2010-09-11, 00:27 DeiRenDopa	Peratt's model, and simulation(s), has come up in comments on a Tom Bridgman blog entry: Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models. In this, Siggy_G made this claim: Quote: By the way, you are aware that Peratt did include mass/gravity in his later simulations of 1995 right? PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2a7scc7 And later Tom wrote this: Quote: I do believe Siggy_G is correct in that Peratt had gravity included in his simulation. Try B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:891–+, December 1992. Now the paper Siggy_G cited is totally unclear on what the simulation Peratt ran was (that formed the basis of the paper); he doesn't anywhere cite the simulation, nor provide any details in the paper itself (his reference to his 1992 book isn't helpful; AFAIK, in that book he shows how gravity could be included, but also makes it clear that he hadn't, then, done any simulations which included gravity). I have not been able to get a copy of the Meierovich and Peratt paper Tom cites, and the abstract isn't helpful. Does anyone have access to a copy of this paper? If so, what does it say about how "gravity" was included in Peratt's basic model? Also, does anyone know where Peratt published actual details of the simulations he ran, that formed the basis of the paper Siggy_G cited?
2010-09-11, 04:12 tusenfem	I have discussed that meierovich paper somewhere already.
2010-09-11, 06:33 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by tusenfem I have discussed that meierovich paper somewhere already. Yes, you did (that's the main post on it, you mentioned/discussed it in several subsequent posts). RC has a link to the paper, in this post ... but the link doesn't work. These posts are certainly interesting, but they do not tell me how (if at all) gravity was included, nor do they point to just what the simulation Peratt ran was.
2010-09-11, 20:20 Reality Check	The paper that Siggy_G cites is Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies This contains no reference to any other simulation other than mentioning the ones done in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The conclusion is the that simulation that the paper refers to is Perratts original 1985 one. The lack of a citation to the source of the left hand part of Figure 2 (the simulattion) further suggests the original paper. The PDF of B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:891–+, December 1992. has vanished from the plasmascience.net site. I have attached a copy to this post. This paper has no new simulation in it and the fact that is destroys Perratt's model has been stated in previous posts. The list of Anthony Peratt's published papers on plasmascience.net does not include a paper containing updated simulations. But maybe Siggy_G can give us an ciration to the actual paper.
2010-09-12, 00:47 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Reality Check The paper that Siggy_G cites is Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies This contains no reference to any other simulation other than mentioning the ones done in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The conclusion is the that simulation that the paper refers to is Perratts original 1985 one. The lack of a citation to the source of the left hand part of Figure 2 (the simulattion) further suggests the original paper. The PDF of B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:891–+, December 1992. has vanished from the plasmascience.net site. I have attached a copy to this post. This paper has no new simulation in it and the fact that is destroys Perratt's model has been stated in previous posts. The list of Anthony Peratt's published papers on plasmascience.net does not include a paper containing updated simulations. But maybe Siggy_G can give us an ciration to the actual paper. Thanks very much RC! What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution.
