Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

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.

You wont see stars mentioned in Peratts publication on galaxy formation. He's working on a completely different scale. Thats why talking about this is a misnomer really. And I would think that stars can only be one charge, positive or negative, the actual value is not known, nor is the mechanism that charges them up. We dont even have any conclusive theory of why charge separates and creates lightning on Earth, let alone on distant stars. And the actual value of charge on our own sun has never been measured. It would certainly be handy to know! It potentially could be be huge, the sun is much more active than the motion of clouds, for exmaple, and they build up quite considerable charge. And check out the charge separation that occured in a small volcano erruption recently, which created this lightning;

Cool eh?

The suns a lot bigger, and much, much more dynamic than that, so we're talking far, far greater potential magnitudes here. And I expect that a good mechanism could be worked out in future, based on Lerners magnetically confined ball of plasma model for stars/QSO's, or some of the other ideas, but this is something that is still an open question to be answered; by PC proponents or by standard astronomers.

The mass in his simulation model would be more than adequate to move the stars by gravity aswell as the charge on stars as an extra component, but this is still an open question, as no values on this are known yet so it would just be hypothesis at this point.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

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.

... snip ...

Indeed.

However, since the conclusions, for galaxies, are:

a) consistent, across a considerable range of observations, using a number of quite different parts of the physics textbook

b) objective and independently verified (anyone, for example - including any JREF forum reader - can go get the raw data and do their own analyses)

c) consistent with predictions from theories/models with broader, and independent, scopes (e.g. ΛCDM models)

... they are about as sound as you could possibly ask for, using any reasonable definition of 'science' applied to astronomy.

Oh, and not to mention that there are, to date, no alternatives that can satisfactorily address even a minority of the classes of observations, much less claim to be free from (potentially fatal) internal consistencies ...

 

[Belz...]

You wont see stars mentioned in Peratts publication on galaxy formation. He's working on a completely different scale. Thats why talking about this is a misnomer really. And I would think that stars can only be one charge, positive or negative, the actual value is not known, nor is the mechanism that charges them up. We dont even have any conclusive theory of why charge separates and creates lightning on Earth, let alone on distant stars. And the actual value of charge on our own sun has never been measured. It would certainly be handy to know! It potentially could be be huge, the sun is much more active than the motion of clouds, for exmaple, and they build up quite considerable charge. And check out the charge separation that occured in a small volcano erruption recently, which created this lightning;

[qimg]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/photogalleries/volcano-photos/images/primary/1_VOLCANO_461.jpg[/qimg]

Cool eh?

The suns a lot bigger, and much, much more dynamic than that, so we're talking far, far greater potential magnitudes here. And I expect that a good mechanism could be worked out in future, based on Lerners magnetically confined ball of plasma model for stars/QSO's, or some of the other ideas, but this is something that is still an open question to be answered; by PC proponents or by standard astronomers.

The mass in his simulation model would be more than adequate to move the stars by gravity aswell as the charge on stars as an extra component, but this is still an open question, as no values on this are known yet so it would just be hypothesis at this point.

All that's well and fine, but I have a question: What makes you and other proponents of this theory think, to start with, that stars are EM-powered ?

 

[Dancing David]

You wont see stars mentioned in Peratts publication on galaxy formation. He's working on a completely different scale. Thats why talking about this is a misnomer really. And I would think that stars can only be one charge, positive or negative, the actual value is not known, nor is the mechanism that charges them up. We dont even have any conclusive theory of why charge separates and creates lightning on Earth, let alone on distant stars. And the actual value of charge on our own sun has never been measured. It would certainly be handy to know! It potentially could be be huge, the sun is much more active than the motion of clouds, for exmaple, and they build up quite considerable charge. And check out the charge separation that occured in a small volcano erruption recently, which created this lightning;

[qimg]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/photogalleries/volcano-photos/images/primary/1_VOLCANO_461.jpg[/qimg]

Cool eh?

The suns a lot bigger, and much, much more dynamic than that, so we're talking far, far greater potential magnitudes here. And I expect that a good mechanism could be worked out in future, based on Lerners magnetically confined ball of plasma model for stars/QSO's, or some of the other ideas, but this is something that is still an open question to be answered; by PC proponents or by standard astronomers.

The mass in his simulation model would be more than adequate to move the stars by gravity aswell as the charge on stars as an extra component, but this is still an open question, as no values on this are known yet so it would just be hypothesis at this point.

