Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

reply to post by dragonridr


I too would like a re-post of it, it passed me by also. I did see a link from someone presenting evidence by simply saying something along the lines of

"It is plasma because i say it is, and everything I say is evidence enough"

In terms of actual explanation I too didn't actually see anything

reply to post by poet1b

reply to post by dragonridr

The more specific you guys can be, the more productive the discussion will be hopefully. Anyway as a diversion to the "you're wrong" "no you're wrong" debate, I went through some of the over 100 books on plasma in my library, and decided to post this interesting analogy in one of the more fundamental books about how plasma is like a stripper in an exotic night club:

So a question to the scientists here, is what that says true that scientists refer to the the removal of all electrons as "fully stripped"? If so, maybe it's not such a bad analogy, and at least it's a little entertaining, but now I'm left wondering if some scientist came up with that expression while pondering plasma over a beer in an exotic nightclub. Maybe not but at least the analogy is less boring than some of my other textbooks.

dragonridr
Here you might find this interesting in the search for dark matter.There is an anomaly at the galactic core we have gamma radiation we can't account for.There thinking this gamma radiation could be produced by dark matter particles with a mass of 30 to 40 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) crashing into one another. So you know a proton is roughly 1 GeV for comparison. So this is a fairly big particle as particles go anyway.

arxiv.org...

Thanks that was an interesting read. What makes it especially interesting is that it's in the Milky Way and some attempts to observe dark matter in the Milky Way don't seem to match up with expectations, though the alternate explanation of MOND is dealt an even harder blow by observations. Of course it's difficult to see the galactic rotation curves of our own galaxy so we have tried to make alternate observations:

www.universetoday.com...

As galaxies grew large enough to shred incoming satellites and their dark matter, much of the dark matter should have been deposited in a flat structure in spiral galaxies which would allow such galaxies to form dark components similar to the disk and halo. However, a new study aimed at detecting the Milky Way’s dark disk have come up empty.


The study concentrated on detecting the dark matter by studying the luminous matter embedded in it in much the same way dark matter was originally discovered...

Using estimations on the mass from the visible stars and the interstellar medium, the team compared this visible mass to the solution for mass from the observations of the kinematics to search for a discrepancy indicative of dark matter. When the comparison was made, the team discovered that, “[t]he agreement between the visible mass and our dynamical solution is striking, and there is no need to invoke any dark component.”

While this finding doesn’t rule out the presence of dark matter, it does place constraints on it distribution and, if confirmed in other galaxies, may challenge the understanding of how dark matter serves to form galaxies. If dark matter is still present, this study has demonstrated that it is more diffuse than previously recognized or perhaps the disc component is flatter than previously expected and limited to the thin disc. Further observations and modeling will undoubtedly be necessary.

Yet while the research may show a lack of our understanding of dark matter, the team also notes that it is even more devastating for dark matter’s largest rival. While dark matter may yet hide within the error bars in this study, the findings directly contradict the predictions of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).

So it's interesting to compare the two studies of the Milky way, one talking about dark matter evidence and the other talking about the lack of dark matter evidence, or at least that it's not distributed as we expected.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by poet1b

 

reply to post by dragonridr

 

The more specific you guys can be, the more productive the discussion will be hopefully. Anyway as a diversion to the "you're wrong" "no you're wrong" debate, I went through some of the over 100 books on plasma in my library, and decided to post this interesting analogy in one of the more fundamental books about how plasma is like a stripper in an exotic night club:

So a question to the scientists here, is what that says true that scientists refer to the the removal of all electrons as "fully stripped"? If so, maybe it's not such a bad analogy, and at least it's a little entertaining, but now I'm left wondering if some scientist came up with that expression while pondering plasma over a beer in an exotic nightclub. Maybe not but at least the analogy is less boring than some of my other textbooks.

dragonridr
Here you might find this interesting in the search for dark matter.There is an anomaly at the galactic core we have gamma radiation we can't account for.There thinking this gamma radiation could be produced by dark matter particles with a mass of 30 to 40 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) crashing into one another. So you know a proton is roughly 1 GeV for comparison. So this is a fairly big particle as particles go anyway.

arxiv.org...