2010-09-12, 07:30 DeiRenDopa	In Peratt's "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies"*, in the Introduction, Peratt says: Quote: 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 times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment1. The footnote reads: "'Neutral' hydrogen in space has a degree of ionization of the order of 10-4." I've also seen similar statements in other Peratt papers. But I've never seen - that I can recall - a derivation of these numbers! Does anyone know: a) how Peratt arrived at these values? b) in which publication did he make the derivations explicit? * the paper which Siggy_G provides a link to
2010-09-12, 20:24 brantc	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Thanks very much RC! What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution. That might be revolving as in Rotating elephant trunks[*] G. F. Gahm1 - P. Carlqvist2 - L. E. B. Johansson3 - S. Nikolic4,5 1 - Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Centre, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2 - Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 3 - Onsala Space Observatory, 439 92 Onsala, Sweden 4 - Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36D, Santiago, Chile 5 - Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro Received 8 November 2005 / Accepted 26 January 2006 Abstract Aims. We investigate the structure and velocity of cold molecular pillars, "elephant trunks'', in expanding H II regions. Methods. The trunks are seen in silhouette against the bright background in our H$alpha $ images. All trunks are filamentary, and show signs of being twisted. Four such trunks in NGC 7822, IC 1805, the Rosette Nebula, and DWB 44 were selected, and then mapped mainly in 12CO and 13CO. We determine the mass and density of the trunks. Most of the mass is concentrated in a head facing the central cluster, and in sub-filaments forming the body of the trunk that is connected to V-shaped filaments to the outer expanding shell. Results. We discovered that all four trunks rotate as rigid bodies (to a first approximation) about their major axes, and that at least two trunks are stretching along their major axes, meaning that the massive heads are lagging behind in the general expansion of the H II regions. The rotational periods are of the order of a few million years - similar to the age of the clusters. Rotation, then, is responsible for the twisted appearance of many elephant trunks, since they are rooted in the outer shells. The trunks carry surprisingly large amounts of angular momentum, $3 imes 10^{48}{-}2 imes 10^{50}$ kg m2 s-1, with corresponding rotational energies of up to $sim$1037 J. However, we estimate the total magnetic energies to be even larger. The trunks continuously reshape, and the formation of twined, and in many cases helical, sub-filaments can be understood as a consequence of electromagnetic and inertia forces inside the trunks. A theory based on the concept of magnetically twisted trunks is developed further, where the initial angular momentum is a consequence of the twisting of parent filaments containing mass condensations. Our results also suggest a new process of removing angular momentum from parent molecular clouds. Key words: ISM: H II regions - ISM: clouds - ISM: kinematics and dynamics - ISM: magnetic fields http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio.....454..201GFUL
2010-09-12, 20:47 Reality Check	Originally Posted by brantc That might be revolving as in Rotating elephant trunks[*] .... Nice bit of astronomy. But please keep to the topic of this thread, brantc, i.e. cosmology and in particular Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
2010-09-12, 21:02 Reality Check	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa The footnote reads: "'Neutral' hydrogen in space has a degree of ionization of the order of 10-4." I've also seen similar statements in other Peratt papers. But I've never seen - that I can recall - a derivation of these numbers! Anthony Peratt did not derive that value. I believe that the figure of 10-4 for the ionization of neutral hydrogen in "space" (actually interstellar space, e.g. H I regions) is a observational value derived from measurements (temperature and density?) of the regions.
2010-09-12, 23:22 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by brantc Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Thanks very much RC! What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution. That might be revolving as in Rotating elephant trunks[*] G. F. Gahm1 - P. Carlqvist2 - L. E. B. Johansson3 - S. Nikolic4,5 1 - Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Centre, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2 - Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 3 - Onsala Space Observatory, 439 92 Onsala, Sweden 4 - Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36D, Santiago, Chile 5 - Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro Received 8 November 2005 / Accepted 26 January 2006 Abstract Aims. We investigate the structure and velocity of cold molecular pillars, "elephant trunks'', in expanding H II regions. Methods. The trunks are seen in silhouette against the bright background in our H$alpha $ images. All trunks are filamentary, and show signs of being twisted. Four such trunks in NGC 7822, IC 1805, the Rosette Nebula, and DWB 44 were selected, and then mapped mainly in 12CO and 13CO. We determine the mass and density of the trunks. Most of the mass is concentrated in a head facing the central cluster, and in sub-filaments forming the body of the trunk that is connected to V-shaped filaments to