Something new under the sun

Sol kept asking for predictions that had been made relevant to plasma cosmology, and by plasma cosmologists. So i figured i would list a couple.

Birkeland Currents:The currents were predicted in 1903 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions into the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. The currents were predicted in 1903 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions into the Arctic Circle to study the aurora.

Zmuda et al detected field align-currents in 1966. Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler "discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted" and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents.

He also predicted auroral electrojets in 1908. He wrote: "[p.95 ..] the currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space, and thus far come under the second of the possibilities mentioned above. [p.105 ..] Fig. 50a represents those in which the current-directions at the storm-centre are directed westwards, and 50b those in which the currents move eastwards."

In 1913, Birkeland was the first to predict that plasma was ubiquitous in space. He wrote: "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space.”

In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that the solar wind behaves as do all charged particles in an electric field, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds"; in other words, the Solar Wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions”

And Hannes Alfven, often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, made many successful predictions

In 1942 Alfven proposed that an electrically conducting fluid in a magnetic field can propagate “electromagnetic- hydrodynamic waves.” In the idealized case of infinite conductivity and a constant magnetic field Ho, the wave velocity should be proportional to Ho multiplied by the square root of permeability divided by density. He suggested that such waves may be important in solar physics, in particular in explaining sunspots.

The first laboratory demonstration of Alfven’s waves was published seven years later by Lundquist, who was able to generate them in mercury; he found that the wave velocity was approximately that given by Alfven’s formula. Further confirmation came within the next few years from experiments on ionized helium and liquid sodium. Of equal weight in convincing the scientific community to accept hydromagnetic waves was their use by Fermi in his theory of the origin of cosmic rays. According to Dessler, “An oversimplified statement of what had occurred . . . was that Fermi heard [Alfven’s] lecture at the University of Chicago, nodded his head and said, ‘Of course.’ The next day the entire world of physics said, ‘Oh, of course.”)

In 1954, in connection with his theory of the origin of the solar system, Alfven proposed that when a neutral gas cloud encounters a plasma at relative velocity, v, the cloud will start to become ionized when the relative kinetic energy is equal to the ionization energy,

(1/2)mv2 = eVion

Where Vion is the ionization potential of the atoms or molecules in the cloud. The velocity cannot exceed the critical value given by this equation until ionization is almost complete (ref),

The first laboratory tests were conducted by Alfven’s colleagues at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. They found that the relative velocity could be increased to the critical velocity, but additional energy put into the system then went into ionizing the neutral gas rather than into increasing the relative velocity. The critical velocity is roughly independent of the pressure and magnetic field, as predicted by Alfven’s equation (ref) At about the same time, attempts to construct controlled thermonuclear devices encountered a “velocity limiting effect,” which appeared to be due at least in part to critical ionization.

Planetary scientists respected Alfvtn’s contributions to plasma physics and cosmic electrodynamics (for which he received the 1970 Nobel prize in physics); few of them felt qualified to criticize his ideas on magnetic braking, magnetohydynamic waves, field-aligned currents, and critical ionization velocity. But his next hypothesis involved only classical mechanics and generated a large literature, both pro and con. He proposed that inelastic collisions of solid particles moving in Kepler orbits will tend to focus them into “jet streams.”

Detailed calculations of the dynamics of systems of particles indicated that Alfven’s jet-stream effect-a sort of “negative diffusion”-could indeed occur, but only if the collisions were sufficiently inelastic (ref). Alfven’s interpretation of the Hirayama family was supported by several scientists (ref)(ref) but others argued that asteroid data cannot be explained by the jet stream hypothesis, or they opposed the hypothesis for other reasons not outlined. Alfven and others have argued that the narrowness of planetary rings can be explained as a jet stream effect(ref).

The first evidence for electrostatic double layers in the magnetosphere was found as early as 1960 by Carl McIlwain, his paper states that “the presence of monoenergetic electrons [in an auroral arc] strongly suggests an electrostatic acceleration mechanism” but he does not say what that mechanism is or mention Alfven’s double layer. The double-layer concept has also been used to explain solar flares and other space phenomena. Double layers are now known to exist but are still not widely used, and many scientist use completely different names to describe this same phenomenon. Other names for a double layer are electrostatic double layer, electric double layer, plasma double layers, electrostatic shock (a type of double layer which is oriented at an oblique angle to the magnetic field in such a way that the perpendicular electric field is much stronger than the parallel electric field), space charge layer, or In laser physics a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field ( as Double layers are conceptually related to the concept of a 'sheath', see Debye sheath]). This is mainly because this sort of plasma physics is not taught in normal astrophysics education, so it is often forgotten or ignored from their scientific models.

Another plasma cosmologist/EU proponent, Wallace Thornhill, has made many successful predictions based on plasma cosmoloogy concepts.

In December of 2004, Thornhill predicted that spidery ravine networks ("Lichtenberg" forms) would be seen on Titan, not unlike the "arachnoids" on Venus. He also stated it was unlikely that large craters would be observed, although mainstream investigators were expecting them in abundance. In the standard view of Titan, the moon is billions of years old, allowing plenty of time for massive impacts to scar the surface.