Thanks that was an interesting read. What makes it especially interesting is that it's in the Milky Way and some attempts to observe dark matter in the Milky Way don't seem to match up with expectations, though the alternate explanation of MOND is dealt an even harder blow by observations. Of course it's difficult to see the galactic rotation curves of our own galaxy so we have tried to make alternate observations:

www.universetoday.com...

As galaxies grew large enough to shred incoming satellites and their dark matter, much of the dark matter should have been deposited in a flat structure in spiral galaxies which would allow such galaxies to form dark components similar to the disk and halo. However, a new study aimed at detecting the Milky Way’s dark disk have come up empty.


The study concentrated on detecting the dark matter by studying the luminous matter embedded in it in much the same way dark matter was originally discovered...

Using estimations on the mass from the visible stars and the interstellar medium, the team compared this visible mass to the solution for mass from the observations of the kinematics to search for a discrepancy indicative of dark matter. When the comparison was made, the team discovered that, “[t]he agreement between the visible mass and our dynamical solution is striking, and there is no need to invoke any dark component.”

While this finding doesn’t rule out the presence of dark matter, it does place constraints on it distribution and, if confirmed in other galaxies, may challenge the understanding of how dark matter serves to form galaxies. If dark matter is still present, this study has demonstrated that it is more diffuse than previously recognized or perhaps the disc component is flatter than previously expected and limited to the thin disc. Further observations and modeling will undoubtedly be necessary.

Yet while the research may show a lack of our understanding of dark matter, the team also notes that it is even more devastating for dark matter’s largest rival. While dark matter may yet hide within the error bars in this study, the findings directly contradict the predictions of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).

So it's interesting to compare the two studies of the Milky way, one talking about dark matter evidence and the other talking about the lack of dark matter evidence, or at least that it's not distributed as we expected.

What makes it interesting about dark matter is it explains some readings we dont understand in the milky way. In fact was reading an article i want to say university of Kansas any way they proposed the dark matter in the milky way causes the extinction events on earth there theory that as are sun travels through the galaxy we get close to dark matter causing it to disturb the ort cloud. This is because as we travel the earth goes up and down through the galactic plain and the dark matter is thought to be around the galaxy meaning the closer we get to the edge the more we feel its effect. Ill see if i can find it a student sent it to me and wanted to discuss in class.

As far as plasma it isnt well defined other than as you say lose electrons or protons but it still isnt electricity. Electricity is a property of matter not a state of matter.

dragonridr
Ill see if i can find it a student sent it to me and wanted to discuss in class.

Thanks, please post it if you can find it, that would be interesting.

As far as plasma it isnt well defined other than as you say lose electrons or protons but it still isnt electricity. Electricity is a property of matter not a state of matter.

Yes I made a big deal out of how loosely defined plasma is, and I really only scratched the surface of how loose it is. For example I didn't even mention this until now:

Plasma oscillation

Plasma oscillations, also known as "Langmuir waves" (after Irving Langmuir), are rapid oscillations of the electron density in conducting media such as plasmas or metals.

So we can have plasma oscillations even in metals which due to their conductive nature have some things in common with the ionized gas type plasma state. In fact superconducting metals conduct even better than plasma, and are at the opposite end of the temperature spectrum, so one can see electrical properties in other non-plasma phases of matter like solid metals, and liquid ion solutions where we rely on electricity for things like electroplating. Non-ionized gases are generally pretty good insulators though, until you apply a high enough electric field which as DenyObfuscation pointed out can convert the gas in a fluorescent tube to plasma.

Electricity is a very broad term too, so broad that it's not a very useful descriptor for anything specific. More specific terms like current, voltage, etc are more descriptive of specific electrical behaviors.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes things can act like other things for example supercooling metal indeed makes it superconductive and acts like a plasma. But remember we're talking altering properties thats what we are attempting to do. It still doesnt make metal a plasma for example when you supercool it. We are simply learning that temperature has an effect on matter and able to change its properties. What were trying to do now is create superconductivity at room temperature in solid matter. This is more creating a new state of matter than making a plasma. I remember a while ago i sent you how we can use photons to create matter so we createda new form of matter and gave light mass.So dont confuse grey areas made in a lab with the real universe i guess is what im trying to say.

reply to post by ErosA433


How about the most recent example I can remember.

