• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Something new under the sun

sol invictus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


Sol, you will find that Anthony Peratt wrote this (biography here) I suggest that you E-mail him and inform him of this fatal mistake in his work. And I trust you will be writing a peer reviewed refutation of his model? or if you can not get it peer reviewed, just post it here and we can look at it. Hopefully you can get it published in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, just like Peratts material.

Or maybe you should contact peratt directly and inform him that he does not know what a flat rotation curve is? heres an e-mail that you can reach him on: IEEE@PLASMAUNIVERSE.INFO

Please post the reply here, and your comments.

(someone quote this, so Sol can see it, he keeps making very ignorant comments that are beggining to annoy me)
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Sol, you will find that Anthony Peratt wrote this (biography here) I suggest that you E-mail him and inform him of this fatal mistake in his work. And I trust you will be writing a peer reviewed refutation of his model? or if you can not get it peer reviewed, just post it here and we can look at it. Hopefully you can get it published in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, just like Peratts material.
Click to expand...

Actually Peratt is wrong there and Sol is right. Solid disks do not have flat rotation curves. The component parts move at a fixed number of radians per second, not metres per second.

It's a trivial fact, common knowledge, and not the sort of thing you waste time writing peer reviewed rebuttals on.
 
edd said:
Zeuzzz said:
Sol, you will find that Anthony Peratt wrote this (biography here) I suggest that you E-mail him and inform him of this fatal mistake in his work. And I trust you will be writing a peer reviewed refutation of his model? or if you can not get it peer reviewed, just post it here and we can look at it. Hopefully you can get it published in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, just like Peratts material.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Did he really? Even after all this nonsense I find it hard to believe that a real physicist could make such an elementary mistake. This is the central fact on a subject he has written several papers about.

It's actually really hard to believe. Are you sure he wrote that?

As for a "peer reviewed refutation", don't be absurd. This is a mistake at the level of high school or grade school physics. I've refereed many physics papers, more than I can count, and had many of my own reviewed and published, and I've never in my entire career seen a mistake that is both so basic and so absolutely essential to the subject at hand.

Why don't you tell us - does PC predict rotation curves like a solid disk, or not?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
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?
Click to expand...
.
I haven't shown it, but far better people than myself have. You can pick up many sources that will confirm that the interplanatery medium is a plasma.

You'll find some classifications of cosmic plasmas taken from Alfvén and Fälthammar's book Cosmical Electrodynamics (2nd Ed. 1952) here.
 
ben m said:
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.
Click to expand...


How do you explain the abundance of birkeland filaments observed all over the cosmos if EM forces can not effect heavy objects? those objects certainly have stars in, aswell as ionized plasma. The galaxy is no different. You can apply plasma physics to nearly all the visible galaxy, from large to small scale.

filament
filaments
filaments
filaments


How does gravity (a purely attractive field that pulls things into a spherical shape) explain these abundant large scale filamentary structures? Would it not be logical to conclude that at large scales EM forces appear to beable to overcome the force of gravity to create these objects?

Or is a huge dark matter gnome creating them?


It is a trivially observable fact that stars do not have incredibly high charge-to-mass ratios[/I]. We've shown you this fifty different ways in three threads.
Click to expand...



No, actually i showed myself with a paper that I referenced that there is only one recent paper that even considers that the theoretical charge on the sun could be, it comes to a conclusion of 100C, based on a whole array of assumptions. Dont you find it odd that this is the only paper that even considers the effect the suns E-field would have? where are the other science papers commenting on the net charge of the sun? Where are the measurements or experiments that have been conducted to test this?

This means that Peratt's high-charge-to-mass plasma simulations have no relevance whatsoever to observations of low-charge-to-mass stars.
Click to expand...


High charge to mass ratio????? where does he use a high charge to mass ratio? have you read his paper?


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.
Click to expand...


Peratts laws? shouldn't you call it plasma physics? And Peratt is considered an expert in this field, with numerous publications to his name, all well cited by his peers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...hysics+of+the+plasma+universe+author:a-peratt
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean that there may not be particles that are like neutrinos?

Why not, neutrinos are dark matter as well.

What does basic gravity mean, grvity is gravity, you can say gravity minus aslleged dark matter. It is not a matter of scall really, the same effects exist on smaller scales as well, they are just harder to measure.
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.
Click to expand...
When you demonstrate that the stars are like plasma then maybe I will agree, you are fudging here. On the galactic scale gravity reigns supreme, unless you want to discuss the mass of an object being moved and at what rate that is not predicted by gravity sans dark matter.

You have not demonstrated that the galaxy is plasma, you are comparing it to plasma, what ratio is plasma and what ratio is stars?


if you want we can take the mass of the galaxy, figure what it's average rate of rotation is and what it would be given gravity sans dark matter, then i could multiply the mass of the galaxy by the average difference in rotation and compute the field strnth that would be needed, once you give a charge.

But Zeuzz, I think you know why you are now shifting you position here from the 'star's EM fields providing some rigidity', it gets worse if we do it on the scale of a galaxy.
I presume this one?





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.
Click to expand...
So no more claim that EM forces of star's provide some rigidity', how chimeral.
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]
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the cloud just looks like a rabbitt right?

Until you put figures to it you are just pipe dreaming.
 
Zeuzzz said:
How do you explain the abundance of birkeland filaments observed all over the cosmos if EM forces can not effect heavy objects? those objects certainly have stars in, aswell as ionized plasma. The galaxy is no different. You can apply plasma physics to nearly all the visible galaxy, from large to small scale.

filament
filaments
filaments
filaments
Click to expand...

