Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Perhaps you have evidence of the galactic plasma filaments that are spinning the Milky Way?


Yes, if you look closely at this unedited photo of the milky way you can make out very subtle green filaments making up the galactic structure.

filamentsti4.jpg





..........Do you know what a filament is? :)
 
You seem to have forgotten that Peratts model of galaxy formation has already been totally debunked in the thread:

  • He totally ignores gravity.



  • This is amazing. I can show you directly the gravitational term in the simulation if you want. You really should know this by now. How many times have we been over this?

    How do you think that the stars in his simulation were formed if not by gravity pulling them together? Stars form first in the densely compressed elliptical core (Population II stars) and then in the pinched plasma that make up the spiral arms (Population I stars). For Sd and Sc galaxies, the axial Birkeland currents are just reaching the Alfven Carlqvist threshold 0.1 X 10 -20 A/m2 (Section VIII) and star formation is irregular. For Sb and Sa galaxies the current is 10 -20 A/m2 and star formation follows closely the morphology of the plasma in the spiral arms that are usually fragmented because of the diocotron instability. The well-known Baade description that stars in spiral arms appear "like beads on a string" is also an equally apropos description for the simulated galaxies. As in the laboratory, Birkeland current sheet filaments, and lumps within the filaments interact with their neighbors to produce the phenomena outlined in this paper. [....] Finally, the pinch effect from the currents carried in the galactic plasmas illustrates the importance of the electromagnetic field in initiating the first stages of dusty plasma collapse into stellisimals, then into stars


    Do you understand Gravito-electrodynamics? or not?


    [*]He compares plasma distribution maps with optical photos of galaxies, i.e. a map of mass against a map of hot stars.


    We've discussed this before too. Plasma desnity is proportional to optical emission. Remember?

    [*]No signs of the enormous galactic sized plasma filaments with enough energy to spin galaxies (but strangely not enough to produce any radiation at all).


    He dedicates pages to explaining the synchotron radiation properties of the fialments, and the other bands of the EM spectrum. Why would you write such a blatent lie?

    The Electromagnetic Spectrum
    SYNCHROTRON RADIATION
    The Cosmic Microwave Background
    The Wolf Shift of Electromagnetic Radiation
    Quasars and Double Radio Galaxies

    .
    Anthony Peratt covers this in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, where he notes that "Plasmas are prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation", and describes how plasmas produce gamma rays and x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, submillimeter and microwave, and radio waves. He then devotes entire chapters to synchrotron radiation because it is very characteristic of pasmas, and the transport of cosmic radiation.

    Peratt also covers "Radiation Characteristics of the Plasma State", and, "Synchrotron Radiation" in his paper "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF), which makes for a good general overview.



    Every single galaxy is made up of filaments. We've done this before too. Choose a galaxy, and i'll draw a picture to show you what a filament is, sinse you obviously dont know the meaning of the word. (hint: there are no spherical galaxies, ie, what the theory of gravity implies should happen. And galaxy shapes are tremendously varied, some shapes are impossible to explain with mainstream theories, not just Peratts, so you should choose a common type of galaxy)

    It is also strange that there is no sign that he has run his computer model again with better simulation software since 1986.


    Strange then that the reputable journal astrophysics and space science published his results for the morphology and properties of the neutral Hi regions for various different galaxies in 1996, using new coding in supercomputer facilities, before he started work on other areas. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.244...89P

    And since then he has refined the computer model of plasmas, which also produce very well galaxy formation, which are discussed in great detail in these two publications published in journals in 1998:

    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
 
Last edited:
Yes, if you look closely at this unedited photo of the milky way you can make out very subtle green filaments making up the galactic structure.

Just browsing through some of the science topics here and happened to catch this post... photo of the Milky Way? Unedited? Really??

Maybe I'm missing the snark...

Elsewhere in the thread: "hint: there are no spherical galaxies, ie, what the theory of gravity implies should happen." Really? E0's and dwarf spheroidals are abundant.

mmmm.... plasma fetish....
 
Just browsing through some of the science topics here and happened to catch this post... photo of the Milky Way? Unedited? Really??

Maybe I'm missing the snark...