To date, images returned of Titan reveal that large craters are almost non-existent. What they do show are the very Lichtenberg patterns of electrical discharge Thornhill had anticipated.

In October 2001, after the announcement of NASA's 2005 Deep Impact mission, Thornhill wrote:
"Given the erroneous standard model of comets it is an interesting exercise to imagine what surprises are in store for astronomers if the plan is successful. The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter."
Twenty-four hours before the impact event, in collaboration with the Thunderbolts.info group, Thornhill predicted that an electrical "flash" might precede the impact and explosion, and that the explosion would be far more energetic than NASA anticipated. And this is precisely what happened on July 4, 2005, much to the astonishment of NASA and astronomers around the world.

Other successful Thornhill predictions included:

*a lack of increase in water production in the cometary coma (indicating a lack of subsurface water anticipated by astronomers);

*an unexpected lack of ice on the comet nucleus, or water in the immediate ejecta from impact;

*a sculpted comet surface with sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges (the precise opposite of what one expects of a "dirty snowball");

*a rearrangement of the comet's jets due to charge distribution.


On February 5, 2005, Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill, co-author of The Electric Universe and Thunderbolts of the Gods, published on his website (http://www.Holoscience.com) his analysis of scientists' discovery of a "warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole." Thornhill offered a detailed electrical interpretation of the phenomenon, and chastened investigators for referring to the "vortex" as "the first to ever be discovered in the solar system."

He wrote:
"Keck researchers don't seem to have done their homework. Or maybe things that can't be explained get forgotten! Saturn's 'warm polar vortex' is not 'the first to ever be discovered.' The Pioneer Venus Orbiter (PVO) discovered a warm 'giant vortex (Birkeland current) of surprisingly complex structure and behaviour located in the middle atmosphere at the north pole of the planet, with a similar feature presumed to exist at the south pole also.'"
On the question of Saturn's strange polar "hot spot," Thornhill offered an explicit prediction:

On January 3, 2008, the Reuters news service published the science headline, "Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole": "Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday.

"Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study. ‘We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north’, said Teanby of the University of Oxford.

Also the Birkeland currents recently found by Themsis connecting the Earths poles to the sun were predicted by Alfven, as were double radio sources, magnetic braking, and others. There are many more, Nobel laureate Langmuir also made a couple of predictions that turned out true, as did Anthony Peratt with galaxy shapes and pinch effects in the cosmos, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation, the spatially varying power law within a source in space; along with predictions by Gerrit L. Verschuur made predictions in the field of CIV and formation of currents in EM rays, as did Oscar Buneman in the field of plasma simulation, etc.

The importance of a theory is to make predictions, and it seems that they have made many, by applying the tested characteristics of plasma in laboratory experiments and scaling this up to the size of the cosmos. An approach that seems forever to produce increasingly accurate predictions and results.

Nice results from plasma physics.
How about the set of predictions from plasma cosmology that match all of the observations that Big Bang cosmology predicts?
Start with something easy: the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.
 
Last edited:
I think what RC means there is that Peratt's theory cannot explain gravitational lensing, which in itself is not a theory, but an observation.
.
RC wrote that Peratt "chooses to ignore gravity", but if he is referring specifically to gravitational lensing, then sure, Peratt's did not mention it in his papers.
 
I think this is covered by Peratt in section IX. "The Extension of Three Dimensional Electromagnetic Particle Simulations to Include Gravitational Forces", in his paper, "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" (IEEE TPS vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778).
That section states how to transform the Em equations into gravitational equations. There is no comparison of the magnitudes of the 2 forces or a justification of his neglect of gravity in the first place.

He further notes the applicability of electromagnetic forces and gravity in the preceedings section VIII.B. The Motion of Solid Bodies Condensed in Plasma, summarizing the "approach to the study of cosmic plasma is labeled
"gravito-electrodynamic".
There is no comparison of the magnitudes of the 2 forces or a justification of his neglect of gravity in the first place. Labeling something does not make it that thing, e.g. "unicorn-electrodynamic" does not make plasma cosmology into a theory of unicorns and electromagnetism.

I think that's a non-sequitur. A theory is not proved wrong because you have your own theory. Otherwise by the same reasoning, I could argue that the theory of dark matter is wrong because Peratt's theory destroys it.
Read the link - it is an observation of dark matter, not a theory of dark matter.
 
.
RC wrote that Peratt "chooses to ignore gravity", but if he is referring specifically to gravitational lensing, then sure, Peratt's did not mention it in his papers.
Peratt chose to ignore all manifestations of gravity in his model. You can tell this because none of his equations include the gravitational constant.

His basic idea is: There are laboratory experiments which use magnetic currents and plasma to create coherent structures called plasmoids. We can scale this up to astrophysics scales using the similarity transformations that have been used for other plasma phenomena. We will replace the experimental apparatus producing the magnetic fields with the fields from cosmic plasma filaments using Birkeland currents. The source of the plasma for the plasmoids will be the cosmic plasma.

But he never states his justification of ignoring gravity. It is justified in the laboratory setting since the plasmoids there have a low mass. But the paper is describing plasmoids with the mass of a galaxy.
 
