Thunderbolts of the Gods

[Ziggurat]

Don't you love how when someone comes in with a different idea the mainstream supporters often say ... "come back when you've published it in a peer reviewed journal and have real scientists supporting it".

Strawman. I haven't done anything of the sort.

Actually, he linked to one and that one was published in 2004 (how many years after Peratt's original work?).

So what?

And are you sure it actually disputes Peratt's model

It disputes the idea that magnetic fields can account for galactic rotation curves without dark matter.

 

[robinson]

Wait, now the dark matter debate has moved to this topic???

 

[iantresman]

You believe in astrology?

.
I'm a Capricorn.

Capricorns don't believe in that stuff.

(Just in case there are any Geminis reading this)

 

[Ziggurat]

E. Battaner, E. Florido. (2007) "Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?", Astronomische Nachrichten 328:1, 92 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114033320/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 )

Link doesn't work.

And then there's the question of how big the magnetic fields really can get:

http://kino.as.arizona.edu/~disks/Abstracts.html "We conclude that the magnetic fields both in the disc and the halo of the Milky Way are quite turbulent with some indication of overlaying large scale structure."

"turbulent" and "big" don't mean the same thing. Not at all. So the abstract you referenced says nothing about the size of the magnetic fields. But a different abstract does: "Total field strengths in spiral arms and bars are 10 - 30 MicroGauss". 30 microgauss is 3x10^-9 Tesla, less than an order of magnitude off from the number I took directly from Peratt.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5715/1610?rss=1 "The large bursts of recent star formation and supernova activity in the LMC argue against standard dynamo theory, adding to the growing evidence for rapid field amplification in galaxies."

Do you know what this means? I doubt it. Let's look at what they actually say about the actual fields involved:
"The magnetic field of the LMC consists of a coherent axisymmetric spiral of field strength ~1 microgauss"
So it's small, on the order of what I already dealt with. What about the non-coherent part, the part that fluctuates?
"... we find that Br > 5 µG. We thus infer that there are large RM and magnetic field fluctuations on subparsec scales in the ionized gas of the LMC"
5 microgauss fluctuations on a background of 1 microgauss. For some purposes, I guess that is big. But it's still far too small to be relevant for the galactic orbit of a star. Not surprising, though: you like words like "big", but you can't work with numbers so you don't actually understand what it means.

 

[robinson]

Excuse me for being rational here, but what values would cause stars or plasma or what ever is there, to be attracted to another magnetic field? I know the fields are small, like the Earth's field is small, but considering the size, isn't really a huge amount of magnetism?

I'm trying to be helpful. I hear the Earth's EM field is very weak, like a refrigerator magnet. Correct? Bit even a weak field causes another magnet to move (like a compass), meaning the size must matter.

I know, I know, I am ignorant of many things, but how do you calculate this stuff? In terms we dumb people can understand.

 

[sol invictus]

Excuse me for being rational here, but what values would cause stars or plasma or what ever is there, to be attracted to another magnetic field? I know the fields are small, like the Earth's field is small, but considering the size, isn't really a huge amount of magnetism?

The earth is a good example. The magnetic field of the earth exerts a much, much, weaker force on us than its gravitational field does. Zig did an estimate to show that the same is true for stars and a galaxy (the gravitational pull of the galaxy on the star is much, much, much, much stronger than its magnetic pull on the star).

The reason is that gravitational fields are sourced by mass - the more mass, the stronger they get. So really big things like the earth have very strong gravity fields. But EM fields are sourced by charges and currents, and charges and currents tend to average out in large objects (because they can be both positive and negative, unlike mass), so they're not very big in comparison.

I know, I know, I am ignorant of many things, but how do you calculate this stuff? In terms we dumb people can understand.

The magnitude of the force of a magnetic field on a charge is the velocity of the charge times the amount of charge times the magnetic field strength. Zig calculated that for a star orbiting a galaxy and compared it to the gravitational force. It's smaller by a factor of around 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wait, now the dark matter debate has moved to this topic???

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Excuse me for being rational here, but what values would cause stars or plasma or what ever is there, to be attracted to another magnetic field?

By what mechanism? The Lorenz force on a charge moving through a magnetic field (which is what I calculated before) requires a field on the order of 10²⁰ times larger than proposed in order to have a significant effect on a star's rotational dynamics.

I know the fields are small, like the Earth's field is small, but considering the size, isn't really a huge amount of magnetism?

It's a whole lot of energy. But large spatial extent doesn't increase the Lorenz force. And it actually decreases the dipole force (which I didn't calculate) because a spatially extended field will have a smaller gradient.

