Something new under the sun

[Dancing David]

Why do you say that?

His model is a model between two interacting galactic filaments, the filaments are self supporting, and because magnetic field lines can not be open, by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields, which provides some further rigidity. I dont think that a charge on the stars is required, nor do i think he mentions one.

bald faced assertion without evidence!


You take the prise !

"by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields, which provides some further rigidity" uh huh, and now BAC's Gnomes are joined by Zeuzz, and to think I thought you were seriously going to try to discuss stuff.

Come back with the evidence to support your funny little Gnome, I make the same offer to you that I did to BAC.

Show us some formal proof and evidence that stars are joined by thier EM fields and that provides some rigidity (rigidity means that they have a spaced distance that is not accounted for by angular momentum and is somehow maintained by your star's EM fields. You get one kludge factor of 20). and I will formally apologise to you here and in the community forum.

You need the scaled fields, forces, and evidence that they exist. You have just shot whatever credibility you had, back up your assertion or admit is is just a figment of your thoughts.

And no, unsacled pictures that are used as metaphors do not count, if you make reference to Perrat be sure to tell us the actual size of the scaled magnetic field. And please what size field is going to lock stars in with some sort of rigidity.

Simulations must be accompanied by scaled figures, fields and measurements to demonstrate thier existance as in measurements of real astronomical data, not 10 cm plasma.

Good luck, I look forward to apologising to you but that is Bogus.

 

[Dancing David]

As the majority of most galaxies is hydrogen, it would seem to an ignoramus like myself that the magnetic field strength required to move these more distant stars from the centre can be easily calculated. Has this been done?

That number has been asked for and not provided.

In the PC model there is a lot of handwaving and no math.

BAC has suggested now that the galaxy aquires it's flat rotation curve while it is in the formative phase. Which of course does not explain why it has a flat rotation curve now, due to the laws of orbits.

 

[Dancing David]

.
If it is dense enough, and charged neutral, then maybe.

But, just take a look at any nebula, or perhaps M87's "jet" which extends 5000 light-year (big enough?). Gravity clearly does not dominate, but works together with electromagnetic forces.

Excuse me Ian but your statement makes no sense.

You go from one object to another with no connection, transition of translation.

And the black hole model explains the same phenomena of jets and includes EM forces.

So what observable datum does the EM only model predict that the black hole model doesn't.

You are still trying to pretend that gravity does not exist, please explain yourself, give us the force that keeps a could of gas or Plasma from collapsing. You can't fater a certain point, no amount of kinetic energy is going to avoid the collapse.

You can slough off material and momentum but the collapse will still occur. You don't get the point, even if you give each partcile an unrealistic charge, the could will undergo collapse , once it is large enough. Even if you state that the cloud is made of magnetic monopoles all of the same polarity (if such is possible or not) the cloud is going to collapse.

if you are going to make these really unsuppoerted statements than it would be best to check the math.

What size charge is going to be needed on the partciles for a cloud that is three light years in diameter and has a mass of 25 suns?

It is going to be a whopping large charge for sure.(Much higher than an ionised atom of hydrogen) But please show us how this magic boojum of charge is going to counter gravity? It will be neutralised and shunted off, the collapse will occur.

It doesn't matter if the cloud is made out of totaly ionized hydrogen, the mass of 25 suns will overcome the repulsive charge and the sucker will collapse. It may break apart at times, it may start to fuse and push away some of the mass, but it will collapse.

take a look at this

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1995/44

Y'all insist that all that we can see is made up of this plasma stuff , which is supposedly quasineutral.

But there it is collapsing to form stars.

Where is a charge preventing collapse?

 

[Zeuzzz]

double post

 

[Zeuzzz]

bald faced assertion without evidence!


You take the prise !

"by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields, which provides some further rigidity" uh huh, and now BAC's Gnomes are joined by Zeuzz, and to think I thought you were seriously going to try to discuss stuff.

I would ask you first where you think the EM field of the sun ends?