the outer expanding shell. Results. We discovered that all four trunks rotate as rigid bodies (to a first approximation) about their major axes, and that at least two trunks are stretching along their major axes, meaning that the massive heads are lagging behind in the general expansion of the H II regions. The rotational periods are of the order of a few million years - similar to the age of the clusters. Rotation, then, is responsible for the twisted appearance of many elephant trunks, since they are rooted in the outer shells. The trunks carry surprisingly large amounts of angular momentum, $3 imes 10^{48}{-}2 imes 10^{50}$ kg m2 s-1, with corresponding rotational energies of up to $sim$1037 J. However, we estimate the total magnetic energies to be even larger. The trunks continuously reshape, and the formation of twined, and in many cases helical, sub-filaments can be understood as a consequence of electromagnetic and inertia forces inside the trunks. A theory based on the concept of magnetically twisted trunks is developed further, where the initial angular momentum is a consequence of the twisting of parent filaments containing mass condensations. Our results also suggest a new process of removing angular momentum from parent molecular clouds. Key words: ISM: H II regions - ISM: clouds - ISM: kinematics and dynamics - ISM: magnetic fields http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio.....454..201GFUL I don't think so ("That might be revolving"). First, I did not mistype what's actually in the paper (by all means, check it for yourself). Second, in context, "revolving" makes no sense (again, check it for yourself); granted, "evolving" doesn't make much sense, but "revolving" would make no sense at all. Third, none of Peratt's papers (AFAIK) considers the kind of physical effect that the paper you, brantc, cite, nor does any of his work seem to have direct pertinence to "elephant trunks". Oh, and let's stick to the topic of this thread, shall we?
2010-09-14, 11:28 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Reality Check Anthony Peratt did not derive that value. I believe that the figure of 10-4 for the ionization of neutral hydrogen in "space" (actually interstellar space, e.g. H I regions) is a observational value derived from measurements (temperature and density?) of the regions. That's probably correct, though Peratt did not give a source for this. What about the other two numbers*? * "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 times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment."
2010-09-14, 11:44 ben m	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa That's probably correct, though Peratt did not give a source for this. What about the other two numbers*? * "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 times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment." The first number is a classic i-am-ignoring-shielding number: Two protons 1m apart: E force = 2x10^-28 N. G force = 2x10^-64 N. The ratio is 10^36. Since M and Q have different units, this is the sensible way to compare the forces (not the "strength" of the "fields")---by reference to a particular object (here a proton) with a fixed Q/M ratio. I have no idea what the 10^7 number is; it sounds like nonsense.
2010-09-14, 11:58 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m The first number is a classic i-am-ignoring-shielding number: Two protons 1m apart: E force = 2x10^-28 N. G force = 2x10^-64 N. The ratio is 10^36. Since M and Q have different units, this is the sensible way to compare the forces (not the "strength" of the "fields")---by reference to a particular object (here a proton) with a fixed Q/M ratio. Thanks; pretty much what I expected (but still Peratt does not seem to have stated *how* HE arrived at this number!). But why choose protons? Why not electrons, say, or singly ionised lead-208 ions? Or neutrinos, or photons, or helium-4 atoms, or ...? And why did Peratt - who obviously knows the difference between a force and a field - refer to "the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field" in a book aimed at graduate students of physics? Quote: I have no idea what the 10^7 number is; it sounds like nonsense. It's just so strange, to me, that someone who has obviously done some good work in plasma physics makes arbitrary, sloppy, statements, without 'showing his working'. I mean, would any one of us put up with something like this if one of our students handed in stuff like this as homework/coursework/etc?
2010-09-14, 13:33 ben m	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa And why did Peratt - who obviously knows the difference between a force and a field - refer to "the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field" in a book aimed at graduate students of physics? ... I mean, would any one of us put up with something like this if one of our students handed in stuff like this as homework/coursework/etc? You know, it's the sort of mistake anyone can make once or twice---a bit of oversimplification, perhaps a imperfect analogy clung to because it gives a sexy-sounding number. But most of us can tune this stuff up with the help of feedback from colleagues/audiences/referees. I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets (personal attack removed) random PC enthusiasts saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us.
2010-09-14, 13:48 Zeuzzz	Originally Posted by ben m I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets people like Zeuzzz and MM saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us. Have you read my recent posts Ben? Edited by Tricky:  Edited for rule 12.
