Something new under the sun

[Dancing David]

RC, stop pretending like you actually read and understand Peratt's model. You don't. You are only embarrassing yourself amongst any that actually do go read the papers and articles he wrote. I tell you what ... why don't you contact him directly if you think I'm wrong. Report back to us.

See you haven't read the paper, so YOU can't point to it, and then you hide your ignorance and try to shift accountability for answering the question.

The truth appears to be that YOU BAC can not point to what RC asked for in Perrat's 1986 paper.

So go ahead Karl Jr. pretend that YOU have read the paper and that YOU understand it, you are the one who does not understand your OWN model.

Why don't YOU show that it is there in the paper?

Weak and desperate BAC, truely a sign that even you now you are wrong.

 

[Cuddles]

Surely you aren't claiming that the sun became a star only recently.

Surely you aren't claiming that it didn't? The Sun is a population I star, and is only about halfway through the main sequence. A few billion years might seem a long time to one unfamiliar with cosmology, but the Sun is really pretty recent, especially when compared to the age of the galaxy.

 

[sol invictus]

No. Peratt writes:

OK. I'm going to wait for the other two to comment before I say anything. I'll even read their posts this time .

By the way, is that website a reliable resource for PC?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Even though it makes predictions that are tested in the lab.

Give me one of the predictions of magnetic reconnection theory, or one picture of an "open" magnetic field line, and i may recondsider. So far, after asking about twentry times, no-one has. Thats what made Sol put me on ignore, he couldn't find the data to show this actually occuring, just the theory.

Funny that Zuezz, you are not doing anything to support the assertion you made that the EM forces of stars lock them in to some sort of rigidity.

Why is that?

I said they offer some rigidity. I never said that "stars are kept in place by their EM fields", obviously the main force that does that is gravity, but the new EM connections we now know are between stars could play a role in determining other factors, especially in systems where the current input is substantial.

You asked me to show that stars are not isolated and that there are forces between then that can have an effect, aswell as dominant gravity. In my opinion I did that. I sugegst reading my refs from my prevoius post on interstellar electric currents.

I demonstrated that the EM field of the sun can not end at some random point on interstellar clouds, but should be connected in a complete circuit to the surrounding field of other stars. Also that there are numerous flows of particles throughout the ISM in the form of electrical currents, which ionize via the CIV effect, and other plasma concepts, and the magnetic fields these currents between the stars produce pinch themselves into definate filamments, provididng connectivity between stelar bodies.

Is that strictly plasma cosmology material? not really. Peratt does not mention this for example, to the best of my knowledge. Its more my opinion, but i can see no reason to discount it.

 

[iantresman]

Density ? Won't gravity work, no matter how "dense" it is ? Center of gravity, anyone ?

.
You need a point mass of higher density, eg. a particle larger than grain before gravity becomes significant. With a cloud of low-density plasma, electromagnetism dominates.

Where is the centre of gravity of the plasma making up the intergalactic medium? No doubt at the centre of the Universe.

 

[Belz...]

You need a point mass of higher density, eg. a particle larger than grain before gravity becomes significant. With a cloud of low-density plasma, electromagnetism dominates.

That sounds like nonsense, Ian. EVERYTHING is made up of small particles that do not exert much gravity.

 

[Belz...]

Where is the centre of gravity of the plasma making up the intergalactic medium? No doubt at the centre of the Universe.

An EXPANDING universe, mind you. It's hard to believe people really challenge the accepted theories with such a poor grasp of physics and astronomy. Hell, I'm probably the least knowledgeable of your opponents, here.

 

[iantresman]

That sounds like nonsense, Ian. EVERYTHING is made up of small particles that do not exert much gravity.

.
Many things sound like nonsense until they are understood properly. As I said in a previous post:

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.

Gravitoelectrodynamics provides the equations of motion for small particles and grains where electromagnetic forces dominate. For larger grains, gravity dominates.

 

[iantresman]

Where is the centre of gravity of the plasma making up the intergalactic medium? No doubt at the centre of the Universe.

An EXPANDING universe, mind you. It's hard to believe people really challenge the accepted theories with such a poor grasp of physics and astronomy. Hell, I'm probably the least knowledgeable of your opponents, here.

.
I'm not sure what you think I have misunderstood. Are you suggesting that the intergalactic medium really does have a centre of gravity, and/or an expanding Universe changes this?