And it's got a solution. And the solution in standard astrophysics is that the sun has a mechanism for losing angular momentum over time, namely by dragging the solar wind with its rotating magnetic field. Given that the sun is several billion years old, it's had quite a bit of time to slow down.
.
As Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, noted:

"In 1942 Alfvén showed that an ionized gas surrounding a rotating magnetized sphere will trap magnetic field lines, acquire rotation, and thereby slow down the rotation of the sphere [9. Ferraro [10] had obtained this result earlier but did not suggest its possible use in cosmogony. Alfvén [11], [12] proposed that the early sun had a strong magnetic field, and that its radiation ionized a cloud of dust and gas, which then trapped the magnetic field lines and acquired most of the sun’s original angular momentum. The magnetic braking concept allowed Alfvén [12], [13][14][15] and others [16] to revive versions of the nebular hypothesis in the 1960's". -- "Alfven's programme in solar system physics", Brush, Stephen G., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 577-589.​
In other words, a solar plasma phenomenon predicted by Hannes Alfvén after work by VCA Ferraro.
 
Read the link - it is an observation of dark matter, not a theory of dark matter.
.
I think that is the wrong way around. The observations are related to measurable movements of certain astronomical objects. The inference (and hence theory) is "dark matter". By definition, dark matter has not been observed, even though many consider it has been detected.
 
Nice results from plasma physics.
How about the set of predictions from plasma cosmology that match all of the observations that Big Bang cosmology predicts?


Birkeland was the person who predicted and discovered helical birkeland currents which is waht filaments of plasma in plasma cosmology are made of, they create galaxies, sunspots, filaments, the solar wind, the aurora's, etc. Hannes Alfven is often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, and Wallace Thornhill would definately be considered a plasma cosmologist, or an electric universe advocate. So if you ask the very people that made the predictions they would not beleive in the Big Bang, they all know and contributed to plasma physics, and they certainly would hold plasma physics and EM forces in much higher regard in space than conventional opinion, which makes them by definition plasma cosmologists.

Start with something easy: the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.


http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.

Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7].

This work was done using an IRAS sample limited to flux of more than 5.24mJy at 60 microns. More recent results, reported here for the first time(and to be published in greater detail elsewhere) extend this demonstration of absorption .

If long wavelength radiation is being absorbed or scattered by the intergalactic medium (IGM), then this effect should be constant for all wavelengths longer than about 100-200 microns. Absorption at one wavelength in this range should be the same, for a given galaxy, as absorption at another wavelength. The recent observations of submillmeter, 850micron, wavelengths by the SCUBA survey[41] is an opportunity to test this prediction.

Using the SCUBA Local Universe Survey(SLUGS) sample and eliminating 16 Seyferts, we obtain 88 galaxies that have 60,100, 850 micron and 1.4Ghx fluxes. If we ignore absorption by the IGM, we find a correlation of [......]



The recent history of the Big Bang theory has been of mathematical struggle to find solutions to a sea of problems. We are now a very long way from Hawking’s ideal of a theory which “on the basis of a few simple postulates will make definite predictions which can be tested”. For example, when it became impossible to reconcile the standard cosmological model with the Universe as it appears, the concept of inflation involving a finite period of inflationary expansion was introduced. Since the proposal of what is now termed old inflation by Guth in 1981, we have experienced new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity, and their sub-variants. At the end of which, we have no evidence that inflation ever happened. All the above theories and their numerous variants are effectively attempts to explain the “facts” as we know them by mathematical modelling.

It may not be unfair to conclude that the modern Big Bang theory comes with more patches and fixes than a piece of Bill Gates’ software.


According to Big Bang nucleosynthesis the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of helium-4 is the same as the amount of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) since the photons and the baryons were coupled during the production of nuclei. Plasma cosmology advocates claim that this correspondence, rather than being due to energetic photons driving universal nucleosynthesis, is explained by the stellar nucleosynthesis of helium releasing the required CMB energy from the stars in the early stages of the plasma cosmology's version of formation of galaxies. In order for such a model to yield the near-perfect observed blackbody spectrum, Lerner, Peratt and others hypothesized that the energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium.[8] Lerner developed this model, by matching the isotropic and homogeneous blackbody spectrum of the CMB using a fraction of the data set from COBE. Critics have pointed out that, unlike the big bang model, plasma cosmology has not calculated the full detail angular power spectrum they would expect from their cosmic microwave background and compared it to the WMAP data.[9]

Since the WMAP observations have been touted by many in the scientific mainstream as a "confirmation" of the Big Bang, plasma cosmology advocates have been known to expose what they see as detrimental "problems" in the WMAP data. One such problem is Richard Lieu's study[10] of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect of 31 clusters of galaxies being only one quarter of that predicted. While Lieu believes that this may represent a problem for baryogenesis models in the Lambda-CDM, Lerner has claimed that his observation is consistent with most of the CMB radiation originating closer to us than the clusters, as predicted by a plasma source for the radiation. Additionally, plasma cosmology advocates have claimed that the quadrupole and octopole moments of the CMB are oriented with slightly less radiation in the direction of the Virgo cluster[11], corresponding to their idea that the Local Supercluster filament would shield us from more distant filament CMB radiation.
 
