Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

You know what is missing Zeuzzz, something you can point to and say:

Here is the mass, here is the objects, here is the cahrge and here is the acceleartion, from that we can determine the feild strength needed by perrat's model of galaxy rotation. Then we can see how it compares to observation. perrat's model is a 10 com plasma in a small magnetic field, how is that going to scale to something that can move multiple stellar masses?

Will you answer this question, or provide anything that plasma cosmology predicts , other than suggestions? What is the number? I know there is the double radio galaxy, which Perrat did, that is one way to produce the effect. How does his prediction vary from that of the jets coming off a black hole?

You still have yet to say which part of Birkeland's experiment corresponds to which process on the sun and how the scale is applied from one event to the other.

Plasma has a place in cosmology, especially in the early universe. But a ten cm plasma is not a galaxy. What size does the 4.3 Gauss magnetic field have to be scaled to?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models. This is what most PC proponents would also define it as. So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos.

But, it seems that this description is not accepted by most people here, in their opinion any form of cosmology has to be specifically about the observations that are used to prove the Big Bang. Now, Scott and Thornhill have not written anything about the CMB, dark matter, inflation, etc, or other things used to support the Big Bang, so according to many people here, its not categorized as cosmology, or plasma cosmology. Only the material from Peratt, Snell, Lerner and other plasma cosmologists that do address these observations usually associated with a Big Bang would be considered contributing to plasma cosmology. I'm fine with working with this, as I really dont see what difference it makes what group you put work into. Thus why from this viewpoint (the predominant viewpoint of most people in this thread) the work of Scott, Thornhill and their colleaugues is not about plasma cosmology, which is why I said that.

As I said, continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed. It doesn't help that not much of this material has been discussed here yet either, people are judging it at face value, and often from abstracts only.
Click to expand...
Well, Zeuzzz, you are almost the sole cause of this confusion/misunderstanding/mis-categorisation/... not least because when someone explicitly asked about a particular paper you had explicitly called 'a plasma cosmology paper', you refused to answer (or, more kindly, simply ignored the repeated questions).

Further, you have been asked, repeatedly, to clarify issues concerning Arp et al.'s papers (both the ones you directly cite and the ones on the webpages you provide links to), on 'intrinsic redshift' and its relationship with 'plasma cosmology' (in the post of yours I'm quoting, you do it again "focusses on what processes are [...] fully experimentally verifiable"). Again, not once (that I can recall) did you get off your high horse and actually acknowledge the questions (much less answer them)!

Then, when some draw the pretty obvious logical conclusion that 'plasma cosmology' accepts, as a core, legitimate method, the logic of false dichotomy, you get all huffy.

And so on ...

And you wonder why some people call you a troll?
.
...Now to get to DRD's last few posts...

I've briefly read through your posts, and since you didn't create a clear list of your direct refutations of plasma cosmology, like I recommended, I'll have a quick go to see exactly what your getting at, so I can try to respond in the near future.

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Dude, you need new reading glasses.

#117: "Taking the points in your lengthy post one by one ... [...] Why? because [the Eastman paper - you lauded it, remember?] says essentially nothing about how well (or not) any of these 'alternative cosmologies' matches the relevant observations (and no, Burbidge does not introduce any such, in the 2006 paper Eastman cites). [...] Now we can ask questions like the following, and we can expect that any proponent of PC worth his salt will be able to provide chapter and verse answers." (bold added)

No attempt to provide "direct refutations of plasma cosmology", nor any statement that any would be forthcoming.


#118: you expect "direct refutations of plasma cosmology" in a post that comments on yours, which explicitly states its scope is philosophy?!?! :eye-poppi


#119: why repeat stuff that we've done to death elsewhere? Peratt's spiral galaxy rotation curve work, no matter how many papers he spins it across, is DOA, for reasons that were covered, at considerable length, in older threads. You'd like a concise summary, again, of why it's DOA?

Also: "Almost all the other cites are works by Alfvén, and many are at least partly philosophical. If any reader is interested in discussing any of these, in terms of the science (observation, theory, how well they match, etc), I'd be happy to participate."

May I take your post to mean that you'd like to have such a discussion, and will be actively contributing (hopefully also in a positive fashion)? You had only to ask! :mad:


#120: I don't know how much simpler I can make the main point:

according to Lerner: no radio emissions can be observed from high-z objects (say, z >~2)

according to radio astronomers: Lerner's idea is DOA, because there are lots of just those kinds of objects in the various surveys.

You want even more stuff on why this part of Lerner's idea is DOA? All you have to do is ask! :mad:


#124: you want more details? AND you are prepared to engage in a discussion (not do a seagull - drop bucketloads of spam woo and vanish)? Just say so.

Which of the items would you like to start with?


#125: "What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ..."

You want to engage in such a discussion? AND you are prepared refrain from being a seagull (drop no more bucketloads of spam woo and vanish)? Just say so.

Which of the items would you like to start with?

[skip to #144]

#144: in case you hadn't noticed, this is my version of the 'sol invictus test': your response tells me just how serious you are about actually discussing PC, and how solid your physics (relevant to the topic) actually is.

That you did not give a straight YES or NO answer to any of the questions, nor indicate a willingness to either ask questions or sign up for the discussion, does not bode well.

But maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Zeuzzz, do you want to have a discussion of how the observational evidence is inconsistent with both Peratt's and Lerner's assertions/conclusions that (spiral) galaxies contain no CDM? A simple, clear YES or NO please.

.
***post #120 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683462&postcount=120

1. "Lerner is proposing that the universe becomes opaque to microwaves below a certain frequency, is transparent above that frequency (it's actually more of a range than a sharp frequency cutoff), and that the scale-length for opacity is a few Mpc (the paper is rather weak on what bounds there should be for this).

[...]However, the universe is, apparently, quite transparent, to microwaves and radio, way out to z ~5 (there's more of course, but that will do for now)."


***post #124 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3684272&postcount=124

2. Peratt's 'no CDM' spiral galaxy model is inconsistent with estimates of the amount of CDM from gravitational lensing

3. Oddly, Elerner does not also mention that the WMAP team's analysis of the CMB produces an estimate of large-scale structure that is completely consistent with that from teams like SDSS; nor does he mention the observational detection of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) in the 'local' universe. It's a relatively simple matter to put these together, and show that an 'eternal' PC universe would not, and could not, resolve Olbers' paradox, even with Lerner's tired light.

