So why do physicists say only gravity matters on cosmological scales?Electromagnetism is 10^36-10^42 times stronger and the default state of matter is being electrically charged gas.Instead they come up with ideas like dark matter and dark energy.
>>16917771gravity only attracts while electromagnetism attracts and repels depending on polarity, which is usually randomly distributed since like charges repel and opposites attract, resulting in an overall neutral charge.
>>16917773>overall neutral chargeBut ionized gas consists out of quadrillion quadrillion atoms and still the gas isn't neutral in the sense that no electromagnetic forces are active (shocks, magnetic reconnection, and filamentary structures)
>>16917771Electromagnetism is that much stronger, and yet the dynamics of our Solar System are completely dominated by gravity. You can calculate the precise trajectories of spacecraft, without modeling any other forces. On cosmological scales the density of matter is so low that pressure is irreverent. EM forces relevant inside galaxies and on small scale things, the details rather than dominating the large scale dynamics>>16917779Quasi-neutrality means that there are no large-scale electric fields, due to Debye screening. Magnetic fields can exist on larger scales. But on cosmological scales measurements that if there is a magnetic field in the intergalactic medium it is very weak.
>>16917779Ionizing the gas doesn't make the electrons vanish, on a macro scale ionized gas has no charge.
>>16917787>You can calculate the precise trajectories of spacecraft, without modeling any other forces.Well the spacecraft and planets won't be electrically charged. Asteroids will be neutral as well (though there are dark comets, i.e objects that look like asteroids but move like comets regarding acceleration etc, though astronomers prefer invisible gas leaks over other explanations)>They are distinguished from other asteroids by their non-gravitational acceleration, which causes them to deviate from their expected orbital pathIf local electromagnetic phenomena are possible (i.e., on scales bigger than a few nanometers and in the case of ionized gas nebulae, apparently light years are possible, then Debye screening doesn't seem to inhibit these effects too much. And at some point I wonder, if light years are possible, why not thousands of light years, i.e. galaxy-wide scale?
>>16917801>Well the spacecraft and planets won't be electrically charged. Not true. There is an effect called surface charging in a plasma, which affects spacecraft. They are not neutral. But like most EM effects, it is very pathetic. Despite the fact that EM is a strong force. >then Debye screening doesn't seem to inhibit these effects too much.Not true. The dynamics of plasmas below the Debye scale is very different. > And at some point I wonder, if light years are possible, why not thousands of light years, i.e. galaxy-wide scale?Read the rest of what I said again. They are possible, but they do not dominate dynamics.
>>16917801>schizo is an AI spammerlmao
>>16917804>but they do not dominate dynamics(just enough to form lightyears-scale structures)This is what matters. If it can shape such structures, it is important and a fact."It can, but is not interesting" is just an opinion.
>>16917807Did you know that a force besides gravity can shape structures over several light years? I was never told that this is an accepted mainstream fact.
>>16917813>This is what matters. If it can shape such structures, it is important and a fact.Well then you asked the wrong question:>So why do physicists say only gravity matters on cosmological scales?Lightyears is not "cosmological scales". Also a "structure" can mean anything.
>>16917820If you have 20 hydrogen atoms and one is missing an electron, then there'll be local electromagnetic phenomena. Statistically it's not hard to accept there's one outlier. But if stable formations of ionized gas with a quadrillion quintillion sextillion atoms exist for millions of years, that's quite surprising for anyone who doesn't work in this field but has a vague idea of how things might look like. I would have assumed effects like Debye screening follow some statistical law. 20 atoms can do their own stuff, 50 or more and it gets suffocated by a compensating current. So now I learn this isn't the case at all and the ionization doesn't depend on harsh environments like a supernova shock front. And Debye screening sets in eventually after a million billion trillion atoms, well kinda. And people are like "yeah lol we've known about this for decades, these things are light years big and, at least if only one axis considered, contribute to a measurable distance along the entire galactic length, but it's not worth paying attention, it's self-contained and rather boring. And even though it's light years, it couldn't possible influemce other structures light years away (there are always other structures nearby since 99% of all matter is electrically charged gas, without stars still 95%)."
>>16917771Yet, gravity crushes submarines.
>>16917773>random>net neutralso you have absolutely no idea how these gas clouds are actually distributed and what charges the have
>>16917843> would have assumed effects like Debye screening follow some statistical law. It is a matter of scale as I said, it depends on the density. Why is not surprising that you come here to preach, but don't even know the most basic plasma physics. You don't even understand what you're disputing. >So now I learn this isn't the case at all and the ionization doesn't depend on harsh environments like a supernova shock front. WOW. What a novel thought. Supernovae shocks could have EM effects. Wow. I mean it's not like people have been studying Fermi acceleration since long before you were born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_accelerationYou have invented this straw-man that no one thinks about these things, when lots of people work on them. These are entire fields. But does that mean everything matters on cosmological scales? No.
>>16917861>preachThat's an insinuation. You can answer in the same tone as I do.>WOW. What a novel thought.Read twice, if one time isn't enough. I did not say *this* is surprising. I said it's surprising that ionization is persistent even if an extreme environment is absent.I appreciate the two sentences in your post that contribute to the thread though.
Y'all morons are honestly engaging an EU shill.
>>16917853randomly distributed in aggregate. obviously not within the plasma.
>>16917771Intergalactic space only has something like 1 atom per cubic metre
>>16917895That's the new world. Scientists and academia murdered the old one when they came out in favor of trooning and bioweapons. They truly deserve this timeline. Their complaints are reflections of themselves.
>>16917801>MUH AIkys
>>16918025If it merely replaces a search engine it's fine. The same basic fact can be found via traditional means, just slower.The difference between humans and monkeys is that they look at the context.
>>16917771>>169177791) Yes, your ionized gas consists of quadrillions of charges, but the system is globally quasineutral, which is what leads directly to2) Charges reorganize to dampen out electromagnetic fields. Shielding is a bitch, instead of the electric from, say, a point source scaling like [math]F_E = k\frac{q^2}{r^2}[/math]it scales more like[math]F_E = k \frac{q^2}{r^2} ( 1 + \frac{r}{\lambda_D}) e^{-\frac{r}{\lambda_D}}[/math]Once you get more than like a hundred Debye lengths away the electric field to gravitational field ratio drops from [math]10^36-10^42[/math] stronger to more like order unity, and as you go more than that your electric field is just fucking nil. And for context, the Debye length for something like interplanetary/interstellar space is maybe a few tens/hundreds of meters.
