Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

[Dancing David]

And if I were to stick my teeth into this again I would probably give up on the EM forces and speculate on the possible geometric similarities between the gravitational field and the x^-1 field used for Amperes Law (Or equivalent Biot Savart force law) and postulate the role that negative mass could have on galaxy formation. Negative inertial masses in certain initial formations gives mathematical consistency, and adequate conservation of momentum or energy, and could be used in a similar way to NASA's BPP program models, like the Diametric drive.

And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy.

Nope you show us Zeuzzz, the fields and charges are too small to cause galactic size flows, at least that have been observed so far.

So the burden would be on the person saying such things existed, which in this case would not be you at this time.

... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars.

And the 'fairy flow' could be governed by the Fairy Model of galaxy formation if fairies were shown to exist.

 

[Dancing David]

Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this.

So Siggy G, do you believe neutrinos exist, yes or no.

[Iteration 2]

 

[Siggy_G]

false , what is your evidence?
C'mon, you say it now back it up.

Have I said something largely contradictive by stating that the majority of astrophysics is about this work (collecting data/technology/interpreting data), and done in relation to current models? For instance, check the missions and descriptions for NASA, ESA and other space centres. Astrophysical papers are (without having the overview of all) also largely related to this and specialized sub-fields. What's your point? That the majority of the current work in astrophysics is about re-examining the fundamentals of cosmological models and look at other driving factors than gravity? You certainly need to prove that.

Where are these alternate explanations that are being ignored?
Why don't you tell us what they are?
how is a plasma going to effect cosmology outside of the very very very young universe?

As I've already stated, the scenarios proposed by plasma cosmology or the electric universe theory; in brief, low density discharge configurations at stellar and galactic scales. Do you have an overview over these models? They may not be intentionally "ignored", but they wouldn't be relevant for the established models which focuses only on gravity and assumes interstellar electric neutrality. The "very very young universe" is a big bang scenario, whereas e.g. the Electric Universe assumes a universe of unknown age and unknown extent, and any attempts of knowing and explaining origins are irrelevant – and are seen as a little pretentious. We don't know enough now to even ask the right questions in cosmology.

So how do you think plasma would explain what is cosmology?

Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources). Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts, is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument.

 

[Dancing David]

(Been away for some days)



I have indeed read the OP and thread. As I mentioned in the final section in my first post, "I'll try to elaborate further on the [Peratt] model and possible extended research in an upcoming post" (my first post was also initially a reply to the one before that). It's just that I was overwhelmed by the guardians at the gate, which I feel obliged to respond to first. So hold your horses - further input on the way.

Uh huh, sure, you either have it or you don't, I think you know that the model doesn't work , so you just are posturing.

Show me the model.

There's a few misconceptions in the initial posts in this thread - although I'm not arguing the competence in your criticism. A little anxious and tense perhaps as to defending current consensus and black painting any attempts of viewing space differently.

Look dude, either the model is an approximate model for the behavior of reality or it isn't. The accuracy of Perrat's model is very low.

Which makes me wonder, how can you all know for certain how the universe works and how it doesn't, when current (peer-reviewed and mathematically verified) models need

this is more bogus political spin, the model of gravity is well demonstrated. period.

96% unknown factors to explain the observed dynamics? One thing we can say for certain, is that something else than gravity from known mass is largely affecting cosmic dynamics.

In some ways yes, in your meaning no.

Your electrical forces will not do it, that is if they follow the known models of electrodynamics. Are you violating the observed properties of the EM forces?

The observed discrepancies should cause different approaches to be explored, beyond gravitational mass. It shouldn't merely make established models curl in on itself and become more abstractly complex, by assuming only one driving factor.

Show us how your model works otherwise you are just engaging in a rhetorical argument with no merit.

