Something new under the sun

[iantresman]

I see. So now you've flipflopped again and agree that this statement is false?

.
There is no contradiction. The motion of charged particles smaller than a grain is dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Gravity does sometimes dominate, as it does with the planets.

 

[sol invictus]

.
There is no contradiction. The motion of charged particles smaller than a grain is dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Gravity does sometimes dominate, as it does with the planets.

What are planets made out of, Ian?

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

Perhaps you should inform these mainstream sources:

From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=199 "Density Wave theory. This is the preferred model for grand design spirals. (BAC - the Milky Way is a grand design spiral.) The spiral arms in this model are over dense regions of the disk which move round at a different speed to the stars themselves. Stars thus move in and out of the spiral arm (which fits in nicely with ideas of there being more star formation in the arms since many galaxies are observed to have more new stars in the place where the arm should just have moved through). How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=402 "How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way? ... snip ... We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years, taking about 10 million years to go through."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm "In a galaxy the spiral region of greater gravity concentrates the stars and gas. The spiral regions rotate about as half as fast as the stars move. Stars behind the region of greater gravity are pulled forward into the region and speed up. Stars leaving the region of greater gravity are pulled backward and slow down. Gas entering spiral wave is compressed. On the downstream side of wave, there should be lots of H II regions (star formation regions). This is seen in some galaxies with prominent two-armed spiral patterns. But there are some unanswered questions. What forms the spiral wave in the first place? What maintains the wave?"

And just so everyone knows our location:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8436/dn8436-1_500.jpg

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps you should inform these mainstream sources:

From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=199 "Density Wave theory. This is the preferred model for grand design spirals. (BAC - the Milky Way is a grand design spiral.) The spiral arms in this model are over dense regions of the disk which move round at a different speed to the stars themselves. Stars thus move in and out of the spiral arm (which fits in nicely with ideas of there being more star formation in the arms since many galaxies are observed to have more new stars in the place where the arm should just have moved through). How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=402 "How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way? ... snip ... We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years, taking about 10 million years to go through."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm "In a galaxy the spiral region of greater gravity concentrates the stars and gas. The spiral regions rotate about as half as fast as the stars move. Stars behind the region of greater gravity are pulled forward into the region and speed up. Stars leaving the region of greater gravity are pulled backward and slow down. Gas entering spiral wave is compressed. On the downstream side of wave, there should be lots of H II regions (star formation regions). This is seen in some galaxies with prominent two-armed spiral patterns. But there are some unanswered questions. What forms the spiral wave in the first place? What maintains the wave?"

And just so everyone knows our location:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8436/dn8436-1_500.jpg

The stars do pass through the arms but are not pulled into or out of the spiral arms. So you are correct in that sense.

Any comment about

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.

Or are you going to ignore that as well as "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter".

 

[Zeuzzz]

The point, which I think Iantresman and Zeuzz have caught onto:

Yes, the 21-cm lines probably come from clouds of partially ionized gas which, for Peratt's purposes, would count as "plasma".

Hmm, I really fail to see the point you are making here. What if they were not counted as plasma? Why would this discount anything? Care to elaborate?

I dont have much time at the mo, but I really think I need to clarify a few things up for our unrelenting pseudoskeptics here about the regions of applicability of plasma physics.


The degree of ionization in interplanetary space and in other cosmic plasmas may vary over a wide range, from fullγ ionized to degrees of ionizatίon of only a fraction of a percent. Even weakly ionized plasma reacts strongly to electromagnefic fields since the ratiο of the electromagnetic force to the gravitatiοnal force is 39 orders of magnitude. For example, although the solar photospheric plasma has a degree of ionization as low as 10^-4, the major part of the condensable components is still largely ionίzed. The "neutral" hydrogen (HI) regions around galaxies are also plasmas, although the degree of ionizationis only 10^-2 - 10^-5.