I point out that plasma when created in a lab creates a cell like structure, dragonrdr states that is only in polymers (or whatever he works with), when as I then point out, this observation was made by Dr David Bohm. Dragonridr was flat out wrong. Look it up yourself. This is really pathetic juvenile stuff.

There are lots of engineers out there and scientists, who learn what they need to learn in order to get their degrees, and get jobs in their fields, but they never really understand the science. They are lost when things get outside of the orthodox.

Now as far as my explanation of how electricity is plasma, this is how I explained it.

On the positive side of current flow, the atoms and molecules of the conductor are stripped of their electrons, which turns many of them into positive ions. In a solid metal such as copper, these ions can not move, but they attract electrons from nearby copper molecules, which then become ions, the hole flows. On the negative side, the conductor has an over abundance of electrons, leaving free flowing negative ions. These negative ions at attracted to the positive ions on the other side of the circuit. In ac the charges switch back and forth.

The ions are the current, and the ions create the potential.

You were posting on that page, so i don't see how you missed it.

If what I am stating here is wrong, please explain where I am wrong. I would like to get some intelligent feedback.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think this definition puts it into a better perspective.

A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Some ions don't need to be completely stripped to effect the behavior of others.

poet1b
reply to post by ErosA433

 

How about the most recent example I can remember.

I point out that plasma when created in a lab creates a cell like structure, dragonrdr states that is only in polymers (or whatever he works with), when as I then point out, this observation was made by Dr David Bohm. Dragonridr was flat out wrong. Look it up yourself. This is really pathetic juvenile stuff.

There are lots of engineers out there and scientists, who learn what they need to learn in order to get their degrees, and get jobs in their fields, but they never really understand the science. They are lost when things get outside of the orthodox.

Now as far as my explanation of how electricity is plasma, this is how I explained it.

On the positive side of current flow, the atoms and molecules of the conductor are stripped of their electrons, which turns many of them into positive ions. In a solid metal such as copper, these ions can not move, but they attract electrons from nearby copper molecules, which then become ions, the hole flows. On the negative side, the conductor has an over abundance of electrons, leaving free flowing negative ions. These negative ions at attracted to the positive ions on the other side of the circuit. In ac the charges switch back and forth.

The ions are the current, and the ions create the potential.

You were posting on that page, so i don't see how you missed it.

If what I am stating here is wrong, please explain where I am wrong. I would like to get some intelligent feedback.

edit on 18-3-2014 by poet1b because: typo

No its just you and your misunderstanding of definitions plasmas producing a cell like structure does it have a nucleus? Or are you talking plasma separation which can be done with varying densities of plasma in which case one will create a ball inside the other. But as i said plasma does not create a cell nor look like one its a generality. By the way your definition of plasma is the same as the ones we posted earlier. As far as a wire do you think the electrons actually move like they do in the solar wind? Or are you talking about a transfer of energy like its drift velocity? And since you like playing games with definitions does electrons move down the wire from beginning to end in AC current?

poet1b
Now as far as my explanation of how electricity is plasma, this is how I explained it.

...On the positive side of current flow, the atoms and molecules of the conductor are stripped of their electrons, which turns many of them into positive ions. In a solid metal such as copper, ....

If what I am stating here is wrong, please explain where I am wrong. I would like to get some intelligent feedback.

You say "In a solid metal such as copper", key word being "solid" as in: solid, liquid, gas, plasma, the 4 states of matter. The solid state is not the plasma state. You then give this definition:

poet1b
I think this definition puts it into a better perspective.

"A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior."

So is it a distinct state of matter, or isn't it? If you're referring to a "solid" as in "solid metal such as copper", that is a different distinct state than plasma, correct? So your explanation of how electricity is plasma in a solid like copper seems to contradict your definition of plasma as a distinct state of matter, does it not?

dragonridr
Well theres two thoughts as to why we didnt get full matter annihilation. One being there is a difference between the decay rates of b-masons and anti b-masons. Keck found out anti b-masons decay faster. Meaning there was a small percentage of matter that wasnt converted to energy. The other one that makes sense is similar to what we are discussing local areas of the universe can show bias in one direction or the other. I know you understand spin,the spin of a particle may be used to define a handedness.If a particle is right-handed its spin is the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions of spin and motion are opposite.Only left-handed fermions interact with the weak interaction. In most circumstances, two left-handed fermions interact more strongly than right-handed or opposite-handed fermions implying that the universe has a preference for left-handed chirality, which violates a symmetry of the other forces of nature.This violation leads to slightly more matter surviving the initial matter antimatter annihilations. What we dont understand is why there is this bias in the first place it shouldnt be there.there is no reason we can think of right-handed fermions shouldnt act the same. We think it has something to do with the Higgs.