Its a consequence of using the Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, as opposed to the one invented by atrophysicists, ivolving frozeon in magnetic field lines, "open" magnetic fields, magnetic reconnection, etc, or any other new property of magnetism we have never had any experimental evidence for. I like to adhere to the experimental method, and current properties of magnetism in space are a far way away from it.

(ref) - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007

The local interstellar medium has an estimated ion–electron pair concentration in the range of 0.01–1/cm3. Thus, the volume between the Sun and its nearest neighbor contains some 6 × 1054 ion–electron pairs. However, quantitative calculations based on simple electrostatic forces between such particles lead to erroneous conclusions. This is because double layers (DLs) separate cells of plasma in space (e.g., heliospheres)such that electrostatic forces between bodies that are each surrounded by such DL-bounded plasma cells are negligibly weak. Homogeneous models often are found to be misleading and should be replaced by inhomogeneous models, with the inhomogeneities being produced by filamentary currents and DLs that divide space into cells [5]. Space in general has a cellular structure.

It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists
and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into publications and then used as the basis of new investigations.
There are some popular misconceptions.

1) Magnetic “lines of force” really exist as extant entities in
3-D space and are involved in cosmic mechanisms when
they move.
2) Magnetic fields can be open ended and can release energy
by “merging” or “reconnecting.”
3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any
reference to the currents that produce them.
4) Cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields
are “frozen into” it.

[..........]

Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth. Those investigators who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic field theory must refrain from inventing “new” mechanisms in efforts to support current-free cosmic models. “New science” should not be invoked until all of what is now known about electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by responsible scientists and engineers.

Show us some formal proof and evidence that stars are joined by thier EM fields and that provides some rigidity (rigidity means that they have a spaced distance that is not accounted for by angular momentum and is somehow maintained by your star's EM fields. You get one kludge factor of 20). and I will formally apologise to you here and in the community forum.

There have been numerous observations of strong electric currents connecting bodies through the Interstellar medium (ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref) the high temparatures observed there (hotter than the photosphere of the sun in some places, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud), and electric currents can only flow long distances through plasma, not gas.

 

[sol invictus]

.
If it is dense enough, and charged neutral, then maybe.

Nope. Wrong. Makes no difference what its density or charge are. Make it big enough, and gravity always dominates.

We've already been through this.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Nope. Wrong. Makes no difference what its density or charge are. Make it big enough, and gravity always dominates.

We've already been through this.

Sol, are you really surprised to see these folks hashing over the same old defunct arguments again and again...?

This thread is getting sooooo old

 

[ben m]

BAC, Zeuzzz, Iantresman:

The Sun may have a small (< 100 C) electrostatic charge. It has a smallish magnetic dipole moment d (measured), and it expels the ionized solar wind (measured). The wind exerts a ram pressure force on the ISM (measured now by Pioneer). The electromagnetic forces on the Sun are:

• F1 = qE + qv x B + grad B.d in the presence of a hypothetical large-scale E and B field in the ISM
• F2 = dp/dt in the presence of a hypothetical jet or stream of plasma impacting the Sun from one direction.

You can wave your hand about Birkland currents and such all you like, but the only way they can exert a force is via the equations above.. Either the current is driving a high-momentum stream of particles into the Sun, or it's generating a magnetic field which couples to the Sun's charge and dipole. That's what pushed particles around in Perratt's simulations. Merely showing that the Sun is "connected" to Galactic structures tells you nothing about the forces. When I light a fire in my barbeque, the ionized flames is "connected" to the Earth's magnetic field, but that doesn't knock over the hamburgers, because the forces are small. A satellite passing through the Van Allen belts isn't tossed around like a cork---it's pushed very gently by F = qE + qvxB forces (while being pounded by ionizing radiation.).

The Sun has a large mass (measured) of 2e30kg. The gravitational force on the Sun is

• F3 = GMm/r^2, where M is the mass of the galaxy inward of 8 kpc (approximately, this equation is for a sphere rather a disk) and m is the mass of the Sun.