Because electromagnetic fields play such an important role in the electrodynamics of plasmas, and because the dynamics of plasmas are often the sources of electromagnetίc fields, it is a good idea to determine where within the unίverse a plasma approach is necessary.

So. We first cοnsίder the magnetic field. The criterion for neglecting magnetic effects in the treatment of a problem in gas dynamics is that the Lundquist parameter Lu is much less than unity.

[latex]L_{u}=\frac{u^{1/2}\sigma{Bl_{c}}}{\sqrt{P_{m}}}\leq\leq1[/latex]

where Lc is a characteristic length of the plasma and Pm is the mass density. As the conductivity of known plasmas generally varίes only over about four orders of magnitude, from 10² to 10⁶ siemens/m, the value of Lu is largely dependent on the strength of Β in the plasma.

The variation of Β in plasmas can be 18 orders of magnitude, from microgauss strengths in intergalactic space to perhaps teragauss levels in the magnetospheres of neutron souses. On earth, magnetic field strengths can be found from about 0.5 gauss (0 .5 x 10^-4T) to 10⁷ gauss (10³ T) in pulsed-power experiments; the outerplanets have magnetic fields reaching many gauss, while the magnetic fields of stars are 30-40 kG (3-4 T). Large scale magnetic fields have also been discoνered in distort cosmic objects. The center of the Galaxy has milligauss magnetic field strengths stretching 60 pc in length, and similar strengths are inferred from polarization measurements of radiation recorded for double radiο galaxies. These values are not open to debate, they are well established facts.

I should also point out that no rotating object in the uniνerse, that is devoid of a magnetic field, is currently known. It seems that EM forces have a relationship to the degree of rotation on bodies in space, albeit a highly non linear one. Whether it is the roation of the body that causes the EM effects, or the EM effects that cause the rotation, is still open to debate, mainly due to the hard nature of testing these systems directly.


So, In cosmic problems involving planetary, interplanetary, interstellar, galactic, and extragalactic phenomena, L is usually of the order 10¹⁵ - 10²⁰. In planetary ionospheres Lu falls belοw unity in the E layer. Neglecting lightning, planetary atmospheres and hydrospheres are the only domains in the uniνerse where a non hydromagnetic treatment of fluid dynamic problems is jυstifιed.

Therefore (and I'm not sure they've caught onto this) 21cm HI regions should respond to whatever "plasma cosmology". Therefore, the fact that 21cm HI rotation curves (responding to gravity plus Perrat's hypothesized fields) agree with stellar rotation curves (responding to gravity alone, decoupled from Perrat's fields) tells you that Perrat's fields, if they're there at all, can't do very much.

We can work out the regions of Neutral hydrogen, and deduce the applicability of plasma physics to them with great ease now.

Dark clouds within our Galaxy have dimensions of 10⁸ km and microgauss strength magnetic fields. It is also known that the Galactic plasma has an extent equal to the dimensions of our Galaxy itself; -35 kpc or 10²¹ m. The most salient feature of the Galactic plasma are 10^-3G poloίdal–toroidal ρlasma filaments extending nearlγ 250 light years (60 ρc, 1.8 x 10¹⁸m ) at the Galactic center.

The vast regions of nearlγ neutral hydrogen (HI regions) found in the Galaxy and other galaxies are weakly ionized plasmas. These regions extend across the entire width of the galaxy and are sometimes found between interacting galaxies, and yes, they are detected by the 21 cm radiation they emit.

Galaxies may have bulk plasma densities of 10^-1 cm^-3; groups of galaxies, 3 x 10^-2 cm^-3 and rich clusters of galaxies, 3 x 10^-3 cm^-3. By far the single largest plasmas detected in the Universe are those of double radiο galaxies. In size, these sources extend hundreds of kiloparsecs (10²¹–10²² m) to a few mega-parsecs (10²²– 10²³ m). Double radio galaxies are thought to have densities of 10^-3 cm^-3 and magnetic fields of the order of 10^-4 G.


Hopefully thats cleared up a few of the values needed in terms of galactic magnetic fields and intergalactic field strengths.

