Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

you tell me why dark matter needed to be postulated in the first place?

Because it was observed.

No NO and NO, is was inferred(postulated) via observation, correct Sol Invictus?

Time for a little back peddling my friend!

There is no "proof" Dark matter exists!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just in case you misunderstood your own question, THERE is NO dark matter under the EU/PC paradigm!

Unless....DARK MATTER



Or I'm completely wrong on what dark matter HYPOTHETICAL is, or it's POSTULATED effects on the OBSERVED flat galaxy rotations and the BB (GR & SR) COMPLETE FAILURE to PREDICT the mass of the Universe!

So agin there is no missing mass or galaxiy rotation problem under EU/PC paradigm, now the BB on the other hand as one big arse problem with "missing" mass

That's what I understood you to say, thanks for confirming it.

And that's why I asked "so have you declared that you can show - quantitatively, in detail - how all the relevant astronomical observations can be explained, using just the list in post 1742?"

After all, the astronomical observations are what they are, and I expect that you intend to account for them, using this "EU/PC paradigm".

So, once again, do you intend to account for all* the relevant astronomical observations, quantitatively?

* the list is much, much more extensive than just the rotation curves of some spiral galaxies; did you read the JREF Forum thread - that I started - that I provided a link to?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

No NO and NO, is was inferred(postulated) via observation, correct Sol Invictus?

Time for a little back peddling my friend!

There is no "proof" Dark matter exists!

But there are observations, millions and millions of them.

Again, you are going - or intend - to account for them all, aren't you?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure.

Do you understand just how different the following two are?

I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list

AND

My Revised EU/PC assumptions [are]

Yes, the REVISED list is less ambiguous than the first list.

Thanks for the clarification.

It would seem that we have a massive failure to communicate then.

In a later post - which may not be today, or even tomorrow - I'll try to explain better (since you seem to have not understood what I meant, my bad), and - more important - try to work out why we seem to having such difficulty.

 

[Sol88]

DeiRenDopa wrote:

That's what I understood you to say, thanks for confirming it.

And that's why I asked "so have you declared that you can show - quantitatively, in detail - how all the relevant astronomical observations can be explained, using just the list in post 1742?"

After all, the astronomical observations are what they are, and I expect that you intend to account for them, using this "EU/PC paradigm".

So, once again, do you intend to account for all* the relevant astronomical observations, quantitatively?

That is the focus of this thread! and the reason so much focus was put into all participants agreeing on the items in the LIST in post 1742 again posted for clarity.

My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

With just a fifteen point list and within the scope of this thread, my intentions are to show

all* the relevant astronomical observations, quantitatively?

So do we agree on the dark matter issue?

 

[Sol88]

If so, this will be a most interesting thread! (and you'll likely win all sorts of awards and honours, if you succeed).

That is not my intention, awards and honours mean very little to me, what does mean a lot to me is waking the new generation of "scientist" from the consensus trance!

From there the Universe is our oyster!

 

[Sol88]

DRD wrote:

Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence - a JREF Forum thread started by DRD.

If you want history, be prepared to do a lot of reading ... it's a rich and wonderfully absorbing one, full of examples of astronomy (and astrophysics) at its finest.

Oh MY GOD!!!

Have you read your own thread sport!

Just a few choice snippets

Key term: by "CDM" I will mean 'non-baryonic cold, dark matter'.

'Cold' refers to the average speed of this matter with respect to the CMB frame of reference; basically it just says this stuff isn't zipping round the universe nearly at the speed of light, unlike cosmic rays and neutrinos (the former is an example of 'hot matter', the latter 'hot dark matter').

'Dark' refers to transparency to all forms of electromagnetic radiation; DM and photons are like two ships in the night, they pass each other by without either noticing the other. In practical, astronomical, terms this simply means DM does not emit light (or gamma rays, or x-rays, or ... or radio), nor does it absorb it.

'non-baryonic' means the CDM is made up of stuff other than the molecules, atoms, nuclei, and electrons we are made up of (and the Sun, and cosmic rays, and neutron stars, and dust, and gas, and ...). Neutrinos are 'non-baryonic'; however, they are not 'cold'. The question of whether black holes get counted as non-baryonic or not will be covered in the cases where it is necessary to eliminate them as a possible explanation for the various observations.

So, ok so far we all agree!