There's no point telling us how many different ways you want to create F1 and F2. You have to show how big F1 and F2 are. Just tell us q, E, B, and grad B at the Sun's surface. Do they add up to ~ 10^20 N? If not, they don't explain the Sun's orbit around the galaxy (neither the whole nor the part attributed to dark matter).

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you say that?

His model is a model between two interacting galactic filaments,

So? Stars are not galactic filaments. By your own admission, their motion is controlled by gravity, NOT electromagnetism. And their galactic rotation speeds cannot be accurately modeled without introducing more mass than is visible.

the filaments are self supporting, and because magnetic field lines can not be open, by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields,

Doesn't matter. Without a large charge, the forces involved are too small to be relevant. And the charge cannot be large.

I dont think that a charge on the stars is required,

It's either a charge on the stars, or a magnetic field gradient. Those are the only possible ways to exert a large net force on a star with electromagnetism. And neither the necessary charge nor the necessary magnetic field gradients are even remotely plausible.

nor do i think he mentions one.

Because he doesn't model what happens to stars, perhaps?

 

[sol invictus]

Why are we still talking about this stupid idea?

It's no more valid than creationism, and for basically the same reasons. There is an overwhelming consensus among mainstream scientists (about 99.9% based on the discussion we had earlier) that it's nonsense, it makes no predictions, it's vague and ill-defined, and the moment you examine any of it in detail it completely falls apart. Its proponents on this forum are totally ignorant of physics and unable to maintain even a facade of expertise. Zeuzzz even told us earlier that it's not physics, but metaphysics, and was unable to come up with even one single phenomenon it explains differently than the mainstream.

If people want to discuss fringe or speculative ideas, there are so many others that are so much more interesting.

 

[BeAChooser]

Any angular momentum in the initial clouds of gas that preceded star or planet formation will remain, because there is no mechanism to get rid of it.

Very good, sol. Now you are starting to catch on. The angular momentum that causes planets to go around stars and stars to go around galaxies was introduced to the clouds of plasma BEFORE there were planets and stars. So why would one think EM couldn't significantly influence the angular momentum of those clouds?

Going back a step, the primordial origin of it is easy to understand - basically any asymmetry in an overdense region will lead to rotation as the overdensity collapses under its own gravitational pull, and the initial overdensities are not generally symmetric (they originate in random fluctuations).

So you think small perturbations in primordial mass distribution is why the clouds of plasma ... be it around galaxies or stars or plasma ... are now rotating? What about the fact that everywhere we look we can actually see EM effects causing rotation of matter? What about the fact that we can model such rotation sources. And reproduce them in the lab? Do you just ignore that, sol? Do you assume that EM effects have no effect on the rotation of matter anywhere in the universe? Because if you deny what those simulations say about galaxy rotations, then you have to deny what similar simulations say about rotations closer to home. You have to deny the results from lab experiments which show EM can produce the rotations that the models simulate. And you have to believe in a gnome ... actually, a whole bunch of gnomes.

So there is no mystery in the origin of the rotation, and once it's there no force is required to maintain it.

I guess, you are claiming that asymmetries in the primordial dark matter are what caused the initial angular momentum that's observed in ordinary matter. Hmmmmm? You going to stack a gnome on top a gnome, sol? First you had to infer an amount of dark matter from observed velocities ... now you have to infer a dark matter angular momentum too. And you claim there is no mystery but various recent mainstream papers contain statements like these:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...y's+angular+momentum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us "Angular momentum is among the most important quantities determining the size and shape of galaxies, and yet a detailed understanding of its origins remains a missing ingredient in the theory of galaxy formation."

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/galform.html "At least for disks, we strive to understand where their angular momentum came from. Pure collapse would introduce none, and it's hard to see where vorticity would arise in the early universe without invoking ad hoc behavior of the density fluctuations. A popular suspect has been tidal torquing, in which the protogalaxy is nonspherical and its closest neighbors exert a tidal stress that imparts net angular momentum. This works because the companions are on average receding, so the galaxy is left with a spin fossilizing the initial conditions and not averaged to zero by later evolution. One might seek correlations produced by this process in isolated bound binary systems; no detections have been reported. The expected specific angular momentum depends on the characteristic companion distance and the shape of the protogalaxy at the time when single companions were most efficient at tidal torquing. Spin could also be produced in mini-mergers, as fragments of sub-galactic mass come together. In this case, spin arises from off-center impacts (as discussed in the outer solar system). Chernin has studied the appearance of vorticity by propogation of shock fronts across density gradients. We end up with one major problem: how could galaxies form so fast from the homogeneous background seen in the 2.7 K radiation? ... snip ... To be fair, astrophysicists are being dragged into the realization that magnetic fields and plasma processes are important on large scales. "

And if what you claim is the true explanation, sol ... explain this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7104/full/nature05052.html "Nature 442, 786-789 (17 August 2006), The rapid formation of a large rotating disk galaxy three billion years after the Big Bang"

Indeed, the tendency for objects to remain in motion is something well known since the 1600s and a certain well-known physicist named Isaac. Apparently the news hasn't reached BAC yet, though.

The news that hasn't reached sol, because he foolishly chooses to only listen to half of this debate, is that this was the point I was trying to get David and RC to understand from the very beginning. It isn't necessary that EM affect stars to make them rotate the way they do around the galaxy currently. They rotate that way because the plasma clouds from which they formed were rotating. And Peratt's work would indicate those clouds are rotating because of EM effects. The model indicates that EM effects can caused the rotation curves to look like they do. No dark matter is needed to do that. But of course sol isn't going to understand this because he's foolishly decided not to listen to my half the conversation and is instead erroneously inferring what I said from RC's and David's misleading and confused posts. See how inference can lead one astray?

 

[BeAChooser]

And the solution in standard astrophysics is that the sun has a mechanism for losing angular momentum over time, namely by dragging the solar wind with its rotating magnetic field. Given that the sun is several billion years old, it's had quite a bit of time to slow down.

Except it had to slow down LONG AGO or it wouldn't have been a star then. Surely you aren't claiming that the sun became a star only recently. But in any case, you are arguing my case for me. The distribution of angular momentum in the solar system is an EM effect ... not the result of gravity or dark matter.

Any mechanism for expelling angular momentum will encourage collapse, not prevent it. You've got it exactly backwards, which is no surprise.

Except I wasn't claiming a mechanism for expelling angular momentum is what keeps a plasmoid from collapsing into a black hole. I was only TRYING to point out to David that there are effects ... such as angular momentum and high temperatures ... which can keep a large mass from collapsing.

 

[BeAChooser]

But Peratt's model is more complex - cosmic plasma filaments or sheets + Birkeland currents + tenuous cosmic plasma = galaxy. This still leaves the fatal flaw in his paper:

He chooses to ignore gravity without an explicit justification (a calculation, simulation or estimate of the relative forces).​

You are WRONG, RC. He did NOT ignore gravity from the VISIBLE mass. It's included in his model. He just ignored the hypothetical gravity from your hypothetical dark matter. Which he found wasn't needed to explain the observed rotation curve ... which is your *proof* of dark matter.

 

[BeAChooser]

No it is not in there. I am beginning to think that you have not read the posting or paper.

See http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf . Here's a portion of what Peratt says in this article ... "When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. For scientifically published references, see the very extensive list below. Although EM Plasma Physics is well known and experimentally tested, the detailed calculations are very complex and require supercomputers that operate for months. There is no question that EM Plasma effects dominate the early formation of a Spiral Galaxy from an ionized plasma. As time progresses, matter is accreted into star formation. Then gravitational effects become stronger, as EM plasma effects become weaker as the inter-stellar plasma density decreases with time evolution. These effects are sufficiently complex that I can not describe them with simple arguments or simple mathematics. Supercomputers are necessary."

You don't know what you are talking about, RC. You clearly do NOT understand Peratt's model. Gravity IS included.

 

[BeAChooser]

Peratt chose to ignore all manifestations of gravity in his model.

This is FALSE, RC. Read the quote from him above. And reread it again if you still don't understand it. Maybe it will finally start to sink in.

His basic idea is: There are laboratory experiments which use magnetic currents and plasma to create coherent structures called plasmoids. We can scale this up to astrophysics scales using the similarity transformations that have been used for other plasma phenomena. We will replace the experimental apparatus producing the magnetic fields with the fields from cosmic plasma filaments using Birkeland currents. The source of the plasma for the plasmoids will be the cosmic plasma.

And you don't begin to understand Peratt's model. Because you haven't really read any of the various peer reviewed papers that have been linked.

 

[BeAChooser]

And galactic motion of stars, being much larger than grains, are dominated by gravity. So their motion cannot be explained by electromagnetic forces.

WRONG. The rotation of the matter in those stars around the galaxy was there BEFORE there were stars. Some on your side have already agreed to that. You wish to challenge them? It was there when all there was was unbound plasma. And unbound plasma most definitely is strongly influenced by EM effects. Which is what Peratt modeled.

 

[Reality Check]

You are WRONG, RC. He did NOT ignore gravity from the VISIBLE mass. It's included in his model. He just ignored the hypothetical gravity from your hypothetical dark matter. Which he found wasn't needed to explain the observed rotation curve ... which is your *proof* of dark matter.

Where in his 1986 paper does he include gravity?

 

[Reality Check]

See http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf . Here's a portion of what Peratt says in this article ... "When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. For scientifically published references, see the very extensive list below. Although EM Plasma Physics is well known and experimentally tested, the detailed calculations are very complex and require supercomputers that operate for months. There is no question that EM Plasma effects dominate the early formation of a Spiral Galaxy from an ionized plasma. As time progresses, matter is accreted into star formation. Then gravitational effects become stronger, as EM plasma effects become weaker as the inter-stellar plasma density decreases with time evolution. These effects are sufficiently complex that I can not describe them with simple arguments or simple mathematics. Supercomputers are necessary."

You don't know what you are talking about, RC. You clearly do NOT understand Peratt's model. Gravity IS included.

Where in his 1986 paper does he include gravity?

Guess who does not read their links (hint: it is not me!). Look at the end of the conclusion:

Much more research is needed in the following areas.
(1) The difference in rotational speed of stars vs plasma filaments in Spiral Galaxies.
(2) "Dirty Plasma" effects.
(3) Plasma Density as functions of time and position within a Spiral Galaxy. ​

(4) Simplified approximate "Gravitational + EM Plasma" equations which transparently describe the interplay of gravitational and EM Plasma forces which determine the essential features of Spiral Galaxies.
5) The role of Conservation of Angular Momentum in the evolution from plasma to Elliptical to Irregular to Spiral Galaxies.

Peratt himself states at that 2005 conference that much more research is needed in the area of "Simplified approximate "Gravitational + EM Plasma" equations which transparently describe the interplay of gravitational and EM Plasma forces which determine the essential features of Spiral Galaxies". I wonder what kind of "Gravitational + EM Plasma" equations were in his model before 2005 - maybe very simplified and extremely approximate "Gravitational + EM Plasma" equations.​

 

[Reality Check]

This is FALSE, RC. Read the quote from him above. And reread it again if you still don't understand it. Maybe it will finally start to sink in.

And you don't begin to understand Peratt's model. Because you haven't really read any of the various peer reviewed papers that have been linked.

Where in his 1986 paper does he include gravity?
Please give the actual numeric ratio of gravitational to EM force that he gives.

 

[BeAChooser]

The current story goes like this:
Perrat's models impart the angular momentum to the galaxy during it's formation

David, I'm curious. When do you think the galaxy got the angular momentum it has? And it's distribution of angular momentum? During it's formation or (say) a billion years ago? The truth is you are making NO attempt to actually understand Peratt's model. You've amply demonstrated that over and over on this thread. Oh well ... that seems to be par for the course with Big Bang, Dark Matter supporters.