Maybe. Or maybe you just haven't seen the green filaments that hold galaxies together before, that are clearly apparent in that picture :D


.....the lines are just overlayed over the arms of the milky way to make it more clear. The arms are the filaments I refer to.

Elsewhere in the thread: "hint: there are no spherical galaxies, ie, what the theory of gravity implies should happen." Really? E0's and dwarf spheroidals are abundant.


As I said, its very hard (if not impossible) to categorize the shape of galaxies with one statement, they are all so amazingly varied. I should have said there are very, very few galaxies that are spherical in shape. They nearly all shows a filamentary nature with the structure of their arms. Even most Ellipticals are highly flattened ellipsoids, not spherical.

In the plasma universe model ellipticals are most often found midway between the extended radio components of radio galaxies and radioquasars.
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
Fig. 10 is an example of this geometry. Like SO galaxies (galaxies with little or no evidence of star-forming activity in the disk) E galaxies are found most frequently in regimes characterized by high galaxy density, i.e., areas most susceptible to interactions.

A. Irregular Galaxies and "Dust Lane" E Galaxies The elliptical sump formed midway between two extended plasma components is the result of the coming together of the magnetic field lines of two (or more) adjacent filaments. At early times, the topology of these field lines is that of two "clashing cymbals" (cf. [1, figs. 6 and 8], that is also the shape taken on by intergalactic plasma between the extended current-conducting components. Examples include not only irregularly shaped galaxies (Fig. 11) but also E and some SO galaxies with "dust lanes" [12]. The dust lanes are usually aligned perpendicular to the major axis between extended components (Fig. 12), as they must be for plasma pushed in from either filament.

B. Flattened E and SO Galaxies

Elliptical galaxies are classified in a sequence from EO to E7, according to the degree of apparent flattening. EO systems appear circular, and E7 are the most oblong known. All flatter galaxies seem to be spirals and, even among the E7's, many may be type SO, systems that resemble spirals but lack distinctive arms. In fact, E7 galaxies often show slight spiral arms or perturbances. The morphologies described above are the shape that Birkeland currents take when they are closely spaced [.....]


Buy entering the parameters T10= 2 keV, T = 1-750 and Acceleration field, 0.002 cells per time step squared, the plasma based supercomputer simulations reveal a nearly perfect elliptical shape, with the approxiamte same magnetic fields as is observed in the galaxies.

mmmm.... plasma fetish....


Do you think that plasma, being the fundamental state of matter before solid liquid and gas and constituting 99.999% of the visible universe, is not important to how the universe functions somehow?

mmmmm... fluid matter fetish....
 
Last edited:
And ellipsoidal galaxies are inconsistent with gravity?


Depends on the age you assign to the universe and the galaxy and if there really was a Big Bang. If BBT is wrong, then yes, nearly every galaxy is inconsistent with an exclusively attractive field. Infact if this is the case the the structure of the whole universe would be largely inconsistent with the theory of gravity.
 
Please explain how "plasma cosmology" can account for the rotation curves of stars. If your explanation involves electromagnetic forces, give estimates for the necessary charges and field strengths.

We went through this before, and the results were totally absurd (as is obvious).
 
Depends on the age you assign to the universe and the galaxy and if there really was a Big Bang.

Ok. So supposing the answers are 13.7 billion, 12 billion and yes respectively. Then what?

ETA: thats years, obviously.
 
[...] You really should know this by now. How many times have we been over this?

[...]

We've discussed this before too.

[...]

Why would you write such a blatent lie?

Um, yep, been there, done that ... even pointed out that a simple spell-checker would help ...

[...]

[gratuitous links not quoted, to not contribute to Z's paycheck, for yet more work done to boost the google rank of woo]

[...]
So, to repeat ...

PC as woo, from Z's very own post ...

"E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite."

In other words, no matter what experiments are done or observations made, a core aspect of PC cannot be found to be inconsistent ... ever.

No need for high falutin' philosophy, no need for detailed technical considerations, there you have it, as starkly as you could imagine, a clear declaration of the non-science nature of PC.

Now if you'll excuse me Z, I shall prepare an offline file with the URLs of the JREF Forum posts in which you presented this stark piece of woo, along with those of my many replies (and the contents thereof), for use as boilerplate in response to further posts by you, in this, a thread whose focus is Plasma Cosmology - woo or not.
 
