Something new under the sun

[Dancing David]

Cough up the numbers dude!

You made the claim that the EM forces will do the same as the hypothsized dark matter.

But an EM field is very measurable, and should be detectable.

So cough up that data, chose a mass, like a star, put a charge on it and then compute the force needed to make it move at the observed rather than the gravitation minus dark matter rate.

From the force compute the magnetic or EM force you wish to be the one doing the acceleration.

Then show where the data as observed match the calculated field.

I will anticipate you figures, remember the scaling, what is the size of the EM field needed for a given charge/mass to accelerate a star to the observed value?

You may divide the field by twenty since that is the dark matter kludge. then show where that field is observed and or measured.

Here you are Zeuzz.

 

[Belz...]

There is no contradiction.

Incredible. You can't even understand the implications of your own sentences.

 

[Belz...]

Large chunks of neutral atoms and molecules.

Ah, so that's what you mean...

Gosh, for one I'd like to see how those EM forces can dominate on such large scales.

Sol, you obviously fail to understand what is being proposed. Peratt or anyone else is not trying to change the idea that gravity dominates our solar system, or on other bodies the size of planets. He is proposing that gravity does not behave linearly in accordance with this scale, ie, on much larger scales than planets and stars (ie, galaxies and superclusters) gravity does not have such a dominant effect and plasma forces begin to take the upper hand.

That makes little sense. Basically you're saying that gravity follows a bell curve ? It gets stronger and stronger with mass, and then for some reason it gets weaker ???

 

[iantresman]

So now the cranks [..]

These idiots [..]

.
Let's try and keep the ad hominems out of it, it is a poor argument.

What do you know... if it isn't our very own Ian Tresman that's responsible for that website!

.
And if you check my signature in ever post (see below), you'll see that it is acknowledged. And if you have a problem with any of the peer-reviewed citations on the site, I'll look forward to your published paper, and will gladly include it on the site.

 

[iantresman]

BTW, bad show old chap, the abstract disagrees with you, I will read the full one later but you missed this part that says the cloud will contract

.
No, I mentioned just this point in a post in this very thread a couple of weeks ago citing this very paper and noting "the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud".

 

[sol invictus]

Let's try and keep the ad hominems out of it, it is a poor argument.

That wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was talking about whoever wrote the first paragraph of the galaxy formation section of that website. Was that you?

I notice you seem to be adopting the tactics of the other two here - when you realize you're wrong about something, you simply stop responding to posts about it and pretend it never happened. Later, you come back to it hoping it's been forgotten.

So tell me, Ian - how can it be that the dynamics of planets is dominated by gravity when planets are made of infinitesimal charged particles? According to you, EM forces should be vastly more powerful.

 

[Dancing David]

.
Agreed. An sometimes electromagnetism dominates, as it does in jets, the interplanetary medium, the interstellar medium, and the intergalactic medium.

According to your own citation of Alfven, they only dominate in certain conditions of charge and velocity, which you didn't demonstrate in these very broad areas, except for maybe the jets.

 

[Cuddles]

Zeuzzz, you need to figure this out with BAC and Iantresman, who are now saying that stars do not move through the Galaxy like electrons move through a plasma.

It's just like arguments with homeopaths and conspiracy nuts. They all know that the mainstream is wrong and that anyone who supports it is an idiot, but in their eagerness to argue with us they somehow completely fail to notice that they're constantly contradicting each other as well. There's really no need for anyone to bother arguing with them, as long as there's more than one of them in a thread they're pretty much self-debunking.

 

[Dancing David]

.
There is no contradiction. The motion of charged particles smaller than a grain is dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Gravity does sometimes dominate, as it does with the planets.

Just an assertion, you haven't demonstarted it and it may be that you are contradicting Alfven.

 

[iantresman]

That wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was talking about whoever wrote the first paragraph of the galaxy formation section of that website. Was that you?.

.
No matter who an ad hominem is aimed at, it is still an ad hominem, and still a weak argument. Theories and ideas may be flawed, but we don't have to rub people's noses in it.

So tell me, Ian - how can it be that the dynamics of planets is dominated by gravity when planets are made of infinitesimal charged particles? According to you, EM forces should be vastly more powerful.

.
(1) the charged particles in atoms and molecules are "neutralized" whereas in plasma the collection of charged particles are quasi-neutral. (2) gravity dominates even charged particles larger than grains.

