Something new under the sun

[BeAChooser]

the local ISM is blowing in from Auriga---from the galactic anticenter and a bit north, i.e. as inconsistent as possible with your off-the-cuff "I bet I found a discrepancy OMG".

That might not be inconsistent with the Alfven/Peratt model since that model doesn't claim that ISM movement is just "around" the core. Electric current is flowing to and from the core, presumably taking plasma with it. Furthermore, the plasma model doesn't have trouble with a little turbulence here and there. It's much harder to explain this from a gravity point of view. Or are you about to introduce a gravitic turbulence gnome?

And how about 82 Eridani. It's only 20 light years away yet traveling 101 km/s relative to the ISM. How could this be?

And speaking of electric current coursing through the galaxy ...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/27/1720/00045500.pdf "Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies ... snip ... Radio polarization observations have revealed large-scale magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. ... snip ... Long magnetic-field filaments are seen, sometimes up to a 30 kpc length."

 

[Reality Check]

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

Maybe you should tell BeAChooser to stop referencing the paper. I am sure that there is a later one with a more complete model but have not noticed anyone mention it yet.

 

[ben m]

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.

Zeuzzz, you need to figure this out with BAC and Iantresman, who are now saying that stars do not move through the Galaxy like electrons move through a plasma.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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!

Still finding it a bit hard are you? I'll use some bolding this time.

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).

Zeuzzz, Are you ignoring this:

The still frames that he has in the paper show no plasma and so no star formation between the arms of spiral galaxies.

Thats a very impressive observation. Did you come up with all by yourself?

You cant see any stars at the large scale he is using in the simulation anyway. RealityCheck, your pseudoskeptisism is beginning to wear a little thin on me, unless you stop making stupid points i am going to have to put you on ignore.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz, you need to figure this out with BAC and Iantresman, who are now saying that stars do not move through the Galaxy like electrons move through a plasma.

What i said was for the sake of comparison, just like my river analogy. I never stated that stars behave like electrons moving through a plasma. Although I should have worded it better, the currents are not really made of stars, the currents are made of the net flow of all charged particles that constitute it, stars are just one of the many objects travelling in them.

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz. I saw the bold text.
I acknowldge that Perrat mentions gravity in the paper. In your quoted text he is commenting on the ease of transformation of a plasma model into a gravitational model. I interpret this as changing the electromagnetic forces to gravitational forces as in the text you have in bold.
In what way is changing EM forces to gravitational forces in a model creating a model that includes both EM and gravitational forces?
To include both forces you have to have a model with both forces.

This is how I interpret the quoted text:

1. Starting model has EM forces only.
2. Apply the transformation.
3. Resulting model has gravitational forces only.

How do you interpret it?

 

[ben m]

That might not be inconsistent with the Alfven/Peratt model since that model doesn't claim that ISM movement is just "around" the core. Electric current is flowing to and from the core, presumably taking plasma with it. Furthermore, the plasma model doesn't have trouble with a little turbulence here and there. It's much harder to explain this from a gravity point of view. Or are you about to introduce a gravitic turbulence gnome?

I find this amusing considering that a few hours ago you were trying to claim that a very high ISM ram speed was evidence of a PC-like ISM-only rotation curve. Now a very low ISM ram speed in a different direction is evidence of another "presumable" PC effect.

And how about 82 Eridani. It's only 20 light years away yet traveling 101 km/s relative to the ISM. How could this be?

BAC, you're making the same mistake again. Stars are not pinned to the Galactic disk like grease spots on a Lazy Susan. They're on independent Galactic orbits. The Sun and the Local Cloud are following the most common orbit: low-eccentricity, low-pitch orbits within the disk. 82 Eri is on a rarer high-eccentricity orbit.

Is this some sort of problem for you? Imagine standing on comm satellite on a 24-hour orbit, getting used to seeing lots of similar objects on nearby 24-orbits (and low velocities relative to you), then seeing the Chandra telescope whip by on its eccentric orbit. That's what 82 Eri is doing to us. Standard gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

Thats a very impressive observation. Did you come up with all by yourself?

You cant see any stars at the large scale he is using in the simulation anyway. RealityCheck, your pseudoskeptisism is beginning to wear a little thin on me, unless you stop making stupid points i am going to have to put you on ignore.

Let us take this step by step then.
Do you agree that a spiral galaxy has the following features?

• A central bulge
• A flat rotating disk of stars and interstellar matter surrounding the bulge.
• Two or more arms consisting of young stars. This makes them brighter than the surrounding disk.

Do you agree that Peratt's results have the following features for the simulation of spiral galaxies?

• A central bulge.
• Two or more arms.

 

[Zeuzzz]

In what way is changing EM forces to gravitational forces in a model creating a model that includes both EM and gravitational forces?