... snip ...

"(section I; which I may cover in a later post), most of what Lerner wrote in the other two sections has been overtaken by subsequently published observations, which the Wikipedia page at least acknowledges (and which I have said pretty much demolish the case for PC)." Care to ellaborate?

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Sure.

Elerner's Wikipedia article was written in ~2006; you confirmed my guess that Lerner's webpage (that you cited) was written in ~Dec 2003.

[35] in the Wikipedia article (links omitted):
35. ^ M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS collaboration), "The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Astrophysical J. 606 702–740 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0310725 The failure of the fractal model is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter power spectrum from a power law at scales larger than 0.5 h Mpc-1 (visible here).The authors comment that their work has "thereby [driven] yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis..."
Click to expand...
That's just one example.


.
***post #144 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685462&postcount=144

4. Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies).

5. Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.




If I have missed any of your refutations of plasma cosmology, please add them to the list. And may I recommend you write up your findings disproving plasma cosmology, and submit it to be published and peer reviewed in a journal of your choice. Thats how science works after all, and you'd be doing what no-one so far has been able to do. That way any plasma cosmologist could respond to it in the future, which would certainly save me the time :D
... snip ...
Click to expand...
Thank you for your suggestion.

However, as the astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology) community regards plasma cosmology, in any flavour, as fringe science, what would be the point? The target audience of such a paper - astronomers, etc - would likely snort and say 'what? nothing better to do?'

Zeuzzz, one of your biggest failings, it seems to me, is your inability to appreciate to what lengths most professionals would go to have their names on a truly landmark paper. Do you honestly think that most are completely ignorant of the ideas you have so frequently spambombed JREF forum pages with? That they do not scan arXiv abstracts, with an eye for new ideas and perspectives?

If there was anything paradigm-changing in any of Peratt's or Lerner's papers, someone would have cottoned onto it long ago, put some serious astronomical meat on the meager plasma physics bones, and have been on their way to Stockholm years ago.

To give just one example: look at how fast one fatal flaw in Peratt's supercomputer 'spiral galaxy' simulations work was spotted, by some JREF regulars! If that work had even the tiniest of chances of containing some viable idea, any one of those who have read the paper(s) these last many years would have picked it up and run with it. The fact that essentially no one (other than Peratt et al.) has cited it is a pretty good indication of just how barren it (and most of PC) is.

Zeuzzz, plasma cosmology has the tag 'fringe science' for an extremely good reason.
 
Such terrible logic and huge fallacies.

"If there was anything to it ... somebody would have spotted it long ago ... yadda yadda yadda".

That is truly awful.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?
Click to expand...


Okay... more smack talk, and still no concrete definition of what Jerome means by "redshift anomaly". Keep on deflecting there, Jerome - the Nobel Prize committee will be knocking on your door any time now...
 
robinson said:
Such terrible logic and huge fallacies.

"If there was anything to it ... somebody would have spotted it long ago ... yadda yadda yadda".

That is truly awful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because there are SO many ideas in the history of science that were suppressed and ignored by the mainstream for years and then turned out to be right.

Oh wait... that's funny, I can't think of a single one!


(Warning: if you think any of the following constitute counterexamples and try to bring them up, you will be embarrassed:

Einstein
Galileo
plate tectonics
stomach ulcers.)
 
Hi Zeuzzz,
How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to PC? If it is unimportant then don't worry about the following questions.

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models. This is what most PC proponents would also define it as. So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos.
Click to expand...

So when you said:
What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me.
Click to expand...
you were lying since you clearly do know what they have to do with plasma cosmology.
 
robinson said:
Such terrible logic and huge fallacies.

"If there was anything to it ... somebody would have spotted it long ago ... yadda yadda yadda".

That is truly awful.
Click to expand...


That would be true if it was the sole basis of the dismissal of the alleged theory and evidence.

Now Jerome has stated that some of us, me in particular, just dismiss his evidence out of hand. But I have looked at Arp's conclusion that there is an association between QSOs and redshift and there is a huge methodological and procedural gap. That is not dismissing the evidence, that is a valid critique of the evidence.

Others Zeuzzz and BAC mostly have complained incessantly about how BBT has huge sums of money and they are the poor 'norphan step child. Then they complain incessantly about how the ideas they present are just ignored by the mainstream and how the mainstream is closing the door on them. And then you have DRD and others pointing out where the theory does not match the data, or where the data contradicts the theory. And Zeuzzz and BAC just ignore that. They are the ones who are closing the door on the evidence.

Zeuzzz, BAC and Jerome often complain that people just shut out the theories without considering them and that there is a conspiracy to keep them shut out. But people do examine the theories and the data does not support the theory. Is that really a wall of silence?

Then Zeuzzz, BAC and Jerome act like there is this priesthood of modern science that just ignores the theory because they are upset with the theory that confronts the orthodoxy. Which is just not true, the mainstream rejects the theories because they don't fit the data.

So the fallacy would exist if the reason for the rejection of the theory was just 'somebody else should have found it by now', the fallacy is an the part of the PC crowd when they say that the theory is rejected out of hand, it is not rejected out of hand, it doesn't fit the data, that is why it is rejected.
 
Ha!

The fundamental difficulty with a real conversation, in the sense of this thread, about "Plasma Cosmology" is obvious from the OP. Rather than go forth in a scientific manner, the very premise of the thread is humorous rather than logical.

That it would quickly take a nosedive was a foregone conclusion. The irony, or maybe deliberate subtle nonsense of it all, is brilliant in it's own way.
 
Reality Check said:
There are a couple of plasma cosmologists on the forum (Hi Zeuzzz and maybe BeAChooser). They have been posting in various threads from their plasma cosmolgy[sic] perspective but this has lead to derailed threads.

This thread has been started so that the topic can be dicuseed[sic] in one place rather than be spread over several threads.


The questions to be answered:
  • What is Plasma Cosmology?
  • How do it's predictions fit the observed data, e.g. the CMB anisotropy?
  • What falsifiable predictions does it make?
    A scientitic[sic] theory has to make falsifiable predictions so that it can be tested to see if it is valid or not.
Perhaps Zeuzzz or BeAChooser can start by posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology so that we have a common point to start from.

One guideline: Please no massive posts of links and quotes.
Posts with multiple topics in them make the thread confusing. Try to limit yourself to a single topic in a posting with a few links related to that topic.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as.
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
Posts with multiple topics in them make the thread confusing
Click to expand...

