Something new under the sun

[ben m]

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 ...


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?

Hey! Another prediction for plasma cosmology! Would you like to stand by this prediction?

• Plasma Cosmology predicts that stellar rotation curves should follow a no-dark-matter rotation curve, and the flattened rotation curve should show up only in HI observations.

First of all, I welcome this as the first recognition by a PC person that stars are not, in fact, pushed around the galaxy by "plasma" exerting ridiculously strong forces. Good for you! You've successfully exorcised the worst of your inconsistent-with-actual-physics claims. But why didn't you say so before? Why all the arguing about how many coulombs you wanted to put on the Sun? Will Zeuzz and Ianstresman concur on this point?

It's sad, though. If you had made this prediction earlier, instead of obfuscating and dodging for months, you might have discovered that "The stellar and HI velocities are in good agreement" (for M31, out to 50kpc), that "The radial dependence of the circular velocity is found to be consistent with the expectations from an NFW dark matter halo" (from Milky Way halo stars, out to 60kpc), that "The radial velocity dispersion shows an almost constant value of 120 km/s out to 30 kpc" (for the Milky Way), and so on, just like Standard Cosmology and gravity-based dynamics predicted, and explicitly falsifying plasma cosmology. Again.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Except that looking at our own galaxy, we can see that stars and interstellar clouds move mostly together. There is no large overall discrepency between stellar motion and plasma motion - there may be local differences, but that's not enough. You'd need HUGE and SYSTEMATIC differences, and they just don't exist. Unless you're going to claim our galaxy is unique (and the safer assumption is that it's NOT), then that doesn't fix the problem.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

What gave you this idea? The 21cm line of hydrogen arises from the spin flip of the electron relative to the proton. This can only occur when an electron is bound. That is to say, the hydrogen cannot possibly be ionized.

 

[Reality Check]

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 .

Oh I see now - Peratt's model started with gravity and added known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects. He really needed to mention this in his 1968 paper .
Have you read his 1968 paper? Have you a later paper in which this happens?

 

[Reality Check]

Plasma Cosmology Apologists,
Since you claim Peratt as your PC guru and that his model includes gravity then explain his own conclusions from a 2005 conference:

Much more research is needed in the following areas.
(1) The difference in rotational speed of stars vs plasma filaments in Spiral Galaxies.
(2) "Dirty Plasma" effects.
(3) Plasma Density as functions of time and position within a Spiral Galaxy. (4) Simplified approximate "Gravitational + EM Plasma" equations which transparently describe the interplay of gravitational and EM Plasma forces which determine the essential features of Spiral Galaxies.
5) The role of Conservation of Angular Momentum in the evolution from plasma to Elliptical to Irregular to Spiral Galaxies.​

Take especial note of point 4. Thank you BeAChooser for this information.​

P.S. Gravitation lensing by dark matter -NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (sooner or later one of you is going to have to refute this!)​

 

[Dancing David]

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.





The force that we observe.

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




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.

And so..okay... I did read the stuff about pulsars and double radio galaxies.

What would you like to read on the subject? They are posibilities, but what dataum do they explain that is not explained by the current models or what data do they explain better.

And so what provides the force that claim we observe when it comes to something you are avoiding explaining. And you have continued to avoid.

Are you really saying the same thing that people complain about with dark matter? The force exists because you say it is accelerating the stars in their orbits by, that amount above the level explained by gravity minus dark matter.

Because I swear that is just what I read. That maybe you could compute the field needed by taking the motion of the star and its' mass since you can see it the same way , right/

And so the aggregate figure for the EM field that moves the stars would be comparable to the motion that is allegedly explained by dark matter, in other words the EM field would have the same effect as 20 times as much mass as there is baryonic matter? Can you agree to that? Because then if you give me a figure for the charge on a star we can do the computation as an aggregate?

Do you agree?

And so while dark matter might be inferred from the rotation of stars, you are now saying that this EM force can be observed exactly the same way.

Here is the problem Zuezz and what you are obviously trying to avoid at any cost.

What size magnetic field are we talking about?

C'mon, unlike dark matter which can be inferred through normal gravitation plus dark atter, you are making a different claim here are you not.