Maybe you should re-write the explanation in Wikipedia which simply says this:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is currently insufficient observational evidence to explain why the universe contains far more baryons than antibaryons. A candidate explanation for this phenomenon must allow the Sakharov conditions to be satisfied at some time after the end of cosmological inflation. While particle physics suggests asymmetries under which these conditions are met, these asymmetries are too small empirically to account for the observed baryon-antibaryon asymmetry of the universe.

I know that Wikipedia isn't the fountain of all knowledge but can that explanation be rationalized with yours? Or is it outdated perhaps?

Arbitrageur

poet1b
Now as far as my explanation of how electricity is plasma, this is how I explained it.

...On the positive side of current flow, the atoms and molecules of the conductor are stripped of their electrons, which turns many of them into positive ions. In a solid metal such as copper, ....

If what I am stating here is wrong, please explain where I am wrong. I would like to get some intelligent feedback.

You say "In a solid metal such as copper", key word being "solid" as in: solid, liquid, gas, plasma, the 4 states of matter. The solid state is not the plasma state. You then give this definition:

poet1b
I think this definition puts it into a better perspective.

"A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior."

So is it a distinct state of matter, or isn't it? If you're referring to a "solid" as in "solid metal such as copper", that is a different distinct state than plasma, correct? So your explanation of how electricity is plasma in a solid like copper seems to contradict your definition of plasma as a distinct state of matter, does it not?

dragonridr
Well theres two thoughts as to why we didnt get full matter annihilation. One being there is a difference between the decay rates of b-masons and anti b-masons. Keck found out anti b-masons decay faster. Meaning there was a small percentage of matter that wasnt converted to energy. The other one that makes sense is similar to what we are discussing local areas of the universe can show bias in one direction or the other. I know you understand spin,the spin of a particle may be used to define a handedness.If a particle is right-handed its spin is the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions of spin and motion are opposite.Only left-handed fermions interact with the weak interaction. In most circumstances, two left-handed fermions interact more strongly than right-handed or opposite-handed fermions implying that the universe has a preference for left-handed chirality, which violates a symmetry of the other forces of nature.This violation leads to slightly more matter surviving the initial matter antimatter annihilations. What we dont understand is why there is this bias in the first place it shouldnt be there.there is no reason we can think of right-handed fermions shouldnt act the same. We think it has something to do with the Higgs.

Maybe you should re-write the explanation in Wikipedia which simply says this:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is currently insufficient observational evidence to explain why the universe contains far more baryons than antibaryons. A candidate explanation for this phenomenon must allow the Sakharov conditions to be satisfied at some time after the end of cosmological inflation. While particle physics suggests asymmetries under which these conditions are met, these asymmetries are too small empirically to account for the observed baryon-antibaryon asymmetry of the universe.

I know that Wikipedia isn't the fountain of all knowledge but can that explanation be rationalized with yours? Or is it outdated perhaps?

edit on 19-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Theres other theories as well these are currently the two there focusing in on at Cern. we found out there is adiffrence in decay rates even though remember i said there shouldn't be.
www.syr.edu...

The other is based on a bias we discovered on spin in the universe again we dont know why ill find that article later have to get to bed.

The mysterious electron

Despite the importance of the electron, we know surprisingly little about it. For example, we don't know whether it's a wave or a particle, as it displays properties consistent with both (hence the term wave-particle duality) and, according to conventional wisdom, it has no structure.

"All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. All the known properties of the electron are consistent with the assumption that its radius is zero. As far as we know, the electron has no structure."

The above is quoted from the London Science Museum web site.

www.plasmacosmology.net...

I have been googling "electron" because I heard a representative of the Keshe Foundation say that the electron (and proton) are just wound up magnetic fields.

Maybe we have a plasma universe which should be defined in terms of magnetic fields rather than charged particles.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Can I get his in layman terms

Tell it to me like I'm a 6 year old.