 

[Dancing David]

Give me one of the predictions of magnetic reconnection theory, or one picture of an "open" magnetic field line, and i may recondsider. So far, after asking about twentry times, no-one has. Thats what made Sol put me on ignore, he couldn't find the data to show this actually occuring, just the theory.




I said they offer some rigidity. I never said that "stars are kept in place by their EM fields", obviously the main force that does that is gravity, but the new EM connections we now know are between stars could play a role in determining other factors, especially in systems where the current input is substantial.

No demonstartion of change in motion, no demonstration of the size of the current. Just an assertion that the cloud looks like a bunny.

You asked me to show that stars are not isolated and that there are forces between then that can have an effect, aswell as dominant gravity. In my opinion I did that. I sugegst reading my refs from my prevoius post on interstellar electric currents.

What size to the effect. And no you didn't, about half of what you link to are 'imaginary models' that you decry when they are applied to magnetic fields.

I demonstrated that the EM field of the sun can not end at some random point on interstellar clouds, but should be connected in a complete circuit to the surrounding field of other stars.

And you showed that it had what impact on a stars' motion? You didn't provide that, so the value is currently null. But a number to it or be accused of vague arm waving.

What force has what effect on the motion of a star?

Also that there are numerous flows of particles throughout the ISM in the form of electrical currents, which ionize via the CIV effect, and other plasma concepts, and the magnetic fields these currents between the stars produce pinch themselves into definate filamments, provididng connectivity between stelar bodies.

Okay, say that they do. What effect do they have on the motion of the stars and providing some 'rigidity'. Null so far, put a figure to it. Just as with dark matter you get a kludge factor of twenty.

You have yet to show anything that shows 'some rigidity', just an unsupported assertion. But a number to it force=massxacceleration. So what force? What mass for a star (I suggest you use a brown dwarf) and then we will know this acceleration that produces 'some rigidity'.

Is that strictly plasma cosmology material? not really. Peratt does not mention this for example, to the best of my knowledge. Its more my opinion, but i can see no reason to discount it.

Yeak! Well some poeple feel that dark colored skin means you have a lower IQ in thier opinion. It is an opinion. Not a demonstartion.


Some rigidity? How much, what effect does it have, again you have refferenced small scale studies and simulations, then you have your hands and say "thus it is shown", but it isn't, you haven't shown the scale, you haven't shown the forces and most importantly you have shown what data it explains or how it is different that the standard model, you have pointd to a bunny picture in the clouds, you have pointed to a small bunny and said that it is a galactic bunny, but you have not made the transitions and translations between them.

Sure that could 'looks' like a bunny, that doesn't mean it is a bunny. You have not shown what impact the EM forces between stars have on each other at all, you have just stated that they exist. Okay , cool, they exist.

But how strong is the force and when you divide it by the mass of the stars what percentage of motion does it provide?

And come now, Ziggurat gave multiple examples of how you can model magnetic fields with math. the lines on the saddle shape are not the magnetic lines but a visual representation of a comtinous field. what is wrong with that solution and equation?

Sorry Zeuzz, i am really trying to understand what data leads credence to your theory, 'my opinion' does not cut it.

Sorry, I had hoped for better.

 

[Dancing David]

.
You need a point mass of higher density, eg. a particle larger than grain before gravity becomes significant. With a cloud of low-density plasma, electromagnetism dominates.

No, it doesn't. use the cloud of 3 light years and ten solar masses.

You are just holding your breath and saying
"It isn't true".

You haven't shown any repulsive effect of electrical fields that will prevent gravitational collapse.

Start with ionized hydrogen that magicaly stays ionized.
A could three light years in diameter and ten solar masses.
The Coloumb effect is not going to keep it from collapsing, it will be attracted. It will begin to contract.
The size of the partilces does not matter, the charge does not matter unless you want to make it magically high.

Then what happens?

At what point does the molecular cloud of ionised hydrogen stop collapsing and for how long?

Where is the centre of gravity of the plasma making up the intergalactic medium? No doubt at the centre of the Universe.

That is just showing your ignorance, you can do better than that. Chose the center of mass of the molecular clouds, give us a model even without the numbers.

Why doesn't the cloud collapse?

 

[Dancing David]

.
Many things sound like nonsense until they are understood properly. As I said in a previous post:

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.

Gravitoelectrodynamics provides the equations of motion for small particles and grains where electromagnetic forces dominate. For larger grains, gravity dominates.

Uh, so you have a cloud of ionised partcicles of ten solar masses, and it has a diameter of 3 light years. What is the repulsive force and what is the gravitational force.