Are you now saying what I have been asking along for the size and scale of?
There is an EM force that is accelerating the stars faster in thier orbits than can be accounted for by the visible baryonic matter?

I will ask again, what scale from Perrat's model put a figure to it, what was the Gauss in the 10cm experiement?

What size field did Perrat use in his plasma simulations of alleged galaxy formation?

Was it 4.3 Gauss? And ten cm?

So what scale would this magnetic or EM field be, what size 1:1000000
gives an absurdly high figure.

So what is yours? What is your scale , what did perrat use and how do you scale it to a glaxy. C'mon.
Otherwise I will take the speed that he stars is supposed to have without extra mass and subtract it from speed that it shows. And then I will factors in the mass of the star.

So say we have star at 1000000 kilos, and it goes 1kph faster than it should. Are you saying then that the EM force would be the same as the mass of the star times the speed of the star over that expected for the star's spped by gravity without the dark matter?

Would that be fair?

I can get the actual figures if you want the mass of the star and the variant motion if you would like. But you would need to tell me what charge I can assign the star in the equation. because that is going to them say what size the magnetic field has to be.

because here is the deal at the end thier will be a figure, the size of the magnetic field required to change the speed of the star.

So is that what we can do?

Do you agree to that?

And what will you say if the EM field turns out to be foolishly high and one that has never been measured?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Move goal posts much?

You have asserted in error that the stars aquirred the momentum magically transferred to present time.
You have said galaxies and thier rotation curves.

And now it is not the motion of the stars, it is just the interstellare\ plasma?

So how do you explain the motion of the stars then, are you still saying Perrat's model applies to current conditional orbits of stars or just the orbit of the interstellar plasma. Or both, which is it BAC?

Time to choose!

 

[BeAChooser]

First of all, I welcome this as the first recognition by a PC person that stars are not, in fact, pushed around the galaxy by "plasma" exerting ridiculously strong forces. Good for you! You've successfully exorcised the worst of your inconsistent-with-actual-physics claims.

Actually, I've never suggested that. Nice red herring. But I don't totally discount the possibility that star movements are influenced by electromagnetic fields.

you might have discovered that "The stellar and HI velocities are in good agreement" (for M31, out to 50kpc)

That statement is taken out of context. Here's the sentence before that one: "The mean stellar radial velocities of the dSphs are compared to recent velocity measurements of neutral hydrogen clouds seen in the direction of some of these dwarfs." They weren't talking about rotational velocities and I see no reason why radial velocities wouldn't agree. You also cut off the rest of the sentence after the words "in good agreement". It qualifies that saying "in the case of And III, indicating a physical association, but not in the case of And V (probably a chance superposition)."

I find it rather curious and illuminating how the mainstream will accept as valid one observation that points to the conclusion they want then rule out another observation (as just chance alignment) because it does not. Perhaps the first set of data is just chance occurrence too? This treatment of the data is hypocritical when the mainstream has ruled out hundreds of Arp's associations between high and low redshift objects and features of those objects as nothing more than chance alignments. Again, because they don't fit their GNOMES.

And do you really understand what they were measuring in the above case? They weren't measuring star velocities orbiting around M31 but those in dwarf spheroidals, which are low density, low luminosity dwarf elliptical galaxies that are companions to M31 (and the Milky Way). Here is an image of this type of object: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9910/leo1_aao.jpg . Certainly, the underlying kinematics of this type system must be very different from a spiral galaxy, which is what we were discussing.

Furthermore, they were looking at very old stars (circa 12 billion?) in regions mostly clear of HI plasma which is another reason it might be expected that the stars would move RADIALLY with the gas in the dwarf spheroids (being that they've had such a long time to come to equilibrium). Furthermore, can you show evidence that dwarf spheroidals have a flat rotation curve? According to the sources I read, these objects may or may not have a dark matter halo outside the objects. That would be whole different creature than the one we were just discussing.

And regarding the measurement of HI in these types of objects:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...gz+dwarf+spheroidal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us "Radial velocities of dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the M 81 group ... snip ... Being among the faintest galaxies, dSphs are rather difficult to observe. As gas-poor galaxies, they are usually undetectable in the HI line." So the HI is hard to detect anyway ... making one wonder how accurate the comparisons can be.