Well, galaxies

cannot hold together without CDM

or a force that acts just like CDM. It has been a toothache in cosmology that gravitational simulations of galaxies based on the mass that we can see and the velocities we observe do not result in a galaxy that does not fly apart.

very important the bold part!

Which we also all agree on!

Dancing David chipped in with

The observations are facts?

Stars rotate around galaxies as though there is more matter than we can see.

more "proof" of OBSERVATIONAL fact!

STARS rotate around galaxies is if there were more matter than VISIBLY observed!

We all agree on that as well!

DRD then wrote an exce;;ent example of OBSERVATIONAL evidence

observations concerning CDM in our Milky Way galaxy, and other galaxies
The main technique used to estimate the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies, as a function of radius from the centre (nucleus) is to derive a rotation curve from observations of the light (radio, etc; electromagnetic radiation - I'll use 'light' as a synonym) emitted by such galaxies.

One technique involves observing how the line of sight velocity changes with position; here is a concise but accurate summary of how it's done, using a 'long slit' spectrum, and emission lines in the visual waveband.

There are many other ways to obtain a spiral galaxy rotation curve, using different wavebands, different lines; integrated light from sizable chunks of the target galaxy, individual sources (e.g. HII regions, bright stars); and so on.

The results are the same: the curves either keep rising or flatten out, right out (radially) to where no more light seems to be coming from the galaxy.

Using textbook physics, these curves can be interpreted to mean that the mass 'closer in' to the centre of the galaxy (than at any radius) keeps increasing as the radius increases. In fact, no other standard physics textbook interpretation has been proposed, that is also consistent with all the relevant observations.

However, adding up all the mass in these galaxies, estimated from the light emitted (by stars, dust, and gas/plasma) or light absorbed (by dust and gas), gives totals that are just too small ... and the difference (between 'rotation curve mass' and 'stars/dust/gas mass') gets larger as the radius increases.

In addition to spiral galaxy rotation curves, the mass of galaxies can be estimated by several other techniques.

Beyond the faintest (integrated light) edges of galaxies are objects which are moving within the gravitational well of the galaxies. These objects include planetary nebulae, globular clusters, and satellite (dwarf) galaxies. Just as the rotation curves can be interpreted to estimate the total mass 'closer in' (using physics which Newton pioneered), the motions of these more distant objects can also be interpreted, using the same physics, to estimate the total mass 'closer in'. This work is much, much more challenging than rotation curves! However, it probes the mass of galaxies at considerably greater distances than rotation curves can reach, and also gives estimates of the mass of elliptical galaxies, which do not have rotation curves.

These observations can be interpreted as being consistent with the rotation curve observations - galaxies seem to have 'halos' of mass that extend way beyond their 'visible' edges. The density of this (dark) halo mass decreases with radial distance from the nucleus.

Some elliptical galaxies, typically the giants found near the centres of clusters, emit x-rays. The physics of such emission is easily understood from a different part of the standard physics textbook, and the x-ray emission can be interpreted as tracing the (radial) mass distribution in these ellipticals - basically, for the hot plasma that emits the x-rays to be 'trapped' in the giant elliptical galaxy, the galaxy must have a mass that lies between two robust limits. Again, galaxy masses estimated using this technique are consistent with those estimated from motions of globular clusters and planetary nebulae ... and again, the total mass is considerably greater than that estimated from all the light emitted or absorbed by the stars and gas/plasma (ellipticals have essentially no dust).

Some dwarf galaxies, in our Local Group, are close enough that the line of sight velocities of individual stars can be measured, and the distribution of stars within the galaxies accurately measured. Assuming these dwarf galaxies are gravitationally bound, these observations can be interpreted, using standard textbook (Newtonian) physics to give estimates of the total mass of these dwarf galaxies. The results are both astonishing and unambiguous: these galaxies contain far, far more mass than is in the stars whose light we can detect (it's much the same with regard to gas/plasma; note that these galaxies have little dust).

Somewhat in contrast to rotation curves of spiral galaxies, interpretation of the observations using the other techniques I've briefly mentioned does not have to lead to firm conclusions about mass differences ... however, as far as I know, no alternative explanations (based on standard, textbook physics) have been proposed that are also consistent with the 'lensing' observations I will cover next.

So far, the parts of the standard physics textbooks used to interpret the millions of astronomical observations have been many, but have not included General Relativity (GR).

