Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Tubbythin]

Whether or not his model of galaxy formation is right or not is a matter of opinion.

No more so than say the plum pudding model of the atom r the geocentric model of the Universe. All 3 have been ruled out by observation.

Sure, it suffers flaws on stellar scales and clashes with standard Newtonian gravity. Just like Newtonian gravity suffers big flaws on galactic scales in explaining rotation curves and clashes with the plasma universe model, but, on this scale, Peratts model remains the best for explaining galaxy morphology.

No it doesn't. This isn't a is light a particle or a wave type question you know.

Theres also the strong, weak, EM and gravitational forces, which do certainly have some linkage, but lack a definitive unification. Theres no viable theory of quantum gravity waiting round the corner last time I checked.

Actually we have a rather elegant and very very very well tested theory of electroweak unification.

The EM field obeys laws vastly different from those that govern the behaviour of hypothetical dark matter. Thats all we assume to know about it. Its dark.

No. We know some things it isn't.

 

[ben m]

Sol88, This may help. I'm not endorsing it, or denying it, I'm just adding to the debate. I'm more an EU skeptic than a proponent.

Y'know, Zeuzzz, you're struggling to get people to give you credit as a good judge of astrophysics. Not as an active data analyst, but you do seem to want us to pay attention when you suggest which papers to read and which ones to ignore.

Announcing that you're an "EU skeptic" and "adding to the debate" makes things worse. If your astro-literature-reading skills can't tell you whether or not craters on Mercury represent giant electrostatic discharges; if you can't detect the flaws in the hypothesis that the Sun has a solid iron surface---well, it looks like you astro reading skills are not very good.

This is especially a problem for PC because you're not doing any real model testing. If you post a link to a paper that shows the PC describes System X better than mainstream cosmology does---well, if the paper shows both models and a chi^2 goodness-of-fit test then I don't need your judgement at all, I just need the paper. But instead you're posting what appear to be random anti-Big-Bang papers on one hand, and random space-plasma-physics papers on the other hand, and the only thing that even vaguely supports the idea of "Plasma Cosmology" is your, Zeuzzz's, personal assurances that you read these things and they fit together for you and that that's important. (Those "cosmology.info" links were the same thing: a bunch of unrelated abstracts, each with the comment "how about that, eh? Suggestive, no?")

The point is: if your big argument is "when I read these unrelated abstracts I see them fitting together as a coherent field called PC which is superior to standard cosmology", then that argument relies in large part on your personal astro reading skills and astro intuition. Your continuing hedging on the various plasma-related crackpottery tells me not to trust these skills and intuition. You've *stated* a desire to separate PC from its crackpot hangers-on---it's time to act on that desire.

Just a comment.

(In the end, of course, we never have to trust anyone's intuition. I can read the papers you post and use my own skills to judge the connection. From what I've read so far, I judge there to be no PC model worth pursuing. The question is: should I expect your future posts to be interesting enough to change my mind? And that's where you want to have some personal credibility; to make people listen to you.)

 

[Zeuzzz]

Announcing that you're an "EU skeptic" and "adding to the debate" makes things worse. If your astro-literature-reading skills can't tell you whether or not craters on Mercury represent giant electrostatic discharges; if you can't detect the flaws in the hypothesis that the Sun has a solid iron surface---well, it looks like you astro reading skills are not very good.

I haven't looked into them in detail. But the material is there for those that want to, like I posted.

The issue I see with the electric discharge model of craters is that it lacks numbers and a complete model (from what I have seen). There are a lot of compelling reasons suggesting a link, the scale invarient nature of discharges, the self similarity tranformations that allow it, the spherules link, the 'splattering' evidence, the 'bobble' in the center of crater analogous to the bobble in plasma discharge experiments .... and all the other reasons in that paper. But as of yet, I have seen no model with numbers put forward. Thus I remain Skeptical.

Mainly because there exists no defintive model to be skeptical of, just a collection of vague but still interesting ideas.

As for the Iron sun, I really have not looked into it. I'll let michael do the talking for that one, or explain how it fits into PC, because I dont have a clue.

You've *stated* a desire to separate PC from its crackpot hangers-on---it's time to act on that desire.

Just check in the peer reviewed journals and ignore non mathematical webpages that merely suggest vague ideas. As long as the maths hasn't been hypostatized, then its okay.

Now, what are your comments on the problems with all the publications I linked to in post 2460?