And then there is this gem ...

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/319176 "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?, Renyue*Cen, 2000 ... snip ... There appears to exist a conflict between the standard structure formation theory and the existence of the faint dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the Local Group." And the resolution of that question by the mainstream seems to involve introducing yet another gnome ... allowing "cold dark matter particles to decay relatively recently."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030725081649.htm "Small Galaxy Springs 'Dark Matter' Surprises, ScienceDaily (Jul. 28, 2003) ... snip ... The researchers studied rare 'dwarf spheroidal' galaxies. These have few visible stars but contain massive amounts of 'dark matter' - a mysterious kind of matter that does not emit its own light or radiation, and therefore cannot be directly observed by astronomers. ... snip ... In one dwarf spheroidal, found in the constellation Ursa Minor, the team found a clump of slow-moving stars near the galaxy's centre. ... snip ... This group of stars flies in the face of the most popular model for how dark matter is distributed in galaxies. The 'lambda cold dark matter' model ... snip ... predicts that dark matter rapidly increases in density towards the centre of a galaxy. If dark matter were distributed in this way in the Ursa Minor dwarf spheroidal galaxy, the star cluster would have been dispersed. The cluster's existence shows that the dark matter is in fact distributed differently in this galaxy. Furthermore, additional research into the Ursa Minor dwarf spheroidal has revealed the true edge of that galaxy - the point at which the dark matter stops. In most galaxies the way the stars move indicates that the dark matter extends far beyond the visible starry regions. In the Ursa Minor dwarf spheroidal, however, the stars in its very outermost parts are not moving quickly. This implies that there is little dark matter in the halo surrounding that galaxy."

So now the dark matter gnome has to exist in some places and not others, work one way in one type galaxy and a totally different way in another, have angular momentum in some cases and not in others ... plus decay relatively recently. The stack of gnomes just keeps growing while BB's proponents keep telling us the beauty of the cosmology is that the universe can be described with just a few parameters.

And regarding your other links and "Blue Horizontal Branch Stars", note that the rotation curve they discuss is no longer flat beyond 30 kpc but experiences a steep decline. And again, note that the survey only measures radial velocity. There is no transverse velocity information. To get rotation curves from that they have to create computer models (with built in assumptions like the presence of dark matter with lots of varialbles) and through a series of monte-carlo like steps try to match those measurements with the results of their models. Perhaps GIGO? Certainly the admitted size of the error bars in this case is quite large ... on the order of +/- 40 km/s ... even for the relatively close observations.

I leave you to ponder these comments.

 

[Dancing David]

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 .

Ah, you again don't want to answer the question, in fact you know that if you do, you will be wrong.

So lets us see, shovel a blizazard of poo at him and pretend that is critical thought.

Are you afriad to give the answer, why did Perrat leave it out BAC?

Why are you afraid to answer or admit the truth?

Maybe now would be a good time to go hide in Dick Cheney's man size safe Karl Jr., you can stick your fingers in your ears and hum all you want but you still ahven't answered the question.


Perrat is a smart guy but he doesn't deserve the blame for your lack of thinking.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

What is it like at the bottom of the hole BAC? Why are you still shoveling?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

And so now you say that the people you are saying are naive are as stupid as you pretend that they are.

Please BAC, are you really saying that there are not other methods used to measure the orbital motions of galaxies? Really? How droll and provincial of you!

You know those cute little balls of stars that are involved in orbiting halos of galaxies. You know those things, yeah, what are they called?

Gnome clusters? Yes that must be it, gnome clusters, well some of these very large and very massive compact gnome colonies they orbit the milky way and maybe these same sort of gnome conventions are seen around other galactic centers in these gnomish halos?

So maybe the orbits of these flocks of gnomes would indicate the higher rotational velocity than that expected? So other than the alleged measurement of the movement of plasma we also have the movement of these large clusters of gnomes. And they would indicate this issue of extra rotation as well.

Well gee, I thought that they were stars, but they must be gnomes because they demonstrate something you now question the existance of, are they stars or clusters of gnomes BAC?

