• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Something new under the sun

.
That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

Hang on, Iantresman, I thought you were defending plasma cosmology. And yet here you're telling us (according to your own, infallible source Alfven) that for large particles, electromagnetic forces are negligible compared to gravity. And we all know that the stars and planets have negligibly low charge-to-mass ratios and are "large grains" by Alfven's standards. Therefore gravity is by far the largest net force on stars, electromagnetism is a tiny net force on stars, and therefore electromagnetism can't explain the huge forces necessary to keep the Sun on its Galactic orbit, etc.

That's the order-of-magnitude calculation that makes mainstream physicists discard PC. I'm glad you've finally done it yourself. Stars are massive neutral balls of stuff, and that's why PC can't show any strong forces.
 
.
I think that is the wrong way around. The observations are related to measurable movements of certain astronomical objects. The inference (and hence theory) is "dark matter". By definition, dark matter has not been observed, even though many consider it has been detected.


[whisper]
Hey Ian, chill out dude. He was talking about gravitational lensing as well. You are ignoring that.

[/whisper]
 
The current story goes like this:
Perrat's models impart the angular momentum to the galaxy during it's formation (Never mind that galaxies interact all the time, they get formed once and stay virgins)
Then you have Alfven's model transferring the angular momentum of the star to the surrounding material through EM forces.

So the assertions are
1. All the motion comes from EM forces in galaxy formation.
2. The rotation is locked in forever in violation of known physics, they have a flat rotation curve because that is what the plasma gave them as the galaxy was forming.
3. All angular momentum was imparted from EM forces during formation.
4. So all momentum comes from EM forces, originaly.
5. The planetary motions comes from Alfeven transfer of momentum, otherwise stars would never form.

Of course BAC will deny it all and still not answer direct questions and then claim that I have a reading comprehension problem. But this is what the dark postings say I tell you.

Actually it is even weirder than that. You would think that Peratt's model would be to take the established model of a cloud of hydrogen gas + gravity, replace the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasma and add EM forces. But his model actually replaces the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasmoid which in turn needs the scaled up magnetic fields that create plasmoids in the laboratory. To get these magnetic fields he proposes Birkeland currents in cosmic plasma filaments as the source. He then removes gravity from the model without any justification.
 
Stars are massive neutral balls of stuff, and that's why PC can't show any strong forces.


Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
 
Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
Really?

Not long ago you said...
Hannes Alfven is often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, and Wallace Thornhill would definately be considered a plasma cosmologist, or an electric universe advocate.

A little longer ago you said...
In 2002 electrical theorist, author and speaker Wal Thornhill wrote;

"After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft's voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward the positively charged Sun..."

I didn't have to look very hard.
 
.
Only if you considered it a gas which uses 19th century physics.

As a plasma, such a cloud may transfer angular momentum hydromagnetically in a manner described by Hannes Alfvén and Gustaf Arrhenius in their 1997 NASA publication, "Evolution of the Solar System", in Chapter 17. Transfer of Angular Momentum and Condensation of Grains.

That first reference at least is concerned with the transfer of angular momentum from a central body to a surrounding plasma. That's largely irrelevant to my post, so I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Actually it is even weirder than that. You would think that Peratt's model would be to take the established model of a cloud of hydrogen gas + gravity, replace the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasma and add EM forces


Funny you mention hydrogen, Peratt is a bit of an expert on Neutral hydrogen gas and emissions.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html
IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS

BEAVERTON, OR.--A plasma scientist and a radio astronomer announced the discovery of charged particle flows in interstellar space at the 1999 International Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey, California. The discovery culminated decades of speculation and debate whether or not electricity existed on the scale of hundreds of thousands of light years in the interstellar space between the stars.

According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.'

The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances between the stars.

Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye. Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand billion amperes.

"The individual filaments in space are often called Z-pinches. These Z-pinches occur when current-carrying plasma 'pinches' itself into a filament by a magnetic field the current produces around the plasma. Z-pinches, such as those produced on the Sandia National Laboratories 'Z' machine, are among the most prolific producers of X-rays known,� cited Peratt.

