2010-08-06, 06:43 Siggy_G	Dancing David, thanks for your input. I responded firstly to Astroman's initial pronouncement which was exactly an attack aimed at A.Peratt. (His follow-up post wasn't any less belittleling or misguided) I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy. In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions. Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models. Fair enough, and in the few cases of cosmology work, one can't expect any astrophysisists to take plasma cosmology "into consideration in their work", when it defies the standard model which his or her work may be related to. However, unless being interested and liberated to do so. The logical extension of that is, that we continue digging deeper into one specific cave, independant of it being right or wrong. It is the established model that gets modified, not the fundamental approach. This would otherwise include re-examening the potential kinetic influence of electric currents and recognizing double layers and discharge configurations within a low density plasma, which space occur to be. As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude.
2010-08-06, 07:35 edd	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. This just isn't true.
2010-08-06, 08:48 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Dancing David, thanks for your input. I responded firstly to Astroman's initial pronouncement which was exactly an attack aimed at A.Peratt. (His follow-up post wasn't any less belittleling or misguided) I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), here is the deal, do the math, takes the masses and don't pretend that stars are all plasma that can be effected by Perrat's model, it will mainly influence the free plasma between stars. Then do the math Perrat used major mega magnetic fields in a 10 cm. vessel, now looks up the magnetic field in a galaxy and tell me what you find. It will be way too small, especially when you try to scale Perrat's model to a real galaxy. Seriously do the math, the galactic magnetic field is way to small. Quote: nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy. Don't use false arguments, and BTW so you don't believe in nutrinos? Why not? Quote: In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions. Look up Perrats reasearch, what was the field strength in the 10 cm vessel, seriously go look it up, now scale it to the size of teh galaxy, it fails to meet observations. period. Quote: Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models. Blah blah blah, and there are thousand of them who work specifically in plasma physics in astrophysics, and they are the ones who say Perrat's model is wrong, I wonder why? these are plasma astrophysicists after all. there is no conspiracy. Quote: Fair enough, and in the few cases of cosmology work, one can't expect any astrophysisists to take plasma cosmology "into consideration in their work", ********, out right horse hockey and total crap. Just because the vast majority of people who actually research plasma and work with it in astrophysics say that the 'Plasma Universe' stuff is wrong, it is not funding. It is that the theories are hooey. Quote: when it defies the standard model which his or her work may be related to. However, unless being interested and liberated to do so. The logical extension of that is, that we continue digging deeper into one specific cave, independant of it being right or wrong. It is the established model that gets modified, not the fundamental approach. ********, that is a load of political crap , what do you read Thunderbolts. Just how many people study plasma is space do you think? Huh. Quote: This would otherwise include re-examening the potential kinetic influence of electric currents and recognizing double layers and discharge configurations within a low density plasma, which space occur to be. Excuse me, what is the Debye length for the interstellar medium and why does it matter? Quote: As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? I am saying that the plasma universe people are wrong, such things do exist, just not the way that they pretend that they do. They just want to pretend that imaginary space is more important than real observation. You tell me something they are ignoring. Seriously, citations, data and evidence. And then we can discuss it. Quote: Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude. What is the Debye length of the interstellar medium and why would it matter?
2010-08-06, 09:18 ben m	Originally Posted by Siggy_G I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy. Two points: a) Peratt's model does far worse than "not match the behavior". It takes a simulation in which *all of the inputs are nonsense* and it gets an output which (a) rotates like a rigid solid and (b) bears a vague visual resemblance to, among other things, a spiral galaxy. b) The data (dynamic data, static (lensing) data, cosmology) all say that the forces involved obey the equivalence principle. The data show that galaxies/clusters, whatever they are, are exerting the same force on a black hole that they exert on a star, a plasma, an atom, an ion, and a photon. Gravity does that. E&M does not. That's why we start with gravity and (if necessary) gravity-like theories. Quote: In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions. I don't consider them as fudge factors. They're straightforward observations, all explained perfectly well by a simple and parsimonious hypothesis. I've said this many times: the anti-dark-matter argument seems to make an unstated assumption. It seems to imagine (for the sake of illustration I'll make it theistic) "God must have written the laws of physics with as few stable particles as possible. He presumably limited himself to things that would appear in late-20th-century human collider experiments." There is no basis for this view in actual particle physics. Quote: Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models. What the heck? Not even close. Quote: As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? They are present, but they're really pretty straightforward. On short length scales they have a bunch of plasma-specific properties. On long length scales (longer than a few Alfven wavelengths) they behave just like any other gas, with internal magnetic fields doing nothing more than adding a pressure-like term. We put that pressure (correctly) into calculations.