Last edited:
.
I think that is the wrong way around. The observations are related to measurable movements of certain astronomical objects. The inference (and hence theory) is "dark matter". By definition, dark matter has not been observed, even though many consider it has been detected.
OK don't read the link - I will spell it out in simple terms:
Gravitation lensing is the bending of light by mass. All mass does it but you need a big mass to observe it, e.g. stars, galaxies and galactic clusters. If you have a proof that gravitation lensing does not exist than there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Astronomers have looked at the Bullet Cluster and measured the distortions of galaxies beyond it. These show gravitational lensing caused by a massive cloud that cannot be seen. Astronomers could have stopped there and assumed that the cloud was dark matter. But they are smart and want to rule out any other exotic matter. So they compared the mass distribution with that of the excited gas in the cluster (excited because of the collision). The found that the gravitational lensing (in blue in the image) is concentrated in 2 regions that are separated from the visible mass. Thus the gravitational lensing mass was not as affected by the collision as the visible mass - a confirmation that the gravitational lensing mass is dark matter.

The only theory involved here is General Relativity.
 
Birkeland was the person who predicted and discovered helical birkeland currents which is waht filaments of plasma in plasma cosmology are made of, they create galaxies, sunspots, filaments, the solar wind, the aurora's, etc. Hannes Alfven is often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, and Wallace Thornhill would definately be considered a plasma cosmologist, or an electric universe advocate. So if you ask the very people that made the predictions they would not beleive in the Big Bang, they all know and contributed to plasma physics, and they certainly would hold plasma physics and EM forces in much higher regard in space than conventional opinion, which makes them by definition plasma cosmologists.
The results in your quote are in plasma physics. If they are extended to some obscure form of cosmology then that does not change that fact.



So you admit that you are comparing a fully developed theory (Big Bang) with a "model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy".

By the way - I trump your link with another: Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened".
 
Peratt chose to ignore all manifestations of gravity in his model. You can tell this because none of his equations include the gravitational constant.

His basic idea is: There are laboratory experiments which use magnetic currents and plasma to create coherent structures called plasmoids. We can scale this up to astrophysics scales using the similarity transformations that have been used for other plasma phenomena. We will replace the experimental apparatus producing the magnetic fields with the fields from cosmic plasma filaments using Birkeland currents. The source of the plasma for the plasmoids will be the cosmic plasma.

But he never states his justification of ignoring gravity. It is justified in the laboratory setting since the plasmoids there have a low mass. But the paper is describing plasmoids with the mass of a galaxy.
.
Because from gravito-electrodynamics, charged particles smaller than grains are dominated by electromagnetic forces. Peratt details this in his book, where he notes:
"The transition of charge particles to mass particles involves the force constant, that is, the ratio of the coulomb electrostatic force between two charges q separated a distance r, [latex]\ ^{F_q(r) = q^2 / 4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}[/latex] to the gravitational force between two masses m separated a distance r, [latex]\ ^{F_G(r) = -Gm^2 / r^2}[/latex]

In the particle algorithm this change is effected by the following: (1) Changing all particles to a single species. (2) Limiting the axial extent of the simulation to be of the order of less than the extent or the radial dimension (i .e., about the size of the expected double layer dimension). (3) Setting the axial velocities to zero. (4) Setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal to the negative of the square-root of the gravitational constant (times [latex]\ ^{4\pi \epsilon_0}[/latex]).

This last change produces attractive mass particles via the transformation [latex]\ ^{\varphi_G(r) = \varphi_q(r)}[/latex] in the force equation [latex]\ ^{F = -\nabla \varphi}[/latex] where [latex]\ ^{\varphi_q(r) = q^2 / 4\pi \epsilon_0 r}[/latex] and [latex]\ ^{\varphi_G(r) = -Gm^2 / r}[/latex] are the electrostatic and gravitation potentials, respectively." -- Physics of the Plasma Unvierse (Springer-Verlag, 1992) in Chapter 8 "Particle-in-Cell Simulation of Cosmic Plasms", in section 9.7 Gravitation​
Peratt is well aware of gravitation forces, and uses the revered big G where appropriate in his simulations.
 
Because from gravito-electrodynamics, charged particles smaller than grains are dominated by electromagnetic forces. Peratt details this in his book, where he notes:
"The transition of charge particles to mass particles involves the force constant, that is, the ratio of the coulomb electrostatic force between two charges q separated a distance r,
latex.php
to the gravitational force between two masses m separated a distance r,
latex.php
In the particle algorithm this change is effected by the following: (1) Changing all particles to a single species. (2) Limiting the axial extent of the simulation to be of the order of less than the extent or the radial dimension (i .e., about the size of the expected double layer dimension). (3) Setting the axial velocities to zero. (4) Setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal to the negative of the square-root of the gravitational constant (times
latex.php
).​
This last change produces attractive mass particles via the transformation
latex.php
in the force equation
latex.php
where
latex.php
and
latex.php
are the electrostatic and gravitation potentials, respectively." -- Physics of the Plasma Unvierse (Springer-Verlag, 1992) in Chapter 8 "Particle-in-Cell Simulation of Cosmic Plasms", in section 9.7 Gravitation​
Peratt is well aware of gravitation forces, and uses the revered big G where appropriate in his simulations.