I'm trying to be helpful. I hear the Earth's EM field is very weak, like a refrigerator magnet. Correct? Bit even a weak field causes another magnet to move (like a compass), meaning the size must matter.

No, spatial size doesn't matter for that. Get a compass near a refrigerator magnet, and it will deflect the compass. Get far away from a refrigerator magnet, and the field from the refrigerator magnet will be much weaker than the earth's magnetic field. And what you're observing is the torque on a dipole, not the net force. The torque is proportional to the field, but the net force is proportional to the gradient, and you'll never detect the net force on a compass from the earth. And it's the net force, not the torque, which might contribute to the galactic orbit of an object.

I know, I know, I am ignorant of many things, but how do you calculate this stuff? In terms we dumb people can understand.

Lorenz force is qv x B, where q is the charge of the moving object, v is its velocity, B is the magnetic field strength, and the "x" signifies a vector cross product (it's zero when v and B are parallel or antiparallel, maximum when they're perpendicular).

Dipole force is grad (m dot B) where "dot" indicates the vector dot product and grad indicates the gradient operator.

More than that and you're going to have to go pick up an electrodynamics textbook, or this will take too long.

 

[BeAChooser]

I haven't done anything of the sort.

Ever?

It disputes the idea that magnetic fields can account for galactic rotation curves without dark matter.

No, only in the model they have of how electromagnetism affects the motions of galaxies. Are you sure they are using the same model as Peratt? After all, they also had to make a bunch of assumptions to build an MHD model of the galaxy. Just like solar astrophysicists have had to make a bunch of assumptions to build their model of our sun. And in the course of that modeling they've ignored Birkeland currents, double layers, explosive double layers and z-pinches ... and ignored the wisdom of the man who first invented MHD. Which leaves us to wonder what might they be ignoring in their model of galaxies?

 

[BeAChooser]

Link doesn't work.

Works fine for me. Problems with your browser?

 

[Dancing David]

And what is the magnitude of the magnetic field Peratt's model would require, David? Can you tell us that? If that's a valid reason for dismissing the theory, then why hasn't even ONE mainstream astrophysicist pointed that out in writing in any peer reviewed forum? Why can't I find ANY article (peer reviewed or not) in ANY mainstream media outlet stating that?



I think you just demonstrated that you haven't a clue what Peratt's model entails. You still haven't bothered to read the various links I've provided, David? You see, this is why I decided it was a waste of time to converse with you. Time to put you back on ignore?

Funny how when someone asked you a pertinent question, your answer is to ridicule them. (Karl Rove)I read the article of Peratt's which is why I asked, evidently you don't understand the model, which is why you don't even try to answer my question. It seemed relevant to me, the fact that you go into hyperbole, rather than answering question shows you are a troll, or don't understand the model well enough to explain it to me.

So why not try to explain why the question is not germane? Do you actualy understand the model?

 

[Dancing David]

Why have mainstream scientists completely ignored Peratt's work, David? You provide a reasonable answer to that question and I might be willing to discuss your question ... not that answers weren't already available on some of the sources I've linked during these discussions.

Don't understand the models enough to explain them or just a coward?

The mainstream just INTERPRETS alpha-lyman lines as meaning quasars are at great distance. But their cause is not at all certain.

Do you know that mainstream astrophysicists are having trouble coming up with enough neutral IGM hydrogen to explain them using their theory? http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm "Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z » 6.1. Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a time when the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their emission would have been absorbed by the surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. So the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG 0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host galaxy appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong enough to ionize the intergalactic medium." And there are other problems. The number of absorption line systems does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption lines as high-z quasars. The mainstream claims that means neutral hydrogen clouds doing the absorbing are not uniformly spread through space, and are more abundant at closer distances (recent times). There are problems with that interpretation, however, compared to other observations, like those mentioned above.

Some alternative cosmologists would say that the absorption systems are due to layering in the quasar and its surrounding nebula and that no linear or monotonic relationship with redshift is to be expected. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm "The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar’s own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires."

And finally, there is lots of ongoing activity to explain the observations by still other alternative means ... some apparently quite successful.