2010-08-06, 12:13 Aitch	Originally Posted by Dancing David Then you have the obvious places where the model falls apart because it just does not match the behavior of the universe. Maybe he's working to the HotchHikers Guide ethos: Originally Posted by HHGttG This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
2010-08-06, 16:20 Siggy_G	I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models). Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity? Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures. My statement of dark matter and dark energy being hypothetical factors are not false arguments. These properties were introduced to account for discrepancies of observed cosmic dynamics versus the calculated/predicted dynamics. I'm not going to elaborate here on what dark energy and dark matter are thought to be – you can read up on it yourself, or you may already know that they are hypothetical factors (although broadly accepted). When I state that most of the astrophysical research is not about re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics, the point is further that most of what is done is researching detection methods, technology, collecting data and interpreting gazillions of data. This extensive work is done in relation to existing established models, and it is a natural cause of empirical methods. So, it's the established models that gets modified and become further complex. I haven't suggested conspiracies. Nor do I reject that astrophysics deals with plasma – it's just that most of that work is related to e.g. the corona, solar wind, auroras and Sun/stellar interiors, and not in a cosmological relation. Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles. They are, as some of you state, thought to be insignificant in this regard. So, here lies the difference in approach and aknowledgement between mainstream versus plasma cosmology / the electric universe theory. Instead, we see proposals like accelerated expansion, dark flow, multiple universes and the likes, as the only thinkable cosmic scenarios in a gravity-only driven universe. Perhaps these are more gleaming displays of imagination. If you think these are such outrageous statements, be a little more specific in your critisism.
2010-08-06, 16:58 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models). Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity? Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures. What is the Debye length for interstellar medium and why would it matter? You obviously don't know how weak the galactic magnetic field. perrat's model is a non-starter from the get go, which if you did some reading you would find out. Why would a ten centimeter vessel with very high magnetic fields have any thing to do with a 80,000 light year across galaxy with incredibly weak magnetic fields? What further dynamics? Quote: My statement of dark matter and dark energy being hypothetical factors are not false arguments. These properties were introduced to account for discrepancies of observed cosmic dynamics versus the calculated/predicted dynamics. Neutrinos are dark matter, do you think they are hypothetical, they are less hypothetical than plasma effects that extend way past the Debye length. Quote: I'm not going to elaborate here on what dark energy and dark matter are thought to be – you can read up on it yourself, or you may already know that they are hypothetical factors (although broadly accepted). When I state that most of the astrophysical research is not about re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics, the point is further that most of what is done is researching detection methods, technology, collecting data and interpreting gazillions of data. false , what is your evidence? C'mon, you say it now back it up. Where are these alternate explanations that are being ignored? Why don't you tell us what they are? Quote: This extensive work is done in relation to existing established models, and it is a natural cause of empirical methods. So, it's the established models that gets modified and become further complex. I haven't suggested conspiracies. Nor do I reject that astrophysics deals with plasma – it's just that most of that work is related to e.g. the corona, solar wind, auroras and Sun/stellar interiors, and not in a cosmological relation. What is the Debye length and why would it matter? how is a plasma going to effect cosmology outside of the very very very young universe? [quote] Quote: Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles. What is the Debye length and why would it matter? Quote: They are, as some of you state, thought to be insignificant in this regard. So, here lies the difference in approach and aknowledgement between mainstream versus plasma cosmology / the electric universe theory. You really need tio look up the Debye length and then explain why the influence of plasma would matter. Seriously you are just touting some magical thinking and spin politics. Look up the Debye length for the interstellar medium. Here is a clue, it will be shorter for the intergalactic medium. So how it is going to work? Quote: Instead, we see proposals like accelerated expansion, dark flow, multiple universes and the likes, as the only thinkable cosmic scenarios in a gravity-only driven universe. Plasma has a role, just not the fantastic imaginary ones some people who ignore real plasma physics and pretend they know something about plasma. Quote: Perhaps these are more gleaming displays of imagination. If you think these are such outrageous statements, be a little more specific in your critisism. So you don't know why the Debye length matters? Look it up. And what theories are you presenting to explain what data and observation? You should really tell us what is being ignored, So how do you think plasma would explain what is cosmology?