Yes volcanic lightning is cool, however the beginning of this was my question;

1. What in PC as you know it can accelerate stars faster than gravity minus dark matter? Which is why ii mentioned Perrat, BAC and I believe you have provided Perrat's model as an explanation of 'flat rotation curves' in galaxies.


2. What is the force moving the stars, what charge, etc...


So I want to thank you Zeuzzz, this is the first time someone who is a PC proponent has stated that it is merely a possibility,
"open question to be answered" means that the Perrat model does not provide for the flat rotation curve by any known mechanism, nor does Lerner’s model.

That it is just a hypothesis is the truth, I APPLAUD you for not hiding behind words and concepts.

You have just confirmed, in a very truthful and honest fashion, what I have suspected all along.

Perrat and Lerner do not have a model for the 'flat rotation curve' of galaxies. And I want to say that after reading hundreds of posts by BAC and quite a few by you, it is very refreshing to see someone say "Nope there isn't a current mechanism that could explain the flat rotation curve in galaxies in the PC model."

I commend you and think that it is something remarkable, thank you.

 

[Reality Check]

You wont see stars mentioned in Peratts publication on galaxy formation. He's working on a completely different scale. Thats why talking about this is a misnomer really. And I would think that stars can only be one charge, positive or negative, the actual value is not known, nor is the mechanism that charges them up. We dont even have any conclusive theory of why charge separates and creates lightning on Earth, let alone on distant stars. And the actual value of charge on our own sun has never been measured. It would certainly be handy to know!

...sniped cool unrelated lightening stuff...

The suns a lot bigger, and much, much more dynamic than that, so we're talking far, far greater potential magnitudes here. And I expect that a good mechanism could be worked out in future, based on Lerners magnetically confined ball of plasma model for stars/QSO's, or some of the other ideas, but this is something that is still an open question to be answered; by PC proponents or by standard astronomers.

The mass in his simulation model would be more than adequate to move the stars by gravity aswell as the charge on stars as an extra component, but this is still an open question, as no values on this are known yet so it would just be hypothesis at this point.

Wow, what a lot of things that Plasma Cosmology does not know. It makes that things that Big Bang cosmology does not know seem unimportant .

Are you saying that stars never form in Peratts model?
Or is it that as soon as stars form that his model ends, i.e. gravity then dominates the rotational dynamics of galaxies?



If the latter then the velocity dispersion curves of any galaxy that contains stars will be that of a gravity dominated galaxy after a few million (billion?) years. This gives a new prediction for Peratt's model:

• Young galaxies will have flat velocity dispersion curves while older galaxies will have the predicted non-flat and not observed velocity dispersion curves.

I wonder what the actual observations are? Perhaps you can provide a citation for a paper that supports this prediction.


As I stated before and you have seen in several posts in several threads: Magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of the Sun's acceleration due to its orbit in the galaxy.
This estimate is true for all stars at our distance from the galactic center. It is probably true for all stars in all galaxies.


There is no way that magnetic forces can account for any appreciable part of the movement of stars in galaxies using existing estimates of the maximum charge on a star or the estimates of the strength of the galactic magnetic field. So are you predicting that future PC models will predict (and observations confirm):

• The charge on a star is 100 billion coulombs (instead of 100) or
• The galactic magnetic field is 100 Tesla (instead of 10-9 T) or
• Or both?

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz there is another small point: I was under the impression that spiral galaxies have stars in them. If Peratt's model does not apply to galaxies with stars in them then why did he compare his simulation results to spiral galaxies?

 

[Zeuzzz]

1. What in PC as you know it can accelerate stars faster than gravity minus dark matter? Which is why ii mentioned Perrat, BAC and I believe you have provided Perrat's model as an explanation of 'flat rotation curves' in galaxies.


2. What is the force moving the stars, what charge, etc...


So I want to thank you Zeuzzz, this is the first time someone who is a PC proponent has stated that it is merely a possibility,
"open question to be answered" means that the Perrat model does not provide for the flat rotation curve by any known mechanism, nor does Lerner’s model.

Point one; Yes, his model does produce flat rotation curves.

Point two; you have to add the charge needed on a star to the mass aswell, just calculating the result from the potential charge on the star would be pretty silly, I should point out. Gravity is included in the model, and would provide the main force on the stars, as their charge/mass ratio is heavily biased towards the mass side of things (although, the actual charge is not known at all, even for our sun, so it could be higher than currently thought [actually, I think its thought to be pretty mcuh nothing by contentional theories, as no models use any value for charge on average size stars at all, despite there being no real reason to rule out the possibility of charge accumulation])

That it is just a hypothesis is the truth, I APPLAUD you for not hiding behind words and concepts.

I had implied this in earlier posts, but not put it in such a direct way. Every science theory in space is essentially hypothesis We dont know what charge stars could contain, and so I presume this aspect does still remain to be addressed. Some of the issues still to be resolved are discussed here in a conference at the crisis in cosmology conference; (which has been discussed here previously I think); http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf

(1) In Spiral Galaxies, do the co-mingled stars and plasma-filaments rotate at the same rate? If the same rate, why??
(2) In spiral galaxies, I would guess that the rotation of stars would be primarily determined by gravitational forces, while the rotation of plasma-filaments would be primarily determined by EM plasma forces. But all dependent upon the inter-stellar plasma density and the relevant gravitational forces (star size, etc).
(3) How are important “Dirty Plasma” effects incorporated into the EM Plasma simulations??
(4) What is the inter-stellar plasma density as functions of time and position in the spiral galaxy??
(5) The first 4 questions (above) are the crux of the interplay between gravitational forces and EM/Plasma effects, all in a “Dirty Plasma”.

Point five is the main issue that could answer your question. The interaction between stars and the surrounding plasma.

But that does not mean that the standard gravity only models do not have glaring issues too.. it just comes down to which ones has the most and more serious ones. I think that Peratts model holds merit, as the shape of many things above the planetary level are extremely hard to explain with an only attractive field, unless an initial creation event is used, new matter invoked, and a few gnomes here and there.

Perrat and Lerner do not have a model for the 'flat rotation curve' of galaxies. And I want to say that after reading hundreds of posts by BAC and quite a few by you, it is very refreshing to see someone say "Nope there isn't a current mechanism that could explain the flat rotation curve in galaxies in the PC model."

I commend you and think that it is something remarkable, thank you.

well, thank you for the commendation, I'm not attatched at the hip to plasma cosmoolgy theories! I have stated before that Peratts model is not dealing with this scale, rather the much larger scale where individual stars dont fully enter into the equation. And I have not said "Nope there isn't a current mechanism that could explain the flat rotation curve in galaxies in the PC model." It does. There are things that still need to be quantified, but thats the same with standard theories. I still prefer Peratts model, as it can explain the overall morphology of many different types of galaxies far better than current theories that ignore potential plasma effects on this scale, and potentially eliminate the need to dark matter to explain the rotation curves

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz there is another small point: I was under the impression that spiral galaxies have stars in them. If Peratt's model does not apply to galaxies with stars in them then why did he compare his simulation results to spiral galaxies?

As the model can explain the shape of galaxies far better than the current models. And the stars would be moved primarily by the gravity in the model, but yes, if the charge on stars was known you could add this effect to it too. But thats not addressed in his work as of yet, his model is dealing with much larger scales than the individual stars in the system. And at this scale, his model is the best there is. Many other models in physics describe one scale, and dont include and mention the smaller constituents of the system. For example in maxwells equations you usually dont need to actually consider the actual individual charges that the entire theory is based on, you just consider the relationships between them as a whole on much larger scales. Technically, things like neutral points/lines can never exist in maxwells equations when considering the actual nature of the charges that make up the relationships, does that make the theory completely wrong? is it a fatal flaw? No, they clearly work very well on larger scales than this. Just not on very small scales. Amperes law does not work at all when you go down to this level for instance, it requires a substantial amount of ions, using average numbers of ions and current.

Lack of explanation on one scale does not necissarily falsify a theory that deals with a completely different scale.

 

[Reality Check]

As the model can explain the shape of galaxies far better than the current models. And the stars would be moved primarily by the gravity in the model, but yes, if the charge on stars was known you could add this effect to it too. But thats not addressed in his work as of yet, his model is dealing with much larger scales than the individual stars in the system. And at this scale, his model is the best there is. Many other models in physics describe one scale, and dont include and mention the smaller constituents of the system. For example in maxwells equations you usually dont need to actually consider the actual individual charges that the entire theory is based on, you just consider the relationships between them as a whole on much larger scales. Technically, things like neutral points/lines can never exist and maxwells equations when considering the actual nature of the charges that make up maxwells equations, does that make the theory completely wrong? is it a fatal flaw? No, they clearly work very well on larger scales than this. Just not on very small scales. Amperes law does not work at all when you go down to this level for instance, it requires a substantial amount of ions, using average numbers of ions and current.

Lack of explanation on one scale does not necissarily falsify a theory that deals with a completely different scale.

Perhaps you did not read this post in which the third question is about how "the model can explain the shape of galaxies far better than the current models":

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.

The scaling of plasmas or the theory does not matter. The only way that magnetic forces can move stars around are the options in the previous post (stars with billions of coulombs of charge, magnetic fields that are billions of times greater than those we have measured in galaxies or both). This is a consequence of basic physics.

 

[Wangler]

As I stated before and you have seen in several posts in several threads: Magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of the Sun's acceleration due to its orbit in the galaxy.
This estimate is true for all stars at our distance from the galactic center. It is probably true for all stars in all galaxies.


There is no way that magnetic forces can account for any appreciable part of the movement of stars in galaxies using existing estimates of the maximum charge on a star or the estimates of the strength of the galactic magnetic field. So are you predicting that future PC models will predict (and observations confirm):

• The charge on a star is 100 billion coulombs (instead of 100) or
• The galactic magnetic field is 100 Tesla (instead of 10-9 T) or
• Or both?

I have seen published estimates that galactic electromagnetic fields can account for approximately 10% of the galactic rotational discrepancy at large radii.

 

[MattusMaximus]

All that's well and fine, but I have a question: What makes you and other proponents of this theory think, to start with, that stars are EM-powered ?

Oh good grief. This again?

We had an entire thread many weeks back where this claim was made repeatedly and shown, for a wide variety of reasons, to be hooey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107792

 

[Reality Check]

I have seen published estimates that galactic electromagnetic fields can account for approximately 10% of the galactic rotational discrepancy at large radii.

It would be wonderful if you can dig up some citations for the papers. All I have seen are off-the-cuff estimates which make the electromagnetc effect 10²² of the gravitational effect (this would be bigger are large radii though)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As the model can explain the shape of galaxies far better than the current models. ... snip ...

That's odd ...

I was under the impression that Peratt's model did a particular poor job in this regard.

For example, as far as I know it does not produce, in a form that is quantitatively consistent with the relevant observations, the following well-known structures in spiral galaxies:

* the nucleus

* the bulge

* the thick disk

* the halo

* flaring or warping of the outer parts of the (thin) disk (esp for the gas component).

In which of Peratt's papers may one read a detailed account of how his model matches the relevant observations for all of these structures?

 

[Wangler]

It would be wonderful if you can dig up some citations for the papers. All I have seen are off-the-cuff estimates which make the electromagnetc effect 10²² of the gravitational effect (this would be bigger are large radii though)

I was mistaken, I was confusing 10% with 10 km/sec velocity due to galactic magnetic fields.

See my post here for the references (they determine 10 to 20 km/sec rotation velocity may be due to magnetic fields).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3592547#post3592547

This effect is certainly larger than 10²² of gravity, I think.

Sorry for being incorrect in my memory, though.

 

[Wangler]

On a different note, I can kind of see why these PC guys think that there is a conspiracy.

While looking for my references for post #374, I looked in my Second Edition of Galactic Astronomy: Structure and Kinematics by Mihalas and Binney.

I was amazed to see that the words "magnetic", "magnetism", "electric", "electricity", "electromagnitism", "plasma" or "field" were not in the subject index anywhere.

And this text has a whole chapter devoted to "The Large-Scale Distribution of Gas in Galaxies".

Maybe they talk about these things in their text about Galactic Dynamics, but I still think that it is strange they don't mention anything in this book.

 

[sol invictus]

There is not one single concrete or quantitative prediction in that list - i.e., not one single scientific prediction. Nevertheless, let's take them one at a time <gag>.

* The universe did not originate in a Big Bang 13.7 years ago

Then explain redshift-distance relations and all the other cosmo data quantitatively. That wouldn't be a prediction, it would be consistency with existing data - the bare minimum necessary to pay any attention to this theory. Then, after all that, you might be able to produce a real prediction.

* Element abundances can be more easily explained by plasma processes ongoing in the universe today.

Then let's see a quantitative analysis of the element abundances based on PC. But again, mere consistency, not a prediction.

[quote[* 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.[/quote]

To make that a prediction you need to characterize the strength/density/clumpiness of the filaments quantitatively. Moreover your characterization of standard cosmo is wrong.

