Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.

 

[Dancing David]

My friend you tripp'n? irrelevant wouldn't be the word I'd have used!




Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not, pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!

That is a silly thing to say. He can and could prove his theory with the Sloan Survey.

But that would show his statistics to be bogus and appalling. It is not an issue of scope time, you are aware of the number of Arp objects observed by Hubble aren't you?

The problem is he is using really backwards statistics. He could do it the right way, but that is his problem.

Using teh Sloan Sirvey he could show that there are control groups and standard deviations, then he could show that his sample of galaxy/QSO associations rise to any sort of significance.

Ooops, he doesn't use control groups!

If you say so, but it's not your job to say over and over again and tell readers here the dogma YOU believe, when most people here can learn for themselves.

Yeah and let us see what you have other than the same old , same old.

Arp is a bad place to start, great man. Can't seem to understand how statitics work.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thank you for the link sol88 to yet another really old paper (1988!). Astonomy has progressed quite a bit in the last 30 years.

The abstract has "It is found that a large number of current filaments (greater than 10 to the 31st) are needed to make the radiation spectrum blackbody up to the observed measured frequency of 100 GHz.". This is the 1988 observed measured frequency.

A good scientist would use the WMAP (or the earlier COBE data) and update their prediction. So what is the latest prediction from Peter, William; Peratt, Anthony L.?

You missed these questions about their other paper:
Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed?

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions?

In addition:
How does the thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents reproduce the observed power spectrum of the CMB?
This is quite important. Peter and Peratt (or a colleague?) will certainly have published a paper with a match to the power spectrum from their theory. Otherwise the theory is not worth much.

You know what's disappointing?

We already went through this - and considerably more - with Z, many pages ago.

Who'd've predicted that a new member, a self-declared ardent fan of PC/EU, would trot out the very same papers!?

Sol88, Z has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of some, for his consistent behaviour in introducing material like this and then abandoning all subsequent discussion on it, specifically, in ignoring challenges and questions on it.

I see from the ~1 day you've been posting here that you have already left a trail of unanswered questions about material you yourself posted.

Just like Z.

Do you think it would help if I began each of my posts with a repetition of all the unanswered questions? Of course, I shall be careful to include only those directly relevant to the topic of this thread (whether PC is (scientific) woo or not) ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.

What is this image, Z?

I tried the link, without the .jpg part, and got this: http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/

"Lepton-Quark Studies Group, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, M.I.T."

Not exactly what I'd've expected, in terms of a source for the structure of the MW.

And the "image" itself ... isn't it merely an artist's impression?

If so, then whatever "highly filametary structure" anyone can see in it surely comes from the artist's own mind, doesn't it?

What does this have to do with the Milky Way galaxy in which we live?

 

[Sol88]

Yeah and let us see what you have other than the same old , same old.

Arp is a bad place to start, great man. Can't seem to understand how statitics work.

Ahhh...sorry I'm a bit slow, I can see now it's a bit of a witch hunt for the poor ol bugger for daring to call into question a foundation block of the BB cosmology

but he's not the only one

How's about

Martin L. Bernet1, Francesco Miniati1, Simon J. Lilly1, Philipp P. Kronberg2,3 & Miroslava Dessauges–Zavadsky4

Abstract

Abstract

The origin and growth of magnetic fields in galaxies is still something of an enigma1. It is generally assumed that seed fields are amplified over time through the dynamo effect2, 3, 4, 5, but there are few constraints on the timescale. It was recently demonstrated that field strengths as traced by rotation measures of distant (and hence ancient) quasars are comparable to those seen today6, but it was unclear whether the high fields were in the unusual environments of the quasars themselves or distributed along the lines of sight. Here we report high-resolution spectra that demonstrate that the quasars with strong Mg ii absorption lines are unambiguously associated with larger rotation measures. Because Mg ii absorption occurs in the haloes of normal galaxies7, 8, 9, 10, 11 along the sightlines to the quasars, this association requires that organized fields of surprisingly high strengths are associated with normal galaxies when the Universe was only about one-third of its present age.

This questions the distance/age assumption of the BB.

As does NGC 7319

“If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe,” he adds. “If this is the case, this discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away and can be used to do cosmology.”

maybe this The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319

Abstract

A strong X-ray source only 8'' from the nucleus of the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 7319 in Stephan's Quintet has been discovered by Chandra. We have identified the optical counterpart and show that it is a QSO with ze = 2.114. It is also an ultraluminous X-ray source with LX = 1.5 × 1040 ergs s-1. From the optical spectra of the QSO and the interstellar gas of NGC 7319 together, we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas.

So lay off the poor fela, shooting the messenger does not change the message!

Could it be the redshift=expansion is wrong???