2010-08-06, 20:00 ben m	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity? Sure, the low-density plasma pushes other low-density plasmas around; it does so on short length scales (an Alfven wavelength). The forces are too short-range to have any impact on galaxy/cluster/cosmology-scale kinematics. If you want to talk about what plasma/gas forces *can* do on on large scales---sure, this is an exciting field called "gastrophysics". Quote: Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures. Magnetic fields over long scales are incredibly weak, and as far as we can tell largely disorganized. The "currents" involved are generally the (a) turbulent eddy-current-like things in (e.g.) shocks, and (b) the residual magnetic fields of stars. And no, there's no generic statement "electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures". It's simply not true. Sometimes they do (lightning) and sometimes they don't (the solar wind), it depends what they're acting on. Quote: Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles. That's because one can't explain cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions. Plasma does not have the property of exerting long-range forces at all. Likewise, " there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as": giant lengths of twine, nor as neutrino-neutrino collisions, nor as large clockworks made of Perspex, nor as hydrodynamics, nor as quantum chromodynamics, nor as pink-bunny-mediated quantum gravity. Is that a problem for you? I hope not, because they don't work. The plasma-cosmology thing is always "well it WOULD work if more people would help us nail down the details." Is that so? The pink-bunny theory can say the same thing, can't they? Anyway, forget the details---plasma cosmology has failed to generate any E&M forces whatsoever over cosmological distance scales. We're not talking about failing to match some detail of a rotation curve somewhere. We're talking about places where our data shows a force of order 1 and plasma physics predicts a force of order 10^-30 or smaller. What's nailing the details going to do---specify that the force is really 2.25(3)x10^-29?
2010-08-07, 00:43 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Siggy_G I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy. You have obviously not bothered to read the thread. The short-comings of Peratt's model is that it predicts things that do not exist: Double-lobe radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies. His model predicts that double-lobe radio galaxies are actually double-lobed. The reason that spiral galaxies look like they have spiral arms is not because there are actual arms (with no matter in between them) but because they are "arms" of high mass density containing lots of bright young stars. The density of matter in between the arms is 10-20% less than the density of matter in the arms (not 100%). The mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is ellipsoidal so a plane through them produces various ellipses from nearly a circle to flattened to a large degree. The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is a central bulge contained within a flat disk along with a near-spherical halo outside the disk and bulge. The mass distribution of a plane running through the disk produces a disk with minor variations in density. We could stop there since these mismatches with our universe already invalidates Peratt's model. But there many other problems with his model: It ignores gravity completely. It predicts galactic sized plasma filaments that would be easily detected. They are not. These galactic sized plasma filaments are unstable. And since you really do not like "hypothetical entities" what about his: (Invisible) Galactic sized plasma filaments! )Invisible) Enormous electric currents flowing though them from an unknown source! The simple fact that Anthony Peratt has never repeated the computer simulations indicates that even he thinks his model is wrong. In the past 24 years computer modeling of plasmas has been improved greatly. The available computing power has also grown greatly. The simple fact that no astronomer, cosmologist or even plasma scientist has repeated the computer simulations indicates that no scientist thinks that his model is correct. ETA Originally Posted by Siggy_G I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models). Anthony Peratt did "demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments". Specifically he demonstrated that his computer simulations could duplicate the shapes of the plasmoids in the plasma experiments that inspired him to do the simulations. A pity that his results have noting to do with galaxies or their formation.
2010-08-09, 01:13 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Siggy_G As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude. The fact that you state "even in quasi-neutral plasmas" shows that you have no idea about plasma physics, as basically all space plasmas are quasi-neutral. Maybe you should look up the definition of quasi-neutral. And if, as you say, electric currents are expected to occur "filamentary" (which I will not deny) then why should we take a 35 kpc current channel seriously? Really!?!?! ETA: Just a quick note. This all has to do with the "plasma universe" model in which the universe dynamics is supposed to be totally driven by plasmas and electromagnetic fields. However, in order to show that I can also see things that are good by what e.g. Peratt has written, if you look at his book (physics of the plasma universe), then the basic plasma physics that is discussed is sound, and you can even come across instabilities that are not discussed often in other books, e.g. the diacotron instability. However, the application to astrophysical objects, like galaxies should be regarded very skeptically for the reasons mentioned above. And yes, plasma physics is scalable, but you have to do it in the correct way.
2010-08-10, 15:47 Zeuzzz	How many theories are reliant on each other to account for the average galaxy morphology by the "standard" model? Ie, Supermassiveblackhole = 1, rotating disk = 2, dark matter = 3, etc.
2010-08-10, 17:07 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz How many theories are reliant on each other to account for the average galaxy morphology by the "standard" model? Ie, Supermassiveblackhole = 1, rotating disk = 2, dark matter = 3, etc. This is off the topic which is Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation, not the standard models of galaxy formation. If you are interested in the answer then please start a new thread. Do you have anything to contribute to the OP?
2010-08-10, 17:18 Zeuzzz	Can we not compare the properties of this theory to the main other theories in the game? For example, do you need 3 theories (super massive black hole, arm gas/fluid dynamics, disk core) to explain the morphology of the average galaxy using standard theories? I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP.
2010-08-10, 18:01 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Can we not compare the properties of this theory to the main other theories in the game? For example, do you need 3 theories (super massive black hole, arm gas/fluid dynamics, disk core) to explain the morphology of the average galaxy using standard theories? I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP. No. As you have stated the theory fails. There is no point in dicussing a failed theory or comparing a failed theory to one that works. Your post is off topic for 2 reasons: it is not about Anthony Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation. it is not about galaxy formation- it is about shapes or to be more exact visual appearances: Galaxy morphological classification. Start a new thread. I will give a quick answer here - you need lots of theories to explain the morphology of galaxies, e.g. you forgot about the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics (for the light from stars and gas). So what? (please answer in your new thread).
2010-08-11, 00:18 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP. Well, cool, then we can finally throw out Peratt's model, close this thread and move on with our lifes.
2010-08-11, 02:32 Zeuzzz	Originally Posted by tusenfem Well, cool, then we can finally throw out Peratt's model, close this thread and move on with our lifes. Oh sorry, did not realize that some people put their lives on hold to wait for my humble opinion on Peratts plasma galaxy model here. Thank you. Nice to know that my opinion is so highly regarded around here.
2010-08-11, 02:45 Zeuzzz	And if I were to stick my teeth into this again I would probably give up on the EM forces and speculate on the possible geometric similarities between the gravitational field and the x-1 field used for Amperes Law (Or equivalent Biot Savart force law) and postulate the role that negative mass could have on galaxy formation. Negative inertial masses in certain initial formations gives mathematical consistency, and adequate conservation of momentum or energy, and could be used in a similar way to NASA's BPP program models, like the Diametric drive. And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy. ... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars.
2010-08-11, 03:34 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz ...snipped even more off topic stuff... And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy. For the third time Zeuzzz - start a new thread for questions that are not about the OP. ETA Since you seem unable to do this I have done for you: Zeuzzz's questions about the standard model of galaxy morphology Originally Posted by Zeuzzz ... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars. the first paragraph is OP. Peratts model is applied to particles (plasma!), not stars, and since it is wrong is totally useless in any regard. I think that what you mean is that standard physics is useful when applied to flows of plasma in galaxies. That is obvious.
2010-08-11, 04:09 Siggy_G	(Been away for some days) Originally Posted by Reality Check You have obviously not bothered to read the thread. (...) I have indeed read the OP and thread. As I mentioned in the final section in my first post, "I'll try to elaborate further on the [Peratt] model and possible extended research in an upcoming post" (my first post was also initially a reply to the one before that). It's just that I was overwhelmed by the guardians at the gate, which I feel obliged to respond to first. So hold your horses - further input on the way. There's a few misconceptions in the initial posts in this thread - although I'm not arguing the competence in your criticism. A little anxious and tense perhaps as to defending current consensus and black painting any attempts of viewing space differently. Which makes me wonder, how can you all know for certain how the universe works and how it doesn't, when current (peer-reviewed and mathematically verified) models need 96% unknown factors to explain the observed dynamics? One thing we can say for certain, is that something else than gravity from known mass is largely affecting cosmic dynamics. The observed discrepancies should cause different approaches to be explored, beyond gravitational mass. It shouldn't merely make established models curl in on itself and become more abstractly complex, by assuming only one driving factor.
2010-08-11, 04:13 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by Reality Check No. As you have stated the theory fails. There is no point in dicussing a failed theory or comparing a failed theory to one that works. Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this.
2010-08-11, 04:15 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz And if I were to stick my teeth into this again I would probably give up on the EM forces and speculate on the possible geometric similarities between the gravitational field and the x-1 field used for Amperes Law (Or equivalent Biot Savart force law) and postulate the role that negative mass could have on galaxy formation. Negative inertial masses in certain initial formations gives mathematical consistency, and adequate conservation of momentum or energy, and could be used in a similar way to NASA's BPP program models, like the Diametric drive. And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy. Nope you show us Zeuzzz, the fields and charges are too small to cause galactic size flows, at least that have been observed so far. So the burden would be on the person saying such things existed, which in this case would not be you at this time. Quote: ... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars. And the 'fairy flow' could be governed by the Fairy Model of galaxy formation if fairies were shown to exist.
2010-08-11, 04:17 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this. So Siggy G, do you believe neutrinos exist, yes or no. [Iteration 2]
2010-08-11, 04:19 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by Dancing David false , what is your evidence? C'mon, you say it now back it up. Have I said something largely contradictive by stating that the majority of astrophysics is about this work (collecting data/technology/interpreting data), and done in relation to current models? For instance, check the missions and descriptions for NASA, ESA and other space centres. Astrophysical papers are (without having the overview of all) also largely related to this and specialized sub-fields. What's your point? That the majority of the current work in astrophysics is about re-examining the fundamentals of cosmological models and look at other driving factors than gravity? You certainly need to prove that. Originally Posted by Dancing David Where are these alternate explanations that are being ignored? Why don't you tell us what they are? how is a plasma going to effect cosmology outside of the very very very young universe? As I've already stated, the scenarios proposed by plasma cosmology or the electric universe theory; in brief, low density discharge configurations at stellar and galactic scales. Do you have an overview over these models? They may not be intentionally "ignored", but they wouldn't be relevant for the established models which focuses only on gravity and assumes interstellar electric neutrality. The "very very young universe" is a big bang scenario, whereas e.g. the Electric Universe assumes a universe of unknown age and unknown extent, and any attempts of knowing and explaining origins are irrelevant – and are seen as a little pretentious. We don't know enough now to even ask the right questions in cosmology. Originally Posted by Dancing David So how do you think plasma would explain what is cosmology? Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources). Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts, is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument.
2010-08-11, 04:23 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G (Been away for some days) I have indeed read the OP and thread. As I mentioned in the final section in my first post, "I'll try to elaborate further on the [Peratt] model and possible extended research in an upcoming post" (my first post was also initially a reply to the one before that). It's just that I was overwhelmed by the guardians at the gate, which I feel obliged to respond to first. So hold your horses - further input on the way. Uh huh, sure, you either have it or you don't, I think you know that the model doesn't work , so you just are posturing. Show me the model. Quote: There's a few misconceptions in the initial posts in this thread - although I'm not arguing the competence in your criticism. A little anxious and tense perhaps as to defending current consensus and black painting any attempts of viewing space differently. Look dude, either the model is an approximate model for the behavior of reality or it isn't. The accuracy of Perrat's model is very low. Quote: Which makes me wonder, how can you all know for certain how the universe works and how it doesn't, when current (peer-reviewed and mathematically verified) models need this is more bogus political spin, the model of gravity is well demonstrated. period. Quote: 96% unknown factors to explain the observed dynamics? One thing we can say for certain, is that something else than gravity from known mass is largely affecting cosmic dynamics. In some ways yes, in your meaning no. Your electrical forces will not do it, that is if they follow the known models of electrodynamics. Are you violating the observed properties of the EM forces? Quote: The observed discrepancies should cause different approaches to be explored, beyond gravitational mass. It shouldn't merely make established models curl in on itself and become more abstractly complex, by assuming only one driving factor. Show us how your model works otherwise you are just engaging in a rhetorical argument with no merit.