The United States Department of Energy funded Z-machine at Sandia has surprised the scientific community during the last few years by breaking all records in the production of high intensity X-rays from wire filaments converted into plasmas by million-volt pulses. Such filaments have already been discovered in our own solar system. For example, the aurora on Earth is known to be caused by million ampere currents flowing down the Earth's magnetic field lines at the northern and southern poles while similar were found by planetary explorer spacecraft to connect the planet Jupiter with its closest satellite Io. [............]


And a few other papers by plasma cosmologists about Hydrogen and CIV in the galaxy and ISM:

INTERSTELLAR NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE

Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds

Peratt, A.L.; Verschuur, G.L.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 28, Issue 6, Dec 2000
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/27.902239

Abstract:

Observations of neutral hydrogen (H I) emission profiles produced by gas in the local interstellar medium are found to be characterized by four linewidth regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have widths on average of 5.2, 13, and 31 km/s, and a very broad component approximately 50 km/s wide. A striking coincidence exists between these linewidths and the magnitudes of the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space: 6 km/s for sodium and calcium; 13 km/s for carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen; 31 km/s for helium; and 51 km/s for hydrogen. The data relate to observations near neutral hydrogen structures that are filamentary


ON THE CRITICAL IONIZATION VELOCITY EFFECT IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE AND POSSIBLE DETECTION OF RELATED CONTINUUM EMISSION

The Critical Ionization Velocity Signature Manifested in Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure
- Anthony Peratt (Plasma Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos NM 87545), Gerrit Verschurr (Physics Department, University of Memphis)

Abstract—Interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values (34, 13 & 6 km/s) appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities (CIVs) of the most abundant interstellar atomic species. Extended new analysis of HI emission profiles shows that the 34 km/s wide component, probably corresponding to the CIV for helium, is pervasive.


GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - Gerrit L Verschuur and Anthony L. Peratt, - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 127:394-407, -- 2004 January

And if you had read the section of his publication he gives to talking about the distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies you would see that he sets out what he does very clearly, so i suggest uyou comment on that.

The chemical composition and the
distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed
in Section VII.
Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist
model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments
while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional
electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to
include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.


[/quote]To get these magnetic fields he proposes Birkeland currents in cosmic plasma filaments as the source. He then removes gravity from the model without any justification.[/QUOTE]


Funny that you didn't mention any of the actual foces involved in his model. That would have been the first thing i would do, Biot savart laws between helical filaments, bennet pinch conditions, the magnetic moment, axial magnetic field creating a spiral accelertion component, azimuthral current, etc, What you need to understand is that there have been plenty of observations of these huge filaments between galaxies. Take a look at some pictures of the IGM and other large areas(1)(2)(3)and, when they say it is gas, i find it hard to see how gas can form in filaments that large, it really does have to be in a plasma state. And gravity has a hard time explaining how these structres are maintained. So Birkeland currents this size exist out there, and Peratt is showing what the relationship would be between them. In a plasmoid you would not have an amperage to factor in like you do with interacting filaments, so it would be slightly different. http://www.fractaluniverse.org/plasma_filament.php
 
Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.

So in other words, plasma cosmology cannot explain galactic rotation curves. So we do need dark matter.
 
That is simply false, as I have already explained in detail. If the cloud is large enough gravity dominates, regardless of what it's made of.


Apart from clouds where the the critical ionization process is ionizing gas, causing the large filamentary electric currents we observe in them. Look it up for the maths, i cant be bothered. Gravity is not creating them, thats for sure, and further evidence that EM forces and Birkleland currents play a role on large structures.
 
Funny you mention hydrogen, Peratt is a bit of an expert on Neutral hydrogen gas and emissions....
And if you had read the section of his publication he gives to talking about the distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies you would see that he sets out what he does very clearly, so i suggest uyou comment on that.
My comment is that his model is about plasma as you know - it is not "neutral hydrogen cosmology"!