If you know of any peer reviewed refutations then please cite them, or come up with your own. Me, i'll put my trust in the Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the IEEE journals until I see valid critisism of the bulk ideas therin, not merely nitpicking the odd sentence here and there.

Thats what the peer review and trusted science journals are for, afterall. Separating the crackpot nonsense from the real science.

Namely (links in post 2460 above)

* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, 1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996
* Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103 1997
* Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol246, 1998

And finally, for a direct comparison of the original plasma cosmology model, and the predictions it made and a comparison with the predictions of the Big Bang, I suggest,

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang, Lerner, E. J., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 31, pp. 1268-1275 2003 [full text]

Or lerners wiki article gives a good (though not fully representative) summary: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wiki.htm (based on some of the older models)

Tis not all though. There is more.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Well done, GT!

How old do I sound? And if I am familiar enough with Alice's Restaurant, how old do you think that makes me?

Another of my faves from the song: "this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-... and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said".

I hesitate to answer this, because guessing someone's age can easily go badly wrong, and it isn't on topic, which may get the mods involved, and if even one of them sits on the group W bench among the father rapers, I really don't want to get on the wrong side of them.

But I'll give it a go.. From your writing style, which is slightly unusual, I placed you in your thirties, but not a native English speaker, and I assume that familiarity with Alice's Restaurant makes you as old as me or older which is a decade beyond that.

 

[Sol88]

Could one of our more knowledgeable heads here give me a layman's layman term for "Star streams"?

Is it along the same lines as a stellar "wind"?

Or a Jet?

Or Starstreams? Why Are Galaxies Smooth? Star Streams

These distant rivers of stars provide an answer to one of astronomy’s most fundamental puzzles.

“Our analysis now answers the grand puzzle. By finding a myriad of streams of young stars all over the disks of galaxies we studied, we see that the mechanism for pulling the clusters of young stars apart is shearing motions of the parent galaxy. These streams are the ‘missing link’ we needed to understand how the disks of galaxies evolve to look the way they do,” said team leader David Block of the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa.

Crucial to this discovery was finding a way to image previously hidden young stellar streams in galaxies millions of light-years away. To do this the team used high-resolution infrared observations from the Spitzer.

“Spitzer observes in the infrared where 100-million-year-old populations of stars dominate the light,” noted co-author Bruce Elmegreen, from IBM’s Research Division in New York. “Younger regions shine more in the visible and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum, and older regions get too faint to see. So we can filter out all the stars we don’t want by taking pictures with an infrared camera.”

Because my EU/PC interpretation for "star streams" is Birkeland currents, with stars strung out like pearls on a necklace! with the more energetic stars at one end and the not so energetic at the other.

 

[Reality Check]

I So your not even going to read them, just as I thought. I presume the journal of astronomy and astrophysics has been informed of your discovery, or you can reference a (similar) peer reviewed refutation of his (various) detailed published papers?

You claim to know the *truth* of the matter. Truth is not science.

Whether or not his model of galaxy formation is right or not is a matter of opinion. Its not a fact. And until you look at some of the material you'll be none the wiser.

Sure, it suffers flaws on stellar scales and clashes with standard Newtonian gravity. Just like Newtonian gravity suffers big flaws on galactic scales in explaining rotation curves and clashes with the plasma universe model, but, on this scale, Peratts model remains the best for explaining galaxy morphology.

I have read them. I (unlike you) know that the paper assumes the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments. These are the ones in his very wrong plasma model of galaxy formation. Thus it is wrong from the start.

Why would someone waste their time publishing a refutation of an obviously wrong theory?
Any astronomer will get to his comparison of the mass distributions produced by the computer simulation with the light distributions in galactic images, laugh at the obvious mistake and move on.
I do hope that you know that spiral galaxies are only spirals in images. Their mass is actually distributed in a disc with a central bulge.

I do not and have never claimed "to know the *truth* of the matter". What I do know that Peratt's model of galaxy formation is invalid because it does not match the actual data. There of course the other minor problems, e.g. ignoring gravity, the invisible galactic sized plasma filaments, etc.

I have in fact read many of his papers. For example I found out the names of the plasma computer simulation software he used (which you seemed ignorant of). I have even seen the source for one of them. Have you?

 

[Reality Check]

Maybe you could help me understand just what real physics you think I should know, lets take my interpretation of this diagram below;

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/mercury/mercmag_strip.jpg

Now from my point of view, EU/PC, then why can't the flux transfer and sputtering combine to produce effect similar in appearance to this

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/mercury/rembrandt1_med.jpg

or indeed this

http://bp2.blogger.com/_JcxonRkmibQ...SYYBx_GI8/s400/Spider+Crater+by+Messenger.jpg

LINK

You memory is going Sol88: This has already been answered. The size of the forces involved are too small by 1000's of times.

