Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

Can you define what the "plasma cosmology model" is (the one that Peratt's galaxy formation model is just a predictive aspect)?

Also Zeuzzz:

• Is Peratt's galaxy formation model disproved by the actual observation of dark matter?
• Why do we not see the over 200 billion galactic plasma filaments that the model predicts? Every one of about 100 billion galaxies should have 2 or more filaments extending from them. They should be producing radiation due to the currents running through them. They definitely will have gravitational effects.
• Another question - Why did Peratt compare the results of his simulation (maps of plasma density) with optical photographs of galaxies?
  Optical photos show light density, e.g. the spirals in spiral galaxies are areas of young (bright) stars. The density of stars between the spiral arms is almost as high as in the arms. Somewhere Peratt must have plasma density profiles of his maps but I have not seen them. Without then I have to assume that his simulation maps have a plasma density of zero between the arms. This does not match the actual structure of galaxies.

 

[Belz...]

Seconded.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So, I take that as a yes? You want future predictions?

And I take this also to mean that you are choosing to ignore the predictions that have already turned out correct made by plasma cosmology proponents, a couple I listed here; http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3538619&postcount=676, but there are many more that I havent got the time to write up.

A few more past predictions are listed in this pulblication; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/28301/01265349.pdf?arnumber=1265349 [[full text]]

I dont have much time at the mo, but i'll list a few future predictions from what i have gathered from reading various PC papers online.

* The universe did not originate in a Big Bang 13.7 years ago
* Element abundances can be more easily explained by plasma processes ongoing in the universe today.
* The universe shall show primarily a filamentary structure resulting from EM effects on large scales, which is in contrast to the results of the attractive field of gravity and the Big Bang that predictes a homogenous smooth universe. As the strength of measurements in space increases and encompasses more of the EM spectrum this structure shall become increasing apparent.
* The effects of plasma physics and EM forces are not negligable on the large scale, and play a role alongside gravity, mainly since it is now known that the universe is nearly all matter in a plasma state. This is in stark contradiction to current theories, that state that the only force at work on large scales is the exclusively attractive field of gravity.
* We can learn about space from experimental plasma simulations in laboratories, whereas most simulations with current theories are now replaced with computer models that likely have currently unknown assumptions hidden within them.
* Extremely similar phenomena exist in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws.
* The experimental method is key, and entities that lack any sort of experimental proof (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc) should be treated with severe skeptisism until verified in an empirical way
* Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. One of the key assumptions of plasma cosmology is that this observation does not indicate an expanding universe.
* A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, making the univserse static.
* The formation of force-free filaments plays an important role in the formation of structures on all scales (see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current)
* The exploding double layer, where charge separation builds up in a current-carrying plasma, leading to the disruption of the current, the generation of high electric fields and the acceleration of energetic particles plays an important role in space.
* The pinch effect in space plasma plays a role in many structures on large scales, (see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_effect)
* The universe is hierarchically structured, and a detailed process oriented viewpoint of space can be constructed from studying the interaction between seemingly separate objects. This is in contrast with the isolated object orientated view of modern cosmology with its gravitationl equations.
* There is no such things as a pure vacuum in space, and most things in the universe are connected by the particles and forces that flow between them, and will be discovered as our capability to see these areas in more detail increases (excluding the need for dark matter, or other dubious things proposed to be in these areas).
* The microwave background has a local origin, nothing to do with the Big Bang. Stellar nucleosynthesis can likely account for this, as Lerners model implies.
*The mass of condensed objects formed can be predicted as a function of density. Magnetically confined filaments initially compress plasma, which is then condensed gravitationally into a fractal distribution of matter. For this to happen, the plasma must be collisional — a particle must collide with at least one other in crossing the object. This condition leads to the prediction of a fractal scaling relation in which the structures are formed with density inversely proportional to their size. This fractal scaling relationship (with fractal dimension equal to two) is a key prediction of plasma cosmology.


And there are more predictions, i'm probably not doing them justice here, but that'll do for now.

 

[Dancing David]

Uh Zeuzzz,

So what charge, what mass, what magnetic field is involved in the acceleration of stars beyond that of gravity minus dark matter.

You still haven't answered the question.

What makes the stars move faster than they should?

The magnetic field is usually measured in micro gauss, so what size charge is a star going to have to have for it to move at the observed speeds?

please show us how your model explains 'flat rotation curves'.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzzz,
I am curious about a "future prediction" in your list:

* The experimental method is key, and entities that lack any sort of experimental proof (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc) should be treated with severe skeptisism until verified in an empirical way.

In what way is this a prediction?
To my mind the experimental method is key to science today. Any theory that is not backed up by experiment is just an unfounded hypothesis.

But do you include observations of the universe as "verified in an empirical way"?
If you do then you definitely need to remove dark matter (directly observed) and maybe remove dark energy (or provide a plasma cosmology explanation for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) from your list.