Naahh

'Cos it solves a whole lot more problems than redshift=distance/age ASSUMPTION that mainstream MUST repeat MUST hang onto. otherwise...

Simple really

 

[Sol88]

You know what's disappointing?

We already went through this - and considerably more - with Z, many pages ago.

Who'd've predicted that a new member, a self-declared ardent fan of PC/EU, would trot out the very same papers!?

Sol88, Z has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of some, for his consistent behaviour in introducing material like this and then abandoning all subsequent discussion on it, specifically, in ignoring challenges and questions on it.

I see from the ~1 day you've been posting here that you have already left a trail of unanswered questions about material you yourself posted.

Just like Z.

Do you think it would help if I began each of my posts with a repetition of all the unanswered questions? Of course, I shall be careful to include only those directly relevant to the topic of this thread (whether PC is (scientific) woo or not) ...

sure mate go right ahead, but whats good for the goose...

Shall I start my post with your unanswered questions?

Lets clear a few up then eh?

Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed? No

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions? Don't now them personaly, maybe you could ask them next time you see 'em?

How does the thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents reproduce the observed power spectrum of the CMB? Did'nt that recieve some attention a few post ago or are we missing each other here?

More?

 

[Reality Check]

Dude you do not really grasp the concept here do you?

You tell me what a Birkeland current has to do with cosmology!

Absolutely nothing since

1. A Birkeland current is a "specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphere^WP".
2. You have presented absolutley no evidence that Birkeland current exist on the comic scale.

 

[Sol88]

Dude, dude and dude

Absolutely nothing since

1. A Birkeland current is a "specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphereWP".

Did your copy and paste not extend a bit further? I'll add it then

A Birkeland current is a specific magnetic field aligned current in the Earth’s magnetosphere which flows from the magnetotail towards the Earth on the dawn side and in the other direction on the dusk side of the magnetosphere. Lately, the term Birkeland currents has been expanded by some authors to include magnetic field aligned currents in general space plasmas.

My bold!

Typical

 

[Sol88]

Zigurat wrote

Quote:
Is long range attractive, short range repulsive a property a gravity?
Are you for real? Gravity is attractive at all ranges. Everyone knows that.

And there my friend is your problem, that's all gravity does!!! Hence your need to make up Dark matter/energy to explain acceleration

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO

 

[Reality Check]

Why would you need papers to demonstrate this when the vast majority of galaxies can patently been seen to have a highly filamentary struture (with the exceptions of a few more unqiue types, of course, galaxies are inherently varied in their structure and shape)

The proof is in the pudding. To make the theory of a gravity centric universe fit with observations you have no choice but to come up with the Big Bang as an intial starting point, and these formations are merely a transient step in galaxy formation, that can NOT be sustained in the long term due to the exclusively attractive nature of the gravitational field.

Lets take for example a certain galaxy you may be familiar with. The Milky way.

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


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.227..175W

Their gravitational solution does not make sense btw (why its not very cited and has not been picked up). And neither does the plasma cosmology explanation either due to the potential (or lack thereof) of net charge on stars. Which is where you start getting into Electric universe theories and net charges on stars as a potential explanation. Peratts model works amazingly well at explaining galaxy formation and structure on galactic scales based on large scale plasma filaments (extremely well infact), but falls down at explaining them at lower stellar scales.

Which ever scale is the most important to explain fully is where the argument will likely never be resolved. One works on the large scale but falls down at the lower stellar/planetary scales, the other works very well on the stellar planetary scale but falls down on the larger scale. Both should be considered on their individual merits, as there a problems with both.

You are showing your ignorance Zeuzzz.
For a start we are talking about Birkeland currents not arbitrary filamentary structures. In order for the filaments to be be Birkeland currents you need to quote the paper showing the currents in them.

There are good explanations of galactic structure including the filaments. This includes the fact that these are long term structures.

You are back to your usual non-science:

• "net charges on stars as a potential explanation" is totally impossible since the maximum charge is many orders of magnitude too small (was it 10¹⁶ or 10²⁷ or something in between? - you should be able to tell us Zeuzzz).
• Peratts model works amazingly well at showing nothing at all since it is wrong:
  • He ignores gravity - his simulation software is a plasma simulation package.
  • He compares his simulation to photos of galaxies not actual mass distributions of galaxies.
  • He predicts galactic plasma filaments as wide as galaxies and 10,000's of light years long that have large currents. These have never been detected.
  • What has been detected in actual observations is dark matter. Peratts model requires that dark matter does not exist.

 

[Reality Check]

can someone just say whether they are able to see the clearly highly filametary structure of the milky way. If not then I cant see how this conversation is ever going to progress.

http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~LQS/Milky_Way_galaxy_sun05.jpg

What sustains the filamentary structure?

Either Peratts model explains it in one easy step, or gravitational theories explain it but with ad hoc metaphysical entities lacking in situ experimental evidence placed in the exact right places to sustain the structure explain it.

I cannot see the "clearly highly filametary structure".
I can see the spiral arms that have been explained using gravitational theories that include actual physical entities.

 

[Reality Check]

Dude, dude and dude

Did your copy and paste not extend a bit further? I'll add it then

My bold!

Typical

"Lately, the term Birkeland currents has been expanded by some authors to include magnetic field aligned currents in general space plasmas."
may not mean what you think it means, especially since there is no citation for that.

There is a difference space plasmas in general (they exist) and the cosmic plasma filaments (no evidence that these exist) with Birkeland currents required by some of the mutually inconsistent theories included in the umbrella of PC.

 

[Reality Check]

Zigurat wrote

And there my friend is your problem, that's all gravity does!!! Hence your need to make up Dark matter/energy to explain acceleration

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO

YES: Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics

 

[Sol88]

Oh I see I have to hold your hand

You have presented absolutely no evidence that Birkeland current exist on the comic scale.

Ok cosmic scale Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode so we do not "see" them, though we do pick up there radio and magnetic signatures and when they enter glow mode mainstream call them Jets, ever heard of them or shall we go for a walk down that garden path as well?

Looksie here

Summary: A laboratory plasma experiment shows how magnetic forces can help explain the for-
mation of astrophysical jets.
Astrophysical jets are one of the truly exotic sights in the universe. How they form is a curious
mystery. They are usually associated with accretion disks, which are disks of matter spiraling into
a massive central object such as a black hole. The jets are narrow, fast, and extend for extreme
distances along the disk axis. Jets and accretion disks are known to accompany widely varying
types of astrophysical objects, ranging from infant star systems to binary stars to galactic nuclei.
While the mechanism for jet formation is the subject of much debate, many theoretical models
predict that jets form as the result of magnetic forces.
Now, plasma physicists at the California Institute

So how'd they do that in the lab, let see...

By placing two concentric copper electrodes and
a coaxial coil in a large vacuum vessel and driving as much as 150 kilo-Amperes of electric current
through a hydrogen plasma, they have succeeded in producing jet-like structures [Fig. 1(a)] that
not only resemble those in astronomical images, but also develop remarkable helical instabilities
[Fig. 1(b)] that could help explain the wiggled structure observed in some astrophysical jets.

Amazing! Electricity and magnetic fields might have something to do with there formation, whood of thunk that

 

[Reality Check]

Oh I see I have to hold your hand



Ok cosmic scale Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode so we do not "see" them, though we do pick up there radio and magnetic signatures and when they enter glow mode mainstream call them Jets, ever heard of them or shall we go for a walk down that garden path as well?

Yes. Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Zigurat wrote

And there my friend is your problem, that's all gravity does!!! Hence your need to make up Dark matter/energy to explain acceleration

And PLEASE answer the question, can we scale gravity down to work with in a lab?

YES or NO
YES: Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics

And the results?

I like the little caveat on the bottom

© 1987-2008 Eöt-Wash Group. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, DOE or NASA. Trouble? Comments? Contact cah49#at#u.washington.edu

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88
P.S. About the Wikipedia article on Birkeland current: If you had taken the time to read further down you would have seen a section on Cosmic Birkeland currents!

This section is strange since it states "Plasma physicists suggest that many structures in the universe exhibiting filamentation are due to Birkeland currents" and then only mentions one plasma physicist as a bit of text ("Peratt (1992)") rather than a citation.

Of course the weakness of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article. The fact that this section generalizes, only mentions Peratt and has no citations suggests a PC proponent has added it.

Personally I can accept that large scale Birkeland currents could exist but these will have no cosmological significance. It is a pity that there is no physical evidence for these large scale Birkeland currents!

 

[Reality Check]

And the results?

I like the little caveat on the bottom

Read the web site.

The "little caveat" is standard. The experiments that the group does are their experiments and they are responsible for "any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)" in the web site..

 

[sol invictus]

Why would you need papers to demonstrate this when the vast majority of galaxies can patently been seen to have a highly filamentary struture (with the exceptions of a few more unqiue types, of course, galaxies are inherently varied in their structure and shape)

Hey Zeuzzz - who took that picture of the milky way?

You're that ridiculously naive (I'll pick a nice word), aren't you?

The facts are that structure is not filamentary on cosmological scales (the scale of galaxy clusters or groups, that is). See here for example. The origin of spiral arms within galaxies is fairly well understood. But of course the arms are very little of the mass in galaxies - it's just that the matter there is luminous.

 

[Sol88]

Yes. Present your evidence for "Birkeland currents are operate mainly in dark mode" etc.

Do we "see" the ones that connect us to the sun? And are they really there?