 

[Reality Check]

Could one of our more knowledgeable heads here give me a layman's layman term for "Star streams"?

Is it along the same lines as a stellar "wind"?

Or a Jet?

Or Starstreams? Why Are Galaxies Smooth? Star Streams

Because my EU/PC interpretation for "star streams" is Birkeland currents, with stars strung out like pearls on a necklace! with the more energetic stars at one end and the not so energetic at the other.

You need to read the article carefully. The star streams come from clusters that have evaporated due to gravity. The new science is the detection of streams of young stars rather then the already detected streams of old stars.
Stellar Stream ^WP

Your EU/PC interpetion is not correct. As far as I can detemine there is no set distribution of brightness ("energetic" = bright?). If there was then no one would think that they came from globular clusters. The fact that at least one stellar stream originates from a cluster should be a clue.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I have read them. I (unlike you) know that the paper assumes the existence of galactic sized plasma filaments. These are the ones in his very wrong plasma model of galaxy formation. Thus it is wrong from the start.

So your not going to read them?

Ok fine. Glad to have cleared that up. You can leave this discussion then.

And he doesn't assume anything. Seen a galaxy recently? Theres all the evidence you want right there. And millions at that.

I (unlike you) know that most papers assume gravitational forces are the only force at work, and assume the existance of dark matter that we dont even need.

Well I've posted my bit for now above. When I return hopefully someone will have addressed the errors therein, and contacted the journal of astronomy and astrophysics about what they found, so the rebuttals can also be published and cited in the literature. So far there are none (to be the best of my knowledge, link to any if you know of such).

Goodbye

 

[Dancing David]

So your not going to read them?

Ok fine. Glad to have cleared that up. You can leave this discussion then.

And he doesn't assume anything. Seen a galaxy recently? Theres all the evidence you want right there. And millions at that.

I (unlike you) know that most papers assume gravitational forces are the only force at work, and assume the existance of dark matter that we dont even need.

Well I've posted my bit for now above. When I return hopefully someone will have addressed the errors therein, and contacted the journal of astronomy and astrophysics about what they found, so the rebuttals can also be published and cited in the literature. So far there are none (to be the best of my knowledge, link to any if you know of such).

Goodbye

Zeuzzz, this is why you look like a kook.

RC has offered very cogent analysis of the Perrat papers you listed. RC has read them, and there are some critiques that you would be intereted in that I am sure RC would link to if you were more than a mere paste and run poster.

Then you could discuss why the papers and models you link to might or might not say what you think.

But you have once again shown that you just want to paste in the same old arguments and the same old stuff and never defend it or understand the critique.

You make yourself look foolish. Which is too bad, just as in the Arp critique, you get offended because it points out something you don't like, why come here?

Critical thinking is learning to critique your own favorite theories and seeing if they stand the test.

 

[Reality Check]

So your not going to read them?

Ok fine. Glad to have cleared that up. You can leave this discussion then.

And he doesn't assume anything. Seen a galaxy recently? Theres all the evidence you want right there. And millions at that.

I might read them if there was any chance of galactic sized plasma filaments actually existing and so being observed. But as DRD has shown, this is not the case.

ETA: I assumed that you are talking about the Peratt papers. But you could mean the ones in your GRB web page. Do you?


Peratt assumes more than a galaxy. He assumes:

• That galactic plasma filaments estimated to have an width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and an average length of 350 megaparasec (1 billion light years) can exist.
• That pairs (or triplets or quartets, etc.) of these galactic plasma filaments came into being about 13 billion years ago (the ages of galaxies).
• That these pairs (or triplets or quartets, etc.) of these galactic plasma filaments were parallel.
• That the galactic plasma filaments have a current flowing through them (no cause of this current is specified).
• That gravity has no role in galaxy formation.

I (unlike you) know that most papers assume gravitational forces are the only force at work, and assume the existance of dark matter that we dont even need.

I (unlike you) know that the usage of gravitational forces on all of the matter involved gives matches to the actual data. This is a big difference from Peratt's model which produces no match at all to the actual data.
I (unlike you) know that dark matter is not an assumption. It is currently two actual observations (i.e. dark matter separated from visible matter). It is also dozens of observations of dark matter mixed with visible matter in galactic clusters like Abell 1689.