This is of course in his book and states the standard definitions of gravitational force and potential found in any text book on gravity - where was it in his paper?

Now show where he proves that gravity is insignificant in his model.
Or better yet - where does he compare gravitational forces in his model to electromagnetic forces in his model? What numbers does he plug into his model? What is the actual value of the ratio between gravitational and electromagnetic forces in his model?

The second paragraph seems to be about transforming an EM only model into a gravity only model.
 
Now show where he proves that gravity is insignificant in his model.
Or better yet - where does he compare gravitational forces in his model to electromagnetic forces in his model? What numbers does he plug into his model? What is the actual value of the ratio between gravitational and electromagnetic forces in his model?
.
That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.
 
That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

And galactic motion of stars, being much larger than grains, are dominated by gravity. So their motion cannot be explained by electromagnetic forces. Therefore the most logical explanation is that gravity is stronger than what we would predict from the visible matter alone.
 
.
That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.
Yes but where does Peratt do this in his paper and thus justify that he can ignore gravity?
 
Sigh.

David, why do I have to keep posting the same material over and over to you? Can you not read it the first couple times? Is it a comprehension issue (on your part)? As I've noted before on many threads that you were on, the sun contains 99% of the mass in the solar system. Yet the sun currently contains less than 1% of the angular momentum in the solar system. If it was like your ballerina, it should spin 400 times faster than it currently does. The centrifugal force from that rotation would actually have kept the cloud of plasma from collapsing into a star. So this is no small problem.

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

Why won't you answer questions?

You have just asserted something without any demonstration. At what point was their a solar atmosphere that would have imparted the momentum to Jupiter?

Could it not be many things, none of which you consider. You just wave around the Gname of Alfven but you have not shown that the momentum could be transferred by EM forces.

Then you act condecending to cover your tracks and lack of understanding, poor Alfven he is abused by you as well.

1. Arp statistics.
2. Galactic momentum imparted by what, what size forces, created by what?
3. Lerner plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses that does not collapse to a black hole.

Your Gnomes are still there, they are still of the 'insert miracle here' variety and now they have a cute little Pixie with them.

You have waved poor Alven around and hidden but you haven't explained anything, just made a 'sugegstion' so put the math to work, show how the sun was what size and had what distribution of energy and how it transferred the momentum to Jupiter, I already suggested that Jupiter's mass came into the system at a high velocity, so it's momentum would not have effected the sun's angular momentum.


You haven't shown that Jupiter's momentum would have effected the sun at all. Hows the moon coming, or Urananus' retrograde motion?

So keep pretending that somehow youve made Lerner's black hole not collapse, first we have 'it's hot', then we have 'it's transferring it's mass through some emans that Alfven did not describe". Hey smart man, it would still get drawn in, unless you are going to rocket it away much farther than 43 AU. Ohh, isee we have an imaginary system that continually recycles the mass of 40,000 suns and keeps them from collapsing. throw in the homopolar motor now. You are still saying gravity doesn't exist.

You are just arm waving, your arms must be really strong.
 
Last edited:
David, did you use your browser AT ALL? No? Did you not link and read the peer-reviewed, scientific papers by Alfven on this subject? No? You call peer reviewed work by a Nobel prize winner published in well known scientific journals "pop science articles"? Did you not notice that numerous other scientific papers and books on astrophysics cite Alfven's work and talk about the role of EM in re-distributing the angular momentum of the solar system long ago? Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, David?

Uh huh, point to it dude. Show us where Alfven demonstrates that Jupiter's momentum came from the sun through EM forces.

I called the first article you linked to 'pop' science. Wave away Karl Junior.

Canya?
Willya?

Show us where Alfven demonstrated that?

Or is it just one of many possibilities and not a proven demonstrated fact?
 
I suggest you read Peratts popular book, "Physics of the Plasma Universe", which is well cited by his peers, and contains a lot of material about electrical plasma forces in space (see list of citations here in google scholar). Being a student of Alfven he is considered an expert in this field, and many scientists use his material. Also see his paper "Plasma astrophysics and cosmology" - Astrophys. Space Sci., Vol. 227, No. 1 - 2, 297 p. 1997

The following topics were dealt with: large scale structure and filaments, formation of galaxies and electromagnetic fields, active galactic nuclei and quasars, cosmic rays, origin and abundance of light elements, star formation, the evolution of solar systems, redshift periodicities and anomalous redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, the evidence for and against dark matter, general relativity and electric fields, the history of plasma cosmology.



Also see Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics] for an overview of charge separation, double layers and the subsequent E-fields they produce.

Summary:As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage ¿V is P ¿ I¿V, a double layer must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources)



Also relevant are any articles published in the IEEE Journal of Transactions on plasma science, and a number of them are about about electrical plasma effects in the cosmos. A lot of the authors of that material would have ideas in line with plasma cosmology, and you can read abstracts from the journal for any previous year, including two already in 2008.


Also I suggest reading the first eight or so publications from this list if you want to see the alternative explanations for the observations used to explain the Big Bang. And Lernar et al have the material most relevant to alternative Big Bang interpretations:

Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985 (688K).

Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63‑68.

Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, 1993 p.17-26.

Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF - Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, AIP proceedings series 822, 2006

Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 935-938.

