Something new under the sun

[Reality Check]

While you are reserching please disprove this.

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually it is even weirder than that. You would think that Peratt's model would be to take the established model of a cloud of hydrogen gas + gravity, replace the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasma and add EM forces. But his model actually replaces the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasmoid which in turn needs the scaled up magnetic fields that create plasmoids in the laboratory. To get these magnetic fields he proposes Birkeland currents in cosmic plasma filaments as the source. He then removes gravity from the model without any justification.

RC, stop pretending like you actually read and understand Peratt's model. You don't. You are only embarrassing yourself amongst any that actually do go read the papers and articles he wrote. I tell you what ... why don't you contact him directly if you think I'm wrong. Report back to us.

 

[BeAChooser]

There is not much point in debating the use of plasma "cosmology" to remove the need for dark matter since we have an observation of the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach..."+"not+dark+matter"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us, "A New Force in the Dark Sector?, Glennys R. Farrar and Rachel A. Rosen, Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University, 2007, We study the kinematics of dark matter using the massive cluster of galaxies 1E0657-56. ... snip ... If the discrepancy we find here between predicted and observed dynamics of the bullet subcluster is substantiated by refined observations and analysis, and confirmed in other systems, it would imply the existence of a long-range, non-gravitational force within the dark sector."

http://science-community.sciam.com/...ations/Dark-Matter-Dark-Energy-Dark/300004135 "First Dark Matter, Then Dark Energy, Now a Dark Force?, Jan 8, 2007"

So now it's not just dark matter, dark energy, dark energy stars and dark galaxies ... now it's dark forces, too! Will the stacking of gnomes never end?

And lensing depends on redshift truly being an accurate measure of distance. And perhaps lensing isn't what you think:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

 

[Reality Check]

RC, stop pretending like you actually read and understand Peratt's model. You don't. You are only embarrassing yourself amongst any that actually do go read the papers and articles he wrote. I tell you what ... why don't you contact him directly if you think I'm wrong. Report back to us.

That is what his 1986 paper does so I assume that is what he wanted to do. Why don't you contact him yourself or tell us what you think his model is?

 

[Reality Check]

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach..."+"not+dark+matter"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us, "A New Force in the Dark Sector?, Glennys R. Farrar and Rachel A. Rosen, Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University, 2007, We study the kinematics of dark matter using the massive cluster of galaxies 1E0657-56. ... snip ... If the discrepancy we find here between predicted and observed dynamics of the bullet subcluster is substantiated by refined observations and analysis, and confirmed in other systems, it would imply the existence of a long-range, non-gravitational force within the dark sector."

http://science-community.sciam.com/...ations/Dark-Matter-Dark-Energy-Dark/300004135 "First Dark Matter, Then Dark Energy, Now a Dark Force?, Jan 8, 2007"

So now it's not just dark matter, dark energy, dark energy stars and dark galaxies ... now it's dark forces, too! Will the stacking of gnomes never end?

And lensing depends on redshift truly being an accurate measure of distance. And perhaps lensing isn't what you think:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

You are just confirming the wide range of research that is going into dark matter. I assume that you agree with these papers and the existence of dark matter

 

[sol invictus]

You know, I was poking around just now, and took a look at this website:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]

I've got a simple, yes or no question for the plasmoids here: is it true that PC predicts that galaxies will rotate like a solid disk?

Please, no one else comment on this. Let the PC people have their say.

 

[The Man]

A simple, but displacing question.

How do EU theorists determine interstellar and intergalactic distances?

Now, I am not interested in how they do not gauge distance or whatever problems may be perceived with current astronomical distancing. I am only asking how such distances are determined by EU theorists.

 

[Klimax]

ROTFLOL! So you think stars are made of gas and not plasma?

Congratulation,BAC!Now you have misunderstood me!!!
I knew you will say this...

