Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

And in that case it won't help you much.

And Mr Jones still has a million quid in his bank account even though he has never invested in stock and/or shares.

 

[Reality Check]

I also believe that we grossly underestimate the effect of the EM field on the distribution of matter in a galaxy as the mainstreams aversion to Peratt's work demonstrates IMO.

There is no "aversion to Peratt's work", just like there is no aversion to flat earth theories. Peratt's work is just wrong. Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.

ben m cites a post within a conversation that shows that EM fields have no measurable effect on the distribution of matter in a galaxy (to be more exact on a star like the Sun). This is a calculation that has been done several times whenever EU cranks appear in the forum.

Maybe a better citation is
Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents (PDF), B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992
which has the result (if you plug the numbers in) that the EM component in his plasma filaments is 7 orders of magnitude less than the gravitational component.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you give the citations for the interstellar medum moving stars around

As far back as Birkeland, an EU orientation predicts that most of the mass of the universe is in motion and not inside of stars. The trick to moving stars is to move the mass *OUTSIDE* of the stars and the stars will follow, if only due to gravity.

That shows the ignorance of the proponents of the EU orientation.

1. The majority of the mass of galaxies is in the stars. The interstellar medium is about 10-15% of the mass of the Milky Way for example.
2. The interstellar medium is roughly isotropic, i.e. the gravitational forces from it on a star roughly cancel out.

But I may be wrong and would like to see the claculaitons that the EU orientation (e.g. Birkeland) did to support their belief. So:

Michael Mozina
Can you give the citations for the interstellar medum moving stars around?
You can start with Birkeland's paper or book where he does this calculation or makes this assertion.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the calculations that these papers double the mass of galaxies

I love how you folks just glace over the fact that you can essentially double the amount of normal amount of mass (or more) of a galaxy based on these findings!

Wrong: Science by Press Release Loses Again
For the first paper: Adding in a fudge factor being off by a factor of 10 then that translates into a doubly worst case scenario 1.25% error in galactic mass.

The other 2 papers say nothing about the mass of the galaxies being affected.
The second paper is about the amount of light we measure indirectly from galaxies, i.e. they heat up dust and then we measure the heat from that dust.
Even if we guess that means the flux measured is off by a factor of 2 then that would leadto a 20% increase in the estimated mass of galaxies.

The third paper is about the mass distribution of stars (initial mass function) within galaxies. This is not used to estimate the mass of galaxies.


Try to learn something about numbers, Michael Mozina: 1.25% is less than 100%.
(even 21.25% is less than 100% ).

A further point that you are ignorant of: Galaxies are 5 - 20% of the massof a galaxy cluster. The rest is in the intracluster medium.

But maybe you or someone else has actually done the math to supp rt your assertion that these papers double the mass of galaxies.

Michael Mozina
Where are the calculations to back up your assertion of the papers doubling the mass of galaxies?

 

[ben m]

The trick to moving stars is to move the mass *OUTSIDE* of the stars and the stars will follow, if only due to gravity.

RC is right to highlight this, Michael. It's complete nonsense. Gravitational force does not "entrain" things in flows. The force on a star due to a moving bath of matter is exactly the same---same direction, magnitude, etc.---as that due to a stationary bath. This isn't aerodynamics, Michael, it's gravity.

(Dynamical friction has a velocity term in it, but it doesn't do what you want it to do.)

And the "rotation curve" of the Milky Way is not that of "stuff entrained in a flat rotation curve fluid". There are plenty of stars, etc., showing the high velocities associated with the flat rotation curve, but going in the wrong direction.

It seems to me that the last time we discussed this issue you failed to recognize that I do not believe that we have already accounted for all the ordinary mass in a galaxy, or the fact that moving the galaxy is about moving individual charged particles that are *NOT* inside of stars, not about moving the stars directly.

I apologize if I didn't internalize that particular nonsense. Claiming that we're going to find a lot of invisible baryons is the same thing as saying we're going to explain the rotation curve by the gravity of those baryons. Claiming that the rotation curve is dominated by EM effects, or MOND, is the same thing as saying since we've already found all the gravitating baryons we have to go beyond gravity to explain the rotation curve. I didn't realize that you---the enemy of invisible bunnies everywhere---would be advocating a mixture of invisible rocks and invisible plasma drag forces.

 

[Tubbythin]

[*]The majority of the mass of galaxies is in the stars. The interstellar medium is about 10-15% of the mass of the Milky Way for example.

Do you mean the most of the visible mass? Could I have a reference for this? Its not that I don't believe you, I was just looking for this number earlier and found something completely different.

 

[Tubbythin]

You took the LEAST important aspects of the mass estimation problems to focus on, and you completely skipped over the fact that you underestimated the large star count by a factor of 2 and a small star count by a whopping factor of 8! You simply ignored those two points entirely.