2010-08-11, 04:39 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Have I said something largely contradictive by stating that the majority of astrophysics is about this work (collecting data/technology/interpreting data), and done in relation to current models? For instance, check the missions and descriptions for NASA, ESA and other space centres. Astrophysical papers are (without having the overview of all) also largely related to this and specialized sub-fields. What's your point? That the majority of the current work in astrophysics is about re-examining the fundamentals of cosmological models and look at other driving factors than gravity? You certainly need to prove that. You still have yet to present your model, where is it? You need to present the model and then we can examine it. Nope there is no conspiracy, here is the deal Siggy, you want to break the observed behavior of plasma and EM forces, what is the Debye length and why does it matter? [Iteration 5] You are wrong because the theories that you are championing are just plain contradicting the observed reality. What is the galactic magnetic field? What charge would be needed an object of 1 kg. to cause it to react and change motion due to the magnetic field? What would the charge be on a star? (You do know that galactic rotation curves involve stars?) Quote: As I've already stated, the scenarios proposed by plasma cosmology or the electric universe theory; in brief, low density discharge configurations at stellar and galactic scales. What is the Debye length and why does it matter? Where is the evidence of these effects? What are the models? What evidence is there for a 'discharge configurations' at 'galactic scales? And you do know that a star as under the electric star model would explode at relatavistic speeds? Quote: Do you have an overview over these models? Excuse me Siggy G? Your model you present it, and tell me what you think it explains, and guess what they don't. So you present the model and tell me what it tries to explain [Iteration3] Quote: They may not be intentionally "ignored", but they wouldn't be relevant for the established models which focuses only on gravity and assumes interstellar electric neutrality. The "very very young universe" is a big bang scenario, whereas e.g. the Electric Universe assumes a universe of unknown age and unknown extent, and any attempts of knowing and explaining origins are irrelevant – and are seen as a little pretentious. We don't know enough now to even ask the right questions in cosmology. the problem is this Siggy G, where is your model? Put it up, tell us what it explains. Then we can go from there. [Iteration4] Quote: Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources). Funny that is still you ignoring plasma physics. So there is plasma. yes. Where is your model of how it effect large scale structures. Quote: Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. And the Debye length is? And the charges are? And the data is? Quote: Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts, Which you haven't modeled or explained yet. Yes an ionizing source like a star will cause charges to occur and plasma movement to occur, but guess what the scales are? Where is your model and where is your data? Still missing. Quote: is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument. Um, there is no argument about the Debye length, it is a very accurate model. You still haven’t answered my question, what is it and why would it matter, especially on scales of interstellar spcae.
2010-08-11, 04:51 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this. I crown the current theory as working becuase it works by including dark matter in the formation of galaxies. It requires 1 additional factor not "96% unknown factors", whatever you mean by that. that additional factor has been confirmed by several observations. But please do not derail this thread on Anthony Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation. Start a new thread on the standard model of galaxy formation and your evidence that dark matter does not exist (or that all the observation supporting it are wrong). There are other threas about dark matter and dark energy or start your own. ETA You also cite Alfven (his invalidated Plasma cosmology model), Peratt (his idea is debunked in this thread) and Thornhill (an electric universe proponent. See Electric univere theories here) Dancing David, maybe you can wait for Siggy_G to start his own thread(s) on his topics and continue the discussion there rather than derailing this thread. After all it will be intereting to see him rerun the old invalidated ideas in the above threads.
2010-08-11, 10:31 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by Dancing David You still have yet to present your model, where is it? You need to present the model and then we can examine it. Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today. Originally Posted by Dancing David Nope there is no conspiracy (...) You're responding to things I haven't said. Originally Posted by Dancing David You are wrong because the theories that you are championing are just plain contradicting the observed reality. That would of course depend on the interpretation of observed reality, as I've tried to point out. One model would interpret strong x-ray emissions as a signature of a plasma z-pinch, another model would interpret it as a signature of a black hole. One model would state that stars are thermonuclear furnices, another one would state that they are pinched matter in discharge arc mode. And so on.
2010-08-11, 10:42 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today. I am familiar with the models of both the PU and the EY, maybe you should present the model that you think explains something. Then we can talk about the numbers and how they work. So go ahead. I won't hold my breath. Quote: You're responding to things I haven't said. That would of course depend on the interpretation of observed reality, as I've tried to point out. One model would interpret strong x-ray emissions as a signature of a plasma z-pinch, another model would interpret it as a signature of a black hole. A z-pinch is going to make stars move at the center of galaxies, like ours, as though there is a 2,600,000 solar mass in an area of less than 30 AU in diameter? Do tell. Quote: One model would state that stars are thermonuclear furnices, another one would state that they are pinched matter in discharge arc mode. And so on. "Pinched matter in discharge arc mode", explain how that makes the luminosity of the sun. And why it doesn't blow apart at a significant fraction of c. Again, enough of the dancing, get on with the show. Put your theory up.
2010-08-11, 12:48 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Siggy_G The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. What are you talking about?