Galactic model of element formation - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume 17, Issue 2

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, 01\2005

And may I also suggest the following:

Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB)

The Redshift Revisited A.K.T. Assis and M.C.D. Neves(36KB), Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 13-24, 1995 (696K)

Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents, W. Peter and A. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, part 3, pp. 493-501, 1988 (560K)

COBE Satellite Finds No Hint of Excess in the Cosmic Microwave Spectrum, Physics Today, 1990 (128K).

COBE Sows Cosmological Confusion, Science, vol. 257, 28, 1992 (356K).

Fretting About Statistics, Daniel Kleppner, Physics Today, July 1992 (236KB).

An Alternative Explanation Of The Cobe Data - Plasma Science, 1994. Conference Record, 1994
 
Last edited:
I don't know what he's on about, but it sounds like he doesn't understand the basic physics of orbital motion the rest of us learned in junior high school.

Any angular momentum in the initial clouds of gas that preceded star or planet formation will remain, because there is no mechanism to get rid of it. Going back a step, the primordial origin of it is easy to understand - basically any asymmetry in an overdense region will lead to rotation as the overdensity collapses under its own gravitational pull, and the initial overdensities are not generally symmetric (they originate in random fluctuations). So there is no mystery in the origin of the rotation, and once it's there no force is required to maintain it.

Indeed, the tendency for objects to remain in motion is something well known since the 1600s and a certain well-known physicist named Isaac. Apparently the news hasn't reached BAC yet, though.

It is possible for these clouds to lose energy by ejecting energetic particles. As is known to every astrophysics student that process is strongly affected by electromagnetic interactions. The end result is a flattened disk with high density, which can then result in star formation (producing a spiral galaxy) or planet formation (producing a solar system), depending on what we're talking about. (The reason DM halos are more spherical than pancake-like is because of DM's lack of non-gravitational interactions.)

In any case, once it's in place the origin of the galaxy's rotation is irrelevant. As we have seen the only significant force acting on the stars which make it up is gravitational, and the equations for a star's motion are simply Kepler's laws for orbits, and using those laws one can immediately see from the rotational velocities that there must be more mass in the galaxy than is visible.


The current story goes like this:

Perrat's models impart the angular momentum to the galaxy during it's formation (Never mind that galaxies interact all the time, they get formed once and stay virgins)
Then you have Alfven's model transferring the angular momentum of the star to the surrounding material through EM forces.

So the assertions are
1. All the motion comes from EM forces in galaxy formation.
2. The rotation is locked in forever in violation of known physics, they have a flat rotation curve because that is what the plasma gave them as the galaxy was forming.
3. All angular momentum was imparted from EM forces during formation.
4. So all momentum comes from EM forces, originaly.
5. The planetary motions comes from Alfeven transfer of momentum, otherwise stars would never form.


Of course BAC will deny it all and still not answer direct questions and then claim that I have a reading comprehension problem. But this is what the dark postings say I tell you.
 
Last edited:
.
That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

Hang on, Iantresman, I thought you were defending plasma cosmology. And yet here you're telling us (according to your own, infallible source Alfven) that for large particles, electromagnetic forces are negligible compared to gravity. And we all know that the stars and planets have negligibly low charge-to-mass ratios and are "large grains" by Alfven's standards. Therefore gravity is by far the largest net force on stars, electromagnetism is a tiny net force on stars, and therefore electromagnetism can't explain the huge forces necessary to keep the Sun on its Galactic orbit, etc.

That's the order-of-magnitude calculation that makes mainstream physicists discard PC. I'm glad you've finally done it yourself. Stars are massive neutral balls of stuff, and that's why PC can't show any strong forces.
 
.
I think that is the wrong way around. The observations are related to measurable movements of certain astronomical objects. The inference (and hence theory) is "dark matter". By definition, dark matter has not been observed, even though many consider it has been detected.


[whisper]
Hey Ian, chill out dude. He was talking about gravitational lensing as well. You are ignoring that.

[/whisper]
 
The current story goes like this:
Perrat's models impart the angular momentum to the galaxy during it's formation (Never mind that galaxies interact all the time, they get formed once and stay virgins)
Then you have Alfven's model transferring the angular momentum of the star to the surrounding material through EM forces.

So the assertions are
1. All the motion comes from EM forces in galaxy formation.
2. The rotation is locked in forever in violation of known physics, they have a flat rotation curve because that is what the plasma gave them as the galaxy was forming.
3. All angular momentum was imparted from EM forces during formation.
4. So all momentum comes from EM forces, originaly.
5. The planetary motions comes from Alfeven transfer of momentum, otherwise stars would never form.

Of course BAC will deny it all and still not answer direct questions and then claim that I have a reading comprehension problem. But this is what the dark postings say I tell you.

Actually it is even weirder than that. You would think that Peratt's model would be to take the established model of a cloud of hydrogen gas + gravity, replace the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasma and add EM forces. But his model actually replaces the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasmoid which in turn needs the scaled up magnetic fields that create plasmoids in the laboratory. To get these magnetic fields he proposes Birkeland currents in cosmic plasma filaments as the source. He then removes gravity from the model without any justification.
 