One last technique (two actually) involves estimating mass using GR, and is completely independent of all the techniques briefly described above. It is, to me at least, truly marvelous that 'GR observations' can be interpreted to arrive at conclusions that are completely consistent with the various other observations I've briefly described ... and this consistency across different techniques using different physics is surely one of the strongest indicators that 'unseen mass' is the right interpretation.

I'll bold the parts of think may be relevant to this topic!

And yes I read the thread DRD!

To summarize from a quote on absoluteastronomy.com

The rotation curve of a galaxy
Galaxy

A galaxy is a huge gravitation system of stars, interstellar medium, plasma , and unseen dark matter....
can be represented by a graph
Graph of a function

In mathematics, the graph of a function f is the collection of all ordered pairs). In particular, graph means the graphical representation of this collection, in the form of a curve or surface, together with axes, etc....
that plots the orbital velocity of the star
Star

A star is a massive, compact body of Plasma in outer space that is held together by its own gravity and, unlike a planet, is sufficiently massive to sustain nuclear fusion in a very dense, hot core region....
s or gas
Gas

A gas is one of the four main Phase , that subsequently appear as a solid material is subjected to increasingly higher temperatures....
in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential
Newtonian potential

The Newtonian potential is an operator in vector calculus that acts as the inverse to the negative Laplacian, on functions that are smooth and decay rapidly enough at infinity....
. The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies
Spiral galaxy

A spiral galaxy is a type of galaxy in the Galaxy classification which is characterizedby the following physical properties:...
and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter
Dark matter

In astrophysics, dark matter refers to matter that does not emission or reflection enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravity effects on visible matter....
that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo
Dark matter halo

Most of the mass of any galaxy is dominated by a component concentrated at the centre of the galaxy but dominating its dynamics throughout, known as the dark matter halo....
.

Whats the scoop there? that's the second time a cut and paste has added the information form a hyperlink automatically.

It was superposed to read

The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas (plasma??) in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo

Is that a succinct enough summery?

 

[Sol88]

So from the LIST

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
9. Dust can behave as plasma.

We could logical explain mainstreams dark matter problem, with standard text book PLASMA physics, as we all agreed on in the list.

Charles M. Snell1 and Anthony L. Peratt1
(1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USAVia springerlink

Abstract The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show lsquoflatrsquo rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

Do you get it DeiRenDopa???

Standard text book plasma physics

So yes I agree there is a "missing mass" with standard Newtonian, General and special relativity physics, but NOT with plasma physics!

End of DARK matter story in relation to this thread

Or are you Saying Snell and Perratt by implication Alfven are incorrect on the assumption of PLASMA behavior?

Please try and allay my confusion here!

 

[BenBurch]

The very definition of woo.

 

[Ziggurat]

So yes I agree there is a "missing mass" with standard Newtonian, General and special relativity physics, but NOT with plasma physics!

I haven't done the calculations for the effect of a magnetic field on plasmas, but I have calculated the effects of a magnetic field on the galactic orbit of our sun. Guess what the result was? The force was about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the actual centripetal force on the sun towards the galactic center. Not a factor of 20, but a factor of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. And since stars are not observed to rotate significantly differently from dust and plasma clouds, that means that magnetic forces are not a significant contributor to galactic rotation curves. Peratt's simulations are cute, but ultimately irrelevant.

Or are you Saying Snell and Perratt by implication Alfven are incorrect on the assumption of PLASMA behavior?

They're wrong if they think that their calculation accurately describes the rotation of stars. But since stars and plasma are seen to rotate together, it can't be a correct description of the rotation of plasmas either. In fact, that alone (that stars and plasmas co-rotate) is pretty damned suggestive that the mechanism is gravity.

Edit: I did the calculations here, for anyone interested. And I misremembers, it's not 20 orders of magnitude, it's 22.

 

[sol invictus]

No NO and NO, is was inferred(postulated) via observation, correct Sol Invictus?

Nope. It was directly observed.

Time for a little back peddling my friend!

On your part, more than a little.

There is no "proof" Dark matter exists!

Science can never prove anything. But the evidence for DM is absolutely overwhelming.

 

[Sol88]

sol invictus

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
No NO and NO, is was inferred(postulated) via observation, correct Sol Invictus?

Nope. It was directly observed.

you are talking about dark matter being directly observed here aren't you?

'Cos that's news to me!