Do you know what you linked to? Those are numerical simulations of the effects of gravity, and gravity alone, on the post-Big-Bang matter distribution. So, in response to the question "can gravity lead to filaments?" I can only reply:

filament
filaments
filaments
filaments

YES.

Pretty pictures, eh?
 
sol invictus said:
Did he really? Even after all this nonsense I find it hard to believe that a real physicist could make such an elementary mistake. This is the central fact on a subject he has written several papers about.

It's actually really hard to believe. Are you sure he wrote that?

As for a "peer reviewed refutation", don't be absurd. This is a mistake at the level of high school or grade school physics. I've refereed many physics papers, more than I can count, and had many of my own reviewed and published, and I've never in my entire career seen a mistake that is both so basic and so absolutely essential to the subject at hand.

Why don't you tell us - does PC predict rotation curves like a solid disk, or not?
Click to expand...


I think that Peratt is well aware of what a flat rotation curve is, and what was prodcued in his simulation. He designates and entire section of his paper (section VII) to the rotation curves. He has many separate graphs of the rotation curve properties of the galaxies in question.


What then could explain these peculiar rotation plots?
The conventional assumption is that all the material in the
disk of a spiral galaxy is in rotation around the center
under only the influence of gravitational forces. Viewed
in this way, the spiral galaxies are an experimental test of
Newtonian gravitational theory on the largest known
scale. This has led to the suggestion by Milgrom and Bekenstein
[42] and by Sanders [43] that Newtonian force
law is altered at the large scale of the outer regions of
spiral galaxies. This is perhaps a more attractive conclusion
than the postulation of improbable distributions of
unseen matter.

We should ask, however, whether the ejection theory
of spiral arm formation bears on this problem of flat rotation
curves. At first sight it seems to make the problem
worse because as the ejected segment of arm travels outward
(ignoring gravity for the moment), the velocity in
the-direction of circular rotation vo will vary with radius
as vo constant/r. This is a sharper fall off with radius
than expected from Keplerian orbits where vo = constant/
r1/2 . Therefore, there is a greater discrepancy with the observed
vo = constant. [......]
Click to expand...



Again sol, I suggest you contact him if you dont understand his model. He will be quite open to discussing it with you, and you seem to be first to find this fatal mistake in his model. :rolleyes:

As if a scientist as experienced as him would just forget about flat rotation curves or disks :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Do you know what you linked to? Those are numerical simulations of the effects of gravity, and gravity alone, on the post-Big-Bang matter distribution. So, in response to the question "can gravity lead to filaments?" I can only reply:

filament
filaments
filaments
filaments

YES.

Pretty pictures, eh?
Click to expand...


Ok then. you have just said that gravity can lead to large filaments in space. Can you explain how this is possible using an exclusively attractive field?
 
Ian ,

You are the one who made the outrageous claim, and you have done so by misinterpreting Alfven and putting words in his mouth.

Tell you what, why don’t you take accountability for your statements and defend them.

I have no reason to believe that you are not just misinterpreting what other people say.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3506124&postcount=198
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3506550&postcount=210
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3507110&postcount=213
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3519839&postcount=322
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3532479&postcount=538
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3539218&postcount=694
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3539756&postcount=719
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3541165&postcount=765
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3541236&postcount=768
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3542674&postcount=800
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3543131&postcount=818
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3543190&postcount=821


So here are some of them Ian, you keep saying that papers say things, so before I show you some really strange statements that you made and blamed on Alfven, why don’t you go and find each specific quote that supports the statement you made.

I say that you have misinterpreted what Alfven said, it is up to you to show that you have quoted him accurately.

Otherwise you should remove every reference to Alfven from your website because it would appear that you GROSSLY misrepresent what he said.

Where is the evidence that Alfven stated the EM forces dominate gravity 10000 times, unless you give the charge and velocity of the paticle , which you just keep ignoring.

So which is it Ian will you defend your statements, will you explain them or will you admit that you are wrong?

Time to choose!
 
Zeuzzz said:
High charge to mass ratio????? where does he use a high charge to mass ratio? have you read his paper?
Click to expand...

In the second column, first page of this paper, he explicitly sets q/m = sqrt(G). That's putting 10^20 Coulombs onto the Sun, 10^14 Coulombs on the Earth.

On page 642 of this paper he tells us that he's running a simulation of an electron-ion plasma, and if by "ion" he meant "a particle with q < 100 C and M =10^30 kg" he sure didn't say so. Electrons and ions have very, very large charge to mass ratios.
 
Zeuzzz said:
:confused:

rabbit?




until you explain how gravity can create filaments, you are ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

let su see, you ar ethe one who keeps saying that the perrat model explains this, and how this picture looks like that.

But you know Zeuzz when you are asked to show the math that supprts your statements, you won't pony up and you get all shy and reluctant to defend your statements.

And rabbit is right, all you have said it, this cloud in this picture looks like a rabbit, this cloud in another picture looks like a rabbit, and so it must be a rabbit.

But you keep saying that EM forces do stuff, like effect the orbital rotation of galaxies but when i ask you 'which part', 'what mass', 'what acceleation' you refuse to answer and keep going "Look at the picture of the bunny!"

Are you still saying EM forces shape galaxies , or not because if you do then we can find the force required to do so real quick.

So, which object is formed by EM forces?

What happened to star's EM fields and some rigidity?

Why won't you admit it that you don't have data to support most of your contentions and statements.

You choose, and I will help you with the math.

Stars, galaxies, which is it?
 
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what you said:

...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.
Click to expand...

So, gravity is weak at small scales, becomes strong at the planetary scale and then becomes weak again.

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

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

Nice try, Zeuzzz. What I meant, I'm sure you know, is that they don't know the ROLE of plasma physics in large-scales structures. That much seems obvious, since we don't even know if it has any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom