Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[robinson]

Have you no pithy, cynical, sceptical, etc remarks to make about anything Zeuzzz posted? about the content in any of the links he posted?

Oh sure, but you guys do a much better job of it than I ever could. If I thought you were losing ground I certainly would jump in and give a hand.

As to the content of links, and the larger complicated issues, I don't know enough to really help out. I'm just dismayed at the poor logic and unscientific methods being used.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What is the evidence against Plasma Cosmology? Part 1

[...]

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

[...]

This preprint, hot off the arXiv server, is highly relevant:

Spitzer Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy of Infrared Luminous Galaxies at z~2 III: Far-IR to Radio Properties and Optical Spectral Diagnostics

Anna Sajina, Lin Yan, Dieter Lutz, Aaron Steffen, George Helou, Minh Huynh, David Frayer, Philip Choi, Linda Tacconi, Kalliopi Dasyra
(Submitted on 2 May 2008)

Abstract: We present the far-IR, millimeter, and radio photometry as well as optical and near-IR spectroscopy of a sample of 48 z~1-3 Spitzer-selected ULIRGs with IRS mid-IR spectra. Our goals are to compute their bolometric emission, and to determine both the presence and relative strength of their AGN and starburst components. We find that strong-PAH sources tend to have higher 160um and 1.2mm fluxes than weak-PAH sources. The depth of the 9.7um silicate feature does not affect MAMBO detectability. We fit the far-IR SEDs of our sample and find an average <L_{IR}>~7x10^{12}Lsun for our z>1.5 sources. Spectral decomposition suggests that strong-PAH sources typically have ~20-30% AGN fractions. Weak-PAH sources by contrast tend to have >~70% AGN fractions, with a few sources having comparable contributions of AGN and starbursts. The optical line diagnostics support the presence of AGN in the bulk of the weak-PAH sources. With one exception, our sources are narrow-line sources, show no obvious correspondence between the optical extinction and the silicate feature depth, and, in two cases, show evidence for outflows. Radio AGN are present in both strong-PAH and weak-PAH sources. This is supported by our sample's far-IR-to-radio ratios (q) being consistently below the average value of 2.34 for local star-forming galaxies. We use survival analysis to include the lower-limits given by the radio-undetected sources, arriving at <q>=2.07+/-0.01 for our z>1.5 sample. In total, radio and, where available, optical line diagnostics support the presence of AGN in 57% of the z>1.5 sources, independent of IR-based diagnostics. For higher-z sources, the AGN luminosities alone are estimated to be >10^{12}Lsun, which, supported by the [OIII] luminosities, implies that the bulk of our sources host obscured quasars.

Why is it relevant?

Recall that in Lerner's PC, the CMB is a kind of local radio fog, originating in the scattering of processed starlight (I think that's a fair summary) by (as yet unobserved) "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium". While Lerner has not, apparently, developed his model sufficiently to be able to say what the scale length of this fog is (other than in broad, almost qualitative, terms), one piece of observational evidence he claims supports this idea is some correlations between the estimated radio and IR (and microwave and mm?) luminosities (I don't, yet, really understand his argument well), and specifically that high-z radio sources seem attenuated compared with comparable sources at low z*.

What this paper (and a great many others like it) present is high quality observational data on the observed 'brightness' of many objects, in many wavebands (optical, IR, FIR, mm, microwave, radio). Some of the material seems to be quite inconsistent the Lerner model of the CMB, as presented (e.g. the lack of any z-trend in the radio loud sources in the q-z plot of Figure 14; according to Lerner there should be a strong z correlation!); but the main problems (for Lerner's PC, at least as far as his model of the CMB is concerned) would show up starkly if the data presented were transformed into forms that could be used to directly compare with what's in Lerner's own paper(s).

At least, that's my impression. What are your thoughts on this Zeuzzz? Specifically, can you see a way that the data in this preprint could be transformed to be consistent with Lerner's conclusions?

