Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Well, THE problem in this "discussion" is that the EU proponents never give us anything substantial, e.g. the simple question about the star around the galaxy.

Thats because the idea that EM forces could accelerate objects as massive as a star around a galaxy is absurd. Magnetospheres rule this out anyway. Peratts model works AMAZINGLY well at explaining galaxy structure on the large scale where exclusively gravity only theories fall flat on their face, whereas on the stellar scale Peratts model breaks down and exclusively gravity only theories explain it a lot better. Which scale needs the best explanation is what matters, and is a highly difficult and ambiguous question to answer. You have to start getting into paradoxical, sort of philosophical realms, to do with renormalization grouping and universality (like some of the complex ideas behind various Phase transitions, electrical breakdowns, plasma scaling, self-similarities, similarity transformation laws, problem of infinities in quantum field theories, etc, etc)

There are ways round this. But nothing defintive as of yet. A simple geometrical extention of gravity so it obeys the same geometric laws as EM forces (such as amperes law) could enable Peratts model to work without even using EM forces. The mass of the filaments would simply attract analagouly to the Boit Savart law and EM ideas used by Peratt. How on Earth you could prove gravity works like this however, with the weakness of gravity taken into account, is nigh on impossilbe. But with all the spooky gravitational wave quantum field big bounce superpositionally symetric loop gravity field theories being propsed nowadays, this proposition seems amazinly simple and plausable. But, using this assumption, you could just look at galaxy shapes and say this acts as proof in itself! But then again, plasma behaviour and complex non linear EM forces can (and most likely do) play a much larger role in all this than currently appreciated.

Again, instead of moaning about Peratts models here, why not email him personally and ask him any queries? You can find his email easily online.

And most of the time we (the deniers or the mainstreamers or whatever you want to call us) find out that the EU proponents don't have the foggiest idea about real (plasma)physics,

Na man, Have YOU read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven?* This gives a whole different perspective on plasmas behaviour, and while its a very old book now, the ideas therein still remain valid to this day and STILL underappreciated by most standard plasma models.

Theres a HUGE difference between your pseudoplasma with its mathematical elegance and simplicity, and the highly irratic and unpredictable reality of plasma behaviour. Some basic differences between pseudoplasma and plasma here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudo-plasma

Another bried look:

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wiki.htm

Cosmic plasma

Following the work of Kristian Birkeland,[16] Alfvén's research on plasma led him to develop the field of magnetohydrodynamics,[17] a theory that mathematically models plasma as magnetic fluid, and for which he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1970. However, Alfvén pointed out that magnetohydrodynamics is an approximation which is accurate only in dense plasmas,[18] like that of stars, where particles collide frequently. It is not valid in the much more dilute plasmas of the interstellar medium and intergalactic medium, where electrons and ions circle around magnetic field lines. Alfvén devoted a large portion of his Nobel address to attacking this "pseudo plasma" error.

Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas. These include:

* Scalability of plasma, [19]
* Birkeland currents, electric currents that form electric circuits in space,[20]
* Plasma double layers,[21]
* The cellular structure of plasma,[22]

Alfvén and his colleagues began to develop plasma cosmology in the 1960’s and 70’s as an extrapolation of their earlier highly successful theories of solar and solar-system phenomena.[23] They pointed out those extremely similar phenomena existed in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws. One scale invariant in plasmas is velocity, so that plasmas at scales from the laboratory up to supercluster of galaxies exhibit similar phenomena in a range of velocities from tens to a thousand kilometers per second. In turn this invariance means that the duration of plasma phenomena scales as their size, so that galaxies a hundred thousand light years across with characteristic evolution times of billions of years scale to transient laboratory-scale phenomena lasting a microsecond.

[16] ^ Birkeland, Kristian The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903 Vol. 1 "Vol. I.: On the Cause of Magnetic Storms and the Origin of Terrestrial Magnetism" Section 1 published 1908; Section 2 publ. 1913
[17] ^ Alfven, H., "Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves" (1942) Nature, Vol. 150, pp. 405
[18] ^ H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). See Table 5.3 "Survey of characteristic properties of plasmas and of single charges in high vacuum" (basis of table at Astrophysical plasmas)
[19] ^ H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963) See 4.2.2. Similarity Transformations
[20] ^ Alfvén, Hannes, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics," IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 14, p. 779, 1986 (on p. 787). See also: Peratt, Anthony (1992), Physics of the Plasma Universe, "Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma" (p.43-92)
[21] ^ Alfvén, H., "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "Double Layers in Astrophysics" (1986)
[22] ^ Alfvén, H., "Is the universe matter-antimatter symmetric?", Presented at the Particle Phys. Symp., Stockholm, 12 Jul. 1976
[23] ^ H. Alfvén, "On the cosmogony of the solar system", in Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler (1942) (Part I, Part II, Part III).

although they (Sol88, Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, brantc, etc. claim that the EU is all based on Hannes Alfvén's theories, but when asked to calculate something, one either draws a blank or one gets the answer that the EU math is not yet sufficient.