No sheet Sherlock. Like th OP, which contains so many subjects, none of which are related to the dubious title of the thread.

First there is a conclusion
There are a couple of plasma cosmologists on the forum

Then another
They have been posting in various threads from their plasma cosmolgy[sic] perspective

Then yet another
this has lead to derailed threads.

Then at last, maybe a starting point
This thread has been started so that the topic can be dicuseed[sic] in one place rather than be spread over several threads.

(At the point of three glaring typos I always wonder about the sobriety of the thread starter. This isn't a one off post buried in the garbage four pages in, this is the OP, in a science forum. How hard is it to give your OP a once over?)

Of course we are not sure of what the topic is yet. It might be

What is Plasma Cosmology?

Which would be a decent enough subject, especially since there are multiple threads already discussing the various matters.

How do it's predictions fit the observed data, e.g. the CMB anisotropy?

Another decent topic, of which there are several threads already talking about this.

What falsifiable predictions does it make?

Of course we don't know what "it" is yet, but lets not let that stop us.

A scientitic[sic] theory has to make falsifiable predictions so that it can be tested to see if it is valid or not.

Another conclusion. So what is the topic about?

Oh yeah
Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as.
Click to expand...

That's right, we knew that long ago.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe,
Click to expand...
I'll ask again then. Why do you constantly turn to steady state theory for support? Steady state theory relies on ex nihilio creation just as much as the BBT does.

But, it seems that this description is not accepted by most people here, in their opinion any form of cosmology has to be specifically about the observations that are used to prove the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Suppose there is a theory, theory A. It is the generally accepted scientific theory for some bit of science. Somebody suggests an alternative to theory A, call it theory B. So, what does it take for theory B to replace theory A as the generally accepted scientific theory?
1) Well, firstly it has to be able to account for all the observations which agree with theory A.
then
2)It should explain some observational evidence that is not explained by theory A.

This ordering should be fairly obvious. For example, if Einstein's general theory of relativity had explained the precession of Mercury's orbit but also had the Earth orbiting the Sun in 100 days it would have been thrown out.
If theory B does not comply with 1) there is absolutely no point in considering 2). Hence, if plasma cosmology does not explain the evidence that supports the Big Bang it should be thrown out as an alternative to the Big Bang. You are the one proposing PC is an alternative to BB. It is up to you to show us that it does comply with 1). That is why the questioning of 'your' theory revolves around observations that support the Big Bang. When you have shown us that your theory complies with 1) we can move on. Until then you'll have to accept the same lines of questioning.

As I said, continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand.
Click to expand...
It was you who brought it up!
 
What is the evidence against Plasma Cosmology? Part 1: standard meaning of 'cosmology'.

Maybe this should be a separate thread, in light of robinson's latest comment?

Well, I think it best to keep it here, for now; it'll all be in the one place.

In all the following, I shall take "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) to mean "as described or presented in papers published by E. Lerner and A. Peratt (and any et al.s) in relevant peer-reviewed journals".

This first part (Part 1) addresses 'cosmology' in its standard, contemporary meaning of the history, large-scale structure, and constituent dynamics of the universe.

Later parts will look at 'cosmology' as it is defined within PC itself, and PC as a branch of science (i.e. problems with PC's approach/method, as opposed to the content; 'one level up' if you will).

Without further ado, and in no particular order (NOTE: this is not a complete list, nor is it intended to be):

1. Observations show that the universe has a structure that is inconsistent with Lerner's fractal scaling relationship (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is an SDSS PR showing the observed large-scale structure; here is the corresponding paper.

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

4. Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with its observed SED (spectral energy distribution: COBE observed that the SED is a blackbody (example - note that the error bars are 400 sigma!); Lerner says this about how well his model fits (emphasis added): "[the Lerner model] 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%." In case you, dear reader, don't quite get this, I'll spell it out more clearly: 'a probability of 85%' is not, repeat not, an accurate match ... the error bars are so small that '85%' represents a total failure to match (you'd need something like 99.99% to still be in the game).

5. No "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium" have been observed (to the best of my knowledge) - these hypothesised objects are central to Lerner's CMB model, and they should have been observed, directly or indirectly, by now (Zeuzzz: in which paper(s) does Lerner describe what their observational footprint would be (other than the CMB) and attempt to explain why they have not yet been observed?)

6. The time dilation observed in high-z Ia supernovae is inconsistent with Lerner's proposed mechanism for the Hubble relationship ('tired light') - an example.

7. The CMB angular power spectrum expected in Lerner's model has not been estimated/calculated (so the now excellent observations haven't yet been used to test the Lerner model). Of course, this is not evidence against Lerner's PC, merely a note on a test it hasn't yet been subject to.

8. Lerner's PC requires the fractal scaling relationship to apply at large scales, including beyond the observable universe, otherwise the night sky would not be dark (Olbers' paradox). The night sky is dark, and at large scales the observed universe does not follow Lerner's fractal scaling relationship, ergo you can rule out Lerner's PC every clear night (away from big cities!), by going outside and seeing a dark sky.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
Such terrible logic and huge fallacies.

"If there was anything to it ... somebody would have spotted it long ago ... yadda yadda yadda".

That is truly awful.
Click to expand...
Let's do a test, shall we robinson?

We'll take a totally unscientific sample of two: Lerner's 1989 "Galactic model of element formation" paper which he (and Zeuzzz) is so proud of because it accounts so well for the observed abundances of so many light nuclides, and the two papers Lerner cites in support of his statement that "... halo white dwarfs constitute a mass of about 1011 solar masses, comparable to about half the total estimated mass of the Galaxy[28-29]. While these observations have been sharply criticized, they have been confirmed by new observations[30]. Not only are the existence of these numerous white dwarfs confirmation of much earlier predictions by the plasma theory ..." ([28]. R.A. Mendez and D. Minnitti, "Faint Blue Objects on the Hubble Deep Field North and South as Possible Nearby Old Halo White Dwarfs", Astrophys. J., vol. 529, p.911916, 2000; [29]. B.R. Oppenheimer et al, "Direct Detection of Galactic Halo Dark Matter", Science, 292, p. 698.).*

The 1989 Lerner paper has a grand total of 3 citations (2 by Lerner himself); the Mendez&Minnitti 44 (and counting); the Oppenheimer et al 120 (and counting).

The next bit requires your acceptance, based on nothing more than my say-so (and any subsequent posts, by others, in support (or otherwise)).