* we must put aside a critical component of Lerner's, and most other versions of PC's; namely, staunch support for Arp et al.'s ideas concerning 'intrinsic redshift', and especially the part about (most) quasars/QSOs being rather local. If this were to be incorporated into Lerner's argument concerning FIR/mm/microwave/radio correlations supporting a 'local' origin of the CMB, I'm pretty sure they'd reduce it to noise.

 

[BeAChooser]

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

 

[Reality Check]

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

Hi BeAChooser: This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo !

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hi BeAChooser: This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo !

I find this statement quite strange. By that logic, you could take the shape of any single galaxy we can observe, and say that gravity only models are woo as they can not account for any of the shapes we see. But what would that achive? This is like to OP, very unscientific, and just seems like you want a fight, instead of addressing the material put forward. (can we stop using the word 'woo' to describe anything that you do not belive? not very scientific, really? is it?)

And, there categorily are filaments extending from the galaxy that you said, so your previous statement that "According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?" Well, they are there. And they were not predicted, nor can be formed, by gravity only equations, but most certainly are expected in the plasma universe model.

And to clear this up for Dancing David, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Peratts galaxy model is 10 cm Big! What would that achieve? And he would not have need to have included the mass of the galaxy as a variable if this was the case, as gravity would not do anything on that smaller scale, and would be completely negligable. You may want to re-read a few of my points about the scale used in the "something new under the sun" thread, and what scale Peratts model is based in. You may have got muddled with Winston Bostik's actual experiment with interacting plasmoids that showed the form of galaxies, or Birkelands Terella, (both I briefly discussed in this post) thats fair enough. Peratt certainly wouldn't have needed a supercomputer to model a 10cm simple force free configuration! Thats why its dealing with galactic size plasma formations;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

The model of the plasma universe, inspired by totally unexpected phenomena observed with the advent and application of fully three-dimensional electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations to filamentary plasmas, consists of studying the interaction between fieldaligned current-conducting, galactic-dimensioned plasma sheets or filaments. In a preceding paper, the evolution of the interaction spanned some 10⁸-10⁹ years, where simulational analogs of synchrotron-emitting double radio galaxies and quasars were discovered. This paper reports the evolution through the next 109-5 x 109 years. In particular, reconfiguration and compression of tenuous cosmic plasma due to the self-consistent magnetic fields from currents conducted through the filaments leads to the formation of elliptical, peculiar, and barred and normal spiral galaxies. The importance of the electromagnetic pinch in producing condense states and initiating gravitational collapse of dusty galactic plasma to stellisimals, then stars, is discussed. Simulation data are directly compared to galaxy morphology types, synchrotron flux, H1 distributions, and fine detail structure in rotational velocity curves. These comparisons suggest that knowledge obtained from laboratory, simulation, and magnetospheric plasmas offers not only to enhance our understanding of the universe, but also to provide feedback information to laboratory plasma experiments from the unprecedented source of plasma data provided by the plasma universe.

And Peratt quite openly derived the scaling relationship that enables the force free configuration, here;

And Reality Check, the sombrero galaxy is a very unique object, in terms of galaxies, and mainstream theories to explain its shape in any sort of conclusive way have not been very sucessful. Infact, I think that Peratts model is much more likely to explain this galaxy anyway, if you read some of his work, he does directly address the formation of spherical dust/plasma structures like this, which arrise due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix.

The necessity for a threedimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time dependence. Moreover, synchrotron radiation and double layers are discrete particle phenomena and cannot be studied using magnetofluid models of plasma. The importance of applying electromagnetism and plasma physics to the problem of radio galaxy, galaxy, and star formation derives from the fact that the universe is largely matter in its plasma state, i.e., a plasma universe.
The motion of this plasma in local regions can lead to pinches and ultimately condense states of matter. Where double layers form in the pinches, strong electric fields can accelerate the charged particles to high energies. Simulations of the interactions between plasma pinched into filaments show:

1) a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity —W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction begins;

2) isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtaposed "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);

3) the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix); [...]

And you may want to check out his second publication, that deals with the various different types of galaxy, and gives a quantitive derivation of what the conditions are that lead to these morphologies, all of which derive from his force free model, and seem to be able to account for different types of galaxies far better than current models.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

The gross radio properties of galaxies are reviewed in Section II. Section III describes a transistion through the following sequence of cosmic objects: double radio galaxy to radioquasar; radioquasar to radioquiet quasi-stellar objects (QSO's) [9]; radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert spiral galaxies; and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies to normal and barred (or barrel) galaxies. The various classifications of elliptical and spiral galaxies are discussed in Sections IV and V, respectively. The importance of electromagnetic effects in describing both the bulk- and fine detail structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also reported in Section V. Multiple interacting galaxies are studied in Section VI. The chemical composition and the distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed in Section VII. Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.

And, also you hould check out section nine of this publiction (page ten) where his model is shown to nearly exactly match the distribution of Hi regions, and many other features, of spiral galaxies. None of these need the addition of extra theories to account for these observations, all derive from the the fundamental galaxy model, whereas standard theories rely on many completely separate theories to explain these observations. If your judging both theories by parsimony, Peratts model wins hands down, and does need to invoke many separate theories to explain this. And the rotational velocity curves that he plots in this publication (published in the very reputable "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal) are much more accurate than standard theories too.

1. Observations show that the universe has a structure that is inconsistent with Lerner's fractal scaling relationship (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is an SDSS PR showing the observed large-scale structure; here is the corresponding paper.

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

4. Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with its observed SED (spectral energy distribution: COBE observed that the SED is a blackbody (example - note that the error bars are 400 sigma!); Lerner says this about how well his model fits (emphasis added): "[the Lerner model] has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%." In case you, dear reader, don't quite get this, I'll spell it out more clearly: 'a probability of 85%' is not, repeat not, an accurate match ... the error bars are so small that '85%' represents a total failure to match (you'd need something like 99.99% to still be in the game).

5. No "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium" have been observed (to the best of my knowledge) - these hypothesised objects are central to Lerner's CMB model, and they should have been observed, directly or indirectly, by now (Zeuzzz: in which paper(s) does Lerner describe what their observational footprint would be (other than the CMB) and attempt to explain why they have not yet been observed?)

6. The time dilation observed in high-z Ia supernovae is inconsistent with Lerner's proposed mechanism for the Hubble relationship ('tired light') - an example.

7. The CMB angular power spectrum expected in Lerner's model has not been estimated/calculated (so the now excellent observations haven't yet been used to test the Lerner model). Of course, this is not evidence against Lerner's PC, merely a note on a test it hasn't yet been subject to.

8. Lerner's PC requires the fractal scaling relationship to apply at large scales, including beyond the observable universe, otherwise the night sky would not be dark (Olbers' paradox). The night sky is dark, and at large scales the observed universe does not follow Lerner's fractal scaling relationship, ergo you can rule out Lerner's PC every clear night (away from big cities!), by going outside and seeing a dark sky.

This is much better than your previous spam attacks DRD . Gives me something that I can actually directly respond to. Be patient, i'm pretty sure there are answers to these, but its going to take longer than a few simple google searches, and as you know, I dont have much time at the mo.

[ its annoying when someone accuses your long posts of being merely a spam attack, isn't it? ]

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz: This is nothing to do with the shape of the galaxies - just the predictions from Perrat's plasma model of galaxy formation (this includes simulation maps that look like optical photographs of galaxies)

To repeat a previous posting (bold text added):
How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to PC? If it is unimportant then don't worry about the following questions.

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be galactic plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?
Where are they for other galaxies that are edge on to us?
P.S. These filaments should extend for a billion light years (based on the September 1989 article in Natural Science). According to the simulation maps in his papers they should be as wide as the galaxy.

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Also something that has not totally been answered yet: How does Peratt's plasma model deal with the actual observation of dark matter?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies?

I presume that these would be galaxies in which the current flow has been dimished in comparison to what it used to be.