I'm not an EU proponent. I'm an EU skeptic, and can see woo when I see it. I'm am however a proponent of a plasma cosmology approach to cosmological models.

What calculations do you want? I'm more than capable, but no such request has been given if I can recall.

* Your posts about plasma behaviour indicate not. Though correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Plus, of course, neutron stars (which are not plasmas) can have very large magnetic fields, and can produce strong synchrotron radiation.

Indeedy. They can be literally charged up over 10,000 trillion volts. Neutron stars are another gravitational mythology, according to EU theories. [not entirely convinced myself]

But neurton stars and pulsars have a much more realistic explanation in peer reviewed plasma cosmology scientifc publications, that explains their pulses and radiation. Slightly similar to their model for Gamma Rays bursts. Do you know what this is, Zig? since you claimed to know previously that all of plasma cosmology and EU ideas are rubbish, I presume you already have your refutation ready. Go for it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

@ Anaconda. Welcome to JREF. You make some very valid points, keep it up! Though dont expect them to be well recieved here, you'll be called a crank, a crackpot, and cultist, and various other accusastions.

Best thing to do is not make such accusations back (like I've learnt to) and not stoop to their level, or you'll merely encourage such immature behviour.

 

[sol invictus]

I've asked qualified astrophysicists this question, where is an abstract of a scientific paper that deomstrates, "Synchrotron radiation also comes from disordered movement of electrons"? This is a technical question -- I won't take your say so, with all due respect.

If you knew any physics, you wouldn't need to take ben's "say so". Accelerated charged particles radiate. Magnetic fields accelerate charged particles. So obviously disordered movements of electrons will generate synchrotron radiation in the presence of B fields.

It is my understanding that there exists no scientific observation & measurement in the laboratory that supports your contention.

What an absurd thing to say.

Please provide citation to authority of a published scientific paper that demonstrates your contention.

It's going to be hard to find a paper that says precisely that - it's too basic.

"a chaotic magnetic field"???

Please provide documentation for that assertion. I've never heard the term "chaotic magnetic field". Again, a published scientific paper that discusses the actual laboratory experiment where "chaotic magnetic fields" were generated. Theoretical conjecture (hypothetical mathematical equations) doesn't count.

What are you talking about?

 

[Anaconda]

@ Ziggurat:

With all due respect, Ziggurat, it is not "mindless repretition" rather it is stating a fact that apparently you don't like.

Ziggurat states: "The only way that an electron's acceleration due to electricity would be 39 orders of magnitude larger than its acceleration due to gravity from the sun would be if the sun was made up exclusively of protons."

Ziggurat, you are adding a specific that wasn't in your original statement, I'll take your point, but exchange it for my point: Electromagnetism provides its own mechanisms for acceleration, it doesn't need gravity to achieve acceleration. And the stronger the electric and magnetic field the stronger the acceleration.

And in response to your example, I'll add my own example: The solar wind (electrons and ions in a charge seperated state), accelerates away from the Sun in the face of the Sun's gravity.

Reality Check stated: "That's nice. Too bad it's been experimentally demonstrated to be an incorrect model of actual galactic rotation."

Please provide authority for your statement in the way of citation to published scientific paper.

Reality Check: "I should say so. Most of its advocates can't even do freshman physics-level checks of consistency or order-of-magnitude calculations. You seem to be in that boat too."

Yes, that is true.

Reality Check: "Translation: "I can't do any calculations to support my ideas or make any specific predictions, but I can still wave my arms around so I'm not wrong."

There have been predictions made and then observed using electromagnetic theory.

But translating your response, I'm a pure mathematician and if you can't do the math you don't get to play.

Maybe, if you want to be a computer programmer, then you can make all kinds of "computer code" that as long as it's internally consistent need not have any attachment to the real world at all, and the program still works.

But that isn't true for science.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Here is a question for any EU/PC advocate who would like to respond:

RC said,

"No. See post 2040. This figure is only applicable to the attractive interaction between a single electron and a single proton, with no shielding. But that's not what the universe looks like: almost all the charge in the universe is shielded by opposite charges, almost all the matter in the universe has no net charge on the scale of cubic meters, let alone cubic lightyears. Gravity, however, cannot be shielded. And so gravity is FAR stronger than electromagnetism when you look at large length scales."

