Oh
Sol88 you have finally reached the stage that got you banned from BAUT. Obnoxious behaviour, answering questions with questions or with answers that are not even related to the question posed.
You have trouble with language and with comprehensive reading, and you try to mask your lack of physics education with snippy answers and changing the subject when you feel you might get caught, or by misquoting someone to make it seem that that person said something (s)he did not.
A very interesting example of this is in the so called "millennium model". You showed a moving image
here in post 1850 where the creation of a galaxie out of two filaments is shown from Peratt's plasma simulation.
Then you show pics of the milennium simulation project, where you say "hey look there is filamentation, so it must be EM and plasma". However, that whole simulation is about dark matter and not about plasma. So, it seems gravity can create filamentation too. And then you come to the conclusion that dark matter should be plasma??? Don't you think the Garching people would write it on the page if they thought that dark matter is plasma? (but then it would be useless to call it dark matter) Maybe it would be a good idea to understand that other gasses then plasmas can also organize themselves into structures, examples are: the layers of the atmosphere (through gravity), tornado funnels (through hydrodynamics). You are in love with plasma, for some reason, but it is a typical tunnelvision (which now and then also occurs with just starting PhD students) to want everything be the thing you love.
And then you think, okay maybe this was not such a good idea, and then you start a discussion about DM being a force, and whether or not it is just semantics (which it is not, because it is like saying "the Earth is a force"), so that you don't have to go into a real discussion, whether gravity can create structures or not.
Then (skipping a bit) you want to "defend the model that is not your model" with the following list that are supposed to be "predictions of PC":
1. Magnetic braking.[2]
2. Magnetohydrodynamic waves [3] [4]
3. Field-aligned ("Birkeland") currents [5]
4. Critical ionization velocity [6][7][8].
5. Rings of Uranus (predicted by Bibas De) [9]
6. Jet streams [10] [11]
7. Electrostatic double layers [12] [13]
8. Partial corotation ("2/3 effect")[14]
Ah no, it is a list of "predictions" by Hannes Alfvén, which places it in mainstream physics and the only thing that is not supported by mainstream of this list is the last point, the partial corotation. I fail to see why this would be a list for support of PC.
Then the galaxy formation by Peratt. Unfortunately, the filaments that he wants to use are not observed (most likely because they do not exist). It is nice that he can create a structure which resembles a galaxy, which apparently has a flat rotation curve, but then the question is: what is the force that keeps the stars (if that is what is in the simulation and not only plasma, but anyway, I guess I could try and read it in his book). I guess, as the whole simulation is electromagnetic (don't see any gravity mentioned on the plasma universe page), the force must be electromagnetic (which is the whole purpose of PC). Then the only forces are either electrostatic, or Lorentz. However, there it ends!!! There is no mention (as far as I can see) about what maintains the galaxy shape. Naturally, it could be the current that keeps on flowing in the cosmic filament, but then the question is: what is driving that current? 2 × 10
18 Amps (for this model, but galaxies differ in size).
So, there is a lot of questions that hover around for which you could try to give a coherent answer, by e.g. calculating something yourself and show us the result. As an example you could calculate the PC force that is keeping the earth in its orbit around the sun (if it is not gravity, because gravity seems to be piss weak).
Before you answer, though, please do not forget to take your ADHD medicine.
Thanks for the heads up!