Funny
Funny that you didn't mention any of the actual foces involved in his model. That would have been the first thing i would do, Biot savart laws between helical filaments, bennet pinch conditions, the magnetic moment, axial magnetic field creating a spiral accelertion component, azimuthral current, etc, What you need to understand is that there have been plenty of observations of these huge filaments between galaxies. Take a look at some pictures of the IGM and other large areas(1)(2)(3)and, when they say it is gas, i find it hard to see how gas can form in filaments that large, it really does have to be in a plasma state. And gravity has a hard time explaining how these structres are maintained. So Birkeland currents this size exist out there, and Peratt is showing what the relationship would be between them. In a plasmoid you would not have an amperage to factor in like you do with interacting filaments, so it would be slightly different. http://www.fractaluniverse.org/plasma_filament.php

His model is wrong. I have no reason to disagree with his equations for the forces in his wrong model.

I have an even better one though because it is much simpler: the universe is made of water. I know this model is correct because I can use hydrodynamics to calculate the forces in it! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So in other words, plasma cosmology cannot explain galactic rotation curves. So we do need dark matter.


Why do you say that?

His model is a model between two interacting galactic filaments, the filaments are self supporting, and because magnetic field lines can not be open, by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields, which provides some further rigidity. I dont think that a charge on the stars is required, nor do i think he mentions one.
 
Last edited:
My comment is that his model is about plasma as you know - it is not "neutral hydrogen cosmology"!


Oh yeah, i forgot, if the title of your subject is plasma cosmology you have to ignore the effects of the other three states of matter. :rolleyes: Is that a logical statement RealityCheck? really?

The point of me showing that was you were implying that somehow regions of neutral hydorgen were not accounted for in his model, but since peratt is an expert in this area with numerous publications to his name, I showed that this is not the case.


His model is wrong. I have no reason to disagree with his equations for the forces in his wrong model.


Which force is wrong, and why is it wrong?
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, i forgot, if the title of your subject is plasma cosmology you have to ignore the effects of the other three states of matter. :rolleyes: Is that a logical statement RealityCheck? really?
I am saying that in Peratt's paper "the title of his subject is plasma cosmology" and he does "ignore the effects of the other three states of matter". So you do not think that Peratt is being logical? What does that say about his model?

The point of me showing that was you were implying that somehow regions of neutral hydrogen were not accounted for in his model, but since peratt is an expert in this area with numerous publications to his name, I showed that this is not the case.
Please state the section in his paper that includes the effects of neutral hydrogen in his model.


Which force is wrong, and why is it wrong?
He has a wrong model. He is using the correct forces for his wrong model.

If a model is wrong then it does not matter what forces are accounted for in the model, e.g. I have an even better model than Peratt's model because it is much simpler: the universe is made of water. I know this model is correct because I can use hydrodynamics to calculate the forces in it.
 
Originally Posted by Acleron
Bear with me for a moment as I slowly work my way through this.

The first post above says that plasma cosmology removes the need for dark matter to explain observation.

Does this include the anomalous orbit velocities observed in galaxies?
Yes. Essentially the arms of the galaxy are magnetically supported, Which explains why the outside of the galaxies seem to rotate faster than the theory of gravity allows.

As the majority of most galaxies is hydrogen, it would seem to an ignoramus like myself that the magnetic field strength required to move these more distant stars from the centre can be easily calculated. Has this been done?
 
As the majority of most galaxies is hydrogen, it would seem to an ignoramus like myself that the magnetic field strength required to move these more distant stars from the centre can be easily calculated. Has this been done?
Hi Acleron, There is not much point in debating the use of plasma "cosmology" to remove the need for dark matter since we have an observation of the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter in the Bullet Cluster. This is very strong evidence that dark matter exists (as well as other observations) and so plasma cosmology is wrong when it concludes that it does not.
 
That is simply false, as I have already explained in detail. If the cloud is large enough gravity dominates, regardless of what it's made of.
.
If it is dense enough, and charged neutral, then maybe.

But, just take a look at any nebula, or perhaps M87's "jet" which extends 5000 light-year (big enough?). Gravity clearly does not dominate, but works together with electromagnetic forces.
 
Apart from clouds where the the critical ionization process is ionizing gas, causing the large filamentary electric currents we observe in them. Look it up for the maths, i cant be bothered. Gravity is not creating them, thats for sure, and further evidence that EM forces and Birkleland currents play a role on large structures.

Sigh, more arm waving, and you looked to be serious.

Too bad.
 

Back
Top Bottom