If Lerner's 1989 paper contained a really cool idea that someone subsequently (or even independently) developed into a paradigm-changing paper, and did not cite Lerner, you would have heard about it, big big time. Part of the process of peer-review involves making sure credit is given for a paper's intellectual predecessors (among other things); of course, scientists are human, so occasionally mistakes are made, calculated risks are taken, and so on ... but it's very rare.

Compare this with the 'fate' of the two other papers: >160 direct citations (and hundreds more of indirect ones)!

Why? Because the possibility of an otherwise unaccounted for (and previously not detected) component of the MW halo really was (and still is) BIG NEWS.

Much effort was (and still is) devoted to researching the possibility that lots of white dwarfs (or red dwarfs or brown dwarfs or ...) could be out there in the MW halo, enough to comprise a significant (>~50% say) fraction of the total MW halo mass (estimated from gravitational lensing studies, for example).

The result (consensus today)? A) the WDs observed by Mendez&Minnitti and Oppenheimer et al belong (probably, mostly) to a 'thick disk' population (not a halo one); B) the total mass of halo WDs (and RDs) amounts to no more than ~10% of the mass of the MW halo (and maybe as little as 1%); C) there's good evidence that our galaxy has munched on rather more former satellite galaxies (and other former denizens of the Local Group) than had been previously known (a result, by the way, consistent with CDM cosmology model simulations).

Sadly, for Lerner (and Zeuzzz), a MW halo dominated by CDM is now on even firmer ground, observationally (rather the opposite of how Lerner wrote it, in late 2003).

* by the way, the two are connected; lots of old WDs would, according to Lerner, support his 1989 paper ... though he's strangely silent on whether an absence of such a large halo population of old WDs would tend to rule his model out ...
 
robinson said:
... snip ...

So what is the topic about?

Oh yeah
Zeuzzz said:
Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as.
Click to expand...

That's right, we knew that long ago.
Click to expand...
Shall I add "skill: quote mining" to your CV robinson?

You (conveniently?) neglected to mention that Zeuzzz (yes, Zeuzzz!) kindly provided a concise definition of PC, and a link or three to material by one E. J. Lerner (along with words to the effect that, from his point of view, the works of E. J. Lerner should be considered prime grade, pure PC).

Did you miss those posts? Did you choose to not read the material Zeuzzz so kindly went to all the trouble to compile?

Have you no pithy, cynical, sceptical, etc remarks to make about anything Zeuzzz posted? about the content in any of the links he posted?

(other than, what was it? "I'm simply amazed at the amount of effort and time put into some of the writings here. I tend to scroll past the wall of text, but it is impressive." - emphasis added)
 
Yes and no. Inorganic plasma was in fact inspired by blood plasma, curiously though that similarity is never taken out of context.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Have you no pithy, cynical, sceptical, etc remarks to make about anything Zeuzzz posted? about the content in any of the links he posted?
Click to expand...

Oh sure, but you guys do a much better job of it than I ever could. If I thought you were losing ground I certainly would jump in and give a hand.

As to the content of links, and the larger complicated issues, I don't know enough to really help out. I'm just dismayed at the poor logic and unscientific methods being used.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
What is the evidence against Plasma Cosmology? Part 1

[...]

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

[...]
Click to expand...
This preprint, hot off the arXiv server, is highly relevant:
Spitzer Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy of Infrared Luminous Galaxies at z~2 III: Far-IR to Radio Properties and Optical Spectral Diagnostics

Anna Sajina, Lin Yan, Dieter Lutz, Aaron Steffen, George Helou, Minh Huynh, David Frayer, Philip Choi, Linda Tacconi, Kalliopi Dasyra
(Submitted on 2 May 2008)

Abstract: We present the far-IR, millimeter, and radio photometry as well as optical and near-IR spectroscopy of a sample of 48 z~1-3 Spitzer-selected ULIRGs with IRS mid-IR spectra. Our goals are to compute their bolometric emission, and to determine both the presence and relative strength of their AGN and starburst components. We find that strong-PAH sources tend to have higher 160um and 1.2mm fluxes than weak-PAH sources. The depth of the 9.7um silicate feature does not affect MAMBO detectability. We fit the far-IR SEDs of our sample and find an average <L_{IR}>~7x10^{12}Lsun for our z>1.5 sources. Spectral decomposition suggests that strong-PAH sources typically have ~20-30% AGN fractions. Weak-PAH sources by contrast tend to have >~70% AGN fractions, with a few sources having comparable contributions of AGN and starbursts. The optical line diagnostics support the presence of AGN in the bulk of the weak-PAH sources. With one exception, our sources are narrow-line sources, show no obvious correspondence between the optical extinction and the silicate feature depth, and, in two cases, show evidence for outflows. Radio AGN are present in both strong-PAH and weak-PAH sources. This is supported by our sample's far-IR-to-radio ratios (q) being consistently below the average value of 2.34 for local star-forming galaxies. We use survival analysis to include the lower-limits given by the radio-undetected sources, arriving at <q>=2.07+/-0.01 for our z>1.5 sample. In total, radio and, where available, optical line diagnostics support the presence of AGN in 57% of the z>1.5 sources, independent of IR-based diagnostics. For higher-z sources, the AGN luminosities alone are estimated to be >10^{12}Lsun, which, supported by the [OIII] luminosities, implies that the bulk of our sources host obscured quasars.
Click to expand...
Why is it relevant?

Recall that in Lerner's PC, the CMB is a kind of local radio fog, originating in the scattering of processed starlight (I think that's a fair summary) by (as yet unobserved) "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium". While Lerner has not, apparently, developed his model sufficiently to be able to say what the scale length of this fog is (other than in broad, almost qualitative, terms), one piece of observational evidence he claims supports this idea is some correlations between the estimated radio and IR (and microwave and mm?) luminosities (I don't, yet, really understand his argument well), and specifically that high-z radio sources seem attenuated compared with comparable sources at low z*.

What this paper (and a great many others like it) present is high quality observational data on the observed 'brightness' of many objects, in many wavebands (optical, IR, FIR, mm, microwave, radio). Some of the material seems to be quite inconsistent the Lerner model of the CMB, as presented (e.g. the lack of any z-trend in the radio loud sources in the q-z plot of Figure 14; according to Lerner there should be a strong z correlation!); but the main problems (for Lerner's PC, at least as far as his model of the CMB is concerned) would show up starkly if the data presented were transformed into forms that could be used to directly compare with what's in Lerner's own paper(s).