Going back to this, if stellar masses are underestimated due to dust extinction then this will be greatest where the dust is greatest. This will be in the central bulge and then the disk. Adding mass to either of these or both together won't make the rotation curve flat. Like with the black holes, I think adding mass to the central bulge (where the dust extinction is greatest) will mean we require more not less dark matter to flatten out the rotation curves.

 

[edd]

RC is right to highlight this, Michael. It's complete nonsense. Gravitational force does not "entrain" things in flows. The force on a star due to a moving bath of matter is exactly the same---same direction, magnitude, etc.---as that due to a stationary bath. This isn't aerodynamics, Michael, it's gravity.

(Dynamical friction has a velocity term in it, but it doesn't do what you want it to do.)

And the "rotation curve" of the Milky Way is not that of "stuff entrained in a flat rotation curve fluid". There are plenty of stars, etc., showing the high velocities associated with the flat rotation curve, but going in the wrong direction.

This is made only more obvious when you look at the velocity dispersions of elliptical galaxies rather than the rotation curves of spiral galaxies... or indeed the Bullet Cluster where, disregarding the weak lensing result, the gas has all smushed up and stopped in the middle and the stars have just careered off and not stopped and stuck around with the gas. Or, for yet another counterpoint, why would a neutral hydrogen gas cloud fit the rotation curve in the same way as a star when the former has a much much bigger cross-section with any surrounding matter?

Practically nothing makes sense if you try to make a galaxy stick together electromagnetically.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you mean the most of the visible mass? Could I have a reference for this? Its not that I don't believe you, I was just looking for this number earlier and found something completely different.

You are right - it is the visible mass. I found the numbers on the Astronomy Notes web site (The Interstellar Medium).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is how the universe (i.e. the scientific community) does work !

• The work of Peratt has been read and understood in this forum, e.g.
  Peratt's work on galaxy formation that deccribed an imaginary universe where spiral galaxies have actual arms rather than brighter regions (Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).
• The work of Alfven has read and understood in this forum.

You though have an obsession with forcing people to read 30 old year textbooks as if they were sacred texts. There are modern textbooks that are better than the books by Alfven and Peratt for the simple fact that they contain 30 more years of exploration of the field.

I think I'll bide my time and go through that 7 page thread on Peratt's actual work RC. It looks like I personally missed that thread entirely. I see at least one valid criticism of his simulations in the sense that his simulations were "limited" to plasma interactions (MHD), and included nothing related to GR theory. IMO that is a valid criticism and is probably why some of the other aspects come out a bit 'off'.

I'm dismayed however that your first reaction was one of "how can I write off this theory" rather than "how might it be improved upon and thereby become useful". That's pretty much the standard operating procedure around here. You'll "tweak" your invisible friends until the cow come how, and give them superpowers galore, but God forbid you actually improve upon a pure plasma/gravity orientation to the universe.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm dismayed however that your first reaction was one of "how can I write off this theory" rather than "how might it be improved upon and thereby become useful". That's pretty much the standard operating procedure around here. You'll "tweak" your invisible friends until the cow come how, and give them superpowers galore, but God forbid you actually improve upon a pure plasma/gravity orientation to the universe.

This comment shows a glaring misunderstanding of one of the most rudimentary concepts of the scientific process. Real science is a process that takes all the available data, objectively analyzes it, and assembles it into a theory that best explains that data. When new data becomes available it is added to the mix, and by necessity the theories are tweaked to take into account the accumulated data. Crackpots, on the other hand, tend to start from a severe, often just plain stupid misunderstanding, draw a conclusion, then make every effort to prove to themselves that their cockamamie notion is true. One of the key elements missing from crackpot "science" is objectivity.

So if there's an improvement to be made upon "a pure plasma/gravity orientation to the Universe", an improvement which actually does a better job of explaining the available data, real scientists would be working on that. But even if there were something real scientists are overlooking and the crackpots are seeing, I'm sure we all agree the crackpots are doing an amazingly poor job of pointing out the oversights. Amazingly poor. Tens of thousands of physicists on Earth, all of them would love to make a breakthrough discovery, maybe win a prestigious prize, and none of them are buying the crackpots' argument.

But again, objectivity counts. Any alleged improvements would have to do a better job of explaining the data, all of it, objectively, not to suit the whim and fancy of a handful of cranks who aren't really qualified to understand physics anyway.

 

[ben m]

I'm dismayed however that your first reaction was one of "how can I write off this theory" rather than "how might it be improved upon and thereby become useful".

What makes you think it can be improved upon? We didn't throw it out because of a factor of 10, or an unlikely coincidence or two, or a plausible-but-unjustified assumption. We threw it out because it takes a bunch of nonsensical inputs, multiplies them by a factor of 10^20, and gets a result that has precisely nothing in common with astrophysics.