For example, consider these descriptions from a 2004 APS conference: http://www.flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/APR04/baps/abs/S3530.html

"The Key to the Computation of the Spectra of the Quasars and Cosmic Acceleration, Jacques Moret-Bailly, Jerry Jensen, Francoise Michelot (Universite de bourgogne, Physique, Dijon France), The "Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light" (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without blurring of the images or loss of order in the spectra, so that it may be confused with Doppler effects. CREIL operates in gases having quadrupolar resonances in the megahertz range. When CREIL is taken into account, the propagation of light in cosmic low pressure gases involves both absorptions and emissions in an intricate combination of frequency shifts. The propagation of light in the extended photosphere of extremely hot objects is very complex. This is because CREIL requires a Lyman excitation in atomic hydrogen to achieve hyperfine resonances in the first excited levels. A bistability emerges which chains Lyman absorptions into line patterns which coincide at discrete redshifts. Current theory predicts very bright accreting neutron stars. These should be small, very hot objects surrounded by dirty atomic hydrogen. Their spectra have exactly the characteristics of the spectra of quasars. The intrinsic redshifting of Quasars as defined by CREIL events, drastically reduces both the size and distance to quasars, and clearly identifies quasars as the missing neutron stars. A full interpretation of quasar spectra does not require jets, dark matter, variation of the fine structure constants, or a strange synthesis of iron. CREIL or CREIL-like processes may also be useful in explaining other astrophysical problems, such as redshifting proportional to the path through the corona of the Sun, and the blueshifting of radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11." ... "The redshifted repartitioning of the spectral lines observed in the spectra of the quasars is generally considered as stochastic. However, several authors have argued a periodic redshift pattern emerges that the is an integer function of the basic redshift and z_b = 0.062. This function results from a Coherent Raman Effect in Incoherent Light (CREIL) during the propagation of quasar light in an extended halo of atomic, neutral hydrogen. CREIL computations correctly interpret quasar Lyman features without unphysical clouds or ionic winds; and does not require new spectroscopic or astrophysical parameters. The non-linearity of the combination of Lyman absorptions and coherent Raman effect explains both the observed positions of the spectral lines, their shape and their high contrast."

"Large Quasar Redshifts due to Non-Doppler, Non-Expansion Mechanism, C. F. Gallo (Superconix Inc), Quasars appear associated with gassy environments, particularly galaxies that usually exhibit smaller redshifts. The usual interpretation is that the Quasar is distant while the intervening galaxy is closer. Quasars also exhibit complex spectra, particularly the “Lyman alpha forest” of lines, again with smaller redshifts, again ascribed to closer intervening hydrogen clouds. Since the number of such absorption features increases with Z of the Quasar, this is a self-consistent picture, but not independently proven. An equally self-consistent interpretation is that the intervening gassy material PARTIALLY CAUSES the Large Quasar Redshifts via a Non-Doppler (or Non-Space Expansion) Redshift mechanism such as Raman, CREIL, Compton, Plasma or Wolf effects. This is in addition to the overall Hubble Redshift, but puts Quasars at closer distances than standard models. These Conclusions are supported by several decades of published astronomical observations which suggest that High-Z-Quasars are in close proximity to their associated Low-Z-Galaxies. Comparing Neutrino Redshifts to Photon Redshifts would yield conclusive evidence for resolving the competing models."



You claim I've failed to "address optical alitgnment and statistical issues in those (sic) conclusion." ROTFLOL! David, you clearly didn't read what I posted ... again. My assertion that QSO's are associated with nearby objects in fact consists primarily of optical alignment and statistical reasons.

Ever heard of controls?

I never claimed the EU theorists have a final definite model, David. I told you that a miniscule amount of research has gone into this theory compared to the Big Bang theory. But provided there is a mechanism to attract electrical energy from interstellar space to the sun, it would explain all of the observations that are still baffling mainstream theorists ... even with their zoo of magic gnomes. Many parameters are still unknown so your asking for a definitive answer at this point is disingenuous.

You are the one who mentioned the model that might have charge flowing from a negative to a negative BAC, does it bother you that you said that?

Poke hole in other models but refuse to answer questions, which you could try to answer.

Figures.

They are unknown in part because NASA has been so focused on dark matter and the other gnomes they've not bothered to investigate anything more mundane ... anything that is contrary to those other gnomes. Heck, they won't even respond to something as clear cut as Peratt's model for galaxy rotation. So what do you expect, David?

I did and you just acted the usual Ahab sort of bullcrap.

Can't understand your own model or a coward. Figures.

I'm perfectly content to let readers of our exchanges read them and decide for themselves who is ignoring the others questions. I don't claim to be an expert but I do think if the mainstream wishes to dismiss peer-reviewed theories published in mainstream journals they should do so formally in peer reviewed articles. Not send you out to do it for them like this.



