Well, THE problem in this "discussion" is that the EU proponents never give us anything substantial, e.g. the simple question about the star around the galaxy.
Thats because the idea that EM forces could accelerate objects as massive as a star around a galaxy is absurd. Magnetospheres rule this out anyway. Peratts model works AMAZINGLY well at explaining galaxy structure on the
large scale where exclusively gravity only theories fall flat on their face, whereas on the
stellar scale Peratts model breaks down and exclusively gravity only theories explain it a lot better. Which scale needs the best explanation is what matters, and is a highly difficult and ambiguous question to answer. You have to start getting into paradoxical, sort of philosophical realms, to do with
renormalization grouping and universality (like some of the complex ideas behind various Phase transitions,
electrical breakdowns, plasma scaling, self-similarities, similarity transformation laws, problem of infinities in quantum field theories, etc, etc)
There are ways round this. But nothing defintive as of yet. A simple geometrical extention of gravity so it obeys the same geometric laws as EM forces (such as amperes law) could enable Peratts model to work without even using EM forces. The mass of the filaments would simply attract analagouly to the Boit Savart law and EM ideas used by Peratt. How on Earth you could prove gravity works like this however, with the weakness of gravity taken into account, is nigh on impossilbe. But with all the spooky gravitational wave quantum field big bounce superpositionally symetric loop gravity field theories being propsed nowadays, this proposition seems amazinly simple and plausable. But, using this assumption, you could just look at galaxy shapes and say this acts as proof in itself! But then again, plasma behaviour and complex non linear EM forces can (and most likely do) play a much larger role in all this than currently appreciated.
Again, instead of moaning about Peratts models here, why not email him personally and ask him any queries? You can find his email easily online.
And most of the time we (the deniers or the mainstreamers or whatever you want to call us) find out that the EU proponents don't have the foggiest idea about real (plasma)physics,
Na man, Have YOU read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven?* This gives a whole different perspective on plasmas behaviour, and while its a very old book now, the ideas therein still remain valid to this day and STILL underappreciated by most standard plasma models.
Theres a HUGE difference between your pseudoplasma with its mathematical elegance and simplicity, and the highly irratic and unpredictable reality of plasma behaviour. Some basic differences between pseudoplasma and plasma here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudo-plasma
Another bried look:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/wiki.htm
Cosmic plasma
Following the work of Kristian Birkeland,[16] Alfvén's research on plasma led him to develop the field of magnetohydrodynamics,[17] a theory that mathematically models plasma as magnetic fluid, and for which he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1970. However, Alfvén pointed out that magnetohydrodynamics is an approximation which is accurate only in dense plasmas,[18] like that of stars, where particles collide frequently. It is not valid in the much more dilute plasmas of the interstellar medium and intergalactic medium, where electrons and ions circle around magnetic field lines. Alfvén devoted a large portion of his Nobel address to attacking this "pseudo plasma" error.
Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas. These include:
* Scalability of plasma, [19]
* Birkeland currents, electric currents that form electric circuits in space,[20]
* Plasma double layers,[21]
* The cellular structure of plasma,[22]
Alfvén and his colleagues began to develop plasma cosmology in the 1960’s and 70’s as an extrapolation of their earlier highly successful theories of solar and solar-system phenomena.[23] They pointed out those extremely similar phenomena existed in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws. One scale invariant in plasmas is velocity, so that plasmas at scales from the laboratory up to supercluster of galaxies exhibit similar phenomena in a range of velocities from tens to a thousand kilometers per second. In turn this invariance means that the duration of plasma phenomena scales as their size, so that galaxies a hundred thousand light years across with characteristic evolution times of billions of years scale to transient laboratory-scale phenomena lasting a microsecond.
[16] ^ Birkeland, Kristian The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903 Vol. 1 "Vol. I.: On the Cause of Magnetic Storms and the Origin of Terrestrial Magnetism" Section 1 published 1908; Section 2 publ. 1913
[17] ^ Alfven, H., "Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves" (1942) Nature, Vol. 150, pp. 405
[18] ^ H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). See Table 5.3 "Survey of characteristic properties of plasmas and of single charges in high vacuum" (basis of table at Astrophysical plasmas)
[19] ^ H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963) See 4.2.2. Similarity Transformations
[20] ^ Alfvén, Hannes, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics," IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 14, p. 779, 1986 (on p. 787). See also: Peratt, Anthony (1992), Physics of the Plasma Universe, "Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma" (p.43-92)
[21] ^ Alfvén, H., "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "Double Layers in Astrophysics" (1986)
[22] ^ Alfvén, H., "Is the universe matter-antimatter symmetric?", Presented at the Particle Phys. Symp., Stockholm, 12 Jul. 1976
[23] ^ H. Alfvén, "On the cosmogony of the solar system", in Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler (1942) (Part I, Part II, Part III).
although they (Sol88, Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, brantc, etc. claim that the EU is all based on Hannes Alfvén's theories, but when asked to calculate something, one either draws a blank or one gets the answer that the EU math is not yet sufficient.
I'm not an EU proponent. I'm an EU skeptic, and can see woo when I see it. I'm am however a proponent of a plasma cosmology approach to cosmological models.
What calculations do you want? I'm more than capable, but no such request has been given if I can recall.
* Your posts about plasma behaviour indicate not. Though correct me if I am wrong.