I've seen a nice picture of the bullet cluster that is supposed to be directly observational evidence of dark matter!

And if the same rule applies to "looking" at pictures that EU/PC proponents have to adhere to, then it's hypocritical to say look at this picture.

Ziggurat wrote:

I haven't done the calculations for the effect of a magnetic field on plasmas, but I have calculated the effects of a magnetic field on the galactic orbit of our sun. Guess what the result was? The force was about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the actual centripetal force on the sun towards the galactic center. Not a factor of 20, but a factor of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. And since stars are not observed to rotate significantly differently from dust and plasma clouds, that means that magnetic forces are not a significant contributor to galactic rotation curves. Peratt's simulations are cute, but ultimately irrelevant.

And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

I haven't done the calculations for the effect of a magnetic field on plasmas,[

Whaaaat!!

 

[Reality Check]

No NO and NO, is was inferred(postulated) via observation, correct Sol Invictus?

Time for a little back peddling my friend!

There is no "proof" Dark matter exists!

Totally wrong Sol88.
There are 2 actual observations of dark matter (as per my signature).

• The Bullet Cluster.
  

  The major components of the cluster pair, stars, gas and the putative dark matter, behave differently during collision, allowing them to be studied separately. The stars of the galaxies, observable in visible light, were not greatly affected by the collision, and most passed right through, gravitationally slowed but not otherwise altered. The hot gas of the two colliding components, seen in X-rays, represents most of the mass of the ordinary (baryonic) matter in the cluster pair. The gases interact electromagnetically, causing the gases of both clusters to slow much more than the stars. The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by the gravitational lensing of background objects. In theories without dark matter, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics, the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter; i.e. the X-ray gas. However, the lensing is strongest in two separated regions near the visible galaxies. This provides support for the idea that most of the mass in the cluster pair is in the form of collisionless dark matter.

• A Clash of Clusters Provides New Clue to Dark Matter
  

  A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory. The observations of the cluster known as MACS J0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated the dark from ordinary matter and provide an independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster. These new results show that the Bullet Cluster is not an anomalous case.

Note the first quote has a section in bold. That could equally read
"In theories without dark matter, such as Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe, the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter; i.e. the X-ray gas."

In other words these observations are falsifications of PC/EU.

 

[Reality Check]

sol invictus

you are talking about dark matter being directly observed here aren't you?

'Cos that's news to me!

As soon as you read the actual facts then it will not longer be news to you.

I've seen a nice picture of the bullet cluster that is supposed to be directly observational evidence of dark matter!

The picture is not really of the bullet cluster - it is a composite image of an actual NASA photo of the cluster. The actual mesured distribution of the hot gas has been added in red. The actual mesured distribution of the dark matter has been added in blue.

And if the same rule applies to "looking" at pictures that EU/PC proponents have to adhere to, then it's hypocritical to say look at this picture.

EU/PC proponent have never shown pictures of dark matter.
They have plenty of pictures that they hav misinterpreted though. They have a number of pictures that they lie about, e.g. Zeuzzz's "image" of the Milky Way with filaments (lines that he has added) that have nothing to do with PC cosmic filaments (but this may be a case of PC ignorance by Zeuzzz).

Ziggurat wrote:
And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

How are they wrong? Start by stating the calculations and then tell us at what point he went wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

And BTW your calculations are wrong! The maths maybe correct but your calculations are wrong!

Yeah, um... no. If I didn't make a math mistake, then the only possible sources of error are if I'm using the wrong equation or my input values are wrong. But it's the right equation, and the values I used are standard values, so the burden is on you if you think non-standard values should be used. On this board, it really doesn't cut the mustard to simply declare a calculation wrong: you need to be able to show why.

 

[Sol88]

Do you understand Sol Invictus, dark matter???

The proof

From NASA A Matter of Fact

The discovery cements dark matter's status as the biggest building block in the universe, while also putting to rest the nagging worries of many astronomers that they gambled wrong.

snip

Dark matter's murky nature has always sat a bit uneasily with astronomers. "It is uncomfortable for a scientist to have to invoke something invisible and undetectable to account for 90 percent of the matter in the universe," said Maxim Markevitch, a Chandra astrophysicist and researcher with the study.

The list see point 1

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.