 

[Dancing David]

Have I said something largely contradictive by stating that the majority of astrophysics is about this work (collecting data/technology/interpreting data), and done in relation to current models? For instance, check the missions and descriptions for NASA, ESA and other space centres. Astrophysical papers are (without having the overview of all) also largely related to this and specialized sub-fields. What's your point? That the majority of the current work in astrophysics is about re-examining the fundamentals of cosmological models and look at other driving factors than gravity? You certainly need to prove that.

You still have yet to present your model, where is it? You need to present the model and then we can examine it.

Nope there is no conspiracy, here is the deal Siggy, you want to break the observed behavior of plasma and EM forces, what is the Debye length and why does it matter?
[Iteration 5]

You are wrong because the theories that you are championing are just plain contradicting the observed reality.
What is the galactic magnetic field?
What charge would be needed an object of 1 kg. to cause it to react and change motion due to the magnetic field?
What would the charge be on a star? (You do know that galactic rotation curves involve stars?)

As I've already stated, the scenarios proposed by plasma cosmology or the electric universe theory; in brief, low density discharge configurations at stellar and galactic scales.

What is the Debye length and why does it matter?
Where is the evidence of these effects?
What are the models?
What evidence is there for a 'discharge configurations' at 'galactic scales?
And you do know that a star as under the electric star model would explode at relatavistic speeds?

Do you have an overview over these models?

Excuse me Siggy G? Your model you present it, and tell me what you think it explains, and guess what they don't.

So you present the model and tell me what it tries to explain
[Iteration3]

They may not be intentionally "ignored", but they wouldn't be relevant for the established models which focuses only on gravity and assumes interstellar electric neutrality. The "very very young universe" is a big bang scenario, whereas e.g. the Electric Universe assumes a universe of unknown age and unknown extent, and any attempts of knowing and explaining origins are irrelevant – and are seen as a little pretentious. We don't know enough now to even ask the right questions in cosmology.

the problem is this Siggy G, where is your model?
Put it up, tell us what it explains.
Then we can go from there.
[Iteration4]

Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources).

Funny that is still you ignoring plasma physics. So there is plasma. yes.
Where is your model of how it effect large scale structures.

Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments.

And the Debye length is?
And the charges are?
And the data is?

Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts,

Which you haven't modeled or explained yet.
Yes an ionizing source like a star will cause charges to occur and plasma movement to occur, but guess what the scales are?

Where is your model and where is your data?

Still missing.

is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument.

Um, there is no argument about the Debye length, it is a very accurate model. You still haven’t answered my question, what is it and why would it matter, especially on scales of interstellar spcae.

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this.

I crown the current theory as working becuase it works by including dark matter in the formation of galaxies. It requires 1 additional factor not "96% unknown factors", whatever you mean by that. that additional factor has been confirmed by several observations.


But please do not derail this thread on Anthony Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.

• Start a new thread on the standard model of galaxy formation and your evidence that dark matter does not exist (or that all the observation supporting it are wrong).
• There are other threas about dark matter and dark energy or start your own.

ETA
You also cite Alfven (his invalidated Plasma cosmology model), Peratt (his idea is debunked in this thread) and Thornhill (an electric universe proponent. See Electric univere theories here)

Dancing David, maybe you can wait for Siggy_G to start his own thread(s) on his topics and continue the discussion there rather than derailing this thread.
After all it will be intereting to see him rerun the old invalidated ideas in the above threads.

 

[Siggy_G]

You still have yet to present your model, where is it? You need to present the model and then we can examine it.

Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today.

Nope there is no conspiracy (...)

You're responding to things I haven't said.

You are wrong because the theories that you are championing are just plain contradicting the observed reality.

That would of course depend on the interpretation of observed reality, as I've tried to point out. One model would interpret strong x-ray emissions as a signature of a plasma z-pinch, another model would interpret it as a signature of a black hole. One model would state that stars are thermonuclear furnices, another one would state that they are pinched matter in discharge arc mode. And so on.

 

[Dancing David]

Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today.