Millions and millions of stars or gnomes?

Time to choose!

 

[Reality Check]

...I find it rather curious and illuminating how the mainstream will accept as valid one observation that points to the conclusion they want then rule out another observation (as just chance alignment) because it does not. Perhaps the first set of data is just chance occurrence too? This treatment of the data is hypocritical when the mainstream has ruled out hundreds of Arp's associations between high and low redshift objects and features of those objects as nothing more than chance alignments. Again, because they don't fit their GNOMES.
...

I can answer this - it is the difference between theory and observation. An bit of education about cosmology for you BeAChooser - cosmology theory contains approximations! It does not describe each and every individual galaxy in the universe. It does not describe all of the possible interactions between the galaxies, e.g collisions. Thus there will be observations that confilict with any cosmology theory. The support for the theory comes from the entire body of evidence.
The GNOMES are present in all cosmological theories (unlike the pixies in plasma cosmology )

 

[Tubbythin]

Furthermore, they were looking at very old stars (circa 12 billion?) in regions mostly clear of HI plasma which is another reason it might be expected that the stars would move RADIALLY with the gas in the dwarf spheroids (being that they've had such a long time to come to equilibrium).

Are my posts invisible or something? I've already told you HI is Neutral Hydrogen. Neutral hydrogen cannot be a plasma.
Ionized hydrogen is called HII.
Similarly neutral Helium is HeI, singly ionized helium is HeII. Doubly ionized helium is HeIII. I know it doesn't make a great deal of sense but that's the way it is.

 

[ben m]

Actually, I've never suggested that. Nice red herring. But I don't totally discount the possibility that star movements are influenced by electromagnetic fields.

OK, that's one. Zeuzzz? Iantres? Can we get a group hug here saying "PC does not say that star movements are influenced by EM fields?" Please be absolutely clear.

That statement is taken out of context. Here's the sentence before that one: "The mean stellar radial velocities of the dSphs are compared to recent velocity measurements of neutral hydrogen clouds seen in the direction of some of these dwarfs." They weren't talking about rotational velocities and I see no reason why radial velocities wouldn't agree.

Radial means line-of-sight; almost all galactic dynamics comes from radial velocity measurements. The opposite of "radial velocity" is "transverse velocity", which you could measure only via proper motions. It does not mean "velocity towards the galactic center" which is the opposite of "rotational velocity". If you don't understand the distinction, don't complain that we're doing it wrong.

You also cut off the rest of the sentence after the words "in good agreement". It qualifies that saying "in the case of And III, indicating a physical association, but not in the case of And V (probably a chance superposition)."

It's in good agreement with the general model of a dark-matter-rich galaxy. In the case of subgroup AndIII, there is furthermore good agreement between the velocity of stars in this subgroup and gas also in the subgroup. The stars in And V do not have the same velocity as the gas which appears to be "in And V" because that gas is in fact a large distance behind the stellar group. Read the paper, BAC, don't just quote-mine.

And do you really understand what they were measuring in the above case? They weren't measuring star velocities orbiting around M31 but those in dwarf spheroidals, which are low density, low luminosity dwarf elliptical galaxies that are companions to M31 (and the Milky Way).

Yes, measuring how fast the entire dwarf is moving around M31. Which it is. Due to M31's gravity.

So the HI is hard to detect anyway ... making one wonder how accurate the comparisons can be.

Physics, BAC, physics. (1) You measure stars in dwarf spheroidals going around M31. This tells you M31's mass. (2) You measure halo stars going around M31. This tells you the mass. (3) You measure HI going around M31. This tells you the mass. (4) You also, maybe, measure HI in dwarf spheroidals going around M31. This tells you the mass again.

Are you complaining that there are large error bars on (4)? That's like saying that you don't know how fast your car is going, because (despite looking at the speedometer, timing the mile markers, logging a GPS signal, and getting radar-ed) you're not sure about the accuracy of your sextant and compass. Pretty weak. Especially since you just predicted a huge difference between 1, 2, and 3.

Also, you're chock-full of information about every possible 20% discrepancy between any two pieces of standard cosmology. That's strange, considering your complete indifference to numerical comparison of data with plasma cosmology.