Yes, if you look closely at this unedited photo of the milky way you can make out very subtle green filaments making up the galactic structure.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5014/filamentsti4.jpg

..........Do you know what a filament is? :)
Yes I do. I can also tell the difference between a filament on the surface of the sun, a filament inside a galaxy and the galactic plasma filaments demanded by Peratt's model! Can you? :)

Seriously do you have any evidence for any of Peratt's 200 billion galactic plasma filaments that are as wide as a galaxy, 1000's of light years long and energetic enough to spin a galaxy? Do you know yet what makes these filaments are totally invisible?
 
Maybe. Or maybe you just haven't seen the green filaments that hold galaxies together before, that are clearly apparent in that picture :D

.....the lines are just overlayed over the arms of the milky way to make it more clear. The arms are the filaments I refer to.

My problem was more with the "photo of the Milky Way" part, which is impossible, unless we've got photographer buddies in the Andromeda Galaxy.

As I said, its very hard (if not impossible) to categorize the shape of galaxies with one statement, they are all so amazingly varied. I should have said there are very, very few galaxies that are spherical in shape. They nearly all shows a filamentary nature with the structure of their arms. Even most Ellipticals are highly flattened ellipsoids, not spherical.

Something like only 15% of all galaxies are spirals. The majority are dwarf galaxies, which tend to be elliptical or simply irregular blobs.
 
Zeuzzz said:
No charge is needed. Peratt, or anyone else, certainly doesn't mention a charge on stars in any of their publications. You could add a large charge on the surface due to a double layer (which is what drives the heliospheric current circuit/solar wind acceleration/coronal heating) but this would generally be cancelled out by the surrounding space.

Then please explain to us here, explicitly, how the motion of the stars in the galaxies are influenced by the galactic magnetic field.
How much current must flow along the galactic magnetic field to accelerate or decelerate the star to its appropriate velocity as compared to the Kepler velocity of the star?
In this case the field aligned current will enter the star and flow through the star perpendicular to the magnetic field, and the exit again and flow along the field lines again. (although I know you don't believe in field lines, but humour me for the moment) The ac/decelerating force on the star would then be created by the JxB force (like in the Io plasma torus, speeding up the plasma to corotation with Jupiter).

Show us the math, show us that it is reasonable, show us how big the TOTAL current has to be to let a galaxy of a few billion stars rotate correctly.
 
Do you understand Gravito-electrodynamics? or not?

Gravito-electrodynamics has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic. You might think it is the combination of gravity and electodynamics, but it is not, it has to do with how you can rewrite relativity and find that the equations for "mass currents" and "charges" make that "gravity" can also be written in equations that are very similar to Maxwell's equations. But let's not go there, this is really off topic.

From the quote of Peratt's book, that you gave here, I get the impression that gravity only plays a role in getting a dense cloud, the star formation (as most PC/EU proponents claim) is done through z-pinches and Bennett pinches in "Birkeland currents."




Zeuzzz said:
Strange then that the reputable journal astrophysics and space science published his results for the morphology and properties of the neutral Hi regions for various different galaxies in 1996, using new coding in supercomputer facilities, before he started work on other areas. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.244...89P

And since then he has refined the computer model of plasmas, which also produce very well galaxy formation, which are discussed in great detail in these two publications published in journals in 1998:

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

Well, ApSS is not really highly regarded in the scientific community, it is a rather second class journal, and often is used to put in symposium proceedings (similar to Space Science Review).

First class journals are: Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Journal of Geophyiscal Research, Geophysical Research Letters and Annales Geophysicae.
 
What the........?

Which orbits do you refer to?

Binary orbits? No need for all powerful dark matter.........

Galactic orbits? No need for all powerful dark matter within a certain galactic radius............


What the fred right back at you!

Star clusters orbits faster than they should, the outer stars in a galaxy plane rotate faster than they should (given gravity - darkmatter).

You know better than this Wangler.
 
Zeuzzz, answer the question:

How does the Perrat model or any PC model account for the flat rotation curve of galaxies?

So far you refuse to answer the question. Yo change the subject, you say you have answered it, you poke holes in other theories.

You are getting more like BAC, you are knowing you can't answer the questions.