Any theory that makes falsifiable predictions and these predictions are found to be false is thus false. Peratt's galaxy formation model has predicted the non-existence of dark matter and the existence of galactic plasma filaments. Dark matter has been directly observed and so Peratt's galaxy formation model is false. We are missing any evidence for the over 200 billion galactic plasma filaments but that prediction is not falsifiable until someone states how they can be detected. After all they may be made of magic gnome plasma !

But Peratt's model is fundamentally flawed in any case. As has been pointed out in other threads to you, stars cannot hold enough charge for the magnetic fields that we have observed in galaxies to have any influence on them. The most charitable interpretation is that his model only forms galaxies that then disconnect from the filaments (or maybe the filaments just break up). From then on gravity is the dominant effect and dark matter is needed to explain their rotation curves.

 

[Reality Check]

* The micorwave background has a local origin, nothing to do with the Big Bang. Stellar nucleosynthesis can likely account for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-37

The citation is to "E. J. Lerner, "On the problem of big-bang nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 145-149 (1995). E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263."

Note the dates on these papers. Any paper that tries to explain the microwave background before the launch of COBE in 1989 is likely to be outdated. He can only be predicting an istropic blackbody radiation with a temperature of 2.725K from his model. COBE measured the extremely faint fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (only one part in 100,000). Now we have WMAP data with which we have a detailed power spectrum of the CMB.
The Lambda-CDM model fits the WMAP data closely.

How does Lerner's model do?
If Lerner's model cannot fit the WMAP data then does this falsify it?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Uh Zeuzzz,

So what charge, what mass, what magnetic field is involved in the acceleration of stars beyond that of gravity minus dark matter.

You still haven't answered the question.

What makes the stars move faster than they should?

The magnetic field is usually measured in micro gauss, so what size charge is a star going to have to have for it to move at the observed speeds?

please show us how your model explains 'flat rotation curves'.

The arms are essentially magnetically supported in his model, by using a force free plasma configuration. I dont think that anyone really knows why force free configurations arrise. Why do force free configurations arrise? Is there really a 'force', as such, that is responsible for them? or are they just fundamental scale invarient properties of our universe? They seem to be linked with EM forces, as cancelling of the force components to make the configuration force free arrise from primarily EM effects, like Birkeland currents. This effect is sometimes reffered to as "doubleness in plasma" http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html .What we know is that force free configurations do exist, crucially, on all scales, and that is what Peratt is using. Its a bit like asking "why does all mass attract" (gravity) No-one has a clue, it just does.

The mass and gravity in Peratts model would account for a significant fraction, and I imagine that the charge on the stars would also contribute, but, he didn't really deal with that scale. He is dealing with the larger scale. We live in heirarchical universe. Current models of galaxy formation to not include a detailed account for every single star, that would be an astronomically hard model to create, they use average mass density and work out the overall shape at larger scales using the assumption that gravity is the only force at work, which is overall a similar technique to what Peratt is proposing. Each scale has it completely different laws of physics, they are complementary, but each scale is different. There are the laws of our nuclei, where the strong force dominates, the world of our atoms, where the weak force dominates, the planetary domain, where gravity dominates, and Peratt is proposing that on the larger scales the force free configuration used, along with gravity and EM forces, dominates. I'm not sure for the exact value of the charge, I would estimate a charge on the sun of 10^4±2 would be tenable, but I dont think that any conclusive numbers can really be put on it yet, and I havent seen this value addressed in full yet in any publication.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The citation is to "E. J. Lerner, "On the problem of big-bang nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 145-149 (1995). E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263."

Note the dates on these papers. Any paper that tries to explain the microwave background before the launch of COBE in 1989 is likely to be outdated. He can only be predicting an istropic blackbody radiation with a temperature of 2.725K from his model. COBE measured the extremely faint fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (only one part in 100,000). Now we have WMAP data with which we have a detailed power spectrum of the CMB.
The Lambda-CDM model fits the WMAP data closely.

How does Lerner's model do?
If Lerner's model cannot fit the WMAP data then does this falsify it?

What you list here is data. The data itself does not hold preference for one theory or another. And Lerner had addressed the COBE data in his work, heres a few of his publications on it;

An Alternative Explanation Of The Cobe Data - IEEE International Conference on plasma science

Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe datap - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and space science

and see his page here for a bit more info; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Eric_Lerner

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Zeuzzz,
I am curious about a "future prediction" in your list:

In what way is this a prediction?

That these objects in the future will be shown to be not needed, and false. Which is a prediction.

But do you include observations of the universe as "verified in an empirical way"?
If you do then you definitely need to remove dark matter (directly observed)

You should say "directly implied" from gravitational models.

and maybe remove dark energy (or provide a plasma cosmology explanation for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) from your list.