Come on David ... provide a peer reviewed article challenging Peratt's work. Can you do it or not? Can you provide ANY publish article, paper, or statement to the media by ANY mainstream astrophysicist that specifically mentions Peratt's work and states specifically why it is wrong? No? Why must we take your word for anything in this matter, David? Is science now to be conducted on internet forums like this where posers like you get to make the decisions instead of via peer reviewed work published in scientific journals?

I don't have time to respond right now, I do notice that some questions remain unaswered and that you don't understand statistics. As I ahve stated in three other threads, it is a relevant point to ask about sampling controls, which Arp did not preform.

Sorry i am at the library as Comcast is messing with me at home.

I notice again that you engage in hyperbole rather than discussion, you are the one with the chip on your shoulder and a snotfilled nose. I have tried to discuss things with you, but your meglomania still gets in the way. Are you afariad to discusss BAC, I think you are a craven troll, which is why you don't answer direct questions. You are a coward BAC and one who is afraid to just discuss things without descending into appeals to emotion. So why are you such a chicken poop, can you engage and answer questions without the pejoratives?

You do act like a troll, and you act like a meglomaniac, and now you act afraid to answer questions.

Why are you afraid to just talk?

 

[Ziggurat]

After all, they also had to make a bunch of assumptions to build an MHD model of the galaxy.

And Peratt didn't? Of course he did.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
After all, they also had to make a bunch of assumptions to build an MHD model of the galaxy.

And Peratt didn't? Of course he did.

I didn't say he didn't make assumptions. In fact, I linked several articles describing some of the assumptions behind his model. But his model isn't an MHD model. Probably because the man who invented MHD (and under whom he was a graduate student) said that MHD really isn't the type of model we should be using to study stars and galaxies. Take a look at his nobel acceptance speech. He has a table in it where he shows the two basic approaches to "cosmical electrodynamics". The first is MHD and the other is closer to what Peratt did. Regarding the first, Alfven said "we find that in spite of all their elegance, the first approach theories have very little to do with reality." He recommended the second approach. Now mind you, this was the nobel prize winning inventor of the first approach talking.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Amazing that after all this time arguing about this, the debunkers still are preoccupied with who is writing the papers, what journal they were published in, problems with journals, etc, but hardly ever address the science of the issue at hand.

Contrary to popular belief, plasma cosmology (or EU) only requires one real assumption to work with, charge can separate in space. Its quite a simple statement, and all the resulting electric fields, voltages, and magnetic fields are inevitable consequences. There is no scientifically valid reason to discount this occurring, and so debunkers have to resort to attacking the messenger, the journal, or the person who wrote the material. Huge charge separation occurs on earth to cause lightning and sprites, saying that Earth is the only place that charge separation can occur is getting scarily close to a creationist perspective of the world.

In fact recent work on CIV has shown that neutral gasses in motion will naturally ionize, the same applies in space. Ref; GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

Birkelands Terella experiments should be enough experimental evidence to prove that the sun is charged up to a higher voltage than the surrounding space plasma. He exactly mirrored dozens of characteristics of the sun using an electrically charged anode, sunspots, solar flares, rings, photospheric tufts, equatorial plasma torus, the lot.
The proof is in the experimental method, something that seems to be severely lacking from modern cosmology or astronomy. Proving something on paper does not make it true in space until it is observed and confirmed independently.


And for the debunkers; what is your actual main problem with plasma cosmology? So far i have heard a lot of snipy replies, pedantry and generalizations, but your scientific reason to dismiss this seem to have alluded me. Just outline your scientific objections with this in a clear and open way, without any Ad hominem comments.

 

[sol invictus]

Amazing that after all this time arguing about this, the debunkers still are preoccupied with who is writing the papers, what journal they were published in, problems with journals, etc, but hardly ever address the science of the issue at hand.
...
And for the debunkers; what is your actual main problem with plasma cosmology? So far i have heard a lot of snipy replies, pedantry and generalizations, but your scientific reason to dismiss this seem to have alluded me. Just outline your scientific objections with this in a clear and open way, without any Ad hominem comments.

Sounds like you haven't read this thread or any of the others. Go back and do that.

Both Zig and I have demonstrated repeatedly, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how ridiculously impossible these theories are. There is no need to go into any detail - a simple estimate indicates, for example, that the amount of charge required to power the sun electrically would blow it apart in a fraction of a second, or that the strength of the magnetic fields necessary to affect galactic rotation curves of stars is larger than the ones we know are present by a gargantuan factor.