2010-08-11, 12:49 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Dancing David "Pinched matter in discharge arc mode", explain how that makes the luminosity of the sun. And why it doesn't blow apart at a significant fraction of c. Again, enough of the dancing, get on with the show. Put your theory up. And what about those pesky neutrinos?
2010-08-11, 12:54 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Ok, I thought you guys were familiar with the plasma cosmology and (the extended) electric universe models, parts of which Peratt's model is based on. Peratt also pointed out some issues that the OP in my view have missed. I will elaborate on a couple of aspects later today..... Siggy_G, For the second time: Please take your off topic postings about the debunked plasma cosmology and electric universe ideas to the appropriate threads Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not Electric universe theories here If you want to point out some more issues about Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation then feel free to post here. But it has been well established that his model is wrong.
2010-08-11, 13:39 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by Reality Check For the second time: Please take your off topic postings about the debunked plasma cosmology and electric universe ideas to the appropriate threads It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things. Originally Posted by Reality Check If you want to point out some more issues about Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation then feel free to post here. Will do. But I have been asked a few more questions, and since I'm being attacked on phrasing grounds, I also need to triple check the content of my upcoming posts. Also, I won't be able to attach link sources before my 10th post, according to forum rules. So I've had to keep things a bit more explanatory.
2010-08-11, 13:59 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things. I never, you made a statement about how the effects of plasma were ignored in mainstream astrophysics, and I called you on it, 3 times. what effects do you propose are important enough to effect galaxy formation and cosmology? I asked you what and you kept acting like you had something , so what is it. You don't need to post links, you can just put spaces in and I will edit them for you. just post them like this www . plasmalinks .org and I will repost them for you. Put up the links and the theory. I will request a split but it would be up to the moderators to split the thread.
2010-08-11, 14:07 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Siggy_G It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things. I am sure that Dancing David like most of the posters here knows what the EC ideas are. Originally Posted by Siggy_G Will do. Thanks. Just remember to search those threads since it is likely that whatever you are going to bring up has already been addressed. I would be interested in your citations to the current peer-reviewed papers about EC, e.g. on the "pinched matter in discharge arc mode" that produces the amount of energy and neutrinos that are observed from stars. A small hint - do not link to the Thunderbolts web site. This is a book advertisement web site containing many bits of nonsense. It is not a reliable source for scientific information. Doing so will damage your credibility beyond repair.
2010-08-11, 14:10 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Siggy_G It's tempting to make a statement at some post #1750 at cluttered page #51... Dancing David gave the impression he didn't have a clue as to what models I was referring to, hence I suggested I could mention a few things. That is mainly because every EU PU proponent comes with his/her own model, so we never know what they are talking about. Like look at Brantc and Michael Mozina, they both claim the sun is made of iron, yet they don't agree with each other, but both claim Peratt and Alfven as their "masters." Up to now you have not shown any real plasma physics knowledge. Can you please elaborate on what plasma physics education you have had? Originally Posted by Siggy_G Will do. But I have been asked a few more questions, and since I'm being attacked on phrasing grounds, I also need to triple check the content of my upcoming posts. Also, I won't be able to attach link sources before my 10th post, according to forum rules. So I've had to keep things a bit more explanatory. No, you are being attacked because you offer no substance like here: Quote: Why plasma dynamics would matter at large scales is first of all because, as far as we know, the entire universe IS plasma in various densities (mainly due to ionizing radiation from various sources). Hence, as an inhomogenous plasma, relative motions occur, and non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. Ignoring a universal influence of plasma dynamics and ion drifts, is like refuting that aerodynamics and pressure are irrelevant for our atmosphere and object's movements within it – and then defend it with gravity acted upon particles being the only factor of significance. I'll get back to your ongoing Debye length argument. This may sound rather interesting, scientific and profound, but basically it is just a stringing together of some terms and no substance whatsoever. If you want to play with the big boys you have to show more than this kind of stuff. And the fact that you don't understand what the DeBye length has to do with everything in plasma physics, well, that just shows ... Also, I will mention that you never even commented on my remarks: Quote: The fact that you state "even in quasi-neutral plasmas" shows that you have no idea about plasma physics, as basically all space plasmas are quasi-neutral. Maybe you should look up the definition of quasi-neutral. And if, as you say, electric currents are expected to occur "filamentary" (which I will not deny) then why should we take a 35 kpc current channel seriously? Really!?!?! So, what next?
