Hi BeAChooser
Your postings reminded me of an outstanding question about Perratts plasma model of galaxy formation.
Have you or Zeuzzz found any evidence for the 200 billion galactic plasma filiaments that have to exist to power galaxies?
I would especially be interested in the ones within our Local Group, e.g. the 2 (or more?) that must be associated with the Andromeda Galaxy.
Nearly all galaxies have filaments that contain various objects aligned perpendicular to their plane. In standard models this is not predicted, and is still considered a mystery, unless of course you invoke the usual dark matter to explain them, along with every other large scale anomaly in the universe. Dark matter seems very handy in this respect. In Peratts dynamic plasma model of galaxy formation this is exactly what you would expect. You want evidence for this perpendicular to their plane alignment on the andromeda galaxy?
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571
Most of the small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way's near-twin, Andromeda, are lined up in a single plane that slices through Andromeda's spiral disc, a new study reveals.
The alignment suggests the satellites are either floating on a river of dark matter or are the remains of a larger galaxy Andromeda has already cannibalised.
Astronomers have known for about 25 years that the Milky Way's dozen or so satellites line up along two planes that lie perpendicular to its disc. But how the structures formed is still not clear. [...]
The researchers plotted the positions of Andromeda's 14 satellites using images from the Hubble Space Telescope and found that nine of them lay in a relatively thin plane about 52,000 light years wide. "It's unlikely such a plane would arise by chance," Grebel says. The satellites in the plane also shared similar characteristics – most were faint, low in mass, and had already stopped forming stars. [....]
The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter [
]. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic "web" along which galaxies flow.
Distant observations show evidence for the filaments, since maps of the universe's large-scale structure reveal thousands of galaxies lining up along intersecting streams. But such filaments have not yet been detected near the Milky Way. "One question is, could we see such filaments in our immediate surroundings?" says Grebel. She says two fairly significant masses do lie on either side of Andromeda, with the spiral galaxy M33 just 720,000 light years away and a group of about three dozen galaxies called M81 about 11 million light years away. If a dark matter filament connects all three, Grebel says future observations may show Andromeda's satellites moving along the filament.
So, now the dark matter filaments said to be causing these enigmatic observations are invisible! If they are largely invisible, how can anyone disprove that these dark matter filaments are there? Yet another new mysterious property of dark matter.
(M31 is the other name of andromeda)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1405K
The highly anisotropic distribution and apparent alignment of the Galactic satellites in polar great planes begs the question of how common such distributions are. The satellite system of M31 is the only nearby system for which we currently have sufficiently accurate distances to study the three-dimensional satellite distribution. We present the spatial distribution of the 15 currently known M31 companions in a coordinate system centered on M31 and aligned with its disk. [....]
One of the larger ojects alligned along this plane is clearly visible under the galaxy in this picture, although too see all the other objects that have been detected lined along this plane perpendicular to galaxy you would need a much higher resolution;
Quite a paradox for mainstream theories of galaxy formation dont you think? Of course, you could add various extra theories to the existing ones to account for these filaments, such as the mysterious new "dark matter filaments" theories, but parsimony should mean that any theory that requires many completely separate models to account for observations is the less powerful than one theory that addresses all observations in one model.
I am not saying that Peratts model does not have problems, the relationship between stars and thier local environment to account for this motion still needs to be addressed fully, and so does the plasma density required at larger radii in the galaxies to fit with his model, but his model does have the distinct advantage of explaining observations such as these, and is far better at creating the shape and structure of galaxies than purely Newtonian theories. I think that a mixture of his model and normal theories would be a good idea, with Peratts model being applied to galaxies in their early stages of formation where the plasma density is much higher, and also his initial formation idea that does not require the mass to be ejected out of a Big Bang certainly holds merit.
Found a few more publications on his model, for those not already familiar with it;
Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe
Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992 (152KB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)