Dusty plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces. Grain plasmas begin to be influences strongly by gravity. Gravity rules the motion of planets, asteroids, meteors, etc.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps you should inform these mainstream sources:

From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=199 "Density Wave theory. This is the preferred model for grand design spirals. (BAC - the Milky Way is a grand design spiral.) The spiral arms in this model are over dense regions of the disk which move round at a different speed to the stars themselves. Stars thus move in and out of the spiral arm (which fits in nicely with ideas of there being more star formation in the arms since many galaxies are observed to have more new stars in the place where the arm should just have moved through). How these density waves are set up is unclear, but it may have to do with interactions (many grand design spirals have smaller companions - just like M51). Once they are set up they can last for a long enough time to be consistent with the number of spiral galaxies we see."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=402 "How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way? ... snip ... We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years, taking about 10 million years to go through."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s8.htm "In a galaxy the spiral region of greater gravity concentrates the stars and gas. The spiral regions rotate about as half as fast as the stars move. Stars behind the region of greater gravity are pulled forward into the region and speed up. Stars leaving the region of greater gravity are pulled backward and slow down. Gas entering spiral wave is compressed. On the downstream side of wave, there should be lots of H II regions (star formation regions). This is seen in some galaxies with prominent two-armed spiral patterns. But there are some unanswered questions. What forms the spiral wave in the first place? What maintains the wave?"

And just so everyone knows our location:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8436/dn8436-1_500.jpg

perhaps you could show that this has some relevance to the arguments, just for clarity are you now saying that there is not a flat rotation curve when it comes to the stars?

or are you saying that there is a flat rotation curve only when it comes to the plasma or what are you saying..It could be that stars clusters in the galactic halo also rotate at an unpredicted spped.

How do you address that?

You will ignore this as you do so much, I will be polite now and not make fun of you by acting like you.

You on the other hand will not answer direct questions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ah, so that's what you mean...

Gosh, for one I'd like to see how those EM forces can dominate on such large scales.

So would I, and so would Peratt, if you hadn't noticed, this is the main thrust of his work; trying to determine what role plasma physics plays on the shape of large structures in the cosmos. If you read his material, maybe you would understand what he is proposing? no-body else here seems to.

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M)

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M).

The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

That makes little sense. Basically you're saying that gravity follows a bell curve ? It gets stronger and stronger with mass, and then for some reason it gets weaker ???

Why would it get weaker?????

Just the same as the EM force, and the strong nuclear force, and every other force, when you reach a certain scale its effects start to be dominated by other forces.

And this makes perfect sense, and is exactly what structures in the universe imply. Gravity obviously plays a vital role in the level of solar system dynamics, as it seems to match observation very well. At the level of planets, due to its very nature of being purely attractive it will form objects into a definitive spherical shape. The planetary level seems the only scale where this happens, ie, on the scale of meteors or below it is too weak and so they are not spherical, and on the scale of galaxies it is much stronger, but it can not explain any of the shapes we observe at galactic level as it is supposed to be a purely attractive field, galactic filaments, barred galaxies, spiral galaxies, etc, are all inexplicable by gravity without having to invoke huge amount of hypothetical matter to account for their shape.

So it should follow that at larger scales, just like all other forces, the effects of gravity begin to get overidden by another force.

Pertts work is looking into the interaction of two galactic Birkeland filaments resulting from a Bennet pinch, using the effects their charge and mass has in realtion to the Biot Savart force law in a free force configuration, which creates both attractive and repulsive forces. Thats the main difference between gravity and this force, it has a repulsive component. And his model seems to create galaxy shapes to a great accuracy. When he changes the charge and mass values of the interacting plasmoids they create the morphology of every type of galaxy we observe, (Irregular Galaxies and "Dust Lane" E Galaxies, Flattened E and SO Galaxies, Peculiar and Seyfert Galaxies to Spiral Galaxies, Elliptical Galaxies, Normal and Barred Spirals) all from simple forces due to adjacent plasmoids and gravity.

If you scale up and look at the forces acting on a galactic centre, or a galactic size filament, from what we know about the motion of our our solar system, it was presumed that gravity dominates for these structures too. But his is obviously not the case, no objects on this scale are spherical, they appear irratic, spirals, filaments, barrels, etc. And whether gravity dominates other forces at this level is not known, it is presumed. Yes, gravity is accurately measured and proven within the bounds of the solar system very well indeed. However, gravity remains untested for these larger scales. All we have is a formula. So, what Peratt is saying is that when you scale up to galactic size, gravity, although it does have a major role to play, may not be the dominant force at work. And by including gravity in his model, he is attempting to find out what this force is likely to be and what relationship it has with the charge distribution in the galaxy.

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. So the assumption that gravity works the same at the size of planets as it does for galaxies is a good one, and one that seems logical as no other value is known, but thats what it is, an assumption.

 

[iantresman]

It's just like arguments with homeopaths and conspiracy nuts. They all know that the mainstream is wrong and that anyone who supports it is an idiot, but in their eagerness to argue with us they somehow completely fail to notice that they're constantly contradicting each other as well. There's really no need for anyone to bother arguing with them, as long as there's more than one of them in a thread they're pretty much self-debunking.

.
Alfvén had papers rejected from mainstream journals because they "knew" he was wrong. University of Arizona professor Alex Dessler, former editor of Geophysical Research Letters has written:

"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S.Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described."​

Perhaps the critics shouldn't have bothered arguing with Alfvén either.

 

[Dancing David]

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. So the assumption that gravity works the same at the size of planets as it does for galaxies is a good one, and one that seems logical as no other value is known, but thats what it is, an assumption.

That just shows that you are using a special private defintion to make you justified in making outrageous claims.

Start putting numbers to your models and let us see what happens.

Then do you models match observations?

God of the gaps anyone?

 

[iantresman]

Gosh, for one I'd like to see how those EM forces can dominate on such large scales.

.
Let me ask a question.

The Sun's gravitations force dominates the motion of the planets and asteroids. The interplanetary medium is a neutral ionized gas. What dominates its motion, gravity, electromagnetic forces, or both, and at what scale?

 

[Zeuzzz]

That just shows that you are using a special private defintion to make you justified in making outrageous claims.

Start putting numbers to your models and let us see what happens.

Then do you models match observations?

God of the gaps anyone?

My models? Yeah, because if you look really closely at Peratts papers you will see that actually I wrote all this, and it is my personal theory.

Do you understand the relationship Peratt is using for his model of interacting galactic currents? can you come up with a reason to refute it?

And do you appreciate that in the abundance of filaments that we observe in space, EM forces are holding them in place? Gravity, being a purely attractive field, can not explain these shapes, and so EM forces must be maintaining them.

Just trying to get a consensus on a few things first.

 

[Dancing David]

That might not be inconsistent with the Alfven/Peratt model since that model doesn't claim that ISM movement is just "around" the core. Electric current is flowing to and from the core, presumably taking plasma with it. Furthermore, the plasma model doesn't have trouble with a little turbulence here and there. It's much harder to explain this from a gravity point of view. Or are you about to introduce a gravitic turbulence gnome?

And how about 82 Eridani. It's only 20 light years away yet traveling 101 km/s relative to the ISM. How could this be?

And speaking of electric current coursing through the galaxy ...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/27/1720/00045500.pdf "Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies ... snip ... Radio polarization observations have revealed large-scale magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. ... snip ... Long magnetic-field filaments are seen, sometimes up to a 30 kpc length."

Still won't address you own glaring issues but will pretend that you have found holes in the mainstream model!

1. Arp's use of statistic involves sampling error that are significant. Discuss.
2. You have used a number of ways of waving Perrat's models around to explain the galaxy rotation curves, in the one that you might have started with, what force of field is moving the stars at a faster rate? What is the size of that field.
3. You have also said that Lerner’s plasmoid model will not collapse due to gravitation. Please address a 40,000 solar mass plasma, in an area of 43 AU in diameter and how it avoids gravitational collapse?

As a side bar you have also stated :

4. That Perrat's model imparted the flat rotation curve to the galaxy when it was plasma and formative , it would appear that you also stated that this explains the current flat rotation curve. Yes or no?
5. It would also appear that is one post you mentioned Alfven's mechanism of a star imparting momentum to planets as a possible means that a Lerner plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse. Discuss you later denial and explain what you think might be happening.
6. Then recently you made a claim that perhaps the motion of stars in galaxies did not need to be accounted for by dark matter because the observation related solely to plasma, and not stars. And therefore since plasma could be explained by Perrat's model to have a flat rotational curve, there was no need for dark matter. This seems to ignore the observation that the orbits of star clusters also would indicate dark matter and that galaxy rotation rate may also be measured on stars. Please explain.

See I can do this for weeks, months and years. I can be very polite and genteel, you however will not answer these huge gaps in your models BAC,.

 

[Dancing David]

You cant see any stars at the large scale he is using in the simulation anyway. RealityCheck, your pseudoskeptisism is beginning to wear a little thin on me, unless you stop making stupid points i am going to have to put you on ignore.

Use of the phrase pseudosceptic, first warning sign of impending trolldom? Can't answer questions, blame the other person.

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
And if you check my signature in ever post (see below), you'll see that it is acknowledged. And if you have a problem with any of the peer-reviewed citations on the site, I'll look forward to your published paper, and will gladly include it on the site.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

What people like sol and others dont realise is that the all the material on your site is sound science, based on sound peer reviewed papers published in mainstream science journals. And what they seem to have failed to realise is that after us asking for over twenty pages of posts now, not one person has come up with any reason at all to refute any of the information displayed on your site.

It really makes me wonder what their problem with the material presented there is. I am beginning to think that they have no valid reasons to dismiss it.

 

[Dancing David]

.
No, I mentioned just this point in a post in this very thread a couple of weeks ago citing this very paper and noting "the magnetic field may either counteract, or aid the contraction of cloud".

And when you misinterpret Alfven, who is right then? You or Alfven?

Time to Coose!

And now you reference yet another paper instead of trying to explain your interpretation of the first the other one, hmmmm. But the third link in the post is to the paper where Alfven says something different than you are saying? Isn't that the paper where Alfven says that the EM force only dominates when there is a specific charge and velocity?

And how exactly does what Carlqvist change anything.