I am familiar with the models of both the PU and the EY, maybe you should present the model that you think explains something.

Then we can talk about the numbers and how they work.

So go ahead. I won't hold my breath.

You're responding to things I haven't said.




That would of course depend on the interpretation of observed reality, as I've tried to point out. One model would interpret strong x-ray emissions as a signature of a plasma z-pinch, another model would interpret it as a signature of a black hole.

A z-pinch is going to make stars move at the center of galaxies, like ours, as though there is a 2,600,000 solar mass in an area of less than 30 AU in diameter?
Do tell.

One model would state that stars are thermonuclear furnices, another one would state that they are pinched matter in discharge arc mode. And so on.

"Pinched matter in discharge arc mode", explain how that makes the luminosity of the sun.

And why it doesn't blow apart at a significant fraction of c.

Again, enough of the dancing, get on with the show. Put your theory up.

 

[Tubbythin]

The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics.

What are you talking about?

 

[Tubbythin]

"Pinched matter in discharge arc mode", explain how that makes the luminosity of the sun.

And why it doesn't blow apart at a significant fraction of c.

Again, enough of the dancing, get on with the show. Put your theory up.

And what about those pesky neutrinos?

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today.....

Siggy_G,

For the second time: Please take your off topic postings about the debunked plasma cosmology and electric universe ideas to the appropriate threads

• Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not
• Electric universe theories here

If you want to point out some more issues about Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation then feel free to post here. But it has been well established that his model is wrong.

 

[Siggy_G]

For the second time: Please take your off topic postings about the debunked plasma cosmology and electric universe ideas to the appropriate threads

It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things.

If you want to point out some more issues about Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation then feel free to post here.

Will do. But I have been asked a few more questions, and since I'm being attacked on phrasing grounds, I also need to triple check the content of my upcoming posts. Also, I won't be able to attach link sources before my 10th post, according to forum rules. So I've had to keep things a bit more explanatory.

 

[Dancing David]

It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things.

I never, you made a statement about how the effects of plasma were ignored in mainstream astrophysics, and I called you on it, 3 times. what effects do you propose are important enough to effect galaxy formation and cosmology?


I asked you what and you kept acting like you had something , so what is it. You don't need to post links, you can just put spaces in and I will edit them for you. just post them like this www . plasmalinks .org and I will repost them for you.


Put up the links and the theory.
I will request a split but it would be up to the moderators to split the thread.

 

[Reality Check]

It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things.

I am sure that Dancing David like most of the posters here knows what the EC ideas are.

Will do.

Thanks.
Just remember to search those threads since it is likely that whatever you are going to bring up has already been addressed.
I would be interested in your citations to the current peer-reviewed papers about EC, e.g. on the "pinched matter in discharge arc mode" that produces the amount of energy and neutrinos that are observed from stars.
A small hint - do not link to the Thunderbolts web site. This is a book advertisement web site containing many bits of nonsense. It is not a reliable source for scientific information. Doing so will damage your credibility beyond repair.

 

[tusenfem]

It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things.

That is mainly because every EU PU proponent comes with his/her own model, so we never know what they are talking about. Like look at Brantc and Michael Mozina, they both claim the sun is made of iron, yet they don't agree with each other, but both claim Peratt and Alfven as their "masters."

Up to now you have not shown any real plasma physics knowledge. Can you please elaborate on what plasma physics education you have had?

Will do. But I have been asked a few more questions, and since I'm being attacked on phrasing grounds, I also need to triple check the content of my upcoming posts. Also, I won't be able to attach link sources before my 10th post, according to forum rules. So I've had to keep things a bit more explanatory.

No, you are being attacked because you offer no substance like here:

Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources). Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts, is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument.

This may sound rather interesting, scientific and profound, but basically it is just a stringing together of some terms and no substance whatsoever. If you want to play with the big boys you have to show more than this kind of stuff. And the fact that you don't understand what the DeBye length has to do with everything in plasma physics, well, that just shows ...