This was in response to the statement by A,

"Thanks for pointing out my error: Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity."

Now, I am not a physicist nor a cosmologist. I have a modest mathematical background and I am an enthusiast (for lack of a better term) of science -- especially physics and cosmology. Although, I have been following these discussions about EU/PC for many months now, for most of my life I have been exposed only to mainstream cosmology -- as a layman with an avid interest.
It seems to me that RC's comment is a powerful one. Electric charges cancel themselves out! Over large distances how could it be otherwise? -- unless vast parts of the universe were positive and vast parts negative --a situation that does not appear to exist. So, unless you can demonstrate something to the contrary with a cohesive model, including some mathematics of the correct order of magnitude, you have nothing but fantasies. How can you refute that?

 

[ben m]

@ ben m:

ben m states: "Wrong wrong wrong. Synchrotron radiation also comes from disordered movement of electrons---high-energy electrons moving in all directions through a chaotic magnetic field."

Good heavens; this isn't "modern astrophysics research", this is "how does an electron behave in a magnetic field"---it's in J.D.Jackson, "Electrodynamics", chapter 14, for example. If you don't think that single electrons emit synchrotron radiation, then your beef is with the good Dr. Maxwell, not with cosmologists. Synchrotron radiation happens for any electron in any magnetic field. Dare I cite H. Alfvén and N. Herlofson, Phys. Rev. 78, 616 (1950)? Note the lack of an N^2 term in the power equation, which would normally indicate coherence. You can find the "many electrons" case specifically discussed in Synchrotron Radiation Theory and Its Development in Memory of I M Ternov, page 388---please note that the source is specifically "isotropic" (="all directions"), that the power for many electrons is simply the integral over the power for one electron (="incoherent"), and so on.

Astrophysically speaking, real synchrotron radiation comprises a whole spectrum of phenomena ranging from "groups of electrons moving coherently in well-organized B-fields"---this extreme case being the cyclotron maser---and grading all the way up to, well, unpolarized high-energy emission from shocks and jets. Polarization (or lack thereof) tells you whether the source magnetic field has a preferred direction or is pointing in many directions.

It is too big a field for me to survey for you, especially if you're going to discard any subset of classical electrodynamics that you don't like. And---well, if you're one of those people who insists that "any plasma phenomenon seen on Earth scales up trivially to the Sun and Galaxy with all of the shapes intact", it's more than a little hypocritical for you to insist that synchrotron radiation (which, perhaps you're unaware, is produced on Earth on a daily basis, in perfect agreement with standard theory) fails some evidential test when we try to apply that theory in space.

Finally, I apologize for using the word "chaotic". I thought it would be easier for you to understand than "turbulent", "inhomogenous", "tangled" which are more common in the literature. Surely you don't think that all magnetic fields, even in violently disturbed patches of space plasma, are always neat and cartoony dipolar or zonal fields?

 

[Zeuzzz]

What an absurd thing to say.



It's going to be hard to find a paper that says precisely that - it's too basic.



What are you talking about?

Another one of these posts where you dont explain your accusations.

What are we supposed to say in responce to this? Just argue back? Please.

 

[Anaconda]

@ sol invictus:

Sol invictus states: "If you knew any physics, you wouldn't need to take ben's "say so". Accelerated charged particles radiate. Magnetic fields accelerate charged particles. So obviously disordered movements of electrons will generate synchrotron radiation in the presence of B fields."

That's not what I asked. I asked, can you produce authority?

I've already had one individual state there aren't any published papers.

If you can't produce authority then I assume synchrotron radiation can't be produced by thermal friction. Remember, science can produce heat in a laboratory, if it can be done, I would think there would be a published paper to that effect.

When somebody says, "obviously" for a point they have been challenged on and all they can say is "obviously", be doubtful.

sol victus, you don't carry the point.

sol victus presents my [Anaconda's] statement: "It is my understanding that there exists no scientific observation & measurement in the laboratory that supports your contention."

sol victus responds: "What an absurd thing to say."

On the contrary, it is quite reasonable in a scientfic discussion to request authority.

It's naivete to suggest observation & measurement is absurd. sol victus, you reveal yourself as a pure mathematician, no physical scientist would be so bald as to assert observation & measurement is absurd.

sol victus states: "It's going to be hard to find a paper that says precisely that - it's too basic."