You pretend to answer it, you pretend that you have in the past, but just like when I asked you to explain how the sun's structure scales and relates to Birkeland's iron ball. You avoid the question.

You do know that the spiral arms of galaxies are an artifact of rotation. they do not have a 'semi rigid field' structure, another claim you have substantiated.

C'mon admit it it.

You haven't answered the question:

How does the Perrat model or any PC model account for the flat rotation curve of galaxies?
 
Then please explain to us here, explicitly, how the motion of the stars in the galaxies are influenced by the galactic magnetic field.
How much current must flow along the galactic magnetic field to accelerate or decelerate the star to its appropriate velocity as compared to the Kepler velocity of the star?
In this case the field aligned current will enter the star and flow through the star perpendicular to the magnetic field, and the exit again and flow along the field lines again. (although I know you don't believe in field lines, but humour me for the moment) The ac/decelerating force on the star would then be created by the JxB force (like in the Io plasma torus, speeding up the plasma to corotation with Jupiter).

Show us the math, show us that it is reasonable, show us how big the TOTAL current has to be to let a galaxy of a few billion stars rotate correctly.


And then there are the pesky star clusters as well.
 
Well, ApSS is not really highly regarded in the scientific community, it is a rather second class journal, and often is used to put in symposium proceedings (similar to Space Science Review).

First class journals are: Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Journal of Geophyiscal Research, Geophysical Research Letters and Annales Geophysicae.

Good point. And even in ApJ, AJ, A&A, etc., it's amazing how much stuff gets accepted that is shortly shown to be wrong. But hey, that's the progress of science!
 
What the fred right back at you!

Star clusters orbits faster than they should, the outer stars in a galaxy plane rotate faster than they should (given gravity - darkmatter).

You know better than this Wangler.

DD,

I agree that stars in galactic orbits of sufficiently large radius do not rotate as slow as they should.

Stars closer to the galactic bulge follow a Keplerian drop off quite nicely.

Star clusters, I am not sure of. Are you taking about globulars, or galactic clusters? Any references or further information?
 
Tubbythin: But gravity isn't strong enough to maintain stars in their orbits without dark matter. Hence if Perratt's model requires gravity to explain stellar orbits, it also requires dark matter.

Wangler: What the........?

Which orbits do you refer to?

Binary orbits? No need for all powerful dark matter.........

Galactic orbits? No need for all powerful dark matter within a certain galactic radius............


Which "galactic radius" would that be, Wangler? And how would Peratt's model explain the orbits of stars, around the galactic nucleus, beyond that radius (sans DM)?

I am not sure, but there may exist a common "galactic radius", beyond which the rotation curve flattens out. You know, some relationship between that point and the total mass of the galaxy, for example.

I just wanted to make the point that TT did not have any qualifiers in his discussion of star orbits. Not every star orbit in the universe requires "dark matter" to explain.

As far as Peratt's model, I am not sure. If I had to conjecture, I would say that there was some constant EM field extending throughout the galaxy, and for large radius orbits, it would tend to add velocity over and beyond what could be expected from gravity alone. Of course, there are myriad other problems with a supposition such as this. I'm not qualified to pinch-hit for Zeeeuuuuussssss.
 
Then please explain to us here, explicitly, how the motion of the stars in the galaxies are influenced by the galactic magnetic field.
How much current must flow along the galactic magnetic field to accelerate or decelerate the star to its appropriate velocity as compared to the Kepler velocity of the star?
In this case the field aligned current will enter the star and flow through the star perpendicular to the magnetic field, and the exit again and flow along the field lines again. (although I know you don't believe in field lines, but humour me for the moment) The ac/decelerating force on the star would then be created by the JxB force (like in the Io plasma torus, speeding up the plasma to corotation with Jupiter).

Show us the math, show us that it is reasonable, show us how big the TOTAL current has to be to let a galaxy of a few billion stars rotate correctly.


I read somewhere that the accepted magnetic field of the galaxy could account for about 10% of the stellar velocity discrepancy at large galactic radii.

So, a field about 10 times as large as commonly accepted would do nicely.

A ball park for the field in the halo is 2.5 microGauss, so about 25 microGauss might do the trick.
 

Back
Top Bottom