* 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.

To make that a prediction, define "negligable" [sic] and "play a role" quantitatively. And another false statement and strawman - no one says that on large scales the only force is gravity. But the idea that EM forces can account for large scale phenomena like rotation curves was thoroughly debunked in a thread here recently - one that you participated in.

You have a very short memory it seems.

* 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.

No one disagrees with the first part - that's why lots of people (that don't believe in PC) are doing such experiments. That's why many universities have space plasma labs. Silly strawman.

* Extremely similar phenomena exist in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws.[./quote]

Then derive those laws from Maxwell, taking into account the relevant forces (like gravity), and make a prediction. So far, nothing.

* 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

Silly and random non sequitor. Where is the PC prediction?

* 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.

Steady state models were ruled out 50 years ago. Explain the CMB, supernova data, large scale structure surveys, the Hubble law, and galactic spectra, quantitatively and in accord with data. That still won't be a prediction, but at least someone might take your theory seriously for more than half a second.

* A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, making the univserse static.

See above.

* 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)

Quantify "important role".

* 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.

Ditto.

* The pinch effect in space plasma plays a role in many structures on large scales, (see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_effect)

How much of a role? What does it do?

* 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.

Own-goal scoring strawman. That the universe is hierarchical in that sense follows from mainstream physics, which is what mainstream astros use to describe the universe. It is you that deny that the universe is hierarchical - you are the one that thinks gravity never takes over as the dominant force at large scales.

* 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).

Unbelievably vague statement; not even wrong.

* 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.

Then explain the WMAP 5 year data, quantitatively. Until then, the model is ruled out. That would still not be a prediction.

*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.

Ruled out by data. The fractal dimension of structures on large scales is not 2.

So: in that whole list, not one single prediction, and several statements that are in direct conflict with data. Although you still have failed to say anything quantitative, by finally tying your theory to several concrete crackpot ideas you've made it all the easier to debunk. Why don't we pick one idea from there and see how it does?

For example, we could take the steady state nonsense, or the claim that EM is important on large scales. Which would you prefer?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

On a different note, I can kind of see why these PC guys think that there is a conspiracy.

While looking for my references for post #374, I looked in my Second Edition of Galactic Astronomy: Structure and Kinematics by Mihalas and Binney.

I was amazed to see that the words "magnetic", "magnetism", "electric", "electricity", "electromagnitism", "plasma" or "field" were not in the subject index anywhere.

And this text has a whole chapter devoted to "The Large-Scale Distribution of Gas in Galaxies".

Maybe they talk about these things in their text about Galactic Dynamics, but I still think that it is strange they don't mention anything in this book.

It's not really surprising ...

Can you confirm that the second edition is dated 1981?

The reference usually regarded as standard (at least the starting point) for the astrophysics of galaxies (at grad level) is Binney & Tremaine, but even that is dated 1987.

Keep in mind the target audience: grad level students of physics ... for them, many of the words you chose as your test are inappropriate ("electricity" for example).

Also, as I mentioned in robinson's 'plasma' thread, you can treat a plasma, even a fully ionised one, as a gas ... unless there is some phenomenology where the physical behaviour of the two differ (or there's a suspicion of a difference, or a hypothesis to test, or ...). This causes no confusion, nor is it misleading in any way, to the students (much less the teachers or researchers), because they all know (or should, if they have not cheated on their undergrad exams) that 'in HII regions the gas is fully ionised' means it is a plasma (to take just one example).

There's a historical dimension as well. Perhaps the best window to observe things like large-scale magnetic fields is the radio or microwave one. While radio astronomy is certainly much older than x-ray or gamma-ray astronomy (say), it is not even a century old, still a toddler compared with optical astronomy.

There are many regimes where the plasma characteristics of an ionised gas are important, if not critical, in astrophysics - accretion disks, polar jets, pulsar wind nebulae, ... - and the grad level astrophysics texts relevant for these are wall-to-wall plasma physics; see, for example, Physics of the Pulsar Magnetosphere, by A. V. Gurevich, V. S. Beskin, and Ya. N Istomin (1993):

This book presents the theory of the electrodynamic phenomena that occur in the magnetosphere of a pulsar. It also provides a clear picture of the formation and evolution of neutron stars. The authors address the basic physical processes of electron-positron plasma production, the generation of electric fields and currents, and the emission of radio waves and gamma rays. The book also reviews the current observational data, and devotes a complete chapter to a detailed comparison of this data with accepted theory and with some recent theoretical predictions. Tables containing the values of the physical parameters of all observed radio pulsars are also provided.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The scaling of plasmas or the theory does not matter. The only way that magnetic forces can move stars around are the options in the previous post (stars with billions of coulombs of charge, magnetic fields that are billions of times greater than those we have measured in galaxies or both). This is a consequence of basic physics.