If that's not a basis for saying don't waste your time, nothing is. If you want, I can put Peratt's theory can get into the "maybe could be improved" queue right behind hollow-Earth, the Lewis cubical atom model, Autodynamics, and Velikovsky.

 

[Reality Check]

I think I'll bide my time and go through that 7 page thread on Peratt's actual work RC. It looks like I personally missed that thread entirely. I see at least one valid criticism of his simulations in the sense that his simulations were "limited" to plasma interactions (MHD), and included nothing related to GR theory. IMO that is a valid criticism and is probably why some of the other aspects come out a bit 'off'

All you need to do is read the first post.
There is one flaw that is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows much about astronomy which completely invalidates his theory.
You need to read up on how the matter in galaxies is distributed.

• Spiral galaxies do not have actual arms in the sense of having no matter in between them. The density between the arms is 10-20% less than the arms. But Peratt's results says they do (0% density between the arms).
• Double lobed radio galaxies are actually mostly elliptical galaxies. But Peratt's resultssays that that are double lobed.

This fundemental error arises becaus Peratt tries to compare his images from particle simulations of plasma (the mass distribution of the plasma) with optical and radio images of galaxies.

I'm dismayed however that your first reaction was one of "how can I write off this theory" rather than "how might it be improved upon and thereby become useful".

You need to learn more about science. That is a large part of the scientific method. It is up to the author of a paper to produce enough evidence to convince his readers that his results are correct. This is where Peratt has failed.
You do know that PhD candidates have to defend their thesis and that the word defend is there for a purpose. The requirement to support and defend their work continues throughout the life of a scientist.

If a theory is wrong then there is no point in asking "how might it be improved upon and thereby become useful". Trying to do so is just a waste of time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What makes you think it can be improved upon?

Well, for one thing it could include the influence of gravity. That's an obvious way to improve it.

We didn't throw it out because of a factor of 10, or an unlikely coincidence or two, or a plausible-but-unjustified assumption. We threw it out because it takes a bunch of nonsensical inputs,

How can *ANYTHING* be more "nonsensical" than inflation? What exactly are you calling "nonsensical"?

multiplies them by a factor of 10^20, and gets a result that has precisely nothing in common with astrophysics.

Oh boloney. There are features it shares in common and Peratt wrote about them. Did you ever read his paper?

It seems to me that the mainstream is insisting on ignoring the E fields of spacetime, and many PC/EU proponents seem to ignore and/or downplay the gravity side of the equation. IMO the answer lies in a merger of the two.

If that's not a basis for saying don't waste your time, nothing is. If you want, I can put Peratt's theory can get into the "maybe could be improved" queue right behind hollow-Earth, the Lewis cubical atom model, Autodynamics, and Velikovsky.

This is the kind of nonsense that you folks spew that irks me no end. Proud of yourself for comparing empirical physics to metaphysical nonsense Ben? Why not compare it to that metaphysical inflation nonsense next, because that's sure to irk me no end!

I have to admit that a lack of inclusion of GR theory in Peratt's original simulations was a "limitation" of the simulation that was bound to create "divergence" from "physical reality" in the final analysis. There's definitely room for improvement in that sense. Even still, it's just as pointless IMO for you folks to be ignoring the implications of the E field as it relates to events in space. There has to be a sane middle ground in there somewhere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

All you need to do is read the first post.
There is one flaw that is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows much about astronomy which completely invalidates his theory.
You need to read up on how the matter in galaxies is distributed.

IMO your point about his simulations not including GR influences is directly related to that issue (along with a lack of iron IMO. ).

I must say you did a reasonably good job articulating your complaints. I think the GR issues actually relates right back to the first criticism by the way. Without a "clumping" of matter via GR, the layout aspect is likely to be "incomplete". It's not valid however to "throw it all away" only because its a "primitive" first attempt RC.

In terms of the behaviors of plasma filaments, your "problems" are directly related to your limited understanding of current carrying threads in plasma, and Peratt's limited computer model that tends to lack the "GR structure" that stabilizes the whole process.

I'll be the first to admit that some of your points are in fact valid. On the other hand your desire to simply "toss it all out" says volumes IMO about your biases. I get tired of EU/PC proponents downplaying the role of gravity in astronomy, and likewise I get tired of the mainstream downplaying the significance of the E field in astronomy. They are like fundy flipsides of the same coin IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is made only more obvious when you look at the velocity dispersions of elliptical galaxies rather than the rotation curves of spiral galaxies... or indeed the Bullet Cluster where, disregarding the weak lensing result, the gas has all smushed up and stopped in the middle and the stars have just careered off and not stopped and stuck around with the gas. Or, for yet another counterpoint, why would a neutral hydrogen gas cloud fit the rotation curve in the same way as a star when the former has a much much bigger cross-section with any surrounding matter?