We have to remove something that you invented to explain inconsistant observations with your original theory?

Any theory that makes falsifiable predictions and these predictions are found to be false is thus false. Peratt's galaxy formation model has predicted the non-existence of dark matter and the existence of galactic plasma filaments.

To quote you "I think that you have got confused between observation and theory." If the current model of galaxies is falsified, does that falsify the Big Bang? This is the same resoning that you are using against Peratts model. If peratts model of galaxy formation is falsified, does that falsify plasma cosmology? No. Neither are strictly true.

But Peratt's model is fundamentally flawed in any case. As has been pointed out in other threads to you, stars cannot hold enough charge for the magnetic fields that we have observed in galaxies to have any influence on them. The most charitable interpretation is that his model only forms galaxies that then disconnect from the filaments (or maybe the filaments just break up). From then on gravity is the dominant effect and dark matter is needed to explain their rotation curves.

In your opinion yes, but in PC that is not needed. The galaxies are essentially a force free configuration. And why do you keep implying that only the charge is the force at work here? Gravity also plays a strong role, its just that plasma physics, certain force free configurations and EM forces are not negligable on this scale in this model, and can account for the shapes of galaxies to a much higher degree than a purely attractive field resulting from an initial Big Bang.

By your logic, the existence of filaments in the majority of galaxies perpendicaulr to the plane of the galaxy should falsify the current model, as gravity does not predict them. Instead you make use of lots of completely separate theories to account for this. By parsimony any model that requires less theories to explain observations is the better theory. Peratts does, but of course, there will be exceptions, galaxies are tremendously varied.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation is a theory.
A huge mass (super-massive black hole) at the centre of the galaxy is an observation.

The current exclusively gravity driven models of galaxies are also a theory too!

That super-massive black hole claim can certainly be challenged. Many observations that have lead to this idea can in fact be attributed to an energetic star type object that requires no spooky illusive super huge black hole. I will start a thread on this in the future. My breif posting spree here is over, hope my contributions are appreciated, you can critique what i've said (as you'll no doubt do) but thats it for now...

 

[Reality Check]

What you list here is data. The data itself does not hold preference for one theory or another. And Lerner had addressed the COBE data in his work, heres a few of his publications on it;

An Alternative Explanation Of The Cobe Data - IEEE International Conference on plasma science

Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe datap - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and space science

and see his page here for a bit more info; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Eric_Lerner

That is correct - the COBE, WMAP and (soon) Planck satellites measure data.

Any theory that states that it can explain the CMB has to fit the COBE, WMAP and (soon) Planck data. The Big Bang theory fit the COBE and WMAP data.

At the most Lerner can fit the COBE data. He has had since 2003 to fit the WMAP 1 year data release and since 2006 to fit the WMAP 3 year data release (the 5 year data release was on Februaray 28, 2008 so he may not had time to look at it). I can see no sign of a paper on the CMB prediction for the WMAP data from his Perhaps you know of one?

 

[Reality Check]

The current exclusively gravity driven models of galaxies are also a theory too!

The theories only use gravity because there is no evidence that electromagnetic forces are sufficient to be anything but a totally minor component. In another thread you cite this paper which gives an estimate of the maximum charge on a star as

If the mass Mr is given in solar masses and charge Qr in Coulombs, then Qr = 77.043 Mr.

This is calculated for a rather idealized star (spherical and electrostatic) as you point out. It is unlikely to be more than an order of magnitude out.
The calculation for the Sun is in this post and the result is that

So magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of our acceleration.

Feel free to arbitrarily increase the charge on the Sun and the galactic magnetic field by a billion. Electromagnetic forces will still be a totally minor component of the force on the Sun and other stars.

That super-massive black hole claim can certainly be challenged. Many observations that have lead to this idea can in fact be attributed to an energetic star type object that requires no spooky illusive super huge black hole. I will start a thread on this in the future. My breif posting spree here is over, hope my contributions are appreciated, you can critique what i've said (as you'll no doubt do) but thats it for now...

I would be interested in joining that thread (you should also note the "JEROME - Black holes do not exist" thread).

Expect the following to appear quickly in your new thread:
The super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is not a "energetic star type object" even though we know that there is a strong radio source there - Sagittarius A*. The actual mass and radius of the Sagittarius A* has been determined by looking at the orbits of 7 of the many stars that are orbiting it. This is about 3.7 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles. For comparison, Pluto orbits our Sun at a distance of 5.51 light-hours or 3.7 billion miles.
The basic point is that the object that the stars are orbiting around is not a star - it does not emit any light and does not appear on the same photographs as the orbiting stars. It is a super-massive star contained in a small volume and omitting no light - try to guess what we call this!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As I think it was ben m who said: Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

The citation is to "E. J. Lerner, "On the problem of big-bang nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 145-149 (1995). E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263."

Note the dates on these papers. Any paper that tries to explain the microwave background before the launch of COBE in 1989 is likely to be outdated. He can only be predicting an istropic blackbody radiation with a temperature of 2.725K from his model. COBE measured the extremely faint fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (only one part in 100,000). Now we have WMAP data with which we have a detailed power spectrum of the CMB.
The Lambda-CDM model fits the WMAP data closely.

How does Lerner's model do?
If Lerner's model cannot fit the WMAP data then does this falsify it?

What you list here is data. The data itself does not hold preference for one theory or another. And Lerner had addressed the COBE data in his work, heres a few of his publications on it;

An Alternative Explanation Of The Cobe Data - IEEE International Conference on plasma science

Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe datap - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and space science

and see his page here for a bit more info; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Eric_Lerner

Right.

I have written several detailed posts, in this very thread, on all these Lerner papers:
#120,
#177,
#182,
#204, and
#322.

Note that I have addressed both the mechanism Lerner proposes for the CMB and the match between the observations and Lerner's model.

Note too that Zeuzzz has not responded to any of these posts (at least, not to the content that concerns the papers he cites).

I'll just repeat what I said regarding the match between observations and model (we can rule out Lerner's model even with only COBE data):

The CMB dipole was discovered shortly after the CMB itself; it is explained, in standard astrophysics, as the motion of the solar system barycentre with respect to the CMB frame, and subsequent work showed that its magnitude and direction are consistent with the estimated distribution of mass 'locally' (which actually means out to 'the Great Attractor' and beyond!)

As I understand it - and I freely admit that I may not, properly - there should be no CMB dipole if the CMB originates per Lerner's model. Or, more accurately, the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB will not be a blackbody, as the CMB photons we detect from the sources, along any line of sight, will be redshifted by different amounts, as those sources will be moving, relative to us, at a wide range of speeds. Unless the sources have some large-scale structure - when integrated over the optical depth of those sources - there cannot be a dipole. Further, even if there is some integrated large-scale structure, it should exhibit an integrated fractal scaling (per Zeuzzz), and be essentially isotopic (per Lerner).

In summary: the observations which establish the existence of the CMB dipole would, very likely, be very difficult to explain using Lerner's model.

Of course, Lerner is quite explicit about one item on his 'to do' list: he has not yet published anything on what the CMB angular power spectrum should look like under his model. It is clear that the dipole is part of this 'to do'.

9. In Lerner's PC, the CMB is isotropised and thermalised starlight, and has but one temperature (pretty much the same as is observed), with no free parameters. Observations consistent with the CMB being at different temperatures at different redshifts would therefore be difficult if not impossible for his model to account for.

In December, 2000, the ESO issued a PR "VLT Observations Confirm that the Universe Was Hotter in the Past" ... the key part, for our purposes here, is that the team "derive[d] the temperature T of the CMBR at this large distance and early cosmic epoch [z=2.34] and [placed] a very firm lower limit on this temperature. The final result is that T is hotter than 6 K and cooler than 14 K" (emphasis added). Here is the paper with these results.

There have been several subsequent papers reporting firm detections of constraints on the temperature of the CMB at high-z; this quite recent one is a good example: the authors report a temperature of 9.15 +/- 0.72 K at z = 2.41837.

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).

So, what's the bottom line?

Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with a great many, very good, independently validated observations, in many wavebands.

Now just for fun, hot off the arXiv press: The VLA Survey of the Chandra Deep Field South. II. Identification and host galaxy properties of submillijansky sources. If any reader would like some help understanding how Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with the observations in this paper, just ask; in a nutshell, they knock out this explanation: "Absorption by the IGM is the only reasonable explanation for this correlation" (from the abstract of Lerner's Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium).

 

[Dancing David]

The arms are essentially magnetically supported in his model, by using a force free plasma configuration. I dont think that anyone really knows why force free configurations arrise. Why do force free configurations arrise? Is there really a 'force', as such, that is responsible for them? or are they just fundamental scale invarient properties of our universe? They seem to be linked with EM forces, as cancelling of the force components to make the configuration force free arrise from primarily EM effects, like Birkeland currents. This effect is sometimes reffered to as "doubleness in plasma" http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html .What we know is that force free configurations do exist, crucially, on all scales, and that is what Peratt is using. Its a bit like asking "why does all mass attract" (gravity) No-one has a clue, it just does.

The mass and gravity in Peratts model would account for a significant fraction, and I imagine that the charge on the stars would also contribute, but, he didn't really deal with that scale. He is dealing with the larger scale. We live in heirarchical universe. Current models of galaxy formation to not include a detailed account for every single star, that would be an astronomically hard model to create, they use average mass density and work out the overall shape at larger scales using the assumption that gravity is the only force at work, which is overall a similar technique to what Peratt is proposing. Each scale has it completely different laws of physics, they are complementary, but each scale is different. There are the laws of our nuclei, where the strong force dominates, the world of our atoms, where the weak force dominates, the planetary domain, where gravity dominates, and Peratt is proposing that on the larger scales the force free configuration used, along with gravity and EM forces, dominates. I'm not sure for the exact value of the charge, I would estimate a charge on the sun of 10^4±2 would be tenable, but I dont think that any conclusive numbers can really be put on it yet, and I havent seen this value addressed in full yet in any publication.

10^2 what?

I will read up on this force free plasma, but I notice that you still aren't answering the question.

there are stars that are moving faster than gravity minus dark matter would allow, now you are still not providing an asnwer as to how the PC model accounts for the motion of the stars.

I will read up, but this is really weak Zeuzzz, I expected better from you.

"There is no answer they just do." is not a theory of flat rotation curves.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In post #296, where I quote from the following of Zeuzzz' post, I asked: "May I ask what the source of this, and subsequent, material (in the parts of you post I'm quoting) is?"

As far as I know, Zeuzzz did not answer, so I went looking for myself.

Here's what I found.

... snip ...

Lerners model does not treat every element other than He as primordial. It also sort of depends on what you are defining the word primordial to mean in his model, it really takes on a slightly different meaning, as there is no real 'initial' creation event like the Big Bang theory to make it that clear cut. Galaxies are essentially transient phenomenon.

There is a universal relationship between the density of plasma in which they condensed and the distance (r) between condensed objects. This can be shown well over 15 orders of magnitude for mass, all the way from modern laboratory experiments to stars and galaxies. In plasma cosmology the main reason for the existence of this relationship is the role played in the process of gravitational condensation by plasma vortices which have typical ion velocities (m_e/m_p)^3/4c. The ion collision distance is 1 x 10¹⁹n^-1 cm, or nr = 1 x 10¹⁹/cm², where condensations are separated by distances r. You can otherwise state this relationship as M = 1.8n^-2 where M is the mass of the condensed object in solar masses. This implies that in the early stages of galactic condensation, when the average plasma density in the galaxy was lower than at present, the average mass of the formed stars that constitute it was higher.

I'm not sure what Zeuzzz means by writing this in italics, but it is a nearly word-for-word copy of Section 3 of Lerner's paper "Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the Big Bang" (ADS reference; it's also available from Lerner's own website, under the title "Plasma Model An Alternative To The Big Bang"). My comparisons are with the PDF document on Lerner's webpage.

You can use this relationship in a simplified model of star formation to determine approximately how much helium and heavy elements were created during the formation of a galaxy.

This is a re-write of the first sentence to Section 4 of that paper ("The abundance of helium and heavy elements"), replacing "We" with "You".

This includes the creation of the elements often used to 'prove' the Big Bang. And other element observations are included too, Deuterium abundance, Oxygen abundance, carbon, and other elements

This seems to be additional text.

can be accounted for using a cloud contracting in the axial direction in the plane of rotation by spiral radial magnetic filaments.

At any given instant, B/n is a constant throughout the contracting plasma. Since the currents converge toward the center and flow out along the axis, you get B = 0.2 I/r, where I is the galactic current and r is the distance from the axis. Density, n, thus also decreases outwards from the center, with the heaviest stars forming in the least dense regions, furthest out.

This is a similarly minor re-write of the next parts of Section 4 ("we have" -> "you get")

Incoming filaments are sufficiently numerous that in any given annulus star formation is occurring whenever previous generations of stars have released their gas to the interstellar medium or have not yet been formed. That is, stars of an appropriate mass constitute essentially all the plasma mass in each annulus, so the situation simply along a single radial slice can be considered.

Ditto ("We assume that the incoming filaments" -> "Incoming filaments", "so we can consider the situation simply along a single radial slice." -> "so the situation simply along a single radial slice can be considered.")

For the He, we know from stellar evolution theory that the amount of helium produced for stars of various masses, varying from abut 10% for M = 12M_s, to 3% for M = 5M_s
[latex]He(M)=\left|^{tf}_{t0}F(M)M^{0.5}n_{i}0.375t_{1}L_{t}^{-1}(1-e^{\frac{Lt}{t1}})e^{\frac{t}{t1}[/latex]
where F is the fraction of mass converted to helium by stars of mass M and He(M) is the total fraction of the galactic mass converted to helium by these stars.

The re-write here, to section 4.2 ("Helium abundance") are a little more extensive; perhaps most egregious is the omission of the source ("Adouze & Tinsley 1976"). The other edit is "From stellar evolution theory we know" -> "For the He, we know from stellar evolution theory".

The beginning time to is defined by the point at which the shock wave first forms, that is when V, the velocity of the plasma past the filament exceeds V_a the Alfven velocity.

