Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

[sol invictus]

Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.

As Tubbythin says, that's trivially false.

If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind.

Science isn't defined by "experiment", it's defined by falsifiability. Dark matter is a falsifiable hypothesis which so far has withstood observational tests (the recent bullet cluster observations are an excellent example).

You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it.

The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question.

Total nonsense. Open any plasma physics textbook, or type it in to google, and you'll get a correct definition. The quote you provided mentions the Debeye length, it doesn't define it.

Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics?

And why do they all have the same writing style?

 

[Dancing David]

Which model by Peratt has been debunked?

The one that is published.

 

[Dancing David]

You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this.

Why don't you give use the charge and the magnetic fileds as observed and then do the calculations, the magnetic fields are way too small. What field strength do you think Pwerrat used? have you read the paper?

How big should it be? Show the math.

Show Perrat's and how it match the observations.

Do you mean his simulation in a ten cm vessel with extremely high magnetic fields?

Maybe you should read Perrat, I have.


What field strength does he use in the alleged model?
What charges and field strengths, how do they match observations?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.

Hahahaha

What is the Debye_length^WP and why would it matter?
have you even read anything about plasma?

What would the Debye length be in the interstellar medium?

 

[Dancing David]

If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind.

[westminister]Wrong wrong wrong wrong, Wrong wrong wrong wrong, Wrong wrong wrong wrong[/wesminister]

Science is about observation, the fine structure constant alpha doesn't change when obserevd, regardless of where we look at spectral lines, did you know that?

 

[Dancing David]

You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it.

The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really.

I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven:

It has everything to do with the distance of the plasma effects that you claim can act at as great a distance as gravity.

If you think it is irreleavnt then maybe you should just stop.

"In plasma physics, the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields in plasmas and other conductors. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur. A Debye sphere is a volume whose radius is the Debye length, in which there is a sphere of influence, and outside of which charges are screened. "

Ergo therefore the electrical effects of charge will not extend past the Debye length, what is it for the interstellar medium?

 

[Dancing David]

Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments.

Oh whoops, quick call Fermilab and the LHC!

 

[Dancing David]

I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it.

So you haven't read Perrat's paper and want us to do your homework, why am I not surprized.

For Perrat's model to be accurate it SHOULD match observations, so either it matches reality or is all made up.

 

[Dancing David]

He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster.



Gladly:

And where is your citation, what source, what paper or journal?

 

[Ziggurat]

I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it.

I believe I already pointed out this link to you elsewhere, but perhaps you never looked it up:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3420696#post3420696

You'll probably object to this since I use the standard value for the mass of the sun, but you've never put forward an alternative mass, nor have you explained how to obtain the Keplerian orbits of the planets without using the standard mass.

So if you don't accept the numbers I gave, we can try whatever numbers you like. Give me a charge on the sun and a mass for the sun, and I'll run through the calculations again and calculate how big the galactic magnetic field needs to be.

 

[Longfellow]

...(snip)

Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics?

Probably because if they knew anything at all about basic electrodynamics, they wouldn't be "electric universe" proponents.

 

[Tubbythin]

Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments.

Observations are the results of experiments. Astronomical observations are the results of astronomical experiments. Much like the observation of the top quark at the LHC was result of an (several if you like) experiments. Etc etc.

I asked for experimental evidence, not mere observation and speculation. Rotation curves of galaxies do not provide even indirect evidence of "dark matter".

Its not "mere observation". The observations are the result of astronomical experiments. They provide evidence that is supportive of the dark matter hypothesis. They don't conclusively prove that dark matter exists. But then I never claimed they did.

We do not need to invoke "dark matter" to explain why galaxies do not obey gravity. They don't obey gravity because they are plasmas. Plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces.

And yet you are completely incapable of supporting this claim with quantitative evidence. That would be because it is a completely false assertion.

It's very different. It's saying an astronomer who practices cosmology is also a cosmologist and vice versa. That's a very simple idea, and pretty much irrefutable, unless you start redefining those words in mid-sentence.

A nuclear physicist who does a bit of atomic physicist is also an atomic physicist. It doesn't stop nuclear and atomic physics being two different fields.

 

[Tubbythin]

He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster.

They don't need to pick who to believe. They can do the calculations for themselves. They can, for example, calculate the ratio of gravitational to electrostatic forces on a proton from a star of charge 1e. They will find that the gravitational force is something like 20 orders of magnitudes stronger than the electrostatic one.

Gladly:

Please provide the full context of that quote. Without it its all a bit meaningless.

 

[Arthur Mann]

They can, for example, calculate the ratio of gravitational to electrostatic forces on a proton from a star of charge 1e. They will find that the gravitational force is something like 20 orders of magnitudes stronger than the electrostatic one.

False.

 

[Ziggurat]

False.

The calculation is rather easy to perform. So why don't you do it and show us all Tubbythin is wrong?

Or if you can't, we could do it for you. Just say the word.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Astronomical observations are the results of astronomical experiments.

Please cite an "astronomical experiment" that verifies your beliefs.

Much like the observation of the top quark at the LHC was result of an (several if you like) experiments.

Top quark? Hahahahaha.

They provide evidence that is supportive of the dark matter hypothesis.

Cite one example.

And yet you are completely incapable of supporting this claim with quantitative evidence.

False, as I've demonstrated numerous times.

That would be because it is a completely false assertion.

False.

A nuclear physicist who does a bit of atomic physicist is also an atomic physicist. It doesn't stop nuclear and atomic physics being two different fields.

If you say so.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Probably because if they knew anything at all about basic electrodynamics, they wouldn't be "electric universe" proponents.

Cite one property of basic electrodynamics that conflicts with "electric universe" models.

 

[Tubbythin]

I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe.

I said no such thing. I said:

The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity.

which was a typo and should have been "...simulations of galaxies".

You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you.

I made no such claim about magnetic fields (not recently anyway). I claimed that he ignpred gravity. You can show me that I'm wrong if you like.

Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it.

If it ignores gravity for high mass, net neutral objects then it cannot possibly be correct. If it does not ignore gravity then you can show me how it is included.

 

[Tubbythin]

False.

Show me I'm wrong quantitatively that I'm wrong then.