- Space is pretty goddamn neutral. Where is this current? Why have we not measured it?
No it isn't. Space is full of really massive ion flows. What do you think the 'solar wind' is? CMEs? Auroras, visible on Earth, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, etc. Google 'electric Universe comets' for some more interesting stuff. Take a look at detail surface pics of the dumbell comet, and notice the obvious signs of electro-machining.
Which one? 67P? Just looks like a pile of ice and rocks. Apparently it very likely formed as the low velocity collision of two cometoids, but there's absolutely no reason to suspect something quite that specific.
Also, there would be NASA studies of "electromachining" on a scale far more massive than is seen.
They study it, sure;
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NP-2015-03-015-JSC_Space_Environment-ISS-Mini-Book-2015-508.pdf comes up on top of a search. But it's minuscule.
If solar wind were strong enough to atomize whole km's of cometary surfaces, there would be no dust, or smaller (<1km) asteroids left.
Space is rough, but it's not that rough!
The common idea that charge distributes evenly in space is very ignorant. There are far more complicated effects, including Birkeland currents, pinch efects, double-wall charge layers, etc. Even commonly heard phrases such as 'magnetic field lines breaking and reconnecting' are ridiculous ignorant twaddle. Most astrophysicists seem to have no understanding of basic electromagnetics and plasma physics at all.
The way they describe things, simple neon bulbs would be a complete mystery. Does the electrostatic field from the electrodes distribute evenly across the space between them? No, it doesn't. It virtually all concentrates in a thin layer around one of the electrodes, hence that's where the glow appears.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you! Plasma is conductive, thus shorting out the electric field basically everywhere.
The most charge separation that is possible, is the maximum particle energy emitted by a given body. A few million volts, say. For something that contains ~10^50 particles, like a star, that's, well -- astronomical balance!
(A boundary layer is characteristic of cool plasmas, where the gas recombines and only low energy ions and electrons interact with the conductor. With much higher energies, lower densities, and no way for the plasma to recombine near a surface, I wouldn't think this is relevant here. Maybe a similar effect could be produced in a contrived setup, like a magnetic funnel, and some way to pump energy out of the plasma near it?)
That doesn't involve making shit up, about unknown, invisible, mysteriously acting 'dark matter'.
Gosh, you must really have a lot at stake here, to have such a strong opinion about it.
What's wrong with making things up? I do it all the time. Then I fit theory to it and see if it matches the data or hypothesis. Seems to work well for me, and the century or three of other scientists out there.
That seems to be the critical step, forming a cohesive data-hypothesis-theory system. Wouldn't you say?
Throwing out uselessly complicated, contrived, and poorly justified theories is also an important step. There are infinite ways to tackle any given problem -- the best is the one that is easiest to work with.
Example: planetary motion.
You can describe the motion, to arbitrary accuracy, with finite series of epicycles. That's a valid description, sure -- or really, more merely an encoding of the data. It doesn't provide any insight into their behavior, why the planets move the way they do. (Aside from the motion generally being circular, though that too is far from a necessity, as
many examples show.)
Someone invented a siderocentric system, relatively recently (mid 2000s was it?). And it was horrendously complicated (I don't remember if it's just epicycles anyway, or what, or if there's a trivial transformation to Kepler's laws that makes working in such a domain purely Sisyphean), so that even if it's nontrivial, it's the last thing you would ever want to actually work in.
Whereas Kepler's laws are simple, concise and very practical. A few astronomical observations, a few pushes on the slide rule, and you've got reasonable predictions for the paths of celestial objects. A few tweaks on statistical methods (like Gauss predicting the orbit of Ceres) and you've got almost everything. If you need extremely precise predictions (down to the second, or out to millenia), a little relativity can be brought in -- accounting for the precession of Mercury, or the timing of GPS satellites, say.
Oh and btw, electrostatic forces are 10^39 stronger than gravitational forces, proton to electron. Same at macro scales. This is not intuitive to us, because we live in an environment in which charges mostly DO equalise, so we very rarely directly experience electrostatic/EM forces of any significant magnitude. But this is not true in macro-plasma environments such as deep space.