I said during formation.Once there was enough mass,pressure(caused by gravity!) caused temperature to be high enough to get matter into state of plasma.And fusion was next step...

 

[iantresman]

I've got a simple, yes or no question for the plasmoids here: is it true that PC predicts that galaxies will rotate like a solid disk?

.
No. Peratt writes:

".. the rotation curves are not really fiat; they show appreciable structure representative of an instability mechanism within the arms" (page 173)​

and

"The velocity consists essentially of a linearly increasing component due to a central body undergoing rigid rotation, with two flat components on either side of r = 0 due to the trailing arms" (p.172) -- "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies", Snell, Charles M.; Peratt, Anthony L., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173​

 

[Reality Check]

.
No. Peratt writes:

".. the rotation curves are not really fiat; they show appreciable structure representative of an instability mechanism within the arms" (page 173)​

and

"The velocity consists essentially of a linearly increasing component due to a central body undergoing rigid rotation, with two flat components on either side of r = 0 due to the trailing arms" (p.172) -- "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies", Snell, Charles M.; Peratt, Anthony L., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173​

The plasma model of course is totally wrong. A minor point is that it produces galactic curves that match the experimental data but does not account for the influence of dark matter which we know to exist.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Oh, thats nice, you don't understand math and how it can be used to model magnetic fields, you don't like the term 'zero divergence' and so you just ignore how math can explain what you says doesn't exist.

Even though it makes predictions that are tested in the lab.

So you just pick and choose what you believe in as far as lab experiements go.

Why not show that the language used describes a model and find a claim that has been flasified?

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

I will look at the last paper, but here is the deal, now you are self referencing, bad form, and you still are just arm waving.

Making reference to some of the same simulations you did before.

You have not demonstrated scalability, you have kust asserted it. If things are scalable, what scales do you use and what translations.

Your lack of pointing to rigidity, your lack of explanation, your lack of data is noted.

Your paper BTW does not support your bogus assertion, you are distracting by showing the same stuff about field lines, open field line, reconnection and frozen in lines. You have yet to falsify any statements made by the mainstream that the modeling describes, so where is the flasification?

Funny that Zuezz, you are not doing anything to support the assertion you made that the EM forces of stars lock them in to some sort of rigidity.

Why is that?

 

[iantresman]

The plasma model of course is totally wrong. A minor point is that it produces galactic curves that match the experimental data but does not account for the influence of dark matter which we know to exist.

.
Dark matter is inferred and theoretical, so you can't use it to lend support to the observations. It is the observations that enable scientists to guess the nature of dark matter.

 

[Dancing David]

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).

there you go BAC, Zuezz and iantresman.

Either counter the math and add to the figures or fill in the blanks.

 

[Dancing David]

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?



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?

No you have taken a small plasma in a magnetic field (like 10 cm and 4.4 gauss) and that is all you have. yes there are jets and filaments.

But you have just used the *insert miracle gnome here* and left out how you get from point a to point b.

What scales BAC, a 10 com plasma to a galaxy isn't that a scale of 1mm:light year or so, and then if you have 4.3 gauss in the plasma container, what does that make the galactic scale field?

Eh.

You have to dat a plasma in a small container, potential filaments and jets.

You have not shown the alleged EM forces creating motion everywhere.

What about the fact that we can model such rotation sources. And reproduce them in the lab?

What about the scales and how you ignore them, where are they?

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.

No you have asserted that a 10 cm plasma is a galaxy haven't you, even in boolean algebra your assertion is not true. You have just asserted that sol is wrong and that you are right.
overgenralization

You have to deny the results from lab experiments which show EM can produce the rotations that the models simulate.

And you seem to beleive a galaxy is 10 cm across.

And you have to believe in a gnome ... actually, a whole bunch of gnomes.

yeah, you have three Gnomes and a Pixie.

Way to go.

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"



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?

More arm waving BAC, no real explanation, more distraction.