Your missed out a reply to:

Why would someone waste their time publishing a refutation of an obviously wrong theory?
Any astronomer will get to his comparison of the mass distributions produced by the computer simulation with the light distributions in galactic images, laugh at the obvious mistake and move on.
I do hope that you know that spiral galaxies are only spirals in images. Their mass is actually distributed in a disc with a central bulge.

I do not and have never claimed "to know the *truth* of the matter". What I do know that Peratt's model of galaxy formation is invalid because it does not match the actual data. There of course the other minor problems, e.g. ignoring gravity, the invisible galactic sized plasma filaments, etc.

I have in fact read many of his papers. For example I found out the names of the plasma computer simulation software he used (which you seemed ignorant of). I have even seen the source for one of them. Have you?

I hope that you are not going continue with being obsessed by your reliance on an obviously invalid theory like Peratt's.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Question for Perpetual Student and Swkinty: in light of your posts (#2506 and #2505, respectively), what would you suggest is the best - or at least a good - way to proceed wrt Z's recent posts?

Also Guybrush Threepwood, temporalillusion, and any others who've been reading along but not actively participating.

Here's my understanding:

-> Z has posted, many, many, many times, links to a small number of papers by Peratt (and maybe one or two have co-authors) on models based on simulations he ran. Peratt claims, in these papers, that his models can account for a wide range of observations of most classes of galaxies (spirals, ellipticals, Seyferts, some irregulars, double-lobed radio galaxies, and maybe more) as well as many quasars.

-> At least two participants in this thread have read those papers and concluded that a) despite there being many papers, only one model is reported (and that model was not changed, from the initial, 1986, papers); b) the model is inconsistent with a wide range of astronomical observations, and fatally so.

-> Z has been asked many questions, many times, about the details of this model, how it could be tested, how it addresses the relevant astronomical observations, etc; he has answered few, if any, of these questions

-> Z has not responded to the many posts, by several different JREF Forum members, over many months, pointing out flaws in Peratt's model, inconsistencies with the relevant data, etc, despite being asked to do so repeatedly

-> now Z asks, despite the abundance of posts that clearly answer his question, "So your not going to read them?", and follows this with "Ok fine. Glad to have cleared that up. You can leave this discussion then."

What do you consider a reasonable response to Z would be? What sort of response do you think would be effective?

 

[sol invictus]

What do you consider a reasonable response to Z would be? What sort of response do you think would be effective?

You weren't asking me, but let me make a list of possibilities:

1. Z is curious about physics and capable and willing to learn
   
2. Z is a hardened PC/EU ideologue on a mission to convert others
   
3. Z is a troll, purposefully irritating others, re-posting the same discredited nonsense, lying about his motives, etc., all in a sad and lonely bid for attention
   
4. Z is a mildly drug-addled early 20-something that was reasonably bright before taking too much E and burning holes in his brain, now has memory problems, has always been attracted to mystical and fringe ideas, loves the idea of overthrowing the dominant paradigm, at the same time has a strong rationalist streak that repels him from organized religion and pushes him towards fringe science instead... and has some elements of 1), 3), and a little of 2) mixed in as well.

You can take a wild guess which one I think is most likely .

ETA: So how should we respond to him, in my view? Well, your posts - and many others - have been extremely informative and of interest to a wide range of readers. Unfortunately, many of those would-be readers might be put-off by the high level of nonsense and bickering. On the other hand, the threads would never have existed at all if it weren't for Zeuzzz (and others like him)...

Ideally Z would be much smarter and more knowledgeable than his is, but still motivated in the same way - by iconoclasm. Such people are quite useful as gadflies: at worst they stimulate discussion and force others to think carefully about their assumptions and understand them better; at best, they uncover a real problem. Unfortunately Z doesn't seem to be capable of filling that role and has shown essentially no improvement, either from lack of ability or (more likely) lack of effort. That makes these threads far less interesting and informative than they might have been.

So Z - if you're really interested, why not pursue studies in science and try to overturn the big bang and become famous? I'm sure you understand very well by now that to successfully challenge the mainstream, you must first understand it. All bluster aside, it's obvious to everyone that you don't right now, but at the same time that you're not an idiot. And when I say you haven't improved, that's not completely true - I think I have detected some slight increase in sophistication, at least sometimes. If you need advice or guidance, this forum is a remarkable resource (should you choose to utilize it).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

One more aspect of Peratt's model, which may not have been commented on before.

