Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

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

If you had seen the absurdity of the claim he was making, it would soon become apparent that his point was a pseudoskeptical point to make with no basis, so I have no reservations about saying that. I replied to the points that were valid.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

Time to Coose!

Well, maybe you could explain what this misinterpretation is? I'm sure if you make a valid point then Ian will respond to you.

 

[Dancing David]

.
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?

Um Ian you kmnow that you are contradicting Alfven don't you and you are not reading the statement he made carefully, he said that the EM force may be considered to dominate when the charge and velocity were at certain parameters. Have you shown that those parameters are met in the interplanetary medium yet?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um that might appear to be dodging , you are the one who has seemingly stated that somehow EM forces cause the orbital velocities seen in galaxies.

Now are you making reference to stars , or just the plasma and not the stars?

I did give you a single question to answer so I hope you address that as well.

What level of motion is explained by EM forces in what objects, what force is needed to change the motion, how does it compare to observation? besides the example of the star i have asked for, now you can also define what, where and how the EM forces manifest themselves, if you so desire, and how they match with astronomical observations. That way if the star's motion is not your example of choice, you may have your example of choice.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um sure Zeuzz, whatever.

Except it would seem that Ian has contradicted Alfven and when any of the three proponents on this board are asked for numbers that predict astronomical observation, the answers are not forthcoming.

I do hope to see some numbers from you on what mass is moved by what acceleration so we can figure the size of the EM force/field and if it has been measured yet.

 

[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.

Hi Zeuzz, here is that question to put numbers to, so we can compare to observation.

Unless you want to choose some other object than a star?

All we need is the mass and the difference in observed motion versus the expected motion of gravity minus dark matter and then whammo, we can find the force, determine the field needed to make that force and see if it has been measured.

that way you can use the science that you so decry in astrophysics to demonstrate the theories that you are supporting.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, maybe you could explain what this misinterpretation is? I'm sure if you make a valid point then Ian will respond to you.

I have , I am waiting for his response. The first one seemed not to address the issue that the paper he referenced said something other than what he said that it said.

this the quote from Alfven's paper:

Quote:
If a very small grain is electrically charged , electrostatic forces may dominate so that it can be considered part of the plasma. The condition for this is fm=q(E+v x B) (where q is the charge and v the velocity of the grain) is larger than the other forces such as gravitation, light pressure and the other viscous interaction of the other constituents of the plasma.

It does not say that EM forces will always dominate witha small grain, it says the EM forces will dominate when certain charge and velocity are present.

So without the numbers and especially in reference to the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds (be they plasma), Alfven is NOT saying that EM forces dominate and the gravity is avoided. he states that EM forces dominate when certain parameters are met.

That is where Ian appeared to be heading when addressing the issue of gravitational collapse.

I will wait for an answer.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Um that might appear to be dodging , you are the one who has seemingly stated that somehow EM forces cause the orbital velocities seen in galaxies.

I think this could likely be true, since objects at the galactic scale do not seem to obey basic gravity, and seem far more influenced by other, currently anomalous, forces.

Now are you making reference to stars , or just the plasma and not the stars?

Peratt is not talking about the scale of stars where gravity obviously reigns supreme, he has created a model for the forces involved on a galactic scale.

I did give you a single question to answer so I hope you address that as well.

I presume this one?

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.

This I cant do, which i admit. I would imagine that you could theoretically choose a point on one of the plasmoids involved in the interaction, assign to it a mass, and work out what the force would need to be to keep it in its position in the plasma. But this scale is not dealt with in Peratts work, it would have to be a very accurate model to account for the actions of each individual star. He appears to have found a relationship on a larger scale between EM forces and gravity in interacting plasma that can account for galaxy rotation curves. The role of individual stars in this model has not been addressed fully, but you can infer that they are just a small part of the large scale galactic system he is describing.

What level of motion is explained by EM forces in what objects, what force is needed to change the motion, how does it compare to observation? besides the example of the star i have asked for, now you can also define what, where and how the EM forces manifest themselves, if you so desire, and how they match with astronomical observations.

This would need an entirely new thread I feel. I thought we were discussing the uses of Peratts model here, which is a tiny fraction of the more general cosmical electrodynamic principles of the plasma universe. [1]

 

[Zeuzzz]

So without the numbers and especially in reference to the gravitational collapse of molecular clouds (be they plasma), Alfven is NOT saying that EM forces dominate and the gravity is avoided. he states that EM forces dominate when certain parameters are met.