Your logic is quite bad here, because i can ask you the exact same question in reverse; Can you tell us why we do see plasma filaments extending from most other galaxies?

Well, can you?

Of course there are going to be exceptions, galaxies are very varied, but standard theories do not account for this any more than plasma cosmology does.

For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be galactic plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?
Where are they for other galaxies that are edge on to us?
P.S. These filaments should extend for a billion light years (based on the September 1989 article in Natural Science). According to the simulation maps in his papers they should be as wide as the galaxy.

If you read the paper, not all filaments need to be galactic size. It varies between each different type of galaxy. And I say again, the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case, and has no good explanation with standard models. In Peratts, this shape can be accounted for with the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix)

and can you not put most of your posts in bold?, it comes across as shouting.

 

[Reality Check]

I presume that these would be galaxies in which the current flow has been dimished in comparison to what it used to be.

So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?

Your logic is quite bad here, because i can ask you the exact same question in reverse; Can you tell us why we do see plasma filaments extending from most other galaxies?

We do see filaments from many galaxies. None of them are "galactic" and extending for billions (or even thousands) of light years.
Of course Peratt's model predicts (as far as I can see) that all galaxies will have the model's galactic plasma filaments.

Well, can you?

Yes I can. There are multiple reasons mostly to to with plasma physics.
Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)

If you read the paper, not all filaments need to be galactic size. It varies between each different type of galaxy. And I say again, the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case, and has no good explanation with standard models. In Peratts, this shape can be accounted for with the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix)

Ok the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case - give me a better one with filaments matching Peratt's model.

and can you not put most of your posts in bold?, it comes across as shouting.

I had to put them in bold so that you could see the parts of the post that I was adding. I will put them in italics next time.

 

[Dancing David]

I find this statement quite strange. By that logic, you could take the shape of any single galaxy we can observe, and say that gravity only models are woo as they can not account for any of the shapes we see. But what would that achive? This is like to OP, very unscientific, and just seems like you want a fight, instead of addressing the material put forward. (can we stop using the word 'woo' to describe anything that you do not belive? not very scientific, really? is it?)

And, there categorily are filaments extending from the galaxy that you said, so your previous statement that "According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?" Well, they are there. And they were not predicted, nor can be formed, by gravity only equations, but most certainly are expected in the plasma universe model.

And to clear this up for Dancing David, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Peratts galaxy model is 10 cm Big! What would that achieve? And he would not have need to have included the mass of the galaxy as a variable if this was the case, as gravity would not do anything on that smaller scale, and would be completely negligable. You may want to re-read a few of my points about the scale used in the "something new under the sun" thread, and what scale Peratts model is based in. You may have got muddled with Winston Bostik's actual experiment with interacting plasmoids that showed the form of galaxies, or Birkelands Terella, (both I briefly discussed in this post) thats fair enough. Peratt certainly wouldn't have needed a supercomputer to model a 10cm simple force free configuration! Thats why its dealing with galactic size plasma formations;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf



And Peratt quite openly derived the scaling relationship that enables the force free configuration, here;




And Reality Check, the sombrero galaxy is a very unique object, in terms of galaxies, and mainstream theories to explain its shape in any sort of conclusive way have not been very sucessful. Infact, I think that Peratts model is much more likely to explain this galaxy anyway, if you read some of his work, he does directly address the formation of spherical dust/plasma structures like this, which arrise due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix.





And you may want to check out his second publication, that deals with the various different types of galaxy, and gives a quantitive derivation of what the conditions are that lead to these morphologies, all of which derive from his force free model, and seem to be able to account for different types of galaxies far better than current models.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf



And, also you hould check out section nine of this publiction (page ten) where his model is shown to nearly exactly match the distribution of Hi regions, and many other features, of spiral galaxies. None of these need the addition of extra theories to account for these observations, all derive from the the fundamental galaxy model, whereas standard theories rely on many completely separate theories to explain these observations. If your judging both theories by parsimony, Peratts model wins hands down, and does need to invoke many separate theories to explain this. And the rotational velocity curves that he plots in this publication (published in the very reputable "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal) are much more accurate than standard theories too.





