I'm starting to think that gravity is not the largest factor in how the universe works. Electricity is.
A look at the plasma universe (I touch on Alfven Waves in passing).
Another way to put it: everything you know is wrong. With embedded videos. And links.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/07/the- ... -universe/
===
A blog that focuses on the solar connection to climate - http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
And this covers indirectly the climate - solar connection: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/ - people not well versed in electronics are having a hissy fit about this model.
You EEs among us will love this: A Bode Plot of climate: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-ne ... e-climate/
Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
Would explain why it's so darn hard to find the dark matter.
CHoff
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
I watched the first video. It is a mish mash of statements sometimes contradicting itself. And it has outright lies. It admits to compact stellar objects, yet denies neutron stars. This is fine if they present an alternative, which they do not, other than a vague contention that electromagnetism plays a role. It denies supernova initiated by gravitational collapse / implosions, and says they are impossible, as implosions initiating explosions have never been demonstrated. But what about inertial confinement fusion, what about atomic bombs?
Gravitational effects are not weak, they can dominate provided enough matter is present. Fusion is generally felt to be much stronger than electromagnetic mediated chemical reactions. Note though that electromagnetic effects is intimate with the fusion picture. Antimatter- matter annihilation is considered much stronger than fusion (by as much as 1000X). But, consider that gravitational mediated attraction can release almost as much energy as antimatter - matter annihilation. The gravitational well has to be very large- like a galactic black hole, but it is a real demonstration of the cumulative power of gravity.
I'll insert her a preconception that many may have that because fusion can release about 10 million times as much energy as chemical reactions, the strong force is about 10 million times as strong as the electromagnetic force . This is wrong. At the intranuclear distances that the strong force operates over verses the atomic - electron orbital- distances that the electromagnetic effects manifest as chemical bonds, the ratio applies (in part due to the inverse square law and in part that chemical bonds only utilize small fractional separations of charge). But at equal distances (which means intranuclear distances as the strong force is limited in range) the electromagnetic force strength is ~ 1 percent of the strong force, by my estimation. This is manifest in the nucleon binding energy curve (along with strong force range cutoff and weak force conributions, etc.).
They make the claim that gravity is the weakest force in nature. By some measurements this is true, but the implication is that gravity is thus useless for explaining the universe. In fact gravity is the dominate force governing the nature of the universe. The only caveat is that dark energy confounds things, but this is it's self another form of gravity- perhaps anti gravity.
Claims that the electromagnetic force is ignored is an outright lie. It is intimate with much of physics. It is neither ignored, nor is it THE PRIMAL FORCE that explains everything. There are 4 forces that interact and result in the universe. Some of these forces have been combined under exotic conditions(at least in computers), and efforts continue to unite all forces under one umbrella force. Whether this is ever achieved or is even reasonable is debatable.
Gravity drives much. Star formation, orbits, maintainance of stellar lumps against the repellant forces of stellar fusion- which is itself a interaction of the strong force, the weak force and electromagnatism, etc.
A neutron star with it's near polar beam- which looks like pulsations as the star rotates and the beam sweeps past the observer, is driven by the kinetic energy contained in the rotating ball of stuff- whether you consider it a pure ball of neutrons (only a naive view would claim this), a ball of many neutrons and protons and electrons in a dynamic mixture, or other exotic combinations. The point is that the electrons- due to gravity over come the Pauli Exclusion principle (I think) and are pushed into the nucleus. There they combine with protons and separate from neutrons in a dynamic dance where statistics can predict the numbers of each at any given point in time. It is not that the neutrons are stable indefinably, it is that when they do decay the products do not separate and recombination becomes just as likely. It is sort of like talking about virtual particles. They can be created in pairs, but so long as they stay close together and recombine fast enough, there is no consequence for most things, though things like quintessence and black hole evaporation may be manifest.
The pulses from a neutron star is mediated by the electromagnetic forces, but it is driven by the rotation of the body that drives it. The dynamo effect is electromagnetic, but the stored energy of rotation is what is consumed to drive the dynamo. That is why pulsars slow down. And outliers are best explained by gravitational effects with other stars- both pulsars that are sped up and slowed down.
To say that electromagnetism is unimportant is of course foolish. To say it is the lone force that dominantly drives the universe is at least as foolish. Also, claims that it is ignored is equally foolish. It is intimate with almost all descriptions and understanding of the universe. So much so that it can be combined with two of the other forces into an almost grand unified theory. Gravity is the odd fellow out, not electromagnetism.
Dan Tibbets
Gravitational effects are not weak, they can dominate provided enough matter is present. Fusion is generally felt to be much stronger than electromagnetic mediated chemical reactions. Note though that electromagnetic effects is intimate with the fusion picture. Antimatter- matter annihilation is considered much stronger than fusion (by as much as 1000X). But, consider that gravitational mediated attraction can release almost as much energy as antimatter - matter annihilation. The gravitational well has to be very large- like a galactic black hole, but it is a real demonstration of the cumulative power of gravity.
I'll insert her a preconception that many may have that because fusion can release about 10 million times as much energy as chemical reactions, the strong force is about 10 million times as strong as the electromagnetic force . This is wrong. At the intranuclear distances that the strong force operates over verses the atomic - electron orbital- distances that the electromagnetic effects manifest as chemical bonds, the ratio applies (in part due to the inverse square law and in part that chemical bonds only utilize small fractional separations of charge). But at equal distances (which means intranuclear distances as the strong force is limited in range) the electromagnetic force strength is ~ 1 percent of the strong force, by my estimation. This is manifest in the nucleon binding energy curve (along with strong force range cutoff and weak force conributions, etc.).
They make the claim that gravity is the weakest force in nature. By some measurements this is true, but the implication is that gravity is thus useless for explaining the universe. In fact gravity is the dominate force governing the nature of the universe. The only caveat is that dark energy confounds things, but this is it's self another form of gravity- perhaps anti gravity.
Claims that the electromagnetic force is ignored is an outright lie. It is intimate with much of physics. It is neither ignored, nor is it THE PRIMAL FORCE that explains everything. There are 4 forces that interact and result in the universe. Some of these forces have been combined under exotic conditions(at least in computers), and efforts continue to unite all forces under one umbrella force. Whether this is ever achieved or is even reasonable is debatable.
Gravity drives much. Star formation, orbits, maintainance of stellar lumps against the repellant forces of stellar fusion- which is itself a interaction of the strong force, the weak force and electromagnatism, etc.
A neutron star with it's near polar beam- which looks like pulsations as the star rotates and the beam sweeps past the observer, is driven by the kinetic energy contained in the rotating ball of stuff- whether you consider it a pure ball of neutrons (only a naive view would claim this), a ball of many neutrons and protons and electrons in a dynamic mixture, or other exotic combinations. The point is that the electrons- due to gravity over come the Pauli Exclusion principle (I think) and are pushed into the nucleus. There they combine with protons and separate from neutrons in a dynamic dance where statistics can predict the numbers of each at any given point in time. It is not that the neutrons are stable indefinably, it is that when they do decay the products do not separate and recombination becomes just as likely. It is sort of like talking about virtual particles. They can be created in pairs, but so long as they stay close together and recombine fast enough, there is no consequence for most things, though things like quintessence and black hole evaporation may be manifest.
The pulses from a neutron star is mediated by the electromagnetic forces, but it is driven by the rotation of the body that drives it. The dynamo effect is electromagnetic, but the stored energy of rotation is what is consumed to drive the dynamo. That is why pulsars slow down. And outliers are best explained by gravitational effects with other stars- both pulsars that are sped up and slowed down.