Who claimed that magnetic forces could considerably move stars? I have never claimed that, and I have been very careful not to, as I know how hard it is to explain using standard EM forces in gas and a small charge on the sun. It easy to imply this from Peratts model, but gravity can not be simply ingored. Thus why in Peratts model he includes the mass of the plasmoid and the resulting gravity, this would be main force that acts on planetary level bodies like the sun and stars (dont make me quote the hundreds of times I have said that gravity dominates on the planetary level) I have said that the charge may be able to account for a tiny amount in gases, but compared to gravity, it would be negligable. And why I have stated a lot of times that he is dealing on scale completely different to that of individual stars. Plus, no one has ever measured the strength of the charge on the sun or stars accurately (or at all infact!), so anything using a vlaue on the charge of stars would be hypothesis (I discussed the charge on stars and potential charge they could contain at length in the "something new under the sun" thread, and others, and no, its not likely to be any more than 10^4±2) If you thought that the claim was that stars are kept in orbit by magnetic forces, then that is wrong. The EM forces in this model would effect the interstellar plasma (yes, plasma, not gas) to a much higher degree, and that is for sure. The relationship with the stars and their surrounding dusty plasma environment is the main question that has to be answered. Simple EM calculations between bodies are misleading too, ionized plasma organizes itself into a cellular structure, and double layers structure themselves such that electrostatic forces between bodies that are each surrounded by such DL-bounded plasma cells are negligibly weak. "Homogeneous models often are found to be misleading and should be replaced by inhomogeneous models, with the inhomogeneities being produced by filamentary currents and DLs that divide space into separate cells of plasma." If they did obey a strict inverse square law (as they are often modelled as by standard astrophysicists) galactic magnetic fields would not be the size they are, they often reach from galactic centres right to the very ends of galaxies.

As I stated before and you have seen in several posts in several threads: Magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of the Sun's acceleration due to its orbit in the galaxy.
This estimate is true for all stars at our distance from the galactic center. It is probably true for all stars in all galaxies.

It is well known that the EM force is 10³⁹ times stronger than gravity, and since it is now known that the stars, ISM and all solar winds are ionized plasma (only quite recently really, most models still use neutral gas), this force can potentially play a role on the large scale. By definition, plasmas are an interactive mix of charged particles, neutrals, and fields that exhibit collective complex effects. In plasmas, charged particles are subject to long-range, collective Coulomb interactions with many distant connections. Although the electrostatic/magnetostatic force drops with distance (~1/r²), the combined effect of all charged particles does not necissarily decay because the interacting volume increases as r³, leaving room for a considerable role where plasmas exist. Magnetic field effects are often global with their connections reaching to galactic scales and beyond, which does not conform with the usual ranges implied from models of them in neutral gasses. Mainstream astronomy is full of a lot of hot gas at the moment. Few people have realized the full implications that this state of matter has on the old theories they use, especially gas dynamic theories that are used nearly everywhere.

The statement that "The EM force is 10³⁹ time stronger than gravity" can be misleading, and this is where you have to take into account varying size scales, to understand what occurs at the different levels. And the galactic magnetic field structure is not very known at all, as its very hard to determine the magnetic field in space unless it belongs to a considerably large object (pulsar, neutron star, "black hole", etc), and even then you can only determine the approximate field strenght at that object, the surrounding ISM environment is much harder, as few EM signals are sent from these regions. Infact, the magnetic field structures of galaxies is a bit of a mystery, with conflicting values often acheived depending on which method is used. (Ref: The Galactic magnetic Fields - National Astronomical Observatories (cool paper, check out the toroidal structure on page four, which is what would be expected from a unipolar inductor/faraday motor model with the central current) "3.5. Unresolved problems.
If one compares what we knew with the list for what we want to know, it is true that we know very little. We are far away to have a full picture of Galactic magnetic Fields. Here are some problems which should be solved in next years [...] "

EM forces in gas can not account for much at all. Its when you apply these forces in plasma that the many and varied effects of plasma could start to take control.