2010-09-14, 15:01 Zeuzzz	Edited, breach of Rule 11; do not attempt to derail threads - discussion of forum management issues should be posted in Forum Management. Posted By:Locknar   Ahem. So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma. In most situations, especially on scales smaller than molecular, electromagnetic forces far more stronger than gravitation. For example, assuming that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE (the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized. Leading on from my previous comments using the above simple example its easy to see why I say that peratts model of galaxy formation, while failing to explain the galactic orbit of stars or terrestrial objects, could provide an extremely useful model in predicting the possible current circuits followed by particles in each galaxy.
2010-09-14, 15:03 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Have you read my recent posts Ben? I think that he would have and disregarded them since you gave up on EM forces which are the basis of Perrat's debunked model. If you have a viable model of galaxy formation of your own then start another thread or use Zeuzzz's questions about the standard model of galaxy morphology - do not derail this one.
2010-09-14, 15:15 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma.... For the second time: Please do not derail this thread, Zeuzzz. We know that there are magnetic fields in space and that they have effects on the motions of ions. That is basic physics. What you are ignoring is that when you look at galactic scales, there magnetic fields have a much smaller effect than gravitational fields. Have you ever read Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992? This is that paper where Meierovich and Peratt show that the effects of gravity are 7 OOM (10,000,000) times greater than that of the EM forces. They did not realize this but tusenfem pointed this out on 5th June 2009. So the irony is that Peratt falsifies his own model in this paper !
2010-09-15, 08:01 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz   Edited, breach of Rule 11; do not attempt to derail threads - discussion of forum management issues should be posted in Forum Management. Posted By:Locknar   Ahem. So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma. In most situations, especially on scales smaller than molecular, electromagnetic forces far more stronger than gravitation. For example, assuming that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE (the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized. Leading on from my previous comments using the above simple example its easy to see why I say that peratts model of galaxy formation, while failing to explain the galactic orbit of stars or terrestrial objects, could provide an extremely useful model in predicting the possible current circuits followed by particles in each galaxy. What RC said. Z, my questions are: "Does anyone know: a) how Peratt arrived at these values? b) in which publication did he make the derivations explicit?" Do you have specific references, to Peratt's published papers etc? If so, please provide them; if not, please stop spamming this thread.
2010-09-15, 08:05 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m You know, it's the sort of mistake anyone can make once or twice---a bit of oversimplification, perhaps a imperfect analogy clung to because it gives a sexy-sounding number. But most of us can tune this stuff up with the help of feedback from colleagues/audiences/referees. I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets (personal attack removed) random PC enthusiasts saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us. Thanks, that seems very plausible. It's doubly so considering that Peratt has not, AFAIK, ever published his astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology ideas in a journal like ApJ or MNRAS. Instead he's published - exclusively? - in IEEE publications, and I'm pretty sure there are no astrophysicists (etc) on any of their editorial boards, and (likely) none acted as peer reviewers.
2010-09-15, 09:47 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma. And naturally that is not exactly true. The cosmic magnetic fields are on the order of nanoTesla or smaller. So it completely depends on the energy of the particles, telling us whether they are magnetized or not, and on the so-called plasma-β (~ nT/B2) which tells us what dominates, the plasma or the magnetic field. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz In most situations, especially on scales smaller than molecular, electromagnetic forces far more stronger than gravitation. For example, assuming that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE (the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized. which basically means that the magnetic field is important and the dumb 36 orders of magnitude between gravity and electric force does not come in. (Msun 2 1030kg, Mh 1.67 10-27 kg, G 6.67 10-11, AU 1.5 108 m) The gravitational force is Fg ~ 10-50 N (q 1.6 10-19 C, B 5 10-9 T, v 30 km/s) The Lorentz force is Fl ~ 10-23 N The Fl depends on what velocity you take, I took the Earth's orbital velocity. MMMM I get a difference that is not even close to 107 But then again, it is hardly the kind of calculation you want to do, because the Lorentz force only makes the particle gyrate around the magnetic field, now if you have a nice cloud of particles on that field line of density N, then the gravitational force working on a unit lenght of the field line is going to increase by N, etc. etc. It is fun relatively comparing forces, but whether or not it has any real meaning remains to be found out. Usually, the answer is no. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Leading on from my previous comments using the above simple example its easy to see why I say that peratts model of galaxy formation, while failing to explain the galactic orbit of stars or terrestrial objects, could provide an extremely useful model in predicting the possible current circuits followed by particles in each galaxy. Well, as the above example is clearly wrong ......