At least, that's my impression. What are your thoughts on this Zeuzzz? Specifically, can you see a way that the data in this preprint could be transformed to be consistent with Lerner's conclusions?

* we must put aside a critical component of Lerner's, and most other versions of PC's; namely, staunch support for Arp et al.'s ideas concerning 'intrinsic redshift', and especially the part about (most) quasars/QSOs being rather local. If this were to be incorporated into Lerner's argument concerning FIR/mm/microwave/radio correlations supporting a 'local' origin of the CMB, I'm pretty sure they'd reduce it to noise.
 
Reality Check said:
Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
Click to expand...

http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

:D
Click to expand...
Hi BeAChooser: This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo :D !
 
Reality Check said:
Hi BeAChooser: This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo :D !
Click to expand...


I find this statement quite strange. By that logic, you could take the shape of any single galaxy we can observe, and say that gravity only models are woo as they can not account for any of the shapes we see. But what would that achive? This is like to OP, very unscientific, and just seems like you want a fight, instead of addressing the material put forward. (can we stop using the word 'woo' to describe anything that you do not belive? not very scientific, really? is it?)

And, there categorily are filaments extending from the galaxy that you said, so your previous statement that "According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?" Well, they are there. And they were not predicted, nor can be formed, by gravity only equations, but most certainly are expected in the plasma universe model.

And to clear this up for Dancing David, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Peratts galaxy model is 10 cm Big! What would that achieve? And he would not have need to have included the mass of the galaxy as a variable if this was the case, as gravity would not do anything on that smaller scale, and would be completely negligable. You may want to re-read a few of my points about the scale used in the "something new under the sun" thread, and what scale Peratts model is based in. You may have got muddled with Winston Bostik's actual experiment with interacting plasmoids that showed the form of galaxies, or Birkelands Terella, (both I briefly discussed in this post) thats fair enough. Peratt certainly wouldn't have needed a supercomputer to model a 10cm simple force free configuration! Thats why its dealing with galactic size plasma formations;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
The model of the plasma universe, inspired by totally unexpected phenomena observed with the advent and application of fully three-dimensional electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations to filamentary plasmas, consists of studying the interaction between fieldaligned current-conducting, galactic-dimensioned plasma sheets or filaments. In a preceding paper, the evolution of the interaction spanned some 108-109 years, where simulational analogs of synchrotron-emitting double radio galaxies and quasars were discovered. This paper reports the evolution through the next 109-5 x 109 years. In particular, reconfiguration and compression of tenuous cosmic plasma due to the self-consistent magnetic fields from currents conducted through the filaments leads to the formation of elliptical, peculiar, and barred and normal spiral galaxies. The importance of the electromagnetic pinch in producing condense states and initiating gravitational collapse of dusty galactic plasma to stellisimals, then stars, is discussed. Simulation data are directly compared to galaxy morphology types, synchrotron flux, H1 distributions, and fine detail structure in rotational velocity curves. These comparisons suggest that knowledge obtained from laboratory, simulation, and magnetospheric plasmas offers not only to enhance our understanding of the universe, but also to provide feedback information to laboratory plasma experiments from the unprecedented source of plasma data provided by the plasma universe.
Click to expand...


And Peratt quite openly derived the scaling relationship that enables the force free configuration, here;

Zeuzzz said:
equationsfk4.jpg
Click to expand...


And Reality Check, the sombrero galaxy is a very unique object, in terms of galaxies, and mainstream theories to explain its shape in any sort of conclusive way have not been very sucessful. Infact, I think that Peratts model is much more likely to explain this galaxy anyway, if you read some of his work, he does directly address the formation of spherical dust/plasma structures like this, which arrise due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix.


The necessity for a threedimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time dependence. Moreover, synchrotron radiation and double layers are discrete particle phenomena and cannot be studied using magnetofluid models of plasma. The importance of applying electromagnetism and plasma physics to the problem of radio galaxy, galaxy, and star formation derives from the fact that the universe is largely matter in its plasma state, i.e., a plasma universe.
The motion of this plasma in local regions can lead to pinches and ultimately condense states of matter. Where double layers form in the pinches, strong electric fields can accelerate the charged particles to high energies. Simulations of the interactions between plasma pinched into filaments show:

1) a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity —W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction begins;

2) isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtaposed "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);

3) the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix); [...]
Click to expand...


And you may want to check out his second publication, that deals with the various different types of galaxy, and gives a quantitive derivation of what the conditions are that lead to these morphologies, all of which derive from his force free model, and seem to be able to account for different types of galaxies far better than current models.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf
The gross radio properties of galaxies are reviewed in Section II. Section III describes a transistion through the following sequence of cosmic objects: double radio galaxy to radioquasar; radioquasar to radioquiet quasi-stellar objects (QSO's) [9]; radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert spiral galaxies; and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies to normal and barred (or barrel) galaxies. The various classifications of elliptical and spiral galaxies are discussed in Sections IV and V, respectively. The importance of electromagnetic effects in describing both the bulk- and fine detail structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also reported in Section V. Multiple interacting galaxies are studied in Section VI. 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.
Click to expand...


And, also you hould check out section nine of this publiction (page ten) where his model is shown to nearly exactly match the distribution of Hi regions, and many other features, of spiral galaxies. None of these need the addition of extra theories to account for these observations, all derive from the the fundamental galaxy model, whereas standard theories rely on many completely separate theories to explain these observations. If your judging both theories by parsimony, Peratts model wins hands down, and does need to invoke many separate theories to explain this. And the rotational velocity curves that he plots in this publication (published in the very reputable "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal) are much more accurate than standard theories too.


DeiRenDopa said:
1. Observations show that the universe has a structure that is inconsistent with Lerner's fractal scaling relationship (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is an SDSS PR showing the observed large-scale structure; here is the corresponding paper.

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

4. Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with its observed SED (spectral energy distribution: COBE observed that the SED is a blackbody (example - note that the error bars are 400 sigma!); Lerner says this about how well his model fits (emphasis added): "[the Lerner model] 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%." In case you, dear reader, don't quite get this, I'll spell it out more clearly: 'a probability of 85%' is not, repeat not, an accurate match ... the error bars are so small that '85%' represents a total failure to match (you'd need something like 99.99% to still be in the game).