This is much better than your previous spam attacks DRD . Gives me something that I can actually directly respond to. Be patient, i'm pretty sure there are answers to these, but its going to take longer than a few simple google searches, and as you know, I dont have much time at the mo.

[ its annoying when someone accuses your long posts of being merely a spam attack, isn't it? ]

Apparently you need to check into the basis of perrat's original papers, and ones you have cited in fact! remember the ones where there are two plasma filaments and how they form 'galactic' strubture? remember the original 'internal magneto' study which generated the 'flat rotation curve'.

Those were (from the one citation I found) 10com plasmas in a 4.3 Gauss field. Those are the 'labratory experiments' that certain PC/PU posters taut as 'earth based evidence' amongst others.

So Zeuzzz, answer teh question ,if you have a 10 com plasma that looks like a glaxy in a 4.3 gauss field, what size is it when you blow it up to a galaxy?

Funny, nobody will print that number. They will taut the 'earth based science' but they won't scale it up.

Why is that?

What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?

I ask you or someone else to show me the steps in the equation you post, since it is beyond my 23 years old calculus.

What size magnetic field do these models predict? Why don't posters who promote PC want to show that prediction?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Apparently you need to check into the basis of perrat's original papers, and ones you have cited in fact! remember the ones where there are two plasma filaments and how they form 'galactic' strubture? remember the original 'internal magneto' study which generated the 'flat rotation curve'.

That was Bostiks paper, of the original experiment that inspired to Peratt to create a larger scale model that may account for this similar shape based on plasma physics. "The first picture is a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. The Kerr-cell exposure times are 2x10-6 and the various delay times of the sequence are indicated in microseconds. The pressure in the chamber is 4x10-6s." As i showed in this post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3530017&postcount=493

Is that what you are reffering to?

Maxwells equations for a start provide the scaling, they dont change over differing scales. And the scaling relationship is quoted above.

Those were (from the one citation I found) 10com plasmas in a 4.3 Gauss field. Those are the 'labratory experiments' that certain PC/PU posters taut as 'earth based evidence' amongst others.

They certainly add some amount of credence, but they are far away from being used as conclusive proof. Its mainly just the history of how this model was started, and you may not find it an interesting observation, or not see its relevance, but I (and others) do.

What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."

 

[Zeuzzz]

So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?

Dunno.

this is one galaxy out of many, and I'm sure that mainstream explanations for this shape are no better than the application of Peratts model. (unless you know differently?)

I could look at every single galaxy in the sky and claim that "This galaxy does not conform with gravity alone theories, as its structure is impossible to sustain or create with an exclusively attractive gravitational field", just as you can probably pick plenty of galaxies that seeming disoby some of Peratts models. The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)

where does Peratt say that the filaments are clearly visible over a distance of 1000 light years????

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

Good to see that you are still with us, BeAChooser!

Will you be posting to the "Arp statistics" thread soon? I'd really appreciate your feedback on whether I've done my sums right, according to 'the BAC approach'.

To the topic at hand.

Perhaps I presume too much, but I doubt that you have much of a background in astronomy, as a science, do you BAC?

Why do I think this?

Partly because of the way you responded to RC's post (quoted above): you don't seem to have checked whether the Delain et al. result was/had been subsequently validated or not, nor did you check on the observations in the radio waveband (apparently).

On both counts, RC's later post is spot on in terms of its conclusion ("This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo!"); however the details of the knock-out to Peratt's model are interesting.

First, this later paper concludes that there is no faint x-ray filament(s) (emphasis added):

At energies above 2 keV, the source-subtracted X-ray emission is distributed similarly as the stellar K-band light and is primarily due to the residual emission from discrete sources. At lower energies, however, a substantial fraction of the source-subtracted emission arises from diffuse hot gas extending to ~20 kpc from the galactic center.