In the first 1986 paper, Peratt claims the simulation covers the first 10^8 to 10^9 years of the interaction between the two filaments, and in the second, "the evolution through the next 10^9 - 5x10^9 years".

Now all the classes of galaxy Peratt claims his model simulates well contain stars, and for all but some irregulars the astronomical evidence that a great many stars in the galaxies are at least 5 billion years old is overwhelming.

This would seem to be a particularly difficult thing for Peratt's model to account for, especially as, in his model, galaxies form as a result of the filament interactions, and stars form only after the filaments have begun to interact. Note that this problem, with his model, is related to, but distinct from, the problem of accounting for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, where those curves are traced by stars (or PNe) whose ages are ~>5 billion years (like the Sun).

 

[Skwinty]

I tend to agree with Sol on his synopsis of Z's position. Read the Cannabis thread where Z has a lot to say.

As far as plasma physics/cosmology goes, he has a small point , which every one acknowledges, in that there is plasma in the universe. Astrophysicists have acknowledged the role of plasma and electromagnetism, just not to the extent of throwing out the existing paradigm. To do so would be huge step backwards and put astronomy back into the dark ages.

Once plasma cosmology can explain and predict things better than the existing paradigm, then try for a coup detat. However, that is really unlikely to happen, so Z, build a bridge and get over it. By all means, put forward your ideas, but have the grace to accept the things you cannot change and the wisdom to differentiate between what you can and cannot change.

This will make the educational process for all interested parties more pleasant. Most importantly, be civil and polite, and that applies to all, even if it means biting your tongue (typing fingers).

 

[Perpetual Student]

You weren't asking me, but let me make a list of possibilities:

1. Z is curious about physics and capable and willing to learn
   
2. Z is a hardened PC/EU ideologue on a mission to convert others
   
3. Z is a troll, purposefully irritating others, re-posting the same discredited nonsense, lying about his motives, etc., all in a sad and lonely bid for attention
   
4. Z is a mildly drug-addled early 20-something that was reasonably bright before taking too much E and burning holes in his brain, now has memory problems, has always been attracted to mystical and fringe ideas, loves the idea of overthrowing the dominant paradigm, at the same time has a strong rationalist streak that repels him from organized religion and pushes him towards fringe science instead... and has some elements of 1), 3), and a little of 2) mixed in as well.

You can take a wild guess which one I think is most likely .

...

5. He is a narcissist using physics and cosmology as an attention getting tool. He probably fantasizes that he dazzles his uninformed acquaintances with his "knowledge" and "rebellious spirit."

 

[Perpetual Student]

Question for Perpetual Student and Swkinty: in light of your posts (#2506 and #2505, respectively), what would you suggest is the best - or at least a good - way to proceed wrt Z's recent posts?

...

-> Z has posted, many, many, many times, links to a small number of papers by Peratt (and maybe one or two have co-authors) on models based on simulations he ran. Peratt claims, in these papers, that his models can account for a wide range of observations of most classes of galaxies (spirals, ellipticals, Seyferts, some irregulars, double-lobed radio galaxies, and maybe more) as well as many quasars.

-> At least two participants in this thread have read those papers and concluded that a) despite there being many papers, only one model is reported (and that model was not changed, from the initial, 1986, papers); b) the model is inconsistent with a wide range of astronomical observations, and fatally so.

-> Z has been asked many questions, many times, about the details of this model, how it could be tested, how it addresses the relevant astronomical observations, etc; he has answered few, if any, of these questions

-> Z has not responded to the many posts, by several different JREF Forum members, over many months, pointing out flaws in Peratt's model, inconsistencies with the relevant data, etc, despite being asked to do so repeatedly

-> now Z asks, despite the abundance of posts that clearly answer his question, "So your not going to read them?", and follows this with "Ok fine. Glad to have cleared that up. You can leave this discussion then."

What do you consider a reasonable response to Z would be? What sort of response do you think would be effective?

That's not an easy question. See my post above. I genuinely believe this behavior is an attention getting tool used to satiate a narcissistic need. Z appears to be a reasonable intelligent and educated person. It is sad to say that his incapability of recognizing the absurdity of his positions indicates a pathology.
On the one hand, not responding to his incorrect assertions can be interpreted as having lost the debate. But, endlessly responding provides fuel for his narcissistic need to continue being in the spotlight and leads nowhere.
Since this is an educational forum, and people come here for information, allowing PC/EU misinformation to appear genuine, would be an unfortunate consequence of not responding, so I guess my conclusion is, FIGHT ON!