All values Peratt has used are consistant with the values above, and so I am not sure why people keep claiming it is using some sort of strange new force or field. In his simulation he noted U shaped regions of (nearly) neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields. The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field in his model has field strengths reaching 2 x 10^-4 G at the galactic center (but fields as high as 10^-2 G can occur in concentrated regions), which is consitant with the magnetic fields of other galaxies.

 

[iantresman]

What are planets made out of, Ian?

Large chunks of neutral atoms and molecules.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Belz made a nice point earlier that you can appreciate even without knowing any physics: ALL matter is made from particles which are of zero size (to the best of our knowledge), and yet gravity dominates sometimes.

Sol, you obviously fail to understand what is being proposed. Peratt or anyone else is not trying to change the idea that gravity dominates our solar system, or on other bodies the size of planets. He is proposing that gravity does not behave linearly in accordance with this scale, ie, on much larger scales than planets and stars (ie, galaxies and superclusters) gravity does not have such a dominant effect and plasma forces begin to take the upper hand. Gravity does explain the planetary level of space very well, buts its obvious that as you go up above this that other forces become involved as many objects at this level are not perfectly spherical like all objects at planetary level. If you had read his model in which he creates a variable to account for both mass and charge you would know this.

Although the gravitational force is weaker than the electromagnetic force by 39 orders of magnitude, gravitation is one of the dominant forces in astrophysics when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case when large bodies form [5]. Indicative of the analogy of forces for the motion of electrons and ions in the electromagnetic field and the motion of large bodies in the gravitational field is the ease with which a plasma model may be changed to a gravitational model. This transformation requires only a change of sign in the (electrostatic) potential calculation such that like particles attract instead of repel, followed by setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal to the square root of the gravitational constant (a gravitational model cannot be simply changed to an electromagnetic model as the full set of Maxwell's equations are required in the latter).

So he changes the EM field to a gravitational one by elimating the repulsive force (as gravity is only attractive) and uses a scaled version of this down version to attept to work out what the relationship between the two is on galactic size objects. The formulae for gravitational attraction and EM attraction are compararble in terms of ratio's, even thought the magnitudes are different, which he accvounts for in his conversion (which you would know if you had read the paper). OK?

Take it this way.

If i say that there are two protons next to each other in a nucleus, your obvious reaction would be is to say "thats impossible, they should repel each other", which is true. But at this scale there is another force that dominates, the nuclear strong force.

If you go up to another scale, above the effects of the nuclear force, for example you have two large molecules with positive charges near each other. You cant anymore say that the nuclear force is keeping them together, so at this different level of forces, they will repel each other.

If you go up another level and look at the force between the sun (with a positive charge of 100C in this example) and the Earth (also with a positive charge) using the logic from the previous exmaple you should say "well they will repel each other", but at this scale gravity dominates.

Now if you scale up and look at the forces acting on a galactic centre, or a galactic size filament, it would be logical to also conclude that gravity dominates. However, this is not known, it is presumed. Yes, gravity is accurately measured and proven within the bounds of the solar system very well indeed. However, gravity remains untested for these larger scales. All we have is a formula. So, what Peratt is saying is that when you scale up to galactic size, gravity, although it does have a major role to play, may not be the dominant force at work. And by including gravity in his model, he is attempting to find out what this force is likely to be and what relationship it has with the charge distribution in the galaxy.

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. So the assumption that gravity works the same at the size of planets as it does for galaxies is a good one, and one that seems logical as no other value is known, but thats what it is, an assumption.

 

[Dancing David]

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

What ever, you deny saying the things you say, you can't find evidence with both hands and flashlight, you make foolish errors that demonstrate you don't think before you type, you pretend to answer questions you haven't.

I am not responsible for the dumb things you say and you have said really dumb ones recently.

Your just avoiding the issues, you ignored me when i was polite to you, you ignore me when I make fun of your foolish statements.