 

[ben m]

Are my posts invisible or something? I've already told you HI is Neutral Hydrogen. Neutral hydrogen cannot be a plasma.
Ionized hydrogen is called HII.
Similarly neutral Helium is HeI, singly ionized helium is HeII. Doubly ionized helium is HeIII. I know it doesn't make a great deal of sense but that's the way it is.

Actually, Tubbythin, 21cm emitting regions can be partially ionized; I don't know what the extrema are, but 50%-ionized, 50% neutral clouds are reasonably common. I'm willing to call that a plasma.

 

[BeAChooser]

Except that looking at our own galaxy, we can see that stars and interstellar clouds move mostly together. There is no large overall discrepency between stellar motion and plasma motion

If true, why does the sun have a non-circular heliopause and a comet tail like heliosheath? Why does it have a bow shock? It has to be traveling a differentt velocity than the ISM and should be typical of most stars. You don't want the sun to be special, do you?

And why do stars in our vicinity move relative to one another if we're all along for the great galactic dark matter ride? You don't want are little region of the galaxy to be atypical, do you?

And why then do stars move in and out of spiral arms where the density of the plasma is apparently higher? Seems to me they must be moving relative to the unbound plasma creating those arms.

Then we have observations like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419123747.htm "Dying Sun-like Stars Leave Whirlpools In Their Wake, ScienceDaily (Apr. 23, 2007) — Astronomers based at Jodrell Bank Observatory have found evidence that giant whirlpools form in the wake of stars as they move through clouds in interstellar space."

And here's something else to consider:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm "However, even if the velocity of stars (rather than gas) is apparently not consistent with the galaxy mass (it is for instance claimed that the observed velocity of globular clusters indicates the presence of dark matter), one could ask the question if the 'known' visible mass of stars is actually correct. Since this mass is derived from the luminosity of the galaxy over the mass-luminosity relationship, it is obvious that any errors in the latter will have a crucial influence (according to the mass-luminosity relationship, a star with half the mass has only 1/10 of the luminosity, so with 10 times as many stars of half the mass, one would have the same overall brightness but 5 times the overall mass, which might dispense with the need for dark matter). Looking at http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/science_henry.pdf , one finds indeed that the luminosities for stars less than 1 solar mass are uncertain by about 2-3 magnitudes (i.e. up to about a factor 10). It is quite remarkable that the mass luminosity relationship, which a) is quite uncertain for low mass stars, b) obtained only in the solar neighbourhood and c) obtained only from double stars, is applied to all stars in our or other galaxies regardless. I don't think that all these points have been sufficiently examined to justify the conclusion of dark matter from the dynamics of galactic objects."

 

[BeAChooser]

Maybe now would be a good time to go hide in Dick Cheney's man size safe Karl Jr.

This is an example of why I'm no longer responding to most of your rants, David. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.

 

[ben m]

I'm also amused that BAC is questioning the general accuracy of the galaxy rotation curve measurements ... the same radial (line-of-sight doppler) measurements that are said to agree with Peratt's simulations. Too bad! If we can't trust rotation curves, I guess we should start afresh---throw out rotation-curve-based DM estimates, throw out Peratt's useless simulations, and go back to measuring galaxy masses with gravitational lensing.

 

[Reality Check]

...And why then do stars move in and out of spiral arms where the density of the plasma is apparently higher? Seems to me they must be moving relative to the unbound plasma creating those arms...

Thank you for pointing out yet another flaw in the plasma cosmology mechanism of galaxy formation. You are turning out to be one of the best debunkers of plasma "cosmology" that I have seen.

What are spiral arms? They are areas in spiral galaxies where there is active formation of stars which makes them bright when compared with the areas between the arms. Stars do not move in or out of spiral arms. There are as many stars between the arms are there are in the arms.

But the results of the computer simulation made by Perrat have no plasma between the arms of the resulting galaxies. He then compares these to optical photos of galaxies - completely forgetting that there is more to galaxies than the brightest visible stars.

 

[iantresman]

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.

.
No one is ruling out the effects of gravity, but electromagnetic forces are significant too, and dominate while charged particles smaller than grains are present. See:

Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars, Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. (Online in full)