Becasue the force that he is using takes the gravitational force of the mass in question and adds to it the attraction of the charges in that mass too. As he stated the equations for both obey the same rule, inverse square law (I learnt that year one in physcs A level, its not really a hard concept) and so instead of modelling the gravitational force and then adding the magnetostatic force to it, since they follow the same relationship he simply combines them into one resultant force.

This is how I interpret the quoted text:

1. Starting model has EM forces only.
2. Apply the transformation.
3. Resulting model has gravitational forces only.

How do you interpret it?

Well no wonder you dont get it.

 

[ben m]

What i said was for the sake of comparison, just like my river analogy. I never stated that stars behave like electrons moving through a plasma. Although I should have worded it better, the currents are not really made of stars, the currents are made of the net flow of all charged particles that constitute it, stars are just one of the many objects travelling in them.

Then the "star-scale" currents will not have any of the properties of electrical currents. No plasma-based attraction/repulsion, no plasma-based stabilization or instability. Just collections of stars, with inertia and gravitational attraction, just like mainstream astronomers have already accounted for, thank you.. What's the point of using "Birkeland currents" to describe this? It's like taking an equation describing flocks of interacting birds, then applying it to a bucket of tennis balls tossed out of an airplane.

If you're not, in fact, erroneously imagining that the stars are somehow carried along in some sort of flow, then you're left with what we already have: self-gravitating collections of stars.

 

[sol invictus]

If you're not, in fact, erroneously imagining that the stars are somehow carried along in some sort of flow, then you're left with what we already have: self-gravitating collections of stars.

The plasma cranks weren't able to come up with even a single phenomenon which is explained differently by PC then by standard cosmo. Every time we take a look at one of the vague statements they make, it falls apart into nothing.

As I said before: either PC predicts stars and plasma in galaxies move together and as predicted by standard cosmo - in which case dark matter is needed and everything they've been saying about it is wrong - or it doesn't, in which case PC is ruled out by observations.

 

[ben m]

Becasue the force that he is using takes the gravitational force of the mass in question and adds to it the attraction of the charges in that mass too. As he stated the equations for both obey the same rule, inverse square law (I learnt that year one in physcs A level, its not really a hard concept) and so instead of modelling the gravitational force and then adding the magnetostatic force to it, since they follow the same relationship he simply combines them into one resultant force.

Now I'm confused again. You can't "combine them" unless everything in the Universe has the same charge-to-mass ratio and charge sign. I can write down an inverse-square-law that correctly describes the gravito-electric interaction between two charged pith balls---and it will have a different constant than a similar equation between a pith ball and an amber ball, or two lead balls, or two electrons, or two stars. Or two NdBeFe magnets, or a NdFeB magnet and a BaTi electret, or whatever.

Are we back to applying electromagnetic forces to stars, now, or not?

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

You are correct. I misread (sloppy ol' me) something in the body of the report which led me astray. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Do you agree that Peratt's results have the following features for the simulation of spiral galaxies?

• A central bulge.
• Two or more arms.

If you were drawing your conclusions from just looking at a picture and performing a very basic analysis of it, yes. Does that tell you anything useful? no.

See page four for some of the different shape galaxy results he obtained; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

"Fig. 4. Single-frame stills of plasma in galaxy simulation T06 = [latex]w_{c}/w_{p}=1.5[/latex], [latex]T_{10}=2KeV[/latex], T = 1-750
Acceleration field, 0.002 cells per time step squared.

Fig 5. Single-frame stills of plasma in galaxy simulation T6B = [latex]w_{c}/w_{p}=3.0[/latex], [latex]T_{e0}=T_{i0}=2KeV[/latex], T = 1-900 Acceleration field, 0.002 cells per time step squared. "

I think we can safely say that when he inputs various different types of magnetic configurations the resulting shapes are strikingly similar to galaxy morphology. Not just one type, but his model seems able to create just about every type of galaxy.

 

[BeAChooser]

Zeuzzz, you need to figure this out with BAC and Iantresman, who are now saying that stars do not move through the Galaxy like electrons move through a plasma.

Actually, I haven't said that.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The plasma cranks weren't able to come up with even a single phenomenon which is explained differently by PC then by standard cosmo. Every time we take a look at one of the vague statements they make, it falls apart into nothing.

How does he know this? he asked me to do this, and then put me on ignore two posts later! If he had waited a couple of posts i would have been able to, but now he's bashing something he obviously has no understanding of.

Anyone else want to take up sols little challenge? I have plenty of topics that I could speak about. Infact, its probably best to start a new thread about the physics of the plasma universe.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The plasma cranks weren't able to come up with even a single phenomenon which is explained differently by PC then by standard cosmo. Every time we take a look at one of the vague statements they make, it falls apart into nothing.

Hows about a detailed analysis of the alternative explanation for pulsars? would that make a good starting topic? Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2

Or hows about discussing the Trends in Apparent Time Intervals Between Multiple Supernovae Occurrences and the latest data on polarized gamma rays from each of these periodic supernova?

Or the new found effects of CIV in the ISM?