5. No "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium" have been observed (to the best of my knowledge) - these hypothesised objects are central to Lerner's CMB model, and they should have been observed, directly or indirectly, by now (Zeuzzz: in which paper(s) does Lerner describe what their observational footprint would be (other than the CMB) and attempt to explain why they have not yet been observed?)

6. The time dilation observed in high-z Ia supernovae is inconsistent with Lerner's proposed mechanism for the Hubble relationship ('tired light') - an example.

7. The CMB angular power spectrum expected in Lerner's model has not been estimated/calculated (so the now excellent observations haven't yet been used to test the Lerner model). Of course, this is not evidence against Lerner's PC, merely a note on a test it hasn't yet been subject to.

8. Lerner's PC requires the fractal scaling relationship to apply at large scales, including beyond the observable universe, otherwise the night sky would not be dark (Olbers' paradox). The night sky is dark, and at large scales the observed universe does not follow Lerner's fractal scaling relationship, ergo you can rule out Lerner's PC every clear night (away from big cities!), by going outside and seeing a dark sky.
Click to expand...


This is much better than your previous spam attacks DRD :thumbsup:. Gives me something that I can actually directly respond to. Be patient, i'm pretty sure there are answers to these, but its going to take longer than a few simple google searches, and as you know, I dont have much time at the mo.

[ its annoying when someone accuses your long posts of being merely a spam attack, isn't it? :) ]
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz: This is nothing to do with the shape of the galaxies - just the predictions from Perrat's plasma model of galaxy formation (this includes simulation maps that look like optical photographs of galaxies)

To repeat a previous posting (bold text added):
How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to PC? If it is unimportant then don't worry about the following questions.

Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be galactic plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?
Where are they for other galaxies that are edge on to us?
P.S. These filaments should extend for a billion light years (based on the September 1989 article in Natural Science). According to the simulation maps in his papers they should be as wide as the galaxy.

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Also something that has not totally been answered yet: How does Peratt's plasma model deal with the actual observation of dark matter?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies?
Click to expand...


I presume that these would be galaxies in which the current flow has been dimished in comparison to what it used to be.

Your logic is quite bad here, because i can ask you the exact same question in reverse; Can you tell us why we do see plasma filaments extending from most other galaxies?

Well, can you?

Of course there are going to be exceptions, galaxies are very varied, but standard theories do not account for this any more than plasma cosmology does.

For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be galactic plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?
Where are they for other galaxies that are edge on to us?
P.S. These filaments should extend for a billion light years (based on the September 1989 article in Natural Science). According to the simulation maps in his papers they should be as wide as the galaxy.
Click to expand...


If you read the paper, not all filaments need to be galactic size. It varies between each different type of galaxy. And I say again, the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case, and has no good explanation with standard models. In Peratts, this shape can be accounted for with the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix)

and can you not put most of your posts in bold?, it comes across as shouting.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I presume that these would be galaxies in which the current flow has been dimished in comparison to what it used to be.
Click to expand...
So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?

Zeuzzz said:
Your logic is quite bad here, because i can ask you the exact same question in reverse; Can you tell us why we do see plasma filaments extending from most other galaxies?
Click to expand...
We do see filaments from many galaxies. None of them are "galactic" and extending for billions (or even thousands) of light years.
Of course Peratt's model predicts (as far as I can see) that all galaxies will have the model's galactic plasma filaments.

Zeuzzz said:
Well, can you?
Click to expand...
Yes I can. There are multiple reasons mostly to to with plasma physics.
Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)

Zeuzzz said:
If you read the paper, not all filaments need to be galactic size. It varies between each different type of galaxy. And I say again, the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case, and has no good explanation with standard models. In Peratts, this shape can be accounted for with the formation of "dust-lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix)
Click to expand...
Ok the sombrero galaxy is a very specific case - give me a better one with filaments matching Peratt's model.

Zeuzzz said:
and can you not put most of your posts in bold?, it comes across as shouting.
Click to expand...
I had to put them in bold so that you could see the parts of the post that I was adding. I will put them in italics next time.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I find this statement quite strange. By that logic, you could take the shape of any single galaxy we can observe, and say that gravity only models are woo as they can not account for any of the shapes we see. But what would that achive? This is like to OP, very unscientific, and just seems like you want a fight, instead of addressing the material put forward. (can we stop using the word 'woo' to describe anything that you do not belive? not very scientific, really? is it?)

And, there categorily are filaments extending from the galaxy that you said, so your previous statement that "According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?" Well, they are there. And they were not predicted, nor can be formed, by gravity only equations, but most certainly are expected in the plasma universe model.

And to clear this up for Dancing David, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Peratts galaxy model is 10 cm Big! What would that achieve? And he would not have need to have included the mass of the galaxy as a variable if this was the case, as gravity would not do anything on that smaller scale, and would be completely negligable. You may want to re-read a few of my points about the scale used in the "something new under the sun" thread, and what scale Peratts model is based in. You may have got muddled with Winston Bostik's actual experiment with interacting plasmoids that showed the form of galaxies, or Birkelands Terella, (both I briefly discussed in this post) thats fair enough. Peratt certainly wouldn't have needed a supercomputer to model a 10cm simple force free configuration! Thats why its dealing with galactic size plasma formations;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf



And Peratt quite openly derived the scaling relationship that enables the force free configuration, here;




And Reality Check, the sombrero galaxy is a very unique object, in terms of galaxies, and mainstream theories to explain its shape in any sort of conclusive way have not been very sucessful. Infact, I think that Peratts model is much more likely to explain this galaxy anyway, if you read some of his work, he does directly address the formation of spherical dust/plasma structures like this, which arrise due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix.





And you may want to check out his second publication, that deals with the various different types of galaxy, and gives a quantitive derivation of what the conditions are that lead to these morphologies, all of which derive from his force free model, and seem to be able to account for different types of galaxies far better than current models.

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf



And, also you hould check out section nine of this publiction (page ten) where his model is shown to nearly exactly match the distribution of Hi regions, and many other features, of spiral galaxies. None of these need the addition of extra theories to account for these observations, all derive from the the fundamental galaxy model, whereas standard theories rely on many completely separate theories to explain these observations. If your judging both theories by parsimony, Peratts model wins hands down, and does need to invoke many separate theories to explain this. And the rotational velocity curves that he plots in this publication (published in the very reputable "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal) are much more accurate than standard theories too.