1. What in PC as you know it can accelerate stars faster than gravity minus dark matter? Which is why ii mentioned Perrat, BAC and I believe you have provided Perrat's model as an explanation of 'flat rotation curves' in galaxies.

Another thing that you may have not considered is that Peratts model is fundamentally different as it is an interatcion between two plasmoids, and so the gravity from this different structure in itself may beable to account for rotation of stars without the need for dark matter. Current theories use only the central mass, which is essentailly why the whole problem of flat rotation curves arrises. I'm not sure, I would have to consider this at length, but that is a possibility...

I have seen published estimates that galactic electromagnetic fields can account for approximately 10% of the galactic rotational discrepancy at large radii.

Yep. There are a few papers that have considered this possibility recently due to the potential of plasma interactions... some astronomers do seem to be catching on with what the PC crowd have been saying;

Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?

and theres a few more about.... but its hard to find them in the midst of all the papers that pop up which all seem obsessed with calling everything in space a neutral gas, and so obviously will arrive at largely erroneous conclusions...

Its also hard to account for the abundance of electric currents that have been observed connecting bodies throughout the ism if it is all neutral gas, currents can not travel very well at all through gas, it has to be plasma;

(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)

 

[Reality Check]

Who claimed that magnetic forces could considerably move stars? I have never claimed that, and I have been very careful not to, as I know how hard it is to explain using standard EM forces and a small charge on the sun. Thus why in Peratts model he includes the mass of the plasmoid and the resulting gravity, this would be main force that acts on planetary level bodies like the sun and stars (dont make me quote the hundreds of times I have said that gravity dominates on the planetary level, its getting quite tiring) I have said that the charge may be able to account for a tiny amount, but compared to gravity, it would be negligable. Plus, no one has ever measured the strength of the charge on the sun or stars accurately (or at all infact!), so anything using a vlaue on the charge of stars would be hypothesis (I discussed the charge on stars and potential charge they could contain at length in the "something new under the sun" thread, and others, and no, its not likely to be any more than 10^4±2) If you thought that the claim was that stars are kept in orbit by magnetic forces, then that is wrong. The EM forces in this model would effect the interstellar plasma (yes, plasma, not gas) to a much higher degree, and that is for sure. The relationship with the stars and their surrounding dusty plasma environment is the main question that has to be answered. Simple EM calculations between bodies are misleading too, ionized plasma organizes itself into a cellular structure, and double layers structure themselves such that electrostatic forces between bodies that are each surrounded by such DL-bounded plasma cells are negligibly weak. "Homogeneous models often are found to be misleading and should be replaced by inhomogeneous models, with the inhomogeneities being produced by filamentary currents and DLs that divide space into separate cells of plasma." If they did obey a strict inverse square law (as they are often modelled as by standard astrophysicists) galactic magnetic fields would not be the size they are, they often reach from galactic centres right to the very ends of galaxies.

Actually it was Peratt that made this claim.

Since you do not make this claim I take it that you accept that gravity is the dominant force in creating the velocity dispersion curves in galaxies (with a possible 10 km/s contribution from electromagnetic forces at large radii).

 

[The Man]

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....

Fishing? I’ll restate the question for your clarification.

What force or forces is the “force free configuration” you are referring to specifically considered to be free of?

So I was specifically asking you what “force free configuration” you were referring to.

Both of those links directly reference force free magnetic fields as I described earlier. Is that the “Force free configuration” you are referring to? Or are you just referring to any coronal like plasma with a low plasma pressure (often referred to as a “force free plasma” for that reason)

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;

[qimg]http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9170/equationsfk4.jpg[/qimg]

I never mentioned or implied anything about plasma scaling, just what force or forces the “force free configuration” you are referring to is specifically considered to be free of, and can you answer that simple question?

But on the subject of plasma scaling, why would Peratt’s model or any simulation need to be scaled when he could just do the calculations and develop a model in the correct scale? Unless, of course, they do not work out the way he would like in the correct scale but an incorrectly scaled model or simulation gives him what he is looking for.

An awful lot of estimating going on in that scaling you just referenced, one would be better off asking what values do not need to be estimated in plasma scaling. With such requirements of estimated values, one could get just about any result one wanted.

In PC it uses a scale invarient force free configuration to explain this.

So you use the same configuration “force free” regardless of its application to the type of plasma being considered?

What did I say before about the “force free configuration” being used to explain everything including itself?