Face it BAC you won't answer certain questiosn because you can't spin them to match your Gnomish Wonderland, you contradicted yourself and shot yourself in the foot.

That is your problem, hide in the safe and put your fingers in your ears.

You questions await you.

Time to choose!

 

[Dancing David]

.
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)

Uh huh, right Ian you are wither ignoring the point i have made or just acting foolish. You won't show what supports your ideas and now you too are hiding behind the name of Alfven.

I am sure he does not say what you think he says. I will read, laugh and get back to you.

You either want to violate general relativity or you don't.

Time to choose!

BTW, bad show old chap, the abstract disagrees with you, I will read the full one later but you missed this part that says the cloud will contract

It is shown that magnetic fields, which have generally been regarded as obstructing the condensation of interstellar clouds, will promote the contraction of such clouds under certain conditions and may even constitute the main mechanism for contraction.

Okay in five minutes I do find what YOU are misinterpreting!

If a very small grain is electrically charged , electrostatic forces may dominate so that it can be considered part of the plasma. The condition for this is f_m=q(E+v x B) (where q is the charge and v the velocity of the grain) is larger than the other forces such as gravitation, light pressure and the other viscous interaction of the other constituents of the plasma.

Uh huh Ian , like I said you misinterpret this statement.

What charge and what velocity must the plasma particle have for it as Alfven says to be "larger than the other forces such as gravitation".

You name the particle mass, speed and charge and then explain how that keeps the ordinary plasma from undergoing gravitational collapse.

Here is a hint, Alfven is probably right.

Time to choose!

 

[sol invictus]

Large chunks of neutral atoms and molecules.

Very good.

What are atoms and molecules made of, Ian?

 

[Dancing David]

David. That post has nearly twenty questions in it. Could you just choose your main one or two points you want me to answer and i'll do my best.

Thankyou.

Cough up the numbers dude!

You made the claim that the EM forces will do the same as the hypothsized dark matter.

But an EM field is very measurable, and should be detectable.

So cough up that data, chose a mass, like a star, put a charge on it and then compute the force needed to make it move at the observed rather than the gravitation minus dark matter rate.

From the force compute the magnetic or EM force you wish to be the one doing the acceleration.

Then show where the data as observed match the calculated field.

I will anticipate you figures, remember the scaling, what is the size of the EM field needed for a given charge/mass to accelerate a star to the observed value?

You may divide the field by twenty since that is the dark matter kludge. then show where that field is observed and or measured.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Dancing David, since your about, could you choose one of the many questions you asked me earlier? I want to see what your main problems are with Peratts model, and if I have an answer to it. I will (try to) respond tomorrow.

 

[sol invictus]

Cough up the numbers dude!

Wouldn't that be a miracle.

We've seen multiple times that stars cannot possibly feel an EM force which is even remotely close to as strong as gravity. Even the cranks admit that, and now seem to have retreated to the position that yes, that's the case, but plasma can still be strongly affected by EM forces.

If that were true it would imply that stars and plasma rotate around the galactic center at very different rates.

So: according to PC, do stars rotate around the galaxy at a rate significantly different from plasma?

If not, PC is ruled out.

If so, PC is ruled out.

Take your pick.

 

[Zeuzzz]

But an EM field is very measurable, and should be detectable.

I beg to differ. Infact, many experts in this field still have reservations whether we know the true magnetic field configuration of our very own galaxy, let alone others.

Its especially hard to measure the field in the ISM or molecular clouds, but considerably easier to measure from active objects such as the core, or from stars.


”The Magnetized Interstellar Medium” - National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences Jia 20 Da-Tun Road, Beijing 100012, China, Date: 2005

6 Conclusions

We believe that it is still too early to claim that we know the exact morphology of the Galactic magnetic field. The observations of external galaxies, e.g. Beck (2000), Krause (this volume), review the state of knowledge and come to the conclusion that we have hardly any ideal one mode (bi- or axi-symmetric) magnetic field. The real magnetic fields in galaxies are very individual with possible superposition on many modes. Also irregularities are observed in almost every object, once the resolution is sufficient. Vertical fields are observed in some galaxies, especially near the nucleus.