Stars are massive neutral balls of stuff, and that's why PC can't show any strong forces.


Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
 
Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.
Really?

Not long ago you said...
Hannes Alfven is often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, and Wallace Thornhill would definately be considered a plasma cosmologist, or an electric universe advocate.

A little longer ago you said...
In 2002 electrical theorist, author and speaker Wal Thornhill wrote;

"After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft's voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward the positively charged Sun..."

I didn't have to look very hard.
 
.
Only if you considered it a gas which uses 19th century physics.

As a plasma, such a cloud may transfer angular momentum hydromagnetically in a manner described by Hannes Alfvén and Gustaf Arrhenius in their 1997 NASA publication, "Evolution of the Solar System", in Chapter 17. Transfer of Angular Momentum and Condensation of Grains.

That first reference at least is concerned with the transfer of angular momentum from a central body to a surrounding plasma. That's largely irrelevant to my post, so I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Actually it is even weirder than that. You would think that Peratt's model would be to take the established model of a cloud of hydrogen gas + gravity, replace the hydrogen gas cloud with a plasma and add EM forces


Funny you mention hydrogen, Peratt is a bit of an expert on Neutral hydrogen gas and emissions.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html
IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS

BEAVERTON, OR.--A plasma scientist and a radio astronomer announced the discovery of charged particle flows in interstellar space at the 1999 International Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey, California. The discovery culminated decades of speculation and debate whether or not electricity existed on the scale of hundreds of thousands of light years in the interstellar space between the stars.

According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.'

The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances between the stars.

Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye. Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand billion amperes.

"The individual filaments in space are often called Z-pinches. These Z-pinches occur when current-carrying plasma 'pinches' itself into a filament by a magnetic field the current produces around the plasma. Z-pinches, such as those produced on the Sandia National Laboratories 'Z' machine, are among the most prolific producers of X-rays known,� cited Peratt.

The United States Department of Energy funded Z-machine at Sandia has surprised the scientific community during the last few years by breaking all records in the production of high intensity X-rays from wire filaments converted into plasmas by million-volt pulses. Such filaments have already been discovered in our own solar system. For example, the aurora on Earth is known to be caused by million ampere currents flowing down the Earth's magnetic field lines at the northern and southern poles while similar were found by planetary explorer spacecraft to connect the planet Jupiter with its closest satellite Io. [............]


And a few other papers by plasma cosmologists about Hydrogen and CIV in the galaxy and ISM:

INTERSTELLAR NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE

Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds

Peratt, A.L.; Verschuur, G.L.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 28, Issue 6, Dec 2000
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/27.902239

Abstract:

Observations of neutral hydrogen (H I) emission profiles produced by gas in the local interstellar medium are found to be characterized by four linewidth regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have widths on average of 5.2, 13, and 31 km/s, and a very broad component approximately 50 km/s wide. A striking coincidence exists between these linewidths and the magnitudes of the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space: 6 km/s for sodium and calcium; 13 km/s for carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen; 31 km/s for helium; and 51 km/s for hydrogen. The data relate to observations near neutral hydrogen structures that are filamentary


ON THE CRITICAL IONIZATION VELOCITY EFFECT IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE AND POSSIBLE DETECTION OF RELATED CONTINUUM EMISSION

The Critical Ionization Velocity Signature Manifested in Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure
- Anthony Peratt (Plasma Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos NM 87545), Gerrit Verschurr (Physics Department, University of Memphis)

Abstract—Interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values (34, 13 & 6 km/s) appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities (CIVs) of the most abundant interstellar atomic species. Extended new analysis of HI emission profiles shows that the 34 km/s wide component, probably corresponding to the CIV for helium, is pervasive.


GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - Gerrit L Verschuur and Anthony L. Peratt, - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 127:394-407, -- 2004 January

And if you had read the section of his publication he gives to talking about the distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies you would see that he sets out what he does very clearly, so i suggest uyou comment on that.

The chemical composition and the
distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed
in Section VII.
Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist
model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments
while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional
electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to
include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.


[/quote]To get these magnetic fields he proposes Birkeland currents in cosmic plasma filaments as the source. He then removes gravity from the model without any justification.[/QUOTE]


Funny that you didn't mention any of the actual foces involved in his model. That would have been the first thing i would do, Biot savart laws between helical filaments, bennet pinch conditions, the magnetic moment, axial magnetic field creating a spiral accelertion component, azimuthral current, etc, What you need to understand is that there have been plenty of observations of these huge filaments between galaxies. Take a look at some pictures of the IGM and other large areas(1)(2)(3)and, when they say it is gas, i find it hard to see how gas can form in filaments that large, it really does have to be in a plasma state. And gravity has a hard time explaining how these structres are maintained. So Birkeland currents this size exist out there, and Peratt is showing what the relationship would be between them. In a plasmoid you would not have an amperage to factor in like you do with interacting filaments, so it would be slightly different. http://www.fractaluniverse.org/plasma_filament.php
 
Please find me one plasma cosmology publication that says that stars are not neutral. You wont be able to, because that idea has nothing to do with plasma cosmology.

So in other words, plasma cosmology cannot explain galactic rotation curves. So we do need dark matter.
 