This is a meaningless statement.
Nothing is stronger than gravity. I've never heard of an electron and proton clacking together so hard they ripped a hole in space time.
The 10^39 figure bandied about in the popular press is a special case, for a certain scale factor (I forget what, probably particle-scale interactions). It's as meaningless as the supposed 10^120 discrepancy in vacuum energy, which is similarly easily debunked (if not to complete equality, mind -- a difference perhaps hinting at further science that may explain dark matter, or a GUT).
- Where is the outward-flowing reaction mass? Even if all of the above happens, there must be a truly astronomical amount of plasma being farted out, radially, in order to keep pushing all those stars towards the center. Calculate the reaction mass required. Assume outflow velocity 0.2c just for optimism. How long will a 10^12 solar mass galaxy live for, until its mass is completely evaporated away?
And yet you happily accept the idea of dark matter?
I like how you, ahem, "deflect" from answering my easily calculated problem; in the process, implying that I am the one with an irrational affinity for an incomplete theory...
I have an estimate for the answer to this problem, by the way; I'd be interested to see others' SWAGs on it. Anyone?
Where is the 'reaction mass' that deflects electron beams in a CRT?
The magnetic yoke or deflection plates, of course. The electromagnetic field of the beam causes a small but nonetheless present deformation of the ambient fields, pushing back. Or if you prefer a quantum view, the virtual photons from the spinning charge carriers in the magnet deliver momentum.
Note that no such force occurs if the beam is neutral, e.g., an equal mixture of electrons and protons travelling at ~1MeV average velocity. The components will separate in opposite directions, giving no net force on the yoke*.
*For small angles. I can think of situations where this is not true; can you?
Note that compared to the distances between galaxies, the actual galaxies are very small. And we know next to nothing about the plasma, charge and magnetic structures between galaxies. You've seen illustrations of what we know about large scale structure of space, and the way galaxy clusters seem to be strung like strings through the largely empty volumes? Why is that?
I'm glad you asked! Because none of that mess was ever taken into account* in whole-universe simulations, yet they produce exactly the structure observed!
https://youtu.be/NjSFR40SY58*
http://www.illustris-project.org/about/ doesn't mention anything about plasma or currents.
Mind, I'm not saying those currents don't exist. I'm saying, even if they do, they are insignificant compared to the dominant gravitational force at work, which itself, does not produce the correct results alone -- but when a model of dark matter is included, the result is striking. (It seems unlikely that we'll ever have much need of considering such high-order effects. If humanity is around for long enough to see their sun complete even a single orbit in its galaxy -- whichever sun and galaxy that might happen to be -- I won't be mad, I'll be very well impressed, indeed!)
Dark matter isn't explained with an underlying theory, no. Perhaps that will come in time. One is not given the data-hypothesis-theory trifecta from heaven. It is built up over time!
Anyway, ultimate understanding is not needed to obtain something that is nonetheless practical to use! I don't see you referring to quantum electrodynamics every time you want to measure the voltage (whatever that is) on a transistor (whatever that is).
Those saying 'dark matter must be real, because hundreds of scientists have built their careers on its study' are pretty amusing.
An example: hundreds of scientists have built their careers on the principle that CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is the primary regulator of Earth's surface temperature.
Here's a relevant chart.
It happens to be one I came across around 2007. Before which I was a firm believer in the CO2/Warming story. The chart prompted me to start checking out some things... Because either it's incorrect, or the CO2 story is false. Let's not divert into that. But do think about it, and maybe start doing your own checking. My point here is that Science is NOT a concensus voting game. And those who pretend it is, are generally pretty mixed up on other things too.
Indeed, science is not built on consensus (and that which is, ain't science).
Science is built on numbers, on measurement, on reason.
So, hey -- where's that reaction mass going, anyway?
Also, you're making the implication, for the second time, that I somehow have my reputation or livelihood staked on the truth of dark matter, or something like that. I don't much appreciate having words put in my mouth, thank you.
Tim