 

[Zeuzzz]

We've seen multiple times that stars cannot possibly feel an EM force which is even remotely close to as strong as gravity. Even the cranks admit that, and now seem to have retreated to the position that yes, that's the case

.


No-one ever said that. Idiot.

I did some calculations on what the charge on the sun would have to be to account for pioneers acceleration. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PLASMA COSMOLOGY. Some one please inform him of this, he has me on ignore, and i have told him this about twenty times, yet he still is misrepresnting PC.

You will not find any plasma cosmology material that says that the charge on stars has any sort of effect on their motion whatsoever.

EU proponents on the other hand do think that the sun could retain a substantial charge, but this is a quite different matter to plasma cosmology. And they know that simple electrostatics can not account for the orbits of anything.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050301pithballs.htm

A common mistake when first trying to understand the Electric Universe is to think in terms of electrostatics. Experiments with pith balls in Freshman Physics Lab come to mind. With a little imagination—and by plugging larger numbers into the equations—a model of “the pith ball sun” can be constructed.

The central pith ball, if positively charged, will repel positive ions, generating a “wind” that accelerates away from the ball, much as is observed with the solar “wind.” And the pith ball will attract electrons: Because they are so much less massive than ions, they could be accelerated to relativistic velocities. With sufficient velocity, their collision with the pith ball could account for its luminosity.

But spacecraft have not found any relativistic electrons. And the solar wind seems to be composed of nearly equal numbers of positive ions and negative electrons. And the ions practically stop accelerating by the time they reach the orbit of the Earth. And most of the solar wind is confined to the Sun’s equatorial plane. And many more items could be listed where the pith ball model doesn’t correspond with observations.

The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics. And not simply on Freshman Physics electrodynamics from a textbook but on the electrical behavior of plasma as observed in laboratories and by spacecraft. Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren’t isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren’t at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Assumptions and deductions imported from the “already known” of gravitational theory will lead to confusion and absurdity. As astronomer Halton Arp said in another context: “Sometimes it’s better not to know one wrong thing than to know a hundred things that are right.” The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

If that were true it would imply that stars and plasma rotate around the galactic center at very different rates.

No crap.

 

[ben m]

Wrong. They are measuring how fast the star supposedly moves with respect to the dwarf galaxy. And I know this because they talk about using that data to calculate the dark matter associated with the dwarf galaxy, not M31.

Perhaps you want to retract the above statement just in case someone reads the paper and notices "The new radial velocity data on these outer dwarfs are used to constrain the total mass of M31: the best estimate is under 10^(12)Msun" in the abstract. Otherwise, someone might accuse you of being an absurdly sloppy reader. And they might laugh at you. Just a thought.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...Now if you scale up and look at the forces acting on a galactic centre, or a galactic size filament, it would be logical to also conclude that gravity dominates. However, this is not known, it is presumed. Yes, gravity is accurately measured and proven within the bounds of the solar system very well indeed. However, gravity remains untested for these larger scales. All we have is a formula. So, what Peratt is saying is that when you scale up to galactic size, gravity, although it does have a major role to play, may not be the dominant force at work. And by including gravity in his model, he is attempting to find out what this force is likely to be and what relationship it has with the charge distribution in the galaxy...

Zeuzzz. I have read Peratt's 1968 paper one more time. Gravity is mentioned

• In the introduction when discussing the transformation of plasma model to a gravitational model.
• In section VIII when he outlines the Alfven-Carlqvist Model for Star Formation in Pinched Filaments.
• In section IX which is titled "The Extention of Three-Dimensional Electromagnetc Particle Simulations to Include Gravitational Forces".