2010-08-11, 16:18 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by tusenfem Also, I will mention that you never even commented on my remarks: ( ... "Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas" ... ) Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well: I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then. As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree. I said I would get back to the Debye (not "DeBye", btw) screening questions directed to me, because I will need to elaborate on it. Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it.
2010-08-11, 16:40 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well: Um definitions and language are everything of this forum, so you better get used to it. You will be called (as are we all) upon to define everything you say at times, that is the nature of the JREF. Quote: I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then. What scales and distances for plasma effects in these quasi neutral plasma? What evidence for any current flow that is not very short range? Quote: As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree. Poor form Siggy G, that is a total political spin there, this is what he said. "And yes, plasma physics is scalable, but you have to do it in the correct way. " We are hopefully here to discuss theories, data and evidence. Not some political rhetoric. That is not saying they are insignificant or questionable some methods have meaning others don't, , he is saying you best know what you are talking about.
2010-08-12, 00:43 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as having to respond to, before I could carry on. And you are also attacking on phrasing grounds. So I'll get that one out of the way as well: Phrasing grounds? I don't think so. The whole notion was that you showed a lack of understanding of plasma physics when you wrote: Quote: Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, ... seeming to imply that "quasi-neutral plasmas" are something special, which they obviously are not. And just to help you, the Debye length has everything to do with quasi-neutrality of a plasma, so ... Originally Posted by Siggy_G I ment to make a quick distingtion from the more obvious electric currents in some plasmas, such as within a plasma lamp or an electric glow discharge, versus electric currents and local discharges shown to occur within a quasi-neutral plasma. Some people tend to say space plasmas must be neutral at any given point. Since we agree space plasmas are quasi-neutral, where electric currents and discharges occur despite an apparent overall neutrality (but at low densities and vast scales), I guess all is fine then. I would like to see you make a discharge in a space plasma. We have been through this discussion with Brantc (if I remember correctly) and others. In order to have a discharge you need an insulator, like the Earth's atmosphere, that breaks down and then lets the build up charge difference equalize. NOBODY, who knows anything about space plasma physics, will claim that "space plasmas must be neutral," they will claim that "space plasmas are neutral over large volumes" (and what prithee determines the size of "large"???), in smaller volumes there can be charge fluctuations (and a certain formerly Dutch physicist Peter de Bije, who changed his name to Debye after moving to the US, studied this). And then the quasi-neutrality has nothing to do with the fact whether the plasma is carrying a current or not, it is a property of a plasma, nothing more nothing less. Then it beats me what you mean with the discharges again and then the between-parenthesis but at low densities and vast scales. There are copious amounts of plasma in space that are not low density. Originally Posted by Siggy_G As to your implied insignificance and questionable scalability of plasmas, we obviously disagree. I never claimed insignificance (like DD also noted) I said plasmas ARE scalable, but you have to do it correctly. Originally Posted by Siggy_G I said I would get back to the Debye (not "DeBye", btw) screening questions directed to me, because I will need to elaborate on it. Fine, I hope the hints that I gave you in this post will help you to figure out how the Debye length is important in a lot of plasma physical processes. So, I am looking forward to see you show some real plasma physical knowledge and then maybe we can get into a discussion about all this stuff (once more, for the umpteenth time). You might want to browse through all the previous threads, because there are many calculations that I and others have done to show that many of the EU/PU/ES/EC just don't jive.
2010-08-12, 01:39 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it. a) That doesn't make it 96% unknown factors, that makes it maybe two unknowns. b) I do hope your not yet another Plasma Cosmologist who doesn't know the difference between astronomy and cosmology. Because the evidence from that quote suggests you don't.
2010-08-12, 02:27 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Siggy_G Yours was one of the gate guardian replies I previously talked about as Tubbythin: I was refering to e.g. the well-known diagram, where only 4% of the universe is thought to consist of "known" atoms / baryonic matter, while the remaining 96% energies are the added hypothetical factors accounting for observed cosmic dynamics. I added, "so to speak", since I thought I wouldn't have to elaborate on it. Siggy_G, Just to make Tubbythins second point clearer (I had to read your post a couple of times to see what he meant). Astronomy is the science that includes the observations that provide the overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter and the good evidence for the existence of dark energy. Cosmology has models that include dark matter and energy because they are astronomical observations and the inclusions make the models match the observed universe. These models include the visible matter that is also an astronomical observation. If they ignored dark matter and energy then there is no reason why they should not also ignore visible matter.