This is much better than your previous spam attacks DRD :thumbsup:. Gives me something that I can actually directly respond to. Be patient, i'm pretty sure there are answers to these, but its going to take longer than a few simple google searches, and as you know, I dont have much time at the mo.

[ its annoying when someone accuses your long posts of being merely a spam attack, isn't it? :) ]
Click to expand...


Apparently you need to check into the basis of perrat's original papers, and ones you have cited in fact! remember the ones where there are two plasma filaments and how they form 'galactic' strubture? remember the original 'internal magneto' study which generated the 'flat rotation curve'.

Those were (from the one citation I found) 10com plasmas in a 4.3 Gauss field. Those are the 'labratory experiments' that certain PC/PU posters taut as 'earth based evidence' amongst others.

So Zeuzzz, answer teh question ,if you have a 10 com plasma that looks like a glaxy in a 4.3 gauss field, what size is it when you blow it up to a galaxy?

Funny, nobody will print that number. They will taut the 'earth based science' but they won't scale it up.

Why is that?

What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?

I ask you or someone else to show me the steps in the equation you post, since it is beyond my 23 years old calculus.

What size magnetic field do these models predict? Why don't posters who promote PC want to show that prediction?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Apparently you need to check into the basis of perrat's original papers, and ones you have cited in fact! remember the ones where there are two plasma filaments and how they form 'galactic' strubture? remember the original 'internal magneto' study which generated the 'flat rotation curve'.
Click to expand...


That was Bostiks paper, of the original experiment that inspired to Peratt to create a larger scale model that may account for this similar shape based on plasma physics. "The first picture is a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. The Kerr-cell exposure times are 2x10-6 and the various delay times of the sequence are indicated in microseconds. The pressure in the chamber is 4x10-6s." As i showed in this post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3530017&postcount=493

Is that what you are reffering to?

Maxwells equations for a start provide the scaling, they dont change over differing scales. And the scaling relationship is quoted above.

Those were (from the one citation I found) 10com plasmas in a 4.3 Gauss field. Those are the 'labratory experiments' that certain PC/PU posters taut as 'earth based evidence' amongst others.
Click to expand...


They certainly add some amount of credence, but they are far away from being used as conclusive proof. Its mainly just the history of how this model was started, and you may not find it an interesting observation, or not see its relevance, but I (and others) do.


What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?
Click to expand...

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?
Click to expand...


Dunno. :)

this is one galaxy out of many, and I'm sure that mainstream explanations for this shape are no better than the application of Peratts model. (unless you know differently?)

I could look at every single galaxy in the sky and claim that "This galaxy does not conform with gravity alone theories, as its structure is impossible to sustain or create with an exclusively attractive gravitational field", just as you can probably pick plenty of galaxies that seeming disoby some of Peratts models. The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)
Click to expand...


where does Peratt say that the filaments are clearly visible over a distance of 1000 light years????
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Reality Check said:
Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies? For example have a look at the Sombrero Galaxy which is edge on to us. According to Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation there should be plasma filaments extending above and below the galaxy plane. Where are they?

What does the model predict about the radiation from the plasma filaments? I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce radiation (X-ray?) and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
Click to expand...
http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~kdelain/research/somb/sombrero.html "Chandra Observation of the Sombrero Galaxy (NGC 4594), K. M. Delain, W. R. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, R. P. Kraft ... snip ... There is a faint filament extending above the galaxy on the eastern side, as well as a stronger one extending southeast from the center."

:D
Click to expand...
Good to see that you are still with us, BeAChooser! :D

Will you be posting to the "Arp statistics" thread soon? I'd really appreciate your feedback on whether I've done my sums right, according to 'the BAC approach'.

To the topic at hand.

Perhaps I presume too much, but I doubt that you have much of a background in astronomy, as a science, do you BAC?

Why do I think this?

Partly because of the way you responded to RC's post (quoted above): you don't seem to have checked whether the Delain et al. result was/had been subsequently validated or not, nor did you check on the observations in the radio waveband (apparently).

On both counts, RC's later post is spot on in terms of its conclusion ("This link is great! It shows that there are no galaxy-wide plasma filaments extending from the Sombrero Galaxy and thus disproves Peratt's plasma model! This model seems to be a fundemental part of Plasma Cosmology.
Thank you for thus disproving Plasma Cosmology and making it definitely woo!"); however the details of the knock-out to Peratt's model are interesting.

First, this later paper concludes that there is no faint x-ray filament(s) (emphasis added):
At energies above 2 keV, the source-subtracted X-ray emission is distributed similarly as the stellar K-band light and is primarily due to the residual emission from discrete sources. At lower energies, however, a substantial fraction of the source-subtracted emission arises from diffuse hot gas extending to ~20 kpc from the galactic center.
Click to expand...
Next:

While Peratt seems to have been remarkably coy (shall we say) about modeling the expected SED (spectral energy distribution) of the giant interacting pairs of intergalactic Birkeland currents*, which are responsible for so many properties of spiral galaxies, it seems to me that they'd stand out like the proverbial sore thumb in the microwave or radio wavebands ... even if only in terms of a polarisation signature imposed on a background (where such filaments are 'backlit').

The observations and analyses reported in this paper would seem to be a good way to test this Peratt idea; if they are, then it seems pretty clear that Peratt's model is inconsistent with observations (and so, while perhaps not woo, the Peratt model fails on so many grounds that it would seem pointless to keep discussing it).

* Note to Zeuzzz: none of the published Peratt papers you have provided has anything at all on what mass these currents and/or filaments are expected to have, on the composition of that mass (e.g. what % H, what % He, etc), on the expected gamma, x-ray, ... microwave, radio emission from them (at least, that I could find). From your extensive reading and knowledge or Peratt's works, where does he talk about this? Published papers only please, and "et al.s" are OK. Oh, and no, I'm not talking about the Peratt/Lerner model of the origin of the CMB - the filaments responsible for the CMB (in their model) are nothing like the Peratt 'galaxy' filaments.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Reality Check said:
So the current has diminished for some reason - where in Peratt's papers is this mentioned? Has it diminished enough so that gravity is now the dominant force?
Click to expand...
Dunno. :)

this is one galaxy out of many, and I'm sure that mainstream explanations for this shape are no better than the application of Peratts model. (unless you know differently?)
Click to expand...
Zeuzzz, a simple request please.

Would you mind ceasing and desisting with the logic of false dichotomy, please?