Two sentences are omitted.

Now, [latex]V_{a}=\frac{I}{10h^{0.5}n^{0.5}m^{0.5}_{p}r}[/latex] where mP is the proton mass, and I the galactic current. Studies by Beck and others (Ref - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science) have shown that galactic magnetic fields and currents can be related to a galaxy's mass per unit surface area, and thus to its orbital velocity. From these results, the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10^-4V²G^-1 can be derived.

Again, only a small re-write ("Studies by Beck " -> "Studies by Beck and others "; "From Beck's results, we can derive the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10^-4V²G^-1." -> "From these results, the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10^-4V²G^-1 can be derived"))

Using this for the Milky Way, V²/R_m = 1.2 x 10^-8 cm/sec and n, = 0.35 (taking Mg = 2 x10¹¹Ms, Rm = 5 x 10²² cm). Substituting these values into the previous relationships, and integrating over a mass range 4Ms < M < 12Ms, and solving the equations simultaneously, you get as a solution t₁ = 8 x 10¹⁵ second (260 My) and He = 0.225, in excellent agreement with observation.

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("For the Milky Way, we find that" -> "Using this for the Milky Way," "M_g" -> "Mg" "M_s" -> "Ms" (three times) "R_m" -> "Rm" "values into (9) and (10)" -> "values into the previous relationships" "we get" -> "you get")

Most significantly, since He varies inversely with V²/Rm the observed upper limits on V²/Rm, sets lower limits to He and it is these minimum He values which have given reasonably consistent figures for 'primordial' helium abundance.

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is a word-for-word copy (apart from the converting of subscripts)

For the carbon abundances, using the above relationships, Integrating this over t and M you get (with a bit more work in between);

C = (5.6 x 10^-19 -1.1 x 10^-19n^0.5) t_i

= 4 . 5 x 10^-3 - 8.5 x 10 -4n^0.5
= 0 .0042 OK?

This is in good agreement with observations of 0.004-0.005.

This comes from section 4.3 ("Carbon abundance"), with the copying starting with "Integrating" (the phrase in brackets ("with a bit more work in between") is added). However, the formulae are copied incorrectly (the subscript "i" is dropped from "n").

For the Oxygen abundance, using the same calculation, and adjusting the rates of production accordingly, you get a value of ~0.018.

Apart from the phrase order switch at the beginning ("Using the same calculation for oxygen," -> "For the Oxygen abundance, using the same calculation,") and a "we" -> "you", there are two curious differences to this otherwise word-for-word copy of the first part of section 4.4 ("Oxygen abundance"):

"0.018" -> "~0.018"

and omission of the following (after "0.018"): "which is somewhat high compared with observed values of 0.012 but is within the uncertainties generated by stellar evolution theory, especially for pure hydrogen stars, which we are here assuming."

It should also be noted that He ions will be able to migrate out of the galaxies to enrich the immediate surrounding medium much more easily than the heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. It is out of this He-enriched but heavy element poor medium that dwarf galaxies form.

Parts of the rest of section 4.4 are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("However this does not contradict the model since it is clear that" -> "It should also be noted that")

For the Deuterium abundance, using a value of 1 Gev of energy is for each deuterium production, z of the energy goes into the production of deuterium and the current abundance should be in the area of 2 x 10^-5.

This rather strangely worded sentence seems to be a mangling of the original in Lerner's paper, from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"): "If about 1 Gev of energy is used for each deuterium production, 1/2 of the energy goes into the production of deuterium and the current abundance should be in the area of 2 x 10^-5."

There is a close linear correlation between radio power generated by galaxies and IR thermal radiation, presumably derived from young massive stars. If we take as a measure of total cosmic ray production (twice radiated power) 3 x 10¹⁹f (1.49 GHz) (the flux at that frequency) you find that about 1.2% of thermonuclear yield is in the form of cosmic rays, which yields 20 Kev per hydrogen atom in cosmic ray energy

This is from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"), apart from some minor editing ("we find" -> "you find" "cosmic rays. This yields" -> "cosmic rays, which yields")

... snip ...

I wonder if there is an "innocent explanation" for this apparent plagiarism (or, if you prefer, an omission of attribution)? Perhaps "Zeuzzz" is really "E. J. Lerner"?

Anyway, I'm curious to know a) whether other material posted by Zeuzzz is of a similar character, and b) what readers of this thread think of what I have found (and posted above).

 

[Zeuzzz]

In post #296, where I quote from the following of Zeuzzz' post, I asked: "May I ask what the source of this, and subsequent, material (in the parts of you post I'm quoting) is?"

As far as I know, Zeuzzz did not answer, so I went looking for myself.

Here's what I found.

I'm not sure what Zeuzzz means by writing this in italics, but it is a nearly word-for-word copy of Section 3 of Lerner's paper "Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the Big Bang" (ADS reference; it's also available from Lerner's own website, under the title "Plasma Model An Alternative To The Big Bang"). My comparisons are with the PDF document on Lerner's webpage.

This is a re-write of the first sentence to Section 4 of that paper ("The abundance of helium and heavy elements"), replacing "We" with "You".
This seems to be additional text.
This is a similarly minor re-write of the next parts of Section 4 ("we have" -> "you get")
Ditto ("We assume that the incoming filaments" -> "Incoming filaments", "so we can consider the situation simply along a single radial slice." -> "so the situation simply along a single radial slice can be considered.")

The re-write here, to section 4.2 ("Helium abundance") are a little more extensive; perhaps most egregious is the omission of the source ("Adouze & Tinsley 1976"). The other edit is "From stellar evolution theory we know" -> "For the He, we know from stellar evolution theory".

Two sentences are omitted.
Again, only a small re-write ("Studies by Beck " -> "Studies by Beck and others "; "From Beck's results, we can derive the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10^-4V²G^-1." -> "From these results, the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10^-4V²G^-1 can be derived"))

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("For the Milky Way, we find that" -> "Using this for the Milky Way," "M_g" -> "Mg" "M_s" -> "Ms" (three times) "R_m" -> "Rm" "values into (9) and (10)" -> "values into the previous relationships" "we get" -> "you get")

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is a word-for-word copy (apart from the converting of subscripts)

This comes from section 4.3 ("Carbon abundance"), with the copying starting with "Integrating" (the phrase in brackets ("with a bit more work in between") is added). However, the formulae are copied incorrectly (the subscript "i" is dropped from "n").


Apart from the phrase order switch at the beginning ("Using the same calculation for oxygen," -> "For the Oxygen abundance, using the same calculation,") and a "we" -> "you", there are two curious differences to this otherwise word-for-word copy of the first part of section 4.4 ("Oxygen abundance"):

"0.018" -> "~0.018"

and omission of the following (after "0.018"): "which is somewhat high compared with observed values of 0.012 but is within the uncertainties generated by stellar evolution theory, especially for pure hydrogen stars, which we are here assuming."
Parts of the rest of section 4.4 are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("However this does not contradict the model since it is clear that" -> "It should also be noted that")

This rather strangely worded sentence seems to be a mangling of the original in Lerner's paper, from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"): "If about 1 Gev of energy is used for each deuterium production, 1/2 of the energy goes into the production of deuterium and the current abundance should be in the area of 2 x 10^-5."

This is from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"), apart from some minor editing ("we find" -> "you find" "cosmic rays. This yields" -> "cosmic rays, which yields")

I wonder if there is an "innocent explanation" for this apparent plagiarism (or, if you prefer, an omission of attribution)? Perhaps "Zeuzzz" is really "E. J. Lerner"?

Anyway, I'm curious to know a) whether other material posted by Zeuzzz is of a similar character, and b) what readers of this thread think of what I have found (and posted above).

I couldn't quote the whole thing, a quote that size would have been instantly taken down, so I had to add it as normal text. And the version that I copied is not from the version on Lerners site (I dont think that you can even copy text from that? and where is that text? if i had known that i would have just linked to it! its not listed here with his others; http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/index.html), its from a later reprint of the Laser and Particle Beams edition, not the "Alfven special edition" version, under the title "Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the Big Bang", which is a slightly different version, and presumably intended for a slightly different audience. I have it on file, along with all my other sources, not from online. I added in a few sentences, and the latex code for one equation, and changed a few words to put it in a suitable tense. Yes. Your point?

Maybe i should have put it all in italics, and indiacted this more clearly, but Its the same scientific material no matter who you thought wrote it. And I'm flattered that you thought it was me that came up with all of this You seem to hold me in much higher regard than even I do!

I dont write the science I quote myself (surely you have gathered this by now?) I just point out material that has already been written by other scientists that tends to be ignored.

And, does it really matter that it was copied? I could take a look at the equations that you have posted and accuse you of copying them from somewhere, but, since the equations are the same no matter where you get them from, it really doesn't matter. Or do you want to spend more posts accusing me of being someone, and talking about things not relevent to the subject at hand? Or do you want to actually discuss the material that I took the time to post here?

 

[The Man]

I have not been following this thread for some time, so my question may be a little dated.

Zeuzzz, I have noticed a new catch phrase in the lexicon of your most recent posts. That phrase being “force free configuration” and even reversed as “configuration force free”. Sometime you interject the word “plasma” in there as in “force free plasma configuration” and sometimes not. You seem to bandy this phrase about as if it is some fundamental physical force even going so far as to make this comparison to gravity.

What we know is that force free configurations do exist, crucially, on all scales, and that is what Peratt is using. Its a bit like asking "why does all mass attract" (gravity) No-one has a clue, it just does.