Those statements are obvious to anyone with even a shred of intuition about physics, but Zig actually took the time and did some quantitative estimates. Go and read them.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sounds like you haven't read this thread or any of the others. Go back and do that.

Both Zig and I have demonstrated repeatedly, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how ridiculously impossible these theories are. There is no need to go into any detail - a simple estimate indicates, for example, that the amount of charge required to power the sun electrically would blow it apart in a fraction of a second, or that the strength of the magnetic fields necessary to affect galactic rotation curves of stars is larger than the ones we know are present by a gargantuan factor.

Those statements are obvious to anyone with even a shred of intuition about physics, but Zig actually took the time and did some quantitative estimates. Go and read them.

I'm going to count the number of posts that you reply to me without any scientific reasons in them. That was the first.

I asked for the scientific reasons, not calculations, the numbers used in these calculations i have seen are nearly all arguable, and there are other assumptions involved, and things you have left out.

I note that you choose not to comment on the actual scientific information that i presented to you. Why not comment on Birkelands Terella experiments? or on the fact that Critical Ionization Velocity ionizes all matter in space? Maybe you have refuted these particular observations, i would like to hear it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

My calculations are based upon three things: the observed motion of our sun, the maximum charge our sun can have (in other words, this is an upper bound for the produced acceleration since the actual charge could be less), and the field proposed by Peratt.

I cant see how you can work out what the maximum charge the sun can have is. Where did you get that from? and what value did you use?

There is no other model dependence, everything else is dictated by Maxwell's equations, and nobody is challenging those.

If you believe that magnetic field lines can be open, and 'reconnect' then you most certainly are challenging Maxwell's equations.

If you were to strictly obey Maxwells laws of magnetism then you would find that the suns magnetic field (or rather EM field) is connected to the surrounding stars, just as the sun is to the Earth. Just as Hannes Alfven predicted, the sun is not a closed system.

It doesn't matter if I'm not using Peratt's model: I'm using his numbers and showing they can't produce the necessary accelerations to explain galactic rotation curves when applied to an actual star, as opposed to some homogenous plasma which he might be simulating. Whether or not his model is self-consistent is quite beside the point as far as I'm concerned: it doesn't match reality, and is therefore little more than a curiosity.

Lets me get this straight, you are using peratts work on galaxy formation, and saying that the solar system has to mimic this exactly? Plasma's are highly scleable, so similarities between large and small objetcs can definately be drawn, but implying that the same set of equations used to model galaxies can also be used to model the solar system is an assumption that can definately not be justified. Its a very large order of magnitude difference between the two to assume that the same equations can be applied.

 

[sol invictus]

I note that you choose not to comment on the actual scientific information that i presented to you. Why not comment on Birkelands Terella experiments? or on the fact that Critical Ionization Velocity ionizes all matter in space? Maybe you have refuted these particular observations, i would like to hear it.

Earth-based plasma experiments in meter-sized chambers are just dandy, but we're talking about galaxies. Extrapolating lab results in some naive way is incorrect and gives false results. Instead, you must use plasma theory - which is what astrophysicists do quite successfully.

As for most matter being ionized, that's correct and known to every astro student in the world. The effects of that are quite important for some quantities, but totally irrelevant for galactic rotation curves, for reasons I have explained both qualitatively and quantitatively many times. The idea of the electric sun is simply ludicrous, again for reasons that have been explained.

There is a powerful odor of dirty socks in the room, and it's not my laundry... goodbye.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Earth-based plasma experiments in meter-sized chambers are just dandy, but we're talking about galaxies. Extrapolating lab results in some naive way is incorrect and gives false results. Instead, you must use plasma theory - which is what astrophysicists do quite successfully.

So you believe in plasma theory? I think that you underestimate the exactness of the characteristics he replicated. In this picyure not only do you have sunspots, you also have the corona, and the coronal polar hole is clearly visible.



compare the test on the left to the corona in the recent observation of the polar hole from NASA in 2007;

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203853main_xrtsci_final2.jpg - 1944 x 2592

They are exactly the same. I could list the other similarities, but there are too many.

As for most matter being ionized, that's correct and known to every astro student in the world. The effects of that are quite important for some quantities, but totally irrelevant for galactic rotation curves, for reasons I have explained both qualitatively and quantitatively many times. The idea of the electric sun is simply ludicrous, again for reasons that have been explained.

well it wouldn't take a minute to copy those reasons here, as i still dont know what your scientific reasons are, and i am beginning to think that you have none.