I disagree, if it doesn't exist then you were speaking without authority.

And I will conclude the point as mine: Synchrotron radiation is scientific evidence of electric currents.

ben m brought up "chaotic magnetic fields" why don't you ask him.

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote

Yet again for your simple mind Sol88:
Plasma is a specific kind of ionized gas. Not all ionized gas is plasma.

Considering

Degree of ionization

For plasma to exist, ionization is necessary. The degree of ionization of a plasma is the proportion of atoms which have lost (or gained) electrons, and is controlled mostly by the temperature. Even a partially ionized gas in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized can have the characteristics of a plasma (i.e. respond to magnetic fields and be highly electrically conductive). The degree of ionization, α is defined as α = ni/(ni + na) where ni is the number density of ions and na is the number density of neutral atoms.

1%?

Even a partially ionized gas in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized can have the characteristics of a plasma (i.e. respond to magnetic fields and be highly electrically conductive).

Which other ionized gases are NOT plasma's then Tusenfem?

 

[sol invictus]

Another one of these posts where you dont explain your accusations.

What are we supposed to say in responce to this? Just argue back? Please.

I like how you cut out the first part of my post... try again, zeuzzzzzz.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It seems to me that RC's comment is a powerful one. Electric charges cancel themselves out! Over large distances how could it be otherwise? -- unless vast parts of the universe were positive and vast parts negative --a situation that does not appear to exist. So, unless you can demonstrate something to the contrary with a cohesive model, including some mathematics of the correct order of magnitude, you have nothing but fantasies. How can you refute that?

Yes, In solids, liquids and gasses charges do cancel out. In plasma however they separate in a variety of highly complex an non linear ways. And yes, EM is amazingly more powerful than gravity.

In an earlier post I pointed out that even the Earth is charged up millions of coulombs, and the atmosphere contains a voltage of over 300,000 volts (as the atmosphere is a very poor conductor). Such reasons for how charge separates to create the lightning are unknown. But if magnitudes of charge separation that large, and that close to home, are still largely without an adequate reason for how they occur, the occurence of MUCH larger charge separation and huge EM effects is possible in space. The detailed work of Alfven and others on charge separation and plasma scalability could answer many of these questions, and is still being applied to this day.

A bit of evidence of large EM influences and charge separation that springs to mind is that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR. Also, theres an asymmetry in the Hubble expansion some 600 Mpc or more across, the Hubble constant is about 10% lower in some directions than in others, implying either an asymmetry in the process that creates the Hubble redshift, or velocities for galaxies of up to 3,000 km/sec.

Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2

Does the Universe Have a Handedness?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703325v2

Anisotropy in the Hubble constant as observed in the HST Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project results
Authors: M. L. McClure, C. C. Dyer
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703556v1

(An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: comparing hemispheres
Authors: Dominik J. Schwarz, Bastian Weinhorst
arXiv:0706.0165v1 [astro-ph]

 

[sol invictus]

<snip>

I can see this will be a total waste of my time.

Why do so-called "EU" advocates know absolutely nothing about the "E", let alone the "U"?

 

[Zeuzzz]

So, people not gonna bother saying anything about my post above? Just another post to be lost and forgotten forever in this thread I guess...

*ETA Sol, will try again.

[btw, what does ETA stand for? Just realised I used it without actually knowing what its an abbreviation for, I've just noticed other people seem to use it in this sort of way]

 

[Sol88]

Reality check, do have those calculations on the estimated charge of the solar surface?

May I have them please or a link to that post in which you did them?

Along with the source of your input variables?

 

[Sol88]

So, people not gonna bother saying anything about my post above? Just another post to be lost and forgotten forever in this thread I guess...

*ETA Sol, will try again.

yes, that's their tactic Zeuzzz?

I had to keep bump'n to get them to answer some questions!

Typical

 

[ben m]

In an earlier post I pointed out that even the Earth is charged up millions of coulombs, and the atmosphere contains a voltage of over 300,000 volts (as the atmosphere is a very poor conductor).

One million coulombs = six car batteries.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you knew any physics, you wouldn't need to take ben's "say so". Accelerated charged particles radiate. Magnetic fields accelerate charged particles. So obviously disordered movements of electrons will generate synchrotron radiation in the presence of B fields.

Wrong. Sure accelerated charged particles radiate. But processes that produce synchotron radiation are much more specific (much higher energy) and not simply due to disordered movements of -e's.

I think the problem here is what do you mean by disordered. Not exactly the most scientific term.