Oh i forgot, he keeps making this claim that there is no evidence that PC describes something different to standard cosmo, but everyone who could contribute to the discussion with him he has on ignore. What does he expect me to do? get someone else to post it for me? Talk about a hypocrite.

 

[Reality Check]

Becasue the force that he is using takes the gravitational force of the mass in question and adds to it the attraction of the charges in that mass too. As he stated the equations for both obey the same rule, inverse square law (I learnt that year one in physcs A level, its not really a hard concept) and so instead of modelling the gravitational force and then adding the magnetostatic force to it, since they follow the same relationship he simply combines them into one resultant force.




Well no wonder you dont get it.

Transformation = Addition?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Now I'm confused again. You can't "combine them" unless everything in the Universe has the same charge-to-mass ratio and charge sign.

He is using the average charge/mass ratio I presume

Are we back to applying electromagnetic forces to stars, now, or not?

EM forces in terms of keeping its position inside the filament, i would think yes. But claiming that Peratt is using a simple electrostatic relationship to keep stars in orbit in some way is false. He has shown what his model is, using the biot savart force from an initial bennet pinch condition between two interacting birkeland currents. Like the ones we observe in galactic size filaments all over the place in the IGM. The relationship is more complex than simple electrostatics, for example when certain conditions are reached the force becomes repulsive for certain regions of the spiral, which is why it shows the morphology it does.




Because of the EMF-induced current, Iz, a galactic filament can be expected to retain its columnar filamental form provided the Bennett-pinch condition is satisfied,

i.e, that,

[latex]I^{2}_{z}>\frac{8\pi{NkT}}{\mu_{0}}[/latex]

where N is the electron density per unit length.

In addition to confining plasma in filaments radially, the axial current flow produces another important effect; a long-range interactive force on other galactic filaments. The Biot-Savart electromagnetic force between filaments is:


[latex]F_{21}=\int{j_{2}}+B_{21}d^3r[/latex]


for all space, where j x B is the Lorentz force. If the current path greatly exceeds the filament widths, the attractive force between two similarly oriented filaments is approximately given by:


[latex]F_{21}(I_{z1},I_{z2})=-r\frac{\mu_{0}I_{z1}I_{z2}}{2\pi{R_{12}}}[/latex]


where the subscripts 1 and 2 denote columns 1 and 2, respectively, and R12 is their separation. Because of the axial magnetic field B„ the particles spiral as they drift or accelerate and thereby produce an azimuthal component in the generalized current [latex]I=zI_{z}+\theta{I_{\theta}}[/latex]. The magnetic moment associated with the azimuthal current is [latex]m=zB_{z}z\pi{r^2}I_{\theta}[/latex]. If the magnetic moments in adjacent filaments are aligned, a short-range repulsive force is generated between them:


[latex]F_{21}(I_{z\theta},I_{z\theta})=r\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{R^{4}_{12}}[/latex]


Hence, the electromagnetic forces between filaments are ordered as [latex]R^{-1}_{12}[/latex] (long-range attractive) and [latex]R^{-4}_{12}[/latex] (shortrangerepulsive).



Some of the other relationships and values can be seen here: "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14 (now the tenth time i have posted this paper without anyone directly commenting on it) or in his second paper: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14

This model is not definitive, there are other factors at work, including the force resulting from the galactic centres unipolar inductor configuration, but these objects were not well known when Peratt wrote this paper. But the basic principles are all there, and it certainly does not need to invoke galaxies full of dark matter and energy to work sucessfully, and so could be called the better theory of the two.

 

[Reality Check]

Now I'm confused again. You can't "combine them" unless everything in the Universe has the same charge-to-mass ratio and charge sign. I can write down an inverse-square-law that correctly describes the gravito-electric interaction between two charged pith balls---and it will have a different constant than a similar equation between a pith ball and an amber ball, or two lead balls, or two electrons, or two stars. Or two NdBeFe magnets, or a NdFeB magnet and a BaTi electret, or whatever.

Are we back to applying electromagnetic forces to stars, now, or not?

Hi ben m. The discussion is about Peratt's plasma cosmology and the model he proposed in 1968 for the formation of galaxies from plasma. Laboratory experiments had shown that plasmoids looked like galaxies. Peratt created a model that consisted of 2 cosmic filaments acting on a body of plasma via electric (Birkeland) current running in the filaments. Computer simulations showed that the plasma formed structures that look like the optical photographs of galaxies, e.g spiral galaxies.

I doubted that gravitational force was included in the model, especially since the only equations that I saw involving gravity were at the end of the paper (in a section on the formation of stars from dark plasma and the next section). His introduction states

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).

This looks like a comment about how easy it is to transform from a plasma (EM only) model to a mass model (gravity only).

According to Zeuzzz the transformation means that the plasma model includes both EM and gravity.

It may just be semantics:
Zeuzzz: "The plasma model includes both EM and gravity because it can be transformed between EM and gravity forms".
Me: "The plasma model when calculated in the EM form does not include gravity".