I for one have already acknowledged that it seems to be an important component in the PC approach to how science is done, and at a later time I think we could have a good discussion of this aspect.

In the meantime, can we just focus on the content of PC?

Back to the topic at hand.

Peratt's model of spiral galaxies is DOA, period.

The observed magnetic fields, in spiral galaxies, are nowhere near strong enough to exert forces on stars that are comparable to the gravitational forces (except if all stars have charges so great as to make them explode within ~seconds, which clearly they do not).

Stars, gas, and dust in the disks of spiral galaxies have large-scale motions that are essentially the same, so even if the gas and dust were sufficiently charged (which they could be), and so could move in accord with Peratt's model, they don't seem to do so.

Even if, magically, the stars, gas, and dust in spiral galaxies could move in accord with Peratt's model, the observed (total) masses of spiral galaxies is inconsistent with that needed in Peratt's model to account for the observed structure.

As far as I know, there are no observations of spiral galaxies, in any waveband, that point to the existence of pairs of giant, interacting, inter-galactic Birkeland currents (not just M104, by any spiral, period). If you know of any such observations, please provide details.

So RC is right, if Peratt's model of spiral galaxies is a core component of PC, then we can all go home now ... because that model does not match a plethora of good astronomical observations.
I could look at every single galaxy in the sky and claim that "This galaxy does not conform with gravity alone theories, as its structure is impossible to sustain or create with an exclusively attractive gravitational field", just as you can probably pick plenty of galaxies that seeming disoby some of Peratts models. The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Thanks for this! :D

I guess this is as clear an example as I could have asked for ... of how the doing of science (astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics) differs, in PC, from that of the rest of science.

How so?

First, note how restrictive the question is (only shapes, ad hoc rider). An implication: PC can be falsified by observations of the shapes of galaxies only.

Second, repetition of the logic of false dichotomy. In this case it's implicit ("the models" clearly means Peratt's and those found in standard astrophysics textbooks)

Third, the very common internal inconsistency aspect of PC: lab physics gives clear-cut answers on the motion of objects with mass and charge in electrical, magnetic, and gravitational fields. Apply those answers to stars in real spiral galaxies, and Peratt's model fails, fatally. However, at least one (and maybe two) PC proponents (Zeuzzz and BAC) are happy to keep pushing it, as a viable model!
Can you point out even 1 galactic sized filament extending from an galaxy for any appreciable distance (I will accept anything close to 1000 light years)
Click to expand...
where does Peratt say that the filaments are clearly visible over a distance of 1000 light years????
Click to expand...
Er ...

In every one of his papers presenting his model ... the pairs of interacting Birkeland currents have lengths at least as great as the characteristic sizes of spiral galaxies (~several kpc).
 
Zeuzzz said:
That was Bostiks paper, of the original experiment that inspired to Peratt to create a larger scale model that may account for this similar shape based on plasma physics. "The first picture is a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. The Kerr-cell exposure times are 2x10-6 and the various delay times of the sequence are indicated in microseconds. The pressure in the chamber is 4x10-6s." As i showed in this post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3530017&postcount=493

Is that what you are reffering to?

Maxwells equations for a start provide the scaling, they dont change over differing scales. And the scaling relationship is quoted above.
Click to expand...
yes but what size magnetic field would be needed to move stars at the rate observed in the 'flat galaxy rotation curve" ? is what i am asking, stars have a mass and they have a charge, and for the umpteenth time, I ask what field strength would be needed to move a star at the observed rate (IE observed motion minus (Gravity minus dark matter))> That is what would be an observable phenomena. What size magnetic field for the umpteenth time.

They certainly add some amount of credence, but they are far away from being used as conclusive proof. Its mainly just the history of how this model was started, and you may not find it an interesting observation, or not see its relevance, but I (and others) do.
Click to expand...
Shape of galaxies is not the only factor needed. remember those stars? What magnetic field is going to be required to move a star fast enough to produce the 'flat rotation curve?

You know the mass of the star , the charge of the star, then what size magnetic field would be needed to produce the acceleration (observed motion minus (gravity minus dark matter)) I have asked you too provide that number, what is it?

I note that you and BAC seem to ignore that question and that answer. It is an observable prediction of perrat's model.

So what is it?
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."
Click to expand...

Funny thing about that citation, I found it on Ian's web site but i did not find it in Perrat's paper !

is he saying that magnetic filds that size have been measured in the galaxy, because that is exactly what I am asking.

So what are they saying? And where? So they are saying a field strength of 2x10^-4 or 10^-2?

This (which is a wiki says they are micro Gauss)
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields

This paper is sooo way cool, it talks about the actual structure of the galactic magnetic fileds , but it again gives micro Gauss:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-...quest-id=e93ec542-4381-48f1-8e94-3cd9d76a8173

Another one that talks about cosmic rays and mentions micro Gauss:
http://www.maik.ru/abstract/letters/3/letters0374_abstract.pdf

So if the galactic magnetic fileds is in micro Gauss or centi Gauss, what charge is there going to have to be to move a star?

HMMMMMM?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...
DancingDavid said:
What size magnetic field would be needed? What size magnetic field would be needed to produce the 'flat rotation curve'?
Click to expand...
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
"The toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as >10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). And these results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy."
Click to expand...
Right.

And we know, and have known for several months (?) now, that such weak magnetic fields cannot possibly provide sufficient force on stars in a (spiral) galaxy to keep them in approximately circular orbits, across the range of radial distances of relevance (out to at least ~20 kpc, and, in some cases, to ~100 kpc), with the observed angular velocities ...

Can we please get from you, Zeuzzz, a straight, no quibbles, statement that the Peratt model of spiral galaxies is inconsistent with the relevant observations?

Alternatively, can we please get from you a quantitative case showing that such weak magnetic fields can keep stars in their observed orbits?
 
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Missed a point on this the first time round ...

To repeat a question RC asked (and which Zeuzzz and BAC seem remarkably coy about actually answering): In which Peratt or Lerner paper(s) are the myriad observations which lead to the conclusion that the MW halo (and that of other spiral galaxies too) is dominated by CDM accounted for, using their PC model(s)?

Just so the question is quite clear:

-> I am NOT asking whether you, personally, like or dislike CDM

-> I am NOT asking you to do a comparison between one set of models and another (unless between different Peratt models, or Lerner models)

-> I am NOT asking for your personal commentary on the relevant observations

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account, by Peratt and/or Lerner

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).
 
The Big Bang is WOO!

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom