science was too specialised. In that case can you please explain with the fundamentals of physics how the EU model works? Thanks.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Alas plasma cosmology and the electric universe are not MY theories. Plasma cosmology is a well-established branch of astrophysics, and there are many books on the subject (see Amazon examples here).

And the Electric Universe, I would suggest, is a way of looking at plasma cosmology from an electric perspective; plasmas can carry electric current; the interplanetary and intergalactic medium are substantially plasma; so is electricity in space significant, and of so how? (Rhetorical question).

<!--QuoteBegin-antoniseb@Nov 9 2004, 06:50 PM
For the sake of clarity, can you tell us how well you understand main-stream science? Some of our alternative theorists are well versed in quantum physics, and general relativity, while others can't tell it from gibberish. Knowing where you fit in will help us pose questions at your level, and not waste time with things that are outside your domain.[/quote]
I'm probably not the person to ask about how well I understand mainstream science. I think I understand the basics (I have a degree in Chemistry and Masters in Computer Science), but I'd be the first to admit that they don't necessary count for much.

Regards,
Ian Tresman
Proponent of The Electric Universe

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Nice to hear from you again Tim. Velikovosky was a psychiatrist by training [Biography] (I think we was a student of Freud), so I guess he was his own shrink.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tim Thompson@Nov 10 2004, 02:00 AM
The old story about the universe being 99% plasma is not quite right. The interstellar medium inside the galaxy is about 50% ionized (by mass), at most.[/quote]
I found the reference to the universe being 99% plasma at the NASA Scence News site in an article Plasma, Plasma, Everywhere, but I'm guessing this is a particle count; but it is dated 1999, so it could be out of date.

The Web page Plasma Vision of the Universe suggests that the Universe consists of 99.999% Plasma (by volume).

But I believe that a 50% ionized interstellar medium (by mass) is still a plasma, and can exhibit the properties I mentioned earlier.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com