Maybe you should read some of Peratts material, which outlines a couple of ways to generate synchrotron radiation that are a bit more precise than attributing it to "disordered movements of electrons"

Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

In plasma, electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of 10³⁶, and electromagnetism is ~10⁷ times stronger than gravity even in neutral hydrogen regions, where the degree of ionization is a miniscule 10^–4.
The observational evidence for galactic-dimensioned Birkeland currents is given based on the direct comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extra-galactic sources including quasars and double radio galaxies.

Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...00045503.pdf?arnumber=45503&authDecision=-203

The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ITPS...18...26P

With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.

 

[Ziggurat]

@ Ziggurat:

With all due respect, Ziggurat, it is not "mindless repretition" rather it is stating a fact that apparently you don't like.

But it isn't a fact: it's only part of a fact, which is only true in very specific conditions which you didn't specify, which you've shown no evidence you even understand, and which do not apply when discussing any large-scale astronomical structures.

Ziggurat, you are adding a specific that wasn't in your original statement, I'll take your point

Will you? You don't seem like you do.

but exchange it for my point: Electromagnetism provides its own mechanisms for acceleration, it doesn't need gravity to achieve acceleration.

Oh, but it does need something else. Double layers don't form spontaneously. It takes energy to create them. And that energy can't come from electrostatic potentials, because electric forces always oppose charge separation.

And the stronger the electric and magnetic field the stronger the acceleration.

Yes, nobody disputes this. But you've given no indication that the fields which exist in the solar system or the galaxy are at all relevant to the basic structure of either.

And in response to your example, I'll add my own example: The solar wind (electrons and ions in a charge seperated state), accelerates away from the Sun in the face of the Sun's gravity.

Yes it does. But tell me: how much of the solar system's mass is in the solar wind? Furthermore, electric forces rather obviously don't exert 39 orders of magnitude more force than gravity on those solar winds. If they did, those winds would be super-relativistic, but they're not. So even in the limited cases where electromagnetic forces dominate over some small mass fraction, they don't dominate anywhere near as much as you claimed.

Reality Check stated: "That's nice. Too bad it's been experimentally demonstrated to be an incorrect model of actual galactic rotation."

I said that, not Reality Check.

Please provide authority for your statement in the way of citation to published scientific paper.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epDone.html
Gravitational forces alone account for our acceleration towards the galactic center. No other forces contribute significantly to this attraction. Example publication:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/schlamminger08.pdf

Yes, that is true.

If you can't do even simple calculations, why do you feel qualified to dispute the conclusions of those who can?

There have been predictions made and then observed using electromagnetic theory.

There have been no successful quantitative predictions of EU/PC theory regarding cosmology or galactic-scale structures, unless those predictions mimic standard model predictions (which do include E&M where relevant). There are numerous observations which contradict EU/PC theories.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes, In solids, liquids and gasses charges do cancel out. In plasma however they separate in a variety of highly complex an non linear ways. And yes, EM is amazingly more powerful than gravity.

In an earlier post I pointed out that even the Earth is charged up millions of coulombs, and the atmosphere contains a voltage of over 300,000 volts (as the atmosphere is a very poor conductor). Such reasons for how charge separates to create the lightning are unknown. But if magnitudes of charge separation that large, and that close to home, are still largely without an adequate reason for how they occur, the occurence of MUCH larger charge separation and huge EM effects is possible in space. The detailed work of Alfven and others on charge separation and plasma scalability could answer many of these questions, and is still being applied to this day.

A bit of evidence of large EM influences and charge separation that springs to mind is that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR. Also, theres an asymmetry in the Hubble expansion some 600 Mpc or more across, the Hubble constant is about 10% lower in some directions than in others, implying either an asymmetry in the process that creates the Hubble redshift, or velocities for galaxies of up to 3,000 km/sec.

Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2

Does the Universe Have a Handedness?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703325v2

Anisotropy in the Hubble constant as observed in the HST Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project results
Authors: M. L. McClure, C. C. Dyer
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703556v1

(An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: comparing hemispheres
Authors: Dominik J. Schwarz, Bastian Weinhorst
arXiv:0706.0165v1 [astro-ph]

OK, I would be shocked if EM forces did not influence the universe to some degree on large scales (I guess it could effect the alignment of galaxies? -- I have no way of knowing). In any case, the point made by RC is that gravity is the dominant force influencing the structure of the universe on large scales, i.e., the structure of galaxy clusters, galaxies and solar systems. His reasoning is that gravity dominates over great distances and electrical forces cancel themselves out. That makes sense to a layman like me. Do you have evidence to contradict this viewpoint?