Not to tread on Ians shoes here, but I dont think that anyone claimed that Alfven had refuted gravitational collapse by him demonstrating that EM forces on a grain dominate in certain circumstances. Why would it? He did however propose a different mechanism for gravitational collapse initiation due to a magnetic pinch effect (I think, i'm no where near as familiar with Alfvens material then other areas in this subject)

http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbang3.html

" The magnetic force of a plasma thread increases with the velocity of the plasma, causing a positive feedback cycle: as the threads move closer, they are pulled together faster, increasing the magnetic force on them, pulling them still faster. As they move together, the angular momentum of the plasma causes centrifugal force that resists contraction, but the filaments are able to carry away excess angular momentum, whereas gravity cannot (p. 44).

This process, understood from numerous laboratory observations, has implications on larger scales. The solar system, for instance, formed from the gravitational collapse of a vast gas cloud. As this cloud contracted as a result of gravity, it started spinning. If gravity were the only force involved, the process would have stopped there. The centrifugal force of the cloud would have resisted further collapse, with the solar system stabilizing as a diffuse cloud of gas, roughly twice its present diameter. But the solar system did form. Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma cosmology, theorized that the inner part of the protostellar plasma cloud spun faster than the outer part, generating an electric current, "flowing out along the solar magnetic field lines, through the cloud and back to the sun at its equator" (p. 189). The interaction of the currents and magnetic fields caused the inner cloud to slow down, and the outer cloud to speed up, transferring angular momentum out of the system, and allowing further collapse.

By this mechanism, the early solar system lost 99.9% of its angular momentum, allowing the sun the collapse to the point at which it was able to ignite. The magnetic field action does not stop there, though. The sun, which represents over 99% of the mass of the solar system, retains only two percent of its angular momentum, while Jupiter has 70%, and Saturn has 27%. Two planets, which represent about a thousandth of the mass of the solar system, possess nearly all of its angular momentum (p. 188). In 1972, Alfvén and Gustaf Arrhenius developed a model of the early solar system in which self-pinched filaments swept through the dense protoplanetary plasma, their concentrated magnetic fields transferring angular momentum from the sun to the protoplanetary disk, pinching the plasma together into planets, which use the same process to form satellites (p. 209). The existence of planetary currents and filaments was confirmed in the sixties and seventies, when space probes detected them around Earth and the outer planets, exactly as Alfvén and his colleagues predicted (p. 45). This process may also be the key to solving a long-standing mystery: the origin of the moon. I propose that an analysis of the angular momentum of the Earth and moon will reveal whether the moon formed with the Earth, or was captured later."

 

[Elvis666]

David, have you asked yourself what field or force is moving the planets at the rate they are moving around the sun? And don't say gravity. That's just what's keeping them from flying away now.

It would help visualize what actually happens if you think of it as the planets "falling" around the sun. This reminds you that no other force than gravity is needed.

 

[Belz...]

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

Insults are not ad hominems, per se. Why don't you just call them insults, since it's shorter, and accurate ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

You mean they don't know ? Fascinating.

Why would it get weaker?????

Don't ask me. I'm not the one who said it. You are.

 

[Belz...]

.
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?

Huh ?

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz, Please read the introduction "Snell, Charles M.; Peratt, Anthony L. Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies" where the paper states "The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 10⁷ that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment with a footnote: 'neutral' hydrogen in space has a degree of ionization of order 10^-4.
Anyone can see that this implies that the model includes only plasma physics only, i.e. EM forces.

I suspect that "the space environment" is slightly different from a cloud of plasma with the mass of a galaxy. The difference should have been enough for a comparison (perhaps just approximate) of the force on a point in the simulation by all of the mass between the mass and the center of the cloud and the EM force on that point. I do not have the expertise to do this - perhaps you do?

As for comparing the stills of the simulation of a spiral galaxy to the optical photos of a spiral galaxy:
The stills show that the plasma forms a spiral. The arms of the spiral are dark, i.e. a high density. The space between the arms are light, i.e. a zero or low density. This is a difference in density.
The photos are of a spiral galaxy in negative (bright = dark). The arms of the spiral are dark because this is where hot stars are forming. The space between the arms is light because this is where there are other dimmer stars.
Your mission (should you accept it) is to

1. Show that there is a difference in density between the arm and non-arm regions of actual spiral galaxies.
2. Show that this difference matches the difference of density in the stills.

My reading suggests that there is a small difference in density between the arm and non-arm regions of actual spiral galaxies. The stills suggest a big difference.

Please prove me wrong!

 

[ben m]

EM forces in terms of keeping its position inside the filament, i would think yes. But claiming that Peratt is using a simple electrostatic relationship to keep stars in orbit in some way is false. He has shown what his model is, using the biot savart force from an initial bennet pinch condition between two interacting birkeland currents.

EM forces, may find it easy to keep an electron inside of a "filament", and that's what Peratt perhaps sees in simulations. Peratt's simulations ignore the fact that stars are heavy; his simulations are of idealized strongly-coupled plasmas.

I don't care if Peratt's simulations showed that plasma self-organizes into barred spiral disks, perfect spheres, or halftone images of LOLcats. If the stars don't feel a force from the plasma, the stars won't do what the plasma does. If the stars don't have an incredibly high charge-to-mass ratio, they won't feel a force from the plasma.

It is a trivially observable fact that stars do not have incredibly high charge-to-mass ratios. We've shown you this fifty different ways in three threads. This means that Peratt's high-charge-to-mass plasma simulations have no relevance whatsoever to observations of low-charge-to-mass stars.

BAC has realized this, Zeuzzz---BAC is now claiming that Galactic interstellar plasmas obey Peratt's laws, while stars plow through on decoupled gravitational orbits. This is much closer to making actual physical sense, although it turns out to disagree with observations.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Why would it get weaker?????

Don't ask me. I'm not the one who said it. You are.

No i didn't.

I said that at larger scales where different force laws apply gravity may not be the dominant force at work, as the shape and morphology of structures on this scale certainly implies.

 

[sol invictus]

(1) the charged particles in atoms and molecules are "neutralized" whereas in plasma the collection of charged particles are quasi-neutral.

A large cloud of plasma will have a very small ratio of charge to mass, just like a solid. There is no significant difference in this regard.

(2) gravity dominates even charged particles larger than grains.

That's not what we're talking about. All matter is made from charged point particles on infinitesimal size. Hence your original statement is obviously false.

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.

Now you're just making things up.

It's just not true that whether EM forces or gravity will dominate is determined by "grain size", and I can prove it both mathematically and with physical results. We already discussed this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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.

You mean they don't know ? Fascinating.

Read his material, In his work on galaxy formtion he postulates that a Biot Savart force law and gravity between two interacting filaments under certain conditions can create the shape structure and form of galaxies, without the need to invent tonnes of dark mysterious matter.



Hey Belz, Why does all mass attract? (the underlying assumption to the entire theory of gravity)

- You mean they don't know this? Fascinating.

 

[sol invictus]

Are you going to address this, or not? It's your website.

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.

Whoever wrote this doesn't even know what "flat rotation curve" means. Writing things about physics you don't understand using terms you don't know the meaning of is foolish and even unethical, as it may mislead uninformed readers that happen across it.

If PC does indeed predict that the rotation curves of galaxies will be similar to solid disks, it is ruled out by experiment.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Now you're just making things up.

It's just not true that whether EM forces or gravity will dominate is determined by "grain size", and I can prove it both mathematically and with physical results. We already discussed this.

By that logic, the particles in the solar wind should not leave the sun as gravity should pull them back. Its obviously EM forces involved here, and yes, it is related to the size, mass and charge of the particles in question, no matter how much you are denying it.

I suppose then that that the particles that are travelling from the sun into the Earths poles (in the recently observed birkeland currents connecting the two) are doing this because of gravity? Why would they only enter the earth at the poles? is gravity stronger at the Earths poles, Sol? or do you think that it may actually have something to do with the Earths EM field and its magnetic poles?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
[.....]

"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause. They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.

I wonder what effects these new found connections between bodies in space could have on the objects in question? Seems that the EM field of the Earth and Sun (and likely all other planets and stars) are inextricably linked. If we've only just found currents of 650,000 amps connecting the Earth directly to the sun, imagine what we are going to find in space in the near future.


Were you predicting these huge currents Sol? or were they completely unexpected?

It seems that plasma cosmologists were the only ones that predicted these birkeland currents, and one of them (Birkeland) predicted them over a century ago now, and further predicted by Alfven, Thornhill and Peratt, indeed, these new discoveries are not so mysterious to them.