Next:

While Peratt seems to have been remarkably coy (shall we say) about modeling the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the giant interacting pairs of intergalactic Birkeland currents*, which are responsible for so many properties of spiral galaxies, it seems to me that they'd stand out like the proverbial sore thumb in the microwave or radio wavebands ... even if only in terms of a polarisation signature imposed on a background (where such filaments are 'backlit').

The observations and analyses reported in this paper would seem to be a good way to test this Peratt idea; if they are, then it seems pretty clear that Peratt's model is inconsistent with observations (and so, while perhaps not woo, the Peratt model fails on so many grounds that it would seem pointless to keep discussing it).

* Note to Zeuzzz: none of the published Peratt papers you have provided has anything at all on what mass these currents and/or filaments are expected to have, on the composition of that mass (e.g. what % H, what % He, etc), on the expected gamma, x-ray, ... microwave, radio emission from them (at least, that I could find). From your extensive reading and knowledge or Peratt's works, where does he talk about this? Published papers only please, and "et al.s" are OK. Oh, and no, I'm not talking about the Peratt/Lerner model of the origin of the CMB - the filaments responsible for the CMB (in their model) are nothing like the Peratt 'galaxy' filaments.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?

Dunno.

this is one galaxy out of many, and I'm sure that mainstream explanations for this shape are no better than the application of Peratts model. (unless you know differently?)

Zeuzzz, a simple request please.

Would you mind ceasing and desisting with the logic of false dichotomy, please?

I for one have already acknowledged that it seems to be an important component in the PC approach to how science is done, and at a later time I think we could have a good discussion of this aspect.

In the meantime, can we just focus on the content of PC?

Back to the topic at hand.

Peratt's model of spiral galaxies is DOA, period.

The observed magnetic fields, in spiral galaxies, are nowhere near strong enough to exert forces on stars that are comparable to the gravitational forces (except if all stars have charges so great as to make them explode within ~seconds, which clearly they do not).

Stars, gas, and dust in the disks of spiral galaxies have large-scale motions that are essentially the same, so even if the gas and dust were sufficiently charged (which they could be), and so could move in accord with Peratt's model, they don't seem to do so.

Even if, magically, the stars, gas, and dust in spiral galaxies could move in accord with Peratt's model, the observed (total) masses of spiral galaxies is inconsistent with that needed in Peratt's model to account for the observed structure.

As far as I know, there are no observations of spiral galaxies, in any waveband, that point to the existence of pairs of giant, interacting, inter-galactic Birkeland currents (not just M104, by any spiral, period). If you know of any such observations, please provide details.

So RC is right, if Peratt's model of spiral galaxies is a core component of PC, then we can all go home now ... because that model does not match a plethora of good astronomical observations.

I could look at every single galaxy in the sky and claim that "This galaxy does not conform with gravity alone theories, as its structure is impossible to sustain or create with an exclusively attractive gravitational field", just as you can probably pick plenty of galaxies that seeming disoby some of Peratts models. The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

(emphasis added)

Thanks for this!

I guess this is as clear an example as I could have asked for ... of how the doing of science (astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics) differs, in PC, from that of the rest of science.

How so?

First, note how restrictive the question is (only shapes, ad hoc rider). An implication: PC can be falsified by observations of the shapes of galaxies only.

Second, repetition of the logic of false dichotomy. In this case it's implicit ("the models" clearly means Peratt's and those found in standard astrophysics textbooks)

Third, the very common internal inconsistency aspect of PC: lab physics gives clear-cut answers on the motion of objects with mass and charge in electrical, magnetic, and gravitational fields. Apply those answers to stars in real spiral galaxies, and Peratt's model fails, fatally. However, at least one (and maybe two) PC proponents (Zeuzzz and BAC) are happy to keep pushing it, as a viable model!

Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)

where does Peratt say that the filaments are clearly visible over a distance of 1000 light years????

Er ...

In every one of his papers presenting his model ... the pairs of interacting Birkeland currents have lengths at least as great as the characteristic sizes of spiral galaxies (~several kpc).