Aside for Z: Why is it that you cannot recognize that science is a worldwide open arena. In the long term superior models prevail. The stuff you believe has been considered by thousands of researchers throughout the world and rejected. Those researchers have knowledge, experience and abilities far above yours. If PC/EU were a better answer, the community of astrophysicists, cosmologists, etc. would embrace it. What motive could these people throughout the world have to conspire to suppress the truth?
Try to control your ego and pay attention to those who can help you.

 

[Sol88]

You need to read the article carefully. The star streams come from clusters that have evaporated due to gravity. The new science is the detection of streams of young stars rather then the already detected streams of old stars.
Stellar Stream ^WP

Your EU/PC interpetion is not correct. As far as I can detemine there is no set distribution of brightness ("energetic" = bright?). If there was then no one would think that they came from globular clusters. The fact that at least one stellar stream originates from a cluster should be a clue.

Never heard of that before RC, gravitational evaporation!! How's that work?

And a purely attractive force such as the extremely weak gravity, as the ability to arrange clusters of stars to form "long thin filaments" thru tidal shearing forces!!! WoW!!! gravity is amazing!! who knew you could just keep adding different properties to gravity to get it to make the things we observe!

interesting to note the wiki link did not say what a stellar stream was just where they are, but ask a geek gave it a go a least.

LINK

to parse from the link

Just like planets such as Saturn cause dust to form into rings around them, some galaxies rip apart others and form them into rings as well. One stellar stream in the form of a ring is the Monoceros Ring, created as the Milky Way swallows a dwarf galaxy, the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, about 100 times smaller than it.

You do know Saturn's rings are a charged dusty plasma, don't you?

Now I ask what other force do we KNOW about that can cause "long thin filaments"?

Stellar streams!!!!

 

[Tubbythin]

And a purely attractive force such as the extremely weak gravity, as the ability to arrange clusters of stars to form "long thin filaments" thru tidal shearing forces!!! WoW!!! gravity is amazing!! who knew you could just keep adding different properties to gravity to get it to make the things we observe!

Sol, the only one who is changing gravity is you. You're the one who is saying it is weak on galactic scales.

 

[Reality Check]

Never heard of that before RC, gravitational evaporation!! How's that work?

Gravity causes stars to leave the clusters. The clusters "evaporate". This can be called "gravitational evaporation".

And a purely attractive force such as the extremely weak gravity, as the ability to arrange clusters of stars to form "long thin filaments" thru tidal shearing forces!!! WoW!!! gravity is amazing!! who knew you could just keep adding different properties to gravity to get it to make the things we observe!

Now you are getting it. Gravity is the cause of the stellar streams through gravitational tidal forces. I assume that you know about tidal forces, e.g you have heard of tides ?

ETA: A few links for you
The Andromeda Stream
What is a Stellar Stream?
Milky Way's Tidal Forces Ripping Apart Star Clusters
Four New Stellar Debris Streams in the Galactic Halo

interesting to note the wiki link did not say what a stellar stream was just where they are, but ask a geek gave it a go a least.

LINK

to parse from the link

You do know Saturn's rings are a charged dusty plasma, don't you?

Saturn's rings are not a "charged dusty plasma". They are a charged dust with possibly some plasma in it.

I will assume that you are just ignorant rather than a blatant liar.

The rings can be viewed using a quite modest modern telescope or with good binoculars. They extend from 6 630 km to 120 700 km above Saturn's equator, average approximately 20 meters in thickness, and are composed of 93 percent water ice with a smattering of tholin impurities, and 7 percent amorphous carbon.[44] They range in size from specks of dust to the size of a small automobile.[45] There are two main theories regarding the origin of Saturn's rings. One theory, originally proposed by Édouard Roche in the 19th century, is that the rings were once a moon of Saturn whose orbit decayed until it came close enough to be ripped apart by tidal forces (see Roche limit). A variation of this theory is that the moon disintegrated after being struck by a large comet or asteroid. The second theory is that the rings were never part of a moon, but are instead left over from the original nebular material from which Saturn formed.^WP

Someone more knowledgeable might tell us exactly how much plasma is in icy rings.

There is a plasma ring around Saturn but it is not part of Saturn's rings. It is not contained within the visible rings of Saturn. It starts outside of the rings.

The plasma is thought to be formed from icy material ejected from Saturn's moons.
Saturn Ringed by Electric Doughnut

Now I ask what other force do we KNOW about that can cause "long thin filaments"?

Stellar streams!!!!

Gravity.