Also, I will mention that you never even commented on my remarks:

The fact that you state "even in quasi-neutral plasmas" shows that you have no idea about plasma physics, as basically all space plasmas are quasi-neutral. Maybe you should look up the definition of quasi-neutral.

And if, as you say, electric currents are expected to occur "filamentary" (which I will not deny) then why should we take a 35 kpc current channel seriously? Really!?!?!

So, what next?

 

[Siggy_G]

Also, I will mention that you never even commented on my remarks: ( ... "Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas" ... )

Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well:

I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then. As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree.

I said I would get back to the Debye (not "DeBye", btw) screening questions directed to me, because I will need to elaborate on it.

Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it.

 

[Dancing David]

Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well:

Um definitions and language are everything of this forum, so you better get used to it. You will be called (as are we all) upon to define everything you say at times, that is the nature of the JREF.

I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then.

What scales and distances for plasma effects in these quasi neutral plasma?
What evidence for any current flow that is not very short range?

As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree.

Poor form Siggy G, that is a total political spin there, this is what he said.
"And yes, plasma physics is scalable, but you have to do it in the correct way. "
We are hopefully here to discuss theories, data and evidence. Not some political rhetoric.


That is not saying they are insignificant or questionable some methods have meaning others don't, , he is saying you best know what you are talking about.

 

[tusenfem]

Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well:

Phrasing grounds? I don't think so. The whole notion was that you showed a lack of understanding of plasma physics when you wrote:

Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, ...

seeming to imply that "quasi-neutral plasmas" are something special, which they obviously are not. And just to help you, the Debye length has everything to do with quasi-neutrality of a plasma, so ...

I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then.

I would like to see you make a discharge in a space plasma. We have been through this discussion with Brantc (if I remember correctly) and others. In order to have a discharge you need an insulator, like the Earth's atmosphere, that breaks down and then lets the build up charge difference equalize.

NOBODY, who knows anything about space plasma physics, will claim that "space plasmas must be neutral," they will claim that "space plasmas are neutral over large volumes" (and what prithee determines the size of "large"???), in smaller volumes there can be charge fluctuations (and a certain formerly Dutch physicist Peter de Bije, who changed his name to Debye after moving to the US, studied this).

And then the quasi-neutrality has nothing to do with the fact whether the plasma is carrying a current or not, it is a property of a plasma, nothing more nothing less.

Then it beats me what you mean with the discharges again and then the between-parenthesis but at low densities and vast scales. There are copious amounts of plasma in space that are not low density.

As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree.

I never claimed insignificance (like DD also noted) I said plasmas ARE scalable, but you have to do it correctly.

I said I would get back to the Debye (not "DeBye", btw) screening questions directed to me, because I will need to elaborate on it.

Fine, I hope the hints that I gave you in this post will help you to figure out how the Debye length is important in a lot of plasma physical processes.

So, I am looking forward to see you show some real plasma physical knowledge and then maybe we can get into a discussion about all this stuff (once more, for the umpteenth time). You might want to browse through all the previous threads, because there are many calculations that I and others have done to show that many of the EU/PU/ES/EC just don't jive.

 

[Tubbythin]

Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it.

a) That doesn't make it 96% unknown factors, that makes it maybe two unknowns.
b) I do hope your not yet another Plasma Cosmologist who doesn't know the difference between astronomy and cosmology. Because the evidence from that quote suggests you don't.

 

[Reality Check]

Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it.

Siggy_G, Just to make Tubbythins second point clearer (I had to read your post a couple of times to see what he meant).
Astronomy is the science that includes the observations that provide the overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter and the good evidence for the existence of dark energy.
Cosmology has models that include dark matter and energy because they are astronomical observations and the inclusions make the models match the observed universe. These models include the visible matter that is also an astronomical observation. If they ignored dark matter and energy then there is no reason why they should not also ignore visible matter.