In physics, a hole is an electric charge carrier with a positive charge, equal in magnitude but opposite in polarity to the charge on the electron. Holes and electrons are the two types of charge carriers responsible for current in semiconductor materials.

A hole is the absence of an electron in a particular place in an atom. Although it is not a physical particle in the same sense as an electron, a hole can be passed from atom to atom in a semiconductor material.

whatis.techtarget.com...

Does this apply equally to a conductor such as copper wires?

ETA:

In metals, the charge carriers are electrons. One or two of the outer valence electrons from each atom is able to move about freely within the crystal structure of the metal. The free electrons are referred to as conduction electrons, and the cloud of free electrons is called a Fermi gas. .....

In semiconductors (the material used to make electronic components like transistors and integrated circuits), in addition to electrons, the travelling vacancies in the valence-band electron population (called "holes"), act as mobile positive charges and are treated as charge carriers. Electrons and holes are the charge carriers in semiconductors.

en.wikipedia.org...

What I find indicates to me that the answer is no but I realize I simply could be missing something. I'd like to be certain if possible.

reply to post by combatmaster


The electric sun should be seen within the context of the electric universe and here is an intro: "Chapter 1 — What is the Electric Universe?

DenyObfuscation
Does this apply equally to a conductor such as copper wires?

...What I find indicates to me that the answer is no but I realize I simply could be missing something. I'd like to be certain if possible.

Like Richard Feynman I'm never 100% certain about anything, but as far as I know, you are correct, the answer is no. This explanation may be over-simplified, but the reason you have "electron holes" in semiconductors is because of introducing a small amount of impurities into the semiconductor in a process called "doping", where the electron holes are associated with the addition of those impurities.

Because of the way the physics works, the "electron holes" tend to move very sluggishly compared to electrons (even though electrons are the only things that actually move) because they behave as if they have a larger effective mass than an electron, which is an effect I've not seen associated with metals:

In most semiconductors, the effective mass of a hole is much larger than that of an electron. This results in lower mobility for holes under the influence of an electric field and this may slow down the speed of the electronic device made of that semiconductor. This is one major reason for adopting electrons as the primary charge carriers, whenever possible in semiconductor devices, rather than holes.

I've never heard of electron holes in conducting metals and wouldn't expect to see such an application, but there might be an exception somewhere I haven't heard about. Aside from such possible exceptions I think that your answer is correct.

Mary Rose
Maybe we have a plasma universe which should be defined in terms of magnetic fields rather than charged particles.

You seem to have been drawn to charlatan Tom Bearden's claims that Maxwell's equations aren't good enough and now based on something from the Keshe foundation think they aren't good enough. They describe the relationships between electricity and magnetism, pretty well as far as we can tell, until you get into quantum effects when quantum electrodyamics (QED) becomes significant, but in most cases the quantum deviations from Maxwell's equations are insignificant. When you talk about redefining something in physics you've got to speak in mathematical terms, like what you'd use to replace Maxwell's equations or QED. I doubt Keshe has anything better as I've never seen anything scientifically valid come from them and there are plenty of fraud and scam warnings about them like this from the museum of hoaxes:

www.museumofhoaxes.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


As I have stated earlier, plasma is able to form within a solid.

By the very definition I have given of plasma, and what we know about electricity, this is what happens.

Plasma is not always defined as a gas.

And yes, all of anti-matter theory is outdated.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I think you have a good point there.

Essentially almost all of our concepts about physics are formed on our observation of existence within the little bubble in which we live, but most of the world is completely different, and it is primarily inhabited in a state of plasma.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


It applies to copper wires and semi-conductors.

The evidence is starting you in the face, but you refuse to see it.

As far as hole flow in metals go, look up capacitance. Yes, hole flow occurs in copper and other metals carrying current.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

As I have stated earlier, plasma is able to form within a solid.

By the very definition I have given of plasma, and what we know about electricity, this is what happens.

Plasma is not always defined as a gas.

At the very least you have a definition problem. The definition you promote says plasma is a distinct state of matter (as in distinct from solid, liquid, or gas). But you seem to be saying it's not distinct since it can be in solid form like solid copper, thus contradicting the definition you have provided, correct?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And once again you have a problem with your interpretation of what I have posted.

What I said, "plasma is able to form within a solid."

It is not existing in a solid form, it exists within the solid. Being subatomic, the plasma moves through the solid.