 

[Dancing David]

That was Bostiks paper, of the original experiment that inspired to Peratt to create a larger scale model that may account for this similar shape based on plasma physics. "The first picture is a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. The Kerr-cell exposure times are 2x10-6 and the various delay times of the sequence are indicated in microseconds. The pressure in the chamber is 4x10-6s." As i showed in this post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3530017&postcount=493

Is that what you are reffering to?

Maxwells equations for a start provide the scaling, they dont change over differing scales. And the scaling relationship is quoted above.

yes but what size magnetic field would be needed to move stars at the rate observed in the 'flat galaxy rotation curve" ? is what i am asking, stars have a mass and they have a charge, and for the umpteenth time, I ask what field strength would be needed to move a star at the observed rate (IE observed motion minus (Gravity minus dark matter))> That is what would be an observable phenomena. What size magnetic field for the umpteenth time.

They certainly add some amount of credence, but they are far away from being used as conclusive proof. Its mainly just the history of how this model was started, and you may not find it an interesting observation, or not see its relevance, but I (and others) do.

Shape of galaxies is not the only factor needed. remember those stars? What magnetic field is going to be required to move a star fast enough to produce the 'flat rotation curve?

You know the mass of the star , the charge of the star, then what size magnetic field would be needed to produce the acceleration (observed motion minus (gravity minus dark matter)) I have asked you too provide that number, what is it?

I note that you and BAC seem to ignore that question and that answer. It is an observable prediction of perrat's model.

So what is it?

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."

Funny thing about that citation, I found it on Ian's web site but i did not find it in Perrat's paper !

is he saying that magnetic filds that size have been measured in the galaxy, because that is exactly what I am asking.

So what are they saying? And where? So they are saying a field strength of 2x10^-4 or 10^-2?

This (which is a wiki says they are micro Gauss)
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields

This paper is sooo way cool, it talks about the actual structure of the galactic magnetic fileds , but it again gives micro Gauss:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-...quest-id=e93ec542-4381-48f1-8e94-3cd9d76a8173

Another one that talks about cosmic rays and mentions micro Gauss:
http://www.maik.ru/abstract/letters/3/letters0374_abstract.pdf

So if the galactic magnetic fileds is in micro Gauss or centi Gauss, what charge is there going to have to be to move a star?

HMMMMMM?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."

Right.

And we know, and have known for several months (?) now, that such weak magnetic fields cannot possibly provide sufficient force on stars in a (spiral) galaxy to keep them in approximately circular orbits, across the range of radial distances of relevance (out to at least ~20 kpc, and, in some cases, to ~100 kpc), with the observed angular velocities ...

Can we please get from you, Zeuzzz, a straight, no quibbles, statement that the Peratt model of spiral galaxies is inconsistent with the relevant observations?

Alternatively, can we please get from you a quantitative case showing that such weak magnetic fields can keep stars in their observed orbits?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

... snip ...

Missed a point on this the first time round ...

To repeat a question RC asked (and which Zeuzzz and BAC seem remarkably coy about actually answering): In which Peratt or Lerner paper(s) are the myriad observations which lead to the conclusion that the MW halo (and that of other spiral galaxies too) is dominated by CDM accounted for, using their PC model(s)?

Just so the question is quite clear:

-> I am NOT asking whether you, personally, like or dislike CDM

-> I am NOT asking you to do a comparison between one set of models and another (unless between different Peratt models, or Lerner models)

-> I am NOT asking for your personal commentary on the relevant observations

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account, by Peratt and/or Lerner

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The Big Bang is WOO!

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).

 

[Tubbythin]

The Big Bang is WOO!

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).

Just because you cannot understand something does not make it woo.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just because you cannot understand something does not make it woo.

Just because you cannot understand something does not make it real.




Ohh, and I do understand the Big Bang, that is why I know it to be WOO.

 

[Reality Check]

Just because you cannot understand something does not make it real.

Ohh, and I do understand the Big Bang, that is why I know it to be WOO.

JEROME DA GNOME: Please start a new thread for this off-topic posting.