Practically nothing makes sense if you try to make a galaxy stick together electromagnetically.

I don't think it's reasonable to try to stick it all together with the EM field alone to the utter exclusion of gravity. IMO that's just as bad as ignoring the EM field influence altogether.

 

[ben m]

How can *ANYTHING* be more "nonsensical" than inflation? What exactly are you calling "nonsensical"?

Inflation is (a) compatible with the known laws of physics, hypothesizing the addition of a heretofore-unobserved scalar field. (I know you don't believe this statement; that's your problem, not inflation's.) Inflation is (b) in agreement with observations.

Giving stars a 10^20 coulomb charge (as Peratt does) requires the basic laws of E&M to be wrong. Really, really wrong, in domains where we strongly think it's right. Entraining the stars a flat-rotation velocity field disagrees with the actual data on rotation curves, which show stars having independent orbits in arbitrary orientations.

Oh boloney. There are features it shares in common and Peratt wrote about them. Did you ever read his paper?

Yes, I read the paper. I recall the "features" being (a) a rotation curve that was generally more "flat" than Keplerian, and (b) vaguely spiral-looking density fluctuations.

It seems to me that the mainstream is insisting on ignoring the E fields of spacetime, and many PC/EU proponents seem to ignore and/or downplay the gravity side of the equation. IMO the answer lies in a merger of the two.

The merger of the two is already there. It's called "astrophysics". Astrophysics already includes the gravity fields that are actually there, and the magnetic fields that are actually there, and the electric fields that are actually there.

(The electric fields that are actually there, unfortunately for you, are very small and small-scale. What do you want us to do? Take all of our observations and just invent a huge electric field to add to it? Why?)

I have to admit that a lack of inclusion of GR theory in Peratt's original simulations was a "limitation" of the simulation that was bound to create "divergence" from "physical reality" in the final analysis.

No. The error in Peratt's original simulations was the fact that he made his "stars" behave like (say) electrons---he gave them nonsensical charge-to-mass ratios so that they get accelerated easily in magnetic fields. That's wrong (not just "unjustified" or "speculative", just wrong). If you take out that charge-to-mass error, and plug in (correct) gravity, then what you end up with is an ordinary gravitational model of the galaxy. We already have gravitational models of the galaxy. Does Peratt's model have a one-part-in-ten-to-the-power-of-who-cares perturbation due to his (corrected) treatment of magnetic fields? Wake me up when we have an observation with enough significant figures that tells me that I should care.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, for one thing it could include the influence of gravity. That's an obvious way to improve it.

That was done and made the theory even more invalid:

Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents (PDF), B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992
which has the result (if you plug the numbers in) that the EM component in his plasma filaments is 7 orders of magnitude less than the gravitational component.

Even still, it's just as pointless IMO for you folks to be ignoring the implications of the E field as it relates to events in space. There has to be a sane middle ground in there somewhere.

That is ignorant. No one ignores the implications of the E field as it relates to events in space.
The sane middle ground is to use the physics to determine when gravitational forces dominate EM forces and vice versa. It turns out that the primary factor is scale. In general EM effects in a plasma are restricted to a few tens of Debye lengths.

Hannes Alfven pointed out that: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."

The Debye length of the intergalactic medium is 100,000 km.

The insane middle ground is to assume that EM forces dominate in all situations.

 

[Reality Check]

IMO your point about his simulations not including GR influences is directly related to that issue (along with a lack of iron IMO. ).

So?
My opinion is that adding gravity will completely invalidate his theory because his galactic filament will collapse. IN fact that is what Peratt's later paper means since the EM component in his plasma filaments is 7 orders of magnitude less than the gravitational component.

It's not valid however to "throw it all away" only because its a "primitive" first attempt RC.

It is valid to throw it away when the author throws it away!
If Peratt had any confidence in his work then he would have added gravity (GR is not needed) sometime in the last 20 years.

I will emphasis this: It is not for the general community or scientists in general to fix up an invalid theory just because they have a vague hope that it can be fixed. The responsibility is the authors.

I get tired of EU/PC proponents downplaying the role of gravity in astronomy, and likewise I get tired of the mainstream downplaying the significance of the E field in astronomy.

You are right about the EU/PC proponents.
But then you compare apples and pears (cranks and scientists).
You are wrong about the mainstream: It emphases the significance of the E field in astronomy when the E field is significant. For example, solar physics is all about the E field (astronomers though get to it via the M field because that it what they mainly measure). A little thing called electromagnetism means that when you talk about the M field you are also talking about the E field (non-relativistically).

 

[Dancing David]

here is one poster's argument

"I don't like, I don't like it one bit"