To say that electromagnetism is unimportant is of course foolish. To say it is the lone force that dominantly drives the universe is at least as foolish. Also, claims that it is ignored is equally foolish. It is intimate with almost all descriptions and understanding of the universe. So much so that it can be combined with two of the other forces into an almost grand unified theory. Gravity is the odd fellow out, not electromagnetism.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
Dan,
There is much in what you say. However:
And it looks to me like currents in space play a role in the evolution of galaxies that is not currently accounted for.
And we do know that neutrons without close proximity to protons decay with a half life of about 14 minutes. There are no neutron/neutron particles in nature. So then the question is: why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy? I haven't come across an explanation. Have you?
Update: I see you provided one. I haven't seen that any where else.
There is much in what you say. However:
That is not true. From my recent studies it looks like the electromagnetic force (solar magnetism in this case) controls weather on earth. And that is not a mainstream view. Yet.Claims that the electromagnetic force is ignored is an outright lie.
And it looks to me like currents in space play a role in the evolution of galaxies that is not currently accounted for.
And we do know that neutrons without close proximity to protons decay with a half life of about 14 minutes. There are no neutron/neutron particles in nature. So then the question is: why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy? I haven't come across an explanation. Have you?
Update: I see you provided one. I haven't seen that any where else.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
"why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy?"
That would be a reversal of the process that produced the neutrons in the neutron star. Under ordinary pressure conditions energy states favor decay of neutron matter to more ordinary matter. Under the immense pressure inside a neutron star neutron decay is an endothermic process.
That would be a reversal of the process that produced the neutrons in the neutron star. Under ordinary pressure conditions energy states favor decay of neutron matter to more ordinary matter. Under the immense pressure inside a neutron star neutron decay is an endothermic process.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
.7 MeV (~the energy you get from neutron decay) is a lot of endothermic.hanelyp wrote:"why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy?"
That would be a reversal of the process that produced the neutrons in the neutron star. Under ordinary pressure conditions energy states favor decay of neutron matter to more ordinary matter. Under the immense pressure inside a neutron star neutron decay is an endothermic process.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
Dark matter and dark energy are mathematical kludges that inadvertently developed patinas of physical reality.choff wrote:Would explain why it's so darn hard to find the dark matter.
There are multiple plausible competing explanations for the realities they represent.
I'm coming to think that the "what we believe are fundamental particles are actually composite particles" variants may be closer to reality. Neutron beta decay and over the much longer term proton decay are both indicative. I'm thinking that electrons and positrons may be the true fundamentals - which neatly deals with the "where did all the antimatter go?" problem. Antimatter didn't go anywhere; its all bound up in "normal" matter.MSimon wrote:And we do know that neutrons without close proximity to protons decay with a half life of about 14 minutes. There are no neutron/neutron particles in nature. So then the question is: why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy? I haven't come across an explanation. Have you?
Update: I see you provided one. I haven't seen that any where else.
Vae Victis
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
The interior of a neutron star is under a lot of pressure, enough to cram hydrogen into neutrons. So long as the conditions that produced a state change remain, that state is not going to reverse.MSimon wrote:.7 MeV (~the energy you get from neutron decay) is a lot of endothermic.hanelyp wrote:"why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy?"
That would be a reversal of the process that produced the neutrons in the neutron star. Under ordinary pressure conditions energy states favor decay of neutron matter to more ordinary matter. Under the immense pressure inside a neutron star neutron decay is an endothermic process.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Cosmologists Need A Plama Tranfusion
That is a heck of a lot of pressure to reassemble a .7 MeV decay.hanelyp wrote:The interior of a neutron star is under a lot of pressure, enough to cram hydrogen into neutrons. So long as the conditions that produced a state change remain, that state is not going to reverse.MSimon wrote:.7 MeV (~the energy you get from neutron decay) is a lot of endothermic.hanelyp wrote:"why don't neutron stars "decay" in fairly short order with a release of energy?"
That would be a reversal of the process that produced the neutrons in the neutron star. Under ordinary pressure conditions energy states favor decay of neutron matter to more ordinary matter. Under the immense pressure inside a neutron star neutron decay is an endothermic process.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.