You don't get this, do you?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sure that could 'looks' like a bunny, that doesn't mean it is a bunny. You have not shown what impact the EM forces between stars have on each other at all, you have just stated that they exist. Okay , cool, they exist.

Well thank you for agreeing they exist. This is an area that is not very well known, plasma boudaries are an ever ongoing area of research. A natural classification or ordering of solar system plasma physics, and one that distances itself from the very regional and event based ordering of the past several decades, is:

* space plasma couplings across regions;
* couplings across scales;
* physics of boundaries, and
* explosive release of energy in plasmas.

Different regions or scales may admit distinct mathematical or physics-based descriptions which couple self-consistently – plasma physical systems rather than isolated plasma physics problems.

Examples of outstanding problems that they are fundamental to the further development of space physics, and have the potential to influence both astrophysics and laboratory plasma physics.

* Solar physics : 1) coronal heating, - must address the coupling of physical processes across regions and scales as well as incorporate the explosive release of energy; 2) coronal mass ejections and flares, 3) the dynamo problem, which remains as one of the major outstanding problems in solar physics; 4) solar variability is of both scientific and economic importance.

* Heliospheric physics 1) the acceleration of the solar wind and the polar wind, both of which are major outstanding theoretical problems; 2) the interaction of the solar wind with the local interstellar medium, which is becoming a topic of increasing importance with fundamental implications for astrophysics; 3) turbulence in the interplanetary medium remains as a great classical problem; 4) transport phenomena for particles and fields is another classical problem.

* Interaction of the solar wind (current) with planets: 1) the physics of planetary ionosphere-magnetosphere mass exchange; 2) magnetic storms; 3) substorms, and of course 4) climate variability due to solar influences.

* Some examples are so broad ranging that they are of importance to solar, heliospheric, magnetospheric and ionospheric physics. Examples include 1) current layers, boundaries, and shock waves; 2) particle acceleration, 3) turbulence, and 4) changes in magnetic field topologies and plasma configurations.

But how strong is the force and when you divide it by the mass of the stars what percentage of motion does it provide?

The force that we observe.

If it was anything else, the stars would not be travelling where they are observed to be.

And come now, Ziggurat gave multiple examples of how you can model magnetic fields with math.

I'll address that later. Just like you said you would address the material I posted on the plasma cosmology interpretation of pulsars, but have yet to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

WRONG. The rotation of the matter in those stars around the galaxy was there BEFORE there were stars.

The angular momentum was. The orbits still need to conform to whatever force is being applied NOW. Do you honestly not get that? If the force changes, the orbits will change, so it doesn't matter if the motion of the plasma in question was previously controlled by E&M, the motion of the stars NOW is controlled by gravity. And that motion can only be accounted for by using more mass than is visible.

You amaze me sometimes. You've got a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the EU talking points, and yet you're deeply clueless about basic physics.

 

[ben m]

The force that we observe.

If it was anything else, the stars would not be travelling where they are observed to be.

Um? Zeuzzz? That's not how science works. "My theory has to work out so as explain the data, otherwise it would be wrong". Being wrong is a very real option, and comparing the numbers is how you'll find out.

The known force on the Sun is about 10^20 N. According to your theory, this force is caused substantially by electromagnetism via F = qE + qv x B. Please specify plausible values of q, E, and B such that 10^20 = qE + q*220,000 m/s x B. (Remember, "plasma physics" doesn't contain some magical extra forces. It's just F = qE + qv x B over and over again.)

If you can't do it, let me do it for you. q = 100C (to be generous). E = 10^-14 V/m (again being ridiculously generous IMO) B = 10^-6 T (again, being generous). If you want to put in the dipole-gradient coupling, be my guest.

F = 10^-12 N electric + 20N magnetic. Thank you, plasma cosmology! You've explained as much as 0.00000000000000001% of the known force on the Sun.

 

[BeAChooser]

So? Stars are not galactic filaments. By your own admission, their motion is controlled by gravity, NOT electromagnetism. And their galactic rotation speeds cannot be accurately modeled without introducing more mass than is visible.