That is simply false, as I have already explained in detail. If the cloud is large enough gravity dominates, regardless of what it's made of.


Apart from clouds where the the critical ionization process is ionizing gas, causing the large filamentary electric currents we observe in them. Look it up for the maths, i cant be bothered. Gravity is not creating them, thats for sure, and further evidence that EM forces and Birkleland currents play a role on large structures.
 
Funny you mention hydrogen, Peratt is a bit of an expert on Neutral hydrogen gas and emissions....
And if you had read the section of his publication he gives to talking about the distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies you would see that he sets out what he does very clearly, so i suggest uyou comment on that.
My comment is that his model is about plasma as you know - it is not "neutral hydrogen cosmology"!

Funny
Funny that you didn't mention any of the actual foces involved in his model. That would have been the first thing i would do, Biot savart laws between helical filaments, bennet pinch conditions, the magnetic moment, axial magnetic field creating a spiral accelertion component, azimuthral current, etc, What you need to understand is that there have been plenty of observations of these huge filaments between galaxies. Take a look at some pictures of the IGM and other large areas(1)(2)(3)and, when they say it is gas, i find it hard to see how gas can form in filaments that large, it really does have to be in a plasma state. And gravity has a hard time explaining how these structres are maintained. So Birkeland currents this size exist out there, and Peratt is showing what the relationship would be between them. In a plasmoid you would not have an amperage to factor in like you do with interacting filaments, so it would be slightly different. http://www.fractaluniverse.org/plasma_filament.php

His model is wrong. I have no reason to disagree with his equations for the forces in his wrong model.

I have an even better one though because it is much simpler: the universe is made of water. I know this model is correct because I can use hydrodynamics to calculate the forces in it! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So in other words, plasma cosmology cannot explain galactic rotation curves. So we do need dark matter.


Why do you say that?

His model is a model between two interacting galactic filaments, the filaments are self supporting, and because magnetic field lines can not be open, by definition, stars are joined by their EM fields, which provides some further rigidity. I dont think that a charge on the stars is required, nor do i think he mentions one.
 
Last edited:
My comment is that his model is about plasma as you know - it is not "neutral hydrogen cosmology"!


Oh yeah, i forgot, if the title of your subject is plasma cosmology you have to ignore the effects of the other three states of matter. :rolleyes: Is that a logical statement RealityCheck? really?

The point of me showing that was you were implying that somehow regions of neutral hydorgen were not accounted for in his model, but since peratt is an expert in this area with numerous publications to his name, I showed that this is not the case.


His model is wrong. I have no reason to disagree with his equations for the forces in his wrong model.


Which force is wrong, and why is it wrong?
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, i forgot, if the title of your subject is plasma cosmology you have to ignore the effects of the other three states of matter. :rolleyes: Is that a logical statement RealityCheck? really?
I am saying that in Peratt's paper "the title of his subject is plasma cosmology" and he does "ignore the effects of the other three states of matter". So you do not think that Peratt is being logical? What does that say about his model?

The point of me showing that was you were implying that somehow regions of neutral hydrogen were not accounted for in his model, but since peratt is an expert in this area with numerous publications to his name, I showed that this is not the case.
Please state the section in his paper that includes the effects of neutral hydrogen in his model.


Which force is wrong, and why is it wrong?
He has a wrong model. He is using the correct forces for his wrong model.

If a model is wrong then it does not matter what forces are accounted for in the model, e.g. I have an even better model than Peratt's model because it is much simpler: the universe is made of water. I know this model is correct because I can use hydrodynamics to calculate the forces in it.
 
Originally Posted by Acleron
Bear with me for a moment as I slowly work my way through this.

The first post above says that plasma cosmology removes the need for dark matter to explain observation.

Does this include the anomalous orbit velocities observed in galaxies?
Yes. Essentially the arms of the galaxy are magnetically supported, Which explains why the outside of the galaxies seem to rotate faster than the theory of gravity allows.

As the majority of most galaxies is hydrogen, it would seem to an ignoramus like myself that the magnetic field strength required to move these more distant stars from the centre can be easily calculated. Has this been done?
 
As the majority of most galaxies is hydrogen, it would seem to an ignoramus like myself that the magnetic field strength required to move these more distant stars from the centre can be easily calculated. Has this been done?
Hi Acleron, There is not much point in debating the use of plasma "cosmology" to remove the need for dark matter since we have an observation of the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter in the Bullet Cluster. This is very strong evidence that dark matter exists (as well as other observations) and so plasma cosmology is wrong when it concludes that it does not.
 
That is simply false, as I have already explained in detail. If the cloud is large enough gravity dominates, regardless of what it's made of.
.
If it is dense enough, and charged neutral, then maybe.

But, just take a look at any nebula, or perhaps M87's "jet" which extends 5000 light-year (big enough?). Gravity clearly does not dominate, but works together with electromagnetic forces.
 
Apart from clouds where the the critical ionization process is ionizing gas, causing the large filamentary electric currents we observe in them. Look it up for the maths, i cant be bothered. Gravity is not creating them, thats for sure, and further evidence that EM forces and Birkleland currents play a role on large structures.

Sigh, more arm waving, and you looked to be serious.

Too bad.
 

Back
Top Bottom