Soooo... if somehow Perrat's model which describes the behavior of plasma ions (not stars: oh look I see a bunny in the clouds) can be scaled up to a galaxy size object (demonstration and math lacking) and the momentum is imparted to the galaxy that you now seem to be suggesting creates the flat rotation curve:

Perrat's model creates flat rotation curve in giant plasmoid>giant plasmoid becomes galaxy.

You are ignoring ONE huge fact and still have a Gnome.

The past state of the plasma cloud being in a flat rotation curve is not going to explain the current rotation curve, unless the same forces, which you still refuse to show evidence for at at work.

So demonstrate the forces needed to explain how the alleged magnetic field keeps the rotation curve flat.
I never asserted that EM forces had no part in formation of galaxies and you are still just arm waving.

 

[Reality Check]

.
Dark matter is inferred and theoretical, so you can't use it to lend support to the observations. It is the observations that enable scientists to guess the nature of dark matter.

You are wrong. The gravitational lensing detected from the dark matter is not theoretical and is a measurement. Gravitational lensing is a common astronomical tool used when there are large masses available. You may want to actually read the link.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

No you just asserting that the angular momentum had to be contained in the sun's angular mometum.

You haven't shown that the prorosun had that momentum, you have just asserted that it did.

there are other possibilities.

Your argument parses like this:
1. the proto sun had the angular momentum that is now in Jupiter.
2. that angular momentum would have kept the sun from reaching a point of density requirred for fusion to occur.
3. the sun is fusing and therefore the angular momentum must have been transferred.

This is a straw argument, you have not shown that (1.) is true you have just asserted it and then defeated your straw man.

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.

You hinted at it, now you say that you didn't hint at it.

Sure whatever, your model doesn't exist, and you keep changing it, that way you never explain it or defend it.

Whatever troll.

Now you are still saying that high temperatures and angular momentum will keep a Lerner plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses from collapsing or that it will keep the sun from collapsing?

 

[Belz...]

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

Density ? Won't gravity work, no matter how "dense" it is ? Center of gravity, anyone ?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3535891&postcount=621
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3535935&postcount=623
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536236&postcount=626
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536634&postcount=637
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3538106&postcount=661


And in this one here BAC you state very clearly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3538106&postcount=661

And what's going on here might even shed some light on your question about what keeps plasmoids from becoming black holes ... if you'd let it

So have the discussion of Alfven and the transfer of angular momentum to planets, and then you bring up plasmoids and blackholes.

Which contradicts your statement here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3540342&postcount=732

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.

So there, you are contradicting yourself Karl Jr.

You just spin so fast you hope that the straw turns to gold and you forget what you said before.

Hoisted on your own petard, you can say my posts are confusing but the truth is your don’t even understand what you are saying.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

And that won't explain the current flat rotation curve.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

the truth is this BAC , you keep stating that
1. perrat's model explains the rotation of galaxies during formation.
2. And it seems that you are now saying that this explains the current flat rotation curve.

that doesn't work, I do read what you say and try to understand, you are still just waving Gnames and have your own Gnomes.

Even if Perrat's model of a small plasma can be scaled to a galaxy (*insert Gnome here*) it will not and does not explain the current rotation curve of the galaxy unless the same field snd effects are still in place.

You haven't demonstarted that it works for stars, you have correctly stated that it might work for 'unbound plasma' but you haven't gone from perrat's small plasma to a galaxy.
So you still need to demonstrate that
1. the model can be scaled to a plasma the size of a galaxy.
2. that the model applies to stars.
3. *either* the momentum imaorted during formation creates the current flat rotation curve
4. *or* the dynamics of stars as plasma provide for the force and fields needed to explain the current rotation curve and evidence that they exist.


You just hide behind your magic Gnames (shame on you for abusing them ) and hide behind your *insert Gnome here*, you still haven't shown what you say might be happening explains the data or evidence.

i do try to understand the model you hide behind, the problem is that you don't.