2010-09-16, 08:27 Zeuzzz	I refuse to be drawn into an e-penis size contest dictated by the size of the formulae posted. But if you really want me to, like really really, we all need to get our formulae out together and give them a good thorough running over. Game?
2010-09-16, 10:51 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I refuse to be drawn into an e-penis size contest dictated by the size of the formulae posted. But if you really want me to, like really really, we all need to get our formulae out together and give them a good thorough running over. Game? Sure baby, why don't you start? However, it is not about the 107, ithe discussion was about the comparison of apples and oranges, how you cannot take gravity of an H to the sun and then the Lorentz force of a proton with whatever velocity you choose. Comparing values only works if you set up the correct situation.
2010-09-17, 20:19 brantc	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Third, none of Peratt's papers (AFAIK) considers the kind of physical effect that the paper you, brantc, cite, nor does any of his work seem to have direct pertinence to "elephant trunks". Oh, and let's stick to the topic of this thread, shall we? Sorry. But actually if the galaxy started from a Birkeland current then the rotational speed (of the filaments(elephant trunks)) might play a factor. Anyway. Back to the thread.
2010-12-10, 01:30 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa It's doubly so considering that Peratt has not, AFAIK, ever published his astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology ideas in a journal like ApJ or MNRAS. Instead he's published - exclusively? - in IEEE publications, and I'm pretty sure there are no astrophysicists (etc) on any of their editorial boards, and (likely) none acted as peer reviewers. The above comments are not really relevant to the discussion at hand or to the information in Peratt's papers. Where are you published?
2010-12-10, 01:34 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Reality Check Perrat's debunked model Which model by Peratt has been debunked?
2010-12-10, 01:39 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Which model by Peratt has been debunked? The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity.
2010-12-10, 01:40 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David It will be way too small, especially when you try to scale Perrat's model to a real galaxy. You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this. Originally Posted by Dancing David Seriously do the math, the galactic magnetic field is way to small. How big should it be? Show the math. Originally Posted by Dancing David 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? Some names of these thousands? Originally Posted by Dancing David 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. Name some of them? Originally Posted by Dancing David I am saying that the plasma universe people are wrong, such things do exist, just not the way that they pretend that they do. There are different ways to exist now? Originally Posted by Dancing David They just want to pretend that imaginary space is more important than real observation. Actually plasma cosmologists do the reverse, they pretend space is imaginary and real observations are important.
2010-12-10, 01:42 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The above comments are not really relevant to the discussion at hand or to the information in Peratt's papers. Where are you published? If someone tries to claim that Peratt's work should not be ignored because it is in a peer-reviewed journal and the peer review for that journal has no people with the relevant ability to review it then of course its relevant.
2010-12-10, 01:42 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity. I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.
2010-12-10, 01:46 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. If he said that then he's wrong. Please provide a direct quote. Quote: Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance. Nope. Completely and trivially false.
2010-12-10, 01:48 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this. You really really don't get this whole burden of proof thing do you? It is the proponent of the model that has to show their model fits the data, not the detractors to show that it doesn't.
2010-12-10, 01:49 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Reality Check Astronomy is the science that includes the observations... If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind. Originally Posted by Reality Check that provide the overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter and the good evidence for the existence of dark energy. You claim there is "evidence" that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is anecdotal evidence for it, sure, people tell stories about it, so what you said is factually correct. Can you show even a single experiment that demonstrates the existence of dark matter, or of dark energy? Experiment is fundamental to science. If you're not performing experiments, you're not doing science. Originally Posted by Reality Check Cosmology has models that include dark matter and energy because they are astronomical observations and the inclusions make the models match the observed universe. I fail to see why you are drawing a meaningless distinction between astronomy and cosmology. If astronomers research the cosmos, they are cosmologists as well, whether they have that on the plague by their office door or not. If cosmologists practice astronomy, they are astronomers. All this hair-splitting makes me think you have no real issue with plasma cosmology, and are merely engaged in a semantic debate for your own amusement.
2010-12-10, 01:52 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind. Controlled observations are experiments. Quote: You claim there is "evidence" that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is anecdotal evidence for it, sure, people tell stories about it, so what you said is factually correct. Can you show even a single experiment that demonstrates the existence of dark matter, or of dark energy? Experiment is fundamental to science. If you're not performing experiments, you're not doing science. Sure, as an undergrad I measured the rotation curve of Andromeda. The result is one piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter. Quote: I fail to see why you are drawing a meaningless distinction between astronomy and cosmology. If astronomers research the cosmos, they are cosmologists as well, whether they have that on the plague by their office door or not. If cosmologists practice astronomy, they are astronomers. All this hair-splitting makes me think you have no real issue with plasma cosmology, and are merely engaged in a semantic debate for your own amusement. This is no different to saying there is no difference between an atomic and a nuclear physicist.
2010-12-10, 02:00 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David What is the Debye length for interstellar medium and why would it matter? You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it. The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really. I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven: Quote: "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."
2010-12-10, 02:04 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Controlled observations are experiments. Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Sure, as an undergrad I measured the rotation curve of Andromeda. The result is one piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter. I asked for experimental evidence, not mere observation and speculation. Rotation curves of galaxies do not provide even indirect evidence of "dark matter". We do not need to invoke "dark matter" to explain why galaxies do not obey gravity. They don't obey gravity because they are plasmas. Plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces. Originally Posted by Tubbythin This is no different to saying there is no difference between an atomic and a nuclear physicist. It's very different. It's saying an astronomer who practices cosmology is also a cosmologist and vice versa. That's a very simple idea, and pretty much irrefutable, unless you start redefining those words in mid-sentence.
2010-12-10, 02:08 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin You really really don't get this whole burden of proof thing do you? It is the proponent of the model that has to show their model fits the data, not the detractors to show that it doesn't. I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it.
2010-12-10, 02:14 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin If he said that then he's wrong. He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Please provide a direct quote. Gladly: Originally Posted by Anthony L. Peratt, plasma physicist If the dominant form of matter [he means plasmas, which he calls the dominant, fundamental state of matter] were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism.
2010-12-10, 02:22 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Reality Check Neither mass distribution matches the results from the computer simulations. The purported "mass distributions" are extrapolations of the so-called "standard model" of cosmology, which posits unobservable "dark matter" sprinkled liberally here and there to explain why the matter we can actually observe doesn't behave the way they expect. The reason it doesn't behave the way they expect is because they're using the wrong rules. Electromagnetic forces dominate, not gravity. These derived "mass distributions" would more appropriately be described as "mass delusions". It's no surprise that "mass distributions" based on an erroneous model and "unobservable" stuff don't accord with simulations based on real physical principles.
2010-12-10, 05:33 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really. Wrong, the Debye length does not "shield current" it shows over which length a charge in a plasma still has an electrostatic effect. You can't even get your definitions correct. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven: Nice that you quote Alfvén. Too bad that you don't understand that these double layers that he is talking about are current carrying double layers, and can only exist by the grace of these currents. Then, because there is a driver, there can be a quasi-stable situation in which two sheets of opposite charge are separated by several tens of Debye lengths (which basically holds for strong double layers, whereas the size is significantly smaller for weak, e.g. magneto-acoustic double layers.