This point is VERY important!!

reading further

One of the main arguments for the existence of dark matter involves galaxies and their clusters. Galaxies whip through space at enormous speeds and are searing with hot clouds of gas. Speed and heat of galaxies should cause them to fly apart, but they don't. A leading explanation for this is that the gas and stars are held together by the gravity of dark matter. Belief in dark matter is widespread across the scientific community, but astronomers don't know what it's made of. Still, they believe it acts like it has mass and exerts gravity, yet is invisible and can't bump, touch or crash into anything.

Whoaa!! Just so there is no confusion are they talking about searing hot "gas" or plasma?

Cos just a little further

The amount of matter, or "mass," in a galaxy is made up mostly of the gas that surrounds it. Stars, planets, moons and other objects count too, but a majority of the mass still comes from the hot, glowing clouds of hydrogen and other gases.

We could call this plasma as well, can't we?

The gas clouds from the merging galaxies, however, found the going much tougher. As the clouds ran together, the rubbing and bumping of their gas molecules caused friction to develop. The friction slowed the clouds down, while the stars they contained kept right on moving. Before long, the galaxies slipped out of the gas clouds and into clear space.

With the galaxies in open space, Chandra scientists found dark matter hiding.

Friction?? Bumping and rubbing??? Gas clouds???

For the first time in history, astronomers caught dark matter at work.

"These results prove that dark matter exists," declared Clowe.

So there it is, bright as starlight: Dark matter matters, as a matter of fact.

Ok it's only a press release but it gets the point across!

What I'm at a lost to explain is, why exactly are they talking about searing hot gas, bumping and rubbing into each other causing friction and drag as some sort of proof of dark matter, when in fact it's plasma doing plasma "stuff" without the NEED for DARK MATTER, as Snell and Peratt stated

Charles M. Snell1 and Anthony L. Peratt1
(1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USAVia springerlink
Quote:
Abstract The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show lsquoflatrsquo rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

And according to the LIST plasma behaves like plasma! i.e. it is not a fluid or gas but an electrically conductive medium!

 

[Reality Check]

I haven't done the calculations for the effect of a magnetic field on plasmas

Whaaaat!!

You need to read the entire post (bold added):

They're wrong if they think that their calculation accurately describes the rotation of stars. But since stars and plasma are seen to rotate together, it can't be a correct description of the rotation of plasmas either. In fact, that alone (that stars and plasmas co-rotate) is pretty damned suggestive that the mechanism is gravity.

Edit: I did the calculations here, for anyone interested. And I misremembers, it's not 20 orders of magnitude, it's 22.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I'm at a lost to explain is, why exactly are they talking about searing hot gas

Because that's the visible part of galaxies: the bit we can see directly.

bumping and rubbing into each other causing friction and drag

That's what ordinary matter can do. And it happens via electromagnetic interactions. But dark matter doesn't interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic interactions (if it did, it wouldn't be dark), so it cannot do that.

as some sort of proof of dark matter,

The "bumping and rubbing" bit isn't the proof of dark matter: the fact that ordinary matter doesn't fly apart is the evidence for dark matter.

when in fact it's plasma doing plasma "stuff" without the NEED for DARK MATTER, as Snell and Peratt stated

Snell and Peratt's model doesn't explain galactic rotation curves. I already pointed you to the calculations. You think my calculations are wrong, but are unable to explain why.

And according to the LIST plasma behaves like plasma! i.e. it is not a fluid or gas but an electrically conductive medium!

Plasma gets referred to as a gas in the general press because that's what people understand. And in many ways, plasmas do behave just like gasses (for example, they can follow the ideal gas law fairly well), so it's really good enough for the purposes of that story. In fact, there isn't even a clean dividing line between gas and plasma - there's no phase transition between the two states.

 

[Sol88]

EU/PC proponent have never shown pictures of dark matter.

Get with the program blondie!

The EU/PC does not NEED dark matter so you are correct in your statement that

EU/PC proponent have never shown pictures of dark matter.

and you'll be hard pressed to find one that will!

Because just using plasma physics the rotational problem is NOT A PROBLEM IT DOES NOT EXSIST, but if you are stuck in your it's gotta be gravity only view well...

 

[Ziggurat]

Because just using plasma physics the rotational problem is NOT A PROBLEM IT DOES NOT EXSIST

You can keep saying that all you want to, it's still not true. And I already demonstrated why. The calculations are actually quite easy, they're freshman level physics. You claim that my calculations are wrong, but can't say why. That's... rather telling.