Yet you yourself admit that you do not know how a “force free configuration” arises.

The arms are essentially magnetically supported in his model, by using a force free plasma configuration. I dont think that anyone really knows why force free configurations arrise. Why do force free configurations arrise? Is there really a 'force', as such, that is responsible for them? or are they just fundamental scale invarient properties of our universe? They seem to be linked with EM forces, as cancelling of the force components to make the configuration force free arrise from primarily EM effects, like Birkeland currents. This effect is sometimes reffered to as "doubleness in plasma" http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html .What we know is that force free configurations do exist, crucially, on all scales, and that is what Peratt is using. Its a bit like asking "why does all mass attract" (gravity) No-one has a clue, it just does.

Are you referring to force free magnetic fields which are a type of field in a plasma where the plasma pressure is significantly less then the magnetic pressure? Hence the plasma pressure can be disregarded and the magnetic field pressure considered free of the force from the plasma pressure. An example would be the Sun’s corona.

Or perhaps you are referring to force free currents, were charged particles are moving due to the structure of a magnetic fields and plasma and not due to any voltage. Therefore they do not gain or lose any net energy. The force this situation is “free” of is the Lorenz force and an example would be the ring currents caused by Earth’s magnetosphere.

Or are you implying something similar to gravity where in General relativity the motion of an object under gravity becomes simply the motion along a space-time geodesic with the shortest proper time and no force is required. In this case the force that a person moving under the influence of gravity is free of is the gravitational force. An example would be if you jumped off a cliff you would not experience any force of gravity until, of course, the base of the cliff finally slams into you.

All of these “force free” examples have specific forces that they can be considered free of, for various reasons. Can you (or anyone else) describe (or provide any clue as to) what force or combination of forces your “force free configuration” is free of and provide any examples (other then to say “that is what Peratt is using).

I think this might become a new PC/EU catch phrase where they can’t really explain what it is but use it to explain anything and everything else (including itself).


From what I read and recall of Peratt’s paper, I believe force free current is the “force free” aspect Zeuzzz thinks Peratt is utilizing, since he uses the MHD formula for charged particle drift. Strangely though (or maybe not) he seems to leave out the term for guiding center gyration (if I remember that correctly), since it probably would have upset his model to have all of those charge particles gyrating around their guiding centers in opposite directions for positive and negative charges. But of course in order to get the drifts in the same direction (as well cancel the effects of an inhomogeneous galactic magnetic field) would require and electrical field and that configuration would no longer be “force free”. Of course I am only going from memory as it has been awhile since I looked at that paper.

As a reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiding_center

 

[Zeuzzz]

Damn. It is listed on that site; http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/index.html

its under a completely different title though; "Plasma Model an Alternative To The Big Bang" instead of the one that includes the primoridal elements in the title. That would have saved me copying it, but oh well.

 

[Reality Check]

The Man's posting above reminded me of another doubt that I have about Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation and the subsequence driving of the galactic rotation by electromagnetic forces:

• If the charge on a star in a galaxy can be either positive or negative then why do we not see 2 groups of stars in galaxies that orbit in opposite directions?
• If the charge on all stars in a galaxy has to be either positive or negative then what determines this and what effects would we see?
  At a guess the charge on the galaxy as a whole is somehow maintained by the invisible galactic plasma filaments. Otherwise I can see no reason why it should not dissipate as charged particles from the inter-galactic medium are pulled in.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yet you yourself admit that you do not know how a “force free configuration” arises.

Depends on what sort of force free configuration you are referring to. In PC it uses a scale invarient force free configuration to explain this. You may want to check out these; Magnetic Vortex Filaments
Force Free Magnetic Filaments what you wants probably in there somewhere, dont have the time to go fishing....

All of these “force free” examples have specific forces that they can be considered free of, for various reasons. Can you (or anyone else) describe (or provide any clue as to) what force or combination of forces your “force free configuration” is free of and provide any examples (other then to say “that is what Peratt is using).

I think this might become a new PC/EU catch phrase where they can’t really explain what it is but use it to explain anything and everything else (including itself).

From what I read and recall of Peratt’s paper, I believe force free current is the “force free” aspect Zeuzzz thinks Peratt is utilizing, since he uses the MHD formula for charged particle drift. Strangely though (or maybe not) he seems to leave out the term for guiding center gyration (if I remember that correctly), since it probably would have upset his model to have all of those charge particles gyrating around their guiding centers in opposite directions for positive and negative charges. But of course in order to get the drifts in the same direction (as well cancel the effects of an inhomogeneous galactic magnetic field) would require and electrical field and that configuration would no longer be “force free”. Of course I am only going from memory as it has been awhile since I looked at that paper.

Not sure exactly what your getting at here, try to be a bit more specific in your actual question, but this brief excerpt that i posted before may answer your questions;