At no point does he state that gravity is included in his simulation from the beginning. Section IX is about the transformation of plasma to stars and involves "a crude approximation of proceeding from charged particles (actually a cloud of charged particles [I. sec III]) to mass particles". My interpretation is that he runs the simulation without gravity to a certain point and then swaps to this approximation to simulate the formation of stars.

At no point does he present an explicit justification for ignoring gravity. It could be that section VIII is his justification (it states that gravity can be ignored for the motion of very small particles in a dusty plasma).

However this is a minor problem with his model. A major problem is with the results of the simulations. The still frames that he has in the paper show no plasma and so no star formation between the arms of spiral galaxies. But there are stars between the arms of actual galaxies. Peratt makes this problem worse by comparing the still frames to optical photographs of galaxies.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz. I have read Peratt's 1968 paper one more time. Gravity is mentioned

1968???? Only more than twenty years out.

At no point does he present an explicit justification for ignoring gravity. It could be that section VIII is his justification (it states that gravity can be ignored for the motion of very small particles in a dusty plasma).

HE IS NOT IGNORING GRAVITY.

Although the gravitational force is weaker than the
electromagnetic force by 39 orders of magnitude, gravitation
is one of the dominant forces in astrophysics when
electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case
when large bodies form [5]. Indicative of the analogy of
forces for the motion of electrons and ions in the electromagnetic
field and the motion of large bodies in the gravitational
field is the ease with which a plasma model may
be changed to a gravitational model. This transformation
requires only a change of sign in the (electrostatic) potential
calculation such that like particles attract instead of
repel, followed by setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal
to the square root of the gravitational constant (a gravitational
model cannot be simply changed to an electromagnetic
model as the full set of Maxwell's equations are
required in the latter).

Do you undertsand what that means? or do i have to explain it again?

However this is a minor problem with his model. A major problem is with the results of the simulations. The still frames that he has in the paper show no plasma and so no star formation between the arms of spiral galaxies. But there are stars between the arms of actual galaxies. Peratt makes this problem worse by comparing the still frames to optical photographs of galaxies.

example:
If you are modelling a river for example, and lets say that you have to find the relationship between the surface tension and the rate of flow. You would take measurements of the various volumes, the rate of flow of the water, the surface tension at this point, etc. After doing this you come up with your relationship.

Now, the water is obviously made up a billions of molecules. However, the end result of this mathematical relationship does not include any information about the individual molecules in the river, it doesn't go down to that scale. By your logic this would make it wrong. But its not, the relationship worls fine, they just dont need to account for anything occuring on that small scale in comparison with the other functions occuring.

This is the same here. What you fail to realize is that the birkeland filaments are structures in themselves, they are made of stars. The best comparison would be to think of two normal interacting currents. These currents are made of flowing electrons and atoms all ciculating each other. We can model the interaction of the currents without any reference to any specific individual atom in the system, they are on a different level.

The same applies here, the interaction of the filaments is the current, and the current is made of stars and planets. The overall action of the currents is on a scale that precludes the action of the stars they are constituted of. It all depends about what scale you are talking about, and which forces dominate at this scale. Peratt is saying that due to the various shapes at the galactic level that are inexplicable by gravity, that another force stars to come into play at this level, a plasma based magnetic interaction of birkeland filaments.

And Peratts use of birkeland filaments is justified as we know that Birkeland currents show exactly the same shape and form over 10¹² orders of magnitude (from molecular currents in labs, to the currents in the aurora's)

 

[Reality Check]

1968???? Only more than twenty years out.

HE IS NOT IGNORING GRAVITY.

Do you understand what that means? or do i have to explain it again?

THEN I WILL PHRASE IT DIFFERENTLY SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND - HE IS IGNORING GRAVITY IN HIS MODEL. Of course he mentions it in his paper!

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz, Are you ignoring this:

A major problem is with the results of the simulations. The still frames that he has in the paper show no plasma and so no star formation between the arms of spiral galaxies. But there are stars between the arms of actual galaxies. Peratt makes this problem worse by comparing the still frames to optical photographs of galaxies.