The rotation curve for even M31 (the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest and easiest to observe neighbor) is based on observation of plasma velocities (they call it "gas"), not star velocities. Take these very recent reports as proof of this:

http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/jun06/m31.en.shtml "The extended rotation curve of Messier 31, 2006, New measurements of the rotation velocity of the neutral hydrogen of the Andromeda galaxy (Messier 31) were carried out by astronomers of the Observatoire de Paris and the Université de Montréal. ... snip ... Constraints on the mass of a spiral galaxy can be obtained by measuring the kinematics (the rotation curve) of the stars or the interstellar gas of the disc. The rotation curve represents the variation of the circular rotation velocity of a kinematical tracer as a function of the distance from the center of the galaxy. The kinematical tracer the most easily observable is the gas observed thanks to the emission lines of the ionized hydrogen in the visible light at 656.3 nm and of the neutral hydrogen (referred to as H*I) in radio waves at 21 cm."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612228 "A REVISED MASS MODEL FOR THE ANDROMEDA GALAXY, Marc S. Seigar, Aaron J. Barth and James S. Bullock, CenterforCosmology, Draft version February 5, 2008 ... snip ... We adopt the rotation curve data from several sources. In one case (M1) we adopt the H-Alpha rotation data out to 25 kpc from Rubin & Ford (1970) and extend the rotation curve to 35 kpc using H I data from Carignan et al. (2006). In another case (M2) we use the CO rotational velocities from Loinard et al. (1995) and the H I from Brinks & Burton (1984) to construct an observed rotation curve out to a 30 kpc radius. This was the rotation curve adopted by Klypin et al. (2002) in their M31 model. "

When they mention H Alpha and H I data, they are talking about rotation data using plasma velocity observations ... not individual star observations. Even when they say neutral gas what they really mean is plasma.

Now you assume the need for dark matter because you assume that the stars in the galaxy are moving the same velocity as the plasma that is actually being measured? But are they? Do you have proof? Photos like the following might suggest they don't.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/images/mira/mira1.jpg

And if they don't, then Peratt's model would accurately describe the observed galactic plasma rotation curves without the need to invoke vast amounts of this mysterious dark matter and dark angular rotation. Meanwhile, the stars (whose velocities you haven't really measured) could still be orbiting at lower velocities satisfying your Keplerian concerns if there is no dark matter.

 

[ben m]

The angular momentum was. The orbits still need to conform to whatever force is being applied NOW. Do you honestly not get that? If the force changes, the orbits will change, so it doesn't matter if the motion of the plasma in question was previously controlled by E&M, the motion of the stars NOW is controlled by gravity. And that motion can only be accounted for by using more mass than is visible.

You amaze me sometimes. You've got a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the EU talking points, and yet you're deeply clueless about basic physics.

This is, to BAC's credit (?), one of the standard errors that plagues Freshman physics problem sets. Lots and lots of people get this wrong---it's very tempting, from experience with tops and merry-go-rounds and whatnot, to think that an object which starts on a circular path wants to stay on that path. It doesn't, it "wants" to travel on a straight line; if it keeps getting devitated by a central force, the sum of those deviations will be a circle (or ellipse or whatever.)

Applying this thinking to the Galaxy is also a common crackpot thing. "The galaxy is a rotating disk, like a spinning compact disc floating in space." No it's not. It's a collection of individual point masses, each obeying Newton's Laws on essentially independent orbits. There's a nice animationhere . Don't forget that there are some "halo" stars orbiting perpendicular to the disk, stars counterrotating in the disk, stars on radial orbits, and so on.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why don't you contact him yourself or tell us what you think his model is?

I don't have to, because he states quite clearly in his papers that "When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies."

You calling him a liar, RC? And just so you know who you are calling a liar, here's his biography: http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html .

 

[Belz...]

Many things sound like nonsense until they are understood properly.

I've heard this from many a woo, too.

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.

Again, you're overlooking scale. I'm sure you agree that big masses that interact through gravity are formed of particles ?

Gravitoelectrodynamics provides the equations of motion for small particles and grains where electromagnetic forces dominate. For larger grains, gravity dominates.

"Grains" ? Why do you sound like you only consider solids, now ?

I'm not sure what you think I have misunderstood. Are you suggesting that the intergalactic medium really does have a centre of gravity, and/or an expanding Universe changes this?

I'm saying that everything that interacts through gravity has a center of gravity, and that the expanding universe makes things further from one another.

 

[BeAChooser]

No it's not. It's a collection of individual point masses, each obeying Newton's Laws on essentially independent orbits.

See post 776 and keep in mind that rotation curve data for other galaxies doesn't actually measure the velocity of those point masses (stars) ... it measures the velocity of the plasma field around them. And the shape of our sun's heliospheric boundary is evidence that the stars and that plasma field are not moving at the same velocities.